re: #298 Obdicut

No, because that’s not true. why are you saying it is? You’re admitting the White House proposed that 1.1 billion that the GOP is cutting, right?

$5.4 Billion - $1.1 Billion for new satellites = $4.3 Billion which is the total the repubs came up with. You can’t argue with the numbers. Funding for everything the NOAA does, minus the new satellite program, is not being cut.

Again, the sattellites really are reaching the end of their useful lives. They are going to start failing. When they do fail, you can’t just chuck one up there in an afternoon. Your bizarre claim that you know better than scientists on this one is crazypants.

Find me the contention from anywhere that we’re about to lose satellite coverage.

Even if it were an upgrade, it’s for a useful service, as I provided above— if it could be shown that that expenditure would save more money, then it would still make fiscal sense. That would make this an actual need: anytime you can do something in a cheaper way, or save money by doing it, that’s a wise fiscal choice.

Setting ourselves up for spending more money down the road is going to add to the deficit. Not doing this satellites now is going to add to the deficit.

Penny-wise and dollar-foolish: it’s what passes as fiscal conservatism these days.

A.) Everything is moving closer to the end of its useful service. Does that mean we need to go ahead and replace every piece of federal equipment since it would be cheaper to do it now rather than later?

B.) Back up those numbers ($2 to $3.5 billion) they toss out or admit they pulled them out of thin air based on the belief that everything gets more expensive over time.