Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Space NASA The Almighty Buck Science

President Obama Calls For New 'Space Race' Funding 291

Posted by Soulskill
from the if-we-put-a-man-on-the-moon-we-can-put-a-man-on-the-moon dept.
New submitter dmfinn writes "While his union address covered a wide range of topics, President Obama made sure not to skip over the U.S.'s space program. The talking point was nearly identical to the one he gave in 2009, in which he called for space R&D spending to be increased past the levels seen during the the original cold war space race. Now, 4 years after that speech, it appears things have gone the opposite way. Since 2009 NASA has seen some serious cuts. Not only has the space-shuttle program been deactivated, but the agency was forced to endure harsh funding cuts during the presidents latter term. Despite an ominous history, it now seems that Obama is back on the space objective, pushing congress to increase non-defensive R&D spending to 3% of the U.S. GDP. It's important to keep in mind that not all of this money goes directly to space related programs, though under the proposed budget the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology Laboratories will have their budgets doubled. There will also be an increase in tax credits towards companies and organizations working on these R&D projects. Should the U.S. go back to its 'Let's put a man on the moon' ideology, or is the federal government fighting an uphill battle against newly emerging private space expeditions? Either way, the question remains whether or not Obama will act on any of the propositions."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

President Obama Calls For New 'Space Race' Funding

Comments Filter:
  • by JDAustin (468180) on Friday February 15, 2013 @05:12PM (#42915851)

    In the 50's and 60's, discretionary spending accounted for 70% of the federal budget. Now, mandated spending accounts for 70%+ of the fed budget.

  • by sl4shd0rk (755837) on Friday February 15, 2013 @05:35PM (#42916151)

    Obama's at least talking in the right direction.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbIZU8cQWXc [youtube.com]

  • I am sceptical (Score:2, Interesting)

    by e3m4n (947977) on Friday February 15, 2013 @05:53PM (#42916391)

    after reviewing report after report of the BILLIONS of rounds of ammunition purchased in the last year (more than the entire amount of ammunition spent in 6yrs of conflict in Iraq) for agencies like the NOAA and Social Security Administration, I would not be in the least surprised to hear that this proposed spending increase was yet another way to buy and arm more federal branches of the government while doing nothing to the status quot of the functionality of the departments themselves. Increasing spending to a branch of government isnt the same thing as actually doing something productive, not anymore it seems. Ever wonder how, after having 3x the amount of IRS employees we did in 2008, for the first time in my living history the federal government has failed to get all the tax forms approved by jan 31st? Now all federal refunds depending on some of these forms are delayed until mid march. Included in this group is the amortization of mortgage interest.. thats no small percentage of population getting affected.

  • by tiqui (1024021) on Friday February 15, 2013 @06:27PM (#42916831)

    become the enforcer of Obamacare. In just 12 months, all Americans will be required to buy health insurance that meets Obama's specs. The IRS estimates that these policies will cost $20,000.00 per year per Adult (and $10,000.00 per year per child). If you do not buy this insurance for yourself, your spouse and your kids, you will be penalized by the IRS.... unless you are an illegal alien (they are specifically exempt from the penalty (it's right in the plain text of the law)). Oh, they do get the same care you get though if you and they show up at any hospital ER with equivalent injuries/illnesses; that's required by an earlier law that's still in force.

    As for the many millions (billions now? could be I suppose) of rounds Obama has been having all the non-military agencies buy... I have heard no explanation... but it certainly dovetails interestingly with his desire to disarm the public; perhaps he is preparing to face a few million very angry people in the next couple of years and will need all the federal agents to be armed and assisting in the effort to disarm the public? (it's interesting to see so many elected democrats taking their masks off now and pushing legislation to grab guns) I do not know and I'm not one to prefer a foil hat, but there are questions that should be being asked, and would be asked if we still had any real journalists.

Parts that positively cannot be assembled in improper order will be.

Working...