We defunded NASA to give these idiots money.

NASA's funding in the 21st century has been fairly stable prior to this most recent budget proposal, which is a serious issue.

However, it wasn't so we could fund the private launch program, that came about after most of the funding reductions.  And it was started so NASA can focus its resources on research and scientific activities and leave launch vehicle development and construction to others.  And it has worked, the development of private launch companies has been an enormous boon to all space efforts.  SpaceX's Falcon 9 has become the most reliable workhorse on earth, and Falcon Heavy has dramatically lowered the cost of heavy lift launch capability.  And despite being brand new, Blue Origin's New Glenn has already performed more flights and just as many successful missions as NASA's internally developed SLS.

And the SLS is entirely unsustainable, it costs 2.5 *billion* per launch.  New Glenn is between 50 and 100 million.  Falcon Heavy, ~100 million.  The development and deployment of these reusable heavy lift rockets is critical to the Artemis program's long term viability and the vitality of the nascent space industry.  SLS cannot be NASA's workhorse no matter their budget.

This explosion is a real bummer frankly.  New Glenn got off to a fantastic start and is the most powerful and capable reusable rocket in the US fleet (and by extension, in the world) and it's personally one of my favorite rockets currently in service.  And this explosion destroyed what is currently the only launch site for it.  This will take several months bare minimum to repair.  And its other launch sites under development will take equally as long.  

I get it, hating on rich people is all the rage today, but outside of charitable activity, investing in the establishment and growth of the emerging space industry is far and away one of the least offensive things they could use their wealth for.  And companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, and Relativity Space are contributing in a serious and rapid fashion to humanity's space efforts.

They're still hoarding their wealth and not paying their share of taxes while most of us can't buy our own homes no matter how hard we work.

And need I remind you how many ultra rich are in the Epstein files? Or how many of said Epsteins are into AI?

The thing, people like Jeff get rich off the back of other people's hard work.

How many Amazon packages does he personally deliver? What percent of the wealth generated by the company does he keep for himself for sitting behind a desk all day, versus paying a fair share to the workers who actually bust their arses to keep the company running?

People don't hate the rich just because they're rich, but because they get that way by screwing over the rest of society. I recommend you look into how Amazon workers are treated, all that profit comes at a steep cost to those who work there.

Hoarding more wealth than you could ever need in ten lifetimes while the people who work for you to make that money struggle to survive does seem to "border on subhuman" to a lot of folks.

Most of the people you are referring have their wealth in 90% stocks, which can't be taxed until sold, nor can they sell large volumes of shares without oversight from the Security & Exchange Commission + Board.  

None of this works the way you think it does.  

Also 65% of Americans bought their house.  So, most of us can in fact buy a home.  

Edit

Also, the lowest home ownership is in NY and Cali...  yay socialism?  

1) He wasn't born rich.  He put a lot of effort into building his wealth.  It wasn't handed to him.  

2) While I tend to agree that people don't need billions, the fact is your view is way too simplistic.  Most billionaires are not sitting on cash; they have loads of stocks.  Typically, SEC approval and board approval is required to sells massive amounts of stock, given a huge sell off would drive the company into ruin.  So, someone like Bezos isn't exactly hoarding, that isn't how stock works.  I agree there is a problem that should be fixed, but we should be fair on how the system works.   

It is a thorny issue, yes, but when you're the CEO, the buck ultimately stops with you when it comes to poor working conditions and wages.

You're absolutely right in that it's ultimately a problem with the system rather than any one individual, but when a tiny percentage of society have immense wealth while the majority struggle to get by, it's only natural people are going to get increasingly angry at the imbalance.

To put things in perspective, in 1965, a CEO made about 21 times more than a worker; nowadays a CEO makes nearly 300 times what a worker makes. So in just 60 years, the gap has ballooned by almost a factor of x15.

If this trajectory continues, we're at risk of reverting to an almost feudal society where the oligarchs at the top have absolute power and the other 98% live like serfs.

Well Bezos isn't the CEO...  hasnt been for a number of years.  

And yes, it is a problem.  Yes it needs to get fixed.

But the "tax" them argument reeks of not understanding the system.  

People really ought to educate themselves before forming such strong opinions.