backtop

Print 50 comment(s) - last by HostileEffect.. on Feb 1 at 5:43 AM
NASA was awarded $50 million from the House, but originally requested $2 billion

As more industries continue to beg President Obama for money from the next $819 billion economic plan, NASA was largely left out of the latest stimulus package.

Although Obama said the next $819 billion -- which was approved by the House -- will be another step towards other money packages, NASA was not granted $2 billion for space exploration and Orion development.  NASA officials were dismayed to find they were only given $50 million from the House, despite the high costs of developing a next-generation space craft and repairing damage caused by Hurricane Ike.

Despite problems in the House, NASA officials hope to have better luck with the Senate bill, if all goes according to plan.  Some politicians are upset there is so much money being granted towards social programs while programs such as NASA are trying to scrape together funding for future missions to Mars and moon.

"NASA is absolutely critical to our innovation economy and innovation society," Sen. Barbara Mikulski, (D-MD.) told the Houston Chronicle.  "I will continue to fight to make sure NASA has the funding it needs to meet its mission."

Both the Senate and House bills have a request to use "$600 million for accelerating satellite development and acquisition, acquiring climate sensors and climate modeling capacity, and establishing climate data records," with "not less than $140 million" to be designated for climate modeling.

NASA's money issues have lingered for several years now, and there is a growing concern the U.S. space agency will fall further behind China and Russia -- both nations have increased their space program spending, with ambitious plans for the future.

With the current generation of space shuttles set for retirement next year -- and it being too dangerous and costly to extend the shuttle mission a few additional years -- NASA officials will continue to plead for a larger amount of money from the federal economic stimulus plans.

A future House-Senate conference will likely help try and iron out kinks in the current plan, with Obama not releasing a public statement regarding NASA funding.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
What? We've got plenty!
By therealnickdanger on 1/30/2009 8:05:13 AM , Rating: 5
I know a good place where we can find $1 trillion... Oh whoops, my bad, looks like they already allocated it to pay off lobbies.




RE: What? We've got plenty!
By Proteusza on 1/30/2009 8:16:21 AM , Rating: 5
Remember guys, its more important that the fatcat bankers who got us into this mess in the first place get their over the top bonuses and expensive holidays than NASA gets the money it needs to do potentially planet saving climate research and scientific research that may allow America to stay at the top of the scientific pile.


RE: What? We've got plenty!
By FITCamaro on 1/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: What? We've got plenty!
By mdogs444 on 1/30/2009 8:43:40 AM , Rating: 3
Not to mention the superb job done by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd...if they can get sweetheart deals, maybe they can show us how to?


RE: What? We've got plenty!
By omnicronx on 1/30/2009 9:03:07 AM , Rating: 5
Will there be a day that goes by without you two complaining about the Democrats? Every single day you make it out as though it is the Dems fault that the economy is in its current situation, making it out as though the last 8 years did not happen. Politicians in general are corrupt! Get this through your head!


RE: What? We've got plenty!
By HinderedHindsight on 1/30/2009 9:33:05 AM , Rating: 2
No, it would make too much sense to realize republican control of congress between 96 -2006 and 8 years of a republican in the whitehouse had anything to do with this mess.

No, all republicans could do is ensure that their mantra, "government doesn't work", was a self fulfilling prophecy during that time. Meanwhile, they blame 30 year old laws for everything that has happened.


RE: What? We've got plenty!
By Samus on 1/30/2009 6:42:44 PM , Rating: 3
Frankly, the Republican Party as we know it is completely destroyed after the past 8 years. People will always associate George H W Bush with the Republican Party, remembering he had the lowest approval rating in Presidential history.

And thats why a black man is running the country. People were able to get over racism (and even sexism in the case of Clinton) just to get a Democrat into office.

It's a tough time to be a Republican, knowing your party has completely fucked the country up as we know it.


RE: What? We've got plenty!
By mdogs444 on 1/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: What? We've got plenty!
By therealnickdanger on 1/30/2009 9:36:55 AM , Rating: 4
You forget that while Bush was president for eight years, he had very little support from a democrat-controlled congress for most of that time. The president signs off on or veto laws THEY bring forward, despite policies he may try to push or uphold.

The RECORD proves that he tried to prevent the crisis from happening, but that his attempts were blocked by democrats (and a couple republicans) who were getting kickbacks, lawyers representing "underprivaledged" home owners, bankers who were raping the system, and consumers to f*cking stupid to know they were getting scammed. There's plenty of blame to be spread around, but in the long run, Americans let themselves get fooled into thinking it was Bush's fault and voted in MORE of the idiots that got us into this mess in the first place.

Decmocracy FAIL.


By therealnickdanger on 1/30/2009 9:37:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Decmocracy FAIL.

Spell FAIL. Typing too fast...


RE: What? We've got plenty!
By trivik12 on 1/30/2009 10:22:19 AM , Rating: 2
you are way off. Republicans had house under their control for 6 out of 8 bush years(2001-2006). They also had senate majority between 2003-2006.


RE: What? We've got plenty!
By FITCamaro on 1/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: What? We've got plenty!
By omnicronx on 1/30/2009 10:40:14 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Fact is that what caused the problems was brought in under Democrats. It was protected by Democrats. It is continuing under Democrats.

They have no plans to ever stop giving out these subprime loans. Even now they are available.
The only fact here is that nothing of what you just said is fact.


RE: What? We've got plenty!
By sgw2n5 on 1/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: What? We've got plenty!
By HinderedHindsight on 1/30/2009 1:41:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They have no plans to ever stop giving out these subprime loans. Even now they are available.


This is because the free market lenders not subject to the CRA (the aforementioned 30 year old law that republicans keep blaming for subprime loans) keep offering them in an attempt to keep revenue flowing.

http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blo...

I have cited this businessweek article in other posts which outlines why the CRA is *not* to blame. You seem to keep ignoring it. The CRA has much more regulatory barriers in order to ensure that subprime loans which are given out are not given to those who cannot handle them.

Most subprime loans that have been made in the last decade, were offered by banks not subject to the CRA.


RE: What? We've got plenty!
By sgw2n5 on 1/30/2009 1:43:28 PM , Rating: 2
I've said the exact thing numerous times. I'm starting to think that neo-cons are illiterate.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/30/2009 3:07:52 PM , Rating: 2
He is correct, just not stated the right way. In the Senate you need 60 or 65 votes to pass something to law (I'm sure someone reading will post the right number). So, the Republicans only had 51 or 53 seats given them the majority but not control. Even if the President did not veto a bill they could not pass it without the Dems. blessing.

This is not a statement that Rep or Dems are better or the problem. Just a statement of what was the case. What’s really sad is that the two parties can not work together to get something done that is good for the country. They are worried about doing some that is good and right for the country while the other party has major…. Dems do not want the Reps to look good and Reps do not want the Dems to look good. So in the long run we the people suffer because we keep voting the same idiots back into office.


RE: What? We've got plenty!
By omnicronx on 1/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: What? We've got plenty!
By bety on 1/30/2009 4:23:43 PM , Rating: 3
WHAT?? Somebody not viewing Bush through ridiculously Demonized-colored glasses??? Though the roots of your economic problems run deep, of the recent presidents, the one who bears the most guilt for the current problems is Clinton. Bush did try to stop the train, or at least re-direct it a few times. I think towards the end, realizing he couldn't stop it, he just decided to ride it out and hope it hit the wall later. It's actually "interesting" that it did hit the wall when it did....but anyways, nice to see critical thought instead of the idiotic "blame everything on Bush" ignorance than seems to pervade the world right now.


RE: What? We've got plenty!
By MPE on 1/30/2009 9:35:08 AM , Rating: 2
Uhm no. Buying bonds and securities based on leveraged high-risk loans are all on Wall Street. If you are going partisan at least get it right. You confuse Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae's involvement with Wall Street's.


RE: What? We've got plenty!
By afkrotch on 1/30/2009 8:45:42 AM , Rating: 2
Or use most their budget to figure out some more about Mars dirt.


RE: What? We've got plenty!
By MrBlastman on 1/30/2009 11:01:21 AM , Rating: 5
So lets get this straight - Congress thinks that it is better to spend 2+ Billion dollars on a politically-biased program such as ACORN, which really, when you break it down goes to:

1. Signing people up to vote (we just voted)
2. Lawyers (so they can sue more companies and people)

Lawyers contribute a net zero to society, since they raise costs across the board with every victory, while costing the courts both money and time. They also, contrary to popular belief, in these class action lawsuits, make all the money. Have you ever seen a payment for these things? Each person might make a few dollars here and there, while the lawyers cover their salary and big bonus.

Signing up people to vote - yeah, that will really help the economy.

All this, instead of giving it to NASA, who will inspire youth to achieve, propel technological innovation which will increase our quality of living and help secure our foothold in the next frontier (which will lead to ever increasing economies)?

Hmm, yeah, I can see why Congress did what they did...


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/30/2009 3:23:29 PM , Rating: 3
Do not forget the 4 or 5 countries Obama just gave $400 million each to start or improve their abortion program. That for sure this is going to help simulate the US economy.

P.S. For all those who think abortion is a good thing (me it has a place - sickness, mom and baby going to die....). If the President back around 1955 to 1962 time frame had given money to less wealth countries to start an abortion program... Obama mom could have had an abortion in Kenya or Indonesia before Obama was born and after all his dad leaves them high a dry and it would have made his moms life a lot easier....


RE: What? We've got plenty!
By mdogs444 on 1/30/2009 8:32:49 AM , Rating: 3
Thats right Nick...

quote:
As more industries continue to beg President Obama for money from the next $819 billion economic plan, NASA was largely left out of the latest stimulus package.


NASA can only get $50M, but corrupt community organizing groups to pay off voters, garner illegal votes, truck in homeless from other states to vote in Ohio, and etc can get $4.19B piece of the pie. But hey, look on the bright side...at least NASA got twice as much as a single democratic representative who's allocated $25M to build an ATV track in his own Pork.

Go figure.


RE: What? We've got plenty!
By FITCamaro on 1/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: What? We've got plenty!
By sgw2n5 on 1/30/2009 1:35:59 PM , Rating: 4
You're going to have an incredibly long 4 (likely 8) years.


RE: What? We've got plenty!
By Some1ne on 1/30/2009 5:27:53 PM , Rating: 3
What are you talking about? They allocated NASA's trillion to a pointless and ongoing war in Iraq. That second trillion you're referring to has always been slated to go to the lobbyists.


Should be done.
By waykizool on 1/30/2009 8:13:12 AM , Rating: 3
If the new package is going to fund social programs, I think NASA should get funding too. It's sort of a social program as any discoveries that come from NASA missions can benefit all of us someday. Plus, for all the climate research the bill has, with satellite to go with it, who do they think will fix anything if it breaks and is too expensive to replace or lose? Remember Hubble? Just don't drop your tools.




RE: Should be done.
By FITCamaro on 1/30/2009 8:41:11 AM , Rating: 1
Cmon, we all know science and technology doesn't create jobs.


RE: Should be done.
By mdogs444 on 1/30/2009 8:45:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
science and technology doesn't create jobs.

Of course not. But we all know that corrupt community organizing groups like Acorn, who buy illegal votes, is recession proof. How can it not be with free $4B lifelines?


RE: Should be done.
By sgw2n5 on 1/30/2009 1:41:02 PM , Rating: 2
You have no idea what you are talking about, you just repeat the idiotic talking points that Rush feeds you.

Do some reading every once in a while, it would be good for you.

Actually, scratch that, you might slip into a deep depression when you come to the realization that reality doesn't jive with your idiotic preconceptions.


RE: Should be done.
By rcc on 1/30/2009 3:49:41 PM , Rating: 2
So, what is the reality. Cuz all I'm seeing is them attacking programs, and you attacking people in response.


RE: Should be done.
By afkrotch on 1/30/2009 8:53:56 AM , Rating: 2
I think it balances out. Advancements in technology makes jobs disappear, while at the same time, creating new jobs.


RE: Should be done.
By Pneumothorax on 1/30/2009 9:01:30 AM , Rating: 2
Still I'd rather have my tax money fund scientists rather than getting homeless people to vote. Guess which one is more likely to make an advancement in tech?


RE: Should be done.
By omnicronx on 1/30/2009 9:21:58 AM , Rating: 2
Nor does the bill ignore it, 10 billion dollars in funding will go to science facilities. In the short term funding NASA will not create that many jobs which is the point of an 'economic stimulus plan'. There will be a time and a place for NASA funding, but the sad reality is, the time is not right now. I am personally saddened by the lack of funding for NASA, and I hope in the near future these problems will be corrected, but you have to admit this is the worst possible time for NASA to come knocking for 2 billion dollars.


RE: Should be done.
By FITCamaro on 1/30/2009 10:18:50 AM , Rating: 2
Pay attention to the bill. Most of the money isn't even going to be spent immediately.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5...


RE: Should be done.
By omnicronx on 1/30/2009 10:31:36 AM , Rating: 2
You mean bulding infrastructure is not an instant process?

When someone says most of the bill usually it implies you are talking about more than just one thing. Infrastructure takes time, and I am actually glad they are not handing out all the money at once, perhaps this means they actually have a plan.

I would also like to point out that even if 1/4 of the money was made available now, it would still provide far more jobs than NASA ever will. Furthermore infrastructure development is one of the few proven ways to improve the economy, as it has worked time and time again throughout some of the worst economic conditions (i.e 30's and 70's)


RE: Should be done.
By waykizool on 1/30/2009 10:52:35 AM , Rating: 2
I wasn't saying it would create jobs. If we're going to throw a few million on new grass for the national mall, why not throw some at NASA, is all.


Stimulus
By mdogs444 on 1/30/2009 9:42:32 AM , Rating: 2
"Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
"A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.

"Q. Where will the government get this money?
"A. From taxpayers.

"Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
"A. No, they are borrowing it from China. Your children are expected to repay the Chinese.

"Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
"A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.

"Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China?
"A. Shut up."

Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the US economy by spending your stimulus check wisely:

If you spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China.

If you spend it on gasoline it will go to Hugo Chavez, the Arabs and Al Queda

If you purchase a computer it will go to Taiwan.

If you purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras, Chile, and Guatemala.

If you buy a car it will go to Japan and Korea.

If you purchase prescription drugs it will go to India

If you purchase heroin it will go to the Taliban in Afghanistan

If you give it to a charitable cause, it will go to Nigeria.

And none of it will help the American economy.




RE: Stimulus
By FITCamaro on 1/30/2009 10:23:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Q. So the government is giving me back my own money? "A. No, they are borrowing it from China. Your children are expected to repay the Chinese.


You forgot one.

Q. I didn't pay any taxes last year nor will I this year. Will I still get money?
A. Yes.


RE: Stimulus
By Smartless on 1/30/2009 2:53:13 PM , Rating: 2
Sooo. You got a solution?


RE: Stimulus
By BrockSamson on 1/30/2009 4:12:39 PM , Rating: 2
This is the greatest post I have ever seen on this site.


RE: Stimulus
By maven81 on 1/30/2009 4:30:20 PM , Rating: 2
Amusing, but hardly accurate.

Better yet, if you truly believe in free trade and that the market always knows best there's nothing wrong with this picture is there ;)
I mean for you to stop buying Korean, Japanese and Chinese products, the corporations would have to reduce their profit margins, the government would have to impose hefty tariffs, and GASP subsidize domestic industries...
What do you have to say to that?


RE: Stimulus
By mdogs444 on 1/30/2009 5:18:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What do you have to say to that?

I dont shop at WalMart...and my jeans up to $200 or $300 each, while overpriced and expensive, are made in the USA.

I say bring on the tariffs until China and Japan stop subsidizing their own products.


RE: Stimulus
By Bubbacub on 1/31/2009 7:34:26 AM , Rating: 2
i hope that you know the critical role protectionism played in propagating the great depression.


RE: Stimulus
By HostileEffect on 2/1/2009 5:43:58 AM , Rating: 2
Buy a maglight and it stimulates the USA


NASA Capabilities
By werepossum on 1/30/2009 12:59:11 PM , Rating: 2
Does anyone here really believe NASA is still capable of designing and building a successful space craft? I can't imagine they are still capable of doing that even with a few trillion dollars.

Regarding Bush, the Republicans had control of Congress for six years and spent every bit as much as the Democrats, on just as much pork. While the Democrats are wholly responsible for the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac scandal by mandating almost half of their portfolios are low income or disadvantaged borrowers, the Republicans had six years to stop that irresponsible practice, and are wholly responsible for the deregulation (and failure to enforce the remaining regulations) that allowed the easily foreseeable bank failure to also take down Wall Street. If Republicans are any better than Democrats, it's too subtle for me to see.




RE: NASA Capabilities
By Bubbacub on 1/31/2009 7:40:18 AM , Rating: 3
part of the issue is that it is now politically impossible to let an astronaut die.

when the state was chasing the russians with the gemini program a few astronauts died nasty unpleasant deaths which were swept under the carpet. the need to "beat" the ussr politically was far greater than the downside of killing a few of your own citizens.

there is no political need to send rockets up in to space right now hence its impossible to skip any steps in the safety aspects of space exploration. unfortunately this causes massive bloat in expenditure. it easy for china - they can just deny the existence of an astronaut and suppress their media.

in short - if the usa ever gets into another international pissing contest with a superpower then nasa will produce more rockets for less money at the expense of safety.


NASA
By Machinegear on 1/30/2009 8:36:18 AM , Rating: 3
Wow. NASA couldn't ride the $850B stimulus pork wagon like everyone else? They really have gone down hill.




Well, I'm kinda worried
By dickeywang on 1/30/2009 11:20:15 AM , Rating: 2
I know we need to take bold moves to fight against the financial crisis, but I am not sure Obama's new package is the real answer. Well, let's pray it will work, but if that's not the case, well, we will in a more much trouble than the one we're already in.
I know we were crying for change by the end of Bush's presidency, but I was hoping for a change to a better situation, so far, I see changes to no where.
Well, let's just pray it will work out eventually.




"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki