Trump Budget: Honest Math Error or Intentional Deception?

The National Aeronautic Space Administration budget for FY 2018 is $19.2 billion. That's a 0.8 percent decrease from current funding levels. It's a 4.4 percent increase over Obama's FY 2017 budget request of $18.3 billion.

The U.S. government funds NASA using federal revenue from income, corporate and other taxes. The Trump administration plans to focus more on public-private partnerships. The budget provides incentives for businesses to partner with the government on space station operations, deep-space exploration and small satellite groups.

It will take a more active role in commercializing new space technologies.

There is $624 million for aeronautics research and development. NASA will collaborate with commercial aerospace companies to create new space exploration technologies. These include new energy-efficient aircraft, solar electric propulsion and robotic satellite servicing. For example, it will work with companies to provide commercial supersonic coast-to-coast flights.

NASA manages the satellite imagery of Earth. It will work with a growing U.S. commercial satellite servicing industry. Other areas of the Earth Science budget are being cut by $102 million. These include research grants and the Deep Space Climate Observatory satellite.

NASA will spend $3.7 billion to further develop the Space Launch System, a heavy-lift rocket. It could carry astronauts to the moon, Mars and deep space. Funds will also support the Orion crew capsule.

It was successfully tested in 2014 and is the first new U.S. design to carry humans in 40 years. It will enable the United States to transport its own crews to the International Space Station. Right now, we have to pay Russia for crew transport. The United States will regain its ability to shuttle its crew and cargo by using commercial partners.

NASA hasn't done this since it retired the space shuttle Discovery in 2012. NASA continues to support research on the space station.

Another $1.9 billion goes toward the 2020 Mars rover mission. NASA will also use its deep-space system to explore asteroids. But the Asteroid Redirect Mission was canceled to save money. This program would have protected Earth from any impacts. It would have identified potential asteroid threats, fly an astronaut to the asteroid and redirect it using solar electric propulsion systems.

[the balance.com
By Kimberly Amadeo
Updated May 24, 2017]



ok problem#1 we cannot solve the drout problem in ca but we want to terraform mars. #2 we need more then mach 5 material to pass through the van allen belt which would cost billions more which i personally think could be spent better. don pettit (head spokesman for nasa) says the tech to go to the moon was destroyed. Then how are we going to mars??? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPjxXJ04XkU

what does anyone think

i love the but i disagree part!!

Boy this idiot is a far cry from the last guy. His budgets were passed unanimously ! { SNICKER}

Vern said:

What policy is it that you think should be implemented? I hope its not "tax cuts" and "deregulating the banks". We've done that. President Obama did want a jobs bill after the stimulus ended that would have helped growth but that's exactly why republicans blocked it.

Click to expand...

Renegotiating trade agreements, definitely tax cuts, a new health care policy ( but one better than republicans have proposed so far ), government spending cuts.
The stimulus itself was supposed to create jobs, and it didn't.

Critter7r said:

ORLY??

Eisenhower (2.6%), Ford (2.3%), Carter (3.3%), Nixon (3.1%), and both Bushes (2.3% & 1.8%) were all below 3.5%, as was Obama (also at 1.8% right there along with Bush 2)

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/d...ich-presidents-have-been-best-for-the-economy




I'd rather we saw slow and steady increases rather than jumping up to 4% suddenly on the hopes of a brighter future with Trump, only to crash back to sub-1% growth when reality sets in.

Click to expand...

Ive already replied to this somewhere in here average annual growth since 1934 has been over 3.6%. yes there were some lackluster and even bad years but most of the years in the 80s 90s was over 3%. the last approximately 10 years have been dismal. we have never had a stretch in our history like that where growth was so bad

ludin said:

that is what I have heard as well. their forecasts are based on very optimistic results. which too me is a danger. if you don't meet that goal then it can come back to bite you.
then again the forecast is 10 years from now and there is nothing to say that any congress has to stick with that plan.

Click to expand...

And that's always an issue, 10 year plans are fragile because you will have a new administration in addition to congressionall issues you mentioned. its good to have a longer term plan but they need to focus on shorter periods.

SocialD said:

Renegotiating trade agreements, definitely tax cuts, a new health care policy ( but one better than republicans have proposed so far ), government spending cuts.

Click to expand...

So just to be clear, the "policies" you think need to be implemented are just conservative slogans. But you do bring up a good point about republican "health care". Certainly you have to realize saying they could do something better for 7 years and then failing as spectacularly as they did they must have been lying. Even you have to suspect something is amiss. So if they lied to you about Obamacare, maybe they were lying about other issues/conservative slogans you hold dear. mmmmm, here's Ryan's opinion of deficit spending

Vern said:

“One of the things that we’re focusing on is getting people back to work, is economic growth,” Ryan told reporters Tuesday. “You can’t ever balance the budget if you don’t get this economy growing.”

GOP concerns about deficits, debt disappear in Trump era | The Seattle Times
.

Click to expand...

yea, that was Paul saying we have to get the economy growing before we can balance the budget. Think about that in context to losing 600,000 jobs a month as GDP was cratering at a depression-esque level of -8.2%. He just admitted that cutting spending in the worst recession since the depression was just a lying agenda to further his party not help America. So pretty much republicans were lying to you about the two most important issues to conservatives the last 8 years, deficits and Obamacare.

The stimulus itself was supposed to create jobs, and it didn't.

Click to expand...

remember SD, the people telling you that are the same people who lied to about the two most important issues to conservatives the last 8 years, deficits and Obamacare.

SocialD said:

Ive already replied to this somewhere in here average annual growth since 1934 has been over 3.6%. yes there were some lackluster and even bad years but most of the years in the 80s 90s was over 3%. the last approximately 10 years have been dismal. we have never had a stretch in our history like that where growth was so bad

Click to expand...

Sure, except for the previous 8 years under Bush 2, which averaged 1.8%.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

SocialD said:

And that's always an issue, 10 year plans are fragile because you will have a new administration in addition to congressionall issues you mentioned. its good to have a longer term plan but they need to focus on shorter periods.

Click to expand...

any budget outside of 5 years to me is worthless.

SocialD said:

Ive already replied to this somewhere in here average annual growth since 1934 has been over 3.6%. yes there were some lackluster and even bad years but most of the years in the 80s 90s was over 3%. the last approximately 10 years have been dismal. we have never had a stretch in our history like that where growth was so bad

Click to expand...

It's the demography. We aren't in a baby boom. We're in a period were the baby boomers are retiring. Jason Furman shows that with baby boomers retiring, 3% growth is very unlikely.

Getting back to the budget itself, as Paul Krugman wrote today: "not only does it invoke $2 trillion in phony savings, it counts them twice." Then, it's both cruel and a double-cross to the very voters who put their faith, like Trump university students, in Mr. T.

While Trump's budget is devastating to people in WV, who nearly a third get Medicaid and who the ACA cut their uninsured rate in half, to be fair, it would protect West Virginians from the ravages of the estate tax, which affects around 20 — that’s right, 20 — of the state’s residents each year.

SocialD said:

1973 was not the peak. 1942 was the peak but that's another matter.
75 years of GDP growth .. from 1934 thru 2008 average GDP growth was 3.877% and even if you include 2009 thru 2017 the average is still 3.646%

During the 80s and 90s and even through 2006 we had quite a number of years that were 3.5 to 4.5%.
Sure there have been some off years but really its the last ~10 years that have sucked. the best year in the last 10 was 2015 with 2.6%.
I have no doubt good policy could increase growth significantly. Most of said policy has not yet been implemented.

Click to expand...

GDP growth in the decades after a financial crisis is always anemic. This isn't just true in the United States, its true everywhere in the world. In fact, despite our anemic growth, we have still done better than any large developed country on earth since 2008.

From a postwar perspective, tax rates are not high today. One could certainly argue in favor of simplifying the tax code (flattening the brackets does not simplify the code, what makes our code complicated is not tax brackets - that is a moronic argument conservatives typically make though). Moreover, there certainly should be some regulatory reform, but I doubt either of those would make much of a difference in GDP growth. We are not going to have a high GDP growth rate when the rest of the world isn't experiencing the same.

Our biggest problem right now though is that we are a very mature high income economy that is not having a lot of kids. This has resulted in a reduction in growth, but its also resulted in a big reduction in economic volatility as well. Moreover, there is not some big advance in productivity on the horizon either (example: mechanization in the 50s and 60s or the tech revolution of the 80s and 90s). The low hanging fruit of doing things like moving inventory management from paper to databases has already been done.