SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: epicure who wrote (91461)12/15/2004 12:02:54 PM
From: Oeconomicus  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
And how much do you propose we spend on this one disease? What about the many other health threats? Proportionally larger amounts on them as well, based on the numbers of people who might become ill or die in a worst case scenario?

And if more money were to be thrown at "the killer flu", how should it be spent and what are the marginal benefits of spending money on those activities? Throwing money at a problem willy-nilly rarely solves anything. Could it be that the president's requested budget funds the projects the medical research and disease prevention communities have made a convincing case for? Can you identify specific project proposals for which credible bodies have made a case and which have gone unfunded?

As for your false dilemma, if "there's a limited supply of money" and something must be cut to make room for your favored project, why target defense spending? Surely there's other government spending that could be cut to fund your killer flu defense. That's the false dilemma - the notion that we have to choose between fighting and defending against terrorism or defending against one health threat. It just happens to be spending on a policy that you oppose - suggesting that pursuing that particular policy jeopardizes our ability to pursue one you do support IS a false dilemma argument.

Surely you know that, oh logical one.