Infinite Menus, Copyright 2006, OpenCube Inc. All Rights Reserved.

This Economy Is Good For Whom?

Well, you may already know this, but every time some rightwinger suggests lowering taxes is the answer to what ails our economy, you should ask them how they expect to pay for those things we expect our government to do. Where is all the fiscal conservatism in the GOP these days? Certainly there is none when it comes to the W, Rove and Co.

President Bush wants to cut funding for teaching hospitals and freeze medical research in a $3 trillion budget for 2009 that is still likely to generate a record deficit once war costs are tallied up.

The Bush budget to be submitted Monday would cut the budget for the Health and Human Services Department by $2 billion, or 3 percent. By contrast, the Pentagon would get a $35 billion increase to $515 billion for core programs, with war costs additional.

With tax revenue falling as the economy slows - and with the deficit-fina nced economic stimulus bill adding more than $150 billion in red ink to federal ledgers over 2008-09 - the White House acknowledges that the budget deficit for this year and next is projected to reach $400 billion or more.

The largest-ever budget deficit, $413 billion, was recorded in 2004. Bush’s budget will forecast a deficit for 2009 that’s below that, an administrati on official said. But that assumes costs of $70 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, well below the almost $200 billion request for this year.

How the bleep are we going to pay down this debt? Well, of course, this is another heaping problem that Bush is loading onto whomever is in charge next. Perhaps it would be good to have McCain win then it would be his mess to clean up. Trouble is the GOP has not demonstrated one shred of fiscal conservatism they proclaim to advocate. Likely, if McCain is elected we would drown further down in the money pit the W, Rove and Co has been struggling to widen via their illustrious freedom spreading experiment in Iraq.

Think about it. It’s a brilliant ploy. Defer expenses and costs. Cut taxes. Increase the debt so that the next democrat in charge has to raise taxes to recover. Then suggest that democrats are fiscally irresponsibl e for raising necessary taxes. Brilliant.

The question remains for whom is this economy good? Looks like the predators are winning:

Exxon Mobil Corp. shattered its own record as the world’s most profitable publicly traded corporation, as rising oil prices helped the company bring in better-than- ever income and revenue for the fourth quarter and 2007.

Irving, Texas-based Exxon’s net income rose 3% to $40.6 billion in 2007, surpassing its 2006 record of $39.5 billion.

Chevron Corp. also posted strong earnings despite lower production and lagging profit from making and selling gasoline. Full-year profit at the San Ramon, Calif.-based oil company jumped 9% to $18.7 billion.

Well, there’s no surprises there. W is, after all, an oil man.


Tags:  , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • connotea
  • del.icio.us
  • digg
  • Fark
  • Netvouz
  • Reddit
  • scuttle
  • YahooMyWeb

24 Responses to “This Economy Is Good For Whom?”

  1. Cool. That means Exxon is paying more taxes. Helping bring down the debt.

    Windspike… you should be writing posts about the governments spending problems… ALL THE WAY AROUND… not just W’s.

  2. Windspike has figured out the dastardly GOP ploy:

    “Think about it. It’s a brilliant ploy. Defer expenses and costs. Cut taxes. Increase the debt so that the next democrat in charge has to raise taxes to recover. Then suggest that democrats are fiscally irresponsibl e for raising necessary taxes. Brilliant.”

    Here’s how to show those evil republicans. Elect McCain for Pres then HE will be stuck with all the looming problems.
    That’ll show them. Tell all your liberal friends that this election is really a setup to frame Dems for all the problems the gop caused. Better have them elect a GOP congress as well to head off that brilliant ploy we pulled off in 06 or President McCain will still be able to blame the congress.

    I hate it when liberals figure out our brilliant ploys. Oh well I guess we will have to put up with 8 more years of GOP control now. Dad burn it. Guess we misunderesti mated them.

  3. Manapp:

    For the libs, it’s always a scheme… I am glad I don’t think that way.

  4. windspike,
    steve and mana are correct on this one. i was once a liberal. hell, i even had a conscience. but,i got my children raised and even though i have lots of grandchildre n, i have realized that basic human nature make it impossible to support liberal causes which advocate things contrary to greed and narcissism. me, steve and mana clearly have no regard for future generations and this is the position one must take to get the greatest benefit from this thing we call life. hell, we are all going to die and since there is no hereafter why not get the most from it while we’re here. I just hope i can die from something like a gunshot from a jealous husband before the bad times get here. but the news is so depressing. i don’t want to list all the news about how the economy is in trouble, the environment  (life support system)is struggling, me, i believe jesus is coming to rapture us from all the pain and suffering, and those Democrates just didn’t know how to have a good time. suggest you begin paying attention to human nature. generally we don’t give a shit about you, your children, and certainly about those who sit on top of the oil we need to satiate our desires. Sorry that kind of thinking is not in vogue.

  5. Nah Rube… I am just being sensible. I am not a schemer.

  6. If liberals had a conscience, and had regard for future generations they would:

    not wish to saddle future generations with government run health care.

    Would support fixing Social Security.

    Would not consign the kids of the poor and middle class to the failed government run school system by denying them choice in where their education dollars are spent. All for the greed of teachers union dollars.

    Would understand the good news of freeing millions of Afgans and Iraqis from the yoke of tyrants.

    Would understand how companies like Walmart are essential to the poor and middle class.

    Would understand that irrational hatred of the rich is literally biting the hand that feeds them.

    Would understand that taxing the evil “big oil” is taxing the poor who can afford it the least the most.

    Would support faith based charities for the tremendous work they do for the less fortunate.

    Would understand that saving 10 people from DDT is not worth the 10 million that die fromn malaria.

    Rube, I know that you are an older gentleman so you have to be aware of all the gloom and doom and depressing news we have been fed all our lives. Yet if you look around you see that the future predicted is far worse than the present we live in.
    We have seen predictions such as global cooling to global warming all being due to mankinds “sins” of excess. We were told that there would be mass starvation and overpopulati on. Severe clean water shortages. Natural resource depletion. Nuclear wars. We are constantly told of the “greed” of Americans only to see us pour out money, resources and compassion to every part of the globe in times of crises. We are spit on as Americans and yet we still open our wallets when there is a flood in asia or an earthquake in Iran. And we always will. Americans are a good and compassionat e people.

    I used to be a liberal too until I opened my eyes and saw not what I was told to see but saw the reality for myself.

  7. Sorry for chiming in so late folks. For some reason, my email filter is tossing BIO posts into the spam catcher. This shouldn’t be happening as I used to get them all.

    I’m not suggesting that all things capitalist are bad here; just suggesting that there is nothing fiscally conservative about the current batch of “conservativ es” in the White House. If you don’t see that, then you are either blind, not paying attention or in complete denial.
    Let me see If I can tackle the generalizati ons Man tossed at us as arbitrary epthets for a liberal audience.

    Would support fixing Social Security.

    Sur e I support fixing it, but not killing it. It does support those who can’t afford a healthy retirement. How bout eliminating it for those who have beyond, say, 500K in their bank accounts after age 65? This would aid the poor and decrease welfare for the wealthy.

    Would not consign the kids of the poor and middle class to the failed government run school system by denying them choice in where their education dollars are spent. All for the greed of teachers union dollars.

    How about we kill the superintende nts’ offices and give the money saved to increase pay for good teaching? Vouchers are no good if you can’t afford to ship your kid two hours across town to the “good” school and still make ti to work. You would rather spend money jailing kids in nice comfy, new jails instead?

    Would understand the good news of freeing millions of Afgans and Iraqis from the yoke of tyrants.

    Was it worth the GIs KIA now near 4K? What about OBL? He’s still alive and kicking. The unfortunate sad state of this is that both countries have now become a part of our welfare system while we drive our poor further into the dirt. The implied message is that Iraqis and Afghanis are worth more than our own.

    Would understand how companies like Walmart are essential to the poor and middle class.

    Really  , you like cheep ass crap that breaks six weeks into owning it so you have to toss it into the garbage dump and buy a new one rather than buying something American made that last twice, five or ten times longer?

    Would understand that irrational hatred of the rich is literally biting the hand that feeds them.

    I don’t hate the rich, I wish we were all rich so we could afford the things you think are okay to deny the poor - like high quality education.

    Would understand that taxing the evil “big oil” is taxing the poor who can afford it the least the most.

    What? this totally deflates your Walmart argument. The fact that I have to buy the lawn mower once and then six months later can’t find some one to fix it or fix it myself and have to buy another because it was made by child laborers in China is not the same thing as taxing oil? If big oil is hitting record profits might it not be because gasoline prices are exorbitantly hight? Certainly, it’s not because they’ve developed new efficiencies in producing gasoline? Might it not be better for the environment if gasoline was more expensive and that money didn’t go into the fat cat but back to the people?

    Would support faith based charities for the tremendous work they do for the less fortunate.

    The reason why our forefathers had the wisdom to suggest a separation of church and state was that they knew that the support would not be evenly distributed. The bigots in charge would be less likely to fund a Muslim operation these days than they would a Christian charity doing exactly the same work. They don’t need governmental assistance to do this work as you can tithe whatever agency you like.

    Would understand that saving 10 people from DDT is not worth the 10 million that die fromn malaria.

    Huh>   What are you talking about? You support the use of DDT? Now you are just spewing numbers and not offering any sort of connectivity to logic, reason or rhetoric that makes any kind of sense.

    Get a grip. I, for one, am for holding government accountable to the things they suggest they stand for. When it comes to fiscal conservatism  , this current incarnation doesn’t demonstrate that remotely. The debt will kill us all. The taxes will have to go up. And no doubt, you and your current batch of pals will be there vociferously lamenting that fact and pointing the wagging finger of blame at the President who has the nerve to do what is right instead of the President who got us into the mess.

    Now instead of diverting the conversation to other tired and sad diatribes about the liberals, why don’t you guys suggest an answer to the questions posed in the post. How are we going to pay down the current and expanding debt?

  8. Wind on Social Secrity:

    “How bout eliminating it for those who have beyond, say, 500K in their bank accounts after age 65? This would aid the poor and decrease welfare for the wealthy.”

    How about eliminating the middle man (government) out of the equation and let those having 15% taken out of each and every check get to at least earn money market interest which is about 5% return as opposed to the 0% the government offers? Maybe the poor and middle class would like to have a shot at investing after watching the Feds spend it all. How could they do worse with the money than congress has done?

    Wind on education:

    “How about we kill the superintende nts’ offices and give the money saved to increase pay for good teaching? Vouchers are no good if you can’t afford to ship your kid two hours across town to the “good” school and still make ti to work. You would rather spend money jailing kids in nice comfy, new jails instead?”

    If your kid needs a ride two hours away and you can’t/don’t want to deal with it you can chose to send you kid to one closer. Why not allow those poor and middle class to send their kid to the best, not the mandated school. The only school that is afraid of choice is the school that parents wouldn’t choose. Why do we use economics to force poor kids into bad schools. Answer: because of the greed of the teachers union.
    If you have private run schools as the norm you will have less need for the superintenda nts office. Let it die on the vine.

    Wind on the war:

    “Was it worth the GIs KIA now near 4K?”

    So by your logic we should not have gone to help Europe in WWII as we lost many more thousands in Europe. I don’t envision an America that will isolate itself from the evils of the world. Nor should we. It is part of our charitable nature to risk our lives to help others.

    Wind on the rich:

    “I don’t hate the rich, I wish we were all rich”

    Yeah you do. You are in denial here.

    Wind on Walmart:

    “Really , you like cheep ass crap that breaks six weeks into owning it so you have to toss it into the garbage dump and buy a new one rather than buying something American made that last twice, five or ten times longer?”

    Sounds like someone had a bad experience. I told you liberals shop at walmart. In case you haven’t noticed. Walmart sells food, toiletries, tires, batteries and other car parts made in the same place as your local NAPA. Why do you want poor people to pay more for these items? If you would rather buy quality American made items go ahead. Spend your money where you want. But don’t try to have the Walmarts shut down to assuage some liberal guilt and punish the less fortunate. What do you have against choice?

    Wind on big oil:

    “What? this totally deflates your Walmart argument. The fact that I have to buy the lawn mower once and then six months later can’t find some one to fix it or fix it myself and have to buy another because it was made by child laborers in China is not the same thing as taxing oil?”

    This is back to the bad experience at Walmart which is OT. However, next time you shop at Walmart )and we know you do) Step up to the middle of the line then do regular maintenance and you will probably find it will last longer. Got my Honda mower there 12
    years ago. Not a single problem.

    The point you fail to grasp is a tax on Big Oil will mean even higher gas prices and this will hit the least well heeled among us the hardest. Simple economics.

    Wind on faith based charities:

    “The reason why our forefathers had the wisdom to suggest a separation of church and state was that they knew that the support would not be evenly distributed. ”

    No the reason for seperation of Church and State was to keep the State from interfering with a persons choice of where to worship. This does not forbid the state from helping the church as is evident in the tax code. All churches regardless of faith are exempt. There is also considerable amounts of federal dollars going to religious founded schools, like Notre Dame.

    Wind on Malaria:

    “Huh> What are you talking about? You support the use of DDT? Now you are just spewing numbers and not offering any sort of connectivity to logic, reason or rhetoric that makes any kind of sense.”

    I can see you are having trouble with this. Let me help. Malaria is spread by mosquitos. DDT kills mosquitos. Killing mosquitos helps stop the spread of malaria. The banning of the use of DDT has lead to a resurgence of Malaria and thereby Malaria related deaths.
    From the wesite of the Malaria foundation:

    “Background information on why the MFI has supported an eventual but not immediate ban of DDT:

    In certain situations [see KwaZulu-Nata l and Ethiopia] there are few effective or affordable alternatives . This puts hundreds of thousands of lives at risk from malaria - in countries where DDT is used to spray homes to block transmission of malaria.

    Malaria and leishmaniasi s are diseases that are in resurgence in many parts of the world. Diminished control efforts are, at least in part, responsible for this resurgence (Roberts et al. 1997, Roberts et al. 2000, Baird 2000).

    The MFI has supported an eventual (not immediate) ban, with the proviso that an effective and affordable replacement is found before DDT is banned.

    DDT is one tool of many in the malaria control worker’s toolbox. The reason that it is being discussed at this site is that, unlike other tools, there is an imminent danger of it being taken away. This puts not just health, but lives, at stake. The MFI wants to see all possible tools for malaria control be readily available, because malaria is a serious, resurgent problem with drug resistance and increasing numbers of illnesses and deaths.”

    http://www.m alaria.org/D DTpage.html

    Or this puts it in a nutshell:

    “DDT kills mosquitoes. Malaria is transmitted to humans via mosquito bites. According to U.N. estimates, malaria kills one child every 30 seconds and more than a million people each year.”

    http://www.a aenvironment .com/DDT.htm

    Like I said. I used to be a liberal then I opened my eyes and saw that liberalism is looking at an issue with a shallow eye and not the totality. Take this debate on DDT between a Physician with WHO and an activist with the Sierra club:

    “Nicole Lund, a physician specializing in tropical diseases, had been with the World Health Organization  (WHO) for six years. Her work at WHO as well as her prior training was focused on malaria and its control.

    “Thank you, Mr. Secretary, I’d be happy to start. As you are aware, even though WHO is a part of the United Nations, we are strongly opposed to the proposed ban on the use of DDT. Our reasons for this are quite straightforw ard. The number of malaria infections throughout the world has grown dramatically as the use of DDT for mosquito control has declined. Our studies show that between 350 and 500 million people in 101 countries throughout the world are currently infected with malaria, and between two and three million deaths result from these infections each year. Malaria also causes damage to the economies of developing nations, estimated at a half billion dollars annually.

    “As I am sure you are aware, malaria infections are caused by mosquito bites, and nothing else is as effective as DDT for the control of mosquito populations.   I should also mention that as of today, there is no effective vaccine against malaria, and we cannot say with any certainty when and if one will be developed.”

    The Sierra Club Rebutt:

    The Sierra Club representati ve, Patricia Canavan, was visibly agitated. She said, “May I make some observations that would add a bit of balance to our discussion, Mr. Secretary?”

    “Of course, Dr. Canavan.”

    “The reason that the developed countries want DDT banned from use worldwide is that its use presents an unacceptable risk to our environment and to our health. It is a risk that we simply cannot afford to take.

    “DDT is so stable in the environment that it takes many years for it to decompose after it is exposed to air and water. Ten years after DDT began to be used studies found it in even the most remote areas of the world, places where it had never been applied. Wind and water transport DDT all over the globe.

    “And then it began to show up in birds, fish, domestic animals, and humans. DDT accumulates in fatty tissues, and is passed from mothers to their infants during breast-feedi ng. Nursing infants all over the world were ingesting DDT from their moment of birth.”

    Nicole Lund shifted uneasily in her chair as she responded, “What you say is true, Dr. Canavan, but would you please tell us how many human deaths DDT has caused among the billions of human beings that have been exposed to it?”

    “I think you know very well that DDT has not been proven to be the direct cause of any human deaths, Dr. Lund. I also think that you know that the ‘precautiona ry principle’ demands that we not take risks whose consequences we cannot predict.”

    http://ublib .buffalo.edu  /libraries/ projects/cas es/ddt/ddt.h tml

    You should do yourself a favor and go that website.
    This is the same as the Global warming debate. The left will want to rush out and act drastically. The unintended consequences will probaly result in the deaths of many, mostly poor.

    Like DDT, the liberals motives are pure, save the world from the possible harmful effects but the results have killed millions.

  9. windspike..
    “How are we going to pay down the current and expanding debt? based on what’s happening we are going to (1)deflate the currency and pay off with worthless dollars, (2) sell off our most valuable assets, and (3) pass on every debt possible to our children. future generations are going to curse us for our wasteful, insane, irresponsibl e behavior. a behavior that is typical of the common garden variety wine yeast. we humans are a greedy, selfish, aggressive, conscience and smart species.

  10. The reason Bush’s proposed FY09 budget only shows $70B for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that it only covers the portion of the fiscal year during which Bush will still be in office, i.e. 10/1/08 through 1/20/09. He’s leaving it to the next president to somehow deal with that mess with zero funding set aside for it from the moment he takes the oath of office. To me, that sure looks an awful lot like a scheme to set the next guy up for a fall…

    Guess I’m just a paranoid conspiracy theorist. After all, it’s not as if we’re dealing with the kind of people who conspire to rig elections by illegally depriving minority voters of their votes, programming electronic voting systems to report fraudulent results, or provide inadequate numbers of voting machines in districts populated mainly by the other party’s voters.

  11. Well Romney is arguably the worst next move that can for our economy over McCain.and Although Romney is talking a big game about the economy to try and shres McCain, Romney’s plan in reality is simply to forward the same backslide policies that have gone so wrong for the current Bush administrati on and the larger American family. Lets look at three key points that his plan proposes (in his campaigns words).
    “- Individuals: Governor Romney would permanently reduce the lowest income tax bracket, permanently eliminate payroll taxes on seniors and make middle-class savings tax-free.
    - Businesses: Governor Romney would institute immediate 100% expensing of equipment for two years and permanently reduce the corporate tax rate.
    - Homeowners: Governor Romney would reform and expand Federal Housing Administrati on (FHA) loan portfolio limits to allow larger loans to homeowners.
    (Selection from: http://www.m ittromney.co m/News/Press -Releases/Ro mney_Agenda_ 1.19)
    While these words may appear beneficial on the surface, it’s really a campaign promise to dig deeper into the wallets of an already strained middle class here’s why.
    “- Individuals The lowest tax bracket is already subsidized to the point in some cases the tax is actually forgiven and the taxee pays nothing. Reducing this tax does little to stimulate the economy - it’s a nice gesture but it also means that the rest of the tax payers will need to pick up the tab. Eliminating payroll taxes on seniors has the same effect …nice gesture but taxes the middle class even more and has really no benefit to the economy. Making middle class saving tax free is also just eloquent lip service because the real problem right now is that the middle class is living hand to mouth pay check to pay check and isn’t really able to save to begin with especially with the current housing market issues.
    - Businesses: institute immediate 100% expensing of equipment for two years” Really? Are we going to be expensing equipment for companies that have shipped all those jobs overseas? And since your looking at reducing corporate tax rates who’s going to pay for all this free equipment? …That’s right the middle class.

    - Homeowners: expand Federal Housing Administrati on (FHA) loan portfolio limits to allow larger loans to homeowners.
    Now hold on isn’t this just the same kind of thing that is currently causing a collapse in the housing market at present? You know…writi ng big loans, loans so big that the borrowers cannot pay back the loan? This is the most inane out of touch proposal I have heard so far.
    To top it off he wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. But the Bush tax cuts do little or nothing for the middle class and are partially the reason that the economy has done nothing but back slide since Bush’s first year in office. Over the past eight years conservative spending agendas have failed miserably to create a truly strong and sustainable economy. As a result it seems like every six months there’s a new economic crisis on the horizon. Lets look at some of the things that didn’t fix the economy over the past eight years…
    • Give very one a check for $300 (or more) ,”Free money!” sure it’s a great way to make friends but that money wasn’t free, they raided the surplus to do it.
    • Cut rates - they keep doing it even though it has not worked well enough to fix anything over eight years - it’s a one trick pony that reduces the values of your savings and investments
    • Reduce the expense of environmenta l restrictions on corporations – any money that the corporations may have saved did not create additional jobs because get ready:
    • Give tax breaks to companies that create jobs overseas!!!!
    • Spend half a trillion dollars on a protracted conflict- every one knows that war is good for the economy or at least that’s what they told us in school.
    • Borrow money from other countries to pay your debts, tell the people that your lowering taxes to get your party elected and then let some other generation worry about paying your back taxes.
    So the question that I need to ask you is why would any one want to elect a candidate that is really only promising to give America the continuation of the same alleged conservative economic policies?

  12. Oh and by the by…
    Would understand the good news of freeing millions of Afgans and Iraqis from the yoke of tyrants. it would be great news if it didn’t appear that we are just another farmhand changing the yoke for another oil concern

    Would understand how companies like Walmart are essential to the poor and middle class. These companies insinuate themselves into that situation by devaluing the worth of American jobs, I for one refuse to by shit from China as often as possible and there for will not cross the threshold of a walmart .

    Would understand that irrational hatred of the rich is literally biting the hand that feeds them.Hollywo od liberals , limosine liberals, NY liberal, northeastene rs those folks have plenty of money too, we don’t hate the rich just the greedy, to imply that we eat tonight by the grace of some neo-con agenda tells me that it is to time to level the playing feild of taxes.

    Would understand that taxing the evil “big oil” is taxing the poor who can afford it the least the most. Sure lets just keep pumping our tax dollar into subsidizing and bail outs as the price rockets into the stratoshpere

    Would support faith based charities for the tremendous work they do for the less fortunate. Ever stop to wonder how many government dollars may have wound up in the hands of insurgents through faith based charities either way why take money away from non faith based non prosteletizi ng organization s who do excellent work as well .

    Would understand that saving 10 people from DDT is not worth the 10 million that die fromn malaria. Why spray a toxic substance into crops every season when you could vacinate a person for life?

  13. There’s a malaria vaccine? Not according to Wikipedia. So the choice isn’t spraying DDT’s or vaccinating. There is no vaccine and so, in the mean time, the choice is spraying DDT’s or doing nothing. So where’s the case for doing nothing?

  14. I’m…just suggesting that there is nothing fiscally conservative about the current batch of “conservat iv es” in the White House.

    Absolutely true. The first clue that this would be a problem was Bush’s claim to represent compassionat e conservativi sm. For “compassiona te”, read “when someone is hurting, it’s the government’s job to do something about it.” While Bush’s actual record is rather dubious about whether he is a consistent compassionat e conservative  , he is certainly a big government (if such a thing is not an oxymoron) conservative and, thus, the largest expansion of any government social welfare program in decades, Medicare Part D, “No Child Left Behind”, expansion of public funding of “Faith-Based ” programs, and the Terry Schiavo affair.

    If President Clinton declared that the era of big government was dead, it has clearly been revived by President Bush in a sort of Frankenstein ian fusion of liberal ideas with conservative sensibilitie s (read tax-cuts). If liberals are often painted as tax and spend happy, Bush appears to be tax-cut and spend happy. The worst of both worlds.

  15. I asked a quesion…I did not make a statement…“W hy spray a toxic substance into crops every season when you could vacinate a person for life?

    There are vaccines currently in trial. If brought to market the question becomes wether or not they will be made available/af fordable to the poorest areas of the world even if its cheaper to keep spraying.

    The actual best case against DDT is that spraying DDT forever is the equivelent of doing nothing but eventually creating DDT resistant mosquitos. (All carcinogenic questions aside)

    So the pressure has been and stil is to be willing to spend enough money to develop a working vaccine before the pesticide is obsoleted. Thats the kind of program that we should be putting money into to prevent malaria from showing up on our shores… sure it’ll costs more than a few barrels of toxic waste dumped on some afican village that most will probably never have visit .

    There should have been a vaccine by now but we all know that the prevailing attitude in this country is that it is cheaper to loosen an enviornmenta l standard for a half measure (even if it may poison people) Than it is to fund major pharmecutica l research for a drug that won’t be sold to aged balding fat whitemen with sagging balls.

    According to the BBC it looks like help might be on the way

    http://news. bbc.co.uk/2/ hi/health/37 42876.stm

  16. Craig, I’m voting you best comment of the day! Brilliant and insightful:

    If President Clinton declared that the era of big government was dead, it has clearly been revived by President Bush in a sort of Frankenstein ian fusion of liberal ideas with conservative sensibilitie s (read tax-cuts). If liberals are often painted as tax and spend happy, Bush appears to be tax-cut and spend happy. The worst of both worlds.

    Do you mind if I elevate your comment to a lead post? I’ll give you due credit, of course.

  17. Dear Man,

    Of course, you have not answered the original question in the post. You are deflecting and diverting the conversation . How very Rovian of you. Until you actually answer the question in the original post, I won’t bother bantering back and forth. Your last comment is riddled with so many holes, it’s no longer enjoyable responding to your spew.

    Incidentally  , I don’t shop at walmart. There isn’t one in my area, and I wouldn’t go there anyway. I don’t believe in them. I would rather buy goods from the small business owners near my location. So, lay down your accusations as falsities. If you believe them, you have your head in the wrong orifice.

  18. Windspike,

    Be my guest.

    By the way, Walmart believes in YOU! :-D

    BYOC,

    If that’s the best case that can be made against using DDT, that’s not nearly good enough. People are dying now. When an inoculation will be available, who knows? 10 million dead of malaria? 50 million dead? Eventually they add up. So then, who is suggesting that DDT be sprayed forever? Is someone suggesting that we not develop an inoculation and make it available as quickly as is safely possible? Certainly not me. We’re suggesting that, until there is a readily available inoculation for malaria, we save 10s of millions of lives by using the one thing we know will kill malaria carrying mosquitos. Get that? Until a readily available inoculation becomes available. When will that be? Who knows? Until then, what?

  19. Windspike,

    Be my guest.

    By the way, Walmart believes in YOU! :-D

  20. Sorry for the repeat of part of one comment. I goofed.

  21. Craig,

    Done - see post called “Fiscally Conservative  ?”

    Let’s see if it spurs any commentary.

    blog on friends, blog on all.

  22. […] Craig R. Harmon: Sorry for the repeat of part of one comment. I goofed. […]

  23. Now listen up Harmon,
    your buddy mannapp there wanted to suggest that people who try to further responsible management of the environment so that it won’t be poisoned for the people living there are some how preventing WHO from using DDT to fight malaria. This is simply not the case.

    WHO is currently using DDT in Africa to fight malaria and its not going all that well. Consciousnes s health workers make the case against DDT because we all know a better solution must be found That does not mean that the folks who manage this problem aren’t also pragmatic.

    They want and need our research dollars and simply telling them to spray Raid on the foods they eat isn’t going to cure the disease. Get it?

    You know you can teach a man to fish but that doesn’t mean that you’ve taught him to think.

    W hy spray a toxic substance into crops every season when you could vacinate a person for life?

  24. I see. No one is arguing that we not use DDT. My mistake.

Leave a Reply

Fish.Travel