Had we put the same resources into solving other more earthbound problems would we be better off? Maybe we could have developed a better, standard, safer nuclear power plant design and could have left coal and oil behind 30 years ago. And we would not be discussing climate change or at least not the idea that it was man-made.
You might, for example, instead point out that even extravagant space budget proposals are a drop in the bucket compared to military spending.
Once you resolve the issue of poor political leadership, the problem basically solve itself as money and investment engender a positive feedback loop that take care of itself.
The Apollo program was part of the space race against the SU. See my comment about conflicts motivating people to invest in this stuff.
You could (more or less) translate the fascination of the moon landing into an excuse for less reliable housing and so on in the 60s. You can't do so today.
Of course, you do realize that statement could also read: "When we ran the Apollo program, the world had less reliable housing, less clean water, less reliable food, worse healthcare, and more physical conflicts."
Neither of these statements are particularly good at answering the question: How much do we gain by investing money in space exploration versus something else?
Only the most pathetic hacks would argue that we are the worse for having invested that money to push the bounds of exploration.
At a point, there are 6 billion people on the earth, and there will always be _some_ problems unsolved, whether that is because a few countries are trying to collapse, or because we have found new first-world problems to agonize about in the US.
It's a question of whether we will spend 10x the cost to solve the last 10% of those problems, or spend that money moving forward as a civilization.