So true.Quote:
Originally Posted by marketdawg
Printable View
So true.Quote:
Originally Posted by marketdawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soonerdawg
What the hell do you mean we can't afford it?? Have you seen the pork projects that Bush didnt even think about vetoing in his last 6 years? Combine those projects and you could sustain the country of Iceland for 20 years! It's not about whether we have the funds, its about how we use them. Congress currently uses these funds just to keep their constituents happy rather than to help their constitutents. Don't get the two confused.
Hcet AL
I bet most if not all of those pork projects you are complaining about were hidden in other appropriations. Give him the line item veto and you just might see some of that pork go away! You would also get to see who is true to the country and who just spouts politics when you have a nut cutting line item veto. There will be no excuse for the portk with that tool!
I believe that it was more than a moral issue to veto the bill. By appropriating federal money, the federal government gives tacit approval of what the research may come to, be it good or something that could become gastly. You can let your imagination run wild in both directions. I think Bush made a wise decision to pass on federal money toward the research. I would love to have a cure for all that it might do but that is better run in the private sector when there is a potential conflict in protecting the people from lord knows what this may come to.
Despite your profane disagreement with me, I really don't disagree with much of what you have to say. You would know this if you read even a few of my posts. Both parties are way too guilty of overspending our money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hcet .AL
The truth of the matter is that there are simply too many outstanding causes for our government to fund them all. That is why our government was supposed to be limited. I have heard the story that the first "outstanding" cause our government funded was to help a person whose house burned down a few blocks from the capital. It seemed a little innocent to help that guy, but Pandora's box was opened. We are breaking ourselves funding good causes and the pork that goes with a huge government that likes to spend.
There are a lot of ways to look at this situation. But, any way you go, I think it was a bad decision on the part of the President.
1. Currently, these fertility clinics create several embryos. One is used to impregnate the mother, the others are simply discarded. The moralist claim that we are "saving human life" does not make any sense, because you don't save human life by throwing embryos into a bio-hazard trash can. If they disagree with the practices of the fertility clinics, then state legislatures should take that issue up separately. But, maintaining the status quo doesn't "save life".
2. At that same time, there are many people in this country who could benefit from new medical breakthroughs. Nevermind the major diseases like cancer, alzheimers, etc.. those will take years to solve anyway. What about the kid born with four fingers on one hand, who could grow a fifth? The senior citizen who could grow new healthy bones instead of needing joint replacement surgery? The guy who loses all of his front teeth in a car wreck and could grow new ones instead of wearing dentures for the rest of his life? You can't get much more pro-life than that. (Note: I have never argued in favor of abortion, but pro-life has more than one definition.)
3. This could have huge economic impact. It is true that our government is asked for money for thousands of causes and studies every year, and it's also true that we can't fund all of them. But, think about the arguments made on this board about the way our athletic department is run. We all favor (most of us anyway :) ) spending money on the sports that can generate the most money, i.e. football v. women's basketball. Our government should focus it's spending the same way. Currently, drug companies make enormous profits from medical and drug patents that they develop through R&D. Some of their R&D money is fedral. When (not if) these medical breakthroughs are made, huge amounts of money will be thrown at the country and companies who patents them. It's always better to have that money coming into your country rather than going out. Not to mention the "brain drain" we could suffer from scientists leaving. In the past, great scientists (Albert Einstein and others) fled their countries to come here. If that trend reverses, we are in trouble.
4. As a Republican, I think this could have major consequences for the Republican party. Ronald Reagan was able to get people "on the fence" to vote Republican. Lately, Bush seems to be pushing people "on the fence" the other way, and this won't help any. Social engineering is never good and the Democrats have been guilty of that many times in the past. The Republican Party has gotten so far in bed with the religious right that all decisions are now made based on morality rather than sound public policy. You can't legislate morality. Since we all see things differently, and since Bush has the "with us or against us" mentality, some are going to vote against the Republican Party in the mid-term election. Second term presidents typically suffer low approval ratings, because they make unpopular decisions that move the country forward. Bush has low approval ratings, but is still trying to please everybody. Stem cell research is going to be the first in many rifts between now and November. California has already funded stem cell research, and other states will follow suit. Eventually, Bush could lose control of and support of the party that he leads. Had he funded the research, Republican candidates across the country could have stood by him and made great "pro life" arguments about the possibilities of stem cell research. Instead, they have to keep talking about morality.
5. Finally, one of the biggest problems we have in the U.S. is public education. We always hear the we need to encourage students to pursue math, science, engineering, etc.. So, why not fund the means for scientific breakthroughs and "practice what you preach"?
Republicans put WAY more money into science and research than Democratic administrations. NASA people love to see a Republican elected. So, we fund research, just not THAT research. (And BTW - the government does currently fund some of that research it just doesn't ear mark it for stem cell research.)Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
And as far as the economic impact, I don't see your argument. If goverment sponsored research helps secure patents for big pharms, why continue that trend. Let them to their own R&D and let the research we fund be open... (and the brain drain thing is simply not happening. America is still pulling in the worlds brightest not just for education but for research as well)
And finally the pro-life thing. As I stated, the most significant gains in this area of bio-technology has come from organ cells and not stem cells. Why not fund those studies that have actually shown the most potential?
DBP,
Do you know how much this kind of research costs? This isn't some mad scientist locked in a closet with a few chemicals. You mentioned NASA... What if the US government had told Boeing to build it's own space shuttle (with private R&D and no gov't funding) and call us when it's ready? Answer: We would have had no space shuttle, because private companies simply can't afford that type of expense. Because it did receive gov't funds through NASA and other agencies, our society has made leaps and bounds. Space related research helped develop everything from microwave ovens to sunglasses with UV protection. Not to mention the many advancements in space travel.
The same is true with the Department of Defense and every military vehicle (air, land, and sea) that we use today. It's also true for the Manhattan Project that ended WW II, the Interstate Highway System, and countless other social advancements. Even big corporations can't finance this type of research without help from Uncle Sam.
Just to clarify, Bush Sr. made some significant cuts to NASA, and Nixon made some major cuts to NASA. Agencies like that have to fight every administration for funding, regardless of party affiliation. It's all about "what have you done lately?"
In the next two years, the United States will graduate between 40,000 and 50,000 engineers. In that same period China will graduate about 200,000. Now do the math and think 10 years down the road. In a global economy, we have to do everything we can to stay ahead of the game. In the past a lot of those new engineers/scientists might have fled China for greener pastures because of government oppression (like Einstein). While China is still not the shining example of social reform, it now offers great economic opportunity for it's citizens. The same is true for India and many other emerging countries, including former Soviet nations. You are right that we still attract the best and brightest, but it isn't guaranteed to stay that way. I'm not advocating giving drug companies more patents. I'm advocating giving American companies the OPPORTUNITY to make advances. If a Chinese company discovers the cure for Alzheimers, tons of money flows into China. If an American company discovers it, tons of money flows into the U.S. Simple as that.
I work with military engineers everyday. Trust me when I tell you that any good research scientist doesn't want to sit around and confirm something that has already been proven. They always want to be on the cutting edge. By not allowing this research, Bush is keeping our scientists from being on the cutting edge, no matter how deep their company's pockets. China and Western Europe are funding stem cell research along with other scientific projects. By the time Bush leaves office, those countries will be well ahead of us in medical research. Some of our scientists are considering leaving because we have chosen to not shoot for the top in medical research (similar to our complaint about our AD). That's just the way it is. We do have limited government funding and some private funding, but we are moving exteremely slowly compared to other nations.
Dont' get me wrong. I voted for GW in both elections and I support a lot of things he does. But, I'm not going to give him the rubber stamp on everything simply because we are both Republicans.
Organ cells have shown more promise, mainly because stem cells haven't been fully studied. We shouldn't have to choose between the two. Why not be the best at both? Should we strengthen our Navy at the expense of our Army? Should we guard the border with Mexico, but ignore the border with Canada? Those wouldn't be acceptable decisions by the government, so why is it acceptable to ignore the area of science that offers us the greatest promise?
dizzzam, I don't care who you are, that was a good post right thurr:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
Interesting that you brought that up... at the height of the so called private space race:Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12080376/
Can't or won't? I didn't pay for my tree to get removed from my front yard after Katrina. I could afford it, but why the hell would I do that when the government paid for hundreds of tree removal crews.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
A little dated, but here's some facts:Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
George H.W. Bush, who was president prior to Clinton, increased NASA expenditures by more than $3.437 billion during his single term from 1989 until January 1993.
NASA budgets since fiscal year 1992:
1993 $14.309 billion, existing NASA budget when Clinton took office;
1994 $14.568 billion, $259 million increase, first Clinton budget;
1995 $13.853 billion, $715 million decrease;
1996 $13.885 billion, $32 million increase;
1997 $13.709 billion, $176 million decrease;
1998 $13.648 billion, $61 million decrease;
1999 $13.654 billion, $6 million increase;
2000 $13.601 billion, $53 million decrease;
2001 $14.253 billion, $652 million increase;
2002 $14.892 billion, $639 million increase, first Bush budget;
2003 $15.000 billion, $108 million increase (estimated);
2004 $15.469 billion, $469 million increase (proposed);
Yes if a Chinese company makes a cure, then they do get money. That IS simple. But the rest of it is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
We will graduate 40-50K, our population: 280 million, ratio of: 1.4x10^-4:1
They will graduate 200K, their population: 1.3 BILLION, ratio of: 1.5x10^-4:1
Not a significant difference.
To make your point about scientist leaving to escape some sort of goverment oppression or to seek some opportunity, you must show that we are either oppressing scientists or that scientists are seeking the opportunity that exists overseas. THAT is simple.
I can only say that trust me as a research scientist working under a government grant, our government is wanting to be on the cutting edge. As far as medical research, this is ONE area of medical research that the government is not choosing to earmark funds for. Our support of research for AIDS, cancer, heart disease, and others is the best. I have a friend who was a Tech grad who did research in cancer treatments and had money literaly thrown at him.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
The more you talk about them, the more I want to meet these scientist who are heading for other countries... It sounds like the Hollywood syndrome of leaving for Canada... of course they are still here too.
I've never done that either. This is an issue that I agree with. There are plenty of things that Republicans do wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
Organ cell research has and is producing results. It is the better horse. If lives are in the balance, then yes, we concentrate more on one than the other. I'm not saying we eliminate stem cell research. Remember it was NOT banned, we just haven't earmarked tons of our money for it. To use our analogy, should we have beefed up our Coast Guard at the same rate we beefed up our Army in WWII?Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
I can only say that trust me as a research scientist working under a government grant, our government is wanting to be on the cutting edge. As far as medical research, this is ONE area of medical research that the government is not choosing to earmark funds for. Our support of research for AIDS, cancer, heart disease, and others is the best. I have a friend who was a Tech grad who did research in cancer treatments and had money literaly thrown at him.
As someone who is in scientific/medical research labs every single day - there's no money throwing going around these days. I wish there was because that would make my job alot easier! There isn't enough money to go around without a fight.
Maybe thrown at him is a bad wording. He had to fill out an application and open the acceptance letter... :rolleyes4Quote:
Originally Posted by SDDawg
The real point to that is that funding for things like cancer and AIDS research is better here than elsewhere. I don't know this for a fact, but I would have to be proven wrong.
One of the few Federal Government roles is national defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
And, where do you think the technology came from to get us to this point?Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
Hint: Publicly funded space research and space exploration. See my last post.
This comparison is pretty silly, because it really is apples and oranges. That money was already dedicated to the cleanup and you were just one of many who benefited. I'm pretty sure Congress would not have allocated money to remove a tree from your yard under normal circumstances. BUT...I see where you are coming from, so here's a response:Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
This isn't about lazy companies trying to get a free ride from Uncle Sam. This is about research that private companies can not afford on their own. One example. Lockheed Martin Corporation is building the F-22 fighter jets. The development cycle of the jets just ended and total cost was about $20 Billion dollars. Last year Lockheed Martin showed a Gross Profit (that's before all the bills are paid) of $2.5 Billion.
http://www.google.com/finance?cid=21553
That means that even in 2005 dollars, Lockheed Martin would have to operate at a net loss for over ten years just to see this single project through. And, that doesn't even count other projects that would die from lack of funding inside Lockheed Martin. The same is true for stem cell research at Merck, Pfizer, etc. Last year Merck spent just over $4 Billion on R&D of 43 different drugs.
http://www.merck.com/finance/annualr...ial_Review.pdf
Stem cell research would easily chew up their entire R&D budget and might not show any results for several years, while all 43 of the other drug projects died. Federal funding for these types of projects is absolutely crucial.
The actual dollar amount during the first Bush admin did to up, because it always does. That's the natural progression of operating costs, rate of inflation, salaries, etc. But, a lot of their programs died because it wasn't politically expedient for Bush. When I said it's all about "what have you done lately", I meant that Presidents (who submit the budget to congress) will use public budgeting to do what is politically expedient for themselves at the time. Nixon killed the Apollo program (the same program that took Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to the moon just a few years earlier) and later documented it in his memoirs as retaliation toward the Kennedy administration. And, for the record, I thought GHW Bush was an awesome president. I still think he's a pretty awesome guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
While pursuing a Masters of Public Administration degree, I had the privelege of attending a lecture given by James E. Webb who served as NASA administrator from 1961-1968. He talked about their relationship with Congress and how they constantly have to prove their worthiness to elected officials and ultimately to the American people. For the amount of money they receive every year, many other programs could be funded, and both parties are very aware of that. He also talked about how NASA loves close election years because they usually get increased funding, regardless of who is in office. Note the Clinton increase on your list, after a huge decrease the year before. During the 1972 election year, Nixon authorized NASA to begin work on the space shuttle (with public funding, of course :) )
George W. Bush is politically obligated to give increases to NASA since he has publicly proposed a manned mission to Mars. He would look like an idiot if he told them to do it and then didn't give them the money.
Indeed they do need more engineers to sustain their larger country, but most of their population lives in abject poverty and the communist government doesn't use the engineers the same way the U.S. does. We would have our guys all over the place improving drainage for farmers, purifying water and air for citizens, and improving processes for industry. The Chinese government ignores 75% of it's population, half of the water in their rivers is undrinkable, and all of their major cities have pollution problems that you wouldn't believe. A million well trained engineers in the hands of that government will do a lot of things with government funding, because they don't have to worry about quality of life issues for their fellow man. Just because we operate a certain way doesn't mean other people do.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
Dude, seriously....do I need to prove that Einstein was Jewish and escaping German occupation in Europe? That's pretty well documented. Do I need to prove that the Chinese government isn't the perfect model of an open society? You know about Yao Ming's contract with the Rockets, don't you? Last year a Chinese journalist got an email from the government telling him how he would do his job. No questions asked. He forwarded that email to the New York Times and is now serving a 10 year prison sentence for it. The government even strong-armed Yahoo into turning over the info on who sent the email. I say shame on Yahoo, but it still shows the tactics of the government. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0909/p01s03-woap.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
Ever heard of Tienanmen Square? Go to Google and type in "Tank Man" and look at the first several links that come up. Then read this story about how Chinese people under the age of 25 don't even know that the event happened because the government covers it up and the people don't know any better. Parents can be jailed for discussing the event with their children. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/
China is not a pretty place, bro. They want to control the flow of all information because the truth would upset their communist government. The last thing that people in power want is to be taken out of power. Science being as "scary" as it is, you can bet your ass they will keep the high-ranking scientists on a very short leash, but those scientists will still do good work.
I agree. I WANT to win a marathon, but I'm too lazy to run that much. Wanting gets you nowhere without the will to follow through. Besides, Dawgbitten is the marathon guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
And it is a very bad decision not to fund it. All of the areas of study you mentioned could be aided by stem cell research. How does your friend feel about the potential of stem cells?Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
I'm not saying you will see a mass exodus of scientists, and I doubt that very many will go to China. But, western Europe is a nice place to live and they would have the freedom to make real breakthroughs while guys in the U.S. twiddle their thumbs. Doctors also have a personal interest in this because foreign governments will offer good salaries to skilled American doctors. And, the doctors could not only become famous for curing a major disease, but they could also become insanely wealthy at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
Actually, that's a poor analogy. My point was about making decisions on known problems. Your analogy is about putting money where it is not needed. You can't really make a legitimate argument that way since we don't even know what stem cell research can do. How can you say that it is the "better horse" when no one has any clue what might happen if given the chance? RIght now, we don't know which 'force' needs to be 'beefed up'. When it comes to stem cells, we still don't know what we don't know. I realize stem cell research isn't banned, and I don't doubt the promise of organ cells. I'm just saying that this was a poor call by GW and the Republican party (of which I am a member) is going to suffer for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
Defend it all you want, my man. No hard feelings. Bush just made a terrible call on this one, and he made it for all the wrong reasons.
[quote=StrayDawg]And, where do you think the technology came from to get us to this point?
Hint: Publicly funded space research and space exploration. See my last post.[\quote]
You said that we would have no space shuttle without government funding, that is true. The space shuttle is a white elephant. Would we have space TRAVEL without government funding? I think yes.
[quote=StrayDawg]This comparison is pretty silly, because it really is apples and oranges. That money was already dedicated to the cleanup and you were just one of many who benefited. I'm pretty sure Congress would not have allocated money to remove a tree from your yard under normal circumstances. BUT...I see where you are coming from, so here's a response:[\quote]
It is not a silly comparison. Why would companies invest private money if they can get it for free. It isn't laziness it would be bad business for them to invest when the government is doing it's money dance. Just as it would have been bad business for me.
Lockheed Martin... Another defense analogy. A problem... we are talking about medical research. I doubt the government subsidizes the Boeing 747 as much as the F22 because people other then the US government can buy the 747.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
moving on to the pharms:
a) one of those other projects is the next Viagra. OK. A little cheap shot on the pharms, but they spend their money researching some crazy drugs.
b) how much is enough? You want the federal government spending more than a few billion on this? If stem cell research can produce no results within the near future despite billions and billions of dollars in research, then maybe, just maybe it is a bad investment and the private companies know that. But hey, it's just my money that was taken from me by force from the federal government, what do I care? This is the same government that funded the Stanford Research Institute to research remote viewing with tax payer dollars.
I didn't take it back to Nixon and I believe the facts are on my side for the first President Bush. He was the best President for the space program since Jack Kennedy. His son is even better.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
Bottom line: Increase during Bush, decrese during Clinton, increase during Bush.
That's a single year, Clinton still saw a decrease over those 8 years. The first President Bush saw a substantial increase. So if you say operating expenses go up, then the first President Bush at least supported those increases. Even with this election increase, Clinton did not.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
That's good he sets high goals and backs it up with funding. This reminds me of a certain John F. Kennedy saing we should go to the moon and then funding the project. I'm glad he did that and I'm glad President Bush has done that. As I said, the Republican Party is good for science specifically NASA.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
Spin all you want, but I'm looking at the math.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
Of course you don't have to explain to me that brain drain happened. Werner von Braun is another great example. We actually stole him. But we aren't exactly killing all he Jews over here. We are not run by a facist party despite what salty would have us believe. My point is that you are drawing a parallel between Einstein fleeing the country for fears of being killed and not having federal dollars to do stem cell research.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
And the fact that China is a scary place is exactly why I think there's one less innovator that we don't have to worry about stealing our guys and gals. I sit in a lab with 3 Chinese nationals every day. They would really rather not go back. We are doing the draining because of that.
Hey, I run marathons too. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
That friend is as much a Libertarian as I've ever known. He want's to abolish income tax. While I haven't asked him I'm pretty sure he's OK with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
OK, so I've got you crawfishing on the brain drain now with the exception of Europe. Is Europe really spending billions of Euros on SC research? Sorry man, but I just don't want speculation, show me some numbers. Even better show me some scientists because right now I'm looking at the faculty of Louisiana Tech and seeing a lot of Europeans. In fact, I would argue that there is still an exodus of foreign nationals into the US after looking at the faculty positions of LSUHSC School of Medicine.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
Don't be dissing my analogies man, you are the one who keeps bringing up defense spending like it is eqivalent. :) My point is exactly what you said, "we still don't know what we don't know". That is Phillip Armour's 2nd Order of Ignorance and not a good thing. When we are basically refining the process for organ cell regeneration, I say we have a better horse. The race being curing the paralyzed or providing the liver to those who are dying (or at least not walking) now or as you called it "known problems".Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
I realize I'm taing the unpopular side on this issue, and what's funny is that I think it was a good call for a completely different reason than the President. He made his decision based on morality. I think that was wrong. If you are throwing the dead bodies away, then you are wasting a resource. I want to see some sort of proof that baby farming is going on to dismiss SC research based on that. Until abortion is made illegal, we are not doing the morally upright thing by making sure the bodies are thrown away.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
And definitely no hard feelings, I haven't been this excited about a debate on this forum in a while. I am really enjoying it and appreciate the thought out replies.