# IS anyone seriously considering voting for J. F. Kerry... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 24, 2004, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-anyone-seriously-considering-voting-for-j-f-kerry/241848 "2004-04-24T22:14:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-anyone-seriously-considering-voting-for-j-f-kerry/241848/161 "2004-04-30T03:13:04Z")
> [@whattheheck](#): > > whether u believe me or not is your prerogative Indeed it is! ---
**Author:** ![Jinx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Jinx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jinx)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-anyone-seriously-considering-voting-for-j-f-kerry/241848/162 "2004-04-30T03:16:30Z")
> [@Jinx](#): > > …Oil tycoons? ( **baphoons**?)… Sorry for the misspelling, but I commute 6 hrs (by train) for 8 hrs of gainful employment under the reign (and yoke) of King Bush’s domestic policies which have packed up all the jobs into nice little boxes for ease of disposal. And, it’s way past my bed time. In fact, any time is way past my bed time! 😉 - Jinx ---
**Author:** ![whattheheck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/7c8e57/32.png) [@whattheheck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whattheheck)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-anyone-seriously-considering-voting-for-j-f-kerry/241848/163 "2004-04-30T04:03:32Z")
> [@Number Six](#): > > As the story was taken to the press, I’m sure you can provide us with a cite. That would be a link to the story from a reputable online source, or a specific reference to the newspaper or magazine that published it. If this is indeed a legitimate story, I’d very much like to read it. i had a bunch of links but my stupid comp froze before i posted so ill give u the google link and if any of you care that much you can look for yourselves [here](http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=deskbar&q=steve+gardner+vietnam+kerry) there are lots of places. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-anyone-seriously-considering-voting-for-j-f-kerry/241848/164 "2004-04-30T04:13:18Z")
> [@whattheheck](#): > > i had a bunch of links but my stupid comp froze before i posted so ill give u the google link and if any of you care that much you can look for yourselves [here](http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=deskbar&q=steve+gardner+vietnam+kerry) there are lots of places. Of course, this comment is rather telling: > [@](#): > > Yet, except for one crewmate, even those who felt betrayed by Kerry for later leading Vietnam Veterans Against the War and who call themselves Bush supporters acknowledge that he showed courage under fire. “He was extremely brave, and I wouldn’t argue that point,” Thurlow says. [Cite.](http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-04-12-kerry-vietnam_x.htm) ---
**Author:** ![whattheheck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/7c8e57/32.png) [@whattheheck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whattheheck)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-anyone-seriously-considering-voting-for-j-f-kerry/241848/165 "2004-04-30T04:22:55Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > Of course, this comment is rather telling:[Cite.](http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-04-12-kerry-vietnam_x.htm) hey i was just giving the link to some sites for you guys bc some of you asked i read some of the articles and they are pretty convincing for kerry’s side i know ---
**Author:** ![Kaitlyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/73ab20/32.png) [@Kaitlyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaitlyn)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-anyone-seriously-considering-voting-for-j-f-kerry/241848/166 "2004-04-30T04:25:35Z")
> [@whattheheck](#): > > i had a bunch of links but my stupid comp froze before i posted so ill give u the google link and if any of you care that much you can look for yourselves [here](http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=deskbar&q=steve+gardner+vietnam+kerry) there are lots of places. I read a couple of the stories from the links to the reputable sources, and failed to find anything anywhere close to what you claim. A more specific cite would be helpful. Otherwise, I remain doubtful. Also, a Google search isn’t a cite. A link directly to a news story in a reputable media outlet would be. When you make a claim such as you did here, the burden is on you to provide evidence to support it, not on us to find that evidence for you. ---
**Author:** ![light\_strand](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a6a055/32.png) [@light\_strand](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/light_strand)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-anyone-seriously-considering-voting-for-j-f-kerry/241848/167 "2004-04-30T04:51:45Z")
Try [here](http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/03/11/kerry_no_hero_in_ex_crewmans_eyes/). It’s nothing at all alike his story, but this seems to be the person to whom the links referred. Actually, in reading that article, I didn’t find anything he (Gardner) said that made me question Kerry. He threated a guy with a courts marshal after he found they’d killed a child, and he went for medical attention when he believed his gunner was wounded. THAT COWARDLY BASTARD! ---
**Author:** ![whattheheck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/7c8e57/32.png) [@whattheheck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whattheheck)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-anyone-seriously-considering-voting-for-j-f-kerry/241848/168 "2004-04-30T05:27:57Z")
> [@Number Six](#): > > I read a couple of the stories from the links to the reputable sources, and failed to find anything anywhere close to what you claim. A more specific cite would be helpful. Otherwise, I remain doubtful. > > Also, a Google search isn’t a cite. A link directly to a news story in a reputable media outlet would be. When you make a claim such as you did here, the burden is on you to provide evidence to support it, not on us to find that evidence for you. [1](http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1097653/posts) [all the way at the bottom of this one](http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=764) [Gardner said yesterday that he wonders whether speaking critically about Kerry led to his losing his job as a home inspection field manager. The Brinkley story said Gardner “claims he works at Millennium Services.” Within hours of the publication of the article on Time’s website, Gardner said, he was fired from his job as a home inspection field manager.](http://www.irnnews.com/news.asp?action=detail&article=1626) it was also in the new york times online but i cant find it bc u have to pay for it and he was interviewed on hannity & colmes and the boston globe and if you think that all those sites and Mr. Gardner are all making it up then more power to you i guess ---
**Author:** ![Kaitlyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/73ab20/32.png) [@Kaitlyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaitlyn)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-anyone-seriously-considering-voting-for-j-f-kerry/241848/169 "2004-04-30T06:29:14Z")
> [@whattheheck](#): > > [1](http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1097653/posts) > [all the way at the bottom of this one](http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=764) [Gardner said yesterday that he wonders whether speaking critically about Kerry led to his losing his job as a home inspection field manager. The Brinkley story said Gardner “claims he works at Millennium Services.” Within hours of the publication of the article on Time’s website, Gardner said, he was fired from his job as a home inspection field manager.](http://www.irnnews.com/news.asp?action=detail&article=1626) Your first two links are useless. Web sites dedicated to campaigning for Bush are not likely to be unbiased. A blog entry isn’t in the same ballpark as reliable evidence. Your second link is better, but it’s the same story I’ve read a dozen times, and isn’t anything like your post which claimed: > [@whattheheck](#): > > my best friends uncle was in the war with him and apparently they were coming to shore in their boats and kerry started to freak out so the uncle had to knock kerry out with his AK otherwise they all would have gotten wasted. if u look u can still see the scar on kerry’s head. Gardner’s claims are that Kerry avoided combat in general. In the one important incident he cites, Kerry left a combat area to seek medical help for Gardner, which Gardner claims was not necessary. The animosity also seems to stem from Kerry chewing him out following a gun battle in which a child was killed, for which, Gardner claims, Kerry threatened him with a court martial. Nowhere does Gardner state that he had to knock Kerry out to protect the swift boat crew. I find it difficult to believe that Gardner assaulted Kerry, yet didn’t face a court martial, and the incident was never mentioned by any other crew member. [quote] anyways from what i know kerry is trying to play himself off as a big war hero and id have to say he’s a big war pussy. someone took that story to the press and the day after it was published my uncle was fired because “we dont have a need for your position anymore” the uncle was an insurance adjuster. try having an insurance company w/o an adjuster and let me know how it works out [quote] According to Gardner, the press, specifically Brinkley, came to him, and he gave Brinkley the story. Gardner (was he your uncle, or your friend’s?) was a home inspection field manager, though it seems he did lose his job shortly after the story became public. > [@](#): > > it was also in the new york times online but i cant find it bc u have to pay for it and he was interviewed on hannity & colmes and the boston globe and if you think that all those sites and Mr. Gardner are all making it up then more power to you i guess You’re conflating two separate things here. First, there are Gardner’s claims. Second, there is the media coverage of those claims. If the New York Times reports that Gardner made these claims, I can believe that the NYT is reporting accurately without putting much weight behind the claims themselves. So no, I don’t believe the Times or the Globe made up the story, but I do have serious doubts about Gardner’s motives and the accuracy of his stories, given the conflicting statements of many other men who served with Kerry. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-anyone-seriously-considering-voting-for-j-f-kerry/241848/170 "2004-04-30T08:05:19Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Some good charts of NASA funding [here](http://chapters.marssociety.org/usa/mi/politics/funding.html). The chart in constant dollars shows modest increases under Reagan, a huge boost under Bush I, a decline under Clinton, and a smaller increase under Bush II. You sure that your data backs you up? The numbers underlying the graph are: ```auto Bil. of const. 1996 dollars NASA Outlays 1962 6.642 1963 12.7374 1964 20.3175 1965 24.5831 1966 27.7244 1967 24.225 1968 20.8467 1969 17.3397 1970 14.402 1971 12.2416 1972 11.826 1973 10.3207 1974 9.6636 1975 9.033 1976 9.415 1977 9.557 1978 9.0522 1979 9.1917 1980 8.7032 1981 9.0432 1983 9.6296 1984 9.6816 1985 10.4032 1986 9.3023 1987 10.4936 1988 12.1329 1989 13.949 1990 14.78 1991 14.989 1992 15.172 1993 15.077 1994 13.7727 1995 13.9554 1996 14.0454 1997 14.1525 1998 14.4432 1999 13.0104 2000 estimate 13.3624 2001 estimate 11.7201 2002 estimate 11.8265 2003 estimate 11.9574 2004 estimate 12.1352 2005 estimate 12.3319 ``` Doesn’t your data in fact show that NASA outlays dropped sharply under Bush II, and then slowly increased again? And that even with the additional “864 million” that you claim Bush II has requested, the annual outlays never even reach those under Clinton? I couldn’t really give a rat’s ass either way, but it sure does look like you are deliberately misinterpreting the data. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-anyone-seriously-considering-voting-for-j-f-kerry/241848/171 "2004-04-30T14:08:57Z")
You are looking at a table that appears to be at least four years old. The numbers for ‘Bush II’ are actually the numbers projected before Bush took office. And they actually make my point - those are the budget numbers that would have happened had Clinton’s policies continued. Sean O’Keefe has made that exact point. He said that without Bush’s new vision, NASA’s budget would have dropped by about a billion dollars a year for several years. Your chart shows a constant-dollar 2005 estimate of just over 12 billion. The value now is just about 16 billion. That’s the difference between Bush and Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-anyone-seriously-considering-voting-for-j-f-kerry/241848/172 "2004-04-30T14:47:49Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > You are looking at a table that appears to be at least four years old. The numbers for ‘Bush II’ are actually the numbers projected before Bush took office. And they actually make my point - those are the budget numbers that would have happened had Clinton’s policies continued. Sean O’Keefe has made that exact point. He said that without Bush’s new vision, NASA’s budget would have dropped by about a billion dollars a year for several years. But the thing is, **Sam** , they aren’t _my_ numbers, they’re _your_ numbers. They come from the page that _you_ cited as proving _your_ case. They are in fact the _very same numbers_ that you said proved _your_ case. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > Your chart shows a constant-dollar 2005 estimate of just over 12 billion. The value now is just about 16 billion. That’s the difference between Bush and Clinton. As I’ve already pointed out, it’s actually _your_ chart, not mine, and you are now trying to compare $12bn in 1996 dollars with $16bn in 2004 dollars. I tend to agree with **Hentor**. The things you are saying are lies. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-anyone-seriously-considering-voting-for-j-f-kerry/241848/173 "2004-04-30T18:21:51Z")
I had composed a long ass post with charts and everything, but it somehow got eaten, and I haven’t the energy on this topic to recompose it. I also don’t like continuing a highjack when people have another thread to get back to. **Desmostylus** hit the nail on the head with one of **Samwise’s** tricksy ploys of comparing his own 1996 constant dollar figure to a real dollar 2004 figure to try to make Bush II look more favorable. Another is trying to compose an argument that extending outward from Clinton’s last budget figures would result in a loss of a billion dollars. First, as we have seen, Clinton fluctuated around 0% change, with increases and decreases along the way, suggesting that he would not have simply continued on a negative slide from some last point. Finally, **Samwise** continues to try to argue that Clinton’s NASA outlays relative to the economy of the time suggest he did not care about space exploration as much as Bush II. I have pointed out once already that by this standard, Bush II cares even less, since in any data set that **Sam** has presented yet, **Bush’s NASA outlays relative to either total outlays or to the GDP are lower than any of Clinton’s, and trend downward, growing lower and lower in each and every year.** This is just not a way that you can look at these numbers and find Bush II to be favorable to Clinton. At least, not without lying about it. Look, I am not trying to twist any numbers, I am only trying to see what **Sam** said was there, and it just wasn’t the case. But the thing is, I am more than content if Clinton saw NASA funding of somewhat less of a priority than some of the other needs of our country, and kept their funding pretty much constant. I wish we had the money now that we were going to use for deficit reduction. I just have found that you cannot take the word of some conservatives for the way that things are (or are not). Usually if you look into the facts, you find out that they have, again, had an unfortunate tangle with the truth. As is the case here. I would be very happy to trade the vote of the few people who would prefer to have NASA funding as priority number one for an explicit public statement by Bush in which he confirms that he would fund NASA before balancing the budget, paying down the debt, fixing Medicaid, improving health care, improving education, increasing law enforcement, paying for the war in Iraq, and so on. In fact, **Tuckerfan** , unless he says this explicitly, then your argument for your one-issue distinction between Kerry and Bush is a little misplaced, don’t you think? And if you do have a cite for Bush making such an explicit statement of his priorities, I would very much like to have it to pass around. Could you give me one, please? ---
**Author:** ![whattheheck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/7c8e57/32.png) [@whattheheck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whattheheck)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-anyone-seriously-considering-voting-for-j-f-kerry/241848/174 "2004-04-30T23:13:22Z")
> [@Number Six](#): > > Your first two links are useless. Web sites dedicated to campaigning for Bush are not likely to be unbiased. A blog entry isn’t in the same ballpark as reliable evidence. try finding anything bad about kerry on a site dedicated to campaigning for Kerry and let me know how things turn out [QUOTE=Number Six] Your second link is better, but it’s the same story I’ve read a dozen times, and isn’t anything like your post which claimed: Gardner’s claims are that Kerry avoided combat in general. In the one important incident he cites, Kerry left a combat area to seek medical help for Gardner, which Gardner claims was not necessary. The animosity also seems to stem from Kerry chewing him out following a gun battle in which a child was killed, for which, Gardner claims, Kerry threatened him with a court martial. Nowhere does Gardner state that he had to knock Kerry out to protect the swift boat crew. I find it difficult to believe that Gardner assaulted Kerry, yet didn’t face a court martial, and the incident was never mentioned by any other crew member. [quote] anyways from what i know kerry is trying to play himself off as a big war hero and id have to say he’s a big war pussy. someone took that story to the press and the day after it was published my uncle was fired because “we dont have a need for your position anymore” the uncle was an insurance adjuster. try having an insurance company w/o an adjuster and let me know how it works out > [@](#): > > According to Gardner, the press, specifically Brinkley, came to him, and he gave Brinkley the story. Gardner (was he your uncle, or your friend’s?) was a home inspection field manager, though it seems he did lose his job shortly after the story became public. the story i told you was from the actual interview this is a story from a newpaper not the actual interview in case that hadnt dawned on you yet you can find the actual interview on [foxnews.com](http://foxnews.com) if they still have it i dont know if they keep access on their site to old access clips ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-anyone-seriously-considering-voting-for-j-f-kerry/241848/175 "2004-04-30T23:38:20Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > I would be very happy to trade the vote of the few people who would prefer to have NASA funding as priority number one for an explicit public statement by Bush in which he confirms that he would fund NASA before balancing the budget, paying down the debt, fixing Medicaid, improving health care, improving education, increasing law enforcement, paying for the war in Iraq, and so on. In fact, **Tuckerfan** , unless he says this explicitly, then your argument for your one-issue distinction between Kerry and Bush is a little misplaced, don?t you think? And if you do have a cite for Bush making such an explicit statement of his priorities, I would very much like to have it to pass around. Could you give me one, please? [Be glad to.](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040114-3.html) > [@](#): > > Achieving these goals requires a long-term commitment. NASA’s current five-year budget is $86 billion. Most of the funding we need for the new endeavors will come from reallocating $11 billion within that budget. We need some new resources, however. I will call upon Congress to increase NASA’s budget by roughly a billion dollars, spread out over the next five years. This increase, along with refocusing of our space agency, is a solid beginning to meet the challenges and the goals we set today. It’s only a beginning. Future funding decisions will be guided by the progress we make in achieving our goals. Contrast that with the Kerry quote you posted on page 3 of this thread > [@](#): > > Sen. John Kerry: “Our civilian space program represents a great opportunity for scientific research. Sending a person to Mars is a great mission worthy of a great nation like America. Given the Bush budget deficit, it is imperative that we balance funding for a manned mission to Mars against critical domestic needs as well, such as education and health care.” Now, I ask you, which sounds like the more positive declaration? If Kerry had said, “Given the Bush budget deficit, it is imperative that we balance funding for a **continued presence in Iraq** against critical domestic needs as well, such as education and health care.” Would you think that Kerry was going to be in favor of a continued US presence in Iraq, or that he was looking for any justification he could find to yank our troops out of there? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2004, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-anyone-seriously-considering-voting-for-j-f-kerry/241848/176 "2004-05-01T00:10:08Z")
> [@](#): > > But the thing is, Sam, they aren’t my numbers, they’re your numbers. They come from the page that you cited as proving your case. They are in fact the very same numbers that you said proved your case. Oh, cut it out. I didn’t use those numbers to ‘prove my case’. That chart came as an afterthought, because I was trying to be even more forthright and provide data in constant dollars - something Hector didn’t do. I never even looked at the underlying numbers. In fact, I never even noticed the blip down on the chart. In any event, since the chart was old, and the correct numbers are totally different and make my case even more strongly, this is nitpicking in the extreme. > [@](#): > > _Quote: > Originally Posted by Sam Stone > Your chart shows a constant-dollar 2005 estimate of just over 12 billion. The value now is just about 16 billion. That’s the difference between Bush and Clinton._ > > As I’ve already pointed out, it’s actually your chart, not mine, and you are now trying to compare $12bn in 1996 dollars with $16bn in 2004 dollars. I said “about 16 billion”. The reason I said that is because there is very llittle difference between 1996 constant dollars and 2004 dollars. In case you haven’t noticed, inflation has been almost zero for a number of years now. So maybe it’s 15 billion in 1996 dollars, or 15.5, or 16. In ANY CASE, it’s a lot bigger than the 12 billion in the original link, which was my point. Here, I just went and look up the conversion factor from [here](http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/cv1997.xls). The conversion from 1996 to 2004 constant dollars is 1.164. So 12 billion 1996 dollars would be 13.98 billion. The number under Bush is over 16 billion. The difference is the increase directly due to Bush’s policies. A significant increase over a couple of years. Once again, nothing you’ve posted changes the claim I made earlier one iota, which is that NASA funding went up under Reagan, up under Bush I, down under Clinton, and up again under Bush II. > [@](#): > > I tend to agree with Hentor. The things you are saying are lies. Piss off. I’m getting sick and tired of the abusive rhetoric around here. Hentor has been doing twists and flips with the numbers, and has made several flat-out wrong claims, such as Reagan ‘slashing’ NASA’s budget, and that the budget has been ‘roughly the same since the early 1990’s’ as a refutation of my claim that Bush II has been better for NASA than Clinton. I posted actual numbers in real dollars, constant dollars, and as a percentage of overall government spending. They back up the claim I’ve made all along. Then YOU come along and start nitpicking data to try and ‘prove’ something by being disingenous, and along the way I get called a liar, twice. That’s a serious charge, and I’m not taking it from the likes of you, especially when you two are the ones trying to play games with statistics. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2004, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-anyone-seriously-considering-voting-for-j-f-kerry/241848/177 "2004-05-01T00:48:23Z")
> [@](#): > > I had composed a long ass post with charts and everything, but it somehow got eaten, and I haven’t the energy on this topic to recompose it. I also don’t like continuing a highjack when people have another thread to get back to. Feel free to start a new thread. > [@](#): > > Desmostylus hit the nail on the head with one of Samwise’s tricksy ploys of comparing his own 1996 constant dollar figure to a real dollar 2004 figure to try to make Bush II look more favorable. First of all, you can drop the “Samwise” moniker. It’s obnoxious behaviour. Besides, making up funny little names for people you don’t like is something you should have dropped in grade school. Second, there is very little difference between 1996 dollars and 2004 dollars, as I posted above. Changing to constant dollars in no way changes the conclusion of my post. And in fact, -I- am the one who brought up constant dollars in an attempt to be fair. You certainly didn’t mention it. > [@](#): > > Another is trying to compose an argument that extending outward from Clinton’s last budget figures would result in a loss of a billion dollars. First, as we have seen, Clinton fluctuated around 0% change, with increases and decreases along the way, suggesting that he would not have simply continued on a negative slide from some last point. I just posted what the chart showed. And NASA’s own budget documents show the same thing. I point you to [this PDF document](http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55522main_FY05_Budget_Briefing020304.pdf). Go to page 10, and look at the chart, “Facing Major Cuts Without the New Vision”, and the following one “Budget with approved exploration vision”, which shows 12 billion dollars in additional NASA funding through FY09 directly due to Bush’s plan. Your argument that NASA wouldn’t have been cut because Clinton hadn’t really cut it is disingenous because A) if we’re talking constant dollars, like you apparently want to, Clinton cut NASA’s budget severely. For NASA to receive the same funding in constant dollars in 2001 as it had in 1993, it should have been about 16.5 billion. NASA’s budget was almost the same in absolute dollars, which means it received a cut equal to the annual rate of inflation compounded over 8 years. You can’t have it both ways, my disingenous friend. If you want to attack Bush’s numbers based on constant dollars, you no longer get to claim that Clinton kept NASA’s budget ‘about the same’. And you’re missing another factor - NASA’s budget was going to be cut for the simple reason that the ISS and shuttle budgets were going to be cut due to reduced commitments. > [@](#): > > Finally, Samwise continues to try to argue that Clinton’s NASA outlays relative to the economy of the time suggest he did not care about space exploration as much as Bush II. I have pointed out once already that by this standard, Bush II cares even less, since in any data set that Sam has presented yet, Bush’s NASA outlays relative to either total outlays or to the GDP are lower than any of Clinton’s, and trend downward, growing lower and lower in each and every year. This is just not a way that you can look at these numbers and find Bush II to be favorable to Clinton. At least, not without lying about it. Wow. Any more games you want to play with the numbers? Now you’re using the NASA funding as percentage of GDP to prove your case? I guess the absolute and constant dollars arguments both failed. But you’d better be careful if you’re using those same pre-Bush projections on that four-year-old chart, because it fails to account for A) the drop in GDP growth after 2000, and B) the increases under Bush. Before I run the numbers for you, would you like to retract this statement? > [@](#): > > Look, I am not trying to twist any numbers, I am only trying to see what Sam said was there, and it just wasn’t the case. This is not true at all First you used absolute dollars to make your case, claiming that Reagan ‘slashed’ NASA, and after Bush I increased it it stayed the same from then on until now. This was nonsense on all fronts - Reagan and both Bush’s increased spending, and Clinton reduced it slightly. Then you tried to claim that I was lying because I wasn’t using constant dollars, when it was you that posted the absolute dollars in the first place. So then I provided the constant-dollar conversion, and it wound up showing an even bigger decrease until Clinton, and roughly the same increases under Bush, because there has been no inflation over Bush’s term. Now you’re on to percentages of GDP. And you’re not playing games with the numbers? I suggest you drop this whole argument. You’re going to lose, because the facts are not on your side. > [@](#): > > But the thing is, I am more than content if Clinton saw NASA funding of somewhat less of a priority than some of the other needs of our country, and kept their funding pretty much constant. Except that he didn’t. In constant dollars, he cut NASA by about 2 billion dollars a year by the end of his term. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2004, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-anyone-seriously-considering-voting-for-j-f-kerry/241848/178 "2004-05-01T02:19:08Z")
[Here](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/27/science/space/27NASA.html) is a New York Times article that presents a considerably less rosy picture of what is going on at NASA than our friend **Sam Stone** has been presenting, even Republican Congressman Sherwood Boehlert, head of the House Science Committee is worried: > [@](#): > > After President Bush’s order that NASA redirect its energies toward human exploration of the Moon and Mars, the space agency has drastically shifted its scientific priorities, delaying missions and cutting the projected budgets of programs that it does not perceive as related to the exploration. > > Much attention has been focused on the decision to let the Hubble Space Telescope die by canceling the shuttle mission to maintain it. But in the meantime, whole fields of science have been demoted to asterisks on NASA budget projections over the next few years, leading many scientists to fear for the future of science in space. > > … > > But the changes in science plans have stirred anxiety among astronomers and members of Congress. Representative Sherwood Boehlert, the New York Republican who is chairman of the House Science Committee, said in a recent speech that the Moon and Mars initiative was riddled with uncertainty. > > “Will funding this initiative rather than other programs move science forward or hold it back?” he asked. > > Mr. Boehlert noted that the proposed cuts in earth science would occur as more satellite information than ever was needed to resolve questions about climate change. > > Many astronomers said they foresaw an end to the “golden age” in which they could use heroic instruments like spaceborne telescopes and other satellites to parse the light from the remains of the Big Bang or from the hearts of distant galaxies. > > “The golden age is in jeopardy,” Dr. Michael S. Turner, a cosmologist at the University of Chicago, said. “I’m very nervous.” > > Dr. Lennard A. Fisk, a professor of space science at the University of Michigan and the chairman of the National Academy of Sciences’ Space Studies Board, which helps set priorities for space research, said the emphasis on “exploration” had thrown priorities out of balance, splitting the fields of science into “haves” and “have-nots.” > > … > > Even astronomers who might be expected to benefit from the rearrangement say they do not know what to make of it. Dr. Reta F. Beebe, a planetary astronomer at New Mexico State University who heads a National Academy of Sciences committee on planetary exploration, called the human exploration initiative “grossly undefined.” > > … > > In January, Mr. Bush said that to pay for the new exploration program, he would increase the NASA budget about 20 percent over the next five years and shift $11 billion from other programs. The retirement of the space shuttles in 2010 will free about $5 billion a year. > > While many scientists say human spaceflight needs a grand goal like Mars, few say the money allocated so far will be enough to pay for it. > > … > > Scientists say the process that involves them in setting scientific priorities for NASA has been a strength of its program. Every 10 years, committees impaneled by the National Academy canvass their colleagues and hammer out a report that sets out the priorities for how the nation should spend its research dollars. > > Because the academy groups work hard to build a consensus, the so-called decadal surveys carry weight on Capitol Hill and set the tone for agencies like NASA, the Energy Department and the National Science Foundation. > > Testifying recently before the House Science Committee, Dr. Fisk said the consensus building had given scientists “a sense of ownership” in scientific programs at the space agency. So far, he added, scientists do not have that same sense of ownership about human spaceflight. To be fair, not everyone is sure it is a complete disaster, as you can read in the article. But, people are worried. All in all, it sounds considerably less wonderful than the picture that has been painted in this thread so far. [Here](http://www.aps.org/WN/WN04/wn043004.cfm) is how physicist Bob Park summed it up in his weekly column on the American Physical Society Website: > [@](#): > > **NASA SCIENCE: IS THE SPACE AGENCY BECOMING JUST A THEME PARK?** > For a million years our species was confronted with a world we could not hope to understand. Now, almost within the span of a single human lifetime, the book of nature has been thrown open. We aspire to solve the great mysteries: dark matter, dark energy, why there is mass, the big bang, and the origin of life. We long to know. Instead, according to the New York Times, experiments to unravel these great mysteries have been assigned low priority, along with anything that has to do with global warming ([http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/27/science/space/27NASA.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/27/science/space/27NASA.html)). This will allow NASA to focus its resources on human exploration, pandering to a public weaned on Star Trek. NASA’s priorities will delay real exploration by decades, vastly increase costs, and put lives at risk. You might suppose NASA would hold off until the President’s Commission on Moon, Mars and Beyond makes its report in June (WN 16 Apr 04). The Moon/Mars Commission, was apparently mere window dressing. The only appeal open to scientists is to members of Congress. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2004, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-anyone-seriously-considering-voting-for-j-f-kerry/241848/179 "2004-05-01T03:03:13Z")
**Jshore:** You know, when you restructure an agency as big as NASA, there are always going to be winners and losers. So if you want to paint a negative picture, just listen to the losers. Of course, if you want nothing but a rosy scenario, listen to the winners. Bob Park, for instance, has a vested interest in robotic exploration, and is vehemently opposed to manned spaceflight. So it’s no surprise that you can trot out disparaging comments from him. Needless to say, there are tons of people who will give you the rosy scenario, too. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2004, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-anyone-seriously-considering-voting-for-j-f-kerry/241848/180 "2004-05-01T03:21:07Z")
**Sam** : Well, I will grant you the fact that Bob Park is strongly opinionated on this subject. However, I don’t think he has a “vested interest” in anything. I think that he has arrived at this opinion because he is very strongly interested in advancing science and not using the space program so much for other things like very expensive public relations for science and technology, or to satisfy science fiction enthusiasts dreams, or to provide lots of money to the aerospace industry, or to provide some very expensive scientific and technological spin-offs. I’d be curious what evidence you have of rosy scenerios coming from really good scientists, as opposed to some of these other folks that are interested in the space program but aren’t specifically scientists. I guess there are probably a few. But, my impression was that the scientific community is ambivalent at best. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-anyone-seriously-considering-voting-for-j-f-kerry/241848.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-anyone-seriously-considering-voting-for-j-f-kerry/241848.md?page=10)