Jim Cramer would love that....Booyaaa I heard that if you could SS and medicare...plus all the other social shit...corporate welfare accounts for on 10% of the budget. But that's only what I heard. The budget to me is an enigma and far too big on ever single arena.
Just another example of Bush being out of touch with...the world. The polls showed 70% of Americans wanted this thing passed. Even members of his own party were totally for this. What an idiot.
I guess I'm one of the 30% and I'm not even using religious reasoning. I oppose it like all the other hundreds of bill that use far too much money which we're not consitutional authorized to do. Although this isn't going to stop a judicial activist. Just like the war on drugs, all you have to do is make people believe the government has the authority to do something and they'll bend-over at keep taking it. Whom made the poll and whatt was the exact question of the poll?
No idea, bit it's a poll both FOX and CNN were going by, so I'm sure it's atleast semi accurate. I'm surprised it was at 70%, seems kind of low to be honest. I don't know one person(including religious) that's against it.
It means ever since FDR loaded the court(s) in his presidency....the consitution slowly changed it's meaning. That often liberal depend on judges to give them what they want, because often the people would not vote affirmatively for those issues. A good example is gay marriage. While I don't have any solid position on such, it's evident that gay marriage for the most part wouldn't exist throughout the country if the people had the chose and if the judges didn't interfer. Judges make their own laws up as they go often, and the interpet the Constitution in ways that show absolutely no precedence or reasoning. The Constitution was interpeted to be extremely limiting for roughly a hundred and fifty years....year by year the judges tend to push in their own self-created bias, rather than a solid view of law and history. Frankly the majority of the liberal perspective is tossed in the garbage if we actually followed the constitution and didn't follow all these mind-created programs. Does any liberal really think that the Consitution was written in a way that promoted the use of federal power for welfare programs of any sort?
Let's try to sort out the facts here, because like most political issues, things get pretty blurry. 1. The US government has spent $90 million funding stem cell research under Bush. It's pork barrel research that is showing very little in the way of results. 2. There is absolutely nothing preventing private companies from doing their own research. If there was something there that scientists really believed in, private companies would be funding their own research. The first one to the market with a medical breakthrough is going to rape the public with high costs anyway. 3. The public in this country is being told that stem cell research "might" lead to cures for all kinds of diseases and injuries, and preliminary research is "full of hope". Give me a break. A relative of mine who is a doctor doesn't think this will lead to any breakthrough. He thinks it is alchemy. There is no evidence to support most of the "potential benefits" claims being made. This is no different than any other form of corporate welfare. If there is overwhelming evidence of a huge benefit and for some reason private companies cannot fund the research (as in the space program in the 1960s), it might make sense for government to fund it. That is not the case here.
Rich you are off in crazy disassociate land again, what does this have to do with stem cells? Also the reason judges interpret the law and the constitution instead of having people vote on it, is because the masses are not qualified for the job, the masses can be manipulated where (in theory) judges are impartial. They repaired a rat’s broken spine with stem cells http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/0920_050920_spinalcord_2.html yeah, that sounds like dead end A doctor in what, being luddite?
All the public knows is what has been fed to them by the research companies and universities that will benefit from funding. If the general public spent any time investigating this or if they were aware that $90 million has already been sucked up with nothing tangible to show for it, the polls would probably swing sharply in the other direction.
The whole idea of government not subsidizing business good argument, but its 2 edged sword, if you think its GW is smart not to fund stem cell research for that reason, then you must think he and the GOP are total asses for all the other give aways they have made to their corporate sponsors
Did you miss the part about the rats spinal cords being fixed? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3039098.stm Here is another link to story
As if they invented those? Handouts have been going in since, primarly the New Deal, and its just getting worse and worse. Airlines are the biggest teet suckers out there, then come the pharm companies. Make em all, airlines, pharms, farmers, etc compete in the real world without subsidies. But then, how will pols get votes? That's why it'll never happen
Well, I stand corrected. It was certainly worth $90 million for a single test out of thousands to show some minimal results that might have actually occurred naturally. It was a damaged spinal cord, not a broken spine. I read the article and it doesn't sound like any type of cure to me. This is a classic example of the type of misleading and "feel good" info that is being fed to the public.
Yeah the article seems to say that they arent positive that stem cells did the trick or not. Too lazy to quote the paragraph. If stem cells work; great. Let some private business come in and finance the research.
Are you kidding? it happend on multiple tests and if you read the article well its not a cure YET, I'll bet if you were paralized you would feel very differently about it you know there is NO cure at all right now for spinal injuries, right?