Again, I am talking economics, not politics. There is a way to spend money using a Capitalistic approach, and a way to spend it using a socialistic approach. The government spending money could be for socialistic reasons (like roads), but spend in a capitalistic way (best contract bid).

I don't think you've specifically said this, Mafoo, but the way that you're using space exploration as an example is telling me that you're happier with the Government taking away your money to put a man on the moon (which is nothing more than a penis-size thing) than you are with the Government taking away your money to actually help people.

I also love how he differentiated between politics and economics.... /facepalm

Well, this really depends on how you define "Help People" doesn't it?

Some elements of government spending towards (insanely) large products can produce technology or infastructure which is valuable to private companies and individuals for generations ... In contrast, social spending can prevent people from making decisions that would be far more beneficial for them in the long run because the consequences of maintaining their current (negative) path has been reduced.

I am not saying that, I am not saying either way if I am for or against space exploration. I am saying that Capitalism is better than Socialism, in all cases.

If the US took 50 billion from the people to get a man on Mars, the society would be better off if they spent that money in a free market approach, then if they spent it in through other means.

If they built a building, hired 400 people, and said “get us to Mars”, it would cost a lot more and take a lot longer than if they said to the scientific community “First company that can prove putting a man on mars is possible, get’s funded to do it”.

Now should the government be allowed to spending 50 billion to get to Mars? That’s a different topic (and one I would answer no).

That's quite an assumption you maded there. What about the people that didn't get there first? Also am I not mistaken that the government gave their money to NASA and saif "get us there" and there wasn't any form of the competition you mentioned above?

Work harder to get there first (and I said could prove it, they didn’t have to build it for free).

And NASA hired a lot of contractors. It was easier for the government to create one organization to handle all things space, then to have congressmen trying to figure out things like who to give a contact to for heat resistant adhesives too.

Most of the money NASA spent was in the private sector. When they didn’t, they were a lot less efficient.

You know, when I read this, I thought to myself "what part of the space race really helped mankind in any kind of beneficial way", and then it hit me: satellites! I forget what country it is that got satellites into space first.

Oh, and I'm not against the Government spending money in getting people into space, or satellites, and for things like this, I agree with Mafoo's way of determining how the Government spends its money. However, I also think that the Government should spend a lot of money on welfare and healthcare.

That way, the Government helps people in the long run and in the short term. Everybody wins!

Actually the space program led to all sorts of useful technology that effects nearly all parts of life.

By the way.  I think what your missing is what Mafoo is saying.

The Healthcare analogy here isn't Healthcare vs no healthcare.

It would be Healthcare like the NHS

vs a Universal Healthcare system that would take bids from private companise.

AKA

"We're going to auction off 17-20 males in California.  How cheap can each of you insurers provide us coverage for?"

Some examples by the way.

Kidney Dialisis and CAT scanners.

http://space.about.com/od/toolsequipment/ss/apollospinoffs.htm

Those certaintly help keeping people alive.