Which got off to a worse launch, Obamacare or the U.S. Satellite program which b

1. 84

   My Esotericposted 11 years ago

   Which got off to a worse launch, Obamacare or the U.S. Satellite program which began in 1955?
   
   Keep in mind of the 11 Vanguard launches, only 3 were successful; Vanguard was the official U.S satellite program although the Army was working, more successfully, on their own projects, e.g., Redstone, Juno, Jupiter.
   
   If Obama had been the President in 1955 instead of Eisenhower and the current crop of Conservatives ruled the Republican Party, would there even been a U.S. space program given the initial results?

   replyreport
2. 69

   Tusitala Tomposted 11 years ago

   The question itself asks for a comparison but I think a key point is missed.  It is the intention of the program that is important.  Both programs are important; important at their outset and will continue to be into the distant future.   We need to know about 'space' and our place in it as we human beings expand and evolve.  We need to know that all of our species (and even those creatures which are not our species) are cared for.
   
   The United States has prided itself in being the leading nation of the world for the last hundred and twenty years or so, yet it is still miles behind a lot of other nations when it comes to looking after its populace.    Obama Care, as it is being called, is something that America should have introduced fifty years ago!

   replyreport
   1. 84

      My Esotericposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      So true but what is depressing is there are segments in both Parties who don't feel the exploration of space is a worthwhile effort and most on the Right believe gov't has no business providing support of any kind to its citizens beyond nat'l defense

      replyreport
3. 52

   tbHistorianposted 11 years ago

   Obamacare got off to a worse launch because the Democrats that voted for the failure never read the document.  And now with the activation millions of citizens have lost their healthcare that they liked. 
   At least the satellite program had 3 successful launches.  And, they never ruined the lives of the middle-class, even with their failures.
   Besides, the satellite program only cost $20 million that year which was less than 1% of the GDP.
   Obamacare costs more than $27.5 trillion to those who pay and an additional $26.4 trillion for those who receive support from the government which is more than 28% of the GDP.
   Comparing apples and oranges like this is utterly ridiculous.
   However, with the disorganized radicals in charge, everything fails.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      My Esotericposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      BTW, how do you actually know nobody had their staffs read the law or found the time to read it themselves?  I hope you aren't relying solely on Pelosi's flippant remark and have other well-placed factual sources.

      replyreport
4. 79

   junksellerposted 11 years ago

   If the current conservatives ruled the Republican party in the 50's, there wouldn't even be space, let alone a space program. There would just be the heavens and a belief that God wouldn't allow man to reach the heavens of their own accord (not unlike the global warming deniers who say only God can destroy the world), combined with a massive disinformation campaign saying that the Russians aren't really sending anything into the heavens, they are just lying communist, atheist, heathens trying to destroy God and America.
   
   Even so, I don't think it is the fairest comparison. Rocketry and getting satellites into space and properly orbiting the planet were still experimental technologies. Putting together a website isn't. And the other big failure of Obamacare so far has been the "if you like it, keep it" statement, which whether we call it a lie or not, at the very least was a mistake.
   
   With that being said, mistakes shouldn't be used to condemn the plan. I don't think it is the best plan, but I do think it will be better than what was before. Conservatives should focus on constructive action to try and make it better. In that sense, your comparison is apt. They want to go backward instead of forward and it doesn't really make sense.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      My Esotericposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Conservatives, by definition, look backwards, not forwards.  I do understand the vast difference between the two, but your initial analysis was what I was looking for.

      replyreport