Stem Cell Veto...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawgbitten

I am. This isn't govt. waste. Reasonable spending for the good of mankind with the possiblity of creating medical discoveries that could expand our economy along with lessening the burden of high medical insurance, is always good spending. One of the better bills that Clinton signed into law was the Americans with Disabilities Act. This was a humane bill that created jobs throughout the economic sector and in every community in the US and wasn't some 250 million dollar bridge to nowhere in Alaska where only a few contractors will benefit.

Bush needs to learn to reign in on his constituents pork spending habits instead of trying to appease the too far to the right wing evangelical vote.

---

Two truths: (1) What the federal government touches, they almost always screw up. (2) Governmental spending at the federal level is out of control.

Thus, stem cell research should not be funded by the federal government. We can't afford it and we will screw it up if the fed's get involved.

The problem is, those reasons were not GB's the reasons for not funding stem cell research. He did it on moral grounds. I may agree with that as well, but he could have kept the high road and cut it because we can't afford it. But the problem with that is, he would have to admit a zillion other things have to be cut as well.

I hate politics. Throw all of the bums out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soonerdawg

Two truths: (1) What the federal government touches, they almost always screw up. (2) Governmental spending at the federal level is out of control.

Thus, stem cell research should not be funded by the federal government. We can't afford it and we will screw it up if the fed's get involved.

The problem is, those reasons were not GB's the reasons for not funding stem cell research. He did it on moral grounds. I may agree with that as well, but he could have kept the high road and cut it because we can't afford it. But the problem with that is, he would have to admit a zillion other things have to be cut as well.

I hate politics. Throw all of the bums out.

---

All true, if you are giong to attack something, attack Bush's real reasons behind it, not that it is a good policy. I could understand if the government was the only one willing to take the risk, but even then, I would have to question the potential of the product. Right now, as it stands, private firms are working hard on stem cell research. Why should the government waste time and money? you know they wont be as efficient in either category, so why DB? The public should not have to carry this burden, especially when the private sector is already committed to it. Anytime the government tries to get in on something good, it usually ends up being a debacle (see government housing, SS, or food stamps). I am with Sooner, throw them all out.

One of the better bills that Clinton signed into law was the Americans with Disabilities Act. This was a humane bill that created jobs throughout the economic sector and in every community in the US - Dawgbitten

Jobs created throughout the economic sector and every community is a bit strong. The intent may have been noble, but it drove up the cost of goods sold. The final result could have been realized without penalizing small business. Here in Louisiana, the Fire Marshal enforces the code. Not a fun group to work with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddawg

One of the better bills that Clinton signed into law was the Americans with Disabilities Act. This was a humane bill that created jobs throughout the economic sector and in every community in the US - Dawgbitten

Jobs created throughout the economic sector and every community is a bit strong. The intent may have been noble, but it drove up the cost of goods sold. The final result could have been realized without penalizing small business. Here in Louisiana, the Fire Marshal enforces the code. Not a fun group to work with.

---

And unfortunately - about the only jobs it created were those needed to bring existing buildings into compliance -

As you said - getting a Fire Marshal's stamp now on plans or drawings on an expansion or remodeling is catamount to jumping through hoops -

Really don't think it created many jobs for the handicapped - just made it alittle easier for them to use a public restroom...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dhussdawg

Why go buy a 12 pack when someone is supplying the keg for free? If private firms are diong the job, why should the government waste time and money? Because that is what they would be doing. Marketdawg already told us of all of the private firms that are taking the risks for the big reward. Why should the the government buy the cow when they can get the milk for free? Better milk at that.

---

I did some research on this this year. The impression I got was that when it comes to a lot of medical research that NIH funding is a pretty big deal because the research is just so expensive. Don't know if this is accurate because my research was more about organ transplant. So I think maybe the sheer monetary numbers might require significant gov't aid.

Secondly, the research is causing the top scientists in the field to leave the US. The gov't of Singapore, in particular, has really been pumping money into the research and we are seeing a lot of scientist moving there. Obviously, medical discoveries will be shared around the world but I don't know if there is any benefit to having American scientist doing the discovering.

DB, I'd be careful at looking at this issue in such black and white terms. The ethics of medicine seldom are one sided. Atleast conceed that this issue requires someone to look at the issue from several vantage points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bulldawgs03

Secondly, the research is causing the top scientists in the field to leave the US. The gov't of Singapore, in particular, has really been pumping money into the research and we are seeing a lot of scientist moving there. Obviously, medical discoveries will be shared around the world but I don't know if there is any benefit to having American scientist doing the discovering.

---

I trust the free market.

I don't know about jobs for the handicapped, but it employed concrete workers to make concrete ramps in the parking lots, mechanical/carpenter people to install handicapped acessories in the public restrooms, hotel rooms, etc. How much do you think it would cost a person who owned a small pawn shop/jewelry store to upgrade? I would guess probably no more than a couple of thousand dollars. They increased cost of goods sold for this small amount? I wouldn't think so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawgbitten

I don't know about jobs for the handicapped, but it employed concrete workers to make concrete ramps in the parking lots, mechanical/carpenter people to install handicapped acessories in the public restrooms, hotel rooms, etc. How much do you think it would cost a person who owned a small pawn shop/jewelry store to upgrade? I would guess probably no more than a couple of thousand dollars. They increased cost of goods sold for this small amount? I wouldn't think so.

---

A couple of thousand may seem like small change to you, but to me that would be a big deal. Besides, it would cost a whole lot more than a couple of thousand dollars to upgrade my office. I have an old office building, and they did not design this with the idea of making it handicap accessible.

Also, it is funny that one would believe that forcing people to do construction on their buildings contributes to the overall economy. Again, this is the government deciding how we can best invest our money. We are not allowed to decide if a handicap entrance is good for our business. We are not allowed to make a cost/benefit analysis. The government says you have to do it, and that is it.

Sooner, why you wanna hate on handicapped folks? They need to get into your office so you can sue the crap out of the person who hit them with a car and made them handicapped in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawgbitten

Sooner, why you wanna hate on handicapped folks? They need to get into your office so you can sue the crap out of the person who hit them with a car and made them handicapped in the first place.

---

Good stuff!

Dawgbitten, I actually thought you were talking about jobs created for the handicapped and not how the economy was "impacted" by ADA.

I do know of some jobs ADA created for the handicapped. Some are legit, but some were generated by ADA and appear to be slave labor type stuff. Not saying they actually are, but that they appear to be. Some SOBs are getting rich of the ADA thing on the backs of the handicapped. Not to be judgemental, but I think there will be a special place in hell for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawgbitten

Sooner, why you wanna hate on handicapped folks? They need to get into your office so you can sue the crap out of the person who hit them with a car and made them handicapped in the first place.

---

We set up a pool to see who would be the first to make this comment. I won. My wife picked Dirtydawg. :)

In all seriousness, we do have clients that have been rendered handicapped by accidents. We work around it. Also, if I owned this building, I would probably make at least part of my office handicap accessible. At that point, it would be an economic decision as to what was best for my business.

Here's my 2 cents. I've worked in the lab doing medical research getting my masters and have spent the last 7 years working for one of the world's largest scientific reagent suppliers. First of all, NIH funding is paramount for progress to be made for any research. When you consider the sheer number of scientists at hospitals, universities, medical schools, etc around the country that are fighting for every penny that the government can give them, those pennies become harder to get and each of those pennies becomes very important. NIH funding follows directly with the political affiliation in power. Democrat equals more money for research, Republican equals less. My daughter of a small business owner in north Louisiana Republican self is definitely in the minority in my field.

Private firms/pharma companies/biotech companies are working with stem cells but they're working with the same cell lines that academic labs have access to. And while you're talking about a company like Pfizer or Merck - they might dedicate a tiny percentage of their R&D to stem cells where in academia you have entire departments that are focusing their research there.

Stem cells are amazing things. Just like any scientific research, it takes time to work out how to use them and how successful they will be down the road. Nobody really knows but when you consider that the potential exists to differentiate them into anything then that's really exciting.

I was in a lab here in Houston about a year ago and they had stem cells that they had differentiated to cardiac cells and you could see the original population of cells just "sitting" in a plate and the differentiated cells in another plate were beating. Just like you would expect from cardiac cells. Here's a link where you can see mouse embryonic cells like I described: http://www.exploratorium.edu/imaging...lls&Type=video

I'll stop typing now! :)

Oh and about scientists leaving - yes, there are scientists that have gone to other countries to have more freedom in their research when it comes to stem cells. A discovery anywhere is great but there is so much talk about the US no longer being the big dog when it comes to research that it would be great to keep those people here.

And another point - the states of Texas and Louisiana are both considering legislation around stem cells. If you have an opinion, let your representatives know. The revenue stream that some of the scientific institution in both states bring in is significant so eliminating any type of research around stem cells would be a pretty big hit. Scientists and their funding would be forced to relocate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawgbitten

I don't know about jobs for the handicapped, but it employed concrete workers to make concrete ramps in the parking lots, mechanical/carpenter people to install handicapped acessories in the public restrooms, hotel rooms, etc. How much do you think it would cost a person who owned a small pawn shop/jewelry store to upgrade? I would guess probably no more than a couple of thousand dollars. They increased cost of goods sold for this small amount? I wouldn't think so.

---

I own a small business that I had to upgrade for handicapped folks. I also have a sister -in-law who is confined to an electric wheelchair. I am always thankful for the handicapped parking spots and other accesible spaces that have been created for people like my sister-in-law who is the true definition of a fighter. How about sending me "no more than a couple of thousand dollars" and then refer to it as no more than "a couple of thousand dollars." FYI..it costs much more than "a couple" of thousand dollars to upgrade and every dime a good small business owner expenses comes out of his/her consumers pocket.

As far as your next quip at atorneys I am no big fan of unethical personal injury lawyers but I leave you with a question..who's the first person you call when you get into big trouble (after the bail bondsman)? LAWYER!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soonerdawg

A couple of thousand may seem like small change to you, but to me that would be a big deal. Besides, it would cost a whole lot more than a couple of thousand dollars to upgrade my office. I have an old office building, and they did not design this with the idea of making it handicap accessible.

Also, it is funny that one would believe that forcing people to do construction on their buildings contributes to the overall economy. Again, this is the government deciding how we can best invest our money. We are not allowed to decide if a handicap entrance is good for our business. We are not allowed to make a cost/benefit analysis. The government says you have to do it, and that is it.

---

May you stay healthy and personally mobile. It improves your cost/benefit analysis.