No, Jim, Barack Obama did not “cut NASA funding” last year. He proposed an increase, none of which went to “Muslim outreach.”
20 thoughts on “The Myth Marches On”
Comments are closed.
No, Jim, Barack Obama did not “cut NASA funding” last year. He proposed an increase, none of which went to “Muslim outreach.”
Comments are closed.
I certainly agree with the fact that Obama requested more money for NASA. However, with the failure of a Democrat controlled Congress and White House; NASA is awash with continuing resolution money that it knows is supposed to spent on an extra space shuttle launch and a new heavy lift vehicle, but can’t spend on the extra space shuttle launch and must spend on a stick launcher that will someday be officially defunded.
The result is massive slashing of contractor jobs at NASA. Whether that is good or bad is different from suggesting it isn’t happening because Obama called for NASA to receive more money. If you are a Congressional District expecting your NASA pork; that ham being dangled before you is a tease worthy of a Dante prose. If you are a dreamer thinking NASA will provide you a Sputnik moment with all this funding; then you are living on Elm Street.
Obama increased overall NASA funding but all the increases seem to hav gone to things like Global Warming (whoops – I mean Global Climate Change, no excuse me that is supposed to be Global Climate Chaous) research.
They changed the “booking methods” so much it is hard to tell, but probably less went to Human Space Flight and much of that was supposed to be diverted to “Commercial Space”.
So you might forgive the author his “confusion”. The Obama Administration worked real hard to cuase it.
Yea, Jim got pretty nutty a while back with the “missile”/jet contrail thingy a while back, too. Haven’t really been back to that site since then because I just can’t deal with the constant hyperbole.
The comments are good. Someone mentioned that Barry read Reagan on vacation which reminded me of this quote…
“How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.” -RR
“……gone to things like Global Warming (whoops – I mean Global Climate Change, no excuse me that is supposed to be Global Climate Chaous)”
No no now it’s called BCCC, or B-Triple C, or BC cubed:
Bush Caused Climate Change
Joe, that’s funny.. I didn’t notice any change in the NASA authorization bill.. and there hasn’t even been an appropriations bill yet. Do you mean that the White House budget request had those changes? Can you actually quote them?
Hint: don’t believe everything you read, do your own research and you’ll be surprised how much nonsense people say on a daily basis.
Trent Waddington Says:
January 26th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
“Joe, that’s funny.. I didn’t notice any change in the NASA authorization bill.. and there hasn’t even been an appropriations bill yet. Do you mean that the White House budget request had those changes? Can you actually quote them?”
There was no change in the NASA Authorization Bill to the overall numbers, only how the HSF money was distributed. That is why it is called a compromise. One the Administration is apparently still not living up to (even though Obama signed it into law).
“Hint: don’t believe everything you read, do your own research and you’ll be surprised how much nonsense people say on a daily basis”
How true, the problem is I apply the same skepticism to you.
Obama KEEPS looking for his ‘Sputnik moment’.
I KEEP wondering if he knows that Sputnik was from the U.S.S.R., or if he knows, but sees it as a bigger deal than the things WE did. Either way, it pisses me off that he cannot find ONE thing in American industrialization and invention to say instead of ‘Sputnik moment’.
I don’t know, something silly and pointless like ‘find our next Robert Goddard’.
If somebody suggested that, I’m sure he’d change it to ‘von Braun moment’. God forbid he’d give an AMERICAN credit for some achievement.
That is why it is called a compromise.
That’s not the definition of a compromise.
Joe, you said “Obama increased overall NASA funding but all the increases seem to hav gone to things like Global Warming”
I’m just wondering where you got that nonsense from and whether you have anything to back it up? Seems not.
I don’t know where Joe gets his information, but I read Obama’s request last February, and there he requested increased funding in climate research while at the time maintaining the overall NASA budget at previous levels. Then, there is the fact that Goddard seems to be doing a lot of hiring, while other centers are frozen in hiring or planning on scaling back.
Perhaps Waddington can provide information to back up his claim, or is he relying on semantics, such that it is really Congress that appropriates funding and not Obama. I think Joe is discussing reality, and Waddington is discussing rhetoric. That’s not to say future Congressional action won’t change to reflect Waddington’s rhetoric, but between the odds of that happening and the odds of a continuing resolution through fy 2011, I’m betting on the latter.
You didn’t read it closely enough, then, Leland. The FY2011 proposal was a plus-up in NASA’s budget, not a flat request. Yes, SMD did get an increase in Earth Science and Planetary Science, but it didn’t come out of human space flight.
http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html
Wait! You’re saying that President Obama directed NASA to implement Muslim outreach and then didn’t back up his directive with budgetary funding? I’m shocked.
Justin,
So you are suggesting there was a plus-up, across the board, for all budgets? Or will you recognize the budget was increased, with increases going to climate research, other budgets staying the same or shrinking. The latter is occurring. The other may have been promised, but as phil suggests, call me shocked that promise isn’t being kept.
That’s a false dichotomy, Leland. I didn’t say there was a plus-up for everyone. I said you were wrong that the overall NASA budget was kept at previous levels.
The Space Operations budget actually decreases with the end of Shuttle operations. Go look at the FY2011 budget documents at the link I posted. There was not an increase in climate research at the cost of anything else. Nor was “climate research” the only thing that got a plus-up.
The 2010 Authorization Act obviously had different allocations to the individual lines, but it also recommended an overall plus-up in the total NASA budget at the same level the Administration requested. It doesn’t fund climate research at the cost of HSF, either, though.
Trent is right on this one. Besides, we have Senator Shelby to thank for the ridiculous language that requires NASA to continue spending money on canceled projects.
Trent Waddington Says: January 26th, 2011 at 11:33 pm
“I’m just wondering where you got that nonsense from and whether you have anything to back it up? Seems not.”
The increases for the accounts are in the proposed 2011 budget that the administration put out last February (and yes I have read the budget – a painful process given the number of changes made to how the accounts were listed from the previous year).
Since you seem to be incapable of communication without adopting an insulting/condescending tone; look it up for yourself, it is not my job to do your homework for you.
Hi Leland,
Nice to get bsckup in these “friendly” conversations, but trying to tlak facts to these people will just give you a headache. 🙂
Joe
Justin,
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say I made this claim:
you were wrong that the overall NASA budget was kept at previous levels.
and then make this claim:
The 2010 Authorization Act obviously had different allocations to the individual lines, but it also recommended an overall plus-up in the total NASA budget
Waddington’s claim was:
Joe, you said “Obama increased overall NASA funding but all the increases seem to hav gone to things like Global Warming”
I’m just wondering where you got that nonsense from and whether you have anything to back it up?
I realize we are comparing rhetoric to actions. But, promises don’t mean much when they aren’t kept. The 2010 Authorization Act both in September and December is rather meaningless without a funding bill. Without the funding bill, NASA budget stands at previous levels (that’s what a continuing resolution does), but with less money going to space operations and more to climate research. Obama has not increased overall NASA funding, because he hasn’t signed a funding bill that does so. If you think Waddington is correct, perhaps you can provide the facts that back it up?
Leland, there is nothing inconsistent in what I said. You claimed that the President “requested increased funding in climate research while at the time maintaining the overall NASA budget at previous levels,” in the February budget proposal. That is demonstrably false.
You’re also taking my quote out of context. I was referring to your claim about the FY2011 budget proposal, not the continuing resolution.
Even so, where is your proof that the CR diverts money from space operations to climate research? We’re not allowed to start new work on the Station Program under the CR, so I don’t see how SMD would be able to get away with it.
where is your proof that the CR diverts money from space operations to climate research?
What’s inconsistent is the strawmen arguments you attribute to me. Show me where I said that the CR diverts money? Show me where I said space operations money was diverted to climate research? My only claim about the proposal was in agreement with Rand that NASA’s budget was supposed to increase. And again I say, until a funding bill passes, which few people think will occur with a divided Congress, what is proposed isn’t reality.