>Its worth doing both.
I won't downvote, since after all, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
But, currently we DON'T have the budget to do both. We wouldn't have the budget to do both if it was increased by 50%. You know that, I know that, we all know that.
That's the way it is and wishful thinking will not change that in the medium term (barring a Chinese space challenge leading to a fully-funded Apollo-type space race).
What we are doing is underfunding unmanned missions, and not advancing technology for manned missions all that much. For all the Apollo nostalgia, much of what goes into current manned missions would not be unfamiliar to Skylab and Saturn V folks. Our computers are better and we have the Shuttle to warn us about the perils of "reusable savings".
In order to put up manned missions and fulfill our dream to explore and colonize space, we need to upgrade our technologies, very significantly.
Things like NEXT, Dragon, _anything_ that brings down $/KG to orbit, space-based automated manufacturing (cracking O2 and H out of water in meteorites or the moon. Heck, even space elevators and blimps that launch rockets from near space. We also need to encourage experimentation by private enterprise - the Google guys extracting platinum out of asteroids and Virgin space hotels.
In coding equivalents, we are hand-writing in assembler right now. We need to come up with compilers to make things cheaper, otherwise there will ever only be a need for 5 computers in the world.
That's what gets me excited and that's what I believe should get a better piece of our limited budget pie.
Downvote away, folks :-)