The post that was quoted here has been removedFirst, only a small percentage of the economy is subject to tariffs, you fellers need to relax. You are chicken little all the time.
I have been saying that tariffs are but a tool for Trump, he has been seeing and planning his concept, his policy, for many years. He Uses Tariffs to get his way int he world of making Trade Deals. So the Deals result in revenue for the country, as you put it. Not the tariffs themselves. Whew.
Next, you ask 'if I pay $1000 to the government'? What does that mean exactlly? The govt has absolutely no money of its own, Suzianne taught us that. And what do you mean 'pay to'? You mean taxes? No, so you must mean just send them a check. Paul, they would not know what to do with it, a real head-scratcher. What do you think they should do with it if you send them $1000??? When you tell us, then we can deduce if it makes 'the country richer." 🤔
@no1marauder saidOr we can read, you know, Jay Bhattacharya and Vinai Prasad, who also fit that description (except for the "no medical training" part).
If we want the opinion of a writer with no medical training who's a critic of mask wearing during a deadly pandemic and a supporter of the Great Barrington Declaration, we can read Metal Brain here.
@wildgrass saidThe Trump tax cuts were passed in late 2017, and so were well reflected in the 2019 data.
Maybe true, but isn't that when Trump's tax cuts took effect?
Again, repealing everything the trump white house did would have been the best move for Biden on the fiscal front.
@AverageJoe1 saidWhy am I not surprised that you identify with the first murderer who was cursed by God for his sins?
Here we go. Cain had his reasons for not wanting to do things for Abel, and so he asked God . Am I his keeper.?!?!?? I think that would be a fair question since he did not want anything to do with him. Do you follow?
@sh76 saidThe author of the ludicrous Santa Clara study and an RFK Jr. aligned vaccine skeptic?
Or we can read, you know, Jay Bhattacharya and Vinai Prasad, who also fit that description (except for the "no medical training" part).
Think I'll pass esp. when their idea to combat COVID by allowing it to spread virtually unchecked to acheive "herd immunity" would have condemned at least an additional hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of Americans to death.
@no1marauder saidJay Bhattacharya and Vinai Prasad are not vaccine skeptics. I don't know what you're referring to. If you mean that they don't think young people need the covid vaccine, that's hardly skepticism.
The author of the ludicrous Santa Clara study and an RFK Jr. aligned vaccine skeptic?
Think I'll pass esp. when their idea to combat COVID by allowing it to spread virtually unchecked to acheive "herd immunity" would have condemned at least an additional hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of Americans to death.
And their association with RFK are only about serving in the same administration. They has no alignment at all with RFK previously.
@sh76 saidPrasad has consistently overruled FDA reviewers to limit access to vaccines and not just for children.https://www.biospace.com/fda/vinay-prasad-overruled-reviewers-on-modernas-covid-19-shot-for-kids
Jay Bhattacharya and Vinai Prasad are not vaccine skeptics. I don't know what you're referring to. If you mean that they don't think young people need the covid vaccine, that's hardly skepticism.
And their association with RFK are only about serving in the same administration. They has no alignment at all with RFK previously.
@no1marauder saidThe article you cited says:
Prasad has consistently overruled FDA reviewers to limit access to vaccines and not just for children.https://www.biospace.com/fda/vinay-prasad-overruled-reviewers-on-modernas-covid-19-shot-for-kids
Vinay Prasad, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, played a direct role in approving Modern’a COVID-19 vaccine, Spikevax, for children, with a narrower label than expected.
In a memo released July 9, Prasad noted that he felt “differently about certain aspects” of the FDA reviewers’ conclusions about Moderna’s applications, which would have seen Spikevax approved for all children six months to 11 years. Instead, Prasad approved the vaccine for children in that age range but only if they had at least one underlying condition that put them at risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes.
It is unclear if the FDA’s reviewers granted this indication in their initial approval or if they endorsed a label between Moderna’s proposal and what Prasad eventually settled on.
In justifying his decision for a narrower label, Prasad argued that Moderna “has never shown a reduction in severe COVID-19, hospitalization, ICU stays or death in a randomized study in children.” Additionally, rates of severe COVID-19 outcomes are “extremely low” among children, and that these have even fallen, he said.
That's not vaccine skepticism. That's skepticism as to whether the potential benefits of one specific vaccine outweighs its risks in otherwise healthy young people.
The disagreement between him and FDA in that article is whether children up to 11 should get the vaccine always or only when they have a comorbidity.
If that's the best you got in calling him a "vaccine skeptic" that's extremely weak.
1 edit
@sh76 saidHow about him saying COVID boosters were useless except - maybe - for those over 80? Or Moderna vaccine should be banned for men under 40?https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fda-critic-covid-boosters-new-top-vaccines-official-vinay-prasad/
The article you cited says:
[i]Vinay Prasad, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, played a direct role in approving Modern’a COVID-19 vaccine, Spikevax, for children, with a narrower label than expected.
In a memo released July 9, Prasad noted that he felt “differently about certain aspects” of the FDA reviewers’ conclusions about Moderna’s a ...[text shortened]... comorbidity.
If that's the best you got in calling him a "vaccine skeptic" that's extremely weak.
My comment remains accurate; he cavalierly overrides the result of FDA procedures based on his own out of mainstream, idiosyncratic views.
@sh76 saidI'm not saying Biden did good, but trump and all the other Republicans have done much worse.
The Trump tax cuts were passed in late 2017, and so were well reflected in the 2019 data.
Name a republican president in the last 45 years who has left office with less deficit spending than when they started. There is none.
But Clinton, Obama and Biden all did that.
@wildgrass saidAll three gutted the military
I'm not saying Biden did good, but trump and all the other Republicans have done much worse.
Name a republican president in the last 45 years who has left office with less deficit spending than when they started. There is none.
But Clinton, Obama and Biden all did that.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidOh, you're one of those? Good riddance.
All three gutted the military
If Pentagon spending goes up during de-escalation of war, you should be concerned with grift.
@wildgrass saidA weak military is what starts wars
Oh, you're one of those? Good riddance.
If Pentagon spending goes up during de-escalation of war, you should be concerned with grift.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidYou conflate money with strength. Like most Republicans who are willing to add budget from taxpayers without strategic goals.
A weak military is what starts wars