I've seen it put forth on these forums that cutting programs, regardless of actual budgetary constraints/usage, should be done.

I said it was fucking stupid then, and I'll say it now -- cuts for the sake of cuts is not being fiscally conservative.

It's fiscal stupidity, as the loss of opportunity and intellectual property is absolutely assured while significant savings to the federal budget is not.

Quote:The “continuing resolution” that Congress passed in the fall, which allowed the government to avoid a shutdown, only runs until March. It includes a 10% across-the-board budget cut to everything. That includes most of the critical medical research in the U.S.

...

A 10% cut from the NIH budget (the so-called “sequester” plan) would save 0.008% of the federal budget. This matters not a whit in the overall budget debate – but it would be a huge blow to biomedical research, crippling some research programs for years to come.

REF: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzbe...-research/

The republicunt fuckheads don't give a rats ass about any of that. They are owned by the upper 1% and they will be fine no matter what happens to the country.

This is the problem.

(January 14, 2013 at 2:35 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The republicunt fuckheads don't give a rats ass about any of that. They are owned by the upper 1% and they will be fine no matter what happens to the country.

This is the problem.

A big part of it, yeah.

However, with the US being the leader in medical research, part of me hopes, morbid as it may be, that someone like Grover Norquist or the Koch Brothers gets one of these rare diseases we're studying. I wonder what their reaction would be to cutting funding to researching bird flu if one of the came down with it?

Why I personally don't like arguments of left and right.
Yes the republicans, from what I can sea from this side of the sea are owned by the 1% so that the argument is twisted from individual ownership to centralist control. But the problem with the left is that it is also owned by the 1% so their argument is twisted from care of the individual to that of a centralist state's handouts.
This is not just an American problem.
I would say the true strength of an economy is in the small independent companies, not the large corporations. I would say the way to value a society is how does it value the individuals within it. Given these as my starting points I don't see political parties which further any part of my agenda.
Every party would save a large bank, but let householders go to the wall.
Cuts everywhere, but not the 1%'s wealth.
In Britain the Chancellor announced as part of the budget he was taxing the rich, but what he did was cut the taxes on the 1% but increased the number of people described as rich. Thus the 1% paid less, but the rest of the top 10% paid more.

(January 14, 2013 at 2:57 pm)TaraJo Wrote: However, with the US being the leader in medical research, part of me hopes, morbid as it may be, that someone like Grover Norquist or the Koch Brothers gets one of these rare diseases we're studying.

David Koch, douchebag or asshole take your pick, has been pretty good about medical research. He has donated/pledged $200 million to mostly cancer research over the past few years. He is even on record bitching about the damage that would be done by large cuts to the NIH.

Quote:douchebag or asshole

Might I take one of each, please?

If your research is anything like the research down under, it can take some cuts. The absolute crap some people write...

and hey I looked around and on the same site you used, here are some easy cuts, apparently you've been spending 130 million directly on woo (before we even start looking at chiropractic...?).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmaris/2...t-flashes/

you're welcome

I have a problem with reports on how money is wasted on unnecessary research. It is relatively easy to misreport what a bit or research is about so that it seems stupid. And we should also consider before the research is done is it possible to work out if it would be of use or not.

remember this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg1vIeuQT1s

I think the subsidization of religion should be marked as part of the budget. And then cut to pieces.

If there is a dumber twat in the world than Palin I can't think who it might be.