Zika Bill: Vote Changed from Tomorrow to Tonight

originally posted by: GodEmperor
0 deaths related to Zika virus.

Therefore, A total of 0 dollars should be spent combating Zika.

If we are going to drop a billion fighting something, let's get our priorities straight.

I agree with you 100 %. They need money? Let them get it from the geniuses that think they are GOD.

and sterilized mosquitoes released in South America with a view to reduce the mosquito population may have caused mutations in the Ageis Aegypti mosquitoes and others.

originally posted by: reldra

The WHO states Zika will reach Europe this summer.

The director general of the WHO also *oddly* said, today, that the Olympics should not be cancelled or postponed.

The WHO will set it up, and the republicans will take the fall for any outbreak.

And democrats will reap the benefits of any outbreak and *failure* on the part of republicans.

All by design, IMO. And all timed to coincide with the last stretch before the November elections.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: reldra

DDT
Extremely effective and cheap.

Safe when used properly-used safely throughout WW2

But, for Zika like for Malari, the agenda today is not to look for a solution.

Perpetuating the problem is the objective....

DDT: Not safe and banned for a reason.

The spending bills all have components for prevention, education, research and spraying, just not with DDT.

Very safe when used properly, and better than being DEAD
www.discoverthenetworks.org...

But hey, just MILLIONS of DEAD CHILDREN, so who cares right ?

What's important is the envirofreak narrative/religion....

a reply to: reldra

I did some more searching and you are correct.

European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control graphs with world-wide local transmission.

Link

I do share your concerns btw.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

There have been deaths, so agreeing with that 100% is incorrect.

The money in this bill is mainly from an Ebola fund.

It would takes years to figure out who to get the money from- a company that holds the patent and may have experimented, a company that released sterilized mosquitoes? Too late.

originally posted by: Morrad
a reply to: reldra

I did some more searching and you are correct.

European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control graphs with world-wide local transmission.

Link

I do share your concerns btw.

That is a good link. I keep seeing, in regard to the US and mexico that it just STOPS at the border. I find it hard to believe not 1 mosquito carrying Zika has not flown over the border or been in a car or cargo coming across. It defies logic.

What I find insulting is this:

When it comes to say giving a US Supreme court justice a nomination, the Senators obstruct and find every excuse not to do their job. But when it is an issue that say affects their state and the people they are suppose to represent they will act and move heaven and earth to get it stuff pushed through.

As much as I would hate to see people getting sick, but I think that all of it should be put on hold. Why should they decide their jobs are important to do now?

"The CDC came up with the higher amount. The Republicans seem to state anti-spending measures and not wanting to pull any funding from Ebola."


I'm sorry, but what Ebola are you referring to??

a reply to: reldra

What typical stupidity by our congress. A potential problem arises and they throw money at it because...well that is how they deal with everything. At least the Republicans are wasting less than the Democrats. Democrats of course want to waste three times as much as the Republicans.

a reply to: reldra

That's a very interesting observation. It's spreading all over Mexico yet the mosquitoes are being stopped at the border somehow ? This smells fishy.

a reply to: Metallicus

If you spend more tax dollars, it means you care more.

0_o

a reply to: Metallicus

Would you prefer they spend money on bombing the crap out of other countries. Oh wait they do that. But please don't spend money to stop babies from being sick and diseased.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Metallicus

If you spend more tax dollars, it means you care more.

0_o

That's AWESOME!

May I use that sometime?

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: Metallicus

Would you prefer they spend money on bombing the crap out of other countries. Oh wait they do that. But please don't spend money to stop babies from being sick and diseased.

How about. . . .

NOT SPENDING THE MONEY, TAX US LESS

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Metallicus

If you spend more tax dollars, it means you care more.

0_o

That's AWESOME!

May I use that sometime?

Please do.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Good idea. Don't spend any money on disease prevention, sanitation or public health. You want to end up like Croatia or Nigeria? They have extremely low income tax rates.

a reply to: reldra

NO DEATHS.

Most people fully recover without severe complications, and hospitalization rates are low. To date, there have been no reported deaths associated with Zika virus.

www.wpro.who.int...

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: DBCowboy

Good idea. Don't spend any money on disease prevention, sanitation or public health. You want to end up like Croatia or Nigeria? They have extremely low income tax rates.

Venezuela had a high tax rate, did them a lot of good, didn't it.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Croatia has a progressive tax rate... interesting.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Point is a lower tax rate doesn't equal better quality of life. Things need money. Sanitation. Safe water. Infrastructure. Education. Disease prevention. Without these things your left with a disease ridden crumbling country.