|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
WalksWithBlackflies 
Resident Eco-Freak Bootlicker
Group: Members
Posts: 8754
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
 |
Posted on: Mar. 12 2013, 9:07 am |
|
   |
Washington Post answers FAQs. Good reading.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs....one-faq
--------------
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. - Lao Tzu
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
WalksWithBlackflies
Resident Eco-Freak Bootlicker
Group: Members
Posts: 8754
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 12 2013, 10:32 am |
|
 |
1) Advertising for a job and filling the position are two different things
2) I'd expect senior level staffers to make more than $100k
3) I'm 100% in favor of studying lesbians
--------------
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. - Lao Tzu
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
WalksWithBlackflies
Resident Eco-Freak Bootlicker
Group: Members
Posts: 8754
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 12 2013, 11:36 am |
|
|
1) You're under the impression that the sequester will be permanent. It is the government's opinion that it will be temporary. And, really... how much does it cost to keep a website running?
2) From your link: On Friday, White House Deputy Press Secretary John Earnest said the White House will be affected by the sequester much like other agencies -- and in some capacity will impose furloughs. "We're also faced with making some tough decisions when it comes to ongoing projects, when it comes to purchasing equipment and supplies. But we're also a pretty personnel-heavy agency, if you will. So that means ... there will be employees of components who work here at the White House that will be facing pay cuts, that will be facing furloughs," he said.
3) First, it was a joke. Second, the NIH budget/cuts have nothing to do with the NPS budget/cuts. Monies aren't transferable between agencies. Third, perhaps the 75% of NIH employees to be furloughed would disagree with the funding of the lesbian study, but that is the director's decision. And we both know the cuts are meant to inflict the most damage possible.
--------------
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. - Lao Tzu
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39560
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 12 2013, 12:51 pm |
|
|
With the CDC reporting that 75% of the American healthcare expenses* going toward the treatment of chronic, often lifestyle associated diseases such as result from obesity (heart disease, diabetes Type II and such) studying obesity at a level of detail that allows for actually solving the issue is a rather improtant item for anyone whoi actually cares about getting the upwardly accelerating American Healthcare costs under some sort oif control.
Well, those that aren't of the view of Republican Congressman (and voter rejected vice-presidential candidate) Paul Ryan who would prefer to just write a small fixed sum check and let the people die when their money runs out.
"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, three-quarters of health care spending now goes to treat “preventable chronic diseases.” Not all of these diseases are linked to diet — there’s smoking, for instance — but many, if not most, of them are.
We’re spending $147 billion to treat obesity, $116 billion to treat diabetes, and hundreds of billions more to treat cardiovascular disease and the many types of cancer that have been linked to the so-called Western diet. One recent study estimated that 30 percent of the increase in health care spending over the past 20 years could be attributed to the soaring rate of obesity, a condition that now accounts for nearly a tenth of all spending on health care"
A $147 BILLION dolar disease is worth studying in depth, IMHO.
Oh and there's NO "versus" as the sequester requires cabinet department budget cuts at the line item level, the regulations have been linked to previousely, no shifting between as unrelated activities as the Department of Interior to or from Health and Hiuman Services or anyone else. The linked to article actually answered that so in retrspect the "versus" was rhetorical I assume:
"How much flexibility do agency heads have?:
Not much. The sequester must be applied evenly to every “program, project, and activity.” What is a program, or a project, or an activity, you ask? No one really knows, and OMB will have to define that. But the last time we did a sequester, an example of an activity was an individual buoy floating in the Chesapeke Bay. That buoy had to be cut by 5 percent. So no, administrators don’t have much flexibility. Their hands are largely tied..."
* A link to the CDC and other references is within the article.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
Buggyboo
Group: Members
Posts: 1114
Joined: Feb. 2013
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 12 2013, 1:34 pm |
|
|
(WalksWithBlackflies @ Mar. 12 2013, 11:36 am)
QUOTE 1) You're under the impression that the will be permanent. It is the government's opinion that it will be temporary. And, really... how much does it cost to keep a website running?
2) From your link: On Friday, White House Deputy Press Secretary John Earnest said the White House will be affected by the sequester much like other agencies -- and in some capacity will impose furloughs. "We're also faced with making some tough decisions when it comes to ongoing projects, when it comes to purchasing equipment and supplies. But we're also a pretty personnel-heavy agency, if you will. So that means ... there will be employees of components who work here at the White House that will be facing pay cuts, that will be facing furloughs," he said.
3) First, it was a joke. Second, the NIH budget/cuts have nothing to do with the NPS budget/cuts. Monies aren't transferable between agencies. Third, perhaps the 75% of NIH employees to be furloughed would disagree with the funding of the lesbian study, but that is the director's decision. And we both know the cuts are meant to inflict the most damage possible.
1) So the website runs itself, thinks up the ads itself, answers the ads itself and no humans are involved at all? Really?
Real time, as of right now the sequester is permanent.
2) Real time, right now, nothing is happening regarding that.
I'll believe it when I see it, till then it's just lip service.
3) OK, joke understood, but I think I think it is a valid viewpoint about how upside down and nonsensical the priorities are with the budget.
--------------
"I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands"
Charlton Heston
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39560
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 12 2013, 2:00 pm |
|
|
"a valid viewpoint about how upside down and nonsensical the priorities are with the budget." Really? Comparing the challenges of a $147 billion dollar disease to plowing some roads so some "small government" types can fleece more tourists?
Hardly.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
tomas
Group: Members
Posts: 2368
Joined: Oct. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 12 2013, 2:12 pm |
|
|
(Buggyboo @ Mar. 12 2013, 1:34 pm)
QUOTE
(WalksWithBlackflies @ Mar. 12 2013, 11:36 am)
QUOTE 1) You're under the impression that the will be permanent. It is the government's opinion that it will be temporary. And, really... how much does it cost to keep a website running?
2) From your link: On Friday, White House Deputy Press Secretary John Earnest said the White House will be affected by the sequester much like other agencies -- and in some capacity will impose furloughs. "We're also faced with making some tough decisions when it comes to ongoing projects, when it comes to purchasing equipment and supplies. But we're also a pretty personnel-heavy agency, if you will. So that means ... there will be employees of components who work here at the White House that will be facing pay cuts, that will be facing furloughs," he said.
3) First, it was a joke. Second, the NIH budget/cuts have nothing to do with the NPS budget/cuts. Monies aren't transferable between agencies. Third, perhaps the 75% of NIH employees to be furloughed would disagree with the funding of the lesbian study, but that is the director's decision. And we both know the cuts are meant to inflict the most damage possible. 1) So the website runs itself, thinks up the ads itself, answers the ads itself and no humans are involved at all? Really? Real time, as of right now the sequester is permanent. 2) Real time, right now, nothing is happening regarding that. I'll believe it when I see it, till then it's just lip service. 3) OK, joke understood, but I think I think it is a valid viewpoint about how upside down and nonsensical the priorities are with the budget.
1) What is the issue here? Those are positions that are funded through the fiscal year. How many jobs are not fully funded and haven't been posted or have been eliminated?
2) Big surprise that Foxnews is picking on climate scientists.
3) One thing I learned a long time ago is not to trust news sources all that much when it comes to reporting science.
--------------
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
TehipiteTom
Group: Members
Posts: 5278
Joined: Jul. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 12 2013, 5:01 pm |
|
|
(Buggyboo @ Mar. 12 2013, 11:33 am)
QUOTE
(High_Sierra_Fan @ Mar. 12 2013, 2:00 pm)
QUOTE "a valid viewpoint about how upside down and nonsensical the priorities are with the budget." Really? Comparing the challenges of a $147 billion dollar disease to plowing some roads so some "small government" types can fleece more tourists?
Hardly. Missing the point HSF, studying fat lesbians vs. Yellowstone!
Not "missing". Dismissing. Deservedly.
--------------
If tautologies are outlawed, only outlaws will use tautologies.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
Buggyboo
Group: Members
Posts: 1114
Joined: Feb. 2013
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 12 2013, 5:15 pm |
|
|
(TehipiteTom @ Mar. 12 2013, 5:01 pm)
QUOTE
(Buggyboo @ Mar. 12 2013, 11:33 am)
QUOTE
(High_Sierra_Fan @ Mar. 12 2013, 2:00 pm)
QUOTE "a valid viewpoint about how upside down and nonsensical the priorities are with the budget." Really? Comparing the challenges of a $147 billion dollar disease to plowing some roads so some "small government" types can fleece more tourists?
Hardly. Missing the point HSF, studying fat lesbians vs. Yellowstone! Not "missing". Dismissing. Deservedly.
Wasn't rattling your cage TT!
--------------
"I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands"
Charlton Heston
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39560
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 12 2013, 5:25 pm |
|
|
" studying fat lesbians vs. Yellowstone!"
What part of the sequester NOT allowing any such connection is confusing?
There is NO "vs.", none, zero, zilch. As various reports have described, the park superintendant had to make spending choices completely within his own park's responsibilities which includes some "big government" trough snorting local outside communities it appears , summer visitation versus shoulder season etc., he has nothing to do with obesity research.
But kudos for dismissing a disease that costs $147 BILLION to treat each year: gotta love the spending eh?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
Buggyboo
Group: Members
Posts: 1114
Joined: Feb. 2013
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 12 2013, 5:44 pm |
|
|
(High_Sierra_Fan @ Mar. 12 2013, 5:25 pm)
QUOTE " studying fat lesbians vs. Yellowstone!"
What part of the sequester NOT allowing any such connection is confusing?
There is NO "vs.", none, zero, zilch. As various reports have described, the park superintendant had to make spending choices completely within his own park's responsibilities which includes some "big government" trough snorting local outside communities it appears , summer visitation versus shoulder season etc., he has nothing to do with obesity research.
But kudos for dismissing a disease that costs $147 BILLION to treat each year: gotta love the spending eh?
Mr. Absolutist on another rant again!
OK, let her rip!
--------------
"I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands"
Charlton Heston
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39560
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 12 2013, 5:57 pm |
|
|
Also as is consistent with NIH overall they've (the obesity study) taken a 10% reduction hit. The same reduction the National park Service experienced and that was the intent of the sequester: across the board cuts. NO prioritization allowed. Now the Republican House is trying to add some wiggle to that for their DoD pets but we'll see....
"However, the NICHD said the future of the project is uncertain because of the sequester--automatic spending cuts that took effect on March 1.
"The NIH is currently assessing the impact on funding due to sequestration," said Robert Bock, Press Officer for the NICHD. "It is not possible to say how this (or any other NIH grant) will be affected in the long term beyond the 90 percent funding levels already in place.""
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
Ben2World
Group: Members
Posts: 23915
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 12 2013, 11:22 pm |
|
|
CAVEAT: Sequester is an absolutely brain dead solution!
Having said the above, I also have near-zero confidence that Congress can really sit down and rationally agree on both a long and medium term plans to properly reduce our deficit and cut down on our debt -- and push out annual budgets to achieve the targets. I do not see that happening.
In light of the above, Sequester may be the least worst solution BECAUSE:
1. The pain of irrational cutting will be so painful that it will generate continued rounds of outcry.
2. Congress may find it EASIER to legislate spending flexibilities onto depts. and give various dept. heads the flexibility they need to cut waste and increase departmental efficiencies -- than to attempt legislating big, painful spending cuts on their own.
--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page. -- St. Augustine
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
Buggyboo
Group: Members
Posts: 1114
Joined: Feb. 2013
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 17 2013, 11:21 am |
|
|
Whoops!
http://cnsnews.com/news....hs-fy13
--------------
"I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands"
Charlton Heston
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 21
|
Buggyboo
Group: Members
Posts: 1114
Joined: Feb. 2013
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 19 2013, 9:49 pm |
|
|
As a democrat, this disturbs me. Like Feinstein use the dead kids from Sandy Hook as props;
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Gov....marines
--------------
"I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands"
Charlton Heston
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 22
|
Buggyboo
Group: Members
Posts: 1114
Joined: Feb. 2013
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 20 2013, 2:17 pm |
|
|
That a boy dingy Harry, use dead bodies for props!
Just like Herr Sen. Diane "Goebbels" Feinstein!
http://www.humanevents.com/2013....tration
--------------
"I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands"
Charlton Heston
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 23
|
Buggyboo
Group: Members
Posts: 1114
Joined: Feb. 2013
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 20 2013, 2:40 pm |
|
|
The sequester jester;
http://www.foxnews.com/politic....ter-axe
--------------
"I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands"
Charlton Heston
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 24
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39560
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 20 2013, 2:53 pm |
|
|
The CBO does good work.
"How Will Budgetary Developments in 2013 Affect Economic Growth This Year?
In fiscal year 2013, by CBO’s estimates, federal revenues will rise and outlays will decline as shares of gross domestic product (GDP), resulting in a federal budget deficit equal to about 5.3 percent of GDP (compared with 7.0 percent last year). The fiscal policies that reduce the deficit will lead to less demand for goods and services, thereby holding down economic growth this year, as CBO reported in The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023. If not for that fiscal tightening, CBO estimates, economic growth in 2013 would be roughly 1½ percentage points faster than the 1.4 percent real (inflation-adjusted) growth that the agency now projects, under current laws, from the fourth quarter of calendar year 2012 to the fourth quarter of 2013."
Republicans seem pleased with a decline in the growth of the American economy. Don't they realize they won? President Obama will NOT be re-elected ever again!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 25
|
Ben2World
Group: Members
Posts: 23915
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 20 2013, 2:56 pm |
|
|
I'd rather we have moderate and sustainable growth than spurts followed with dips. As well, if we don't start paying down our debts and maybe eventually accumulate a bit of a rainy day fund -- what will we do when we face the next downturn?
--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page. -- St. Augustine
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 26
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39560
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 20 2013, 3:21 pm |
|
|
(Ben2World @ Mar. 20 2013, 11:56 am)
QUOTE I'd rather we have moderate and sustainable growth than spurts followed with dips. As well, if we don't start paying down our debts and maybe eventually accumulate a bit of a rainy day fund -- what will we do when we face the next downturn?
Yes but given the British, Greece, Spain, Ireland examples the way to guarranttee an immediuate and long lasting downturn is to slash the central government's spending, and thus investment in the nation's future productivity in the midst of a rather fragile economic recovery when "the debt" doesn't pose ANY immediate threat either financially or fiscally (per, of all people, House Speaker Boehner) in a Ryanesque desire to squash the federal government down to drownable proportions. Which isn't, btw, a functional goal but an ideological one that views the federal governemtn as fundamentally illegitimate outside national defense.
Interests rates are teeny, the federal deficit is NOT adversely competeing for money, which is the oft cited basis for concern over the federal debt: that due to it's security it can outcompete private borrowing and thus increase the cost of money for private usage.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 27
|
Ben2World
Group: Members
Posts: 23915
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 20 2013, 3:50 pm |
|
|
(High_Sierra_Fan @ Mar. 20 2013, 12:21 pm)
QUOTE
(Ben2World @ Mar. 20 2013, 11:56 am)
QUOTE I'd rather we have moderate and sustainable growth than spurts followed with dips. As well, if we don't start paying down our debts and maybe eventually accumulate a bit of a rainy day fund -- what will we do when we face the next downturn? Yes but given the British, Greece, Spain, Ireland examples the way to guarranttee an immediuate and long lasting downturn is to slash the central government's spending, and thus investment in the nation's future productivity in the midst of a rather fragile economic recovery when "the debt" doesn't pose ANY immediate threat either financially or fiscally (per, of all people, House Speaker Boehner) in a Ryanesque desire to squash the federal government down to drownable proportions. Which isn't, btw, a functional goal but an ideological one that views the federal governemtn as fundamentally illegitimate outside national defense. Interests rates are teeny, the federal deficit is NOT adversely competeing for money, which is the oft cited basis for concern over the federal debt: that due to it's security it can outcompete private borrowing and thus increase the cost of money for private usage.
I don't think anybody of stature and power is thinking seriously about slashing the way they're forced to in Greece.
But if we keep up our deficit spending -- both good times and bad -- we may one day back ourselves into a horrific corner like Greece! I can't picture China and the IMF as indulging creditors.
--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page. -- St. Augustine
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 28
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39560
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 20 2013, 6:51 pm |
|
|
You might want to read Paul Ryan's budget on that. ETA: Cutting an additonal 5.7 trillion from tax revenues over ten years and AND pledging to balance the budget within that same ten year timeframe. That's starve the beast writ very, very large and very very fast.
Granted I guess that somewhat rests on the definition of "anybody of stature and power" BUT he IS the Chairman of the House Budget Committee.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 29
|
|
|
| Post Number: 30
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39560
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 20 2013, 7:00 pm |
|
|
AH but the beneficiearies of that 5.7 trillion dollar tax reduction? They will shout with GLEE.
And they write the polictical campaign donation checks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
