Will Ebola become a big problem in the United States?

[newtogolf]

No other country has the budget to do this sort of thing, and most of the politicians in this country think we do.

We don't have the budget either, have you looked at our debt?  If you get every country to contribute since the entire world benefits from eradicating Ebola from the planet then our share might be 3B instead of 6.2B.  We have tried to fix the infrastructure there, the problem is the leaders of these countries steal the funds and materials for their own profit.

[Jeremie Boop]

We don't have the budget either, have you looked at our debt?  If you get every country to contribute since the entire world benefits from eradicating Ebola from the planet then our share might be 3B instead of 6.2B.  We have tried to fix the infrastructure there, the problem is the leaders of these countries steal the funds and materials for their own profit.

That's why he italicized the "think" because we don't.

$6.2 billion is objectively a lot of money, of course, but if that's the cost of tamping down Ebola ... I'm not sure what you'd rather have them do.

Those private flights and quarantines for healthcare workers people in this thread have been calling for are pricy. Medicine, healthcare, supplies, etc. It adds up when you're dealing with that many patients.

We could debate the efficacy of sending aid to the region in the first place, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that $6.2 billion is an excessive number. Particularly since details regarding what that money will go to is pretty limited so far.

Plenty of countries could contribute $6.2 billion.

I'd actually like to see a tally of what it's cost so far to see how it compares to what he's asking for. Also what our portion of what has be spent so far has been.

[Golfingdad]

That is a lot, yes. I find it a bit interesting that you wouldn't think it is.

So you get all snarky when Mr. Desmond assumes that the popularity of the president has something to do with your comment, and then you do the same thing to me?

I said "honest question" and I meant exactly that.  Seriously ... I have no idea if 6.2B is a lot of money in the grand scheme of things for the government.

I'd actually like to see a tally of what it's cost so far to see how it compares to what he's asking for. Also what our portion of what has be spent so far has been.

As would I.  If I learned that we've already spent 20B, then 6.2 ain't that much, now is it?

On the other hand, if we typically spend 200 million on something like this, then I could go "Oh, wow, that is a lot."

[Jeremie Boop]

So you get all snarky when Mr. Desmond assumes that the popularity of the president has something to do with your comment, and then you do the same thing to me?

I said "honest question" and I meant exactly that.  Seriously ... I have no idea if 6.2B is a lot of money in the grand scheme of things for the government.

I wasn't being snarky, I really think it's interesting that you don't think it's a lot of money.

[Golfingdad]

I wasn't being snarky, I really think it's interesting that you don't think it's a lot of money.

But that's my point ... I never said I didn't think that.  Read what you're responding to before responding.

I LITERALLY said I have no idea if that's a lot of money or not.

And I didn't mean you were snarky to me, but to Des because he read between the lines of your post.  (Precisely what you're doing to me)

[Gunther]

The point I tried to make in my earlier post is that that the amount is bogus. Something fishy with it. Truth is, if I were confident the $6.2B would all go towards the ebola fight and that there would be a good chance that it would effectively stamp out the disease, I'd be all for the spend. Unfortunately, I have no such confidence, it simply wouldn't happen that way.

[Mr. Desmond]

The problem is the exorbitant amount that he's requesting. Not the validity of the goal.

I've no idea why you think the popularity of the President has any effect on how I feel about the subject.

Okay, from your response ... the W T F and what was quoted, it seemed that you were questioning the strategy.

And let's fact the fact that many people think that if an unpopular President said it, as this one is,  then it must be wrong.

No harm, no foul... carry on.

[Jeremie Boop]

But that's my point ... I never said I didn't think that.  Read what you're responding to before responding.

I LITERALLY said I have no idea if that's a lot of money or not.

And I didn't mean you were snarky to me, but to Des because he read between the lines of your post.  (Precisely what you're doing to me)

Ok then.

BUT, what I'm saying is valid. You don't know if it's a lot of money, therefore you don't think it's a lot of money by default. I'm not saying you think it's a perfectly acceptable amount of money. Maybe I'm not making my frame of mind clear enough on this.

Okay, from your response ... the W T F and what was quoted, it seemed that you were questioning the strategy.

And let's fact the fact that many people think that if an unpopular President said it, as this one is,  then it must be wrong.

No harm, no foul... carry on.

Understandable, there wasn't much substance to my initial post other than my surprise.

[Lihu]

The point I tried to make in my earlier post is that that the amount is bogus. Something fishy with it.

Truth is, if I were confident the $6.2B would all go towards the ebola fight and that there would be a good chance that it would effectively stamp out the disease, I'd be all for the spend. Unfortunately, I have no such confidence, it simply wouldn't happen that way.

Neither do I.

If it were itemized to the nearest 10k, I at least be satisfied that they did some due diligence.

[MS256]

The point I tried to make in my earlier post is that that the amount is bogus. Something fishy with it.

Truth is, if I were confident the $6.2B would all go towards the ebola fight and that there would be a good chance that it would effectively stamp out the disease, I'd be all for the spend. Unfortunately, I have no such confidence, it simply wouldn't happen that way.

It's a lot easier to just remember $6.2B and throw that amount out there for every problem than it is to actually know how much you actually need.

"A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you are talking real money." (Everett Dirksen)

BTW. It's part of the progressive goal of redistribution of wealth both nationally and globally. Find a problem (often a just and noble cause) and use that cause to redistribute wealth.

[No Mulligans]

For some perspective:

In 2015 federal spending is expected to be about $3.9 trillion.  $6.2 billion is about 0.16% of that.

Discretionary spending will be about $1.1 trillion, $6.2 billion is about 0.5% of that.

Say you have an income of $100,000 and after taxes and expenditures you end up with $20,000 in savings so you spent $80,000.  If you were to spend 0.16% of that $80,000 on something (like Ebola donation), that would be $128.

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

[Golfingdad]

BUT, what I'm saying is valid. You don't know if it's a lot of money, therefore you don't think it's a lot of money by default. I'm not saying you think it's a perfectly acceptable amount of money.

No, it's not valid.  When I say that I have no idea if it's a lot or not what I mean is, what for it ...

I have no idea if it's a lot or not.  That, in no way, means that "by default" I don't think it's a lot.  It means that "by default" I'm withholding any opinion until I have a frame of reference.

I can't put a number on a scale if I don't know what the scale is.  For example, if the most amount of money we've ever allocated for some type of aid like this was, say, 10 million dollars, I'd have a pretty good idea that this number was off the charts.  Likewise, if I was told that congress regularly gives out aid packages all over the world weekly for 5B, 10B, 15B, whatever, then I'd be of the opinion that it's not a lot at all.

I just have no idea, and therefore, no opinion on the quantity.

EDIT:  Thanks @No Mulligans for the perspective.  Now, Jeremie, assuming those numbers are correct, I would go ahead and say that that is not a lot of money, relatively speaking.  Carry on. :)

[Jeremie Boop]

No, it's not valid.  When I say that I have no idea if it's a lot or not what I mean is, what for it ...

I have no idea if it's a lot or not.  That, in no way, means that "by default" I don't think it's a lot.  It means that "by default" I'm withholding any opinion until I have a frame of reference.

I can't put a number on a scale if I don't know what the scale is.  For example, if the most amount of money we've ever allocated for some type of aid like this was, say, 10 million dollars, I'd have a pretty good idea that this number was off the charts.  Likewise, if I was told that congress regularly gives out aid packages all over the world weekly for 5B, 10B, 15B, whatever, then I'd be of the opinion that it's not a lot at all.

I just have no idea, and therefore, no opinion on the quantity.

EDIT:  Thanks @No Mulligans for the perspective.  Now, Jeremie, assuming those numbers are correct, I would go ahead and say that that is not a lot of money, relatively speaking.  Carry on. :)

You don't think it is, that's fine. We just have different thought processes. We can talk in circles about it all night but I'll drop it because it's pointless in the overall scheme of the discussion.

I also don't care what it is in relation to our budget, because I think our budget is out of control. Over 6 billion is a lot of money.

[Lihu]

For some perspective:

In 2015 federal spending is expected to be about $3.9 trillion.  $6.2 billion is about 0.16% of that.

Discretionary spending will be about $1.1 trillion, $6.2 billion is about 0.5% of that.

Say you have an income of $100,000 and after taxes and expenditures you end up with $20,000 in savings so you spent $80,000.  If you were to spend 0.16% of that $80,000 on something (like Ebola donation), that would be $128.

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

To put it another way, if the average American family pays $20,000 in taxes per year, they end up paying $32 for something in which they have no idea will work and have no say?

Some pay more taxes and their share gets up to $100-$200 or more.

We should really ask how the other 3.9 T dollars are spent. But we already voted, and are shoveling crap in hell.

[Golfingdad]

You don't think it is, that's fine. We just have different thought processes. We can talk in circles about it all night but I'll drop it because it's pointless in the overall scheme of the discussion.

I also don't care what it is in relation to our budget, because I think our budget is out of control. Over 6 billion is a lot of money.

No, I just wanted you to acknowledge that you were incorrect in your original assessment of my opinion.  I didn't think it was a lot or not a lot. After that, I was persuaded by No Mulligans to go ahead and say it wasn't that much.

$128 to wipe out Ebola?  Sign me up!

[Golfingdad]

To put it another way, if the average American family pays $20,000 in taxes per year, they end up paying $32 for something in which they have no idea will work and have no say?

What do you mean "have no say?"  That's why we vote, is it not?  That IS our say.

[Lihu]

What do you mean "have no say?"  That's why we vote, is it not?  That IS our say.

Of course, I was taken out of context. . .

I also stated that  "We should really ask how the other 3.9 T dollars are spent. But we already voted, and are shoveling crap in hell.". . .

BTW, I don't expect an apology or anything.

[Jeremie Boop]

No, I just wanted you to acknowledge that you were incorrect in your original assessment of my opinion.  I didn't think it was a lot or not a lot.  After that, I was persuaded by No Mulligans to go ahead and say it wasn't that much.

$128 to wipe out Ebola?  Sign me up!

You misunderstand again, but no point in discussing it further.