Swine flu spurs Obama to advocate science over ideology

[Pangloss]

That does not constitute an argument against science spending or pandemic preparedness spending in general.

 

Once again you utilize the technique of casting of other people's opinions in disparaging light rather than addressing the actual argument. Oh right -- "the ability to shove naysayers aside is not always bad". I guess I'm a naysayer. Nay! NAY, I say!!!

[iNow]

Once again you utilize the technique of casting of other people's opinions in disparaging light rather than addressing the actual argument. Oh right -- "the ability to shove naysayers aside is not always bad". I guess I'm a naysayer. Nay! NAY, I say!!!

 

It seems to bear repeating...

Nothing but smoke and mirrors. I notice you've failed to address any specific arguments.

This time, though... You've chosen to further suggest that I am somehow dodging arguments. Interesting. I disagree with that suggestion, and feel my previous posts to this thread support my position.

[Pangloss]

I notice you've failed to address any specific arguments.

 

Again, that's because, as I've clearly stated, I am not opposed to science spending and pandemic preparedness spending.

[cameron marical]

Mexico is also universally being seen as vastly less prepared for this event than the US, as exhibited by the relative number of deaths, which is receiving endless comment in the media. But I've already agreed that the US is also underprepared.

 

We all apparently want more science spending. I guess the difference between ParanoiA and I, and iNow, bascule, and Severian, is that we want all spending fully and fairly debated, and you want it hidden from the religious zealots and snuck in by the back door. Science spending at all costs, and shove the naysayers aside if that's what it takes.

 

Hey, more power to you, I guess. But don't ever post anything about the need for transparency in government ever again.

 

I do beleive in science spending at all costs, and yes, i am definately biased. Though that may sound wrong,i can not see why it is. i do not see why we are not that way either. science uses facts to come up with solutions, i think thats the way to do it, Not dreams or mutterings of 3000 year old prophecies. Though i do see why some people think that the ladder is the prevalent and natural way, it is just due to a lack of education and curiosity.

Edited April 29, 2009 by cameron marical

[Pangloss]

I do beleive in science spending at all costs, and yes, i am definately biased.

 

At all costs? Ah, so, unless I'm misreading you (and please correct me if I am; I wouldn't want to misrepresent your opinion, after all), you're saying that you favor spending on your special interest without due diligence.

 

What do you think of spending on other special interests without due diligence?

[cameron marical]

At all costs? Ah, so, unless I'm misreading you (and please correct me if I am; I wouldn't want to misrepresent your opinion, after all), you're saying that you favor spending on your special interest without due diligence.

 

What do you think of spending on other special interests without due diligence?

 

You are not misinterpreting it, i merely wrote it slightly flawed. I do beleive that science should of be top priority, especially in time of a crisis. Now to say "At all costs" is a bit close minded sounding in itself, because everyone else beleives that their point of veiw and interest should be of top priority and at all costs. I understand your stance in this discussion, yet i will continue to play mine. I think that science should be above the others. Im not saying that we should reject everything else, rather, instead look into the science of those others themselves and see if it has any scientific merit. If not, then i do not see a point in further consideration of that subject.

[iNow]

Again, that's because, as I've clearly stated, I am not opposed to science spending and pandemic preparedness spending.

 

But you are against that spending if it comes in the form of a stimulus bill. Posts to this thread have demonstrated the economic impact of non-preparedness for flu, and how preparedness helps the economy.

 

You have now simply repeated three times your assertion that you are not against spending, but you have not adequately countered the arguments that doing so in a stimulus package is demonstrably stimulative. You have failed to make your case that people who have made arguments that doing such spending in a stimulus package has a measurable and positive impact on the economy are mistaken. You have lobbed personal comments completely unrelated to the thread and also made claims that your own arguments are being dismissed... but the simple fact is that you have not made any arguments of your own... Only walked around the issue by trying to displace attention on to other topics... Hence my comments about smoke and mirrors.

 

Now, what's the issue? It's been shown that spending on flu preparedness has a positive impact on the economy, and also that a lack of preparedness has a negative economic impact. Are you either willing or able to now step up and make your case why you believe that such spending is not stimulative, and why it has no place in a stimulus bill? Or, are you going to continue playing games and avoiding the heart of the issue?

[Pangloss]

You are not misinterpreting it, i merely wrote it slightly flawed.

 

Im not saying that we should reject everything else, rather, instead look into the science of those others themselves and see if it has any scientific merit. If not, then i do not see a point in further consideration of that subject.

 

Okay, so (if I read you right) you do support due diligence, in general, before spending. Cool. I appreciate the clarification.

 

 

But you are against that spending if it comes in the form of a stimulus bill.

 

I'm opposed to using the stimulus bill to circumvent due diligence.

 

 

Posts to this thread have demonstrated the economic impact of non-preparedness for flu, and how preparedness helps the economy.

 

No, posts have been made which suggest economic impact of non-preparedness that does not directly relate to the United States' current preparation level, nor do they explain what would be a preparation level that WOULD avoid major economy calamity in the US. They do not counter my point, which is that these questions should be analyzed and addressed in a normal law-making process, not spent on in an emergency fashion without due diligence.

 

 

You have now simply repeated three times your assertion that you are not against spending, but you have not adequately countered the arguments that doing so in a stimulus package is demonstrably stimulative.

 

See above.

 

 

You have failed to make your case that people who have made arguments that doing such spending in a stimulus package has a measurable and positive impact on the economy are mistaken.

 

I'm countering their opinion with a different one. I'm allowed to do that here.

 

 

You have lobbed personal comments completely unrelated to the thread

 

No sir, I've responded to your personal comments that were completely unrelated to the thread. I believe those comments were made in order to render my opinion into obscurity, and I have stated my objection to that action.

 

 

and also made claims that your own arguments are being dismissed... but the simple fact is that you have not made any arguments of your own... Only walked around the issue by trying to displace attention on to other topics... Hence my comments about smoke and mirrors.

 

Incorrect. I have made an argument, and that argument is that I have a problem with spending that's not subject to due diligence. That's not "smoke and mirrors", it is in fact a clear statement of opinion.

[iNow]

Incorrect. I have made an argument, and that argument is that I have a problem with spending that's not subject to due diligence. That's not "smoke and mirrors", it is in fact a clear statement of opinion.

The logical extension of this, then, is that you're here to argue against the ENTIRE stimulus bill... the whole kit and caboodle, not the flu preparedness spending which is the specific topic currently under discussion (and which wasn't even approved with the bill, which makes this that much more ridiculous). Is this the case? If not, I suggest you try again at better presenting your position, since your issue with a lack of "due diligence" cannot logically end with flu preparedness spending, which we've been showing has a real and measurable impact on economy.

 

You can share all of the opinions you want. If I find fault with them, or I think they're unsupported, then I'm allowed to challenge them. I'm allowed to challenge any opinion expressed in these threads... I'm allowed to do that here.

[Pangloss]

Nope, I am not opposed to the entire stimulus bill, and as I acknowledged in the previous thread I recognize that it's a gray area as to what constitutes "legitimate" stimulus spending and what does not. As I said in post #11 of this thread, I respect that some people will disagree with me on this issue.

 

Anyway, I realize not everyone feels that way, and I don't mean to drag up the science-stimulus issue again; I'm a compromise kind of guy, it's just not what I would have done.

 

And guess what? Gray areas are a two-way street, and in fact you've not shown a real or measurable impact on America, which has a different level of preparedness than Mexico. That is a gray area.

 

(Wow, look at that, I'm not saying "my point stands" or "your point is rejected" -- how interesting! Did you know that a discussion can work that way, iNow? You know, with two people respecting one another's opinions, instead of making them seem all smelly and nasty in front of the community?)

 

I'm ready to move on from this, but if you keep it up I will continue to respond. I also remind you that I apologized for bringing up the stimulus spending issue again (see quote above) and was ready to drop this and not drag it out, but you and bascule kept going with it and asking me to respond. I did respond. Directly.

[Severian]

I still don't understand what criterion you are using to identify "legitimate" stimulus spending. Surely all spending creates stimulus (even if you had a parade in New York where you threw cash to the crowds), and all stimulus spending could have been labelled as spending under an appropriate non-stimulus heading.

[SH3RL0CK]

I still don't understand what criterion you are using to identify "legitimate" stimulus spending. Surely all spending creates stimulus (even if you had a parade in New York where you threw cash to the crowds), and all stimulus spending could have been labelled as spending under an appropriate non-stimulus heading.

 

If we keep spending like we are, our New York City parades will indeed include throwing cash to the crowds. This will be because hyper-inflation will result in cash being cheaper than confetti.

 

I'm all for spending wisely. But I am afraid that the government long ago lost any sense of wisdom in their spending bills.

[Mokele]

even if you had a parade in New York where you threw cash to the crowds

 

But we already tried that in the 80's, and the crowd was certainly all smiles, thanks to a 'unique' MC.

 

But then one naysayer ruined everything. Stupid Batman.

[Lan(r)12]

I don't see Flu Preparedness as Stimulus in the most conventional sense. Yes, it would creat jobs, but only if the pharmacuetical companies expanded to cope with the larger client number.

 

Im all for Flu Preparedness, and people that know me know I am uber-scared of viruses and pandemics (like in 28 Days Later and Quarantine).

But there was a LOT of social spending in the "stimulus" bill...and I think this is one of them.

 

I can certainly see both sides, and I think they both have valid arguments. A devastating flu would impact our economy, but are precautions a way to provide economic recovery?

 

Im more leaning into the "no, it's not" territory.

[iNow]

Legitimate spending warrants legitimate debate, not emergency spending to circumvent debate.

 

I guess the difference between ParanoiA and I, and iNow, bascule, and Severian, is that we want all spending fully and fairly debated, and you want it hidden from the religious zealots and snuck in by the back door.

 

I'm opposed to using the stimulus bill to circumvent due diligence.

 

<...>

 

these questions should be analyzed and addressed in a normal law-making process, not spent on in an emergency fashion without due diligence.

 

<...>

 

I have made an argument, and that argument is that I have a problem with spending that's not subject to due diligence. That's not "smoke and mirrors", it is in fact a clear statement of opinion.

 

The logical extension of this, then, is that you're here to argue against the ENTIRE stimulus bill... the whole kit and caboodle, not the flu preparedness spending which is the specific topic currently under discussion.

 

Nope, I am not opposed to the entire stimulus bill

 

 

 

This has nothing to do with respecting opinions, Pangloss. It's about pointing to flaws in your logic, inconsistencies in your posts, and a lack of support for your position.

 

 

 

 

Tell me... Where was the due diligence and debate regarding all of the other spending in the stimulus which you support? I was unaware that we did our "due diligence" and engaged in adequate and open "debate" about every item in the stimulus package prior to that bill being passed.

 

That's the point. You are arguing against flu preparedness by saying that you are only against it since it was not subject to due diligence and full debate. My counter is that... neither was the rest of the stimulus package, so what precisely makes the flu preparedness stuff somehow different?

 

There's the flaw in your reasoning... at least the reasoning you've presented here in this thread.

 

All you've done is say that flu preparedness should be subject to due diligence and debate, and I am illustrating that the rest of the stimulus bill was not, and thus asking you why you're holding flu preparedness spending to a different standard than the other items moved forward in the stimulus package.

 

I think we've already covered the economic impact of a lack of prevention, sources supplied and everything on the "yes, it does have a measurable impact on the economy" side of that debate... so I think we can move on with that, and focus on why you're argument centers around due diligence and debate, and why you're not holding the other items in the stimulus to that same standard.

 

 

What I suspect will happen is that you're going to back-peddle, and move away from your due diligence/open debate position, and simply be honest about the fact that all you have is a personal opinion that flu preparedness does not meet your personal definition of stimulus spending (which is perfectly fair, but not inline with the comments you've continued to make here when that opinion was openly challenged).

[Pangloss]

What I suspect will happen is that you're going to back-peddle, and move away from your due diligence/open debate position, and simply be honest about the fact that all you have is a personal opinion that flu preparedness does not meet your personal definition of stimulus spending (which is perfectly fair, but not inline with the comments you've continued to make here when that opinion was openly challenged).

 

All I've ever offered on this subject is my opinion. In my opinion pandemic preparedness, and most other science funding, should have been funded separately from the stimulus bill, for the reasons I've outlined here.

 

And, as we now know thanks to my expression of my opinion, I'm not the only one here who thinks so. When a diversity of previously unrecognized opinions has been revealed in a community I call it a successful discussion.

[bascule]

This whole thread kind of dumbfounds me.

 

It seems like many people are getting stuck on a rather myopic view of the word "stimulus"

 

The goal of the bill is to rebuild the American economy, regardless of whether particular measures are "stimulus" measures or not. Improving the economy is the overall goal.

 

Preventing highly probable regressions in economic growth is a no brainer for the stimulus bill. Several other items (that ParanoiA mentioned facetiously) were included in stimulus. Republicans argued that preparation for flu pandemics (i.e. money that'd go to government agencies) was not "stimulus" under this myopic definition.

 

Now, in 20/20 hindsight, no matter where that money is coming from it would've been good to have. We also have arguments that it will negatively impact the economy, which seem sound.

 

With all that said, people are still arguing against the pandemic prevention measures as "stimulus" and I can't for the life of me figure out why...

[SH3RL0CK]

I'm not opposed to spending money to prevent pandemics, I think that is a good idea. However, my problem with this is the overall fiscal irresponsibility of the government. We shouldn't be spending money we don't have as this is only a receipe for greater disaster later.

[ParanoiA]

With all that said, people are still arguing against the pandemic prevention measures as "stimulus" and I can't for the life of me figure out why...

 

Because we can't figure out why logical people don't get the logical implication of the word "stimulus" as opposed to normal spending. If all spending "stimulates" the economy, or prevents downward spirals, then what in the world is a stimulus bill then?

 

Where is the qualifying partition that separates 'stimulus' spending from normal spending? Hell, give me one example of just good ole spending that no one can argue is "stimulus" spending. Give me one example of regular spending that you don't think is "stimulus" spending.

 

Instead, you've renamed it to "Rebuilding The American Economy" bill. We have had stimulus bills several times in the past, and those have set the precedence for what a 'stimulus' bill is - so why is it surprising that logical people would logically conclude that a bill called 'stimulus' would be comparable to previous bills referred to as 'stimulus'?

 

Every dollar spent is stimulating somewhere, so there is no successful argument to limit it's scope such that it creates a fraction of difference with a regular spending bill. So, either the "stimulus" bill is propaganda since it's really just a regular spending bill "spun" so we agree to the drunken spending, OR, folks are being disingenuous on the scope of what 'stimulus' really is. Which one is it?

 

 

 

As far as funding the pandemic goes, my incredulity is way beyond the rest in here because I'm wondering where in the hell the money went in the first place. It shouldn't have been included in any stimulus bill - it should have been there already. The only kind of spending we should be talking about related to pandemics should be surplus funding, which doesn't qualify as "stimulus" spending to me.

[Sisyphus]

I thought the idea behind stimulus spending was simply to spend more than usual without taxing more than usual, with the overall goal of increasing the velocity of currency in the economy and keeping people productive. It would be temporary because it's unsustainable, and the number of things the government is willing to spend on and the amount it's willing to spend would be temporarily increased. So, yes, there wouldn't necessarily be any particular category of spending included or excluded in the "worth it for stimulus, but not normally" pile. Hopefully it would focus mainly on things that aid the economy in their actual function, in addition to simply because money is being spent. Preventative healthcare, without getting into the specifics of this particular proposal, could certainly qualify for that criterion.

[SH3RL0CK]

...I'm wondering where in the hell the money went in the first place...

 

Thank you, that neatly sums up half of my concerns regarding the fiscal irresponsibility I refered to earlier. The other half of my concerns is why we can spend over a trillion dollars on "stimulus" without even blinking. And the programs being implemented here are of dubious stimulating value to me. Hell, I can't even tell where most of the money is/went. This Trillion is, of course, above and beyond our normal budget which already spends more than we can afford. Isn't there already spending in the "normal" budget to support the CDC and WHO?

 

The root of the current economic crisis seems to be that everyone borrowed more than they could afford, leaving everyone and banks in particular overextended...so then is the solution to drastically borrow and spend much more? And then because we "could" have a flu pandemic, to spend even more still? Maybe the swine flu is a real concern, but if so it is already too late to address by government action...though I agree we could work now to possibly prevent a future outbreak. How will we be able to cope with a "real" pandemic such as happended with the 1918 flu if this were to happen at the same time as hyperinflation caused by our vast debt?

[iNow]

Preventing economic decline from a preventable illness by preparing up front IS synonymous with stimulus.

 

The arguments on this page to the contrary are more against the ENTIRE stimulus package, and are not specific to the flu preparedness piece. This is one of the exact same criticisms I made of Pangloss' assertions earlier in the thread. It's cool that you are upset with the stimulus package. I can understand that, but at least have the academic integrity to recognize that your arguments don't apply to this specific "flu preparedness" section, and are instead generalizations against the entire stimulus process itself.

 

The simple fact is that (as Sisyphus rightly stated) preventative healthcare DOES aid the economy and allow it to function properly, and therefore can be considered stimulative (as it greatly helps to prevent additional, preventable, predictable and unnecessary decline).

[ParanoiA]

I can understand that' date=' but at least have the academic integrity to recognize that your arguments don't apply to this specific "flu preparedness" section, and are instead generalizations against the entire stimulus process itself.

 

The simple fact is that (as Sisyphus rightly stated) preventative healthcare DOES aid the economy and allow it to function properly, and therefore can be considered stimulative (as it greatly helps to prevent additional, preventable, predictable and unnecessary decline).[/quote']

 

Exactly, iNow. Demonstrate this "academic integrity" by giving us an example of good ole spendin' that isn't justified as stimulus spending.

 

Dismissing our arguments with repetitous specious appeals to economic connectivity is not academically sound. We're very clearly trying to figure out where this partition is that separates regular spending from stimulus spending. Using your logic, there is no difference between the two at all. It's propaganda apparently.

 

Just call it a normal spending bill and none of this would be an issue. We're taking issue because we were told this "stimulus" bill was special, hence the special name for it. All stimulus bills have been special, in that they target methods that significantly inject stimulating effects - not special in that they cover the same stuff as any other spending bill, only it's going to be a super duper lot of money this time.

[iNow]

I dismissed your argument because it was not specific to flu preparedness, instead applying to the ENTIRE stimulus package and EVERY SINGLE item within it. Pretty important difference there and it has nothing whatsoever to do with economic connectivity.

[SH3RL0CK]

Preventing economic decline from a preventable illness by preparing up front IS synonymous with stimulus. ... at least have the academic integrity to recognize that your arguments don't apply to this specific "flu preparedness" section, and are instead generalizations against the entire stimulus process itself.

 

My arguments DO apply to the "flu preparedness" section; as it does to ALL sections of the "stimulus" package and in fact, all government spending. Do we really need this? Why isn't the CDC (which B.T.W. is already funded) already doing this? If the CDC is, why are we duplicating the work and if it isn't why hasn't it been? If the CDC needs more funding, how about we debate the appropriate funding level during the normal budgetary process? NONE of these and many other valid questions are being asked, instead we are simply throwing money at a potential problem without assessing the correct level of funding doing the cost/benefit analysis, or looking at maintaining fiscal responsibility.

 

The lack of the hard questions by our representatives and senators is mind-boggling. As is their inability to say NO.

 

Look, I'm all for the goals of the Stimulus package, almost all of the goals are worthy, at least in principle. No one will say it is of no value to be free of the flu. But we need to be wise in what we fund and we must say no, even to worthy causes if we cannot afford them. The reality is that we have a limited amount of money (though it seems we are able to borrow without limit) and we have already borrowed staggering amounts. How are we going to pay this money back and what sacrifices will future generations have to make to do so?

 

Its over a TRILLION dollars...just this year...on top of a budget which already spends more than we have in revenue...in addition to the Iraq war spending...with Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid costs ready to explode because of the baby boomer demographics...

 

Personally, I'd really like a brand new car every week, a private jet, a winter home in Hawaii and another in Switzerland (when I want to go skiing) and another in Australia (when I get bored with Hawaii) and a very large yacht (including crew), and many other things. These are all "worthy" causes. I'd never have to worry about a mechanical breakdown in my car, or missing my flight, or finding a place to stay if I am ever in Hawaii or Switzerland or Australia...think about the economic stimulus and jobs created because I am now paying many people to take care of the plane and the yacht. But I cannot afford them, instead I buy myself things I can afford..a used car, economy class tickets on a commercial airline when I have to fly, just one house, no yacht at all, etc. I bet you postpone, modify and/or deny purchases yourself on occasion for no other reason than you can't afford it.

 

Just become something is worthwhile doesn't mean we can afford it nor does it mean we haven't already funded the efforts (i.e. through the CDC). Why can't/won't our government live within a real budget as we have to do?

Edited April 30, 2009 by SH3RL0CK