DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on September 10, 2008, 12:48:21 PM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/09/biden.special.needs/ (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/09/biden.special.needs/)
"Sen. John McCain's campaign rebuked Sen. Joe Biden on Tuesday, saying the Democratic vice presidential nominee had "sunk to a new low" by raising a debate over who cares more for special needs children."
"Well, guess what, folks? If you care about it, why don't you support stem cell research?" asked Biden, the running mate of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama.
All right , I am pretty sure that there is no potential for stem cell treatments to cure Downs syndrome , has anyone heard of a special need that is common amoung children that is adressable with stem cell treatments?
-
If we had elected Kerry/Edwards the lame would have walked again.
Now this.
Disgusting.
-
Either one takes the attitude that one will enlist every possible advance in science in combating diseases and genetic defects, or one does not.
The GOP does not.
That is the point.
They favor some wacko meaningless principle over using science in every beneficial way.
-
They favor some wacko meaningless principle over using science in every beneficial way.
The GOP does not stand in the way of stem cell research.
The federal govt just won't fund the embryonic portion of it.
Congress, controlled by the dems last i looked, could legislate funding if they wished.
Why haven't they?
-
D'oh
;)
-
<<The GOP does not stand in the way of stem cell research.
<<The federal govt just won't fund the embryonic portion of it. >>
Not funding all or part of it on principle IS standing in the way of it. Most people should be able to see that even if you can't.
Nobody knows where any research will ultimately lead. If scientists working on problems of genetically-linked disease feel that they might benefit from stem-cell research, it is the government's job to find the funding for that research and see that it goes forward. Nobody can guarantee that the research will or will not produce results. If private industry will fund it, so much the better, if not, the government must step up to the plate. By allowing religious dogma to block scientific progress, the GOP have shown themselves unworthy to lead.
-
research in general is a funny thing
in most matter`s,there is no absolute outcome.
too many things effects results.
stemcells once was believed that fetuses are the only source to get them
now fat cells may become a source.
computer technology has stay relatively the same giving the impression it can`t do better in saving power.
than some dude wanting to make cheap computers for poor kids in africa accidentally made low power monitors and is totally changing the computer markets right now.
ex. netbooks.
we really shouldn`t believe things can`t do better
it`s all a matter of priority of thought.
-
>>Not funding all or part of it on principle IS standing in the way of it.<<
How does indifference stop you from funding this research?
-
When it comes to scientific and technological discoveries, every restriction placed upon the scientist or researcher limits the discoveries and the innovations that can be made. Pure research, that is, research for the purpose of discovering how things work i9n general, is often quite productive, but since the direction that the productivity might take is unpredictable, corporations who want to develop something they can sell tend not to fund it. This is where public funding comes in.
It seems that stemcell research is less a barrier than it once was, but the fact is that no one was deliberately aborting fetuses to harvest them, they were just being tossed out with the biotrash. After the federal funding was banned, even more were thrown away. There was no advantage gained by anyone. It was just dumb, based on the stupidity of some preachers and their flunky, Juniorbush.
-
When it comes to scientific and technological discoveries, every restriction placed upon the scientist or researcher limits the discoveries and the innovations that can be made.
1 more time...NO ONE IS RESTRICTING WHAT THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY CAN DO AS IT RELATES TO RESEARCH. They are not being banned or prevented from doing any R&D they want. Simply that the Fed (we tax payers) aren't mandated or even obligated to pay for it. But no one is restricting anything
-
>>When it comes to scientific and technological discoveries, every restriction placed upon the scientist or researcher limits the discoveries and the innovations that can be made.<<
What restriction are you talking about?
-
Not funding all or part of it on principle IS standing in the way of it. Most people should be able to see that even if you can't.
Nonsense.
States can fund it University endowments can fund it. Congress has the opportunity to fund it each year.
I don't see anyone standing in the way of it.
-
What restriction are you talking about?
That would be the restriction on federal funding of stem cell research. You should read the whole post and then perhaps you will understand.
The greater the amount of money given to research, the more research gets done, as a rule.
-
>>That would be the restriction on federal funding of stem cell research.<<
How does that pose a restriction on research?
-
but if it wasn`t for the ban wouldn`t it be unlikely for other research for alternate sources of stemcells to be made?
meaning one discovery will indermine others from being made.
just a theory.
I think hybrids and corn feul will hinder us from some serious alternate power discoveries.
note how non-existant about talks about other sources of power.
and the only reason we even do anyof this is because of the $70 fill-up
nothing more humbling than filling up your car and get very little change from a hundred dollar bill.
you know gas is expensive when using a hundred dollar bill does not make you a A-hole
-
but if it wasn`t for the ban wouldn`t it be unlikely for other research for alternate sources of stemcells to be made?
meaning one discovery will indermine others from being made.
====================================================
This is also true. No doubt experimentation using cells other than stem cells to generate cells for new organs or to repair deficient organs hastened this technology.
Corn ethanol is probably doomed, because it consumes more oil than it saves. The best way to get ethanol would be to import it from places where it can be made from sugarcane using more manual labor.
A substitute for oil must be found. Natural gas is the most readily available, and the technology to run cars on it is developed and used extensively in Europe. In France, gas stations sell Diesel (Gasoil), two grades of gasoline, and Natural Gas. It costs about 1000 Euros to convert a car to run on Gas. You start the car on gasoline and switch it over to gas. It gets better mileage and runs cleaner. I drove a 1989 Volvo wagon with this conversion from Southern France through Pau to San Sebastian, Spain in 2003. It ran fine. But natural gas will also run out, and we need some means of using electricity or hydrogen cells to replace it.
-
I got no concept of hydrogen feulcells
My spider sense tell me it see`s no advantage thogh
doesn`t it need to be manufactured?
meaning it will always be costly
note in talk of energy ,cost isn`t much of a factor
green to me mean more excuse to get money out of my pocket.
-
It's naive and silly to think that a government ban on federal funds for human fetal stem cell research will not inhibit progress in that field.
Available funding is not limitless. There's a finite sum available. If one of the sources is choked off, projects may have to be put on hold while alternative funding is found. If the total funds available for all U.S. human fetal stem cell research are maxed out, and a prior contributor, the Fed, has gone off-stream, then somewhere, somebody's research project is put on permanent hold or scrubbed, when (had the Federal source not gone off-stream) it would have continued, funded. This is elementary. I'm very surprised that such an elementary proposition needs to be explained to anyone here in this forum.
To those parents of special-needs children, hoping against hope for new scientific solutions, some of which have as good a chance as any of coming out of stem-cell research, the banning of Federal funds for human fetal stem cell research comes as a direct slap in the face.
Any claim that banning Federal funding for any type of scientific investigation will not impede research on the subject is disingenuous. Federal funding for all scientific research, particularly in the life sciences fields, should be INCREASED across the board, not selectively cut back except in the clearest cases of fraud or lack of scientific value.
-
There is absolutely no potential stem cell treatment for Downs syndrome .
As far as any one who has contributed here today knows there are no special needs children in need of stem cell therapys . No one has found a research project attempting to find a stem cell treatment for any sort of mental retardation.
Therefore I hereby proclaim it resolved that Biden is ignorant ,and mean.
-
>>It's naive and silly to think that a government ban on federal funds for human fetal stem cell research will not inhibit progress in that field.<<
This makes no sense at all. The government has made no law impeding fetal stem cell research. Can research only be done by the government and with government money? The truth is it's not worth the effort and the scientific community knows it. This kind of argument is like the "increases are cuts" nonsense we hear from the left about budgeting.
-
I got no concept of hydrogen feulcells
My spider sense tell me it see`s no advantage thogh
doesn`t it need to be manufactured?
meaning it will always be costly
note in talk of energy ,cost isn`t much of a factor
green to me mean more excuse to get money out of my pocket.
Yes, it takes energy to separate the hydrogen from whatever source you're using. But that energy can come from source that are not mobile (wind generators, tidal generators, solar cells, etc). Once the hydrogen has been separated, the fuel cell can run on it.
-
I like the X prize concept.
Put your money where your ideas are.
-
<<There is absolutely no potential stem cell treatment for Downs syndrome .>>
That is patently untrue.
<<As far as any one who has contributed here today knows there are no special needs children in need of stem cell therapys .>>
Of course not. The hope is that stem cell research has the potential to point the way towards cures or treatments of many pathologies, there is no logical reason why Down syndrome might not be one of them.
<< No one has found a research project attempting to find a stem cell treatment for any sort of mental retardation.>>
Of course not - - the stem cell research is aimed at the basic mechanisms of cell differentiation, when that is fleshed out, there will be many applications that flow from it. Some may very well be useful in treating Down syndrome or any other scourge of humanity.
<<Therefore I hereby proclaim it resolved that Biden is ignorant ,and mean.>>
I hereby nullify your proclamation and declare it void and of no effect.
-
there is no logical reason why Down syndrome might not be one of them
Do you understand what causes Down's Syndrome?
-
I haven't really looked into the causes of Down syndrome, but I would expect it's some kind of damaged gene or genes.
Here ya go - - from Wikipedia - -
<<Down syndrome, Down's syndrome, or trisomy 21 is a chromosomal disorder caused by the presence of all or part of an extra 21st chromosome. >>
Exactly the kind of stuff that a study of cell differentiation could shed light on.
-
Exactly the kind of stuff that a study of cell differentiation could shed light on.
As far I know, no proposed stem cell research will be used to replace the nucleus of every cell in the body, which is what is needed for a "cure" for Down's Syndrome. Stem cell research is being done to study the replacement of damaged or degenerate tissue, especially nerve cells. This is not a cause of Down's Syndrome.
Look up the diseases that are being researched for a possible treatment with stem cells - Down's Syndrome is not on the list. Nor will you find any other syndrome that is caused by base chromosomal errors. The research being done to correct these involves the use of retro viruses to "rewrite" the DNA and eliminate the problem.
-
>>That would be the restriction on federal funding of stem cell research.<<
How does that pose a restriction on research?
============================================================
If you cannot afford even a bus ticket, are you not restricted from travel to some degree?
-
Who's preventing anyone from making money to afford a bus ticket??
-
>>That would be the restriction on federal funding of stem cell research.<<
How does that pose a restriction on research?
============================================================
If you cannot afford even a bus ticket, are you not restricted from travel to some degree?
Who's preventing anyone from making money to afford a bus ticket??
=============================================================
Okay, a simple analogy is too complex for you.
Any money source denied to stem cell research restricts the amount of money that can be spent on stem cell research.
-
on stem cells
it`s not restricted to down syndrone.
this talk is a good example of how easily people can pigeon hole ourselves in thought.
which I think research in general can be a victim of getting in .
even if no cure is made the data itself may possibly be used for other applications.
-
I don't know whether stem cell research has been useful in rectifying the problems Downs syndrome people have. I imagine that it might be more useful in preventing that a child be born with Downs syndrome in the first place, but I know of no connection between stem cel research and any aspect of Downs syndrome. It is not my field, and speculation would be of no value. I am , however, in favor of funding stem cell research with federal tax money.
It seems to me that if, in fact, stem cell resarch is immoral, then the government should seek to ban it totally, not merely refuse to fund it. If it is not immoral, then they should fund it.
It's like saying that we are against murder, so we are hereby refusing to pay for guns to be given to criminals. But anyone else is free to give them guns.
The Juniorbush position on stem cell research is just stupid. And it is for this reason that it is stupid. It does not prevent an immoral act, only not to pay for it.
-
The Juniorbush position on stem cell research is just stupid. And it is for this reason that it is stupid. It does not prevent an immoral act, only not to pay for it.
And yet, the Bush administration has spent more money on stem cell research than any other previous administration.
Incidently, the "Bush position" is not "not pay for it" - it only pays for certain aspects of the research. Just like any other funds the government doles out - there are things you can do with the money and things you cannot do with the money.
-
But again, refusing to deny money on the ground that it is immoral, while refusing to even TRY to have laws passed against said "immoral" acts is just stupid.
If it's immoral, ban it.
If it isn't, fund it.
-
If it's immoral, ban it.
If it isn't, fund it.
It was funded.
So, what's your problem?
-
If it was all funded, I have no problem. Not that I actually had a problem.
I heard that federal funds were denied for stem cell research. That was what I was discussing. It is not actually MY problem, merely a topic for discussion.
-
If it was all funded, I have no problem. Not that I actually had a problem.
As is frequently the case, the federal government did not fund EVERYTHING that was requested. Funding, however, is not binary. Just because they did not fund 100% does not mean that they funded 0%.
I heard that federal funds were denied for stem cell research.
Not true.
-
<<As far I know, no proposed stem cell research will be used to replace the nucleus of every cell in the body, which is what is needed for a "cure" for Down's Syndrome. >>
You keep confusing research applications with basic research. Stem cell research aims at giving insight into processes, most obviously the process of cell differentiation. Cell differentiation is a complex of issues involving signals, metabolic pathways, protein assembly and probably others as well. Nobody can tell where the research leads to in terms of both further basic research and applications. The point is, without the basic research, we're left with a faulty foundation and building on a faulty foundation is never a good idea. Sometimes you have to do it, but no government should be in the position of holding back work which might create a sounder foundation for the research to proceed on.
<<Stem cell research is being done to study the replacement of damaged or degenerate tissue, especially nerve cells. This is not a cause of Down's Syndrome.>>
That's an application phase of stem cell research. Stem cell research can also proceed at the basic level, where the ultimate applications are unknown. However it's not at all implausible that the results of basic research into cell differentiation, necessarily involving cell division, will provide insights into the problems of missing or extra chromosomes arising out of faulty cell division.>>
<<Look up the diseases that are being researched for a possible treatment with stem cells - Down's Syndrome is not on the list. Nor will you find any other syndrome that is caused by base chromosomal errors. The research being done to correct these involves the use of retro viruses to "rewrite" the DNA and eliminate the problem.>>
I took up your suggestion, which was kind of interesting. According to the NIH "Stem Cell Information" page, "The Promise of Stem Cells:"
<<Studying stem cells will help us understand how they transform into the dazzling array of specialized cells that make us what we are. Some of the most serious medical conditions, such as cancer and birth defects, are due to problems that occur somewhere in this process. A better understanding of normal cell development will allow us to understand and perhaps correct the errors that cause these medical conditions.
<<Another potential application of stem cells is making cells and tissues for medical therapies. Today, donated organs and tissues are often used to replace those that are diseased or destroyed. Unfortunately, the number of people needing a transplant far exceeds the number of organs available for transplantation. Pluripotent stem cells offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat a myriad of diseases, conditions, and disabilities including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.>>
I think it's pretty self-evident that a lot of special-needs children, even according to this article, might be helped by the knowledge gained from stem-cell research, and that it's unconscionable for any government to deny funding for promising research solely on ideological or religious grounds.
-
I think overall the research will go pretty well in the near future.
If I`m not mistaken the bulk of it is being done overseas with much less restrictions than here so the U.S. simply just pay a premium for some of the results.
I think the U.S. at the moment is legally not able to have the most advance tech or medicines.
our self imposed restictions (not all bad) is holding us back a few years
if thier is a cure for cancer people over sea WILL get it before us.
-
I think it's pretty self-evident that a lot of special-needs children, even according to this article, might be helped by the knowledge gained from stem-cell research, and that it's unconscionable for any government to deny funding for promising research solely on ideological or religious grounds.
Good thing the US is funding stem cell research, then, huh?
-
<<Good thing the US is funding stem cell research, then, huh?>>
As you very well know, they are only funding a part of the potential stem-cell research available, i.e. that part that depends on the sixty-some lines of cells in use at the time of the ban. If none of those lines of stem cells suit the researchers' purposes, research based on new lines will not be funded. It's almost as if FDR had told the Manhattan Project, "Well, we'll fund research based on U-235 but nothing on Plutonium. We'll fund critical-mass research, but nothing on implosion devices."
They're letting religion interfere with scientific progress and dictate what to fund and what not to fund. It can't possibly work out well. Some basic research is going to be choked off and unless you can guarantee that none of would have paid off, you will have to admit that this is a set-back for science.
-
this is why stem cell research is more seriously done out of the united states.
good bet in less than 5 years time we`re going to see a serious lag in all areas in science compared to the rest of the world.
at least we`re making a blackhole here.
hopely the colateral tech made will help.
-
<<Good thing the US is funding stem cell research, then, huh?>>
They're letting religion interfere with scientific progress and dictate what to fund and what not to fund.
Not to mention that damn Constitutional roadblock.
-
<<Not to mention that damn Constitutional roadblock.>>
There's a Constitutional roadblock to funding human fetal stem-cell research? I don't think even the Republicans know of it.
-
Some basic research is going to be choked off and unless you can guarantee that none of would have paid off, you will have to admit that this is a set-back for science.
We can't fund EVERY POSSIBLE line of research. The costs would be staggering. Choices need to be made as to which lines of research will be funded by the federal government.
-
<<Not to mention that damn Constitutional roadblock.>>
There's a Constitutional roadblock to funding human fetal stem-cell research? I don't think even the Republicans know of it.
You're actually right, many don't. That's why there's such egregious out of control extra-constitutional spending, by BOTH parties, in DC. The Constitution outlines what the Fed is mandated to do. No where does it mandate any funds for research into stem cells, or any other thing for that matter. So, what we have here is a COMPROMISE, between what the left would want, some the-sky's-the-limit form of funding research vs NO tax monies for research. Be thankful for the compromise
-
The Constitution of the United States of America, Article 8:
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Seems to be pretty clear to me - - does anyone want to argue that the general welfare of the United States does not include the general health of its citizens, or that the general health is not maintained and improved through scientific research?
-
does anyone want to argue that the general welfare of the United States does not include the general health of its citizens, or that the general health is not maintained and improved through scientific research?
Sure, I'll argue it.
That is the preamble; the rest of the section enumerates what the government can do to "maintain the general welfare."
I don't see health care listed there.
-
Where does the Constitution mention the Interstate highway system? Where does it mention Homeland Security? The FAA? The FCC? The DEA? Most of what the government spends money on is not mentioned in the Constitution.
-
Where does the Constitution mention the Interstate highway system? Where does it mention Homeland Security? The FAA? The FCC? The DEA? Most of what the government spends money on is not mentioned in the Constitution.
Most of those are defense related. The interstate Highway System certainly is.
-
The Interstates were built as a defense tool, but they are primarily used by the civilian population. They were built because Eisenhower was impressed by Hitler's Autobahns.
The inspiration for the Autobahns was the Pennsylvania Turnpike, by the way.
-
The Interstates were built as a defense tool, but they are primarily used by the civilian population.
Yeah, more civilians drink Tang than astronauts.
-
<<That is the preamble; the rest of the section enumerates what the government can do to "maintain the general welfare.">.
Your problem is that it's not a preamble - - a preamble explains the intent and then is followed by the actual substance of the laws; often it begins with a "whereas" then comes the statement of general intent, then there's a phrase like "now therefore" and then the actual law is stated.
This section BEGINS with an actual donation of general powers to the Congress and then enumerates specific examples of what the Congress can do, but does not state that the specific examples are the only ways in which the more general powers can find expression.
-
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag29_user.html (http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag29_user.html)
-
Your problem is that it's not a preamble - - a preamble explains the intent and then is followed by the actual substance of the laws;
Well, Madison and Hamilton both called it a preamble. Guess they were too dumb to know what they had written, huh? Both Madison and Hamilton claimed that the general power listed in the preamble was prescribed by the list of detailed powers included. The discussion was covered in Federalist 39-41, IIRC.
This section BEGINS with an actual donation of general powers to the Congress and then enumerates specific examples of what the Congress can do, but does not state that the specific examples are the only ways in which the more general powers can find expression.
Yeah, just looked up one Madison quote from Fed 41:
For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?
-
That was a great link, Ami, and I thank you for it.
You should read it more carefully. The guys who drafted the general welfare clause were not in such close agreement as you claimed with regard to its meaning:
<<With respect to the meaning of “the general welfare” the pages of The Federalist itself disclose a sharp divergence of views between its two principal authors. Hamilton adopted the literal, broad meaning of the clause;Madison contended that the powers of taxation and appropriation of the proposed government should be regarded as merely instrumental to its remaining powers . . . >>
They may or may not have agreed on whether or not to call it a "preamble," but the more relevant point is what they regarded to be its effect.
<<Within little more than a year . . . Steward Machine Co. v. Davis [a Supreme Court decision] . . . sustained the tax imposed on employers to provide unemployment benefits, and the credit allowed for similar taxes paid to a State. To the argument that the tax and credit in combination were “weapons of coercion, destroying or impairing the autonomy[p.156]of the States,” the Court replied that relief of unemployment was a legitimate object of federal expenditure under the “general welfare” clause . . .
In other words, an objective which clearly lay outside the objectives specified in Sectio 8 of the Constitution following what you call the "preamble" was seen as a legitimate Federal activity under the "preamble's" general welfare clause.
-
That was a great link, Ami, and I thank you for it.
BT provided the link.
Yes, during the 20th century, the courts have allowed Congress to expand on the Constitution, taking liberal views of both the Interstate Commerce and General Welfare clauses. That does not mean that is what the founders intended.
BTW, Hamilton was also opposed to the Bill of Rights. His view was that it was not needed, since Congress could only do those things it was authorized to do (such as that list in Section 8). That is the reason for the inclusion of the 10th Amendment.
-
<<BTW, Hamilton was also opposed to the Bill of Rights. His view was that it was not needed, since Congress could only do those things it was authorized to do (such as that list in Section 8). That is the reason for the inclusion of the 10th Amendment.>>
Well, he was also opposed to slavery. Books have been written about him, he was a brilliant and complex man. He may have been wrong on the Bill of Rights, but that doesn't make him wrong on everything.
A literal reading of section 8 does find a Congressional power to act for the general welfare, not taken away by specific examples of that power: Use my home as you would your own, raid the refrigerator at will. Does that mean you can't watch the TV in the family room? It's ridiculous to contend that the general application of the first power is taken away by the specificity of the second? The court that you refer to as "liberal" in its interpretation of the section was actually "strict constructionist" in that one case. It would take some tampering with the actual wording of the Constitution to find express limitation of the "general welfare" in the examples that follow it.
Besides which, the Constitution as presently interpreted by the Supreme Court of the U.S.A. does provide, whether you agree with the "liberal" Depression-era court or not, that the power to act for the general welfare of the nation is NOT limited by the examples given. (And BTW, if that court was so "liberal," how come FDR wanted to "pack" it by increasing its members to 14?)
So there is no "Constitutional roadblock" to funding stem-cell or any other health-related research. That's just one more right-wing myth.
-
A literal reading of section 8 does find a Congressional power to act for the general welfare, not taken away by specific examples of that power: Use my home as you would your own, raid the refrigerator at will. Does that mean you can't watch the TV in the family room? It's ridiculous to contend that the general application of the first power is taken away by the specificity of the second?
What's the point of the list then? If Congress can already do anything, why make a list? If I was giving someone permission to "use my home as their own" I would not then tack on a list of "fer instances" - I might tack on a list of "stuff you CAN'T do," but it would be stupid to tack on a list of "stuff you CAN do". Guess you think that the founders were idiots...
So there is no "Constitutional roadblock" to funding stem-cell or any other health-related research. That's just one more right-wing myth.
I never said that there was a "Constitutional Roadblock" - I did say that Congress is not REQUIRED to fund it, and if they DECIDE to fund it, they are not then required to fund it at 100%, they are free to limit the funding. Research grants are not an entitlement.
-
<<What's the point of the list then? If Congress can already do anything, why make a list? If I was giving someone permission to "use my home as their own" I would not then tack on a list of "fer instances" - I might tack on a list of "stuff you CAN'T do," but it would be stupid to tack on a list of "stuff you CAN do". Guess you think that the founders were idiots...>>
The list might be to resolve some issues whose relationship to defence or general welfare might be debatable. For example, keeping a standing army in peacetime might have been seen in those days as neither defence nor general welfare, so in order to resolve doubts, it was specifically enumerated that an army and a Navy could be established. They were looking at the document through an 18th-Century lens.
<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 09:07:28 AM
<So there is no "Constitutional roadblock" to funding stem-cell or any other health-related research. That's <just one more right-wing myth.>
<<I never said that there was a "Constitutional Roadblock" >>
No, that was from another poster, but it was what precipitated our examination of section 8.
<<I did say that Congress is not REQUIRED to fund it, and if they DECIDE to fund it, they are not then required to fund it at 100%, they are free to limit the funding. Research grants are not an entitlement.>>
They're not an entitlement, but at the same time if they grant A but not B, they have to justify the discrimination on some rational grounds, not that "B is prohibited by the Chief Executive's religion." How'd you like it if President Lieberman cut off all Dept. of Ag. grants to hog farmers?
-
They're not an entitlement, but at the same time if they grant A but not B, they have to justify the discrimination on some rational grounds, not that "B is prohibited by the Chief Executive's religion." How'd you like it if President Lieberman cut off all Dept. of Ag. grants to hog farmers?
There is already a ban on funding abortions with public money. Limiting embryonic stem cell research to lines that would not require funding any future abortions is just keeping in line with an already-in-place ban (which, if memory serves, has never been overturned as unconstitutional). It is not a "religious quirk" as you would have us believe.
And yes, I think most Dept of Agriculture grants are stupid, I would not be opposed to limiting them.
Besides, limiting funding based on "we have X dollars to spend, so here is where we're going to spend them" is rational.
-
<<And yes, I think most Dept of Agriculture grants are stupid, I would not be opposed to limiting them.
<<Besides, limiting funding based on "we have X dollars to spend, so here is where we're going to spend them" is rational.>>
Apples and oranges. It's one thing to withhold a grant because the project is stupid or because funds are limited, but the reasoning has to be rational and non-prejudicial. You're still skating away from the fact that the essence of the ban on funding human fetal stem-cell research is based on religious doctrine.
-
You're still skating away from the fact that the essence of the ban on funding human fetal stem-cell research is based on religious doctrine.
The decision on which programs to fund is based on a previous funding decision that has, IIRC, already passed Supreme Court muster.
-
<<The decision on which programs to fund is based on a previous funding decision that has, IIRC, already passed Supreme Court muster.>.
Which decision are you referring to and more importantly which court?
-
Which decision are you referring to and more importantly which court?
Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980)
That would make it the Burger court. 6-3 decision.
-
Well, you seem to be correct, according to Wikipedia. The court found on a 5-4 split that the anti-abortion funding provisions did not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
Just illustrates the need to get more liberals on that bench so 5-4 becomes 2-7. And until then to vet the religious beliefs of candidates as carefully as their legal knowledge.
-
This whole thing started about the Juniorbush ban on federal funding for stemcell research, which was reportedly done for moral, not budgetary reasons.
-
The court found on a 5-4 split that the anti-abortion funding provisions did not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
White also concurred with that opinion, so it was 6-3. From White's concurring opinion:
Maher held that the government need not fund elective abortions because withholding funds rationally furthered the State's legitimate interest in normal childbirth. We sustained this policy even though under Roe v. Wade, the government's interest in fetal life is an inadequate justification for coercive interference with the pregnant woman's right to choose an abortion, whether or not such a procedure is medically indicated. We have already held, therefore, that the interest balancing involved in Roe v. Wade is not controlling in resolving the present constitutional issue. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the straightforward analysis followed in MR. JUSTICE STEWART'S opinion for the Court is sound.
-
Still basically a substantial body of judicial opinion on both sides of the issue. The unassailable opinions are the unanimous ones, Brown v. Topeka for example.
All you've got on the abortion ban is the personal opinions of some judges trumping the personal opinions of others.
-
All you've got on the abortion ban is the personal opinions of some judges trumping the personal opinions of others.
And the judicial precedence that it is legal for the government to restrict funding for health care issues in whatever way that wish. This decision is binding for all lower courts.
-
This whole thing started about the Juniorbush ban on federal funding for stemcell research, which was reportedly done for moral, not budgetary reasons.
The decision stated that regardless of the reasons for the enactment of the funding ban (even if it's religious) there is no constitutional issue. Hyde's religion was brought up in the arguments.
-
The message is, the court won't block stem-cell research, but it won't stop an administration from de-funding it on religious principles.
The solution is obvious: Want scientific research to proceed without religious interference? Vote Democrat.
Problem solved.
-
The solution is obvious: Want scientific research to proceed without religious interference? Vote Democrat.
How does voting Democrat give us an unlimited pool of funding?
-
<<How does voting Democrat give us an unlimited pool of funding?>>
Huh? ? ? ?
How does allowing scientific research to proceed without religious interference equate to an unlimited pool of funding?
You'll have to run that one by me again, Ami.
-
How does allowing scientific research to proceed without religious interference equate to an unlimited pool of funding?
You'll have to run that one by me again, Ami.
There is a limited pool of funding, so a decision was made to apply funding in accordance with other funding mandates (no federal funding for abortions). To be able to apply funding for every possible research program, you would need an unlimited (or nearly so) supply of funds.
-
but shouldn`t the real question be is what are the qualification of the people making the decisions ?
do they have a background in science(we should not assume they do)
-
No, I'd wager the real question is.....what business is it of the Fed to use tax payer dollars, with no "end in sight" with what the tax dollars are being used for, in an endeavor that's none of the business of the government to begin with? Just because the Fed has access to large sums of $$$$ doesn't equate with "well, what can we do with it?" Especially when its running a deficit
It's a little like the conversation I had with Miss Cynthia......at what point can we say a program has been fully funded?? The general implication is, never. A budget is supposed to be that....a fixed pie chart. This % for this, that % for that, this amount for that obligation, that amount for that obligation. Things that are NOT an obligation, A) should not be funded, and B) if funded, should not have some sky's-the-limit level of funding, based on the idea that all research should be funded. That defies all reason.....as well as the Constitution
-
let us resolve that there shall be no moral , religious or emotional restriction on scientific research.
Thank you Dr. Mengele
-
<<let us resolve that there shall be no moral , religious or emotional restriction on scientific research.>>
Here's a better one: Let's resolve that the normal criminal law regarding murder and assault apply to everyone including research scientists. Oh, wait a minute - - it already DOES? Then I guess we don't need any further resolutions restricting scientific research, do we?
-
ok you got a very good point their
as you know I work in a museum and truthfully I see no reason it can`t run without government funding.
it`s not that hard to make it a highly profitable business.
but the amount of needless waste is insane and alot of poor judgement.
ex. toulouse lautrec exhibit was a free exhit
the director after the second week, seeing the big crowds was quite upset.
-
So true Kimba. The layers and pervasiveness of waste and abuse in the use of tax payer dollars is beyond criminal.....by BOTH parties. Yet, 1 particular party thinks that the key to fixing so many of life's woes is to just keep throwing money at the problem, courtesy of the Government. "Fully fund it" they decry, (when never actually providing where & when that threshold is reached), and damn any deficits. Just tax those greedy rich folks, all the more. The government knows better what to do with other people's money than the tax payers.....yea, the same egregiously wasteful and fiscally abusive government
It's really maddening at times >:(
-
<<"Fully fund it" they decry, (when never actually providing where & when that threshold is reached), and damn any deficits. . . .....yea, the same egregiously wasteful and fiscally abusive government >>
Does any of this rant have any basis in reality at all? Are there any wasteful experiments in stem cells that these people have in mind, or is this just more crazed ranting and raving from the usual suspects off in the outer reaches of right-wing paranoid fantasies?
-
Are there any wasteful experiments in stem cells that these people have in mind, or is this just more crazed ranting and raving from the usual suspects off in the outer reaches of right-wing paranoid fantasies?
Don't know specifically about stem cell research, but one from last year had caught my eye: the federal government had given a university a grant to study "why people enjoy sex." They spent a few years researching it and determined that most people enjoy sex because it feels good. Don't know what other conclusion they were expecting. I also don't see why the feds are funding this type of research.
-
<<"Fully fund it" they decry, (when never actually providing where & when that threshold is reached), and damn any deficits. . . .....yea, the same egregiously wasteful and fiscally abusive government >>
Does any of this rant have any basis in reality at all?
Yea.....government. Anytime the government is involved, waste, fraud, and abuse are largely occuring congruently. It's part of the beast. That's why the goal is to minimize all the tentacles of government, to lessen said waste & abuse
Are there any wasteful experiments in stem cells that these people have in mind,
Care to produce how "experiments in stem cells" occur?? So, what # is too much, Tee?? At what point is stem cell funding made whole, and anything over is too much?? (hint, I can guess the answer)
-
<<Yea.....government. Anytime the government is involved, waste, fraud, and abuse are largely occuring congruently. It's part of the beast. That's why the goal is to minimize all the tentacles of government, to lessen said waste & abuse>>
Where are you writing from? Zimbabwe? Moldova?
<<Quote from: Michael Tee on September 12, 2008, 06:09:51 PM
<<Are there any wasteful experiments in stem cells that these people have in mind,
<<Care to produce how "experiments in stem cells" occur?? So, what # is too much, Tee?? At what point is stem cell funding made whole, and anything over is too much?? >>
Typical of "debating" anything with sirs - - ask one question of sirs, get back THREE questions in return, and no answers. OK, what else is new?
<<(hint, I can guess the answer)>>
You're a genius. Now how about the answer to MY question?
-
So both deflection & non-answer. Kinda what I thought I'd get. Deflection in Tee thinking I, or anyone else here knows how experiments in stems cells are performed, and transparent non-answer in ignoring the funding question. Gotta admire the consistency though
It would seem in Tee's bizarro world, the government is the peak example of effficiency, with barely a hint of waste or fraud
-
<<So both deflection & non-answer. >>
To anyone who doesn't live in the same Bizarro World that sirs inhabits, I guess it's in order to explain that "deflection" refers to the deflection of the three questions that sirs asked me in lieu of responding to the one question that I had asked him, and "non-answer" refers to those same three questions.
<<It would seem in Tee's bizarro world, the government is the peak example of effficiency, with barely a hint of waste or fraud>>
Wrong again, in Tee's bizarro world, the prime examples of efficiency and honest dealing are World Com, Enron, Charles Keating, Adelphia, Halliburton, Bre-X, Parmalat, Arthur Andersen, Global Crossing, Conrad Black, the Rigas family. . . aww, gee, I'm getting tired of trying to remember the whole list all the way back to Teapot Dome and Charles Ponzi.
Gotta feel sorry for sirs, though, wherever the poor bugger lives, it really seems like he has to put up with dishonest, thieving, fraudulent, incompetent government which has just fastened on him like a leech and won't let go. I hope he doesn't live in a democracy, though, because that would mean his fellow citizens themselves must be either incredibly stupid or incredibly corrupt for returning this den of thieves and vultures time after time after time. And those are just some of the scandals that have already been detected. God alone knows what undetected frauds the bastards have successfully gotten away with. They can't have failed at every single effort of concealment they've made.
-
Naaa.....not even close.....the deflection was in originally asking a question, no one could answer, then with the follow-up of demanding to answer the non-answerable question 1st.
The non-answer was simply typical, since the answer Tee would have put down would have been along the lines of how there should be no cap/limit to the amount for funding research, funding education, funding healthcare, etc., funding anything and everything regardless of not being a Fed obligation, or if running a deficit. Money just grows on trees in Tee-leaf land. And when all the trees are picked bare, start pulling it out of the pockets of the tree growers
-
<<Naaa.....not even close.....the deflection was in originally asking a question, no one could answer, then with the follow-up of demanding to answer the non-answerable question 1st.>>
Yeah. Here's "the question no one could answer" reproduced in its entirety:
<<Are there any wasteful experiments in stem cells that these people have in mind, or is this just more crazed ranting and raving from the usual suspects off in the outer reaches of right-wing paranoid fantasies?>>
Tough one, eh? Either they produce a single example of the "wasteful" experiments in stem-cell research that they're always blathering on about, or reveal themselves as liars and fantasists by coming up empty-handed.
Still waiting to the answer to that "unanswerable" question, BTW. And waiting. And waiting.
-
Yeah. Here's "the question no one could answer" reproduced in its entirety:
<<Are there any wasteful experiments in stem cells that these people have in mind, or is this just more crazed ranting and raving from the usual suspects off in the outer reaches of right-wing paranoid fantasies?>>
Tough one, eh? Either they produce a single example of the "wasteful" experiments in stem-cell research that they're always blathering on about, or reveal themselves as liars and fantasists by coming up empty-handed.
Yeah, it is impossible to answer. Since the funding is not available, no one is writing up grant requests for those experiments, therefore - unless you can read minds - there is no way to know what "these people have in mind" ...
-
<<Since the funding is not available, no one is writing up grant requests for those experiments, therefore - unless you can read minds - there is no way to know what "these people have in mind" .>>
I see. So according to you, prior to the Bush administration's refusal to fund human fetal stem-cell research not involving the 60-odd existing cultured lines, no human fetal stem-cell research had been funded by government grant at any point in history, is that what you're saying?
-
I see. So according to you, prior to the Bush administration's refusal to fund human fetal stem-cell research not involving the 60-odd existing cultured lines, no human fetal stem-cell research had been funded by government grant at any point in history, is that what you're saying?
Grant money was not made available by Congress until after President Bush's August 9, 2001 announcement.
-
Yeah. Here's "the question no one could answer" reproduced in its entirety:
<<Are there any wasteful experiments in stem cells that these people have in mind, or is this just more crazed ranting and raving from the usual suspects off in the outer reaches of right-wing paranoid fantasies?>>
Tough one, eh? Either they produce a single example of the "wasteful" experiments in stem-cell research that they're always blathering on about, or reveal themselves as liars and fantasists by coming up empty-handed.
Yeah, it is impossible to answer. Since the funding is not available, no one is writing up grant requests for those experiments, therefore - unless you can read minds - there is no way to know what "these people have in mind" ...
BINGO.......now we can watch more deflection efforts
-
<<Grant money was not made available by Congress until after President Bush's August 9, 2001 announcement.>>
How fortunate for you and your little side-kick. Now you won't have to prove your ridiculous accusations of massive waste, fraud etc. in government grants for human fetal stem-cell research. Maybe you can give us some examples of this massive fraudulent waste in some other federally-funded microbiology research, or is it your opinion that the government has never funded ANY microbiology research?
-
How fortunate for you and your little side-kick. Now you won't have to prove your ridiculous accusations of massive waste, fraud etc. in government grants for human fetal stem-cell research. Maybe you can give us some examples of this massive fraudulent waste in some other federally-funded microbiology research, or is it your opinion that the government has never funded ANY microbiology research?
I can demonstrate lots of waste and fraud. I gave an example earlier.
-
<<I can demonstrate lots of waste and fraud. I gave an example earlier.>>
Yeah, which had absolutely nothing to do with microbiology.
-
Yeah, which had absolutely nothing to do with microbiology.
What, a government that grants wasteful money in one area is going to be squeaky clean in that particular area?
OK, the CDC handles awarding microbiology grants:
"Science slighted in CDC awards; Cash bonuses at troubled health agency frequently go to bureaucrats instead of researchers," The Atlanta Journal Constitution, p. 1A, September 17, 2006, by Alison Young. Documents obtained by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution under FOIA show that frequently large cash awards and performance bonuses awarded at the CDC went to bureaucrats rather than scientists, leading to low morale and the loss of key scientific leaders at the agency.
-
I guess if you were the one handing out the bonuses for the Manhattan Project, everything would have gone to Oppenheimer and the boys and Groves woulda come up empty-handed.
Sometimes the "bureaucrats" do a stand-up job of managing the scientists. Is that supposed to go unrewarded?
Never heard of infighting, jealousy and bickering regarding awards? Oh, sorry, forgot you guys don't live in the real world.
-
Sometimes the "bureaucrats" do a stand-up job of managing the scientists. Is that supposed to go unrewarded?
Err, these are the bureaucrats that HAND OUT the grant money. Not the ones who manage scientists. They are using the grant money to "reward" themselves.
-
<<Err, these are the bureaucrats that HAND OUT the grant money. Not the ones who manage scientists. They are using the grant money to "reward" themselves.>>
Ohhhhhh. Oh. Then we aren't really talking about waste in research grants, we are talking about a much older phenomenon - - defrauding the government. That's something the Republican Party seems to know quite a lot about. Shall I make up a list? Why bother? Just tell me how defrauding the government by bureaucrats and/or politicians is somehow related to the stem-cell issue rather than to other government activities such as national defence, FDA, etc.
-
Fraud is fraud. You were implying it doesn't happen with federal money. It does, and it's rampant.
-
<<Fraud is fraud. You were implying it doesn't happen with federal money. It does, and it's rampant.>.
So what, it's just as rampant if not more so in private enterprise. What do you recommend, shutting down all scientific research in the country to foil the fraudsters?
-
So what, it's just as rampant if not more so in private enterprise. What do you recommend, shutting down all scientific research in the country to foil the fraudsters?
Limiting funding so that it can be controlled.
Kinda like what's done now.
-
What do you do when you are personally of the opinion that some business with which you do business is corrupt?
I tend to seek out a less corrupt business.
Here in Miami, just yesterday, several gas stations with no nearby competition hiked their gasoline prices up to a dollar a gallon, based on the supposed limit in supply caused by Hurricane Ike, which could not have possibly affected the cost of the gas in their tanks so soon. I take note of such places and never buy from them.
I would not buy less than I needed to punish them, that is punishing myself.
The key to limiting corruption is better supervision, not restricting funding.
-
What do you do when you are personally of the opinion that some business with which you do business is corrupt?
I tend to seek out a less corrupt business.
Here in Miami, just yesterday, several gas stations with no nearby competition hiked their gasoline prices up to a dollar a gallon, based on the supposed limit in supply caused by Hurricane Ike, which could not have possibly affected the cost of the gas in their tanks so soon. I take note of such places and never buy from them.
I would not buy less than I needed to punish them, that is punishing myself.
The key to limiting corruption is better supervision, not restricting funding.
If you were selling your house , would you ignore the price of other homes?
-
So what (that fraud is rampant with the use of Federal monies)
Priceless
...it's just as rampant if not more so in private enterprise. What do you recommend, shutting down all scientific research in the country to foil the fraudsters?
Limiting funding so that it can be controlled. Kinda like what's done now.
Bingo.....compromise achieved