Republicans prevent Ebola vaccine
Oct 14, 2014 22:41:35 #
bobebgtime wrote:
I see you Democrats.are still using the recognized... (show quote)
Damn it...shit shit shit...I wanted to be the blame for ebola and be able to spread it...damned damn damn.....then I could hunt down every last one of you bitches that are Democraps and give you your death sentence one at a time....freaks.
Oct 14, 2014 22:41:57 #
You poor simple, fearful little prick! Your superior fantasies are insulting- to yourself. Don't believe everything that pops into your little mind. I am done with this idiotic post. So long.
BearK wrote:
They are telling us Duncan died of Ebola, how do we really know? As for the nurse? How do we know who or how she was infected. Do I believe anything I'm hearing out of the Obama administration? That man has lied to us so many times, only a fool will swallow any more of his garbage.
Oct 14, 2014 22:43:40 #
Supply side and trickle down make so much more sense- in spite of history.
CarolSeer2016 wrote:
Well, this, MS, tells me you are a Keynesian Economist (Well, I don't know about the economist part). Which pretty much takes your debate out of the realm of the reliable.
Keynes has been interpreted and misinterpreted until anyone can read anything he wants into it.
But Keynes, whether intentionally or not, has contributed to the growth of big government, an unnecessary evil.
Keynes has been interpreted and misinterpreted until anyone can read anything he wants into it.
But Keynes, whether intentionally or not, has contributed to the growth of big government, an unnecessary evil.
Oct 14, 2014 22:45:31 #
Citations for your outlandish vitriol?
CarolSeer2016 wrote:
Didn't I just post earlier that when BHO makes decisions, if the consequences are good he takes the credit, if they are not good, he blames it on others.
Do you really think Republicans prevented any attempt to find a vaccine? That would seem to me to be political suicide.
Is the NIH not a government BHO-controlled agency?
Were you born yesterday??
Do you really think Republicans prevented any attempt to find a vaccine? That would seem to me to be political suicide.
Is the NIH not a government BHO-controlled agency?
Were you born yesterday??
Oct 14, 2014 22:51:03 #
Can You spell Socialism? Let alone define it? Big Gummint has 0 (nothing) (zilch) to do with the size of Gummint. Socialism is not anything to do with government owned business- quite the opposite. Socialism is about People owning business, not an aristocracy that is supported by government. Do you mean perhaps Fascism? Plutocracy? Oligarchy?
DennisDee wrote:
Marxists love big government.
Oct 14, 2014 22:57:36 #
Yes I do know what Socialism means. Apparently you do not.
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
mcjwelles wrote:
Can You spell Socialism? Let alone define it? Big Gummint has 0 (nothing) (zilch) to do with the size of Gummint. Socialism is not anything to do with government owned business- quite the opposite. Socialism is about People owning business, not an aristocracy that is supported by government. Do you mean perhaps Fascism? Plutocracy? Oligarchy?
Oct 14, 2014 23:01:24 #
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.
As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.
Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an inferno of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our childrens future. Even Democrats seem to think its true.
Government spending under Obama, including his signature stimulus bill, is rising at a 1.4% annualized pace slower than at any time in nearly 60 years.
But it didnt happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.
Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.
Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:
In the 2009 fiscal year the last of George W. Bushs presidency federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.
In fiscal 2010 the first budget under Obama spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Offices estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
Finally in fiscal 2013 the final budget of Obamas term spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBOs latest budget outlook.
The big surge in federal spending happened in fiscal 2009, before Obama took office. Since then, spending growth has been relatively flat.
Over Obamas four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.
There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.
Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? Its in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.
As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.
Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an inferno of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our childrens future. Even Democrats seem to think its true.
Government spending under Obama, including his signature stimulus bill, is rising at a 1.4% annualized pace slower than at any time in nearly 60 years.
But it didnt happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.
Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.
Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:
In the 2009 fiscal year the last of George W. Bushs presidency federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.
In fiscal 2010 the first budget under Obama spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Offices estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
Finally in fiscal 2013 the final budget of Obamas term spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBOs latest budget outlook.
The big surge in federal spending happened in fiscal 2009, before Obama took office. Since then, spending growth has been relatively flat.
Over Obamas four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.
There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.
Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? Its in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.
JMHO wrote:
I have read it, and I never said there was a spending limit. Like I said, no problem, government money grows on trees, and then there is Obama's stash...everybody knows that.
Oct 14, 2014 23:07:05 #
mcjwelles wrote:
Citations for your outlandish vitriol?
I thought you were done with this "idiotic post"...what happened?
Oct 14, 2014 23:18:51 #
400 Billion of the 2009 Bush budget belongs to Obama.
mcjwelles wrote:
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) Of all the falsehoods t... (show quote)
Oct 15, 2014 06:31:48 #
mcjwelles wrote:
The fed was the invention of the 'conservative' backed aristocracy. Don't forget to mention that in your righteous little dialogue. You have been tithing the upper class for membership for generations now- even as you disparage those who were less impressed with reinstating divine right into our country. What ever happened to critical thinking in the GOP????
The Fed was a 'dream child' of Woodrow Wilson, considered a strong PROGRESSIVE, and a member of the Democratic Party.
Oct 15, 2014 07:15:57 #
mcjwelles wrote:
Really??? Think about it a bit more. Maybe back to civics 101. Why won't Repubs take responsibility for their mistakes when they are always so anxious to accuse, fabricate and embellish the Dem records? I would be far more apt to criticize Dem policy if Repubs critiqued any of the many shortcomings of their own party.
Mcjwelles
Unfortunately facts are facts!
Harry Reid has been holding any bills he does not like.
Snoopy
Oct 15, 2014 08:52:05 #
The following is from the NIH itself, it is a 40 page report on the agency......any cuts they attempted were at the margins only and weren't carried out.
You may remember that when Obama took office his priorities changed to things like climate change (and it's effect on health), alternative energy (and it's effect on heath), the biology of gayness (and it's effect on fat kids) and etc. Further, there was a marked lack of interest in perusing the Bush administration's interest in really helping the plight of the people on the dark continent, and we slowly withdrew from efforts there as they were not of the same priority as large sugary drinks.
https://www.aau.edu/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=11980
Congress doubled the NIH budget between FY1998 and FY2003 and more recently provided a
temporary two-year funding increase through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (P.L. 111-5) after several years of low or no growth in the post-doubling period. In health
reform legislation (P.L. 111-148), the 111th Congress directed NIH to implement the new Cures
Acceleration Network (CAN) in order to support ground-breaking advances in basic research and
facilitate FDA review of CAN-funded cures. However, the legislation mandates that CAN be
funded via a specific appropriationnot through the general NIH appropriationand the current
budget outlook has worsened in the new Congress, especially for discretionary programs.
The 2010 election sent to Congress more fiscal conservatives, particularly in the House, who have
promised to focus on deficit reduction and shrinking the federal budget during the 112th Congress.
Some Members have suggested rolling back federal funding for many discretionary programs to
FY2008 levelsthis would change the NIH budget from current funding of $30.9 million to
$29.3 million. According to the House Appropriations Committee, H.R. 1, the Full Year
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, would reduce the NIH budget by $1.63 billion compared to
the FY2010 level and by $1.57 billion compared with the FY2011 request. In the State of the
Union speech, however, President Obama indicted his unwillingness to scale back the national
investment in research and development, and said that maintaining our leadership in research
and technology is crucial to Americas success. The speech specifically stated that in the budget
proposal for FY2012, well invest in biomedical research. For FY2012 the Obama
Administration has requested $32 billion for NIH, an increase of $745 million (2.4%) over
FY2010.
Other issues of concern to Congress and the research community include
increasing the movement of basic science discoveries, via translational research,
into new preventives, diagnostics, therapies, and cures;
You may remember that when Obama took office his priorities changed to things like climate change (and it's effect on health), alternative energy (and it's effect on heath), the biology of gayness (and it's effect on fat kids) and etc. Further, there was a marked lack of interest in perusing the Bush administration's interest in really helping the plight of the people on the dark continent, and we slowly withdrew from efforts there as they were not of the same priority as large sugary drinks.
https://www.aau.edu/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=11980
Congress doubled the NIH budget between FY1998 and FY2003 and more recently provided a
temporary two-year funding increase through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (P.L. 111-5) after several years of low or no growth in the post-doubling period. In health
reform legislation (P.L. 111-148), the 111th Congress directed NIH to implement the new Cures
Acceleration Network (CAN) in order to support ground-breaking advances in basic research and
facilitate FDA review of CAN-funded cures. However, the legislation mandates that CAN be
funded via a specific appropriationnot through the general NIH appropriationand the current
budget outlook has worsened in the new Congress, especially for discretionary programs.
The 2010 election sent to Congress more fiscal conservatives, particularly in the House, who have
promised to focus on deficit reduction and shrinking the federal budget during the 112th Congress.
Some Members have suggested rolling back federal funding for many discretionary programs to
FY2008 levelsthis would change the NIH budget from current funding of $30.9 million to
$29.3 million. According to the House Appropriations Committee, H.R. 1, the Full Year
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, would reduce the NIH budget by $1.63 billion compared to
the FY2010 level and by $1.57 billion compared with the FY2011 request. In the State of the
Union speech, however, President Obama indicted his unwillingness to scale back the national
investment in research and development, and said that maintaining our leadership in research
and technology is crucial to Americas success. The speech specifically stated that in the budget
proposal for FY2012, well invest in biomedical research. For FY2012 the Obama
Administration has requested $32 billion for NIH, an increase of $745 million (2.4%) over
FY2010.
Other issues of concern to Congress and the research community include
increasing the movement of basic science discoveries, via translational research,
into new preventives, diagnostics, therapies, and cures;
Oct 15, 2014 09:10:00 #
Correct. Wilson was part of the " Progressive Movement" at that time
BearK wrote:
The Fed was a 'dream child' of Woodrow Wilson, considered a strong PROGRESSIVE, and a member of the Democratic Party.
Oct 15, 2014 09:56:09 #
This is a serious threat for any of you with an iphone or ipad. If you have installed an aplite, please watch:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/Q8xz8xKEFvU
http://www.youtube.com/embed/Q8xz8xKEFvU
Oct 15, 2014 10:14:40 #
Nickolai wrote:
History shows that bank panic recessions and deep recessions are endemic to our economic system the first panic was 1785. The inflation during Carters one term was caused from the dollar being removed from the gold standard and the resulting oil embargo
NICKOLI JUST LIKE CARTER YOUR AN IDIOT TOO. All you have to say is inflation is at 12%, NATIONAL DEBT $17.9 TRILLION, FOOD COSTS UP 33%, GAS UP 100%, FOOD STAMPS UP 90%, WELFARE DOUBLED, POVERTY UP 40%. UNEMPLOYED 14-18% REAL FIGURE AND 46 MILLION AMERICANS OUT OF WORK FOR 5 1/2 YEARS WHILE 5 MILLION JOBS GENERATED BY OBAMINATION WENT TO IMMIGRANTS NOT AMERICANS, SCHOOLS FLOODED WITH ILLEGAL ALIENS, 17,000 AMERICANS MURDERED BY ILLEGAL ALIENS, 130,000 AMERICANS DIED IN 2010 FROM DISEASES FROM ILLEGAL ALIENS, WWIII HAS STARTED IN THE ARAB WORLD AND WE NOW HAVE MORE PROBLEMS BECAUSE OF OBAMINATION'S MISHANDLING OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, NOW WE HAVE EBOLA IN THIS COUNTRY AND ITS SPREADING EVERY DAY AND OPEN BORDERS WILL ALLOW ISIS TO BRING IN THE EBOLA WITH THEM FOR JIHAD. YES WE ARE MUCH BETTER OFF WITH THE NEW DEMORAT MARXIST OBAMINATION .
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.