pudge's Journal: Medical Research Spending Under Bush

In case you didn't know, medical research spending under Bush has dramatically increased, from -- in today's dollars -- $86B in FY 2000, to $136B now.

It has dropped in recent years as a percentage of total government spending, but that's only because government spending has increased too much elsewhere. And the spending on medical research, while it has tapered off in those years, has continued to outpace inflation.

So when people tell you Bush or the Republicans are standing in the way of medical research, now you know they are lying. They may be unwilling to spend money on certain things (like embryonic stem cell research, which was never federally funded at all before Bush, but now is, because of Bush), but overall, they are spending a lot more than any U.S. government ever has.

Bull$#!^

[BWJones]

Pudge,

I am writing to you from the front lines of medical research and am here to tell you that this claim is utterly false. Spending for *medical research* under the Bush administration has been stagnant for both the Health and Human Services budget which incidentally pays for our soldiers health benefits along with the VA funding which has also remained stagnant or actually decreased despite tens of thousands of veterans coming home from combat with grievous wounds. The increases in the NIH budget that

Re:

[pudge]

I am writing to you from the front lines of medical research and am here to tell you that this claim is utterly false.

No, it's not.

Spending for *medical research* under the Bush administration has been stagnant for both the Health and Human Services budget which incidentally pays for our soldiers health benefits along with the VA funding which has also remained stagnant or actually decreased despite tens of thousands of veterans coming home from combat with grievous wounds.

Sorry. False. Indeed, the HHS R

Re:

[eglamkowski]

Just out of idle curiosity, why do you believe the federal government should be involved in health care and medical research in the first place?

(And before you spew "general welfare!" go read Federalist #41 [constitution.org] and then read Article I, Section 8 [constitution.org] of the Constitution)

Federal R&D Medical R&D

[John M W 321]

As I read your link, the numbers you cite refer to total R&D, not medical R&D. I see nothing in your citation to substantiate your figures. Where do you get your numbers?

Re:Federal R&D Medical R&D

[pudge]

But the ones focused on in the discussion, especially e.g. HHS, are medical research (since that is pretty much all HHS does).

Re:Federal R&D Medical R&D

[John M W 321]

It matters little if HHS (and others) R&D was entirely medical R&D, unless you show that it is ALL medical R&D, right? What does it matter if you account for some part of something- does that tell you you know the whole of something? From your posts and citations, I have no way of knowing what portion of Federal R&D is medical R&D (1%? 99%?), or what portion of medical R&D is HHS R&D (even if I were to grant you that HHS R&D is all medical R&D, what if DOD had many R

Re:Federal R&D Medical R&D

[pudge]

It matters little if HHS (and others) R&D was entirely medical R&D, unless you show that it is ALL medical R&D, right?

Wrong.

Now, I am not saying that medical R&D has not gone up, but I am saying that you have not presented any evidence that any number you cite has anything to do with total Federal outlays on medical R&D, for any year, or concerning any increase or decrease, dramatic or stagnant. Until you do so, it might be wise not to argue with other posters using numbers that do not s

Re:Federal R&D Medical R&D

[John M W 321]

When I reply to your first post, why do you change the topic to your other posts? The figures in your first post are wrong, and you do not correct them, or withdraw your erroneous conclusions based on them. And in fact, most of the figures in your later post are wrong as well, and you make erroneous conclusions based on them.

Your first post could have looked like this:

------------------

In case you didn't know, medical research spending under Bush has stagnated. Bush took office in January, 2001, duri

Re:Federal R&D Medical R&D

[pudge]

When I reply to your first post, why do you change the topic to your other posts?

Why do you say I did something I didn't do?

The figures in your first post are wrong

False.

And in fact, most of the figures in your later post are wrong

False.

So when people tell you Bush or the Republicans are cutting back on medical research, now you know they are right.

So now YOU are changing the subject. Neat!

And too bad the data you showed actually shows significant increase under Bush. Oops!

The increases in the NIH budget

Re:Federal R&D Medical R&D

[John M W 321]

When I reply to your first post, why do you change the topic to your other posts?

Why do you say I did something I didn't do?

Try to follow along here. Maybe you just don't understand posts and threads. Your first post was about medical research spending under Bush. You offered as evidence the Total Federal R&D spending under Clinton (FY 2000) and Bush ("now"), which has no demonstrated useful relationship to showing a dramatic increase in MEDICAL research, because it includes, for example, nuclear

Re:Federal R&D Medical R&D

[pudge]

Try to follow along here. Maybe you just don't understand posts and threads.

Um. Fuck you? At this point I am tempted to not read further, because clearly you're not interested in rationality.

Your original post was not about HHS. My reply to that post was not about HHS. Your excuse for a bad original post was referring to your post in another thread (a discussion I was not in).

That's because the context of that discussion shed light on what I meant that you were criticizing.

You did what I said.

Nope. Fals

Re:Federal R&D Medical R&D

[John M W 321]

Masterful, pudge. You have outdone yourself. The only thing that could have made it funnier, and more predictable, is if you foe'd me instead of reading on. But really, even with that oversight, I applaud you. The further obscenities were good too. I will be citing this journal topic a long time.

Thanks!

Re:Federal R&D Medical R&D

[pudge]

LOL. So you beg me for facts, I provide them, and you don't respond.

Typical.

As to obscenities: I do not understand how any thoughtful person can be insulting and rude, and then nonsensically complain about "bad words." Saying (as you did) things like "try to follow along" is another way of saying "you're being stupid," which is a lot more offensive and rude to me than someone saying "fuck you."

But if you weren't being stupid, you would know that.

Re:Federal R&D Medical R&D

[John M W 321]

The increases in NIH research $ in 2002 and 2003 were mainly funding for bioterrorism projects- anthrax, smallpox, etc. I can not tell you what happened to the rest of things at that time- whether they went down in real $, stayed the same, went up, or what.

Can you tell me?

In my opinion, that increased money had to do with 9/11 and defense, not with Bush and Republican devotion to Federal funding of medical research. I can just imagine you now writing "But it was for research." But that would be agreeing wit

Re:Federal R&D Medical R&D

[pudge]

The increases in NIH research $ in 2002 and 2003 were mainly funding for bioterrorism projects- anthrax, smallpox, etc.

Which is, of course, medical R&D. Not sure what your point is.

In my opinion, that increased money had to do with 9/11 and defense, not with Bush and Republican devotion to Federal funding of medical research.

I don't care. I am talking about actual money for medical research -- which this is -- not your ill-defined sense of "devotion."

Re:Federal R&D Medical R&D

[John M W 321]

The point I am making is that you have not made your point:

"So when people tell you Bush or the Republicans are standing in the way of medical research, now you know they are lying."

You make a point about people lying. You say that Bush and Republicans are NOT standing in the way of medical research. If Bush and the Republicans stand in the way of medical research EVEN ONCE, then you are incorrect, and the people are correct, and the people are not liars. And even in a year or two with an increase

Re:Federal R&D Medical R&D

[pudge]

The point I am making is that you have not made your point:

I know. And you're wrong.

If Bush and the Republicans stand in the way of medical research EVEN ONCE, then you are incorrect

Only if I did not use the present continuous verb tense "are standing." Which I did. So, no.

And even in a year or two with an increase of the budget (and even in the four years when the budget or projections decrease), some projects (bioterrorism) can go up, and even more (AIDS, HIV, RU486, diabetes, sickle cell anemia, West

Re:Federal R&D Medical R&D

[John M W 321]

If I follow your "logic", if Bush and the Republicans did even one thing years ago to help medical research (those initial increases for bioterrorism research that I dealt with), then they NOW support medical research, and are not NOW standing in the way of medical research, even though they have been cutting since then. You are trying to have it both ways.

Well, I have to say that I think we have about exhausted the explication of our positions. So, on to other things.

Re:Federal R&D Medical R&D

[pudge]

If I follow your "logic"

You do not.

if Bush and the Republicans did even one thing years ago to help medical research (those initial increases for bioterrorism research that I dealt with), then they NOW support medical research, and are not NOW standing in the way of medical research, even though they have been cutting since then

I am speaking in the aggregate, as I have been doing since the beginning. They have increased spending on NIH alone, as a percentage (25 percent), more than the average of the same