Will Ebola become a big problem in the United States?

[newtogolf]

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.

I agree, all those countries have more corrupt governments than our own.  Without our military in place to secure the resources they needed to purify the water, add septic systems and proper medication the militias and government would seize it all for their own use or to sell it.

[MS256]

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/

Ah, the old "it's not really that much" argument. Problem is that thousands and thousands of "not really that much" add up to a Hell of a bundle. Second problem is that about $4 of the $128 will actually go where it's supposed to go. This is the Federal government we are talking about.

I don't know how much money we need to fight Ebola, don't have a clue, and don't mind spending whatever it takes but to coincidentally use $6.2B as the request of choice for all emergencies is an insult to common sense.

"Never let a good crisis go to waste."

[No Mulligans]

Ah, the old "it's not really that much" argument. Problem is that thousands and thousands of "not really that much" add up to a Hell of a bundle. Second problem is that about $4 of the $128 will actually go where it's supposed to go. This is the Federal government we are talking about.

I don't know how much money we need to fight Ebola, don't have a clue, and don't mind spending whatever it takes but to coincidentally use $6.2B as the request of choice for all emergencies is an insult to common sense.

"Never let a good crisis go to waste."

I didn't make the "it's not really that much" argument as you asserted I did.

I didn't give an opinion at all.

[Golfingdad]

You misunderstand again

Of course I do.  Silly me.

[iacas]

Of course I do.  Silly me.

$6.2B/317M = < $20 per person.

Sounds like not a ton of money to me.

Sounds like a waste of $20 if it doesn't work, too.

I'm with Drew. It sounded like a lot of money, but I didn't have a scale. I did some math to make my own scale and now it doesn't sound like a lot of money.

But if it doesn't work, well, even if it was $5 it'd still be a waste of that $5 (or $19.xx).

[MS256]

I didn't make the "it's not really that much" argument as you asserted I did.

I didn't give an opinion at all.

I didn't say you did. But it is certainly used every time expenditures come up.

BTW my wife is a master of using that argument when she goes shopping. She could very well work for the government.

[newtogolf]

$6.2B/317M = < $20 per person.

Sounds like not a ton of money to me.

Sounds like a waste of $20 if it doesn't work, too.

I'm with Drew. It sounded like a lot of money, but I didn't have a scale. I did some math to make my own scale and now it doesn't sound like a lot of money.

But if it doesn't work, well, even if it was $5 it'd still be a waste of that $5 (or $19.xx).

Not to get too picky but only 53% of the population pays federal income taxes so the number is actually closer to $38 per person.  Still not a big number but still a waste of money.

[Jeremie Boop]

Written 9/17/2014

Quote:

As of Wednesday, roughly $155 million has so far been delivered, with funds coming from countries, global agencies, private companies, individuals and other entities, according to data collected by the Financial Tracking Service (FTS), which records all reported international humanitarian aid.

http://time.com/3393656/ebola-donations-funding/

We originally committed to 500 million. A bit of a ramp up to get to 6.2 billion.

[Golfingdad]

Not to get too picky but only 53% of the population pays federal income taxes so the number is actually closer to $38 per person.  Still not a big number but still a waste of money.

Not saying I disagree with you because I really have no idea what their plans are but ... why is it automatically a waste, in your opinion?

[trickyputt]

I say no 6.2B. We have samples of the virus here. Science students that need jobs that could kill them to improve their wisdom. The BBC service has a great deal of coverage of those countries. There is a great deal of international involvement already. Perhaps shoring up our allies who have that footprint already is wiser on multiple financial and cultural and security levels already. I like the brits. I want to kick their ass in the Ryder cup.

[Lihu]

Not saying I disagree with you because I really have no idea what their plans are but ... why is it automatically a waste, in your opinion?

We don't really know for sure. I can guess that a task force (who spends most of their time lobbying in DC) could cost a quarter of that 6.2 B.

I laugh now but. . .

[No Mulligans]

Some more perspective, the government spent about 1.6 billion in 2013 funding cancer research on these types of cancer:

[Jeremie Boop]

Some more perspective, the government spent about 1.6 billion in 2013 funding cancer research on these types of cancer:

I'd support 6.2 billion for cancer, considering way more people would benefit from that.

[Gunther]

Not saying I disagree with you because I really have no idea what their plans are but ... why is it automatically a waste, in your opinion?

It's a waste because less than $1 of that $38 would actually be put to good use. Much of it would be distributed to cronies and causes with the appearance of being something related to ebola prevention. Also, as newtogolf mentions, the fraud, waste, and abuse angle would take a big chunk, i.e., paying off chieftains among other things. One of the problems is the equivocation seen earlier in the thread, ok, gee, that's only like $128 bucks to me, no big deal. It's $6.2 frickin billion dollars, don't equivocate. It's real money and a helluva lot of it that most here are probably contributing. We just cannot afford to throw unaccountable dollars at problems anymore. We must begin to actually cut spending, not just the rate of growth. Show me the business case, justify it, then account for each dollar spent. If that's done, and there is a significant dent put into the problem, hurrah, money well-spent.

[trickyputt]

Some more perspective, the government spent about 1.6 billion in 2013 funding cancer research on these types of cancer: [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/108702/] [/URL]

Copy that. Genomic work of any kind is exceptionally efficient in its successes. I would not give money to the cancer groups directly. I would serve the money to the common denominators. Perhaps the virus, the DNA, RNA nexus. Its the same as going to the moon via John F Kennedy, just the smallest parts instead of planet sized destinations.

[Golfingdad]

I'd support 6.2 billion for cancer, considering way more people would benefit from that.

I would as well.

It's a waste because less than $1 of that $38 would actually be put to good use. Much of it would be distributed to cronies and causes with the appearance of being something related to ebola prevention. Also, as newtogolf mentions, the fraud, waste, and abuse angle would take a big chunk, i.e., paying off chieftains among other things.

One of the problems is the equivocation seen earlier in the thread, ok, gee, that's only like $128 bucks to me, no big deal. It's $6.2 frickin billion dollars, don't equivocate. It's real money and a helluva lot of it that most here are probably contributing.

We just cannot afford to throw unaccountable dollars at problems anymore. We must begin to actually cut spending, not just the rate of growth. Show me the business case, justify it, then account for each dollar spent. If that's done, and there is a significant dent put into the problem, hurrah, money well-spent.

Odd juxtaposition there.  You state as basically fact that less than 3% would be put to good use, but then say "show me the business case" which tells me that you, like me, really have no idea where the money is going to be allocated, do you?

How can you decide before analyzing the investment if it's bad or not?

[Gunther]

I would as well. Odd juxtaposition there.  You state as basically fact that less than 3% would be put to good use, but then say "show me the business case" which tells me that you, like me, really have no idea where the money is going to be allocated, do you? How can you decide before analyzing the investment if it's bad or not?

Not sure if you're trying play a role here or if my writing was unclear. I'm saying that today there is a no methodology to determine the expense required; once acquired there is no oversight on it's administration. If there was a justification for the spend and then accounting of how the dollars were spent, then results measured, I'd be more inclined to approve of it.

[Golfingdad]

Not sure if you're trying play a role here or if my writing was unclear. I'm saying that today there is a no methodology to determine the expense required; once acquired there is no oversight on it's administration. If there was a justification for the spend and then accounting of how the dollars were spent, then results measured, I'd be more inclined to approve of it.

Where did you get your info, though, that less than 1 of each 38 dollars is going to be put to good use? And, as far as the lack of oversight ... Is that true about every dollar they spend, or just this one item? If it's the latter, then so what? You propose that they never spend a dollar on anything? If it's the former, again, what is your source for this info?