Is NASA over-funded or underfunded

Many scientists believe all the manned missions on the shuttle and in the space station are really a waste of money, and that much more science would have been achieved by spending that money to build science platforms in the form of spacecraft and satellites. So you could make an argument that NASA's priorities could be different and make more efficient use of the money they do get. On the other hand, manned missions spark an interest in science and motivates a new generation of students to study these fields.

In general I would say NASA is underfunded because politicians and the general public don't understand the long term payoff of what they are doing, and its vital impact on our future economic and humanitarian development (ie/ the technological capabilities to bring food and energy to everyone). Even watching John Stewart and Steven Colbert, who usually see the short comings of government, I was disappointed to see them painting the Curiosity mission as a bunch of geeks getting excited over boring nerd pursuits. However in this time of economic uncertainty I think there is no rush to upgrade NASA's funding.

It's underfunded. But as a function of return on investment, it's huge.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/…
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/…

And another way to look at how money is spent -
http://www.spaceexplorationday.us/benefi…

everyone gets to much goverment money!!! check out http://www.usdebtclock.org/
its rediculous!!!!