Bush to veto Stem Cell bill.....Again

Superfreak said:
Cypress, it is NOT a "theory". As you pointed out, the states already fund research. As does the private sector. There is nothing to suggest that the R&D needs to be done by the government. Bottom line is this: the research has to be done otherwise the pipeline for the corporate world drys up. Do you really think the corporations are going to let that happen? No, they won't... because it would cripple them. Of course they would prefer the government continue the funding, because that is an expense they then do not have to incur... but it doesn't mean they wouldn't fund even more of the basic research if they government were to stop

If the government DOES continue the funding, then the idiots in DC need to make sure the government tax dollars are recouped from the products/services that are developed from the research they funded.
Click to expand...

It is an ideological theory. You're asking me to replace a system that has worked so well, that it's made us the unquestioned world leader in science, with a system you promise me will work even better: all science support done at the state and local level.

Please provide me the name of ONE developed country on the planet, that allows all basic and academic scientific research and support to be done ONLY by local and provincial governments, and by private companies.

If you can't give me one single country, that employs your system of scientific support, then indeed all you're giving me is a theory that I have to take your word for it that it will work.

Do you really suggest that we should shut down the National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Sciencies, the Center for Disease Control, Lawrence Livermore, Sandia, Los Almos, and Oak Ridge national labs? If so, I find this proposition beyond radical. It is, in fact, dangerous.
 
Do you really suggest that we should shut down the National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Sciencies, the Center for Disease Control, Lawrence Livermore, Sandia, Los Almos, and Oak Ridge national labs? If so, I find this proposition beyond radical. It is, in fact, dangerous.

Amen
does this attude and such link back to the thread where we dropped to &th place in innovation and such ?
 
"the government is not allowed to indulge in profit making commerce."

READ.... COMPREHEND.... I SAID.... "recoup their costs"..... NOT "make a profit"
 
"1) Bush is not banning federally funded stem cell research... he is banning federally funded EMBRYONIC stem cell research.

2) The funding if so promising, can be done by the private sector or at the state level should they choose.

3) As Ihate pointed out, they are close to being able to draw the embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo.

4) Cypress... just because something has been done for a long time (successful or not) doesn't mean it is the BEST way to do it. I agree with Beefy, it is another form of corporate subsidy in which the government rarely recoups any benefits for funding the basic research."

Show me in the above where I said that we should ban ALL federally funded research.

I also said that the FED should recoup costs from the success derived from the basic research it does fund. If they provide $100billion in R&D, then they should recoup that cost... NOT simply give the money away. IF they recoup the costs... then it is a net zero investment. The only thing they lose is opportunity costs (provided something else would have given a greater benefit to the country had the money been used for something other than R&D.)

Quit trying to make this an all or nothing situation. YOU are the only one who keeps bringing it up.

NOW... how about you (cypress or US) explain why this one line is so vital that we have to rush into it right now with Federal tax dollars. When they are close to being able to use the embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo.... why not wait until this is accomplished (which then eliminates the morality issue). In the meantime, states and the private sector can fund it if they feel it is absolutely critical to follow this line.
 
Superfreak said:
"the government is not allowed to indulge in profit making commerce."

READ.... COMPREHEND.... I SAID.... "recoup their costs"..... NOT "make a profit"
Click to expand...
History has proven time and again that most of these "recouped" costs are nebulous to count and define at best.

Mostly just vaporware.

And then often they get a targeted tax cut that wipes out the recouped costs ;)

As I said it is all too nebulous to calculate with any degree of certaintity.
 
Last edited:
"Do you really suggest that we should shut down the National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Sciencies, the Center for Disease Control, Lawrence Livermore, Sandia, Los Almos, and Oak Ridge national labs? If so, I find this proposition beyond radical. It is, in fact, dangerous."


I did not say that super. I only stated that this is a measure that Bush dare not back donw on for fear of appearing weak and is attempting to hold onto the religious rights votes for his party.

Then too I support govt funded research.

check back thru my posts.
 
Last edited:
I also said that the FED should recoup costs from the success derived from the basic research it does fund. If they provide $100billion in R&D, then they should recoup that cost... NOT simply give the money away.

Agree.

This happens to be a very liberal position. Not sure if you were aware of that.

Progressives have been complaining for decades, that academic reaseach, and basic medical research funded by federal entities like NIH and NSF, get passed of to pharmaceutical companies essentially for free.

And the pharmas take that basic academic research that they get for free, and create consumer products with it.
 
Cypress said:

States are generally cash-strapped. They don't have the resources to invest billions into high-end, basic scientific and medical research. Of course, to some extent, states and private industry, can and do fund university research. But science and techology is a national issue as well - a national, public policy issue. The federal gov. has the resources to help american science and research. I've never heard anyone on capitol hill - even the most conservative senator or congressman - suggest that we should shut down the National Science Foundation, and all the other federal entities that support basic scientific research.
Click to expand...


Where do you suppose the money that the federal government has comes from? It comes from the people in the States. Federal funding of stem cell research will extract more money from your "cash strapped states". It is not going to grow in the rose garden.

It is not the Federal Government's role to decide where to spend money in medical research, and frankly I'm surprisd you trust them enough to give them your creedence. Look at what this government does with your money. Is there a limit to what you want the Fed's finger in?
 
I haven't gone through this entire thread, but the Logan Act crapola is precisely that...crapola!

Pelosi was not asked by the Bush administration to not go on this trip. PERIOD.

Therefore the logan act is not in effect.

I am uncertain if this was mentioned somewhere down the thread, but in case it was not... please note what I said.

Care
 
Care4all said:
I haven't gone through this entire thread, but the Logan Act crapola is precisely that...crapola!

Pelosi was not asked by the Bush administration to not go on this trip. PERIOD.

Therefore the logan act is not in effect.

I am uncertain if this was mentioned somewhere down the thread, but in case it was not... please note what I said.

Care
Click to expand...
I'll note it, but in all I have read on it there is nothing in the law specifically stating the President must tell somebody that they are without authority.

The law has only been used to indict somebody once, and that was dropped after the Louisiana Purchase as the point had become moot, and that was for an article written in a newspaper here.

There has been little action in the SCOTUS on the subject of this law, the closest that can be found is this:

There has been little judicial discussion of the constitutionality of the Logan Act.

In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), however, Justice Sutherland wrote in the majority opinion: "[T]he President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it." Sutherland also notes in his opinion the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report to the Senate of February 15, 1816:

The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Another court mentioned in passing, but did not rule on the law, that it may be unconstitutional on the basis of the vagueness of "defeat" and "measures"

The text of the law:

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).
Click to expand...


Since Foreign relations authority resides solely with the President in Article II of the constitution the authority must come from the Executive.
 
Beefy said:
Where do you suppose the money that the federal government has comes from? It comes from the people in the States. Federal funding of stem cell research will extract more money from your "cash strapped states". It is not going to grow in the rose garden.

It is not the Federal Government's role to decide where to spend money in medical research, and frankly I'm surprisd you trust them enough to give them your creedence. Look at what this government does with your money. Is there a limit to what you want the Fed's finger in?
Click to expand...

You and I are living in two different worlds.
You appear to assume that anything the feds fund, is going to be a waste and a boondoogle.

Yet, oddly, no one has yet provided me any evidence about how federal funding of science has been to the detriment of the nation.

To the contrary: the result of half a century of strong federal funding and a national science policy has produced these "horrible" results

Public research universities that are the envy of the world.
Unchallenged scientific leadership in the world.
National labs that other countries can only wish they had.
Unparalled technological leadership


Doesn't sound like a horrible track record to me.

In fact, you really should read up on the National Institute of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the Centers for Disease control. Because once you do, that ideological cloud hanging over you that seems to tell you everything the feds do is corrupt and wasteful, may just dissapate.

Places like the National Science Foundation, and NIH are run by extremely competent scientists, doctors, and professional civil servants - who make prudent and reasoned judgments about what basic scientific research is beneficial to the nation and the public at large.
 
Cypress said:
In fact, you really should read up on the National Institute of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the Centers for Disease control. Because once you do, that ideological cloud hanging over you that seems to tell you everything the feds do is corrupt and wasteful, may just dissapate.
Click to expand...

Okay, maybe I overstated myself previously. I don't believe that everything the government does in inherently wasteful and bloated. I am suggesting that there is a gross propensity to waste, and that even when federal government's spending does bear fruit, it is at a premium price, and could have been done better on a state or private level. Not everything, but there is a high propensity there.

That being said, I still don't believe that funding stem cell research is the constitutional role of the federal government. I think this is pretty clear cut 10th amendment stuff, but I suppose that's debatable since the constitution is a "Living" document, as open to interpitation as a poem.

Places like the National Science Foundation, and NIH are run by extremely competent scientists, doctors, and professional civil servants - who make prudent and reasoned judgments about what basic scientific research is beneficial to the nation and the public at large.
Click to expand...

Just because it bears fruit does not mean that it is the Government that's this efficient beast who's funding drove the human mind to do what it does. Its simply become a culture of that. Since the government has had successes, it is dogmatic. I disagree, it has in many respects simply covered the costs of R&D in the private sector, thus taking slow, expensive bureacratic control of said technology. Generally.
 
Beefy, over the last 50 years could you find examples of waste by the grant-giving authority of NIH? Undoubtedly. But, on balance, national investments in basic science and academic scientific research are immense. Just look at the results. Results are all that matters - not theory or ideology. Like I said, we have the unchallenged lead in academic scientific research.


Why not leave funding to the States and private companies? I'll tell you why:

States have local and provincial interests. Not national interests. To whatever extent cash-strapped states would invest in basic research - it will be for local provincial interests. Georgia might only fund agricultural science research into peach and peanut pest management. Colorado will invest in research that has direct benefits for their local economy.

Private companies generally only invest in research for which there is a demonstrable profit motive. Something which can lead to consumer product on a reasonable timeline or horizon. Then you have the issue of academic freedom. One reason we have PUBLIC funding, is to allow researchers full academic and creative freedom - to pursue research and new ideas that don't have to automatically be justified by the profit motive.


This is where federal funding comes in. It is not a slave to local or provincial economic interests. Nor, is it exclusively driven by a consumer market profit-motive. Federal funding can take into account the larger picture, and the greater national interest - in the areas of basic scientific and medical research. Things which broadly benefit science and the nation
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
Beefy, over the last 50 years could you find examples of waste by the grant-giving authority of NIH? Undoubtedly. But, on balance, national investments in basic science and academic scientific research are immense. Just look at the results. Results are all that matters - not theory or ideology. Like I said, we have the unchallenged lead in academic scientific research.


Why not leave funding to the States and private companies? I'll tell you why:

States have local and provincial interests. Not national interests. To whatever extent cash-strapped states would invest in basic research - it will be for local provincial interests. Georgia might only fund agricultural science research into peach and peanut pest management. Colorado will invest in research that has direct benefits for their local economy.

Private companies generally only invest in research for which there is a demonstrable profit motive. Something which can lead to consumer product on a reasonable timeline or horizon. Then you have the issue of academic freedom. One reason we have PUBLIC funding, is to allow researchers full academic and creative freedom - to pursue research and new ideas that don't have to automatically be justified by the profit motive.


This is where federal funding comes in. It is not a slave to local or provincial economic interests. Nor, is it exclusively driven by a consumer market profit-motive. Federal funding can take into account the larger picture, and the greater national interest - in the areas of basic scientific and medical research. Things which broadly benefit science and the nation
Click to expand...

Man, it must be nice livin' under that blue sky.

I happen to believe that old saying that ALL politics is local. And it should be to a certain extent. I can appreciate your sentiments that there have been some great advances in technology and medicine under the Federal umbrella. Where you and I differ is on who should hold the umbrella in certain situations.

I am a pretty straightforward libertarian constitutionalist. From that standpoint, I see no legal or implied justification for the Federal Government to be funding stem cell research.

This is not a moral issue for me. It is a legal one. I'm tired of sliding down that slop to where the Constitution becomes fuzzy and ambiguous. I believe in the document, and I also believe that the more you disregard it, the more dangerous our federal government becomes, at home and abroad.
 
beefy, I know the Libertarian arguments. I've seen them all. If you read their websites, they would have you believe that the Founders would have been aghast at Federal funding for scientific purposes.


Except that the founders WEREN'T against federal funding for scientific purposes. What do you think Jefferson's Lewis and Clark expedition was? Not only was it a survey of land, but it had an express scientific purpose to catalog and study the geology, geography, botany, and biology of the West.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top