• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

GOP to cut 40% from hurricane forecasting

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
HomerJS said:
I'll go out on a limb any say the Republicans(see below OP) are getting the wrong message from God. The correct message just may be, keep screwing the people and you will see directly what can result.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32196975&postcount=1


The GOP has a distinct history of cutting support for programs that are directly related to public safety and it comes back relatively soon to bite them and all of us in the ass.

Late 2004 the Bush administration cut funding requested by the Army Corps of Engineers for New Orleans. Less then 1 year later we had Katrina.
http://www.factcheck.org/article344.html



http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/26/hurricane_funding


And now they want to cut funding to the hurricane hunter flights...


During Hurricane Irene, Eric Cantor said we have to have budget cuts to fund FEMA. Interesting stance since we are in the heart of hurricane season. For the sake of the country I hope the Republican streak ends here.
Click to expand...

If they cut funding for the Near Earth Object Program, I'm moving into NORAD.
 
Yeah, let's cut out some from all of the programs that benefit the general public and while we're at it, let's also cut out all those tax loopholes that benefit only the very rich and the corporations they own. Deal?
 
First, the thread title is wrong/misleading due to omission.

Read this from the article:

Of course, America's Republican-demanded White House-encouraged austerity budget includes cuts to the NOAA. Cuts that will delay -- by years -- the construction and launch of an extreme weather forecasting satellite. So let's hope there aren't any serious hurricanes in 2016, I guess?
Click to expand...

So, if I understand the article correctly, they are saying the WH encouraged this? Yet (not) amazingly the WH/Dems are absent from the headline. And the rest of the article too.

Also of question is the use of the term "cuts". What's been cut according the article is a NEW satellite. Accordingly, NOAA could be getting even more money next year and there may not be any cuts at all. You don't buy new satellites each year.

I think it of concern, if as the person claims, we'd face a period of time without a satellite asset, but I'd like hear others' opinions on that.

Otherwise, looks a lot like another (political) spin article. Why can't we have an article that says the GOP and WH are not going to approve a brand new satellite for NOAA and then opinions from both sides about any possible future loss of satellite help. It may be that others feel the existing satellite will last sufficiently long.

IMO, the remarks below shouldn't be included unless you're doing a political op ed (so, I guess that what this is, too bad not labeled as such0:

This is an old story: Before or after a natural disaster, you can usually find a Republican who wanted to cut funding for departments and organizations that predicted and protected people from said disaster.

Remember when Louisiana governor and poor public speaker mocked the concept of funding for "volcano monitoring" and then a volcano promptly erupted in Alaska? And remember how after Eric Cantor pushed for across-the-board budget cuts for the United States Geological Survey, his district was hit with an earthquake? And remember how the House Republican budget cut funding to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and then there was an earthquake and tsunami in Japan?
Click to expand...

This crap has nothing to do with the satellite issue.

Fern
 
Atreus21 said:
I want it to remain an advanced, developed country.

Which does not have anything to do with our ability to forecast or not forecast hurricanes.
Click to expand...

Being advanced means minimizing property damage and injuries death due to hurricanes, doesn't it? What does being developed or advanced mean to you?
 
The Hurricane Hunters collect invaluable information on the hurricanes that is then used to fairly accurately forecast the path of the hurricane. Without this information we will have shitty track forecasts. If you thought Irene was over-hyped, wait until there is no flight data in the forecasts.

People who know nothing about science should not be making policies on it.
 
Atreus21 said:
How on earth did humans even survive before we had hurricane forecasts?
Click to expand...


Before we had good hurricane forecasting, hurricanes such as the Galveston hurricane of 1900 killed 8-12 THOUSAND people. And, these weren't dumbasses who refused to evacuate when told to - they didn't have a clue it was coming. Most modern hurricanes only kill in the dozens of people - the hurricane that struck your location recently being an exception due to an abundance of stupid people who refused to evacuate. Speaking of stupid people at your location...
 
Last edited:
eskimospy said:
Fern, it's a Salon.com article. They are a self described online tabloid.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what that means, but they're not a 'tabloid' in terms of being like the 'aliens disguised as American's cats and dogs' type tabloid.

They're a 'serious' political publisher along with quite a bit more frivolous, but not in the 'trashy tabloid' manner.

They have been headed by Joan Walsh who is a regular political television commentator, publish Glenn Greenwald, have had journalists like Eric Bohlert.

They've broken serious stories such as co-breaking the Abu Ghraib photos (with CBS IIRC).

Generally they're a fine reference source.

On other things, they can be a bit 'amateur hour', but that's pretty harmless; television commentary, advice column, and so on. So do newspapers.
 
HomerJS said:
I'll go out on a limb any say the Republicans(see below OP) are getting the wrong message from God. The correct message just may be, keep screwing the people and you will see directly what can result.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32196975&postcount=1


The GOP has a distinct history of cutting support for programs that are directly related to public safety and it comes back relatively soon to bite them and all of us in the ass.

Late 2004 the Bush administration cut funding requested by the Army Corps of Engineers for New Orleans. Less then 1 year later we had Katrina.
http://www.factcheck.org/article344.html



http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/26/hurricane_funding


And now they want to cut funding to the hurricane hunter flights...


During Hurricane Irene, Eric Cantor said we have to have budget cuts to fund FEMA. Interesting stance since we are in the heart of hurricane season. For the sake of the country I hope the Republican streak ends here.
Click to expand...

When they talk about "small federal government" this is what they have to be talking about.
 
EagleKeeper said:
The federal budget has to be cut; nothing should be exempt; Save the Hurricane flights; then take those cuts funds and add them to another program to gut even worse.

The time has come to pay the piper; both sides agreed to that concept.
Click to expand...

Well, I'd agree that nothing should be exempt from CONSIDERATION. But responsible budgeting shouldn't involve just taking a chainsaw to random parts of the budget. If we really want to balance the budget, Congress needs to go through everything we spend money on and come up with a cost/benefit analysis for each item. Then cut non-essential programs that don't give us good return on our investment. If that process has been done and resulted in what Republicans frequently seem to want to cut, I'd be amazed.
 
Siddhartha said:
When they talk about "small federal government" this is what they have to be talking about.
Click to expand...


Given their past performance, the Repubs have two distinct versions of "small government": The one that is devoid of any social programs, regulatory agencies, immoral gov't sponsored research programs and any Dept. that cannot be corrupted in a way that serves the rich; in other words, their idelogical wet dream come true. The other version is the one that is totally bloated and occupied by party loyalists, corporate owned lackys, trusted friends and family members and the intelligence agencies and military services that is the extended eyes, ears, mouth and iron fist of the profiteering corporations. Oh yeah, let's not forget a judiciary that is completely populated by Christian Fundamentalists and corporate owned and trained lawyers.
 
PokerGuy said:
What part of "we are out of money, we need to make cuts" do you dimlibs not understand? Money does not grow on trees. If someone wants to keep the funding for the hurricane hunters, that's great, show me what to cut then.

Is there anything other than spending more money that democrats support?
Click to expand...

We aren't out of money- we just refuse to tax our rich appropriately, in line with the rest of the first world.

That won't solve everything, but it's a start in the right direction. It's all too easy for those at the top to demand austerity from the rest of us while they sacrifice nothing. Lead by example, gentlemen- make some sacrifices of your own. It's not like you can't afford it.

There's no reason everything has to be Cut, cut, cut! other than the raving anti-gubmint ideology of the Right.

Maybe we could reduce some of the Ag subsidies to save money- I haven't noticed any farm state Repubs calling for any sacrifice by their own wealthiest contributors...

Or maybe we could look at some truly radical tax changes, like this-

http://www.apttax.com/
 
PokerGuy said:
What part of "we are out of money, we need to make cuts" do you dimlibs not understand? Money does not grow on trees. If someone wants to keep the funding for the hurricane hunters, that's great, show me what to cut then.

Is there anything other than spending more money that democrats support?
Click to expand...

There's a big different between "we need to make cuts" and "we need to make THIS cut" that you don't seem to understand. And the method of saying you'll cut something unless people find a better place to cut sounds like a suspicious combination of blackmail and total laziness.
 
A federal sales tax, Yanks.

You prove to be so fiscally and socially inept, it is time to grow up into a mature and fiscally conservative state that has the rational and responsibility to handle the fundamentals of modern finance.

Unfortunately this will not happen with a generally stupid population and pandering plus incompetent idealogues as chosen representatives.

The maturity and responsbility is lacking to both implement responsible but tough budget cuts in concert with a rise in taxes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top