Recently, Jay Honeck posted:

Lyndon Johnson tried to have both "guns and butter" (Viet Nam and
Apollo) -- and started our long, death spiral of deficit spending.

NASA's budget is rather insignificant compared with *any* military
spending. Why concentrate on the pennies while wasting the megabucks?

Guess you weren't around during the heady Apollo days, eh? NASA's
budget was hardly insignificant when we were building moonships.

I was an adult before we landed on the moon, so I remember those days
pretty well... ;-)

Those days were in the midst of the war in Viet Nam and the arms race
w/the Soviet Union. AIRC we weren't outspending those involvements to get
to the moon.

Of course, when he tried to do all these things AND Apollo AND Viet
Nam, something had to give.

We were spending big bucks on many other military projects that were not
deployed in Viet Nam. What do you think cost us more; the Apollo program,
or the ICBMs, nuclear subs and Polaris programs during that time span?

Jay... "they" are "us". We middle-aged citizens are the ones in the
driver's seat. And, from what I can see, we're not doing so hot at
driving. Or even thinking about what direction we should be driving.
So, instead, we run in circles like chickens missing our heads,
enacting piles of pointless legislation and hoping that no one with
any power objects.

True enough, but look at our choices! My God, we've got the
conservatives controlling the Federal Government, which should
virtually assure a balanced budget and fiscal restraint -- something
I have supported my entire adult life.

The problem is, those controlling the Federal Government are not
conservatives, regardless of what label they assign to themselves. I tend
to go by what people do, rather than what they say. And, what they are
doing is about as far from conservative as one can get. I think they get
away with it in part because people are satisfied to believe that they are
what they call themselves.

And the loyal opposition presents absolutely no alternative. If
anything, the situation would be frighteningly worse, if the tables
were turned. I can't imagine what the deficit would be if the
Democrats were to ever control both houses of congress, and the
presidency. It boggles the mind.

The only real-world examples I recall would call this notion into
question. What does appear to happen is that the focus of the spending
shifts, but overall, the amount of spending doesn't seem to change much.

Neil