Bush to Propose Budget Increase for NASA ($500M for 2004)

REUTERS ^ | Sunday, February 2, 2003; 7:22 PM | Reuters

[FreeReign]

Excuse me if I failed to include every word of your post in my response.

This is what you said, I said: The discretionary budget increase for NASA is about 3%. That means that you pay LESS for this program than you did last year.

This is what I really said -- The discretionary budget increase for NASA is about 3%. Inflation plus population growth in this country went up around 4% for the year. That means that you pay LESS for this program than you did last year.

I think there is a big difference in the two -- you don't.

[FreeReign]

It was not I who threw down the gauntlet with, What part of this don't you understand?". In my opinion this is a rather confrontational approach to a civil discourse.

It is a bit confrontational yes, but I think that your first post is what laid down the gauntlet.

[FreeReign]

The discretionary budget increase for NASA is about 3%. Inflation plus population growth in this country went up around 4% for the year. That means that you pay LESS for this program than you did last year. What part of this don't you understand?

This statement, while probably true, would only make your premise accurate if the population increased by adding taxpayers. Last time I looked, most newborns have about 16 to 18 years before they get placed on the tax rolls.

Actually, the 1% increase in population has been very uniform. Thus, the 1% increase also applies to new tax payers.

The 2004 budget for NASA will cost taxpayers less then the 2003 NASA budget. I think that is a cut -- you don't.