The CDC Wants More Money to Eradicate ... Your Rights

[DBTrek]

Dem calls for CDC to immediately begin gun violence research

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) is calling on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to begin research into gun violence immediately, following a new clarification from Congress.

Markey is calling for the research, long a priority for Democrats, after the new government funding legislation passed by Congress included language clarifying that existing restrictions do not prevent the agency from researching the causes of gun violence, only from actively advocating for gun control. . .

. . . "We believe we’ve got a very important mission with our work with serious mental illness as well as our ability to do research on the causes of violence and the causes behind tragedies like this so that is a priority for us especially at the Centers for Disease Control," Azar said.

Markey, though, now wants the research to actually commence.

Top appropriators in the House and Senate on Thursday said they did not want to produce federal funding specifically for research into the causes of gun violence.

They noted that the CDC is provided funding for research and is free to do research on what the agency deems necessary.

“We’ve increased the NIH research budget by 23 percent in three years. If they want to do gun research, they have plenty of money to do it,” Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said.


http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/37 ... e-research

Let’s put aside the fact that “GUN” isn’t any disease I’ve ever heard of, for a moment. This federal bureaucracy got a 23% funding increase over the last three years, and Democrats want to give them even more cash specifically to advance their anti-gun agenda?

Because the CDC’s original funding plus 23% more isn’t enough for them to study the matter? Or wait ... could it possibly be that firearms aren’t a disease, and therefore no matter how much money we shovel in their coffers they’ll never get around to studying non-diseases?

Unless, of course ... we give them extra special money that can only be used to study what they otherwise have no business studying.

Jeez.

[MilSpecs]

Straw man. They wouldn't investigate gun ownership; they'd investigate the mental illness that leads to mass murder. It shouldn't make any difference what instrument is used by the mass murderers.

That said, why on earth would anyone be opposed to increased funding for the CDC? These are the people in charge of preventing, controlling, and eradicating disease. Measles, mumps and rubella are making a comeback, bioweapons (including smallpox) could be released, viruses like Ebola are extant, and flu pandemics are always a threat.

[DBTrek]

Straw man. They wouldn't investigate gun ownership; they'd investigate the mental illness that leads to mass murder. It shouldn't make any difference what instrument is used by the mass murderers.

Then they don’t need special funds earmarked for researching “gun violence”, do they? I mean, if the instrument of mass murder doesn’t matter why are the Dems pushing for gun research specifically? I believe the straw man is yours.

That said, why on earth would anyone be opposed to increased funding for the CDC?

Why would anyone support increased funding when they can’t even account for how the funding is used right now? What’s the ROI on each extra million dollars we pump into the CDC? How much more “measles, mumps, and rubella” do they prevent with each increase?

You don’t know?

Well, the government doesn’t know either, because that bureaucracy isn’t audited for effectiveness or even for how they spend the money they receive. They rely entirely on low-information voters who adopt a “They do good things, give them all the money the want” attitude to keep the gravy train rolling.

Kind of you to oblige.

[MilSpecs]

So audit it. I'm not opposed. It's still comparatively more important than most other agencies. We can't see our biggest threats and they can. Spanish flu, anyone?

[DBTrek]

So audit it. I'm not opposed. It's still comparatively more important than most other agencies. We can't see our biggest threats and they can. Spanish flu, anyone?

Sure, audit it and fund it as far as it proves useful in fighting disease. I’m not against the existence of a CDC, I’m against fraud and waste.

But “audit it” is the exact opposite of “Here’s 23% more, and maybe we can get you even more if you study gun violence”.

[Fife]

So audit it. I'm not opposed. It's still comparatively more important than most other agencies. We can't see our biggest threats and they can. Spanish flu, anyone?

You hardly dipped a single toe into that big old Bailey before retreating back to the trusty Motte.

"Spanish flu, anyone?"



:goteam: :drunk:

[MilSpecs]

If there was an epidemic of crazy people ramming cars into park benches it would fall within the CDC's purview. The operative words are "crazy people," not cars. Is there an increase in mental illness that manifests in mass murder? If so, it would be logical to allocate additional funding to the CDC, unless there was a concomitant decrease in another disease that freed up funding.

[MilSpecs]

So audit it. I'm not opposed. It's still comparatively more important than most other agencies. We can't see our biggest threats and they can. Spanish flu, anyone?

You hardly dipped a single toe into that big old Bailey before retreating back to the trusty Motte.

"Spanish flu, anyone?"

Do you think we're more likely to be wiped out by something other than a disease?

[Fife]

If there was an epidemic of crazy people ramming cars into park benches it would fall within the CDC's purview. The operative words are "crazy people," not cars. Is there an increase in mental illness that manifests in mass murder? If so, it would be logical to allocate additional funding to the CDC, unless there was a concomitant decrease in another disease that freed up funding.

Back to the Bailey for a pot-shot; good show.

This is better than an episode of The Walking Dead, as far as "disease" goes. At least after season 3, anyway.

What's next? Polio?

[Fife]

So audit it. I'm not opposed. It's still comparatively more important than most other agencies. We can't see our biggest threats and they can. Spanish flu, anyone?

You hardly dipped a single toe into that big old Bailey before retreating back to the trusty Motte.

"Spanish flu, anyone?"

Do you think we're more likely to be wiped out by something other than a disease?

Non sequitur, please say that again.