From http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/18/bush-cancer/ That's horrible; this should be all over the news, it's a big deal... How can the president care so much about a free Iraq, and so little about his own people? I don't understand this administration...
Well if God made cancer, who are we to fight the big man? Just kidding, although that doesn't seem to be far off Bush's thinking when it comes to scientific research.
Why not cut all the pork barrel spending happening in congress so that things such as cancer research can be funded. Why not complain to your congressman?
I did... I called Gus Bilirakis' office the other day; got the average answer "I'll forward your message along with your name and number to the congressman, he reads all of his messages, thanks for your support"... I agree with you 100%; if we killed all the pork, we could start funding projects to better the country... I blame special interest groups, like many others...
My personal opinion; without government subsidizing the projects the research won't be done... Because if the drug companies funded the projects entirely themselves the end result "drug" would have to cost so much that not many would be able to afford it... So bam... As far as I'm concerned, no government help = no cure for cancer...
I blame it on fundraising...all these politicians want to get re-elected, and therefore need some $$$...
are they real cuts or washington cuts? that's the question. washington cuts are simply a reduction in the spending growth. not a "budget cut" by what we'd call it. anyways. why does government fund research anyways? aren't their private companies who can research this sort of thing? they profit from it anyways, in the end, with the medicines. why are our tax dollars going to line someone else's pockets?
I agree, usually pockets are lined... I can't even imagine how guilty I would feel taking money from cancer research and pocketing it; how do people live with themselves? And yes, I bet there are companies that would research it on their own, but the end product would be so costly that only bigwigs could afford to extend their lives... (which is kind of happening now, but to a lesser extent)
Having read the article from "think progress" (progressives are a name for the communist party in the early 1900s and only recently in the past ten years or so, have come back out with the name again...thank about that) it's clear they are misleading. 1.2 billion increase and a 40 million cut? Anyone have a calculator handy? Once again, blind hatred seems to justify dishonesty when it comes to Bush.
Did I miss a calculation? Take 1.2 billion and cut 40 million from it. How much surplus is left over?
Who cares where it came from? The bottom line is, it was there. The bottom line is, far more has been spent than any cut that may or may not take place. It could have been cut originally, it could have been cut MUCH more. Instead, it wasn't. Does Bush get credit for NOT cutting it by 1.2 billion? Still no tally on how much 1.2 billion minus 40 million is? It seems like simply math to me.
The reason for the post was to point out where the cut came from; bush. Bottom line (during bush's term): Clinton adds 1,200 million Bush cuts 40 million In my opinion, bush should not get credit for not cutting it 1.2 billion; instead he should be ashamed he cut it at all
That's what I figured. So Bush leaves it in place and the 1.2 billion moves forward. Bush doesn't get credit for not originally cutting the 1.2 billion, but when he (or was it Congress?) takes away a mere 40 million, he gets credit. Got it. Kind of like the oil price argument. Liberals (those progressives that were once the communist party) blame Bush when oil prices go up (even though reality says that a President doesn't control the price of oil), but when it shoots down, he doesn't get credit. It's all about one thing and one thing only.
Bush has completely f*cked your country since he has been in power down to his utter lies and dishonesty yet you still love the guy. When will it dawn on you GTech? You could be out on the street and you would still manage to find a couple of dollars to pay for half an hour in an internet cafe to support the evil scumbag.
See. That still doesn't answer my question. Is the budget bigger than 1.2 billion now? Or is it smaller? Many "cuts" in washington are simply reduction in rates of growth. Here's a budget cut in washington: 2006 budget: 1 billion projected 2007 budget: 1.5 billion actual 2007 budget: 1.3 billion oh no! our budget is cut by 0.2 billion dollars. Not really.
So, then, subsidizing research really doesn't cut down on the cost for the end user anyways, does it? I vote let private companies do the research, they profit. They should fund it. It's not really rocket science in my mind.