NASA would take a hit with sequestration

NASA / Kim Shiflett

The Space Exploration Technologies, or SpaceX, Dragon spacecraft with solar array fairings attached, stands inside a processing hangar at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla. Sequestration could put SpaceX launches at risk.

By Dan Leone
Space.com

WASHINGTON — To deal with the nearly $900 million budget hit NASA will absorb if automatic spending cuts known as sequestration are allowed to take effect March 1, the U.S. space agency would slow development work on commercially operated astronaut taxis, delay or cancel space technology programs and postpone the launch of some small science missions.

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden outlined the space agency’s sequestration plans in a Feb. 5 letter to Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., who released it following a Feb. 14 hearing.

NASA’s overall budget would drop to $16.9 billion, down from the $17.8 billion Congress approved last year.

Spending on the commercial crew program NASA is using to subsidize development by Boeing, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) and Sierra Nevada of competing human spaceflight systems would be reduced to $388 million — $18 million less than it is currently spending and $441.6 million less than the agency had been planning to spend in 2013. [What NASA's 2013 Budget Pays For (Video)]

NASA, like all federal agencies, has had its funding frozen at 2012 levels under a stopgap spending measure known as a continuing resolution that expires March 28. NASA’s sequestration plan assumes that the continuing resolution will be extended through Sept. 30, the end of the U.S. government’s 2013 fiscal year.

Bolden said NASA’s commercial crew partners would feel a funding pinch as soon as July.

Among the commercial crew activities planned for later this year that NASA would not be able to fund after sequestration are:

  • A July test of Boeing’s CST-100 orbital maneuvering and attitude control engine.
  • A September review of an in-flight abort test SpaceX plans to conduct in April 2014.
  • An October integrated system and safety analysis review of Sierra Nevada’s DreamChaser space plane.

"Overall availability of commercial crew transportation services would be significantly delayed, thereby extending our reliance on foreign providers for crew transportation to the International Space Station," Bolden wrote.

Meanwhile, a sequester would also put the screws to NASA’s Space Technology Program, a White House priority under President Barack Obama. Instead of getting the $699 million sought for the program, NASA would cut its budget back to $550 million, or about $24 million less than it has now.

To absorb the cut, NASA would consider canceling programs now in the development stage, including a highly publicized demonstration of a deep-space atomic clock, which was set to fly as a hosted payload on an Iridium Next satellite scheduled for launch in 2015. Four other space technology programs could also wind up on the chopping block, Bolden warned, and nine others might be delayed.

Small astrophysics and Earth science missions would also suffer under NASA’s plan to reduce the Science Mission Directorate’s budget to $4.86 billion. While that is only $51.1 million less than Science would have received under the agency's 2013 budget request, it is $200 million less than the mission directorate has today.

To absorb the cut, NASA intends to award 5 percent fewer research grants this year and reduce funding for new Explorer- and Earth Venture-class missions by 10 to 15 percent. Bolden said this would result “in lower funding levels for new activities and causing minor launch delays.”

The next missions scheduled for launch in NASA’s Explorer line of small astrophysics missions are the Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph, an ultraviolet observatory slated for an April launch, and Astro-H, an X-ray observatory scheduled to launch in February 2014.

The next Earth Venture launch on NASA’s calendar is the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2, which is supposed to lift off in July 2014.

This story was provided by Space News, dedicated to covering all aspects of the space industry.

Copyright 2013 Space.com, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Discuss this post

Who cares about space, the bullies are gonna get their cuts.

I like cake anyway.

    Reply#1 - Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:06 PM EST

    "if automatic spending cuts known as sequestration are allowed to take effect March 1, the U.S. space agency would slow development work on commercially operated astronaut taxis, delay or cancel space technology programs and postpone the launch of some small science missions."

    wait...what? NASA is building commercial astronaut taxis?

    • 1 vote
    Reply#2 - Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:10 PM EST

    Yeah, turning astronaut and cargo launching over to commercial firms was supposed to get government out of the business of space launches. It was supposed to save money. It was supposed to lower the cost to orbit. None of those things have happened. Instead it is business as usual, with NASA paying contractors fat subsidies to develop and operate spacecraft which have a higher cost per pound to orbit than the 50 year old launchers they duplicate.

    • 1 vote
    #2.1 - Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:33 PM EST

    Well that judgement on cost to orbit is (i) a bit premature and (ii) requires proof. In any commercial launch system, cost savings are usually dependent on having a good rate of launch, a high volume of traffic. Particularly with this "village idiot's delight" path of sequestration, the experience of a usefully high launch rate is going to be deferred.

      #2.2 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:24 AM EST
      Reply

      The search for near earth objects will also be cut. Anyone with half a mind or more now knows that they should be spending much more on NEOs. Or does the attention span of congress not last even 2 weeks. The Feb 15th asteroid could have, just as easily, exploded over New York, and it could have been much bigger.

      • 3 votes
      Reply#3 - Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:17 PM EST

      This is all lies by the President. This is a 2% cut. Dam you people are stupid.

      • 1 vote
      Reply#4 - Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:24 PM EST

      It is a 5.06% cut. Perhaps math is not your thing.

      • 2 votes
      #4.1 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 8:37 AM EST

      It's a decrease in the amount of new spending, not actual cuts compared to past expenditures!

      • 1 vote
      #4.2 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:43 AM EST

      Then why are all these listed budget elements in the article less than the budget amount the various activities have today? Your logic is hokey.

        #4.3 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:27 AM EST
        Reply

        NASA

        Nothing of Any Signifigance to Anyone.

        • 1 vote
        Reply#5 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:15 AM EST

        Just for a point of comparison, may I ask what you are which is of any significance to anyone?

        • 5 votes
        #5.1 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:27 AM EST

        The Integral....you may want to read this ONE article that says your wrong in your assumption.

        P.S. There are THOUSANDS more just like it! Learn to do simple research and you might lose the "open mouth insert foot" disease you have.

        By J.R. Wilson

        In his January 1961 farewell address to the nation, President Dwight D. Eisenhower fretted about the tradition of “the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop [being] overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields.” To be certain, NASA has employed large teams of scientists and engineers in managing its complex missions. But the agency has also encouraged the spark of genius that comes from individual inventors. Significantly, both ways of doing business have resulted in remarkable technical innovations that have served to advance progress in aeronautics research, space science and space exploration as well as benefit people on Earth.

        Happy landings - This low-cost, ballistic parachute system manufactured by BRS, Inc., with the support of three NASA Small Business Innovation Research contracts has saved more than 200 lives.
        Photo credit: Cirrus Aircraft

        As famed heart surgeon Dr. Michael DeBakey, who has collaborated with NASA on one of its most beneficial inventions, an artificial heart pump, has said, “NASA is engaged in very active research. It has as its goal to explore space. But to do so, you’ve got to do all kinds of research – biological research, physical research and so on. So it’s really a very, very intensive research organization. And anytime you have any type of intensive research organization or activity going on, new knowledge is going to flow from it. ”The story of NASA’s tangible impacts on our daily lives may not garner as much attention as dramatic space missions do, but the return on investment to society from NASA’s challenging activities is significant. It was heartening, therefore, when USA Today recently offered a list of the “Top 25 Scientific Breakthroughs” that have occurred in its 25 years, and nine of them came from space, eight directly from NASA. In a speech kicking off NASA’s 50th anniversary year, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said:

        “We see the transformative effects of the Space Economy all around us through numerous technologies and life-saving capabilities. We see the Space Economy in the lives saved when advanced breast cancer screening catches tumors in time for treatment, or when a heart defibrillator restores the proper rhythm of a patient’s heart….We see it when weather satellites warn us of coming hurricanes, or when satellites provide information critical to understanding our environment and the effects of climate change. We see it when we use an ATM or pay for gas at the pump with an immediate electronic response via satellite. Technologies developed for exploring space are being used to increase crop yields and to search for good fishing regions at sea.”

        Technology transfer has been a mandate for NASA since the agency was established by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958. The act requires that NASA provide the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and results. It also provides NASA with the authority to patent inventions to which it has title. The term “spinoff” was invented to describe specific technologies developed by NASA for its missions that are transferred for commercial use or some other beneficial application. Thus far, NASA has documented more than 1,500 spinoff success stories.

        Despite NASA’s record of technological achievement, one of the common complaints from NASA’s advocates is that the agency does not publicize enough of the practical benefits of what it does. It is perhaps an especially daunting task for its engineers and lends credence to the old joke, “How do you tell an introverted NASA engineer from an extroverted one? The extroverted one looks at your shoes when he’s talking.”

        But, there is another side to the story. While lawmakers back in 1958 anticipated NASA’s potential for spurring technological innovation, it is unlikely these legislators largely anticipated even a fraction of the impact the new agency would have as an engine of economic growth, and as a benefactor to society, not just in the United States, but worldwide.

        NASA itself acknowledged just how unknowable, yet inevitable, such a future would be in its second year of existence, 1959, in its Long Range Plan: “Space science activities cover the frontiers of almost all the major areas of the physical sciences and these activities thus provide support of the physical sciences in specific applications in the field of electronics, materials, propulsion, etc., [and] will contribute, directly or indirectly, to all subsequent military weapons developments and to many unforeseen civilian applications.” How right they were! At that time, no one could have anticipated a connection between, say, the International Space Station and restoration of 19th century paintings, between the imaging of Mars and ancient Roman manuscripts, or between astronauts heading to the moon and the safety of the food we eat every day. Nor did they imagine how many thousands of lives would be saved by space-aided search and rescue or by the aforementioned hurricane prediction or by numerous hospital technologies derived from NASA research. Or, another strange connection: the launch pads in Florida and the Statue of Liberty and Golden Gate Bridge.

        It is often said that at least some of the technological developments and advances in science, medicine, engineering and other disciplines that arose – directly or indirectly – from NASA’s programs no doubt eventually would have occurred anyway. When, where and by whom cannot be known – nor how different such developments might have been without the interaction of multiple advances in multiple areas, freely shared, within what has been, in the history of human advancements, the blink of an eye. But there is also no doubt that space is a unique environment, demanding rapid innovation and new ways of thinking, with little tolerance for error. And these demands reward all of us when they spurred creativity and technological invention.

        Remote robotic surgery - Aquanaut Tim Broderick demonstrates a robotic surgical arm on the ninth NASA Extreme Environmental Mission Operations (NEEMO) mission. NASA research aimed at keeping astronauts healthy far from Earth holds great promise for people on Earth.
        Photo credit: CMAS

        The areas in which NASA-developed technologies benefit society can broadly be defined as: health and medicine, transportation, public safety, consumer goods, environmental and agricultural resources, computer technology and industrial productivity. Since 1976, the annual NASA publication Spinoff has detailed the influence and impact on society of agency activities. More detail on these and other programs, technologies and spinoffs can be accessed through NASA’s Spinoff data base or accessed on NASA’s Web site, www.nasa.gov. Also, since 1990, NASA has recognized its “Government and Commercial Invention of the Year” and, since 1994, the “Software of the Year.” The following examples, shown by the year they were published in Spinoff, are merely indicative of NASA’s positive societal impact over the years.

        1978: Teflon-coated fiberglass developed in the 1970s as a new fabric for astronaut spacesuits has been used as a permanent roofing material for buildings and stadiums worldwide. (By the way, contrary to urban myth, NASA did not invent Teflon.)

        1982: Astronauts working on the lunar surface wore liquid-cooled garments under their space suits to protect them from temperatures approaching 250 degrees Fahrenheit. These garments, further developed and refined by NASA’s Johnson Space Center, are among the agency’s most widely used spinoffs, with adaptations for portable cooling systems for treatment of medical ailments such as burning limb syndrome, multiple sclerosis, spinal injuries and sports injuries.

        1986: A joint National Bureau of Standards/NASA project directed at the Johnson Space Center resulted in a lightweight breathing system for firefighters. Now widely used in breathing apparatuses, the NASA technology is credited with significant reductions in inhalation injuries to the people who protect us.

        1991: Tapping three separate NASA-developed technologies in the design and testing of its school bus chassis, a Chicago-based company was able to create a safer, more reliable, advanced chassis, which now has a large market share for this form of transportation.

        1994: Relying on technologies created for servicing spacecraft, a Santa Barbara-based company developed a mechanical arm that allows surgeons to operate three instruments simultaneously, while performing laparoscopic surgery. In 2001, the first complete robotic surgical operation proved successful, when a team of doctors in New York removed the gallbladder of a woman in France using the Computer Motion equipment.

        1995: Dr. Michael DeBakey of the Baylor College of Medicine teamed up with Johnson Space Center engineer David Saucier to develop an artificial heart pump – based on the design of NASA’s space shuttle main engine fuel pumps – that supplements the heart’s pumping capacity in the left ventricle. Later, a team at Ames Research Center modeled the blood flow, and improved the design to avoid harm to blood cells. The DeBakey Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD) can maintain the heart in a stable condition in patients requiring a transplant until a donor is found, which can range from one month to a year. Sometimes, permanent implantation of the LVAD can negate the need for a transplant. Bernard Rosenbaum, a Johnson Space Center propulsion engineer who worked with the DeBakey-Saucier group said, “I came to NASA in the early 1960s as we worked to land men on the moon, and I never dreamed I would also become part of an effort that could help people’s lives. We were energized and excited to do whatever it took to make it work.”

        2000: NASA’s “Software of the Year” award went to Internet-based Global Differential GPS (IGDG), a C-language package that provides an end-to-end system capability for GPS-based real-time positioning and orbit determination. Developed at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the software is being used to operate and control real-time GPS data streaming from NASA’s Global GPS Network. The Federal Aviation Administration has adopted the software’s use into the Wide Area Augmentation System program that provides pilots in U.S. airspace with real-time, meter-level accurate knowledge of their positions.

        2000: Three Small Business Innovation Research contracts with NASA’s Langley Research Center resulted in a new, low cost ballistic parachute system that lowers an entire aircraft to the ground in the event of an emergency. These parachutes, now in use for civilian and military aircraft, can provide a safe landing for pilots and passengers in the event of engine failure, midair collision, pilot disorientation or incapacitation, unrecovered spin, extreme icing and fuel exhaustion. To date, the parachute system is credited with saving more than 200 lives.

        2005: Two NASA Kennedy Space Center scientists and three faculty members from the University of Central Florida teamed up to develop NASA’s Government and Commercial Invention of the Year for 2005, the Emulsified Zero-Valent Iron (EZVI) Technology. Designed to address the need to clean up the ground of the historic Launch Complex 34 at KSC that was polluted with chlorinated solvents used to clean Apollo rocket parts, the EZVI technology provides a cost-effective and efficient cleanup solution to underground pollution that poses a contamination threat to fresh water sources in the area. This technology has potential use for the cleanup of environmental contamination at thousands of Department of Energy, Department of Defense, NASA and private industry facilities throughout the country.

        A dome with 80,000 views - Atlanta’s Georgia Dome contains a Teflon-coated fiberglass roof that is a spinoff of fabric developed by NASA for spacesuits.

        Beyond recognizing the value of these technologies, it is also inspiring to learn the story of the people behind the innovation. Consider the case of Dr. Rafat Ansari, a longtime scientist at NASA’s Glenn Research Center, who, while working with fluid physics experiments conducted by astronauts in space, found an unusual use for a NASA device when his father faced the challenge of cataracts. The physics experiments looked at colloidal systems, small particles that are suspended in liquids, a description which also happened to fit the nature of his father’s eye disease. In a flash of insight, Ansari realized that the instrument being developed as part of the colloids experiment might be able to detect cataracts – possibly earlier than ever before. The device is now being used to assess the effectiveness of new, non-surgical therapies for early stages of cataract development. It is also being adapted as a pain-free way to identify other eye diseases, diabetes and possibly even Alzheimer’s. The device also may have an unexpected return for NASA: It has been investigated as a possible medical tool for astronauts, who may develop cataracts as a side effect of the kind of radiation exposure that they might experience in long-duration spaceflight. Perhaps as interesting is the motivation that space provided to Ansari to pursue a career in science. He says it traces entirely to a single moment: when he was 9 years old in Pakistan, and he saw the live, grainy television images of people walking for the first time on the moon.

        This example illustrates how NASA’s extraordinary goals inspire exceptional minds. It also shows how the aforementioned strange connections can come about. Just how are the International Space Station and old artwork related? Well, atomic oxygen found hundreds of miles above Earth attacks and very gradually destroys materials used in satellites and spacecraft. NASA built a facility here on Earth that bombards materials planned for the ISS with atomic oxygen to test their durability. NASA Glenn Research Center engineers Bruce Banks and Sharon Miller realized that their atomic oxygen facility could be used in a positive, rather than destructive way: It could gradually remove unwanted material from surfaces without ever needing to touch or rub them. Their invention has been used to restore two 19th century paintings coated in soot from a church fire in Cleveland, Ohio; the technique also restored a vandalized Andy Warhol painting for the Pittsburgh Museum of Art. In both cases, no existing art restoration methods would work. Again, the unique demands of space exploration created unique innovation here.

        How about food safety? Well, NASA invented a system (really a seven-step guide to monitor and test food production) to try to assure that the astronauts on the way to the moon would not get food poisoning. Twenty-five years later, the Food and Drug Administration and the Agriculture Department adopted that safety system for all of us, and a year later, according to industry, the number of cases of salmonella dropped by a factor of two.

        Today, the Statue of Liberty and the Golden Gate Bridge are coated in a protective material that NASA needed to invent to save its launch pads from the destructive effects of hot, humid and salt-laden air.

        Finally, the multispectral imaging methods used for seeing and understanding the Martian surface have been applied to, as the Chicago Tribune noted in 2006, “badly charred Roman manuscripts that were buried during the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in A.D. 79. Examining those carbonized manuscripts under different wavelengths of light suddenly revealed writing that had been invisible to scholars for two centuries.”

        All of these examples only begin to tell the story. While their existence is a source of pride, we must realize that America did not create the space program with the idea of gaining these collateral benefits. But through its proven record of developing new technologies, it is likely that in the next 50 years NASA will continue to inspire whole new industries, revolutionize existing ones, and create new possibilities for the future, benefiting people everywhere.

        Howard Ross also contributed to this article.

        • 3 votes
        #5.2 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:16 AM EST
        Reply

        these guys at nasa need to start selling off 40 % in shares -let private companies invest and work together

        also if you actually billed projects as the search for god the church would get involved

        it really is a search for god in away because it is understanding the framework of the universe which apparently he created so science really is the search for how the universe is created-no one says you have to believe

        anyway to have someone who knows ancient texts and languages like those guys do-they know Latin and other forgotten languages

        maybe it would be wise to get proper translations of texts from history-maybe there are clues

        especially if we have been visited because they would have to construct a language simple enough to communicate much like the icons and pictures on the pyramids in eygpt and s.america

          Reply#6 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:20 AM EST

          why not buy Kennedy and lease it to private companies as a launch sight -works into ways -we get to share the science of other scientists and they get to launch a space ship

          seems like a good trade to me

          lets lead the way in exploration and limitless possibilities

            Reply#7 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:27 AM EST

            the wont complain if

            NASA SAVES THE ICE CAP

            ok if this would work I would like to be in on it and get paid in money and a job with you and I can't get fired!!!!!

            so I don't think it would be to hard for you guys to place 5-6 satellites between the sun and the arctic

            you could use fan shaped sails that act like a polarized lens to block excess heat and uv coming through

            using a formation we could cast a shadow over the arctic letting in the correct lighting

            the optimum lighting would be grey and overcast so not much of a darkness-just enough to cool it so it freezes together in a natural way that color would also be the best for sunglasses on the eyes

            we need more reflective surfaces to attach some to the Russian space station

            YOU HAVE TO SHOW THEM ALL THE PROGRESS YOU GUYS HAVE MADE_LOOK AT THE SCIENCE PAGES IN THE HUFFINGTON POST_IT"S AMAZING

            but no one gets to hear about it because of the chaos in the government and the nation who worries about paying the bills

            so them the incredible findings

            blow it up -just show them and you'll get the money you need

            wouldn't help saving the planet though-that would ensure the history books

              Reply#8 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:48 AM EST

              Black Ops won't take a cut. They never have. They have been operating since the '50s with our taxpayer money outside the legal confines of Congress and the Constitution.

                Reply#9 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 7:36 AM EST

                Just cut the loon James Hansen and his entire gorebull warming program program and it would be of GREAT benefit to the USA!

                  Reply#10 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 8:48 AM EST

                  Citizens,
                  Personally I would double NASA's Budget, as the song goes "twice nothing is nothing". Every tax payer would need to buy the equivalent of two family (each 2 adults two children) movie tickets to double the NASA budget.

                  The fiscal cliff resolution applies a higher 39.6% commoner rate accommodating a 20% capital gains gentile rate, and does not balance the budget. This mandate sets rates at less than 2011 Federal Income Single Standard deduction, a $40k tax threshole for married, and covers Obama-Care, Medicaid, Social Security, eliminating all other Federal taxes. It eliminates the deficit and sequestration, a $3.8 Trillion federal revenue. In My Humble Opinion based on 2011 national income data, and will only require House of Representative action.
                  Email this to your Representative and Senators.
                  -
                  Honorable Senator/Representative/POTUS,
                  Stop Sequestration.
                  This is a mandate for a Federal income tax system that funds Federal, Health (Obama-Care and Medicare) and Social security. One Margin level will yield the $3.8T revenue: %0-$20k 0% tax rate, $20k upwards 35% flat rate, income bundled and taxed in summation form, couples freely share, no business tax and no exemptions. The rate is less than 2011 single standard at under $200K. The Federal Reserve sets the rates, mandated to maintaining monetary value and supply.

                  Thank you for your immediate attention,
                  Your constituent [Zip Code]
                  -
                  This proposal would require a National Level of politics that reaches amendment level approval. This would require a national constituency letter writing outcry, that which has not been seen.

                    Reply#11 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 8:57 AM EST

                    No thanks. The only thing I will be happy with is if the federal government makes serious cuts. We aren't going to tax our way out of this mess.

                    • 1 vote
                    #11.1 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:39 AM EST

                    fool, we raised revenues before to balance the budget. we can, and at this time now should, do more of it again to balance these insanely stupid, counterproductive meat axe budget cuts!

                      #11.2 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:33 AM EST
                      Reply

                      Morbas, I'd rather see the government cut down to where a ten percent tax does the job.

                      • 1 vote
                      Reply#12 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:13 AM EST

                      The sky is falling the sky is falling. I'm sick of the scare tactics that the ol govt. is trying to pull on the American public. The federal budget has gone up 20% in the last 4 years. My pay, well, 2% and it's down 45% from the most I've made. BFD, I deal with it and so can the government. I'm low middle class in earning now. The government needs to learn to cut like most of the rest in the U.S. have done and quit looking for more to spend!

                      • 1 vote
                      Reply#13 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:35 AM EST

                      @ when will it end-2085868,

                      The data says that relative to GNP, the budget is a declining share. Please show your references, as I question your assertions of the last 4 years.

                      • 2 votes
                      #13.1 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:42 AM EST

                      Spending was 5.34 Trillion in 2008. It was 6.28 Trillion in 2012 and GNP . GNP in 2008 was 14.4 Trillion. GNP in 2012 was 16.05. Percentage of federal spending/GNP has gone from 37% to 39%. You can look it up. It isn't hard to find.

                      • 1 vote
                      #13.2 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:53 AM EST

                      Crickets...........

                      • 1 vote
                      #13.3 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:20 AM EST

                      show me your references, I'm not buying that spin.

                      • 1 vote
                      #13.4 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:35 AM EST

                      reterry, how lazy are you? Look it up.....and feel free to send in your surplus income to the feds to fix their spending problem. You are the ignorant fool and I feel sorry for you...

                      • 1 vote
                      #13.5 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:47 AM EST

                      you made the claim, you prove it!

                        #13.6 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:52 AM EST

                        If you're too lazy to look up federal spending and GNP for 2008 and 2012 I'm not doing the foot work for you. Christ, basically you're telling me your either too dumb or lazy to be informed.

                        • 1 vote
                        #13.7 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:57 AM EST

                        no, I telling you that I need to see the character and quality of your sources for those dubious quantitative statements!

                          #13.8 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 11:11 AM EST

                          @when will it end-2085868, I double that bet, show your references.

                          Wiki/2012_United_States_Federal_Budget $3.795547Trillion. (3.80T)

                          Wiki/2011_United_States_Federal_Budget $3.630Trillion. (3.63T

                          -----

                          2011 GNP $15.6T

                          2012 GNP $16.1T

                          http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/GNP.txt

                          ---

                          2011 Budget/GNP = 0.244

                          2012 Budget/GNP = 0.225

                          when will it end-2085868, As a christian, iI must forgive you for being utterly wrong.

                          • 1 vote
                          #13.9 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 11:15 AM EST

                          2012 GNP $16.1T, Budget $3.795547T: Budget/GNP=3.80/16.1 = 0.236 .

                          2011 GNP $15.6T, Budget $3.630T: Budget/GNP= 3.63/15.6 = 0.233 .

                          2010 GNP $14.948T, Budget $3.752T: Budget/GNP=3.75/15.0 = 0.25 .

                          2009 GNP $14.310T, Budget $3.51T: Budget/GNP= 3.5/14.3 = 0.25 .

                          Obama Economics shows a GNP growth and a reduction of budget/GNP ratio.

                          2008 was the result of a Bush-Republican economic Catastrophy.

                          • 2 votes
                          #13.10 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 11:47 AM EST
                          Reply

                          @J.Clarke,

                          Deficit is an imbalance between revenue and expendature(s). Expendature(s) are defined by a Nation's needs. The top 16 federal expendatures were poled, and in every category the people poled did not target cuts (msnbc), and could be spun as increases. The federal budget is $3.8 trillion. Federal plus state plus municipality is greater than $8.06 trillion. The sum total of all personal income is $12.98 trillion. Thus, the governments are operating at 62 percent of total personal income (based on 2011 datum). The three governments of America provide the necessary infrastructure levels.

                          Now I know your point, I started this investigation thinking the same level. But, after investigation 10% does not even minimally sustain infrastructure let alone meet future needs.

                            Reply#14 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:38 AM EST

                            Sorry Morbas, the government is spending too much! Cuts, cuts and more cuts!

                            • 1 vote
                            #14.1 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:41 AM EST

                            @when will it end-2085868, guessing sequestration is your bag of tea. Do you feel the tax structure is fair at this time?

                              #14.2 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:51 AM EST

                              I think the bloated federal government is spending too much money, PERIOD. Tax structure, that another story, no I don't think it's fair but spending is the biggest problem. If the government isn't willing to make cuts like the general population has to I for damn sure don't want to give them more money.. Yes, I'm all for the sequestration to begin. I wish the mandatory cuts were more.

                              • 1 vote
                              #14.3 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:55 AM EST
                              Reply

                              The sequestration was and remains a bad idea, forged to try and motivate better ideas, but now grabbed in a fit of anal frenzy by the Grand Obstructionist Poopies to provide some theater to their pridefully ignorant base of voters, all sucked in by the WISH Economics of the Laffer Curve and other trickle down fantasies.

                              Our spending of research and development in technology and the physical sciences, as a fraction of GDP, has been declining for forty years! If you want to provide the tax base to really solve the fiscal imbalance generally, then the absolute last thing you want to do is to strangle cutting edge R&D that can (and has) paid back 10-to-1 in terms of future, cumulative economic value. We are already paying a heavy price for such dismal science funding, the sequester is just one more troglodyte level exercise in hooting ignorance!

                                Reply#15 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:50 AM EST

                                Fricken special interest groups. Cut spending but don't cut my pet sh!t. reterry, people like you are 1/2 the problem...

                                • 1 vote
                                #15.1 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:53 AM EST

                                so are you Red State boys ready to cut your pet sh!t? like oil subsidies, farm subsidies, corporate jet subsidies, subsidies for exported jobs overseas, etc, etc,

                                NONE of those direct or implicit subsidies provide for new economic growth and jobs, they just keep the fat cats fat and Teapot GOP paid for in office.

                                  #15.2 - Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:59 AM EST
                                  Reply
                                  You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                  As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.