• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Help kids with cancer? Reid asks: 'Why would we want to do that?'[W:97]

NIH Director On Sequestration: 'God Help Us If We Get A Worldwide Pandemic'


Here ya go I guess the right is gonna deny that pushed for NIH cuts. That's sad put on top of the veterans cuts as well.

BHO proposed the sequester and Repubs were happy to go along, happier than BHO had expected, actually. Nonetheless, the child-focused programs that are the topic of the current discussion continued to function despite the sequester. It was the current impasse that disrupted those programs, and introducing the sequester into that discussion is a deflection.:peace
 
NIH Director On Sequestration: 'God Help Us If We Get A Worldwide Pandemic'


Here ya go I guess the right is gonna deny that pushed for NIH cuts. That's sad put on top of the veterans cuts as well.


"In January 2002, President George W. Bush unveiled a five-year budget proposal that called for a doubling in NIH funding. It was an unprecedented show of commitment to the scientific community that promised 36,000 new projects and major breakthroughs in medical research.

In many ways, it proved to be a high-water mark. By 2007, NIH funding had jumped to $29.2 billion, a massive increase from its $20.4 billion level at the start of Bush’s presidency. By the time President Barack Obama took office, it had gone up to $30.8 billion. The 2009 stimulus package known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act put a significant amount of money behind scientific research as well. But under sequestration, many of those gains were lost. This year, the agency’s budget has gone back down to $29.1 billion.

Stein notes that the scientists concede: ”[T]he NIH’s budget remains large at $29 billion. But without more investment, the nation’s role as an international leader in scientific research is at risk.”

Let’s view this in context: Sequestration will reduce the NIH’s budget to about one percent below where it was at the end of the Bush administration. That was after the budget had increased by $9.1 billion over the previous eight years, an expansion that increased it by nearly a half. That is your “dark ages?”

Consider this: In 2000, the final full year of the Clinton presidency, the NIH budget was $17.8 billion, which translates into about $24 billion in 2013 dollars, according to the inflation calculator on the website of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But the post-sequestration budget for 2013 is more than 20 percent higher than that inflation-adjusted number. If America is entering a dark age of science, then the Clinton administration must have represented the Cro-Magnon Era.

It should be noted that even in the Bush years when the NIH’s budget was skyrocketing, liberal pundits were claiming Bush Republicans were engaged in a “war on science.” One of the main arguments then was that the Republicans were not giving enough funding to research.

In short, no matter what the budget situation, the recipients of federal grants never seem to say they are receiving a sufficient number of taxpayer dollars. Funny thing, that."
Huffington Post: Sequestration cuts to NIH budget will usher in


Where's those cuts to children that I asked you to show?
 
Last edited:
"In January 2002, President George W. Bush unveiled a five-year budget proposal that called for a doubling in NIH funding. It was an unprecedented show of commitment to the scientific community that promised 36,000 new projects and major breakthroughs in medical research.

In many ways, it proved to be a high-water mark. By 2007, NIH funding had jumped to $29.2 billion, a massive increase from its $20.4 billion level at the start of Bush’s presidency. By the time President Barack Obama took office, it had gone up to $30.8 billion. The 2009 stimulus package known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act put a significant amount of money behind scientific research as well. But under sequestration, many of those gains were lost. This year, the agency’s budget has gone back down to $29.1 billion.

Stein notes that the scientists concede: ”[T]he NIH’s budget remains large at $29 billion. But without more investment, the nation’s role as an international leader in scientific research is at risk.”

Let’s view this in context: Sequestration will reduce the NIH’s budget to about one percent below where it was at the end of the Bush administration. That was after the budget had increased by $9.1 billion over the previous eight years, an expansion that increased it by nearly a half. That is your “dark ages?”

Consider this: In 2000, the final full year of the Clinton presidency, the NIH budget was $17.8 billion, which translates into about $24 billion in 2013 dollars, according to the inflation calculator on the website of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But the post-sequestration budget for 2013 is more than 20 percent higher than that inflation-adjusted number. If America is entering a dark age of science, then the Clinton administration must have represented the Cro-Magnon Era.

It should be noted that even in the Bush years when the NIH’s budget was skyrocketing, liberal pundits were claiming Bush Republicans were engaged in a “war on science.” One of the main arguments then was that the Republicans were not giving enough funding to research.

In short, no matter what the budget situation, the recipients of federal grants never seem to say they are receiving a sufficient number of taxpayer dollars. Funny thing, that."
Huffington Post: Sequestration cuts to NIH budget will usher in

Brilliant post. My compliments.:thumbs:
 
This is just like the nonsense with Obama saying "if you have a business... you didn't build that". Everyone knows what he meant just like we know what Harry Reid was saying here... or perhaps some of you don't.

Its really just so silly. I caught some Teabilly talk radio a few times today and they were playing it over and over and over while Limbaugh crowed about the evil Harry Reid that doesn't care about children with cancer.

I can't wait until this old generation of jackasses pass on the country so we can fix everything they screwed up. I have a dream... in twenty years these types of goons won't be on tv, or the radio, but instead there will be people only half as ridiculous.
 
And as for YOU, Fiddy. I used to see you as having a degree of integrity & too much self respect to get sucked into defending the indefensible for partisan reasons.
I never took you for a troll but you really trolled it to the max last night.
You're a major disappointment.
You ain't no D.P.Moynahan.
Please recover before renaming yourself Head Of Fiddy.

Has the definition of troll changed to an individual correcting an obviously poorly explained situation? If so, then I take that label with a small sense of pride.

No, I am not Dan Moynihan, though the comparison seems a bit more like flattery than an insult. I can't drink as much as him, I don't sound like him, I'm not a sociologist, and I don't wear bow ties. I won't even be able to throw out a line reporters love to quote every week, a decade after my death. I quite frankly don't even care about your opinion of me.

If it becomes outlandish to suggest that the previous 40 some seconds explain rather well why NIH funding wouldn't be accepted, then that's too bad. I'm fine with Reid and the Democrats being called hypocrites for funding troops during the shutdown. That's perfectly acceptable. But bewilderment as to why Harry wouldn't push that particular bill forward? I think that's pretty easy to explain.
 
Last edited:
"In January 2002, President George W. Bush unveiled a five-year budget proposal that called for a doubling in NIH funding. It was an unprecedented show of commitment to the scientific community that promised 36,000 new projects and major breakthroughs in medical research.

In many ways, it proved to be a high-water mark. By 2007, NIH funding had jumped to $29.2 billion, a massive increase from its $20.4 billion level at the start of Bush’s presidency. By the time President Barack Obama took office, it had gone up to $30.8 billion. The 2009 stimulus package known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act put a significant amount of money behind scientific research as well. But under sequestration, many of those gains were lost. This year, the agency’s budget has gone back down to $29.1 billion.

Stein notes that the scientists concede: ”[T]he NIH’s budget remains large at $29 billion. But without more investment, the nation’s role as an international leader in scientific research is at risk.”

Let’s view this in context: Sequestration will reduce the NIH’s budget to about one percent below where it was at the end of the Bush administration. That was after the budget had increased by $9.1 billion over the previous eight years, an expansion that increased it by nearly a half. That is your “dark ages?”

Consider this: In 2000, the final full year of the Clinton presidency, the NIH budget was $17.8 billion, which translates into about $24 billion in 2013 dollars, according to the inflation calculator on the website of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But the post-sequestration budget for 2013 is more than 20 percent higher than that inflation-adjusted number. If America is entering a dark age of science, then the Clinton administration must have represented the Cro-Magnon Era.

It should be noted that even in the Bush years when the NIH’s budget was skyrocketing, liberal pundits were claiming Bush Republicans were engaged in a “war on science.” One of the main arguments then was that the Republicans were not giving enough funding to research.

In short, no matter what the budget situation, the recipients of federal grants never seem to say they are receiving a sufficient number of taxpayer dollars. Funny thing, that."
Huffington Post: Sequestration cuts to NIH budget will usher in

Dark-age-of-science? Must be due to the shutdown, and the lights being turned off to save money, I guess! Sad....:lamo:

Greetings, ItAin'tFree. :2wave:
 
Has the definition of troll changed to an individual correcting an obviously poorly explained situation? If so, then I take that label with a small sense of pride.

No, I am not Dan Moynihan, though the comparison seems a bit more like flattery than an insult. I can't drink as much as him, I don't sound like him, I'm not a sociologist, and I don't wear bow ties. I won't even be able to throw out a line reporters love to quote every week, a decade after my death. I quite frankly don't even care about your opinion of me.

If it becomes outlandish to suggest that the previous 40 some seconds explain rather well why NIH funding wouldn't be accepted, then that's too bad. I'm fine with Reid and the Democrats being called hypocrites for funding troops during the shutdown. That's perfectly acceptable. But bewilderment as to why Harry wouldn't push that particular bill forward? I think that's pretty easy to explain.

Harry wouldn't have called for an interview with Dana Bash the next day to cover for himself if he didn't realize he effed up royally.
That speaks volumes.
And I always thought Moynahan was a decent guy too.
 
This is just like the nonsense with Obama saying "if you have a business... you didn't build that". Everyone knows what he meant just like we know what Harry Reid was saying here... or perhaps some of you don't.

Its really just so silly. I caught some Teabilly talk radio a few times today and they were playing it over and over and over while Limbaugh crowed about the evil Harry Reid that doesn't care about children with cancer.

I can't wait until this old generation of jackasses pass on the country so we can fix everything they screwed up. I have a dream... in twenty years these types of goons won't be on tv, or the radio, but instead there will be people only half as ridiculous.

So you envision a progressive dictatorship as being a more palatable country for you?
 
Yeah, there's a whole bunch of that exchange missing from their piece. I saw the exchange on CNN.

It doesn't matter just as long is the answer addressed the question...

Sugar coating dog **** still makes it dog ****.
 
This is just like the nonsense with Obama saying "if you have a business... you didn't build that". Everyone knows what he meant just like we know what Harry Reid was saying here... or perhaps some of you don't.

Its really just so silly. I caught some Teabilly talk radio a few times today and they were playing it over and over and over while Limbaugh crowed about the evil Harry Reid that doesn't care about children with cancer.

I can't wait until this old generation of jackasses pass on the country so we can fix everything they screwed up. I have a dream... in twenty years these types of goons won't be on tv, or the radio, but instead there will be people only half as ridiculous.

I know exactly what he said and what he meant. He meant he wants to inflict as much pain and suffering on as many Americas as he can so Americans are stuck with something they never have wanted. Yes, his and Obamas actions are very silly and cruel to boot.

"I can't wait until this old generation of jackasses pass on the country". LOL. Sorry that's not how the game is played. Most young people grow up and mature with age, which is why most don't now and won't in the future go along with ideas that are destined to fail.
You might even be one of them.
 
Has the definition of troll changed to an individual correcting an obviously poorly explained situation? If so, then I take that label with a small sense of pride.

No, I am not Dan Moynihan, though the comparison seems a bit more like flattery than an insult. I can't drink as much as him, I don't sound like him, I'm not a sociologist, and I don't wear bow ties. I won't even be able to throw out a line reporters love to quote every week, a decade after my death. I quite frankly don't even care about your opinion of me.

If it becomes outlandish to suggest that the previous 40 some seconds explain rather well why NIH funding wouldn't be accepted, then that's too bad. I'm fine with Reid and the Democrats being called hypocrites for funding troops during the shutdown. That's perfectly acceptable. But bewilderment as to why Harry wouldn't push that particular bill forward? I think that's pretty easy to explain.

Two questions for you Fiddy...

1. If you believe that anything he answered Bash's question with made his ultimate poor choice of comparison acceptable, can you point it out for us?

2. What makes you believe that if this had been a republican calling for the de funding of NIH, and had said something like that you wouldn't be all over them?
 
So you envision a progressive dictatorship as being a more palatable country for you?

Yeah man, we LOVE dictators. I can't wait to get another Hitler into office to rob all the hard working conservatives that work for us lazy takers.
 
I know exactly what he said and what he meant. He meant he wants to inflict as much pain and suffering on as many Americas as he can so Americans are stuck with something they never have wanted. Yes, his and Obamas actions are very silly and cruel to boot.

"I can't wait until this old generation of jackasses pass on the country". LOL. Sorry that's not how the game is played. Most young people grow up and mature with age, which is why most don't now and won't in the future go along with ideas that are destined to fail.
You might even be one of them.

Not only does he want to hurt Americans, I think he wants to enslave them in his Marxist concentration camps.

Yup as I mature I'm going to be terrified of communists and takers. They're all out to get me! Somebody protect my wallet from the poor!

Here... rich guy... take everything from my wallet, you DESERVE it. That'll teach them stoopid poors!
 
Two questions for you Fiddy...

1. If you believe that anything he answered Bash's question with made his ultimate poor choice of comparison acceptable, can you point it out for us?

2. What makes you believe that if this had been a republican calling for the de funding of NIH, and had said something like that you wouldn't be all over them?

1. His first 40 seconds. I have done so several times already. His second appearance with Bash reiterated the first 40 seconds. We gained nothing new.

2. Oh stop this hypothetical nonsense. I was called a partisan jerk by Dems for saying Obama's "you didn't build that" speech was still offensive, because I favored Romney in the race. I was called a partisan jerk by conservatives for saying that Romney's 47% remark was likewise offensive. Go on and assume that I have my blinders on. You folks have short memories, and my post likes and dislikes seem to circulate between the liberals and conservatives on the forum, all depending on whether or not I say something that they agree with at the time.
 
Not only does he want to hurt Americans, I think he wants to enslave them in his Marxist concentration camps.

Yup as I mature I'm going to be terrified of communists and takers. They're all out to get me! Somebody protect my wallet from the poor!

Here... rich guy... take everything from my wallet, you DESERVE it. That'll teach them stoopid poors!

On the other hand, maybe you won't be one the matures with age.
 
On the other hand, maybe you won't be one the matures with age.

Isn't that your essence though? The meme is even a part of your name. Is that maturity? To wail about social programs?
 
1. His first 40 seconds. I have done so several times already. His second appearance with Bash reiterated the first 40 seconds. We gained nothing new.

2. Oh stop this hypothetical nonsense. I was called a partisan jerk by Dems for saying Obama's "you didn't build that" speech was still offensive, because I favored Romney in the race. I was called a partisan jerk by conservatives for saying that Romney's 47% remark was likewise offensive. Go on and assume that I have my blinders on. You folks have short memories, and my post likes and dislikes seem to circulate between the liberals and conservatives on the forum, all depending on whether or not I say something that they agree with at the time.

That may be true Fiddy, and for the record, I don't think you are a partisan hack, or anything of the sort, we just disagree as to what Reid meant when he stuck his foot in his mentally unbalanced mouth, that's all. :shrug:

What was striking to me, is not the talking point pap he started with, but in listening to the whole question, he realized that he just said something stupid, then he turned on Bash at the end, attacking her personally. He (Reid) is a pathetic nasty old man, and I think that he let his true opinion of people be known.
 
Overall, this isn't about the horrific blundering answer that Reid gave Bash, but rather that in addition to turning their backs, and folding their arms like little children told to eat their veggies, saying "no" with a petulant voice, todays demo's are playing the politics of pain....

The Park Service appears to be closing streets on mere whim and caprice. The rangers even closed the parking lot at Mount Vernon, where the plantation home of George Washington is a favorite tourist destination. That was after they barred the new World War II Memorial on the Mall to veterans of World War II. But the government does not own Mount Vernon; it is privately owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association. The ladies bought it years ago to preserve it as a national memorial. The feds closed access to the parking lots this week, even though the lots are jointly owned with the Mount Vernon ladies. The rangers are from the government, and they’re only here to help.
“It’s a cheap way to deal with the situation,” an angry Park Service ranger in Washington says of the harassment. “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting.”


Read more: PRUDEN: The cheap tricks of the game - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
 
Back
Top Bottom