The US Presidency 2020

[OceanBonfire]

Trump defends huge cuts to the CDC's budget by saying the government can hire more doctors 'when we need them' during crises


- President Trump defended his huge CDC budget cuts during a press conference on the federal government's response to the coronavirus.
- "I'm a businessperson. I don't like having thousands of people around when you don't need them," Trump said. "When we need them, we can get them back very quickly."
- Experts said restoring funding to a government agency could be a cumbersome process, which requires an act from Congress that needs to be signed into law.
- The White House has spent two years cutting the CDC's budget.


President Donald Trump defended his huge budget cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during a Wednesday press conference on the federal government's response to the coronavirus.

He said it was easy to bolster the public-health agency and cited his business approach toward running the federal government.

"I'm a businessperson. I don't like having thousands of people around when you don't need them," Trump said. "When we need them, we can get them back very quickly."

The president said some of the experts targeted by the cuts "hadn't been used for many years" and that additional federal money and new medical staffers could be obtained swiftly since "we know all the good people."

The remarks come amid warnings from CDC experts that the virus' spread in the US was "inevitable" and urged Americans to prepare. But the Trump administration has spent the last two years gutting critical positions and programs that health experts say weakened the federal government's ability to manage a health crisis.

In 2018, the White House eliminated a position on the National Security Council tasked with coordinating a global pandemic response. The CDC that same year also axed 80% of its efforts combating disease outbreaks overseas because its funds were depleted.

In its latest budget proposal, the Trump administration sought to cut CDC funding by 16% — even as Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar seeks emergency spending from lawmakers to combat the coronavirus.

It has spread to at least 47 countries so far, beyond its point of origin in China and particularly in Europe. The US has 60 confirmed cases so far, though the vast majority of them sprung overseas.

Jen Kates, the director of the Global Health and HIV Policy Program at the Kaiser Family Foundation, said in an email to Business Insider that the latest round of proposed budget cuts "would certainly hamper the work of the agency."

She noted the CDC has "already been grappling with tight resources for addressing the nation's public health, as well as domestic and global health security threats."

"To date, such funding has been episodic, typically coming only after outbreaks hit a tipping point and rarely being enough to shore up resources in the long run," Kates said.

Other experts elaborated on the cumbersome process to shore up a government agency that's been battered by rounds of budget cuts.

Don Moynihan, a public management professor at Georgetown University, said in a tweet that "once you have gutted institutional capacity you cannot, in fact, quickly restore it."

Appropriating federal money to the CDC would require a bill from Congress that passes both chambers and gets Trump's signature, said Bobby Kogan, the chief mathematician for the Senate Budget Committee.

"In addition to requiring a new law to be passed to hire people, you have to actually, you know, spend the time to hire people," Kogan said in a tweet.


https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/trump-defends-cuts-cdc-budget-federal-government-hire-doctors-coronavirus-2020-2-1028946602

 

[mariomike]

In the news,

FBI warns Russia 'wants to watch us tear ourselves apart'

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk010bPXQeu6suREq7J-yOhd40PFGjw%3A1582845274212&ei=Wk1YXuHBDMit0PEPlfuK8A4&q=fbi+russia+%22tear+ourselves+apart%22&oq=fbi+russia+%22tear+ourselves+apart%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i160.19296.22975..23533...0.0..0.175.612.0j4......0....1..gws-wiz.......35i39.ji7qa1-zyhc&ved=0ahUKEwjh1raS7vLnAhXIFjQIHZW9Au4Q4dUDCAo&uact=5#spf=1582845298442

Russia was generally engaged in “information confrontation” aimed at blurring fact from fiction, eroding American confidence in democratic institutions and driving wedges into society’s fracture lines.

The primary objective is not to create a particular version of the truth but rather to cloud the truth and erode our ability to find it, creating a sentiment that no narrative or news source can be trusted at all.

 

[kkwd]

Trump defends huge cuts to the CDC's budget by saying the government can hire more doctors 'when we need them' during crises

What budget cuts?

MIKE BLOOMBERG: “There’s nobody here to figure out what the hell we should be doing. And he’s defunded — he’s defunded Centers for Disease Control, CDC, so we don’t have the organization we need. This is a very serious thing.” — debate Tuesday night.

JOE BIDEN, comparing the Obama-Biden administration with now: “We increased the budget of the CDC. We increased the NIH budget. ... He’s wiped all that out. ... He cut the funding for the entire effort.”

THE FACTS: They’re both wrong to say the agencies have seen their money cut. Bloomberg is repeating the false allegation in a new ad that states the U.S. is unprepared for the virus because of “reckless cuts” to the CDC. Trump’s budgets have proposed cuts to public health, only to be overruled by Congress, where there’s strong bipartisan support for agencies such as the CDC and NIH. Instead, financing has increased.

Indeed, the money that government disease detectives first tapped to fight the latest outbreak was a congressional fund created for health emergencies.

Some public health experts say a bigger concern than White House budgets is the steady erosion of a CDC grant program for state and local public health emergency preparedness — the front lines in detecting and battling new disease. But that decline was set in motion by a congressional budget measure that predates Trump.

https://apnews.com/d36d6c4de29f4d04beda3db00cb46104

 

[Cloud Cover]

Democratic Leaders Willing to Risk Party Damage to Stop Bernie Sanders

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/us/politics/democratic-superdelegates.html#click=

 

[ModlrMike]

Because when Fidel Castro is your reference point, you know you have America behind you.

 

[QV]

Because when Fidel Castro is your reference point, you know you have America behind you.

The scary part is just how much support Bernie actually has.  Though if he were elected I suspect it would unite both sides of the house and senate to nullify his efforts until he was impeached on manufactured grounds, as is now the precedent.

 

 

[Remius]

The scary part is just how much support Bernie actually has.  Though if he were elected I suspect it would unite both sides of the house and senate to nullify his efforts until he was impeached on manufactured grounds, as is now the precedent.

I'm pretty sure it would be only one side trying to impeach. 

The scary part will likely be Sanders using all sorts of executive decisions to fund his programs.  Or taking billions from the armed forces.  Not to build a wall like Trump is doing but to fund his health care and free education plans.

I fully expect plenty of things to happen as unprecedented precedents have happened in this current administration.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

The scary part will likely be Sanders using all sorts of executive decisions to fund his programs.  Or taking billions from the armed forces.  Not to build a wall like Trump is doing but to fund his health care and free education plans.

You mean like Donald Trump is doing right now?

 

[Retired AF Guy]

From the "Today in History" section of today's edition of the Kingston-Whig Standard:

In 1854, about 50 people opposed to slavery met at a schoolhouse in Ripon, Wis., to call for a new political organization. This group would later take the name of the Republican Party.

 

[Remius]

You mean like Donald Trump is doing right now?

Thanks exactly what I was alluding to...

 

[brihard]

The scary part is just how much support Bernie actually has.  Though if he were elected I suspect it would unite both sides of the house and senate to nullify his efforts until he was impeached on manufactured grounds, as is now the precedent.

Out of curiosity, who do you believe manufactured Trump’s phone call to Ukraine, and who do you believe manufactured his orders as president to the executive to not cooperate with congressional subpoenas? Just that if you’re going to claim the facts that got him impeached in the House were ‘manufactured’, you’re gonna need to show receipts for that.

EDIT TO ADD: LOL, you two are adorable.

 

[garb811]

Reposted from the How to engage in political discourse on Army.ca thread.

Brought forward to reiterate.

Some of you have forgotten that commenting when awarding or deducting MilPoints will be held to the same standard as Mikes guidelines. It’s not a way to skirt the rules. It’s not a way to get a free pass on attacking a poster directly. 

It’s not that hard to be respectful to each other and act like the adults most of us are. If you can’t manage that, as Mike said, there are plenty of other websites where you can go and do that, if that is what you really need to do on these topics.

- Milnet.ca Staff

 

[mariomike]

The scary part is just how much support Bernie actually has. 

President Donald Trump suggested his supporters in South Carolina cast their primary ballots for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders during his rally Friday, the second straight Democratic primary in which he's suggested his supporters get involved.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/28/politics/trump-south-carolina-rally-democratic-primary/index.html

impeached on manufactured grounds, as is now the precedent.

Out of curiosity, who do you believe manufactured Trump’s phone call to Ukraine, and who do you believe manufactured his orders as president to the executive to not cooperate with congressional subpoenas? Just that if you’re going to claim the facts that got him impeached in the House were ‘manufactured’, you’re gonna need to show receipts for that.

Good question.

 

[brihard]

The scary part is just how much support Bernie actually has.  Though if he were elected I suspect it would unite both sides of the house and senate to nullify his efforts until he was impeached on manufactured grounds, as is now the precedent.

Ultimately a lot of what Sanders proposes is in line with things that are the norm in most of the rest of the developed world. Were a candidate to appear with substantially the same platform here or in a number of other countries, they wouldn’t stand out very much. So it’s to be expected that he would attract a fair bit of support from some Americans who look outside their borders and see things like hospital care not coming with a potentially crippling bill, and so on.

Obviously in the context of America’s system and norms, much of what he wants would likely be unachievable absent the Dems somehow sweeping both levels of legislature. In a bicameral system either party can be obstructionist to things they don’t want- witness McConnell’s ongoing efforts in the Senate to block election security legislation for instance, or the Democrats’ continued efforts against the border wall (because if Mexico won’t pay for it, they must).

Were Sanders to be elected, many of his desires initiatives would struggle or flounder, as is the decade with any president. Presidential electoral politics seems to focus more on rhetoric over substance. Things like “build a wall and Mexico will pay for it” or “free education for all” get more attention than the art of what’s possible in a bicameral legislature in a two party system. What would he *actually* achieve? Probably some modest steps towards greater social programs, hopefully with an emphasis on their absurd healthcare system. But America will not become Cuba. It won’t even become Alberta.

 

[QV]

Reposted from the How to engage in political discourse on Army.ca thread.

- Milnet.ca Staff

I assume someone’s sensibilities were offended. Since you’re dishing out warnings for these milpoint comments, surely you’ve noticed how colourful PPCLI Guy can be when pumping Brihards tires, a few of those can’t be repeated here. Hilarious how the complainant was bothered by my benign comment but not the several derogatory ones?  It’s almost like that double standard we see in American politics.  Unless of course the other offenders have been suitable chastised, if so, my apologies and well done for maintaining fair order

 

[brihard]

I assume someone’s sensibilities were offended. Since you’re dishing out warnings for these milpoint comments, surely you’ve noticed how colourful PPCLI Guy can be when pumping Brihards tires, a few of those can’t be repeated here. Hilarious how the complainant was bothered by my benign comment but not the several derogatory ones?  It’s almost like that double standard we see in American politics.  Unless of course the other offenders have been suitable chastised, if so, my apologies and well done for maintaining fair order

A quick glance at the big pink banner under his name specifically would have shown you that yes. The mods have in fact applied this fairly.

Since you at least participate in the discussions, shall we resume?

 

[Remius]

Just watched VP Pence on CNN.  He performed pretty well, answered questions and avoided criticizing his own side when asked about the politicizing of the current health scare.

Not a fan of his but he did well and kudos for going on a media outlet that Trump considers to be the enemy.

 

[garb811]

I assume someone’s sensibilities were offended. Since you’re dishing out warnings for these milpoint comments, surely you’ve noticed how colourful PPCLI Guy can be when pumping Brihards tires, a few of those can’t be repeated here. Hilarious how the complainant was bothered by my benign comment but not the several derogatory ones?  It’s almost like that double standard we see in American politics.  Unless of course the other offenders have been suitable chastised, if so, my apologies and well done for maintaining fair order

Since you brought it up publicly, I will say the following for full transparency:

1) The complaint was made by a third party, not by the member your comment was directed at.

2) Your comment was not the subject of the complaint.

3) When I was addressing the initial complaint, I took notice of several comments which breached the rules, yours was one of them. All of those were addressed in an unbiased fashion.

4) Your comment was far from "benign". It was an attack on the member, plain and simple.  As a reminder, the policy on the boards for almost two decades has been to attack the argument, not the person making it. If you're still unclear, please re-read the Army.ca Conduct Guidelines.

5) I have no dog in these fights. For reasons which escape me, some members of the site are unable to discuss politics without resorting to mud-slinging and name calling. As a result, a few of the DS consciously refrain from participating in political threads so there is a pool of us who can act fairly without having fingers pointed about favouring one side or the other because of our personal beliefs.

6) Finally, just because you don't "see" action being taken sometimes, doesn't mean action hasn't been. A prime example is someone who has run afoul of the "three strikes" rule in place in the political forums. When that member is given the Apolitical flag, there is no public sign of that, they just can't post in the political forums anymore...

If you wish to discuss further, my PMs are open.

- Milnet.ca Staff

 

[QV]

Good to hear.  You mods do a fantastic job.  My “drive by” posts may not always have a complete case or fully articulated response, but it’s the best I can do with the time I’m able to commit to this discussion board.  I do enjoy reading all the different perspectives, even the wrong ones . 

 

[brihard]

Good to hear.  You mods do a fantastic job.  My “drive by” posts may not always have a complete case or fully articulated response, but it’s the best I can do with the time I’m able to commit to this discussion board.  I do enjoy reading all the different perspectives, even the wrong ones .

If you’re not going to choose to take the time to discuss or debate the subject - which is completely fine, you don’t owe any of us your time and attention - I’m going to argue it’s still pretty cheap to slap me with a remark like:

You have no idea what you’re talking about as usual

...and not back that with anything.

You’ve taken the time to reply to this thread a couple times now in the past day or two, so I guess it commands some of your interest again. So I’m still wondering what you believe is ‘manufactured’ about Trump’s Ukraine phone call, or of ordering his executive branch staff not to comply with congressional subpoena. You’re suggesting some falsehood in those simple factual assertions. So what do you have to back that? I understand your intense dislike of the entire impeachment *proceedings*, but you seem to allege that the factual events of Trump’s own actions that triggered the political theatrics were themselves somehow created by others for their own ends. Where do you get that from?