Chatroom
 

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum > Science and Space > Astronomy
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

   

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 20-July-2004, 07:01 PM
ToSeek's Avatar
ToSeek ToSeek is online now
Vulcan Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Greenbelt, MD
Posts: 26,022
Default NASA faces big spending cuts

NASA faces big spending cuts

Quote:
The House Appropriations Committee is planning to cut as much as $1 billion from President Bush's budget request for NASA, as part of a $92.9 billion fiscal 2005 VA-HUD appropriations bill to be marked up Tuesday.
Unfortunately, due to the way Congress splits up its budget bills, NASA is competing with veterans' health care.
__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 20-July-2004, 07:07 PM
Manchurian Taikonaut's Avatar
Manchurian Taikonaut Manchurian Taikonaut is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sol's pale blue dot
Posts: 1,645
Default

why is this going on? Is there more problem now, or what is the next idea.. ? I like NASA I hope it can move on and get things right
this could be serious, is that why they are thinking of maybe dumping TRMM ?
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 20-July-2004, 07:18 PM
Demigrog's Avatar
Demigrog Demigrog is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,200
Default

I wouldn't read too much into it yet. The budget for FY2005 is still in the quid-pro-quo stage, where one congressman threatens second congressman's sacred cow until they support the first congressman's own sacred cow. I'm not 100% sure, but Bush's proposed budget had an increase of a billion over FY2004, so the "cut" they are talking about is rather... virtual.
__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 20-July-2004, 08:11 PM
Irishman Irishman is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,466
Default

I wouldn't read nafarious motives to NASA from this. This sounds more like Capitol Hill. This appears to be Bush's decrease taxes and increase spending coming home to roost. We have to improve veteran's benefits to "support our troops". NASA's in that same spending pile, and Congress seems to be saying, "you can't have that new space initiative project and everything else. If you could cut expenses to shuffle money to new projects, then you can cut expenses and keep what you've got, and we'll shift the money elsewhere."

At least that's how I read it.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 20-July-2004, 08:49 PM
Swift's Avatar
Swift Swift is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
Posts: 17,754
Default

Yes, this is in the early stages of budget negotiations, but I would take this as a bad sign. With the deficit increasing rapidly, there is going to be a lot of pressure to cut budgets across the board.
__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 21-July-2004, 04:07 AM
Manchurian Taikonaut's Avatar
Manchurian Taikonaut Manchurian Taikonaut is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sol's pale blue dot
Posts: 1,645
Default

I read more on it

It is disturbing, especially at a time when we should have a celebration on the great achievements by Apollo 11's Anniversary
It is so sad to hear news like this, how can they let things like this be happening :x I hope the problems can be fixed and it will all move on again, NASA has been wonderful before let'ss hope it can go on ahead again and do great things.


there was headlines on yahoo news

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ss_budget_dc_2

Quote:
House of Representatives subcommittee on Tuesday backed a $92.9 billion spending bill that cuts funding for President Bush's plan to send humans to Mars and trims money for science and environmental programs.



Republicans and Democrats said the squeeze on the 2005 appropriations bill covering the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and other agencies was prompted by the budget deficit, which is expected to set another record.


"The budget crunch that we all knew was coming has finally arrived," said Florida Republican Bill Young, the chairman of the House appropriations committee.


But Democrat Rep. Alan Mollohan from West Virginia said the spending allocation was "totally inadequate."


Republicans say the budget deficit, which is expected to top a record $400 billion this year, results from the costs of fighting terrorism in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. But Democrats blame it on Bush's tax cuts, which they say also squandered the surpluses he inherited upon taking office three-and-a-half years ago.


The bill, approved in the subcommittee by a voice vote, cuts funding for the National Aeronautics

so what will happen now ?
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 10-October-2004, 10:53 AM
Launch window's Avatar
Launch window Launch window is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,994
Default



I wonder why
http://www.detnews.com/pix/2004/01/2...1_deficit2.jpg
http://factcheck.org/imagefiles/image002.png


Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 10-October-2004, 10:24 PM
Kesh's Avatar
Kesh Kesh is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Kentucky, USA
Posts: 1,134
Send a message via ICQ to Kesh Send a message via Yahoo to Kesh
Default

Minor point: Clinton did jack for the defecit. He had some very good accountants work the numbers so that if the Dot-Com boom hadn't busted, and if everyone paid their full taxes, and if everything else went well, the budget would gain a surplus sometime in 2012 or so.

It was pure politics and book-cooking.

That said, even Clinton wasn't as big a spender as Bush had been. yeesh.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 11-October-2004, 12:06 AM
The Bad Astronomer's Avatar
The Bad Astronomer The Bad Astronomer is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Boulder, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,643
Default

Shot across the bow:

Don't let this thread degenerate.

Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 11-October-2004, 09:47 AM
kg034 kg034 is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SFO Bay Area, California
Posts: 136
Send a message via MSN to kg034 Send a message via Yahoo to kg034
Default

5% increase in military spending approved by Congress. Total sum: $420 bil.
__________________
"Its full of stars!"
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 11-October-2004, 03:41 PM
ToSeek's Avatar
ToSeek ToSeek is online now
Vulcan Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Greenbelt, MD
Posts: 26,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kesh
Minor point: Clinton did jack for the defecit. He had some very good accountants work the numbers so that if the Dot-Com boom hadn't busted, and if everyone paid their full taxes, and if everything else went well, the budget would gain a surplus sometime in 2012 or so.
There's a difference between the deficit and the debt. According to the usual government accounting approach (which is debatable because it includes social security revenues), the Clinton administration actually did take in more revenue than it spent for several years (probably mostly because the Democratic administration and Republican Congress were at loggerheads). If this had kept up for another 15 years or so, it might have eliminated the national debt. But I doubt anyone considered that that was a realistic possibility.
__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 11-October-2004, 09:13 PM
Demigrog's Avatar
Demigrog Demigrog is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,200
Default

These numbers really need to be adjusted for inflation. #1 sign of a political agenda in budget presentations is not doing so.

Also, budget numbers as a percentage of GNP is a better thing to look at.

Back on the OP, this is old news. The Senate has already passed an addition to NASA's budget. The mechanism they used to do it-- basically an emergency appropriations bill-- is a bit ugly, however.
__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 26-October-2004, 03:39 PM
Launch window's Avatar
Launch window Launch window is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,994
Default

Demigrog thanks for the idea on percentages, because it shows the federal budget deficits are even MORE MASSIVE !
It is hitting a record each week in terms of the sheer number of dollars involved, it has now passed the 4% and amounting to 4.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), right now it is the highest level since that horrible record in 1986. Some Economists say the rate things are going, the cost of iraq, falling job market and rising price of oil we could soon be going past 5% and onto 6% . It does not matter if the leaders are Republican or Democrat, if they are doing a bad job on the employment sector and messing with the economy and slowing industry then something must be done. Hitting 5% would be terrible. Let's hope the clowns running the economy don't try and bankrupt the US. ABCnews, CNN/Money and even the rightwinger Fox was running news on it last week.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 01-November-2004, 03:41 PM
Manchurian Taikonaut's Avatar
Manchurian Taikonaut Manchurian Taikonaut is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sol's pale blue dot
Posts: 1,645
Default

I hope NASA can come back, getting finance and economic right is important for the US and the space industry but NASA must also look at new designs and concentrate on having manned missions back in space soon.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.0.0
©  2006 Bad Astronomy and Universe Today