The GOP: Bringing Back Infectious Diseases

The Republican Party proposes huge cuts in CDC immunization funding
Wingnuts • Views: 32,286

Here’s the latest front in the GOP’s war on government services that help low-income families: huge funding cuts in the Centers for Disease Control’s immunization and respiratory health programs.

In the past year, California has experienced the worst whooping cough outbreak in more than 50 years, an epidemic that has killed 10 infants and resulted in 6,400 reported cases. But even as the state’s public health officials have struggled to curb the disease, Republicans in Congress have proposed slashing millions in federal funding for immunization programs. Public health advocates warn that these cuts threaten efforts across the country to prevent and contain infectious and sometimes fatal diseases. And they add that lower vaccination rates could eventually result in more outbreaks that endanger public health at a major cost to taxpayers.

The House GOP’s 2011 budget would chop $156 million from the Centers for Disease Control’s funding for immunization and respiratory diseases. The GOP reductions are likely to hit the CDC’s support for state and local immunization programs, the agency’s ability to evaluate which vaccines are working, and its work to educate the public about recommended vaccines for children, teenagers, and other susceptible populations. The CDC especially focuses on serving lower-income families who receive vaccines at state and local health offices and community health clinics, rather than a private doctor’s office.

It seems insane to take away funding for programs that prevent outbreaks of diseases. Immunizations save millions of lives in this country and protect the public at large from wider outbreaks and even epidemics.

It seems insane, that is, until you recognize the pattern behind this and much of the other legislation the Republican Party is frantically pushing in this session of Congress. The GOP is determinedly stripping away every federal safety net for middle class and lower income families — Planned Parenthood, affordable health insurance legislation, collective bargaining, and now even protection against infectious diseases.

(h/t: Obdicut.)

Jump to bottom

351 comments
1 Daniel Ballard  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:22:36am

Great thinking according @ the GOP
End Preventative care, and repeal medical reform. Everybody gets sick, then nobody can afford care. Way to backdoor population control!~//

2 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:22:51am

Cost. Benefit. Analysis. Amongst many other things. Another epic GOP fail.

3 researchok  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:24:55am

Cut the floral plantings along bike paths, not immunization programs.

Idiot GOP priorities.

4 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:25:23am

Stripping away immunization protection is especially stupid since it will increase the presentation of these diseases at hospitals, driving up everyone's costs. This is one of those 'screw the poor' moves that screws everyone.

5 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:26:25am

re: #4 Obdicut

Stripping away immunization protection is especially stupid since it will increase the presentation of these diseases at hospitals, driving up everyone's costs. This is one of those 'screw the poor' moves that screws everyone.

Well, not everyone -- it doesn't screw the GOP's corporate masters.

6 Randy W. Weeks  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:29:43am

More red meat for their idiot base, although how to justify this even to dumb ass teabaggers escapes me.

7 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:29:49am

re: #3 researchok

Cut the floral plantings along bike paths, not immunization programs.

Idiot GOP priorities.

Or cut off Dairy Management which does nothing but provide free PR for the dairy/cheese industry. At 140 million a year, that's about as much as the CDC program mention here. And you help cut down on American's consuming 16 tons of cheese every year.

8 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:30:58am

re: #5 Charles

Yeah, in the short-term the market lives by.

What's really annoying is that this diminishment of the buying power of the US domestic economy is really, really going to hurt us in the long run. A lot of the power the US wields across the world is because we import, because they need us to buy their stuff, and a lot of the innovation in the US is due to consumers having disposable income. With stagnant wages at the lower and middle class, and more income going to health care year after year, the discretionary income is disappearing.

We're looking towards a future where most US citizens spend only on health care, housing, energy, and food.

9 Robert O.  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:31:30am

Say hello to tax cuts!
Say hello to polio, cholera, and rubella!

10 lawhawk  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:34:00am

As I posted in response to Obdicut's initial mention on the ODT,

Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All by Dr. Paul Offit.

It's a very good read on the anti-vax movement, and deals directly with the public health crisis that grows out of non-vaccination for any number of reasons, and he slams the exceptions being considered from routine vaccination because it opens the door for the reemergence of diseases that have deadly consequences like measles, whooping cough, and any number of other ailments.

This should be an essential reading for anyone dreaming of reducing immunizations based on junk science (like the thimerosol, DPT, overloading immune systems, autism, etc. scares). Offit debunks those claims - for instance noting that an infant is exposed to hundreds of thousands of organisms (bacteria, virus, protzoa, fungi, etc.) from the moment the infant leaves the womb, and the immune system is in a constant state of activity such that the inclusion of some additional proteins that form the basis of the vaccines could not possibly overwhelm a developing immune system.

Junk science formed the basis of the autism link, and yet people still buy in to that nonsense. Then, you've got the folks who want to give parents an opt-out to avoid immunizing their kids on any number of grounds, that include religion. All that does is open the door to a reemergence of diseases that we now consider rare - because immunization has eliminated the diseases and the risks associated with them.

Adding still more diseases to the list of those that are rare and/or eliminated is a good thing - and stopping anti-vaccination programs is going to do nothing except cause an increase in costs - both direct in the form of hospitalizations, doctors visits, ER, and indirect, lost wages from work, lost productivity, etc.

This is the wrong policy to be pursuing. It wont save money, and it certainly wont improve public health. What it will do is allow diseases that are rare to reassert themselves with deadly consequences.

11 Robert O.  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:34:52am

But give the GOP credit that they are logically consistent. Once they have destroyed society, and we are left with no public schools, no affordable healthcare, no civil defense, no emergency services, no police force, no labor laws, no environmental protection, and it became every man for himself - like in Somalia - every household will need guns to defend themselves against their neighbors.

12 HappyWarrior  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:35:07am

And knowing this Republican congress, they'll be the first ones blaming Obama and Democrats if an epidemic breaks out. This is just stupid shit. I wish I could be surprised by this but I am not since the current Congress seems to lack any priorities. Really, Boehner, really?

13 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:35:14am

re: #9 Robert O.

Say hello to tax cuts!
Say hello to polio, cholera, and rubella!

A whole new set of "pre-existing conditions". Pre-existing to death, paralysis, blindness, etc.

This is the Know Nothing Party.

14 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:37:08am

It really is striking to look at the legislation being pushed in the House. It's all about protecting the richest people with tax cuts and corporate welfare programs, and stripping away regulations that cut into their profits. In some cases they're trying to outright eliminate whole agencies that act as checks on corporate greed and environment-raping.

And while protecting the tiny minority at the very top, Republicans are simultaneously attacking nearly every program that helps the vast majority who aren't at the top, and hitting hardest at the very poorest people.

I don't think I've ever seen the GOP this crazed.

15 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:37:29am

re: #13 Gus 802

A whole new set of "pre-existing conditions". Pre-existing to death, paralysis, blindness, etc.

This is the Know Nothing Party.

Don't know much about history...
(everybody sing along!)

Don't know much biology...

16 Girth  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:38:31am

re: #7 Gus 802

Or cut off Dairy Management which does nothing but provide free PR for the dairy/cheese industry. At 140 million a year, that's about as much as the CDC program mention here. And you help cut down on American's consuming 16 tons of cheese every year.

How about instead we get rid of that abomination called American cheese? Boring as all hell. Velveeta and Cheez-whiz can stay for special applications (nacho cheese, etc.).

End the scourge of American cheese on burgers! American, fuck no!

Commie libruls tryin' to take away our freedom to choose 'Merican cheese. Arrogant elitists probly don't like plain ol' yeller mustard neither, sonsabitches!

17 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:38:47am

Your future under the GOP.

18 brennant  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:38:48am

re: #14 Charles

But does any of this have a chance at actually passing?

19 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:39:31am

re: #18 brennant

But does any of this have a chance at actually passing?

Won't make it out of the Senate.

20 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:40:33am

re: #19 Gus 802

Well, it's the budget. Eventually something will have to be passed.

21 abolitionist  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:41:07am

It seems insane, that is, until you recognize the pattern ..

Still insane, IMO.

22 Kragar  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:42:49am

Obviously God will protect the worthy from plague and pestilence.

23 Phage  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:42:52am

I'm really starting to feel like we're being dragged, kicking and screaming, back into the dark ages.

24 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:43:07am

re: #20 Obdicut

Well, it's the budget. Eventually something will have to be passed.

True. I was going to add "I hope". Excellent priorities they have. Now imagine if the GOP won the Senate majority in November.

25 brennant  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:43:15am

re: #19 Gus 802

Won't make it out of the Senate.

Couldn't imagine being a Dem in the House right now...

That's not the gavel you hear. It is the collective noise from Dems performing the head/desk routine...

26 abolitionist  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:46:44am

re: #14 Charles

Very unwise of the GOP to be promoting what might be construed as class warfare.

27 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:48:04am

re: #6 LoneStarSpur

More red meat for their idiot base, although how to justify this even to dumb ass teabaggers escapes me.

How to justify to dumbass teabaggers:

1. No one is ever turned away at the ER, so when these kids come down with infectious childhood diseases, their parents will just take them to the ER.

2. When things like scarlet fever and whooping cough killed children by the thousands, America was a stronger, more united country, with a good work ethic, and Christian values. A little scarlet fever is probably good for us. Besides, there's a discredited study in a 1943 medical journal written in Serbo-Croatian that shows that it's medically impossible to die from childhood infectious diseases. Scarlet fever is like radiation. It's good for you!

28 lawhawk  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:48:48am

re: #18 brennant

It's likely to be passed in the House, and the Senate may end up adding back some of that money, but in the end, funding is likely to be cut from its current level.

That's even though vaccination programs are as cost-effective health measures as can possibly be developed and can save money by preventing hospitalizations, death, and improve productivity by not forcing people to take time off to care for sick relatives.

Getting a single CA measles outbreak under control cost $177,000 to public health authorities - and that doesn't include the costs to parents and the health care system for dealing with the nearly 1,000 people who were exposed - with 11 becoming infected and 3 hospitalized, including an infant who was too young to be immunized.

A similar outbreak in WA in 2008 cost over $200,000.

We'd have a whole lot more of that should vaccination programs be cut or more people are able to opt out under laws that claim to provide options to parents to avoid giving vaccines because they object for some reason.

And depending on the disease, all it takes is a herd immunization rate to fall to 80-85% before the disease can reassert itself. That's a worrisome situation to say the least, including those who can't be immunized because of immune-related diseases, are being treated for cancer, suffer from allergic reactions to eggs, etc. These people are putting their entire communities at risk.

29 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:48:51am

re: #18 brennant

But does any of this have a chance at actually passing?

The problem is that these items don't just get rejected as they should -- they're negotiated, and incremental changes are made. The GOP may not be able to cut their full $156M, but chances are good they'll be able to do significant damage. If you read the full article, CDC officials are already preparing for the impact of cuts.

30 Decatur Deb  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:50:07am

What's the TPGOP take on leprosy?

31 Mr. Crankypants  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:50:25am

GOP plan for America:

Get the kids sick and send them to Grandma's house to infect her. We kill off everybody over 75 and Social Security is solved.

32 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:51:00am

re: #30 Decatur Deb

What's the TPGOP take on leprosy?

Something about patriotism, "personal responsibility", and the constitution.

/

33 sproingie  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:51:06am

The Republican Party wants to *kill you*.

But no, Democrats will wring their hands and see if we can't come to a compromise and maybe figure out a way to strip $200M instead.

34 Mr. Crankypants  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:51:10am

re: #30 Decatur Deb

What's the TPGOP take on leprosy?

God inflicts it on the sinful (gays, liberals, non-christians, non-whites, elitists, etc)

35 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:51:57am

re: #30 Decatur Deb

What's the TPGOP take on leprosy?

Other people get it because it's God's will to do so.

36 Decatur Deb  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:52:40am

re: #32 Gus 802

re: #34 PT Barnum

re: #35 oaktree

Why am I always last to get the memos?

37 EdDantes  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:53:25am

Cutting immunization programs? I'm again' it.

38 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:53:49am

re: #36 Decatur Deb

re: #34 PT Barnum

re: #35 oaktree

Why am I always last to get the memos?

Your letter is in the mail. Ignore the loose white powder also in the envelope. It's just talc...

39 Robert O.  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:54:21am

The Tea Party has said they want to "take the country back". They are right: in 1776, there were no vaccinations, no labor unions, no social safety net, no anti-discrimination laws, no environmental laws. But you had FREEDOM, like the freedom to own n-----s as slaves. If you got into a major argument with another person, you settled it with the Second Amendment - see the Burr-Hamilton duel. Since the latter was a signer of the Constitution, who could dispute that this was what the Constitution intended?

40 nines09  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:54:26am

re: #23 Phage

I'm really starting to feel like we're being dragged, kicking and screaming, back into the dark ages.


Not everyone is kicking and screaming. Some are greasing the wheels.

41 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:54:38am

re: #30 Decatur Deb

What's the TPGOP take on leprosy?

It came from the Middle East during the Crusades. Early example of Islamofascist biological warfare against Christian freedom fighters.

//////////////

42 Decatur Deb  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:54:50am

re: #31 PT Barnum

GOP plan for America:

Get the kids sick and send them to Grandma's house to infect her. We kill off everybody over 75 and Social Security is solved.

Won't work, my generation got their shots. (It's kind of nice when the minimum-wage clerk stacking produce at my Walmart has his, too.)

43 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:56:18am

re: #41 SanFranciscoZionist

It came from the Middle East during the Crusades. Early example of Islamofascist biological warfare against Christian freedom fighters.

///

Leprosy is merely the result of decades long liberal and Democratic Party policies.

/

44 darthstar  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:56:29am

I'm so glad I invested in leeches. When people get sick, they'll have to come to me for treatment. And I won't take insurance...only gold.

45 Girth  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:56:53am

re: #30 Decatur Deb

What's the TPGOP take on leprosy?

Jesus can clear that right up.

46 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:57:07am

re: #44 darthstar

I'm so glad I invested in leeches. When people get sick, they'll have to come to me for treatment. And I won't take insurance...only gold.

What about chickens?

47 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:57:25am

re: #45 Girth

Jesus can clear that right up.

Only sinners get leprosy.

48 Kragar  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:57:33am

re: #42 Decatur Deb

Won't work, my generation got their shots. (It's kind of nice when the minimum-wage clerk stacking produce at my Walmart has his, too.)

Why do you hate America?

49 darthstar  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:57:52am

re: #46 SanFranciscoZionist

What about chickens?

When chickens get sick, their gold will be as good as any person's.

50 Robert O.  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:57:57am

re: #30 Decatur Deb

It is caused by sin and is cured by faith in God. Germ theory? That's a scientific hoax like global warming, designed by the devil to test mankind.

51 Decatur Deb  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:58:15am

re: #44 darthstar

I'm so glad I invested in leeches. When people get sick, they'll have to come to me for treatment. And I won't take insurance...only gold.

Walter was asking about medical sources of leeches a while back--never explained why.

52 mr.fusion  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:58:18am
It seems insane to take away funding for programs that prevent outbreaks of diseases. provide heat to the indigent

It seems insane to take away funding for programs that prevent outbreaks of diseases. unwanted pregnancies

It seems insane to take away funding for programs that prevent outbreaks of diseases. unemployment benefits

It seems insane to take away funding for programs that prevent outbreaks of diseases. redefine rape

It seems insane to take away funding for programs that prevent outbreaks of diseases. make it legal to murder abortion doctors

It seems insane to take away funding for programs that prevent outbreaks of diseases. food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers and babies

It seems insane to take away funding for programs that prevent outbreaks of diseases. Head Start

It seems insane to take away funding for programs that prevent outbreaks of diseases. turn away money for High Speed Rail

53 AK-47%  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:00:02am

Best way to stay safe and healthy? DON'T GET BORN!!!

54 aagcobb  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:03:50am

If those shiftless, lazy welfare bums would just get a job, they could afford vaccinations!
/

55 shutdown  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:04:09am

My take on the extreme right wing: It's a bit like a bug zapper. When a particularly fat and obnoxious bug flies into the zapper, there is a lot of noise, bright lights, and a terrible smell. Everybody notices the bug (maybe for the first time in its life), the other bugs are yelling "way to go! make some noise, yo!" and they rejoice over how the smell is stressing out all the people near the zapper.

But in the final analysis, the bug has flamed out, the smell dissipates, the other bugs either fly into the zapper or learn to stay away (but not through evolution, heaven forbid) and life regains some balance. The effect of the bugs self-destructing is to create a flash of light and the stink of death, but there is no lasting harm to the folks in the yard.

56 Killgore Trout  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:04:17am

An interesting report....
Colonel Gaddafi's son 'killed in kamikaze pilot attack on Tripoli barracks'

Colonel Gaddafi suffered a massive personal setback today when one of his sons was allegedly killed in a suicide air mission on his barracks.

Khamis, 27, who runs the feared Khamis Brigade that has been prominent in its role of attacking rebel-held areas, is said to have died on Saturday night.

A Libyan air force pilot crashed his jet into the Bab al-Aziziya compound in Tripoli in a kamikaze attack, Algerian TV reported following an unsubstantiated claim by an anti-Gaddafi media organisation.

57 jaunte  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:04:28am

re: #30 Decatur Deb

What's the TPGOP take on leprosy?

Bootstraps fell off.

58 Decatur Deb  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:05:07am

I'm doing my share to reduce the Social Security tab--just got my old SR500 thumper running again.

59 EdDantes  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:06:38am

I remember when I was five my mom took me to a clinic for a sugar cube and a shot. For a few bucks I was protected from everything but the clap.

60 Kragar  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:07:22am

re: #59 EdDantes

I remember when I was five my mom took me to a clinic for a sugar cube and a shot. For a few bucks I was protected from everything but the clap.

THEY GAVE YOU SUGAR!?!?
///

61 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:09:30am

The recently minted Alex Jones wing of the GOP will be happy with this proposed cut. As will the anti-vaxxers. Meet the new base of the GOP.

62 EdDantes  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:09:55am

re: #60 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

THEY GAVE YOU SUGAR!?!?
///

Indeed. It was the only pleasant part of the ordeal. Sugar was considered medicine in the middle of last century. Good times.

63 Kragar  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:10:12am

Protests spread in Syria

Syrians chanting "No more fear!" held a defiant march Monday after a deadly government crackdown failed to quash three days of massive protests in a southern city - an extraordinary outpouring in a country that brutally suppresses dissent.

Riot police armed with batons chased away the small group without incident, but traces of earlier, larger demonstrations were everywhere: burned-out and looted government buildings, a dozen torched vehicles, an office of the ruling Baath party with its windows knocked out. Protesters burned an office of the telecommunications company Syriatel, which is owned in part by the president's cousin.

64 Sheila Broflovski  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:10:42am

re: #30 Decatur Deb

What's the TPGOP take on leprosy?

Leper colonies!

65 Decatur Deb  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:11:01am

re: #59 EdDantes

I remember when I was five my mom took me to a clinic for a sugar cube and a shot. For a few bucks I was protected from everything but the clap.

Dr Salk came a little too late for many kids. Our parents had a real nightmare set of dieases out there: polio, diptheria, tetanus, and meningitis were major killers. These idiots want to give the bugs a fighting chance again. BBL

66 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:11:31am

re: #64 Alouette

Leper colonies!

Yeah, but aren't colonies like, socialism?

/

67 Decatur Deb  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:11:33am

re: #64 Alouette

Leper colonies!

FEMA colonies.

68 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:12:05am

re: #67 Decatur Deb

FEMA colonies.

Death panels!

That's it. This is the ultimate death panel brought to you by the TGOP.

69 Sheila Broflovski  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:13:35am

re: #66 Gus 802

Yeah, but aren't colonies like, socialism?

/

Not if you make a reality show out of it!

SURVIVOR: Leper Colony
Outwit Outplay Outlast

Lose another limb and you're voted off the island!

70 Sheila Broflovski  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:14:18am

re: #69 Alouette

Not if you make a reality show out of it!

SURVIVOR: Leper Colony
Outwit Outplay Outlast

Lose another limb and you're voted off the island!

Actually nobody ever gets off the island.

71 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:14:39am

Google Alex Jones CDC.

72 Jeff In Ohio  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:20:00am

It's worth noting that the criticism Obama has received from the GOP regarding military action against Libya (he dithered to long, he's not taking the lead, he asked permission) hasn't taken the tact about how we're 'broke.'

The weekend in perspective:

A Tomahawk Missile cost $569,000 in FY99, so if my calculations are correct, they cost a little over $736,000 today assuming they are the same make and model. The United States fired 110 missiles yesterday, which adds up to a cost of around $81 million. That's twice the size of the annual budget of USIP, which the House of Representatives wants to de-fund, and is about 33 times the amount of money National Public Radio receives in grants each year from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which the House of Representatives also wants to de-fund in the name of austerity measures.

[Link: www.cnas.org...]

I'd simply like to note, if the GOP can cut the $156 million from the Centers for Disease Control’s funding for immunization and respiratory diseases, they'll almost pay for another two rounds of tomahawks.
So Bahrain? or the UAE? or both?

73 Kragar  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:21:35am

Yemeni Officials resign, General defects to join protesters

At today's demonstration in Sanaa, crowds heaved armed and uniformed security forces onto their shoulders in celebration after Ahmar's announcement.

But the major general is a polarizing figure in Yemeni politics. He has been a close Saleh ally for years, leading military campaigns in the north against the Shiite Houthi movement, which have thrown their weight behind Yemen’s uprising.

“There are people in this movement that support the Houthis and do not accept Major General al-Ahmar,” says Salah al-Sharaty, a protester from the nearby province of Mahwuit. “They want to prosecute him for the crimes they feel he has committed during the wars in the north.”

Eight ambassadors, 13 lawmakers resign

The military defections come on the heels of a growing number of political resignations from Saleh’s ruling General People’s Congress Party in the wake of Friday's violence, when gunmen opened fire on thousands of demonstrators from rooftops around the demonstration area, killing at least 45.

In the three days since then, at least three acting ministers – including Huda al-Ban, Minister of Human Rights – resigned from the party in protest of the use of force, which many have attributed to Saleh's regime. At least 13 members of parliament have also resigned from the GPC.

74 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:22:18am

Burrito Rage!

MSNBC Video

Ban Taco Bell!

///

75 Jeff In Ohio  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:23:55am

re: #58 Decatur Deb

Nice. I did 6 weeks straight on a Heritage 500 once, with a backpack and a guitar strapped to the sissy bar. Never forget rolling across the Varrazano-Narrows Bridge in a wife beater, sear sucker shorts and cowboy boots after a long haul from New Orleans.

I was young then.

76 MinisterO  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:24:54am

re: #72 Jeff In Ohio

It's worth noting that the criticism Obama has received from the GOP regarding military action against Libya (he dithered to long, he's not taking the lead, he asked permission) hasn't taken the tact about how we're 'broke.'

The weekend in perspective:

[Link: www.cnas.org...]

I'd simply like to note, if the GOP can cut the $156 million from the Centers for Disease Control’s funding for immunization and respiratory diseases, they'll almost pay for another two rounds of tomahawks.
So Bahrain? or the UAE? or both?

I regret that I can only click the little + button once for this.

77 Amory Blaine  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:29:01am

Must be what Americans want. They voted these clowns in even after all their failures.

78 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:33:02am

re: #72 Jeff In Ohio

It's worth noting that the criticism Obama has received from the GOP regarding military action against Libya (he dithered to long, he's not taking the lead, he asked permission) hasn't taken the tact about how we're 'broke.'

The weekend in perspective:

[Link: www.cnas.org...]

I'd simply like to note, if the GOP can cut the $156 million from the Centers for Disease Control’s funding for immunization and respiratory diseases, they'll almost pay for another two rounds of tomahawks.
So Bahrain? or the UAE? or both?

Just a note but the US didn't fire 110 Tomahawks. While the total number isn't know yet the actual story is that 110 Tomahawks were fired by US AND British vessels.

79 Jeff In Ohio  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:36:51am

re: #78 Gus 802

Ah thanks. It looks like someone will have to choose between Bahrain and the UAE, then.

80 myrants  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:36:53am

Cheap labor conservatives.

[Link: www.conceptualguerilla.com...]

81 charlz  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:38:51am

re: #78 Gus 802

Just a note but the US didn't fire 110 Tomahawks. While the total number isn't know yet the actual story is that 110 Tomahawks were fired by US AND British vessels.

hmmm... that article is dated 3/19. ABC news reported this morning that 124 were fired; 122 by U.S,, 2 by Brits. Sorry, no link.

82 EdDantes  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:39:05am

Bobby Burns on unintended consequences:

But Mousie, thou art no thy lane,
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best laid schemes o' mice an' men
Gang aft agley,
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promis'd joy!

83 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:40:11am

So are we going to have a Ron Paul moment?

84 Amory Blaine  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:44:12am

re: #72 Jeff In Ohio

A local radio right wing douchebag is complaining that Obama is rushing in to Libya. Meanwhile the substitute douchebag on Rush today is complaining about Obama dithering.

They sure like to make sure all the points are covered.

85 Kragar  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:45:48am

re: #83 Gus 802

Ron Paul: Libya No Fly Zone Unconstitutional

Texas Congressman Ron Paul has joined the growing chorus of voices opposing President Barack Obama's decision to go to war in Libya without Congressional approval.

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution clearly states that Congress shall have the power "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water."

In a video shot on Friday, Ron Paul calls President Obama's decision to impose a no-fly zone over Libya "an act of war."

"The no-fly zone is unconstitutional because Congress has not authorized it," he says. Watch the full video below.

86 charlz  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:46:37am

re: #81 charlz

hmmm... that article is dated 3/19. ABC news reported this morning that 124 were fired; 122 by U.S,, 2 by Brits. Sorry, no link.

gahhh!!! I swore I'd abstain from citing ABC News again after they reported the other day that the 10-0 U.N. Security Council vote was "unanimous."

87 EdDantes  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:50:29am

re: #85 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I thought the war powers act obviated that clause.

88 theheat  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:51:04am

Stuff like this gives the average Republican - not at the top - reason to beat their chest and join in the war cries of the Republicans at the top.

It's a time-tested phenomenon. Never do the Republicans at the bottom stop and say, "Hey, that means I'm getting screwed. Doesn't anyone care about me?" Never happens. N-e-v-e-r.

No, it's always, "Good! Go GOP! We need to stick it to the 'welfare people.' Goddamn welfare people, anyway. Getting everything for free. Fuck 'em."

You see, to the GOP at large "welfare people" is scarier than any disease the GOP's cost cutting measures might cause to flourish. As long as the lower income GOPs believe it's a war on welfare people, and not them, they'll support it til Doomsday.

(Which is good. Because they dig on the coming of Doomsday.)

89 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:51:30am

re: #85 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Ron Paul: Libya No Fly Zone Unconstitutional

I heard. Of course he's ignoring several factors including a) this is a coalition action including the UN and several nations; b) it's not really an act of war against Libya; c) not this again. :)

90 MinisterO  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:52:34am

re: #84 Amory Blaine

A local radio right wing douchebag is complaining that Obama is rushing in to Libya. Meanwhile the substitute douchebag on Rush today is complaining about Obama dithering.

They sure like to make sure all the points are covered.

It's like when Obama Fails To Kill Pirates became Obama Murders Teenage Somali Pirates. Either way he's a bad guy. Probably a Muslim too.

91 Kragar  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:52:43am

re: #87 EdDantes

I thought the war powers act obviated that clause.

Ron Paul don't care about no clauses.

92 kirkspencer  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:53:38am

My wife keeps saying she thinks "the rich" want to make the US a totalitarian oligarchy. I begin to think she's not being pessimistic enough.

93 Velvet Elvis  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:54:06am

re: #89 Gus 802

I heard. Of course he's ignoring several factors including a) this is a coalition action including the UN and several nations; b) it's not really an act of war against Libya; c) not this again. :)

Of course he also thinks US involvement in the UN is unconstitutional.

94 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:55:29am

It is true that the Tomahawks are expensive. However, they also come with much increased accuracy and minimization of collateral damage. If we choose to take part in military engagements and decide to use less expensive weapons systems it will come at the cost of increased civilian deaths. To that end, the Tomahawks, while expensive, provides a means for minimizing civilian deaths.

95 engineer cat  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:56:33am

re: #84 Amory Blaine

A local radio right wing douchebag is complaining that Obama is rushing in to Libya. Meanwhile the substitute douchebag on Rush today is complaining about Obama dithering.

They sure like to make sure all the points are covered.

whatever happens, they are clear on the point that being president while not republican is unconstitutional

96 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:59:49am

But where is either party explicitly mentioned in the Constitution!!11!!
/

97 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:59:57am

Put another way. Say you live near a military facility and specifically 300 yards from a SAM site. Would you prefer that the navy lob a Tomahawk at that target or that it be bombed by the air force with several loads of 500 pound dumb bombs?

98 researchok  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:01:33pm

re: #97 Gus 802

Put another way. Say you live near a military facility and specifically 300 yards from a SAM site. Would you prefer that the navy lob a Tomahawk at that target or that it be bombed by the air force with several loads of 500 pound dumb bombs?

The better the ordinance, the sooner it ends.

99 AK-47%  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:03:18pm

re: #94 Gus 802

It is true that the Tomahawks are expensive. However, they also come with much increased accuracy and minimization of collateral damage. If we choose to take part in military engagements and decide to use less expensive weapons systems it will come at the cost of increased civilian deaths. To that end, the Tomahawks, while expensive, provides a means for minimizing civilian deaths.

Unless these civilians are potential GOP voters, then they are irrelevant

/

100 I Am Kreniigh!  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:03:19pm

re: #17 Gus 802

Are you kidding? Do you know how much those things cost? I suppose you think the government is going to provide those for all the uninsured?

/

101 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:03:35pm

re: #98 researchok

The better the ordinance, the sooner it ends.

Typically. Another example would be with law enforcement. Say you have a hostage situation. One prefers a sniper as opposed to shooting up the location with 24 cops using sidearms. The sniper will provide more accuracy and minimize death and injury.

102 AK-47%  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:04:16pm

re: #101 Gus 802

Typically. Another example would be with law enforcement. Say you have a hostage situation. One prefers a sniper as opposed to shooting up the location with 24 cops using sidearms. The sniper will provide more accuracy and minimize death and injury.

Depends again on whether or not the hostages are GOP voters

/

103 researchok  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:04:45pm

re: #101 Gus 802

Typically. Another example would be with law enforcement. Say you have a hostage situation. One prefers a sniper as opposed to shooting up the location with 24 cops using sidearms. The sniper will provide more accuracy and minimize death and injury.

All day, every day.

104 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:05:40pm

re: #100 Kreniigh

Are you kidding? Do you know how much those things cost? I suppose you think the government is going to provide those for all the uninsured?

/

Yeah. Think about this too. We already bought those things. Odds are they were probably going to sit in storage unused and be eventually scrapped. Short of another military endeavor. But history has shown that to be true. Most military systems end up being unused and scrapped. That's probably a good thing. But, the money is still spent.

105 researchok  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:07:16pm

re: #104 Gus 802

Yeah. Think about this too. We already bought those things. Odds are they were probably going to sit in storage unused and be eventually scrapped. Short of another military endeavor. But history has shown that to be true. Most military systems end up being unused and scrapped. That's probably a good thing. But, the money is still spent.

I think they call it insurance.

106 researchok  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:08:19pm

All right, I'm off to Atlanta (and Sonny's BBQ).

See you all on Wednesday.

Keep 'em in line, Gus.

107 barflytom  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:09:01pm

156 million is a bit less than 2% of the budget for the CDC.

Considering that Federal spending would need to be cut by about 40% to match tax revenue, it seems the Republicans are being pretty half hearted in their attempts to slaughter millions of impoverished children.

Some of the more hysterical comments here really are, well, hysterical.

108 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:09:01pm

re: #106 researchok

All right, I'm off to Atlanta (and Sonny's BBQ).

See you all on Wednesday.

Keep 'em in line, Gus.

Have a safe trip.

109 AK-47%  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:09:32pm

re: #104 Gus 802

Yeah. Think about this too. We already bought those things. Odds are they were probably going to sit in storage unused and be eventually scrapped. Short of another military endeavor. But history has shown that to be true. Most military systems end up being unused and scrapped. That's probably a good thing. But, the money is still spent.


Think of what they save on training excercises: this sort of training cannot be bought with just money...

110 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:10:55pm

I think we need a new word like Godwin but applied to any action equated with George W. Bush.

Perhaps we can call it a Bushwin?

111 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:12:29pm

re: #110 Gus 802

I think we need a new word like Godwin but applied to any action equated with George W. Bush.

Perhaps we can call it a Bushwin?

Bushlose?

112 Daniel Ballard  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:13:26pm

re: #110 Gus 802

re: #111 oaktree

How about Georgewin?

113 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:13:52pm

re: #111 oaktree

Bushlose?

Argumentum ad Bushism?

Tu Bushque?

//

114 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:14:17pm

re: #112 Rightwingconspirator

re: #111 oaktree

How about Georgewin?

Isn't that also an architectural style?

;)

115 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:15:41pm

re: #112 Rightwingconspirator

re: #111 oaktree

How about Georgewin?

Or is that the architectural style *after* you've rearranged it with Tomahawks or JDAM impacts?

116 lostlakehiker  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:16:40pm

re: #5 Charles

Well, not everyone -- it doesn't screw the GOP's corporate masters.

Actually, them too.

Vaccination isn't safe for everyone. Immuno-compromised individuals may contract the disease from the vaccine, and because of that risk, they cannot safely be vaccinated.

If most people are vaccinated, the population at large will not sustain a chain reaction of infection and transmission. Persons currently undergoing chemotherapy, say, will not be at any real risk, because the disease can't get an epidemic up and running.

This particular proposed spending cut is the pluperfect stupidest cut imaginable. You could zero out spending on electricity for stoplights and do less harm.

///well, no, you couldn't. But dang, it's in the same ball park.///

On the other hand, not all of the spending in the proposed budget brings benefits proportionate to the cost. We're spending far too much. Trillion-plus deficits as far as the eye can see just won't do, and there are limits to how much tax can actually be collected. People work for after-tax income and at sufficiently high rates, raising rates yet further only reduces the revenue realized. This must be clear: how much tax would one get from taxing packs of cigarettes $10 each? $50? $1000?

There must be cuts, and big ones, and these cuts must trim entitlement programs as well as "discretionary" spending. Neither party has bitten this bullet yet. How about making all social security benefits taxable, for example? That would have almost no impact on the after tax SS receipts of the poor or even the middling OK tier, but it would trim back the after tax size of benefits paid to the upper tiers.

How about limiting increases in SS benefits to inflation, rather than indexing those to both inflation and average wages?

How about limiting medicare and medicaid funding of extraordinarily expensive procedures that offer very limited benefits? Liver transplants, heart transplants, etc., for those who will not live much longer whether they get such a transplant or not? Yeah, "death panels". But we all must die sooner or later. Most of us would not spend our kids' inheritance to buy a few more months of life. Why do, collectively, what we would not do for ourselves? It's a perfect instance of the golden rule, if you look at it right: Only ask others to do for you, what you would do for yourself if you could.

117 theheat  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:18:26pm

re: #107 barflytom

Some of the more hysterical comments here really are, well, hysterical.

Note this is for immunization and respiratory health programs.

Just who the fuck do you think that affects?

118 andres  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:20:07pm

re: #116 lostlakehiker

How about companies and the top 2% start paying their fair share too? How about cutting military expenses, especially those the Army considers superflous?

119 recusancy  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:20:33pm

re: #105 researchok

I think they call it insurance.

But I thought the government wasn't supposed to be in the insurance business???

120 Daniel Ballard  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:20:38pm

re: #115 oaktree

Georgewin Tomahawk Moderne style.

121 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:21:23pm

Eddie Izzard on "In-Demand".

Envy me.

122 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:21:26pm

re: #107 barflytom

156 million is a bit less than 2% of the budget for the CDC.

Considering that Federal spending would need to be cut by about 40% to match tax revenue, it seems the Republicans are being pretty half hearted in their attempts to slaughter millions of impoverished children.

Some of the more hysterical comments here really are, well, hysterical.

OK Before I downding this I have a couple of questions.

A) When you say "Some of the more hysterical comments here really are, well, hysterical" are you referring to the comments here?

B) When you say hysterical do you mean in the comedic sense or the psychological sense?

123 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:22:10pm

re: #120 Rightwingconspirator

Georgewin Tomahawk Moderne style.

From the terrain displays I've seen I think the WH40K crowd is very familiar with that building style.

124 MinisterO  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:22:27pm

re: #107 barflytom

156 million is a bit less than 2% of the budget for the CDC.

Considering that Federal spending would need to be cut by about 40% to match tax revenue, it seems the Republicans are being pretty half hearted in their attempts to slaughter millions of impoverished children.

Some of the more hysterical comments here really are, well, hysterical.

Not so fast. The article says

The House GOP's 2011 budget would chop $156 million from the Centers for Disease Control's funding for immunization and respiratory diseases.

According to the CDC's published budget, funding for immunization and respiratory diseases is currently $708 million, so this would be a 22% cut.

125 BishopX  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:22:49pm

re: #116 lostlakehiker

How about raising the SS wage cap from 106,000 dollars per year to 1,000,000 dollars per year? That would solve most of the social security problem.

126 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:25:11pm

Eh. Screw it. That was a driveby from barflytom. He could stand to use a few more down dings.

127 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:29:50pm

There is a segment of the GOP core that is full bore anti vaxxer, and they think that any fed intervention in health must be a plot.

***** I'm going to link a full blown Troofer/Fluoride/Obama's army coming to getyou/Nazi Checkpoints/Adam Kokesh/Paulian youtube site to prove this, you've been warned.*****

[Link: www.youtube.com...]

128 Interesting Times  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:31:26pm

re: #126 Gus 802

Eh. Screw it. That was a driveby from barflytom. He could stand to use a few more down dings.

Ever notice all the justifications for GOP idiocy from these types amount to some variant of the following?

Nothing to see here. No big deal. Hysterical libs being hysterical.

Rich, coming from the same people who dump in their drawers at the OMGFACISTTYRANNICALMUZLIMSOCIALIST in the White House taking away their freee-dums. 9_9

129 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:32:12pm

re: #127 Thanos

There is a segment of the GOP core that is full bore anti vaxxer, and they think that any fed intervention in health must be a plot.

*** I'm going to link a full blown Troofer/Fluoride/Obama's army coming to getyou/Nazi Checkpoints/Adam Kokesh/Paulian youtube site to prove this, you've been warned.***

[Link: www.youtube.com...]

Oh yeah. That's AR15 guy's group.

130 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:33:07pm

re: #107 barflytom

156 million is a bit less than 2% of the budget for the CDC.

Considering that Federal spending would need to be cut by about 40% to match tax revenue, it seems the Republicans are being pretty half hearted in their attempts to slaughter millions of impoverished children.

Some of the more hysterical comments here really are, well, hysterical.

FTFY

131 lawhawk  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:33:23pm

There's a move afoot in NH to cut the cigarette/tobacco taxes by $.10 a pack. The proponents of the move are that it would generate more tax revenue than keeping it at the current rate. Neighboring states have significantly higher tax rates on cigarettes.

132 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:35:38pm

re: #129 Gus 802

Was Kokesh the guy that ran vs. Giffords?

133 Killgore Trout  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:35:50pm

CNN Poll: Most support no fly zone in Libya but not ground troops

According to the survey, 70 percent support the establishment of a no-fly zone by the U.S. and other countries, up from 56 percent a week ago. Twenty-seven percent oppose the move, down 13 points.


I notice this weekend's attempt from the wingnuts to oppose US action has pretty quickly evaporated today. My guess is that it was too stupid, even for the wingnuts.

134 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:36:00pm

re: #132 Thanos

Was Kokesh the guy that ran vs. Giffords?

Nah that someone else. Lee?

135 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:36:39pm

re: #132 Thanos

Was Kokesh the guy that ran vs. Giffords?

Checked. That was Jesse Kelly.

136 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:37:12pm

re: #131 lawhawk

There's a move afoot in NH to cut the cigarette/tobacco taxes by $.10 a pack. The proponents of the move are that it would generate more tax revenue than keeping it at the current rate. Neighboring states have significantly higher tax rates on cigarettes.

Are the bringers of this bill in the pocket of the owners of the convenience and cigarette stores on the borders of the state?
/ (for the most part)

Assuming that the idea is to draw more traffic into your state to buy their cigarettes cheaper, thus getting the state the tax revenue - without getting the added health costs of having more smokers/smoking in your state.

137 iossarian  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:38:55pm

re: #136 oaktree

Are the bringers of this bill in the pocket of the owners of the convenience and cigarette stores on the borders of the state?
/ (for the most part)

Assuming that the idea is to draw more traffic into your state to buy their cigarettes cheaper, thus getting the state the tax revenue - without getting the added health costs of having more smokers/smoking in your state.

The never-ending race to the bottom.

Seriously, they would generate a lot more tax revenue if they legalized the marketing and sale of cigarettes to kids. Bring back Joe the Camel, says I.

138 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:39:23pm

re: #132 Thanos

Was Kokesh the guy that ran vs. Giffords?

He's probably on board.

GOP House Candidate Jesse Kelly Says ‘It’s Our Job To Protect Ourselves’ From Salmonella Outbreaks

QUESTIONER: Given the salmonella outbreaks that we have seen every three weeks, with the chicken industry, with pesticides and what not that they put onto spinach in order to get the salmonella. We have rules and regulations. However there is no rule mandating that they be enforced. Is there some way when you’re in Congress that you’ll have a bill passed that says instead of having companies voluntarily change, mandate that they must change or give them the ability to shut ‘em down and that goes for mining companies or anyone who has hundreds of violations against ‘em.

KELLY: Here’s the thing with that point, that’s the first time I’ve ever had that question. Congratulations on being unique. First shot out of the box, no ma’am. I do not believe that what we’re lacking right now is a lack of regulations on business. [...] You could literally go spit on the grass and get arrested by the federal government if you wanted to right now. [...] More regulation, more federal control, giving Nancy Pelosi more power, is not the solution right now.

QUESTIONER: Who’s protecting us?

KELLY: That’s the thing, ma’am, it’s our job to protect ourselves. Because no one else is going to look out for your best interests except for you. [...]

QUESTIONER: Am I supposed to go to a chicken farmer and say I’d like you to close down because all of your birds are half dead?

KELLY: I’ve not heard a lot about that recently, obviously there’s a new thing that comes along every day. But I know this, every portion of our economy that is heavily regulated doesn’t have fewer disasters, it has more.

139 MinisterO  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:39:35pm

re: #131 lawhawk

There's a move afoot in NH to cut the cigarette/tobacco taxes by $.10 a pack. The proponents of the move are that it would generate more tax revenue than keeping it at the current rate. Neighboring states have significantly higher tax rates on cigarettes.

I saw this over the weekend and just laughed. The assumptions that lead to the conclusion that cutting the tax $0.10 on a $6 pack of cigarettes would generate more tax revenue are quite ludicrous.

140 Romantic Heretic  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:39:49pm

Why do they think the 19th Century was such a great time?

141 lostlakehiker  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:40:17pm

re: #118 andres

How about companies and the top 2% start paying their fair share too? How about cutting military expenses, especially those the Army considers superflous?

Companies are just proxies for groups of individuals. Suppose we zeroed out corporate taxes? There would just be that much more [taxable] income going to individuals, many of those in the top income tiers. Taxing a corporation has the effect of taxing the guy whose 401K has some of that stock in it at the same rate a tycoon pays.

The top 2% pay quite a bit of the whole nation's federal income tax burden as it is. Whether that roughly 50%(?) share (it might be 35%, it might be 55%, I can't find a link offhand and don't have time to dig one up) is fair or not is a matter of opinion. Whether it can be nudged higher without running into the Laffer curve is a question of fact. We could try it and see.

It should be kept in mind that there are costs to the economy at large from levying and collecting taxes. Each dollar actually raised costs the taxpayer not just that dollar, but some amount in compliance and avoidance costs.

Squeezing out the last drop of revenue, at the very hump of the Laffer curve, costs a lot in compliance and avoidance costs. Income not earned, because the after tax remnant left to the taxpayer is unattractive, translates into income not going round and round in the economy.

It's not so easy as it sounds to simply double the amount levied on the rich. There are too few of them, they react intelligently to whatever tax law is written, and there are all sorts of negative side effects.

So long as we're taking in 20% of GDP via federal taxes, and spending 30% or more, (again, the figures are rough and only illustrative), we cannot balance the budget with marginal tax increases on the rich. They'd have to be drastic. Can drastic tax increases be imposed, and made to stick, and made to pay off? Resentment is not a good foundation for tax policy. One has to look at the likely long term consequences.

143 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:40:29pm

re: #139 MinisterO

I saw this over the weekend and just laughed. The assumptions that lead to the conclusion that cutting the tax $0.10 on a $6 pack of cigarettes would generate more tax revenue are quite ludicrous.

As a smoker let me just say that 10 cents wouldn't make a spit of difference in my buying habit. 10 cents? That's funny.

144 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:41:25pm

re: #143 Gus 802

As a smoker let me just say that 10 cents wouldn't make a spit of difference in my buying habit. 10 cents? That's funny.

How about $0.10 per cigarette?

145 jaunte  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:41:32pm

re: #143 Gus 802

It would probably cost a bit more than ten cents to drive over to NH for smokes.

146 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:41:46pm

re: #145 jaunte

It would probably cost a bit more than ten cents to drive over to NH for smokes.

Exactly.

147 Sheila Broflovski  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:42:30pm

re: #140 Romantic Heretic

Why do they think the 19th Century was such a great time?

If you had a time machine, wouldn't you just love to go back to Victorian England (as long as you got to live in one of those mansions as a Lord) or Antebellum America (as long as you got to be a plantation owner)?

For everybody else, life pretty much sucked, but, screw them.

148 Barflytom  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:42:33pm

re: #124 MinisterO

re: #126 Gus 802

From the 2011 budget...

IMMUNIZATION AND RESPIRATORY DISEASES
In FY 2011, CDC’s programmatic requirement for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases is $735,807,000, an increase of $17,347,000 above the FY 2010 Omnibus. This amount includes CDC’s FY 2011 Immunization and Respiratory Diseases budget request of $579,463,000 and a transfer of $156,344,000 from the balances of the FY 2009 Supplemental Appropriations for Pandemic Influenza in the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund (PHSSEF).

I may be completely wrong, but the figure of $ 156 million seems like a bit of a coincidence.

Is this just an accounting matter, or is there a real cut of $ 156 million in the budget ? I don't have time to spare to go through the rather opaque budget document, but the fact that the article is in Mother Jones makes me suspect that this is just a chance to scream about "cuts", when the "cut" is offset by unspent money for a previous contingency.

If anybody has time to look at this properly, I'd be curious to know.

149 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:42:51pm

re: #144 oaktree

How about $0.10 per cigarette?

It would make me happy to a degree. But I sure couldn't buy more. At 2 packs a day I'm already at my limit. If I smoked MORE you might as well call the mortician for my funeral. :)

150 sagehen  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:42:52pm

re: #116 lostlakehiker


People work for after-tax income and at sufficiently high rates, raising rates yet further only reduces the revenue realized. This must be clear: how much tax would one get from taxing packs of cigarettes $10 each? $50? $1000?

And the "sufficiently high rates" at which raising rates reduces revenue is... by all historical evidence, somewhere in the neighborhood of 70-80%.


How about limiting medicare and medicaid funding of extraordinarily expensive procedures that offer very limited benefits? Liver transplants, heart transplants, etc., for those who will not live much longer whether they get such a transplant or not? Yeah, "death panels". But we all must die sooner or later. Most of us would not spend our kids' inheritance to buy a few more months of life. Why do, collectively, what we would not do for ourselves? It's a perfect instance of the golden rule, if you look at it right: Only ask others to do for you, what you would do for yourself if you could.

You obviously have no familiarity of how liver transplants and heart transplants work.

There's not enough donated organs to go around. Not even close. They already have to make hard choices about who gets them -- and once they've screened for the right blood types and other physiologic matching factors, the list of potential recipients is ranked in order of who's the most likely to a) survive the procedure/recovery, and b) get a lot of years use out of it.

Dick Cheney, for all his wealth, can't get a heart transplant because he doesn't meet the Organ Bank's criteria.

So yes, those procedures are expensive... but they're not done on people for whom it will have limited benefits. Of the people who Arizona cut off (98 on the waiting list) 2 have died already; both of them under 40, with minor children.

151 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:43:08pm

re: #116 lostlakehiker

Squeezing out the last drop of revenue, at the very hump of the Laffer curve, costs a lot in compliance and avoidance costs.

Why on earth have you decided we're on the hump of the Laffer curve?

152 Romantic Heretic  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:43:22pm

re: #15 oaktree

Don't know much about history...
(everybody sing along!)

Don't know much biology...

I'm thinking more along these lines, myself.

Youtube Video
153 charlz  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:43:25pm

re: #139 MinisterO

I saw this over the weekend and just laughed. The assumptions that lead to the conclusion that cutting the tax $0.10 on a $6 pack of cigarettes would generate more tax revenue are quite ludicrous.

Maybe. NH pulls a lot of people from Massachusetts to its state-owned liquor stores. If cigs are cheaper, too, then they may change buying habits of the flatlanders.

154 iossarian  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:44:16pm

re: #141 lostlakehiker

A progressive tax system is not based on resentment - it is based on the non-controversial notion that, since the rich benefit massively from the existence of a stable society, they should make a proportional contribution to its upkeep.

155 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:45:37pm

re: #116 lostlakehiker

Oh, and sagehen is absolutely right; organ transplants don't work that way. There are already thorough reviews of who will get donated organs. We don't use them in people who are going to die otherwise.

Please stop spreading disinformation like that; it makes honest debate so much harder.

156 MinisterO  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:46:36pm

re: #153 charlz

Maybe. NH pulls a lot of people from Massachusetts to its state-owned liquor stores. If cigs are cheaper, too, then they may change buying habits of the flatlanders.

Maybe they'll even stay the night! I'm not making this up - that's the argument for it.

157 b_sharp  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:47:12pm

re: #149 Gus 802

It would make me happy to a degree. But I sure couldn't buy more. At 2 packs a day I'm already at my limit. If I smoked MORE you might as well call the mortician for my funeral. :)

You smoke two packs a day? Holy crap.

Try something different, smoke each cigarette twice. Then you only need to buy one pack a day.

158 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:47:36pm

re: #154 iossarian

It's also based on it being a pragmatically workable system. If you're going to have capitalism, you need to fund the education of your populace-- as well as otherwise support their well-being-- so that wealth doesn't get striated into an aristocracy and opportunities still exist at every level.

We've been not doing so well in that, recently. Social mobility has been declining in the US for quite awhile now-- in tune with stagnating wages-- and entrepreneurship is now outstripping us in Denmark, Canada, and Norway.

159 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:48:34pm

re: #156 MinisterO

Maybe they'll even stay the night! I'm not making this up - that's the argument for it.

Followed by the caltrops imbedded in the inbound lanes of the highway so that they automatically get flat tires in NH and thus need to pay for tow trucks and tire repairs in the state as well...
/ ;)

160 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:48:34pm

re: #157 b_sharp

You smoke two packs a day? Holy crap.

Try something different, smoke each cigarette twice. Then you only need to buy one pack a day.

It's probably closer to 1 1/2. I can do 1 pack. I know, it's crazy.

161 albusteve  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:49:47pm

re: #160 Gus 802

It's probably closer to 1 1/2. I can do 1 pack. I know, it's crazy.

get a rolling machine

162 Sheila Broflovski  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:50:15pm

re: #149 Gus 802

It would make me happy to a degree. But I sure couldn't buy more. At 2 packs a day I'm already at my limit. If I smoked MORE you might as well call the mortician for my funeral. :)

If you could smell your breath, your clothes, the air around you, you would nauseate yourself.

163 Velvet Elvis  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:51:46pm

I quit a couple years before cigarette prices got crazy. Good timing. Zyban is my friend.

164 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:52:34pm

re: #162 Alouette

If you could smell your breath, your clothes, the air around you, you would nauseate yourself.

It's one reason I quit bowling back in the mid-90s. Came home from the alley smelling like a smokestack.

165 Romantic Heretic  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:55:25pm

re: #104 Gus 802

Yeah. Think about this too. We already bought those things. Odds are they were probably going to sit in storage unused and be eventually scrapped. Short of another military endeavor. But history has shown that to be true. Most military systems end up being unused and scrapped. That's probably a good thing. But, the money is still spent.

As my favorite writer puts it, "Weapons are an economic negative but a political necessity."

166 MinisterO  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:58:06pm

re: #148 Barflytom

The GOP plan actually cuts the CDC budget by $755 million, or about 12%.

Yes, there are real cuts in the budget, and they amount to a lot more than 2%.

167 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 12:59:45pm

re: #166 MinisterO

The GOP plan actually cuts the CDC budget by $755 million, or about 12%.

Yes, there are real cuts in the budget, and they amount to a lot more than 2%.

[Link: www.gop.gov...]

Amendment No. 550—Rep. King (R-IA): The amendment would reduce funding for CDC Disease Control, Research, and Training by $750 million and transfer the savings to the spending reduction account. Funds transferred into the spending reduction account are designated as savings and lower the 302(b) allocation for a given subcommittee. Funds transferred into the spending reduction account cannot be allocated elsewhere in the bill.

Amendment No. 551—Rep. King (R-IA): The amendment would reduce funding for CDC Disease Control, Research, and Training by $750 million and strike references to transferring such funds from funding appropriated by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). The savings would be transferred to the spending reduction account. Funds transferred into the spending reduction account are designated as savings and lower the 302(b) allocation for a given subcommittee. Funds transferred into the spending reduction account cannot be allocated elsewhere in the bill.

168 McSpiff  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 1:02:04pm

Afternoon Lizards, half in lurk mode while I update the resume.

169 Kragar  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 1:02:11pm

re: #165 Romantic Heretic

As my favorite writer puts it, "Weapons are an economic negative but a political necessity."

You only loose the money you invested in them if you let them sit around gathering dust.
///

170 Romantic Heretic  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 1:03:53pm

re: #147 Alouette

If you had a time machine, wouldn't you just love to go back to Victorian England (as long as you got to live in one of those mansions as a Lord) or Antebellum America (as long as you got to be a plantation owner)?

For everybody else, life pretty much sucked, but, screw them.

This is something I've noticed about fanatics of all stripes. They are never at or near the bottom of the 'new order' they are planning. They're always at the top.

I'd take them more seriously if they would say, "I won't be anyone important and I'm cool with that."

171 b_sharp  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 1:04:13pm

There was a Psychologist working on auditory response conditioning using tree frogs. He would train them to jump at a specific sound at a specific amplitude and measure the distance. One frog broke its leg during a rather vigorous jump, but instead of euthanizing the little critter he decided to try something different, so he cut the broken leg off. Once the frog healed enough to jump again, he restarted the tests and found the frog would only jump half as far.

Being a curious person, he decided to go for broke, so he cut the other leg off. He found that the frog no longer responded to the auditory trigger.

He concluded that the only rational explanation for the result was that the frog must have had its hearing apparatus in its legs and was now deaf.

172 Barflytom  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 1:05:54pm

re: #166 MinisterO

The GOP plan actually cuts the CDC budget by $755 million, or about 12%.

Yes, there are real cuts in the budget, and they amount to a lot more than 2%.

Is the $ 156 million in cuts for immunization offset by the same amount left over from the 2009 contingency fund for an influenza pandemic ?

173 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 1:09:52pm

re: #172 Barflytom

No. That's what they're trying to prevent them getting. Seriously, read your own posts.

Geez.

174 AK-47%  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 1:10:47pm

If thre's a salmonella outbreak, it is up to the consumers to retun their cans of salmon...

175 BishopX  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 1:13:17pm

re: #141 lostlakehiker

Just something to keep in mind when you talk about how high the tax burden on the rich is. The top 10% of the population pay 70 percent of the taxes, and control about 70% of the wealth. The top 1% of the population pays 38% of the taxes and control 42% of the wealth.

So when you talk about the rich having a high tax burden, please keep in mind that what they are paying isn't out of line with what they own. The fact that taxes seem to be this skewed is caused by the fact that the distribution of wealth in this country is skewed. Altering the tax structure to alleviate the burden on the wealthy is fine, so long as the wealth is redistributed as well.

If the top 10% of the country controlled 20% of the wealth, I would be fine taxing them at a much lower rate.

176 Prononymous, rogue demon hunter  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 1:15:23pm

re: #5 Charles

Well, not everyone -- it doesn't screw the GOP's corporate masters.

It even hurts corporations. More sickness means more sick days, replaced workers, clueless temps, training new help, etc which reduces efficiency. It just doesn't appear as a column on the balance sheet and some can only think in terms of dollars.

It goes hand in hand with Frank's saying about the very big stupid.

177 sagehen  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 1:17:06pm

re: #147 Alouette

If you had a time machine, wouldn't you just love to go back to Victorian England (as long as you got to live in one of those mansions as a Lord) or Antebellum America (as long as you got to be a plantation owner)?

For everybody else, life pretty much sucked, but, screw them.

If I had a time machine, I'd go to pre-Columbian Mexico.

Indoor plumbing. Chocolate. Popcorn. Cocaine. Tequila. Clothing made of feathers. The only difference from today's Cabo San Lucas is they didn't put little umbrellas in the drinks.

178 AK-47%  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 1:18:01pm

There is the supply-side notion tht reducing the upper-bracket taxes will stimulate investment and create jobs.

But in the globalized economy, capital follows the path of highest returns, and if those returns are to be had in investing in jobs abroad, that is where the capital will flow: to create jobs overseas.

179 Prononymous, rogue demon hunter  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 1:26:11pm

Speaking of eating the future, a good looking budget is worthless if it means making the future stupid, sick, and poor. Because that's what the modern GOP is pushing.

180 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 1:27:55pm

Oh my dog, Frank Gaffney is at it again.

From Breitbart's "Big Peace" (not linking)

What I find particularly concerning is the prospect that what we might call the Qaddafi Precedent will be used in the not-to-distant future to justify and threaten the use of U.S. military forces against an American ally: Israel.

Here’s how such a seemingly impossible scenario might eventuate:

He goes on.

181 Kragar  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 1:30:15pm

re: #180 Stanley Sea

Oh my dog, Frank Gaffney is at it again.

From Breitbart's "Big Peace" (not linking)

He goes on.

Moron.

182 Killgore Trout  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 1:30:40pm

re: #180 Stanley Sea

Oh my dog, Frank Gaffney is at it again.

From Breitbart's "Big Peace" (not linking)

He goes on.

We'll wait and see what happens but it looks like most of the wingnuts are backing off on their opposition to us involvement in Libya.

183 Barflytom  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 1:33:35pm

re: #173 Obdicut

No. That's what they're trying to prevent them getting. Seriously, read your own posts.

Geez.

Ok, so what would actual spending in this category be under their proposal ?

184 Kragar  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 1:35:50pm

Its always easy to say here is how an impossible situation can happen when you purposefully disregard all the things that make it impossible.

185 Gus  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 1:38:06pm

Back later.

186 BishopX  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 1:39:36pm

re: #184 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Its always easy to say here is how an impossible situation can happen when you purposefully disregard all the things that make it impossible.

It's always easy to say how impossible something is when you rule out all the possibilities.

See the GOP refusal to consider tax increases.

187 Kragar  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 1:42:30pm

re: #186 BishopX

It's always easy to say how impossible something is when you rule out all the possibilities.

See the GOP refusal to consider tax increases.

Willful ignorance is never a good thing.

188 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 1:43:57pm

re: #183 Barflytom

Ok, so what would actual spending in this category be under their proposal ?

What are you talking about? The actual spending under who's proposal, the GOP's?

189 Darlington  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 1:46:52pm

re: #186 BishopX

It's always easy to say how impossible something is when you rule out all the possibilities.

See the GOP refusal to consider tax increases.

"Tax...Increases? I think that's...something those evil left wing Marxists proposed? I bet you want to turn this country into Europe. You hate the constitution! Hey, Europe. Isn't that where all those socialists live? You're a socialist!"
-Fox News Viewer

190 Barflytom  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 1:48:11pm

re: #188 Obdicut

What are you talking about? The actual spending under who's proposal, the GOP's?

Yes, the actual spending under the GOP's proposal.
If it turns out to be $ 156 million less than 2010 or 2011 I'll be surprised.

191 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 1:48:21pm

re: #140 Romantic Heretic

Why do they think the 19th Century was such a great time?

It was if you happened to be named John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, or J.P. Morgan.

192 BishopX  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 1:49:46pm

re: #191 negativ

Or if you liked capes. Capes are cool.

193 Kragar  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 1:50:23pm

Libya Now Using Journalists As Human Shields


apparently the Libyan government is now using reporters from CNN, Reuters, and other news organizations to prevent allied bombers from attacking key sites. Seven "Storm Shadow" missiles were set to be shot from a British aircraft yesterday at Muammar Qaddafi's compound, which contains a military command center and extensive air-defense systems. But Qaddafi's regime preemptively invited the journalists to "show them the damage" from a previous air assault, a tactic they admitted later was an effort to use them as human shields to prevent further attacks.
194 Kragar  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 1:50:52pm

re: #192 BishopX

Or if you liked capes. Capes are cool.

NO CAPES!

195 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 1:54:37pm

re: #194 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

NO CAPES!

Yep. If Cape Cod or Cape May gets caught in a revolving door or jet turbine it could cause a lot of mayhem and embarrassment.

;)

196 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 1:57:26pm

re: #190 Barflytom

Well, you're wrong.

[Link: www.cdc.gov...]

The presidential budget represented a $60,000,000 increase in the infectious diseases budget-- it has some cuts in it, but that one transfer from the 2009 pandemic budget brings it up to a $60,000,000 increase.

So the GOP is cutting, even if you want to pretend that for some reason we should use last years funding as the level we're talking about cutting from, a cut of $90 million from this program at the CDC.

Which, as I've said, is going to wind up costing us more money in the end.

Penny wise and dollar-stupid: the modern self-proclaimed fiscal conservative is anything but.

197 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 1:58:13pm

America's ignorance could pose huge problems

For more than two centuries, Americans have gotten away with not knowing much about the world around them. But times have changed—and they’ve changed in ways that make civic ignorance a big problem going forward. While isolationism is fine in an isolated society, we can no longer afford to mind our own business. What happens in China and India (or at a Japanese nuclear plant) affects the autoworker in Detroit; what happens in the statehouse and the White House affects the competition in China and India. Before the Internet, brawn was enough; now the information economy demands brains instead. And where we once relied on political institutions (like organized labor) to school the middle classes and give them leverage, we now have nothing. “The issue isn’t that people in the past knew a lot more and know less now,” says Hacker. “It’s that their ignorance was counterbalanced by denser political organizations.” The result is a society in which wired activists at either end of the spectrum dominate the debate—and lead politicians astray at precisely the wrong moment.

The current conflict over government spending illustrates the new dangers of ignorance. Every economist knows how to deal with the debt: cost-saving reforms to big-ticket entitlement programs; cuts to our bloated defense budget; and (if growth remains slow) tax reforms designed to refill our depleted revenue coffers. But poll after poll shows that voters have no clue what the budget actually looks like. A 2010 World Public Opinion survey found that Americans want to tackle deficits by cutting foreign aid from what they believe is the current level (27 percent of the budget) to a more prudent 13 percent. The real number is under 1 percent. A Jan. 25 CNN poll, meanwhile, discovered that even though 71 percent of voters want smaller government, vast majorities oppose cuts to Medicare (81 percent), Social Security (78 percent), and Medicaid (70 percent). Instead, they prefer to slash waste—a category that, in their fantasy world, seems to include 50 percent of spending, according to a 2009 Gallup poll.

198 lostlakehiker  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:00:26pm

re: #151 Obdicut

Why on earth have you decided we're on the hump of the Laffer curve?

What I said was that IF we roughly double the marginal tax rate for the rich, which is what you'd have to do to balance the current deficit via tax increases on the top 2 percent, THEN we'd be at the hump of the Laffer curve, or near it, (or beyond it).

Tax rates now run around 30-40% for that tier. Pushing them to 70-80% is what would be needed to sustain currrent spending, balance the budget, and not raise others' taxes.

Why on earth do YOU think that THAT is feasible?

Did we ever in the past have two percent of the population ponying up 70% of their last dollar of earnings?

199 aagcobb  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:03:53pm

re: #198 lostlakehiker

At one time I believe the marginal rate was 91% for the highest earners.

200 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:04:01pm

re: #198 lostlakehiker


Did we ever in the past have two percent of the population ponying up 70% of their last dollar of earnings?

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

# During World War I, the top rate rose to 77% and the income threshold to be in this top bracket increased to $1,000,000 ($16 million 2007 dollars); after the war, the top rate was scaled down to a low of 24% and the income threshold for paying this rate fell to a low of $100,000 ($1 million 2007 dollars).
# During the Great Depression and World War II, the top income tax rate rose from pre-war levels. In 1939, the top rate was 75% applied to incomes above $5,000,000 ($75 million 2007 dollars). During 1944 and 1945, the top rate was its all-time high at 94% applied to income above $200,000.

201 Prononymous, rogue demon hunter  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:05:08pm

re: #198 lostlakehiker

Does that top 2 percent include legal "people" such as corporations?

202 sagehen  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:06:14pm

re: #198 lostlakehiker

Did we ever in the past have two percent of the population ponying up 70% of their last dollar of earnings?

Yes.

From WWII until 1963, marginal tax rates topped out at 92%. (that may be somewhat misleading -- apparently the very highest bracket only applied to John D. Rockefeller. Other almostRockefellers see to have topped at maybe 85%).

In 1963, the brackets were adjusted and the highest was 70%. That's where it was until Reagan.

203 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:06:15pm

re: #198 lostlakehiker

What I said was that IF we roughly double the marginal tax rate for the rich, which is what you'd have to do to balance the current deficit via tax increases on the top 2 percent, THEN we'd be at the hump of the Laffer curve, or near it, (or beyond it).

You do realize that by saying that you're advocating doubling the marginal tax rate for the rich, right? If that'd put us on the hump, that'd put us at the near-ideal place of the Laffer curve.

Why on earth do YOU think that THAT is feasible?

Why do I think what is feasible? Are you pretending I said that we should set taxes to some amount? Why?


Did we ever in the past have two percent of the population ponying up 70% of their last dollar of earnings?

Again-- why is this scenario supposed to be interesting to me? I'm not in favor at setting the taxes up to 70% for the top 2% of income earners.

204 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:07:33pm

re: #202 sagehen

That wasn't on the top 2%, though. More like the top 0.1%.

I'm in favor of more tiers in the progressive income tax, and raising the capital gains tax significantly. It's a red herring to say that all the revenue-to-spending problem has to be solved by one hike on the top 2%. I have no idea why LostLakeHiker is talking about it.

205 RogueOne  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:09:32pm

re: #18 brennant

But does any of this have a chance at actually passing?

Yes. It may come as a shock but the president cut their budget by $139 million. The republicans cut it another $17. I noticed the Mother Jones article neglected to mention that critical fact. Color me shocked.

See page 13 (PDF) [Link: appropriations.house.gov...]

206 charlz  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:09:44pm

re: #196 Obdicut

Well, you're wrong.

[Link: www.cdc.gov...]

I can't get your link to work. From barflytom's #148:

From the 2011 budget...

IMMUNIZATION AND RESPIRATORY DISEASES
In FY 2011, CDC’s programmatic requirement for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases is $735,807,000, an increase of $17,347,000 above the FY 2010 Omnibus. This amount includes CDC’s FY 2011 Immunization and Respiratory Diseases budget request of $579,463,000 and a transfer of $156,344,000 from the balances of the FY 2009 Supplemental Appropriations for Pandemic Influenza in the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund (PHSSEF).

If that's accurate, it appears that the FY11 $735,807,000 budget for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases is predicated on a transfer of $156,344,000, which is what the Republican proposal appears to eliminate. I thinks that's all barfly was trying to understand.

207 The Left  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:10:19pm

re: #197 negativ

America's ignorance could pose huge problems

Pageworthy, imo.

208 lostlakehiker  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:12:16pm

re: #175 BishopX

Just something to keep in mind when you talk about how high the tax burden on the rich is. The top 10% of the population pay 70 percent of the taxes, and control about 70% of the wealth. The top 1% of the population pays 38% of the taxes and control 42% of the wealth.

So when you talk about the rich having a high tax burden, please keep in mind that what they are paying isn't out of line with what they own. The fact that taxes seem to be this skewed is caused by the fact that the distribution of wealth in this country is skewed. Altering the tax structure to alleviate the burden on the wealthy is fine, so long as the wealth is redistributed as well.

If the top 10% of the country controlled 20% of the wealth, I would be fine taxing them at a much lower rate.

Control of wealth isn't really the point. It's consumption. Those who control wealth without consuming it are stewards.

The top 10% of the nation doesn't consume 70% of the economy's production. The top 10% don't own 70% of the nation's square footage of housing. They don't rack up 70% of the nation's grocery bills. Maybe they own 70% of the nation's gold jewelry but that's small beer.

What's more, 'control of wealth' isn't a lifetime permanent thing. If I start out with nothing but a degree and a job, and plug away at building my 401K and making my house payments, then at the cusp of retirement, I'll control more wealth than my earlier or later selves. This me is unfair to those other me's?

Even if everyone had the same life story, any snapshot of the population would show considerable inequality in wealth. On top of that, there are real inequalities in earnings potential, and there are real inequalities in life decisions: some people choose to save, while others prefer to spend now and worry later about later.

It seems fair enough to partially even out differences in earnings potential with our tax system, but why should we worry about life cycle stage inequalities, and why should we penalize the guy who consumes sparingly now so he will have something left for later?

209 Prononymous, rogue demon hunter  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:12:21pm

re: #204 Obdicut

I have no idea why LostLakeHiker is talking about it.

Yes, I was wondering. I'm for raising taxes, progressively. But that certainly doesn't mean only on a single group.

210 Barflytom  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:14:09pm

re: #196 Obdicut

Well, you're wrong.

[Link: www.cdc.gov...]

The presidential budget represented a $60,000,000 increase in the infectious diseases budget-- it has some cuts in it, but that one transfer from the 2009 pandemic budget brings it up to a $60,000,000 increase.

So the GOP is cutting, even if you want to pretend that for some reason we should use last years funding as the level we're talking about cutting from, a cut of $90 million from this program at the CDC.

Which, as I've said, is going to wind up costing us more money in the end.

Penny wise and dollar-stupid: the modern self-proclaimed fiscal conservative is anything but.

You still haven't answered - what figure are you saying the GOP proposal will be for actual spending on immunization etc ?

The CDC had 200 million in emergency pandemic funds for 2009, and 300 million from the stimulus for this category.
As far as I can tell, most of that hasn't been spent. That leaves rather a lot of room for cuts in new funding which wouldn't be "cuts" at all if they use some of the unspent money instead.

And the only meaningful way to compare spending is against the previous years actual budget, not some other proposal for the current year. If Obama proposed a 1 billion increase and the GOP proposed a 800 million increase, that would be a "cut" of 200 million by the accounting methods favoured by some leftie demagogues.

211 Idle Drifter  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:17:11pm

I get up to get ready for a 12 hour zombie shift and read about this horse hockey shit the GOP is pulling with vaccinations. This is beyond bat shit insane and these bastards claim to be against euthanasia. Oh that's right they won't being injecting needles, they'll just let nature take its course and wash their hands of it saying it was God's Will.

212 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:22:11pm

re: #208 lostlakehiker

Control of wealth isn't really the point. It's consumption. Those who control wealth without consuming it are stewards.

What are you talking about? Where is this bizarre aspect coming from?

If you control wealth and put it to no useful purpose, or put it to an evil purpose, you are not being a steward of that wealth.

Meanwhile, property is not consumed by the use of it. This metric of consumption is a very odd one to use, and suggests a counter-metric, the metric of production. In terms of how much wealth is produced by that person-- by the person themselves, not their capital-- how do you think the distribution breaks down?

Congrats on finding a metric that makes the ultra-wealthy into 'stewards' though. Paris Hilton, steward of wealth.

What's more, 'control of wealth' isn't a lifetime permanent thing. If I start out with nothing but a degree and a job, and plug away at building my 401K and making my house payments, then at the cusp of retirement, I'll control more wealth than my earlier or later selves. This me is unfair to those other me's?

Who is saying it would be unfair, please?

It seems fair enough to partially even out differences in earnings potential with our tax system, but why should we worry about life cycle stage inequalities, and why should we penalize the guy who consumes sparingly now so he will have something left for later?

Since there is no tax on wealth, only on income, we don't so penalize.

Did you get the part about how your representation of how transplants work with those with short-term life expectancy was incredibly wrong, by the way? Can you commit to not spreading that piece of disinformation again?

That'd be nice.

213 RogueOne  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:23:29pm

One more link:

President’s FY 2011 Budget Falls Far Short on Infectious Diseases Programs
[Link: www.idsociety.org...]


Especially hard-hit in this year’s budget is CDC, which would have its budget cut by $135 million. Of particular concern to IDSA are:

* the slashing of CDC’s Infectious Diseases program budget, which would be cut by almost $100 million, a 5 percent decline
* a cut of more than 50 percent to the already strapped budget for the vital Antimicrobial Resistance program, which would force CDC to cut in half its support for state and local surveillance, prevention, and control efforts, and end all grants to states for the successful Get Smart in the Community program to combat improper antibiotic use
* a 21 percent reduction in grants for the Section 317 immunization program compared to the current fiscal year, in light of the end of additional funding provided though the stimulus bill; these cuts will reduce access to immunizations, which save lives and millions of dollars in preventable medical spending

There's obviously a conspiracy between the president and the republicans to weed out the poor by withholding vaccinations.

214 Barflytom  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:23:50pm

re: #206 charlz

I can't get your link to work. From barflytom's #148:


If that's accurate, it appears that the FY11 $735,807,000 budget for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases is predicated on a transfer of $156,344,000, which is what the Republican proposal appears to eliminate. I thinks that's all barfly was trying to understand.

And is that where the Mother Jones article gets the 156 million figure ?

I can't find a figure for what actual spending would be under the GOP proposal, and how it would compare with the previous year.
There still seems to be a lot of unspent stimulus money and pandemic funds sloshing around somewhere.

215 RogueOne  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:24:35pm

re: #214 Barflytom

And is that where the Mother Jones article gets the 156 million figure ?

No. They're getting it straight from the republican proposal. See my link above page 13.

216 RogueOne  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:25:23pm

re: #215 RogueOne
(PDF)
[Link: appropriations.house.gov...]

217 Barflytom  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:25:56pm

re: #213 RogueOne

One more link:

President’s FY 2011 Budget Falls Far Short on Infectious Diseases Programs
[Link: www.idsociety.org...]


There's obviously a conspiracy between the president and the republicans to weed out the poor by withholding vaccinations.

The linked article is from February 2010.....

218 RogueOne  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:26:59pm

re: #217 Barflytom

Sorry, I just posted it again. The other link is to the presidents proposal for 2011 which is where the cutting starts. The president cut it by $135-$139 and the repubs bumped that cut up to $156

219 RogueOne  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:31:15pm

The spouse is home so my fun ends. Have a good nite folks. Wash your hands.

220 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:31:41pm

re: #210 Barflytom

You still haven't answered - what figure are you saying the GOP proposal will be for actual spending on immunization etc ?

Jesus, you're lazy.

The GOP proposal is for $584,276,000 in infectious disease spending.

The 2010 level of spending was $718,460,000.

So, that's a cut.

You'd notice, if you fucking bothered to read the budget you're supposedly concerned about, that that $156,344,000 transfer is offset by a lower base budget. The base budget from authority in 2010 was $705,596,000-- in 2011 it's $570,176,000-- because of the income from that transfer.

221 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:33:06pm

re: #213 RogueOne

According to the CDC, the president's 2011 budget increases CDC infectious disease spending.

[Link: www.cdc.gov...]

222 Barflytom  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:34:32pm

re: #218 RogueOne

Sorry, I just posted it again. The other link is to the presidents proposal for 2011 which is where the cutting starts. The president cut it by $135-$139 and the repubs bumped that cut up to $156

Got it now.
So in other words, the GOP is proposing a cut of 17 million from a previous proposed appropriation ?
I'm still trying to find what actual spending would be.

223 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:35:05pm

re: #222 Barflytom

Ever thought of actually trying to do the work yourself?

224 Barflytom  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:38:14pm

re: #220 Obdicut

Jesus, you're lazy.

The GOP proposal is for $584,276,000 in infectious disease spending.

The 2010 level of spending was $718,460,000.

So, that's a cut.

You'd notice, if you fucking bothered to read the budget you're supposedly concerned about, that that $156,344,000 transfer is offset by a lower base budget. The base budget from authority in 2010 was $705,596,000-- in 2011 it's $570,176,000-- because of the income from that transfer.

I looked at the last 3 years figures on the CDC website fyi.
Where do you get the $ 584,276,000 figure from ?
I haven't seen a clear figure for the GOP proposal.

225 MinisterO  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:41:43pm

re: #172 Barflytom
re: #183 Barflytom
re: #190 Barflytom

The $156 million is unspent funding from the FY 2009 supplemental H1N1 response funds. The GOP plan would take that money back. The effect would be to cut the budget for immunization and respiratory diseases to $579 million, a 19% reduction from 2010 funding.


If it turns out to be $ 156 million less than 2010 or 2011 I'll be surprised.

Feel free to express that sincere surprise here.

226 RogueOne  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:42:51pm

re: #221 Obdicut

According to the CDC, the president's 2011 budget increases CDC infectious disease spending.

[Link: www.cdc.gov...]

without googling the hell out of it the article I posted about the presidents 2011 budget says it's the NIH budget. Not sure how that's different.


While infectious diseases research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would grow by $150 million in FY2011 under the proposed budget, this represents just over 3 percent above current funding levels.

227 RogueOne  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:45:40pm

re: #222 Barflytom

Got it now.
So in other words, the GOP is proposing a cut of 17 million from a previous proposed appropriation ?
I'm still trying to find what actual spending would be.

The repubs say it's 17 and the other link would suggest it's 21.

228 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:46:33pm

re: #224 Barflytom

Holy crap, are you actually taking the position that the GOP isn't actually cutting the CDC budget?

[Link: www.govexec.com...]

[Link: thomas.loc.gov...]

229 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:50:25pm

re: #226 RogueOne

NIH and CDC aren't related, so I now have no clue what you're talking about.

The actual CDC budget shows that Obama's budget increases the CDC expenditure on infectious diseases slightly. The GOP cuts it significantly.

230 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 2:57:12pm
Youtube Video

This is a weird song to wake up to but there ya go :D

DISEASE

231 albusteve  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 3:01:31pm

re: #230 WindUpBird

[Video]This is a weird song to wake up to but there ya go :D

DISEASE

wake up?...this thread is comotose

232 Barflytom  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 3:12:13pm

re: #225 MinisterO

re: #183 Barflytom
re: #190 Barflytom

The $156 million is unspent funding from the FY 2009 supplemental H1N1 response funds. The GOP plan would take that money back. The effect would be to cut the budget for immunization and respiratory diseases to $579 million, a 19% reduction from 2010 funding.

So did every other proposal, including the President's for 2011.
I thought I was missing something for a while, because I couldn't quite believe that anyone could be crass enough to be talking about an offset of $ 156 million which the CDC has already received as a "cut" of $ 156 million.
If the 2012 appropriation remained around $ 580 million or so without restoring the $ 156 million, then you can rightly claim that as a cut in actual cash available to spend.
Otherwise, the claim of a $ 156 million cut is absolute bollocks.

233 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 3:13:48pm

re: #232 Barflytom

So did every other proposal, including the President's for 2011.

This is not true. I gave you the CDC budget proposal.

Why are you claiming this is true?

234 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 3:15:21pm

re: #233 Obdicut

is this guy pushing back on the thread

235 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 3:15:58pm

re: #231 albusteve

wake up?...this thread is comotose

well, the newer one was dead too!

And *I* just woke up, got to bed at arund 8am *_*

236 b_sharp  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 3:17:14pm

re: #234 WindUpBird

is this guy pushing back on the thread

I think he's just passing gas.

237 Barflytom  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 3:24:17pm

re: #233 Obdicut

This is not true. I gave you the CDC budget proposal.

Why are you claiming this is true?

Go to the budget for FY2011, and read the figures at the top of page 51.

[Link: www.cdc.gov...]

The figure for "President's Budget Request" for FY2011 is just under $139 million less than the previous year, due to offsetting the $156 million from the pandemic fund.

238 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 3:26:25pm

re: #237 Barflytom

Yes. So what? That's something I already pointed out, you know. That makes the total budget slightly more than it was in 2010.

Is your claim simply the the GOP is not actually cutting this at all?

239 MinisterO  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 3:29:47pm

re: #198 lostlakehiker

Tax rates now run around 30-40% for that tier. Pushing them to 70-80% is what would be needed to sustain currrent spending, balance the budget, and not raise others' taxes.

Federal income tax for people making from $200k to $10M is around 30% (of AGI), and that rate is nearly flat with income. Those making $10M or more pay only 25%. Those are IRS averages of what people in various income categories actually paid. The real marginal tax rate is 30% or less for incomes over $200k. That's about 3.5% of households IIRC.

Income tax was 91% on income over $200k from 1951 to 1964. That was a period of high growth and low inflation. For comparison $200k in that era is like $1.5 million today.

Historically, high tax rates on high incomes coincided with great prosperity.

240 Darlington  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 3:30:47pm

re: #238 Obdicut

He seems to be trying to place the blame for this cut on the President.

241 MinisterO  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 3:31:40pm

re: #232 Barflytom

So did every other proposal, including the President's for 2011.

False. That's either poor reading comprehension or wishful thinking.

242 BishopX  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 3:32:18pm

re: #208 lostlakehiker

Control of wealth isn't really the point. It's consumption. Those who control wealth without consuming it are stewards.

The top 10% of the nation doesn't consume 70% of the economy's production. The top 10% don't own 70% of the nation's square footage of housing. They don't rack up 70% of the nation's grocery bills. Maybe they own 70% of the nation's gold jewelry but that's small beer.

What's more, 'control of wealth' isn't a lifetime permanent thing. If I start out with nothing but a degree and a job, and plug away at building my 401K and making my house payments, then at the cusp of retirement, I'll control more wealth than my earlier or later selves. This me is unfair to those other me's?

Even if everyone had the same life story, any snapshot of the population would show considerable inequality in wealth. On top of that, there are real inequalities in earnings potential, and there are real inequalities in life decisions: some people choose to save, while others prefer to spend now and worry later about later.

It seems fair enough to partially even out differences in earnings potential with our tax system, but why should we worry about life cycle stage inequalities, and why should we penalize the guy who consumes sparingly now so he will have something left for later?

I would argue control of wealth really is the point. When income and wealth are divergent across the entire economic spectrum you have an aristocracy, were the people producing wealth (income) aren't the people in control of it. Take a look at the last 600 years of European history and ask how society wide stewardship worked.

You are right that the top 1% are not large drivers of consumption, neither is the top 10%. But if we acknowledge that consumption is the primary driver of our economy, wouldn't a more progressive tax scheme be a good thing then? I don't see how this fact buttresses your argument that the raising taxes on the high end of income spectrum is a bad idea.

243 Stephen T.  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 3:37:36pm

The ultimate form of disenfranchisement. Death

244 Barflytom  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 3:38:19pm

re: #238 Obdicut

Yes. So what? That's something I already pointed out, you know. That makes the total budget slightly more than it was in 2010.

Is your claim simply the the GOP is not actually cutting this at all?

In your # 220 you state the GOP base budget is $ 570 million, which isn't much different from the base budget authority of $ 566 million in the President's proposal. They may be cutting it a few million depending what you're comparing it with, but the claim of a "$ 156 million cut" is breathtakingly dishonest.

Thanks for wasting the hour or more of my time that I spent to find out.

245 MinisterO  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 3:40:30pm

This is really very simple. The President's budget requested $567M. Additional funding was to come from an unused appropriation of $156M. The GOP plan takes back the $156M, leaving a gap of _______ (fill in the blank).

246 b_sharp  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 3:41:10pm

re: #244 Barflytom

In your # 220 you state the GOP base budget is $ 570 million, which isn't much different from the base budget authority of $ 566 million in the President's proposal. They may be cutting it a few million depending what you're comparing it with, but the claim of a "$ 156 million cut" is breathtakingly dishonest.

Thanks for wasting the hour or more of my time that I spent to find out.

Nobody wasted it but you.

Unless you're a puppet and Obdi the puppet master, you control your own time.

247 Barflytom  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 3:42:26pm

re: #245 MinisterO

This is really very simple. The President's budget requested $567M. Additional funding was to come from an unused appropriation of $156M. The GOP plan takes back the $156M, leaving a gap of ___ (fill in the blank).

No, it doesn't take back the $ 156 million.
Where do you get that information from ?

248 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 3:54:47pm

re: #244 Barflytom

No, the GOP is actually cutting that amount from the budget. That's what they're claiming.

You're amazing: too lazy to look up the data, misinterpret it when you do get it, and insult the people who provided it for you.

Lazy as hell, in every way.

Again:

[Link: thomas.loc.gov...]

The GOP specifically redacts the expenditure of that fund.


Sec. 1823. Of the funds made available for `Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund' in Public Law 111-32, $1,397,439,000 is rescinded.
249 b_sharp  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 4:07:54pm

re: #248 Obdicut

No, the GOP is actually cutting that amount from the budget. That's what they're claiming.

You're amazing: too lazy to look up the data, misinterpret it when you do get it, and insult the people who provided it for you.

Lazy as hell, in every way.

Again:

[Link: thomas.loc.gov...]

The GOP specifically redacts the expenditure of that fund.



Sec. 1823. Of the funds made available for `Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund' in Public Law 111-32, $1,397,439,000 is rescinded.

That's because they don't believe in emergencies.

250 Barflytom  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 4:16:20pm

re: #248 Obdicut

No, the GOP is actually cutting that amount from the budget. That's what they're claiming.You're amazing: too lazy to look up the data, misinterpret it when you do get it, and insult the people who provided it for you.

Lazy as hell, in every way.

Again:

[Link: thomas.loc.gov...]

The GOP specifically redacts the expenditure of that fund.

Sec 1823 refers to the stimulus, not the pandemic money, and doesn't itemise it. The immunization budget had $ 300 million from that, which appears to be mostly unspent.

Sec 1822 refers to funds for an influenza pandemic.

Who are the "they" who claim the $ 156 million is being clawed back ?

251 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 4:21:15pm

re: #250 Barflytom

No, you're wrong. [Link: thomas.loc.gov...]


For an additional amount for `Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund' to prepare for and respond to an influenza pandemic, including the development and purchase of vaccine, antivirals, necessary medical supplies, diagnostics, and other surveillance tools and to assist international efforts and respond to international needs relating to the 2009-H1N1 influenza outbreak, $1,850,000,000, to remain available until expended

You're wrong, and you just don't give a shit.

252 garhighway  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 4:24:30pm

re: #198 lostlakehiker

What I said was that IF we roughly double the marginal tax rate for the rich, which is what you'd have to do to balance the current deficit via tax increases on the top 2 percent, THEN we'd be at the hump of the Laffer curve, or near it, (or beyond it).

Tax rates now run around 30-40% for that tier. Pushing them to 70-80% is what would be needed to sustain currrent spending, balance the budget, and not raise others' taxes.

Why on earth do YOU think that THAT is feasible?

Did we ever in the past have two percent of the population ponying up 70% of their last dollar of earnings?

Who here proposed doubling the top marginal rate?

253 engineer cat  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 4:26:37pm

re: #198 lostlakehiker

What I said was that IF we roughly double the marginal tax rate for the rich, which is what you'd have to do to balance the current deficit via tax increases on the top 2 percent, THEN we'd be at the hump of the Laffer curve, or near it, (or beyond it).

Tax rates now run around 30-40% for that tier. Pushing them to 70-80% is what would be needed to sustain currrent spending, balance the budget, and not raise others' taxes.

Why on earth do YOU think that THAT is feasible?

Did we ever in the past have two percent of the population ponying up 70% of their last dollar of earnings?

a misconception wrapped in a straw man wrapped in ignorance about the history of income tax rates

254 Barflytom  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 4:31:42pm

re: #251 Obdicut

...You're wrong, and you just don't give a shit.

I don't see the figure of $ 156 million being taken away anywhere. Like I said, sec 1822 in your previous link refers to the pandemic funding, but doesn't suggest any clawback of the $ 156 million.

I dare say it may be hidden somewhere, but you haven't found it yet Sherlock.

Again, who are the "they" you refer to ?

255 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 4:37:53pm

re: #254 Barflytom

I don't see the figure of $ 156 million being taken away anywhere.

The entire fund is being taken away, jackass.


I dare say it may be hidden somewhere, but you haven't found it yet Sherlock.

You just haven't bothered to actually read or reason anything on your own. And you don't give a shit.

It's funny.

256 MinisterO  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 4:42:02pm

re: #250 Barflytom

Sec 1823 refers to the stimulus, not the pandemic money, and doesn't itemise it. The immunization budget had $ 300 million from that, which appears to be mostly unspent.

Sec 1822 refers to funds for an influenza pandemic.

Who are the "they" who claim the $ 156 million is being clawed back ?

As Obdicut pointed out, you are mistaken in your first paragraph. §1823 refers to Public Law 111-32 which authorizes $1.85 billion for `Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund' to prepare for and respond to an influenza pandemic.

A gracious apology would be appropriate, though it seems unlikely that one is forthcoming.

Public Law 111-32 requires that $200 million of the $1.8 billion be transferred to CDC. It is this $200 million from which the budgeted $156 million is, or was, to be taken. That is very clear in the CDC budget.

§1823 takes back the unused $1.4 billion of the original $1.85 billion.

257 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 4:45:04pm

re: #256 MinisterO

What's hilarious is that his argument is basically "The GOP isn't actually cutting anything", when the GOP are loudly proclaiming, championing, these cuts. They're not shy at all about them.

258 garhighway  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 4:46:30pm

re: #257 Obdicut

What's hilarious is that his argument is basically "The GOP isn't actually cutting anything", when the GOP are loudly proclaiming, championing, these cuts. They're not shy at all about them.

Are you asking for intellectual consistency out of those folks? You're funny.

259 Prononymous, rogue demon hunter  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 4:54:13pm

I just don't see how he could argue semantics over a vaccine program getting or not getting extra money. Yeah, I'm sure we could do without a few extra million dollars toward vaccines. Who the hell would think that is a good thing?

260 aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 5:17:30pm

Obdicut -

At the risk of riling you up even more (i see that someone else beat me to it...), didn't Obama's budget propose a $100MM cut, which the republicans have increased to $156MM?

I don't agree with either, unless efficiency gains are at hand, but I'm hesitant to join the pitchfork-wielding 'let's get those corporatist bastards' procession if I have my information correct. Here's a link.
[Link: www.idsociety.org...]

261 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 5:24:30pm

re: #260 aceofwhat?

The CDC budget shows an increase, not a decrease. I don't know where IDSA got their number from.

2011 funds include $155.2 million for the emerging infectious disease budget line, an increase of $18.9 million above the FY 2010 Omnibus

They may be talking about the reduction in $86.9 million in specific spending on various infectious diseases, but all of those have reasons for it. It's in the CDC budget, which I've linked already. Here it is again.

[Link: www.cdc.gov...]

262 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 5:34:31pm

re: #261 Obdicut

The CDC budget shows an increase, not a decrease. I don't know where IDSA got their number from.

They may be talking about the reduction in $86.9 million in specific spending on various infectious diseases, but all of those have reasons for it. It's in the CDC budget, which I've linked already. Here it is again.

[Link: www.cdc.gov...]

My link discussed a budget proposal. Clearly, it was not the budget that ended up being passed. However, I don't remember a similar ruckus around this time last year. Again, i may be missing something, but if I am not, it appears that somewhere between a 100million cut and a 156million cut there is an invisible line which transforms one into a corporatist henchperson.

263 b_sharp  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 5:36:40pm

Time to make some popcorn, grab a beer and watch the show.

264 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 5:37:07pm

re: #262 Aceofwhat?

I'm sorry, I'm really not following you. The total cuts that Obama offered, according to that IDSA, was a little over a hungred million. The total cuts offered by the GOP this time round are more than three quarters of a billion dollars.

it appears that somewhere between a 100million cut and a 156million cut there is an invisible line which transforms one into a corporatist henchperson.

Since that's not something that I said, why not address someone who did?

265 Prononymous, rogue demon hunter  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 5:48:38pm

re: #260 aceofwhat?

Would Obama be cutting the $100 million in his version if Republicans weren't ideologically opposed to raising taxes? Instead of cutting, "deallocating" or whatever, funds for programs that fight the spread of infectious disease, why not meet in the middle occasionally? This is arguing over peanuts, imo.

266 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 5:51:05pm

re: #264 Obdicut

I'm sorry, I'm really not following you. The total cuts that Obama offered, according to that IDSA, was a little over a hungred million. The total cuts offered by the GOP this time round are more than three quarters of a billion dollars.

Since that's not something that I said, why not address someone who did?

Really? The text of the thread doesn't say

"The House GOP’s 2011 budget would chop $156 million from the Centers for Disease Control’s funding for immunization and respiratory diseases"

? Odd. I'm quoting the text, so if you're not following me, you're reading a different post. And since the hat-tip is yours, it's doubly odd.

The IDSA also referred to cuts to the specific item at hand, not to the whole department. I'm looking at apples to apples, or at least trying to.

267 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 5:51:48pm

re: #265 prononymous

Would Obama be cutting the $100 million in his version if Republicans weren't ideologically opposed to raising taxes? Instead of cutting, "deallocating" or whatever, funds for programs that fight the spread of infectious disease, why not meet in the middle occasionally? This is arguing over peanuts, imo.

The problem with that is that neither side is interested in the middle right now. Both are playing to their base right now, and neither wants to be the first to turn to the center. This is because the first to turn to the center risks a rebellion in their base. To be clear, this is a much higher risk for the Republicans, but the Democratic leadership does run risks of backlash if they agree to cuts.

268 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 5:53:18pm

re: #265 prononymous

Would Obama be cutting the $100 million in his version if Republicans weren't ideologically opposed to raising taxes? Instead of cutting, "deallocating" or whatever, funds for programs that fight the spread of infectious disease, why not meet in the middle occasionally? This is arguing over peanuts, imo.

I don't disagree with you. My question is closer to "how can a $100MM cut be unworthy of comment yet a $156MM cut to the same budget item be a travesty"? However, i am asking this as a question rather than typing it as an accusation because it can be very difficult to make sure that one is comparing apples to apples.

269 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 5:55:48pm

re: #266 Aceofwhat?

Dude, seriously, I'm not following you. You appear to be saying nobody kicked up a fuss when Obama proposed a $100 million cut, by citing people kicking up a fuss about it.


The IDSA also referred to cuts to the specific item at hand, not to the whole department. I'm looking at apples to apples, or at least trying to.

The ISDA did both, actually. But the CDC's numbers don't match.

I really have no idea what you're trying to prove or demonstrate.

270 Prononymous, rogue demon hunter  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 5:59:05pm

re: #268 Aceofwhat?

Yeah, I agree that a $100 million cut is worthy of mention. But I'd also say that we are just arguing over degrees now. A $100 million cut is worthy of mention but a $56 million cut isn't? If we just agree that cutting an infectious disease program is bad then we could look for ways to keep it while still slimming the budget.

271 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:02:02pm

re: #269 Obdicut

Dude, seriously, I'm not following you. You appear to be saying nobody kicked up a fuss when Obama proposed a $100 million cut, by citing people kicking up a fuss about it.

The ISDA did both, actually. But the CDC's numbers don't match.

I really have no idea what you're trying to prove or demonstrate.

Ah, i apologize for being unclear. Barring error, which i have been known to make, nobody that i can remember kicked up a fuss at LGF over the proposed $100MM cut, but we are fussing about the proposed $156MM cut to the same department. That is what i'm confused about.

272 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:02:40pm

re: #270 prononymous

Yeah, I agree that a $100 million cut is worthy of mention. But I'd also say that we are just arguing over degrees now. A $100 million cut is worthy of mention but a $56 million cut isn't? If we just agree that cutting an infectious disease program is bad then we could look for ways to keep it while still slimming the budget.

Not sure I want to do that. The money had not been spent. Right now, I generally favor unused appropriations being canceled and the money not borrowed or else used to pay off debt.

273 Prononymous, rogue demon hunter  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:05:19pm

re: #272 Dark_Falcon

If that's your financial policy, fine. But you'd be in favor of "canceling" appropriations for this program in particular? It isn't a good investment?

274 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:06:31pm

re: #270 prononymous

Yeah, I agree that a $100 million cut is worthy of mention. But I'd also say that we are just arguing over degrees now. A $100 million cut is worthy of mention but a $56 million cut isn't? If we just agree that cutting an infectious disease program is bad then we could look for ways to keep it while still slimming the budget.

Yes. I agree again. And I personally wouldn't cut this type of program unless i had it on good authority that I could do so without reducing output (i.e. an efficiency gain). But i don't mean to argue over degrees, but rather to gently note that if a $156MM cut allows us to make statements like

You see, to the GOP at large "welfare people" is scarier than any disease the GOP's cost cutting measures might cause to flourish. As long as the lower income GOPs believe it's a war on welfare people, and not them, they'll support it til Doomsday.

(see comment 88), then we ought to have been saying something 2/3 as bad about Obama around February of last year.

Unless we're just being partisan...which is fine, as long as we're transparent about it.

275 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:07:02pm

re: #271 Aceofwhat?

What would be confusing about that? If I had heard that Obama was cutting $100,000,000, I'd have been just as concerned. I'm glad that it appears that cut got cut, since the CDC 2011 budget is a slight increase over 2010, and the particular program IDSA says was targeted shows a small increase as well.

I'm pointing out that the reason this may have gotten such attention is that this cut represents a portion of the larger, three-quarters-of-a-billion set of cuts, whereas the IDSA article says Obama's total cuts to the CDC were a little over a hundred million. Another way to put it is the amount the GOP wants to cut from this program alone is larger than the entire amount Obama wanted to cut from the CDC budget.

276 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:09:14pm

re: #274 Aceofwhat?

The $156 million cut isn't occurring in a vacuum, Ace. There are tons and tons and tons of cuts, many of them dealing with programs for lower-income people The assaults on the unions combined with cuts to single mothers and children are rather sticking in my craw right now.

277 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:10:25pm

re: #272 Dark_Falcon

Not sure I want to do that. The money had not been spent. Right now, I generally favor unused appropriations being canceled and the money not borrowed or else used to pay off debt.

What if you would save more money by spending it, since by doing so you could prophylactically defray costs that you knew you would otherwise incur?

278 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:11:50pm

I'm also having a rough time finding re: #276 Obdicut

The $156 million cut isn't occurring in a vacuum, Ace. There are tons and tons and tons of cuts, many of them dealing with programs for lower-income people The assaults on the unions combined with cuts to single mothers and children are rather sticking in my craw right now.

This post is about the $156MM cut, right? Pretty sure i read it right. Can we stick to the topic at hand, please?

279 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:12:16pm

pimf

280 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:12:48pm

re: #273 prononymous

If that's your financial policy, fine. But you'd be in favor of "canceling" appropriations for this program in particular? It isn't a good investment?

The thing is we have to cut somethings that help people. This isn't reducing funds from this year, its taking back money they didn't use.Given how bad the budget situation is, the CDC is going to have to learn to do more with less.

281 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:13:23pm

re: #275 Obdicut

What would be confusing about that? If I had heard that Obama was cutting $100,000,000, I'd have been just as concerned.

Would you have called it a "screw the poor" move?

282 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:14:35pm

re: #278 Aceofwhat?

I'm also having a rough time finding

This post is about the $156MM cut, right? Pretty sure i read it right. Can we stick to the topic at hand, please?

I'm sorry, but you asked why people were saying things like they were in post 88. It's entirely true that this cut alone isn't enough in the least to prompt such remarks. The reason for those remarks lies in the sum total of what the GOP has done recently, of which this is a part.

That is an actual answer to your question. It involves going outside the topic of this thread. That happens sometimes.

283 Prononymous, rogue demon hunter  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:17:57pm

re: #281 Aceofwhat?

I'd call Obama's proposal offering too much concessions. I'd say the republican cut is the usual not giving a crap about social programs.

re: #280 Dark_Falcon

So basically yes, you do feel that immunization programs could afford to not have some extra money.

I have to run, bbl.

284 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:18:44pm

re: #282 Obdicut

I'm sorry, but you asked why people were saying things like they were in post 88. It's entirely true that this cut alone isn't enough in the least to prompt such remarks. The reason for those remarks lies in the sum total of what the GOP has done recently, of which this is a part.

That is an actual answer to your question. It involves going outside the topic of this thread. That happens sometimes.

Ok. But surely some of the comments above are prompted by this cut alone. "More red meat for the idiot base" comes to mind. Is it only red meat for the idiot base if it exceeds some invisible line between 100 and 156?

285 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:19:54pm

re: #281 Aceofwhat?

Would you have called it a "screw the poor" move?

Sure, if the effect was to reduce immunization and treatment for the poor. You realize the ISDA is not talking about this particular program, right? It's talking about a different budget than the one for immunization and respiratory diseases? It's talking about a 100 million cut to the whole Infectious Diseases program, and doesn't break that number down further than that.

There are other things that are directly objectionable,

Like this:


a 21 percent reduction in grants for the Section 317 immunization program compared to the current fiscal year, in light of the end of additional funding provided though the stimulus bill; these cuts will reduce access to immunizations, which save lives and millions of dollars in preventable medical spending

This a stupid fuck the poor moment.

286 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:20:09pm

re: #283 prononymous

I'd call Obama's proposal offering too much concessions. I'd say the republican cut is the usual not giving a crap about social programs.

re: #280 Dark_Falcon

So basically yes, you do feel that immunization programs could afford to not have some extra money.

I have to run, bbl.

Thanks. Obama's cut is a concession, republican cuts are a war on the poor. It's your opinion, and you are quite entitled to it. I appreciate your candor here-

287 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:22:14pm

re: #283 prononymous

I'd call Obama's proposal offering too much concessions. I'd say the republican cut is the usual not giving a crap about social programs.

re: #280 Dark_Falcon

So basically yes, you do feel that immunization programs could afford to not have some extra money.

I have to run, bbl.

Yes, that is correct.

288 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:22:27pm

re: #284 Aceofwhat?

Ok. But surely some of the comments above are prompted by this cut alone.

How would that be possible? Do you think there are people who don't know anything about the GOP other than this one fact?

"More red meat for the idiot base" comes to mind. Is it only red meat for the idiot base if it exceeds some invisible line between 100 and 156?

Again: The IDSA is talking about a different program.

289 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:28:47pm

re: #285 Obdicut

Sure, if the effect was to reduce immunization and treatment for the poor. You realize the ISDA is not talking about this particular program, right? It's talking about a different budget than the one for immunization and respiratory diseases? It's talking about a 100 million cut to the whole Infectious Diseases program, and doesn't break that number down further than that.

Ok, good. That's why i was asking the question "am i comparing apples to apples". Do we know what the GOP proposed cut is to the Infectious Diseases department as a whole?

290 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:32:07pm

re: #289 Aceofwhat?

Ok, good. That's why i was asking the question "am i comparing apples to apples". Do we know what the GOP proposed cut is to the Infectious Diseases department as a whole?

No. As I said, they proposed a total of more than three quarters of a billion to the entire CDC, as opposed to obama's 135 million. I think the only reason this budget cut is very clear is because the GOP used Obama's baseline-- which was adjusted downwards to recognize the one-time transfer from the 2009 account. Since the GOP cut that fund's use by Health and Human Services, that portion of the fund that was assigned to the CDC is gone, reducing the budget by the amount of that allocation.

291 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:33:24pm

re: #289 Aceofwhat?

Ok, good. That's why i was asking the question "am i comparing apples to apples". Do we know what the GOP proposed cut is to the Infectious Diseases department as a whole?

Answered my own question. Here's the continuing resolution.

[Link: appropriations.house.gov...]

The $156MM appears to be the only reduction in the Infectious Diseases area. So it does seem to be apples-to-apples.

292 MinisterO  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:34:26pm

re: #268 Aceofwhat?

I don't disagree with you. My question is closer to "how can a $100MM cut be unworthy of comment yet a $156MM cut to the same budget item be a travesty"? However, i am asking this as a question rather than typing it as an accusation because it can be very difficult to make sure that one is comparing apples to apples.

You're not comparing apples to apples.

The President's budget called for the CDC to close the funding gap by transferring funds authorized in P.L. 111-32. The amount available for the Infectious Diseases would actually have increased slightly. Perhaps that's why nobody got all bent out of shape, except IDSA of course.

Funding the CDC at the President's requested level and gutting the P.L. 111-32 fund, on the other hand, does decrease the funding available.

293 celticdragon  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:34:28pm

I literally yelled out "What the fuck??!" when I read the headline to this.

Jesus wept. The country is going insane.

294 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:35:58pm

re: #291 Aceofwhat?

How are you divining that, exactly? You don't think any of the General Reduction would affect the Infectious Diseases program?

295 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:36:49pm

re: #290 Obdicut

No. As I said, they proposed a total of more than three quarters of a billion to the entire CDC, as opposed to obama's 135 million. I think the only reason this budget cut is very clear is because the GOP used Obama's baseline-- which was adjusted downwards to recognize the one-time transfer from the 2009 account. Since the GOP cut that fund's use by Health and Human Services, that portion of the fund that was assigned to the CDC is gone, reducing the budget by the amount of that allocation.

Fine, yes. The proposal is an $850MM cut to the CDC budget. But this thread, and many of the people commenting within, is specifically about the $156MM. I have no objection to the thread or the opposition within; rather, it is the lack of similar objection to Obama's proposal last year to the same area that has me puzzled.

296 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:39:06pm
297 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:39:25pm

re: #295 Aceofwhat?

I have no objection to the thread or the opposition within; rather, it is the lack of similar objection to Obama's proposal last year to the same area that has me puzzled.

And again, it is about the enormity of the rest of the things that the GOP are doing. No matter how much you may want to stay on the topic of the thread, the truth is that the actions of the GOP are judged in the light of their other actions, and Obama's are as well. If Obama had a history of slashing programs for the poor, if he was unionbusting, if he was attempting to pass along more gigantic tax cuts for the wealthy, then he'd be judged in the same way as the GOP.

We do not, should not, and cannot judge each every separate action in a perfectly neutral manner.

298 MinisterO  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:39:56pm

re: #295 Aceofwhat?

Fine, yes. The proposal is an $850MM cut to the CDC budget. But this thread, and many of the people commenting within, is specifically about the $156MM. I have no objection to the thread or the opposition within; rather, it is the lack of similar objection to Obama's proposal last year to the same area that has me puzzled.

Puzzle no more. The latter was not really a cut, in that the funds could be made up elsewhere. This appears to be a genuine cut, in that the elsewhere funds are simultaneously rescinded.

299 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:40:15pm

re: #296 Red Shirt

Illegal aliens hardest hit

Yes, that's true. Illegal aliens are one of the populations that tend to become vectors for disease outbreaks, so it's a good thing to make sure that population is immunized.

300 BishopX  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:40:17pm

re: #296 Red Shirt

Man if you're not a sock puppet my name is Barack mcHitlerstalin.

301 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:41:28pm

re: #294 Obdicut

How are you divining that, exactly? You don't think any of the General Reduction would affect the Infectious Diseases program?

Exactly. If we don't know where the bulk of the cuts will come from, then it seems difficult to be outraged...yet. I'd have been more in favor of just requesting some sort of general reduction and letting the CDC decide how best to reallocate. What will we say if the CDC decides to reduce ID funding by an additional $150MM because they think it's the most effective way to meet the new budget...is that also a 'fuck the poor' moment?

302 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:45:18pm

re: #301 Aceofwhat?

Exactly. If we don't know where the bulk of the cuts will come from, then it seems difficult to be outraged...yet.

No, Ace, that's not what I said. At all. So don't say 'exactly', please.

I'd have been more in favor of just requesting some sort of general reduction and letting the CDC decide how best to reallocate

Why? Why do you think the CDC needs any reduction at all? Have you analyzed them and come to that conclusion?

What will we say if the CDC decides to reduce ID funding by an additional $150MM because they think it's the most effective way to meet the new budget...is that also a 'fuck the poor' moment?

What on earth are you after? I just don't get it. You're needling away at this conversation, and I have no clue what it is you're actually trying to say, or to get me to say.

If the CDC allocates more money to, say, employee facilities and foozball tables and away from providing vaccinations, then yes, that'll be a fuck the poor moment. They'll be saying 'fuck the poor, we need foozball'.

If they allocate money to research instead, they could make the credible case that doing so will, in the end, be the most beneficial to the poor.

Etc.

303 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:47:38pm

re: #297 Obdicut

And again, it is about the enormity of the rest of the things that the GOP are doing. No matter how much you may want to stay on the topic of the thread, the truth is that the actions of the GOP are judged in the light of their other actions, and Obama's are as well. If Obama had a history of slashing programs for the poor, if he was unionbusting, if he was attempting to pass along more gigantic tax cuts for the wealthy, then he'd be judged in the same way as the GOP.

We do not, should not, and cannot judge each every separate action in a perfectly neutral manner.

I disagree. "If Obama does A it's ok but if the Republicans do A it's because they hate the poor" is sloppy, sloppy thinking. We're better than that. If there's anything we can judge on the merits, it's a line-item budget. What unions have to do with this...i have no idea...but invoking unions here seems like a reach. At best.

304 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:47:42pm

re: #296 Red Shirt

[sniffing for the smell of socks]

305 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:50:36pm

re: #302 Obdicut

No, Ace, that's not what I said. At all. So don't say 'exactly', please.

That is EXACTLY what you said. You said i was divining a number, because we couldn't know the final cut $ without understanding how the general reduction would affect the number I had stated.

Either i am divining, and i agree that i was, and we don't know if the 156MM cut is final yet...or i am not divining. Which is it? And why do i have to keep quoting your words?

306 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:51:01pm

re: #303 Aceofwhat?

If Obama does A it's ok but if the Republicans do A it's because they hate the poor"

Nobody fucking said that, Ace. Nobody came even close. I specifically cited something that Obama had done and called it a fuck the poor moment.

Again, I get the feeling you're not actually bothering to read my posts.

307 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:52:01pm

re: #302 Obdicut

What on earth are you after? I just don't get it. You're needling away at this conversation, and I have no clue what it is you're actually trying to say, or to get me to say.

Huh. And yet i stated it quite plainly. Comment 268 comes to mind.

308 b_sharp  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:53:30pm

I've been trying to keep score but the action is just too vigorous.

309 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:54:04pm

re: #306 Obdicut

Nobody fucking said that, Ace. Nobody came even close. I specifically cited something that Obama had done and called it a fuck the poor moment.

Again, I get the feeling you're not actually bothering to read my posts.

Pronymous said it in 283. Pretty fucking close.

310 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:55:34pm

re: #305 Aceofwhat?

No, Ace. I was pointing out that you saying that you really were comparing apples to apples was wrong, since you were comparing the total costs to the Infectious Diseases department, as given in the IDSA article, with the cost for this one particular program's cut-- the immunization and respiratory disease program.

You then somehow divined that no other GOP cuts to the CDC could impact Infectious Diseases, for no apparant reason. What we know is that 156 million is the least that it can be impacted-- assuming that immunization and respiratory disease are actually a part of Infectious diseases.

So the fact we don't know where the rest of the GOP's costs fall just underscores the point that you're trying to compare two different things.

And again, I've got no clue why: I've been perfectly happy to condemn a particular cut of Obama's.

311 MinisterO  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:57:34pm

re: #308 b_sharp

I've been trying to keep score but the action is just too vigorous.

What's to score? There's no substance.

312 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:58:04pm

re: #306 Obdicut

I specifically cited something that Obama had done and called it a fuck the poor moment.

Again, I get the feeling you're not actually bothering to read my posts.

Ok, now this one i can't find, and I apologize for missing it. You said that you'd be just as concerned if you'd heard that Obama had proposed a $100MM cut to the ID division; if by that, you mean we'd have been right to say that Obama was having a 'fuck the poor' moment, then I apologize for not having understood that correctly. I am not trying to trap you into anything; i am wondering as plainly as possible whether a good number of commenters here would have the balls (as you do) to say similar things about Obama's proposed cut, unions notwithstanding.

That is all. But first i wanted to make sure that i was comparing apples to apples. Barring the general reduction, it appears that I am.

313 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:58:29pm

re: #307 Aceofwhat?

Huh. And yet i stated it quite plainly. Comment 268 comes to mind.

My question is closer to "how can a $100MM cut be unworthy of comment yet a $156MM cut to the same budget item be a travesty"?

But it's not unworthy of a comment. $100 million is worthy of comment. That's why the IDSA commented on it. If you're saying "Why wasn't it brought up here?", then I can only say that I didn't see it. I found this through a colleague of my wife's.

The larger answer for why people are more sensitive to cuts made by the GOP is, no matter how much it's not part of the topic of this thread, is that the GOP has a definite pattern in its cuts of targeting programs that benefit the poor.

314 MinisterO  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:58:58pm

re: #312 Aceofwhat?


That is all. But first i wanted to make sure that i was comparing apples to apples. Barring the general reduction, it appears that I am.

No, and I've explained twice why you're not.

315 b_sharp  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:59:06pm

re: #311 MinisterO

What's to score? There's no substance.

Just like hockey.

316 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:59:23pm

re: #312 Aceofwhat?


That is all. But first i wanted to make sure that i was comparing apples to apples. Barring the general reduction, it appears that I am.

I don't agree in the least. You're comparing two different programs. Why do you think they're the same thing?

Infectious Diseases and Immunization and Respiratory Diseases are not congruous.

317 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 6:59:55pm

re: #308 b_sharp

I've been trying to keep score but the action is just too vigorous.

it's dicey...i'm up $14.25 but i've lost most of the 'take it off' bets, so i'm down to my shorts - i'm nervous...is it cold in here or is it just me?

318 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 7:00:54pm

re: #312 Aceofwhat?

I've seen plenty of people here condemn Obama for various things. And if you want to know what they think, then don't ask me, ask them. I cannot be a spokesperson for anyone other than myself.

But again, and again: The GOP is not being condemned on this cut alone. This cut is one of many, many, many, and a distressingly large amount of those target programs for the poor.

319 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 7:04:05pm

re: #316 Obdicut

I don't agree in the least. You're comparing two different programs. Why do you think they're the same thing?

Infectious Diseases and Immunization and Respiratory Diseases are not congruous.

Look at the org chart. the IRD department is one of three departments which comprise Infectious Diseases.

Wait, did you seriously not look at the org chart before now? Sorry, i thought you had, or i'd have been more clear.

320 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 7:05:42pm

re: #319 Aceofwhat?

Look at the org chart. the IRD department is one of three departments which comprise Infectious Diseases.

Great. So, I'm glad you know that you're not comparing apples to apples, and have for this entire time.

Unsure why you think that comparing a cut to a department is the same thing as comparing the cut to an entire program, though.

321 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 7:05:46pm

re: #318 Obdicut

I've seen plenty of people here condemn Obama for various things. And if you want to know what they think, then don't ask me, ask them. I cannot be a spokesperson for anyone other than myself.

But again, and again: The GOP is not being condemned on this cut alone. This cut is one of many, many, many, and a distressingly large amount of those target programs for the poor.

I believe that you have and would be blunt about something Obama did if you strongly disagreed with it. I originally asked you to help make sure that i understood the cuts correctly.

322 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 7:07:09pm

re: #320 Obdicut

Great. So, I'm glad you know that you're not comparing apples to apples, and have for this entire time.

Unsure why you think that comparing a cut to a department is the same thing as comparing the cut to an entire program, though.

Because the appropriations bill specifically mentions the departments facing specific cuts. if a department is not mentioned, its funding is not being cut.

ergo, if the IRD department is the only Infectious Diseases department to be mentioned, then total ID cuts = IRD cuts.

323 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 7:08:46pm

re: #314 MinisterO

No, and I've explained twice why you're not.

you may be technically correct, but if few here objected to Obama's proposal last year in the first place, then fewer still took the time to research whether he was proposing an actual cut or a one-time cut which would be filled by a one-time transfer.

324 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 7:10:07pm

re: #322 Aceofwhat?


Because the appropriations bill specifically mentions the departments facing specific cuts. if a department is not mentioned, its funding is not being cut.

How are you coming to that conclusion? What department does 'general reduction' lower the budget of, please?

325 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 7:12:01pm

re: #318 Obdicut

But again, and again: The GOP is not being condemned on this cut alone. This cut is one of many, many, many, and a distressingly large amount of those target programs for the poor.

Also, when the situation is reversed, and someone condemns Obama for doing something similar to what republicans had previously done or proposed, we point it out. It's relevant.

326 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 7:12:47pm

re: #323 Aceofwhat?

But Ace, that's not an argument. I mean, it may be a correct observation, but, so what? When two people do the same thing, they can expect different reactions, based on the context in which they do that thing. That is not weird, or unfair. That is rational.

327 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 7:17:03pm

re: #324 Obdicut

How are you coming to that conclusion? What department does 'general reduction' lower the budget of, please?

Here we are again. Lest i again be accused of misquoting you while quoting you, let's choose an option.

Either:

1. The General Reduction is too large to allow us to comment yet on individual department cuts, and we should therefore withhold comment until we see how the General Reduction shakes out, largely invalidating this thread, or;

2. We trust the discretion of the CDC, by and large, to target the General Reduction towards those programs which would suffer the least and believe that they will not reduce the Infectious Diseases budget further (of which the Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases is a department) because this cut is already too big, thus validating the existence of this thread.

I'd been going with 2, because i think this is a valid thread.

Also, if there's a third option that i missed, please let me know.

328 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 7:17:22pm

re: #325 Aceofwhat?

Also, when the situation is reversed, and someone condemns Obama for doing something similar to what republicans had previously done or proposed, we point it out. It's relevant.

Like right there, Ace-- what the hell did your comment have to do with mine? It appears to really have nothing to do with what I said. I pointed out that the GOP is being judged harshly on topics of cuts to programs that impact the poor because, along with these cuts, they are proposing lots and lots and lots of other cuts to programs that affect the poor.

I have no idea what you mean by the situation being reversed. What situation? The GOP is being criticized for this cut, in the context of the rest of their cuts that target the poor. Obama gets criticized all the time for making what often seem like pointless concessions and screwing over the poor for the sake of bipartisan politics.

329 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 7:19:01pm

re: #327 Aceofwhat?

Here we are again. Lest i again be accused of misquoting you while quoting you, let's choose an option.

Either:

1. The General Reduction is too large to allow us to comment yet on individual department cuts, and we should therefore withhold comment until we see how the General Reduction shakes out, largely invalidating this thread, or;

2. We trust the discretion of the CDC, by and large, to target the General Reduction towards those programs which would suffer the least and believe that they will not reduce the Infectious Diseases budget further (of which the Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases is a department) because this cut is already too big, thus validating the existence of this thread.

I'd been going with 2, because i think this is a valid thread.

Also, if there's a third option that i missed, please let me know.

Sounds about right to me.

330 MinisterO  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 7:19:13pm

re: #323 Aceofwhat?

you may be technically correct, but if few here objected to Obama's proposal last year in the first place, then fewer still took the time to research whether he was proposing an actual cut or a one-time cut which would be filled by a one-time transfer.

That's a very sophisticated case you've made there. People here should have been outraged over something they never even saw, though, had they seen it, they wouldn't have been outraged.

OK I can do this. I'm currently outraged at Obama.

331 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 7:22:27pm

re: #326 Obdicut

But Ace, that's not an argument. I mean, it may be a correct observation, but, so what? When two people do the same thing, they can expect different reactions, based on the context in which they do that thing. That is not weird, or unfair. That is rational.

Now THIS is more interesting than CDC budgets.

Does it not depend on the thing? Two people may ask for my phone number, but in different contexts, i may react differently. The 'thing' in this case can't be judged without additional external context.

Other things, and i am hypothetically including budget line items here, are robust enough that they can be judged rather independently. I find it hard to believe that a cut to a budget line item is Schrodingeresque, in that it is only evil if we look in the box and find that it was proposed by one side of the political aisle.

332 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 7:23:15pm

re: #327 Aceofwhat?

No, I don't think that's a well-formed either or. I can think of many other scenarios beside those two choices.

Such as: Since we know that Obama cut Infectious Disease funding by $100 million, that is the upper bound for the cuts that he made to that department. We know the lower bound of cuts in Infectious Disease funding under the GOP plan is $156 million. So we're comparing a known lower and a known upper bound.

Furthermore, your #2 scenario is just baffling. The CDC is facing a big cut, but they can 'target it towards the programs that would suffer the least'. So, in order to preserve the infectious disease budget, money spent by the CDC-- which, as an overall mission, tends to have programs that help the poor-- in other areas will go down. Which still makes it a reduction in services that benefit the poor and indigent.

333 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 7:26:08pm

re: #331 Aceofwhat?

Again: I feel like you're not bothering to read my posts at all, and it's getting very, very goddamn frustrating.

The point is not that the budget line item is either good or evil depending on who's on either side. The point, as I have said many times, and am now saying for the last goddamn time, is the panoply of other things the GOP are doing, which allows us to place that budget item in a context.

For some reason, you seem to think that context is a bad thing in judging the line item, or judging the GOP. I have no idea why.

Goodnight.

334 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 7:26:21pm

re: #328 Obdicut

Like right there, Ace-- what the hell did your comment have to do with mine? It appears to really have nothing to do with what I said. I pointed out that the GOP is being judged harshly on topics of cuts to programs that impact the poor because, along with these cuts, they are proposing lots and lots and lots of other cuts to programs that affect the poor.

Ah. Say i wish to make the point that "Obama is secretly working against Israel." One of my supporting arguments is Obama proposed a 15% reduction in aid to Israel!!

If you knew that republicans had proposed a 10% reduction in aid to Israel just the year before, wouldn't you point out that I did not, in fact, have proof on this item that Obama had some sort of agenda, unless I thought the republicans had a similar agenda?

I'd tell me that.

335 MinisterO  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 7:27:40pm

I'm so angry I could spit!

I should have been angry until I found out that I had no cause to be angry, and then I should have felt stupid for being angry for no reason.

I was robbed of all that by the liberal media's failure to misinform me.

336 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 7:31:05pm

re: #333 Obdicut

Again: I feel like you're not bothering to read my posts at all, and it's getting very, very goddamn frustrating.

The point is not that the budget line item is either good or evil depending on who's on either side. The point, as I have said many times, and am now saying for the last goddamn time, is the panoply of other things the GOP are doing, which allows us to place that budget item in a context.

For some reason, you seem to think that context is a bad thing in judging the line item, or judging the GOP. I have no idea why.

Goodnight.

I disagree. In fact, i've had to re-quote things to you in order to continue to prove that i am on point. I'm sorry that you're frustrated, but several times you've accused me of missing something, only to have it requoted to you. At some point, that needs to offset your frustration.

I understand your point. I am indeed saying that wide context is a bad thing in judging a line item. A cut will have positive or negative effect, regardless of who proposed it. For some reason, you seem to think that the effect of a specific budget cut will be different based on the "context" of the party who proposed it. I have no idea why.

I'm sorry you're frustrated. Have a good night.

337 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 7:34:12pm

re: #335 MinisterO

I'm so angry I could spit!

I should have been angry until I found out that I had no cause to be angry, and then I should have felt stupid for being angry for no reason.

I was robbed of all that by the liberal media's failure to misinform me.

if you spit, you'll just make it harder to froth. and a good froth is a terrible thing to waste.

338 Prononymous, rogue demon hunter  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 7:38:14pm

re: #286 Aceofwhat?

Thanks. Obama's cut is a concession, republican cuts are a war on the poor. It's your opinion, and you are quite entitled to it. I appreciate your candor here-

re: #309 Aceofwhat?

Pronymous said it in 283. Pretty fucking close.

No problem. I'll be plenty candid.

We have a context here and Republicans like cutting social programs. I say that Obama is probably just offering concessions because I know his history. But if he did it because he doesn't care about the effect on the poor then screw him too.

I'd say that we should have studies done on various departments of the government and determine how much money they really need. IMO, such a study would reveal a program for immunizations probably needs an increase in funds. Some objective measurement is needed here.

339 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 7:42:47pm

re: #338 prononymous

re: #309 Aceofwhat?

No problem. I'll be plenty candid.

We have a context here and Republicans like cutting social programs. I say that Obama is probably just offering concessions because I know his history. But if he did it because he doesn't care about the effect on the poor then screw him too.

I'd say that we should have studies done on various departments of the government and determine how much money they really need. IMO, such a study would reveal a program for immunizations probably needs an increase in funds. Some objective measurement is needed here.

Thanks.

This is what i mean: either the cut in question will screw the poor, or it won't. Doesn't the answer to that question, then, tell us whether the person(s) proposing the cut is going to 'screw the poor'?

That's all. I think that a budget line item is best judged by its effect, not its sponsor. As you say, we need objective measurement - then we can judge.

340 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 7:43:37pm

re: #339 Aceofwhat?

Thanks.

This is what i mean: either the cut in question will screw the poor, or it won't. Doesn't the answer to that question, then, tell us whether the person(s) proposing the cut is going to 'screw the poor'?

That's all. I think that a budget line item is best judged by its effect, not its sponsor. As you say, we need objective measurement - then we can judge.

Quite Concur.

341 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 7:46:44pm

re: #340 Dark_Falcon

Quite Concur.

Dude! How are you? Still tearing it up at work?

342 Prononymous, rogue demon hunter  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 7:51:17pm

re: #339 Aceofwhat?

I don't feel that one should argue against an idea or policy based on who they are. Your argument against should rest on the merits of their actual argument.

But I reject that we can't determine intent and motivations. We can't determine intent for certain without some sort of brain scanner. But we can certainly observe actions in context of the past. Right now the intent, whoever is doing it, seems to be to cut infectious disease programs to the poor.

343 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 7:56:35pm

re: #342 prononymous

I don't feel that one should argue against an idea or policy based on who they are. Your argument against should rest on the merits of their actual argument.

But I reject that we can't determine intent and motivations. We can't determine intent for certain without some sort of brain scanner. But we can certainly observe actions in context of the past. Right now the intent, whoever is doing it, seems to be to cut infectious disease programs to the poor.

We can determine intent and motivations, you're right. And saying that half of our government is more interested in harming the poor than making significant budget cuts strikes me as mean-spirited.

It is one thing to say "i don't think X cares enough about the effect this will have on the poor". It is quite another to say "i think that X intends to harm the poor".

344 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 8:14:33pm

re: #341 Aceofwhat?

Dude! How are you? Still tearing it up at work?

not this month. I got put in on the tail end of an event and have had a hard time of it. I've still got some good chances though.

345 Prononymous, rogue demon hunter  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 8:14:40pm

re: #343 Aceofwhat?

Ok. I think that my comment fits as "I don't think republicans care enough about the effect this will have on the poor." That is roughly what I said.

And so we can clear up that this isn't just being partisan, include just about everyone else in the government in my comment. They haven't shown a lot of dedication to the less well off and they are free to try and prove me wrong.

346 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 8:16:29pm

re: #345 prononymous

Ok. I think that my comment fits as "I don't think republicans care enough about the effect this will have on the poor." That is roughly what I said.

And so we can clear up that this isn't just being partisan, include just about everyone else in the government in my comment. They haven't shown a lot of dedication to the less well off and they are free to try and prove me wrong.

Very fair. Thank you.

347 Obdicut  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 8:20:08pm

re: #336 Aceofwhat?

Jesus, don't break your arm patting yourself on the back there, Ace.

Yes, the context of the 156 million dollar cuts does change the effects of these cuts, when that context is 650 million dollars of other cuts to the CDC. I have no idea how you think it can't change the effects. I mean, you said yourself that the CDC would have to cut other programs in order to funnel money towards this-- that's a different goddamn effect from the context.

348 Nemesis6  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 9:00:22pm

Only a troll would ask "why do they hate America?"

But I think it's a valid question.

349 Eclectic Infidel  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 9:47:14pm

I wonder what the pro-life Republican lizards have to say about this.

350 MinisterO  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 10:41:23pm

re: #346 Aceofwhat?

Despite any pretense to the contrary you're just throwing stones. The fact that the actual effect of a proposed cut doesn't enter into the equation tells me that there's no useful information in your commentary.

351 Fozzie Bear  Mon, Mar 21, 2011 11:35:21pm

This entire debate is fucking ridiculous. It's time to raise taxes. It's incredibly obvious to anyone not completely blinded by Austrian economic ideology.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Harper’s Magazine: Slippery Slope - How Private Equity Shapes a Ski Town …Big Sky stands apart for other reasons. The obvious distinction is the Yellowstone Club, a private resort hidden in the mountains above the community that Justin Farrell, a professor of sociology at Yale and the author of Billionaire Wilderness, ...
teleskiguy
Yesterday
Views: 145 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0