The White House intends to threaten a veto on a House bill that would expand public funding for embryonic stem cell research beyond the limits President Bush set in 2001, two senior administration officials said Thursday.
The veto threat could come as early as next week from President Bush himself, but that has not been decided, the officials said.
The House of Representatives could take action next week on a bill that would broaden the limits on government funds for embryonic stem cell research. Bush outlined those limits four years ago.
Fortunately, many other countries realize the benefits of stem cell research. Mr. Bush's religious zeal will only slow, not stop the life-saving discoveries to be made.
STEM CELL RESEARCH vs. U.S. Drug Companies
My personal interest is in finding a cure for Type 1 Juvenile Diabetes. My now 15 year old daughter was diagnosed almost 5 years ago. So far, she has pricked her fingers approximately 11,000 times, and has taken about 7,500 insulin injections. If she had cancer, she could hope to be cured – or at least to go into remission so she wouldn't need 4 or 5 or 6 insulin shots every day just to stay alive. Right now, all we can hope for is that she doesn't have a heart attack or a stroke, that she doesn't go blind, that her kidneys keep working and that her feet and legs don't have to be amputated.
Now, let me tell you about the economics of diabetes. Diabetics test their blood sugar levels at least four times a day – children with type 1 juvenile diabetes test more like 6 to 8 times a day. These little test strips that are used to measure blood glucose levels cost, conservatively and on average, 70 cents per strip. Diabetics who test their blood glucose level just 4 times per day (breakfast, lunch, dinner, bedtime) are spending Two Dollars and Eighty Cents per day, or a little over a thousand dollars a year, minimum, on these strips. That's over a billion dollars per year for every 1 million diabetics, and there are an estimated 17 million people suffering from diabetes in the US alone.
Next, I am going to review the financials from the 2003 and 2004 Annual Reports of Eli Lilly & Company, one of the major producers of insulin. Before I do, I want to remind you that insulin will never cure diabetes. It is what my 15-year-old refers to as her 'lifeline'. It keeps a diabetic alive, but does not prevent the catastrophic side effects. And it will never cure anyone!
2003: "Our worldwide sales…increased 14%, to 12.58 billion dollars." Sources of revenue: "Diabetes care products, composed primarily of Humulin…Humalog…and Actos…had aggregate worldwide revenues of 2.57 billion dollars." Ladies and gentlemen, 20% of the worldwide sales were from 3 products, 2 of which (Humulin and Humalog) are for 'maintenance' of type 1 diabetics. In 2003, Humulin sales in the US were 507.5 million dollars, and were 658.6 million dollars for Humalog.
The 2004 numbers are equally staggering. The same three products had aggregate worldwide revenues of 2.61 billion dollars. Humulin sales in the US were only 422.7 million, but Humalog sales in the US were up to 685.4 million dollars. An explanation offered by Eli Lilly is (and this is a direct quote!) "Humalog sales in the US increased 3 percent as increased prices offset slight volume declines."
That's 5.18 billion dollars in a two-year period – to treat patients who will not get better. That's a whole lot of insurance and medicare dollars going to two drugs to maintain a condition for which there actually might be a cure.
Breakthroughs using stem cell therapies have been announced all over the world, and involving many conditions, such as reversing the side effects of diabetes, curing type 1 juvenile diabetes, restoration of immune systems in cancer patients, improvement of a Parkinson's patient's motor skills by 83%, reversal of heart tissue damage in a heart attack victim, the list goes on and on. Stem cells work, and more research is needed.
This is not a religious issue. This is a health issue. This is a "where are my Medicare dollars going?" issue – a quality of life issue Even though the dollars are huge, let's not forget that the main benefits = from stem cell research and therapies are to improve the health and to save the lives of millions who suffer, or who may in the future suffer from diseases that could be treated or cured with new stem cell therapies. We are talking about improvement of the quality of a human life!
My personal interest is in finding a cure for Type 1 Juvenile Diabetes. My now 15 year old daughter was diagnosed almost 5 years ago. So far, she has pricked her fingers approximately 11,000 times, and has taken about 7,500 insulin injections. If she had cancer, she could hope to be cured – or at least to go into remission so she wouldn't need 4 or 5 or 6 insulin shots every day just to stay alive. Right now, all we can hope for is that she doesn't have a heart attack or a stroke, that she doesn't go blind, that her kidneys keep working and that her feet and legs don't have to be amputated.
Now, let me tell you about the economics of diabetes. Diabetics test their blood sugar levels at least four times a day – children with type 1 juvenile diabetes test more like 6 to 8 times a day. These little test strips that are used to measure blood glucose levels cost, conservatively and on average, 70 cents per strip. Diabetics who test their blood glucose level just 4 times per day (breakfast, lunch, dinner, bedtime) are spending Two Dollars and Eighty Cents per day, or a little over a thousand dollars a year, minimum, on these strips. That's over a billion dollars per year for every 1 million diabetics, and there are an estimated 17 million people suffering from diabetes in the US alone.
Next, I am going to review the financials from the 2003 and 2004 Annual Reports of Eli Lilly & Company, one of the major producers of insulin. Before I do, I want to remind you that insulin will never cure diabetes. It is what my 15-year-old refers to as her 'lifeline'. It keeps a diabetic alive, but does not prevent the catastrophic side effects. And it will never cure anyone!
2003: "Our worldwide sales…increased 14%, to 12.58 billion dollars." Sources of revenue: "Diabetes care products, composed primarily of Humulin…Humalog…and Actos…had aggregate worldwide revenues of 2.57 billion dollars." Ladies and gentlemen, 20% of the worldwide sales were from 3 products, 2 of which (Humulin and Humalog) are for 'maintenance' of type 1 diabetics. In 2003, Humulin sales in the US were 507.5 million dollars, and were 658.6 million dollars for Humalog.
The 2004 numbers are equally staggering. The same three products had aggregate worldwide revenues of 2.61 billion dollars. Humulin sales in the US were only 422.7 million, but Humalog sales in the US were up to 685.4 million dollars. An explanation offered by Eli Lilly is (and this is a direct quote!) "Humalog sales in the US increased 3 percent as increased prices offset slight volume declines."
That's 5.18 billion dollars in a two-year period – to treat patients who will not get better. That's a whole lot of insurance and medicare dollars going to two drugs to maintain a condition for which there actually might be a cure.
Breakthroughs using stem cell therapies have been announced all over the world, and involving many conditions, such as reversing the side effects of diabetes, curing type 1 juvenile diabetes, restoration of immune systems in cancer patients, improvement of a Parkinson's patient's motor skills by 83%, reversal of heart tissue damage in a heart attack victim, the list goes on and on. Stem cells work, and more research is needed.
This is not a religious issue. This is a health issue. This is a "where are my Medicare dollars going?" issue – a quality of life issue Even though the dollars are huge, let's not forget that the main benefits = from stem cell research and therapies are to improve the health and to save the lives of millions who suffer, or who may in the future suffer from diseases that could be treated or cured with new stem cell therapies. We are talking about improvement of the quality of a human life!
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13934199/?GT1=8307
What about crossing the line to invade and conquer a foreign country and rob them of their oil reserves? Since Bush crossed that line against UN support, are we now finding it impossible to turn back?
What about crossing the line to invade and conquer a foreign country and rob them of their oil reserves? Since Bush crossed that line against UN support, are we now finding it impossible to turn back?
I can't believe he actually did it. I'm seriously disappointed. All he's done is reduce the effectiveness of research dollars spent in the United States in this area.
What a jerk. Wilfully hindering efforts to hurt people
What a jerk. Wilfully hindering efforts to hurt people
It's good to see he occasionally does the right thing, even if it's for the wrong reasons. Public dollars shouldn't be subsidizing private research. If people want this research done, they're still free to give or pay for the research and there's no need to drag others along who don't want to pay for it.
No, he's increased the effectiveness of these dollars because now the research won't be done with public resources. Yes, likely fewer resources will go into it, but those unused resources can be used elsewhere. It's not like stem cell research is top of most peoples list of things to pay for, though I don't know what other details may have been in this legislation.
QUOTE
All he's done is reduce the effectiveness of research dollars spent in the United States in this area.
No, he's increased the effectiveness of these dollars because now the research won't be done with public resources. Yes, likely fewer resources will go into it, but those unused resources can be used elsewhere. It's not like stem cell research is top of most peoples list of things to pay for, though I don't know what other details may have been in this legislation.
Most research is done in university and hospital labs. The grand majority of it. Each of those facilities have some federal funding. I understand that you're against federal funding of research, but that doesn't change the fact that these facilities are already federally funded.
If any stem cell reseach is to occur in these facilities (and it will), then that research MUST (by law) be on a specific set of (subpar) stem cell lines. So, knowing this research will continue, the researchers are being specifically given subpar tools to work with.
If the SAME research dollars were spent, but on new lines (no increase in net cost), the quality of the research would be higher.
This veto may take a few million research dollars out of the pool, but that's insignificant. The main significance is that any research on stem cells is being done on low-quality materials.
If any stem cell reseach is to occur in these facilities (and it will), then that research MUST (by law) be on a specific set of (subpar) stem cell lines. So, knowing this research will continue, the researchers are being specifically given subpar tools to work with.
If the SAME research dollars were spent, but on new lines (no increase in net cost), the quality of the research would be higher.
This veto may take a few million research dollars out of the pool, but that's insignificant. The main significance is that any research on stem cells is being done on low-quality materials.
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Jul 20 2006, 12:21 PM)
Most research is done in university and hospital labs. The grand majority of it. Each of those facilities have some federal funding. I understand that you're against federal funding of research, but that doesn't change the fact that these facilities are already federally funded.
If any stem cell reseach is to occur in these facilities (and it will), then that research MUST (by law) be on a specific set of (subpar) stem cell lines. So, knowing this research will continue, the researchers are being specifically given subpar tools to work with.
If the SAME research dollars were spent, but on new lines (no increase in net cost), the quality of the research would be higher.
This veto may take a few million research dollars out of the pool, but that's insignificant. The main significance is that any research on stem cells is being done on low-quality materials.
If no funding was increased, I wouldn't complain about this law, but consider that this problem was already a legally created one and that it still doesn't address the fact there are a ton of other ways people aren't free to spend this money either - can this money be spent on housing construction, paying legal fees for small businesses, refinery construction, researching alternative energies or even on-line gaming? No. So the complaints about stem cell research are hardly different than the same complaints many U.S. citizens already have but they don't have representation in Congress anymore.
You could just as easily point to public education and say these tax dollars are restricted to funding education about evolution and denied to creationists. The public realm has been artificially extended into areas that should have remained private with the result that as this public sphere increases, there's much less room for any private control over ones own resources to remain and this comes with the inevitable fights over what should be done with all this public booty. It's just like going to a restaurant and forcing everyone to agree to eat the same meal. Why?
I personally wouldn't mind seeing stem cell research also included, but truly if there's even a decent minority of people that disagree, it's better to not force them to support something they don't want and let those who do want it to do it privately and voluntarily. (But of course I know Bush vetoed this for primarily different reasons)
The amendment process for the Constitution is set up to require a large majority to agree on things to add new powers, not simply a 51% majority. If that concept had remained we'd have very few of these issues around and likely no federally funded private research to begin with, nor would there have been a prohibition against spending these on stem cell research (and we wouldn't be in Iraq either).
If any stem cell reseach is to occur in these facilities (and it will), then that research MUST (by law) be on a specific set of (subpar) stem cell lines. So, knowing this research will continue, the researchers are being specifically given subpar tools to work with.
If the SAME research dollars were spent, but on new lines (no increase in net cost), the quality of the research would be higher.
This veto may take a few million research dollars out of the pool, but that's insignificant. The main significance is that any research on stem cells is being done on low-quality materials.
If no funding was increased, I wouldn't complain about this law, but consider that this problem was already a legally created one and that it still doesn't address the fact there are a ton of other ways people aren't free to spend this money either - can this money be spent on housing construction, paying legal fees for small businesses, refinery construction, researching alternative energies or even on-line gaming? No. So the complaints about stem cell research are hardly different than the same complaints many U.S. citizens already have but they don't have representation in Congress anymore.
You could just as easily point to public education and say these tax dollars are restricted to funding education about evolution and denied to creationists. The public realm has been artificially extended into areas that should have remained private with the result that as this public sphere increases, there's much less room for any private control over ones own resources to remain and this comes with the inevitable fights over what should be done with all this public booty. It's just like going to a restaurant and forcing everyone to agree to eat the same meal. Why?
I personally wouldn't mind seeing stem cell research also included, but truly if there's even a decent minority of people that disagree, it's better to not force them to support something they don't want and let those who do want it to do it privately and voluntarily. (But of course I know Bush vetoed this for primarily different reasons)
The amendment process for the Constitution is set up to require a large majority to agree on things to add new powers, not simply a 51% majority. If that concept had remained we'd have very few of these issues around and likely no federally funded private research to begin with, nor would there have been a prohibition against spending these on stem cell research (and we wouldn't be in Iraq either).
StevenA, where did you see anything about increasing funding in the bill he vetoed? If there's no increase in funding, what are you talking about?
He vetoed a bill that allowed using cells being thrown in the garbage today to be used in research to save lives. Did you see anything about increasing funding anywhere? The fact that there are no new stem cell lines means that more tax dollars are WASTED on fruitless research. MORE money won't need to be spent, the dollars that are spent may simply be more effective.
It is legal TODAY to use stem cells... just specific lines that are so old as to be useless for some applications. But money has been spent, no poured, into testing for useless applications. Sort of like you have x dollars and you keep using the same piece of stripped land for farming, but your production goes down every year as the land becomes more and more infertile. Except in this case, you aren't going to PAY for more land, because they're getting the new land from the garbage.
No one's talking about killing babies, the cells we're talking about amount to the number of cells on a cotton swab after you run it thru your cheeks. The cells are the size of a PERIOD on this page. And those same cells are the ones destined for the garbage can. It's morally wrong to fish these cells out of the trash cans to save human lives. What a jerk.
You agree with him vetoing this for funding, but funding wasn't the issue anywhere. No one asked for increased funding, only to be able to use the contents of garbage cans to help living people.
He vetoed a bill that allowed using cells being thrown in the garbage today to be used in research to save lives. Did you see anything about increasing funding anywhere? The fact that there are no new stem cell lines means that more tax dollars are WASTED on fruitless research. MORE money won't need to be spent, the dollars that are spent may simply be more effective.
It is legal TODAY to use stem cells... just specific lines that are so old as to be useless for some applications. But money has been spent, no poured, into testing for useless applications. Sort of like you have x dollars and you keep using the same piece of stripped land for farming, but your production goes down every year as the land becomes more and more infertile. Except in this case, you aren't going to PAY for more land, because they're getting the new land from the garbage.
No one's talking about killing babies, the cells we're talking about amount to the number of cells on a cotton swab after you run it thru your cheeks. The cells are the size of a PERIOD on this page. And those same cells are the ones destined for the garbage can. It's morally wrong to fish these cells out of the trash cans to save human lives. What a jerk.
You agree with him vetoing this for funding, but funding wasn't the issue anywhere. No one asked for increased funding, only to be able to use the contents of garbage cans to help living people.
QUOTE
Breakthroughs using stem cell therapies have been announced all over the world, and involving many conditions, such as reversing the side effects of diabetes, curing type 1 juvenile diabetes, restoration of immune systems in cancer patients, improvement of a Parkinson's patient's motor skills by 83%, reversal of heart tissue damage in a heart attack victim, the list goes on and on. Stem cells work, and more research is needed.
Anyone else heard of these BREAK THROUGHS?
I must have missed them.
Oh, and a little KNOWLEDGE added to this debate wouldn't hurt.
See: http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/registry...ityCriteria.asp
Providers with Federally APPROVED Stem Cell lines available for shipping:
http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/registry
Oh and by the way:
On August 9, 2001, at 9:00 p.m. EDT, the President announced his decision to allow Federal funds to be used for research on existing human embryonic stem cell lines as long as prior to his announcement
(1) the derivation process (which commences with the removal of the inner cell mass from the blastocyst) had already been initiated
and
(2) the embryo from which the stem cell line was derived no longer had the possibility of development as a human being.
In addition, the President established the following criteria that must be met:
The stem cells must have been derived from an embryo that was created for reproductive purposes;
The embryo was no longer needed for these purposes;
Informed consent must have been obtained for the donation of the embryo;
No financial inducements were provided for donation of the embryo.
So, let me ask you, which president FIRST authorized Federal Funds for Stem Cell Research?
Arthur
Arthur, this is the bill that was veto'd by Bush from my understanding. There are 5 versions, below is the last. This is from the Library of Congress:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.810:
The bill that was passed by both the House and Senate reads as follows:
H.R.810
One Hundred Ninth Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the third day of January, two thousand and six
An Act
To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.
Part H of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 498C the following:
`SEC. 498D. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.
`(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any regulation or guidance), the Secretary shall conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells in accordance with this section (regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo).
`(
Ethical Requirements- Human embryonic stem cells shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the following:
`(1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment.
`(2) Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.
`(3) The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donation.
`© Guidelines- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation with the Director of NIH, shall issue final guidelines to carry out this section.
`(d) Reporting Requirements- The Secretary shall annually prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of the Congress a report describing the activities carried out under this section during the preceding fiscal year, and including a description of whether and to what extent research under subsection (a) has been conducted in accordance with this section.'.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
Apparently, the NIH jumped the gun, and will have to remove the guidelines you posted since Bush just veto'd it. It was passed by the House and Senate in January, when there was no veto expected, so that may explain why the NIH posted the bill in its entirety as a guideline.
Further, there is nothing about MORE FUNDING in the above bill.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.810:
The bill that was passed by both the House and Senate reads as follows:
QUOTE
H.R.810
One Hundred Ninth Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the third day of January, two thousand and six
An Act
To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.
Part H of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 498C the following:
`SEC. 498D. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.
`(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any regulation or guidance), the Secretary shall conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells in accordance with this section (regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo).
`(
Ethical Requirements- Human embryonic stem cells shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the following:`(1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment.
`(2) Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.
`(3) The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donation.
`© Guidelines- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation with the Director of NIH, shall issue final guidelines to carry out this section.
`(d) Reporting Requirements- The Secretary shall annually prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of the Congress a report describing the activities carried out under this section during the preceding fiscal year, and including a description of whether and to what extent research under subsection (a) has been conducted in accordance with this section.'.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
Apparently, the NIH jumped the gun, and will have to remove the guidelines you posted since Bush just veto'd it. It was passed by the House and Senate in January, when there was no veto expected, so that may explain why the NIH posted the bill in its entirety as a guideline.
Further, there is nothing about MORE FUNDING in the above bill.
The NIH post is EXISTING LAW and has been since Bush, the first president to do so, authorized Federal Spending on Stem Cells.
NOTE:
On August 9, 2001, at 9:00 p.m. EDT, the President announced his decision to allow Federal funds to be used for research on existing human embryonic stem cell lines
The bill he vetoed would have changed this law.
Arthur
NOTE:
On August 9, 2001, at 9:00 p.m. EDT, the President announced his decision to allow Federal funds to be used for research on existing human embryonic stem cell lines
The bill he vetoed would have changed this law.
Arthur
I posted the bill he vetoed in it's entirety. It is the PRECISE language of the NIH site you posted in the note above it. This wording from your link at the NIH site:
The wording from the bill he Veto'd:
The wording from the bill he Veto'd:
Ethical Requirements- Human embryonic stem cells shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the following:
The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment.
Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.
The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donation.
The language is identical, and since it's been veto'd, I can only assume the NIH will have to remove that part of it, since it had to have been put there in anticipation of this bill passing.
The main paragraph above, at the NIH site:
EXISTING LINES.
The VETO'd important line from the Bill I pasted in it's entirety, that was passed by the House and Senate Jan 2006:
EXISTING LINES.
The VETO'd important line from the Bill I pasted in it's entirety, that was passed by the House and Senate Jan 2006:
Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.
Bolding mine. The ONLY difference in this bill, was that they wanted to allow dumpster embryos to be used in ADDITION to the current nearly useless stem cell line.
That's not how the passage of new legislation works.
This new bill would have superceeded the existing language in the previous bill (which I posted).
The fact that he vetoed this bill does NOT mean the PREVIOUS LAW is null and void simply because it had mostly the same language.
Bush is President but he is ALSO head of the Republican Party and a lot of members are coming up for re-election and there are a substantial number of Republicans who view this as a "deal breaker", as they see it intimately tied to Abortion rights.
I thought Bush was masterful in working a COMPROMISE with the Republican leadership in 2001 to FINALLY get Federal Funding for Stem Cell Research.
This was the "DEAL" he managed to get through:
"As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist" I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines " where the life and death decision has already been made", This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research" without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life." -- George W. Bush
Thus, for the first time allowing federal funding for SCR.
As El M has pointed out, there is plenty of PRIVATE funding, but since many labs employ equipment PARTIALLY paid for by the Feds, the impact of NOT being able to use Fed Funds on SC research was much greater then it might appear.
Thus Bush got 60 cell lines authorized and yes, some of them are duds, but many ARE NOT and will generate UNDIFFERENTIATED cell lines (which is the KEY to their promise)
But, this new bill (to many of the conservative Republicans) violated that last sentence.
You (and I) might not agree with that, but Bush just recently brokered the original deal, he really couldn't allow that deal to get tossed out on his watch.
Note: Its best not to see how either Sausage or Legislation is made.
Arthur
QUOTE
The stem cells must have been derived from an embryo that was created for reproductive purposes;
The embryo was no longer needed for these purposes;
Informed consent must have been obtained for the donation of the embryo;
No financial inducements were provided for donation of the embryo.
The embryo was no longer needed for these purposes;
Informed consent must have been obtained for the donation of the embryo;
No financial inducements were provided for donation of the embryo.
The wording from the bill he Veto'd:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The stem cells must have been derived from an embryo that was created for reproductive purposes; The embryo was no longer needed for these purposes; Informed consent must have been obtained for the donation of the embryo; No financial inducements were provided for donation of the embryo. |
The wording from the bill he Veto'd:
Ethical Requirements- Human embryonic stem cells shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the following:
The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment.
Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.
The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donation.
The language is identical, and since it's been veto'd, I can only assume the NIH will have to remove that part of it, since it had to have been put there in anticipation of this bill passing.
The main paragraph above, at the NIH site:
QUOTE
On August 9, 2001, at 9:00 p.m. EDT, the President announced his decision to allow Federal funds to be used for research on existing human embryonic stem cell lines as long as prior to his announcement
EXISTING LINES.
The VETO'd important line from the Bill I pasted in it's entirety, that was passed by the House and Senate Jan 2006:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| On August 9, 2001, at 9:00 p.m. EDT, the President announced his decision to allow Federal funds to be used for research on existing human embryonic stem cell lines as long as prior to his announcement |
EXISTING LINES.
The VETO'd important line from the Bill I pasted in it's entirety, that was passed by the House and Senate Jan 2006:
Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.
Bolding mine. The ONLY difference in this bill, was that they wanted to allow dumpster embryos to be used in ADDITION to the current nearly useless stem cell line.
Hey! If it's murder to destroy an embryo then it's murder to have an abortion! 
No, I am not debating abortion, I am pointing out how screwed up American law is. What's gravy for the goose is gravy for the gander.
People might say "Well, if the baby's less than 3 months old it's not really murder."
I'm not aware of very many 3 and a half month old embryos.\
If a man does something to a pregnant woman and the baby dies, but not the mother, he killed still be charged with MURDER.
What's gravy for the goose is gravy for the gander.
People who appose stem cells but are for the right to choose (and vice versa) are hypocrites.
No, I am not debating abortion, I am pointing out how screwed up American law is. What's gravy for the goose is gravy for the gander.
People might say "Well, if the baby's less than 3 months old it's not really murder."
I'm not aware of very many 3 and a half month old embryos.\
If a man does something to a pregnant woman and the baby dies, but not the mother, he killed still be charged with MURDER.
What's gravy for the goose is gravy for the gander.
People who appose stem cells but are for the right to choose (and vice versa) are hypocrites.
QUOTE (curious1+Jul 20 2006, 09:35 AM)
He vetoed a bill that allowed using cells being thrown in the garbage today to be used in research to save lives. Did you see anything about increasing funding anywhere? The fact that there are no new stem cell lines means that more tax dollars are WASTED on fruitless research. MORE money won't need to be spent, the dollars that are spent may simply be more effective.
In Bush's defence, he does have a point. I mean, why kill human life and make use of it when you could kill it in vein?
Actually, I think what's tripping him is how barbaric it sounds to kill the embryo for use, even though the thing would eventually die. It's like calling that high schooler who made a hamster wheel cellphone charger barbaric, even though the hamster would run anyway.
In Bush's defence, he does have a point. I mean, why kill human life and make use of it when you could kill it in vein?
Actually, I think what's tripping him is how barbaric it sounds to kill the embryo for use, even though the thing would eventually die. It's like calling that high schooler who made a hamster wheel cellphone charger barbaric, even though the hamster would run anyway.
QUOTE
The language is identical, and since it's been veto'd, I can only assume the NIH will have to remove that part of it, since it had to have been put there in anticipation of this bill passing.
That's not how the passage of new legislation works.
This new bill would have superceeded the existing language in the previous bill (which I posted).
The fact that he vetoed this bill does NOT mean the PREVIOUS LAW is null and void simply because it had mostly the same language.
Bush is President but he is ALSO head of the Republican Party and a lot of members are coming up for re-election and there are a substantial number of Republicans who view this as a "deal breaker", as they see it intimately tied to Abortion rights.
I thought Bush was masterful in working a COMPROMISE with the Republican leadership in 2001 to FINALLY get Federal Funding for Stem Cell Research.
This was the "DEAL" he managed to get through:
"As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist" I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines " where the life and death decision has already been made", This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research" without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life." -- George W. Bush
Thus, for the first time allowing federal funding for SCR.
As El M has pointed out, there is plenty of PRIVATE funding, but since many labs employ equipment PARTIALLY paid for by the Feds, the impact of NOT being able to use Fed Funds on SC research was much greater then it might appear.
Thus Bush got 60 cell lines authorized and yes, some of them are duds, but many ARE NOT and will generate UNDIFFERENTIATED cell lines (which is the KEY to their promise)
But, this new bill (to many of the conservative Republicans) violated that last sentence.
You (and I) might not agree with that, but Bush just recently brokered the original deal, he really couldn't allow that deal to get tossed out on his watch.
Note: Its best not to see how either Sausage or Legislation is made.
Arthur
Edit: x-post with the above. I see you get what I'm saying. Ah well, I've already written the below.
He did; but this is a dodge.
With the same stroke, he effectively banned an ESC research in any facility that received federal funds. Since every university and hospital has a bit of federal funding (cost sharing/grants/etc.), he's banned ESC research in too many places - except for the 'Weak 22'
By analogy, if I passed a law stating that I would build homeless shelter is Iowa, I could be seen as a humanitarian. However, with the same bill, I ban the use of any federal agency to helping people build other homeless shelters.
QUOTE
So, let me ask you, which president FIRST authorized Federal Funds for Stem Cell Research?
He did; but this is a dodge.
With the same stroke, he effectively banned an ESC research in any facility that received federal funds. Since every university and hospital has a bit of federal funding (cost sharing/grants/etc.), he's banned ESC research in too many places - except for the 'Weak 22'
By analogy, if I passed a law stating that I would build homeless shelter is Iowa, I could be seen as a humanitarian. However, with the same bill, I ban the use of any federal agency to helping people build other homeless shelters.
Josh, "Whats good for the goose is good for the gander", you are absolutely right. So we can KILL a 6 month old fully formed fetus, that could potentially be viable out of the womb without the mother, but we cannot use 10 cells out of the garbage can to grow someone hope for a future and get them out of their wheelchairs, or replace their skin, or replace their hearts, thanks to Bush. You still just LOVE this guy don't ya? Is there ONE THING that this imbecile can do right?
Arthur, I agree with you about political expediency. I understand that Republicans are coming up for reelection. However, the Republican dominated Senate and House already broke rank to vote for passage of the bill. What kind of humanitarian objects to GARBAGE can materials to use for saving lives?
Even most of the Republicans dominating Congress see the light. Bush didn't need to do this, and to deny people the use of trash material to save lives is absurd. I know some people consider a baby 1 cell, and that's a totally separate debate. I think we can all agree that 10 cells in a garbage can is not a baby, because it can't GROW in a garbage can.
They want the stem cells for research... not cloning, which requires a womb. There's no way to turn a blastocyst into a human baby without a human womb to grow it in. No possible way. Not now, not in the distant forseeable future.
The complexity of the placenta and uterus interaction is a science that is as far beyond us right now as us flapping our arms to go to mars by our will alone. Humanity will require human women for a long time to come.
This thread is vanishing because of this forum, and the other thread is continuously being bumped to the top... it's too hard to keep up with both, especially since we're going to end up saying the same things on both.
Can you guys just look under General Science News forum, note: "Pompous, Ignorant ***", yes, it's about Bush, he just increased his fan club with this action.
Arthur, I agree with you about political expediency. I understand that Republicans are coming up for reelection. However, the Republican dominated Senate and House already broke rank to vote for passage of the bill. What kind of humanitarian objects to GARBAGE can materials to use for saving lives?
Even most of the Republicans dominating Congress see the light. Bush didn't need to do this, and to deny people the use of trash material to save lives is absurd. I know some people consider a baby 1 cell, and that's a totally separate debate. I think we can all agree that 10 cells in a garbage can is not a baby, because it can't GROW in a garbage can.
They want the stem cells for research... not cloning, which requires a womb. There's no way to turn a blastocyst into a human baby without a human womb to grow it in. No possible way. Not now, not in the distant forseeable future.
The complexity of the placenta and uterus interaction is a science that is as far beyond us right now as us flapping our arms to go to mars by our will alone. Humanity will require human women for a long time to come.
This thread is vanishing because of this forum, and the other thread is continuously being bumped to the top... it's too hard to keep up with both, especially since we're going to end up saying the same things on both.
Can you guys just look under General Science News forum, note: "Pompous, Ignorant ***", yes, it's about Bush, he just increased his fan club with this action.
I believe the veto only prevents tax dollars from being spent. It does not have any impact on private dollars. The problem with govenment dollars being spent is the "tell them what they want to hear mentality of federally funded research". One is dealing with polititians and therefore funding becomes driven by doing what is politically expeditious. Look at global warming, all one has to do is encourage the histeria and one can get funding. Go against the histeria and funding is harder to come by. Truth and reality have little to do with funding.
I look at it this way. Stem cell research is not new. Countries not inhibited by morality have been working on it for decades. Where are all the results of the promises that are being made. Shouldn't foreign countries already being coming up with some of the expected results? Do you think the US has a monopoly on smart scientists?
On the positive side, I suppose stem cell research would give a outlet for the products of abortion.
I look at it this way. Stem cell research is not new. Countries not inhibited by morality have been working on it for decades. Where are all the results of the promises that are being made. Shouldn't foreign countries already being coming up with some of the expected results? Do you think the US has a monopoly on smart scientists?
On the positive side, I suppose stem cell research would give a outlet for the products of abortion.
QUOTE (curious1+Jul 20 2006, 04:19 PM)
You still just LOVE this guy don't ya?
One time you said it takes you very little time to read a post. I think this might have something to do with it. I never said I like him. Why do you suggest I do? Because I debated Gore's "clean hands". No.
One time you said it takes you very little time to read a post. I think this might have something to do with it. I never said I like him. Why do you suggest I do? Because I debated Gore's "clean hands". No.
QUOTE (same+)
Josh, "Whats good for the goose is good for the gander", you are absolutely right. So we can KILL a 6 month old fully formed fetus, that could potentially be viable out of the womb without the mother, but we cannot use 10 cells out of the garbage can to grow someone hope for a future and get them out of their wheelchairs, or replace their skin, or replace their hearts, thanks to Bush.
You need to remember, he doesn't prevent stemcell research. He just retards it. On the other hand, you have to remember the clauses in the bill he vetoed.
You need to remember, he doesn't prevent stemcell research. He just retards it. On the other hand, you have to remember the clauses in the bill he vetoed.
QUOTE (same+)
Is there ONE THING that this imbecile can do right?
9/11. Do you want two?
9/11. Do you want two?
QUOTE (curious1+)
Arthur, I agree with you about political expediency. I understand that Republicans are coming up for reelection. However, the Republican dominated Senate and House already broke rank to vote for passage of the bill. What kind of humanitarian objects to GARBAGE can materials to use for saving lives?
But, this new bill (to many of the conservative Republicans) violated that last sentence.
Note Bush is a conservative rebublican.
QUOTE
"As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist" I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines " where the life and death decision has already been made", This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research" without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life." -- George W. Bush
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist" I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines " where the life and death decision has already been made", This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research" without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life." -- George W. Bush |
But, this new bill (to many of the conservative Republicans) violated that last sentence.
Note Bush is a conservative rebublican.
QUOTE (curious1+)
Even most of the Republicans dominating Congress see the light. Bush didn't need to do this, and to deny people the use of trash material to save lives is absurd. I know some people consider a baby 1 cell, and that's a totally separate debate. I think we can all agree that 10 cells in a garbage can is not a baby, because it can't GROW in a garbage can.
Though I agree it's absurd. But if it has potential it's not trash, now is it?
What did Bush do right about 9/11? You mean the fact that he actually cared it happened, as opposed to ignoring the fact that the the dams broke after Katrina?
After oh... 3 years... I haven't seen the guy who caused 9/11 captured. Osama Bin Laden is still at large, and apparently still happily making videotapes to exhort his followers to kill. Meanwhile, we're still in the 'quick war' in Iraq that had something to do with 9-11, but now doesn't.
Or did you mean that he was right in not having been able to stop 9-11 from happening, since you thought Gore could have but didn't, on another thread.
Bush was President, Gore wasn't. 9-11 happened on Bush's watch. Or are you suggesting Gore knew something Bush didn't about 9-11?
What exactly did Bush do 'right' for 9-11? Show up for a photo op?
Though I agree it's absurd. But if it has potential it's not trash, now is it?
QUOTE (same+)
The complexity of the placenta and uterus interaction is a science that is as far beyond us right now as us flapping our arms to go to mars by our will alone. Humanity will require human women for a long time to come.
You sound insecure.
You sound insecure.
doubled posted
Stem cell research is important because it starts with simple non differentiated cells, which can then be manipulated into other cells and cellular states. Along the way, one can systematically express various parts of the DNA to create interesting proteins, which can be used for further investigations. This offers the potential for new ways to deal with disease.
The problem is that stem cell science is still new and has an alchemy aspect to it, i.e., try and see what happens. This alchemy aspect is sort of wasteful and could, in the short term, have a social impact on the supply side of the alchemy based starting materials. As it evolves, this won't be a problem, but a social genie may be let out of the bottle before that day arrives, i.e, get paid for abortion waste. This is what is being resisted by the moral right.
What stem cell research needs is a good theoretical foundation that allows it to evolve beyond the preliminary alchemy stage, before the experimental science begins. This would create a more efficient use of starting materials, better meeting the needs of these social concerns. Such theory is already developed, but the bio-science appears content with the preliminary alchemy approach.
The alchemy aspect is not just wasteful with respect to starting materials but also opens the door to noncausual speculation. This is where money resources will also be wasted. All the data will be useful but much of it will be generated with a disproportionate amount of resources because it will not intially be based reason but on alchemy.
The problem is that stem cell science is still new and has an alchemy aspect to it, i.e., try and see what happens. This alchemy aspect is sort of wasteful and could, in the short term, have a social impact on the supply side of the alchemy based starting materials. As it evolves, this won't be a problem, but a social genie may be let out of the bottle before that day arrives, i.e, get paid for abortion waste. This is what is being resisted by the moral right.
What stem cell research needs is a good theoretical foundation that allows it to evolve beyond the preliminary alchemy stage, before the experimental science begins. This would create a more efficient use of starting materials, better meeting the needs of these social concerns. Such theory is already developed, but the bio-science appears content with the preliminary alchemy approach.
The alchemy aspect is not just wasteful with respect to starting materials but also opens the door to noncausual speculation. This is where money resources will also be wasted. All the data will be useful but much of it will be generated with a disproportionate amount of resources because it will not intially be based reason but on alchemy.
QUOTE
9/11. Do you want two?
What did Bush do right about 9/11? You mean the fact that he actually cared it happened, as opposed to ignoring the fact that the the dams broke after Katrina?
After oh... 3 years... I haven't seen the guy who caused 9/11 captured. Osama Bin Laden is still at large, and apparently still happily making videotapes to exhort his followers to kill. Meanwhile, we're still in the 'quick war' in Iraq that had something to do with 9-11, but now doesn't.
Or did you mean that he was right in not having been able to stop 9-11 from happening, since you thought Gore could have but didn't, on another thread.
Bush was President, Gore wasn't. 9-11 happened on Bush's watch. Or are you suggesting Gore knew something Bush didn't about 9-11?
What exactly did Bush do 'right' for 9-11? Show up for a photo op?
QUOTE (curious1+Jul 21 2006, 10:29 AM)
What did Bush do right about 9/11? You mean the fact that he actually cared it happened, as opposed to ignoring the fact that the the dams broke after Katrina?
Well, considering after those Al Qaeda guys had a good laugh about 9/11 they were planning on bombing us again. Did they? Uh, no. Bush led our counter attack into Afghanistan. Because of him we got intelligence reform and he cleaned up the FBI. He strengthened national security. He destroyed Afghan's terrorist cell.
Bush had no power in Katrina. There was too much red tape. Sure, he could have ignored the red taped and done something about it, just like Gore could have done something about Osama back in Clinton's time. Niether did. Does that make them bad? Technically, no. But if I were in their possession I sure as hell wouldn't have stood there with my thumb up my ***.
Well, considering after those Al Qaeda guys had a good laugh about 9/11 they were planning on bombing us again. Did they? Uh, no. Bush led our counter attack into Afghanistan. Because of him we got intelligence reform and he cleaned up the FBI. He strengthened national security. He destroyed Afghan's terrorist cell.
Bush had no power in Katrina. There was too much red tape. Sure, he could have ignored the red taped and done something about it, just like Gore could have done something about Osama back in Clinton's time. Niether did. Does that make them bad? Technically, no. But if I were in their possession I sure as hell wouldn't have stood there with my thumb up my ***.
QUOTE (same+)
After oh... 3 years... I haven't seen the guy who caused 9/11 captured. Osama Bin Laden is still at large, and apparently still happily making videotapes to exhort his followers to kill.
It's not liek we can search each and every cave.
It's not liek we can search each and every cave.
QUOTE (same+)
Meanwhile, we're still in the 'quick war' in Iraq that had something to do with 9-11, but now doesn't.
He didn't say it had anything to do with 9/11. He said it had weapons of mass destruction. It might have.
He didn't say it had anything to do with 9/11. He said it had weapons of mass destruction. It might have.
QUOTE (curious1+)
Or did you mean that he was right in not having been able to stop 9-11 from happening, since you thought Gore could have but didn't, on another thread.
Well, actually, the fact that there hasn't been an attack since 9/11 says somthing.
Well, actually, the fact that there hasn't been an attack since 9/11 says somthing.
QUOTE (same+)
Bush was President, Gore wasn't. 9-11 happened on Bush's watch. Or are you suggesting Gore knew something Bush didn't about 9-11?
If Gore felt Bin Laden was a threat he could have pushed for an investigation at the very least, just like Bush could have stepped in and done something, anything about Katrina. Neither did.
Show me some evidence of any of the above statements.
Where were they planning to 'bomb us again'?
When did Bush 'lead' the counterattack in Afghanistan? I thought he was in DC the whole time?
Bush 'cleaned up' the FBI. Ahh. No wonder they are so inefficient now with the illegal wiretapping and sloppy disclosures to the press. (lets be honest... the US has always conducted illegal wiretapping of it's citizens. Every nation does. We wiretap every other nation too, I have known a few operators and translators who have done the tapping. He did such a good job 'cleaning up' that the press wrote all about the illegal wiretapping... aka, they suck so bad now they got a leak. This is better how?)
Show me some evidence of any of the above statements.
Where were they planning to 'bomb us again'?
When did Bush 'lead' the counterattack in Afghanistan? I thought he was in DC the whole time?
Bush 'cleaned up' the FBI. Ahh. No wonder they are so inefficient now with the illegal wiretapping and sloppy disclosures to the press. (lets be honest... the US has always conducted illegal wiretapping of it's citizens. Every nation does. We wiretap every other nation too, I have known a few operators and translators who have done the tapping. He did such a good job 'cleaning up' that the press wrote all about the illegal wiretapping... aka, they suck so bad now they got a leak. This is better how?)
Bush had no power in Katrina. There was too much red tape. Sure, he could have ignored the red taped and done something about it, just like Gore could have done something about Osama back in Clinton's time. Niether did. Does that make them bad? Technically, no. But if I were in their possession I sure as hell wouldn't have stood there with my thumb up my ***.
WHAT? Bush APPOINTED the head of FEMA! Bush is who PUT FEMA under Homeland Security! He used FEMA, a critical US emergency management agency, as a place to put political gimme positions. THAT's why it was so pathetic... they thought they were getting paid by the government for free, cushy gimme jobs for campaign supporters. He CAUSED the 'red tape'. THEN he ignored it. Get this straight.
Bush has had his thumb up his *** since he's been in office. Smart people noticed after the first term. Dumb people didn't. So now we have $3 gas, about to be bad inflation or recession no one knows yet, a terrified stock market, a war, an economy that is falling apart at the foundation level when we lost our final major domestic manufacturing industries in his first term.
We are dying, and we just don't know it yet. And I DO put that right at Bush's doorstep.
I guess I should IGNORE the MUCHO bucks I've made in the Stock Mkt since Bush took office?
DJIA -
Sept - 01 - 8,800
Sept - 02 - 7,500
Sept - 03 - 9,200
Sept - 04 - 10,000
Sept - 05 - 10,500
July - 06 - 11,100
A war?
We were in a unending war the Day Bush took over, the original Gulf War had never concluded.
Economy Falling apart?
Manufacturing gone?
http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/17/news/econo....reut/index.htm
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Output at U.S. factories, mines and utilities rose by a bigger-than-expected 0.8 percent in June and capacity use also topped expectations in signs of a hot economy that could weigh on an inflation-wary Federal Reserve.
Capacity use rose to 82.4 percent, the highest rate since 82.5 percent in June 2000, the Federal Reserve reported on Monday.
I work out of my home so I could care less what gas prices are. The net of high gas prices will just get people to be even more efficient and develop alternatives, which is not all bad.
Arthur
If Gore felt Bin Laden was a threat he could have pushed for an investigation at the very least, just like Bush could have stepped in and done something, anything about Katrina. Neither did.
QUOTE (same+)
What exactly did Bush do 'right' for 9-11? Show up for a photo op?
He prevented another attack. I know, I know, not really a big deal.
He prevented another attack. I know, I know, not really a big deal.
Politicians seem to be good at over reacting after the fact. 911 was very tragic, and I am sure it exceeded even the expectations of the terrorists. They would have been happy with a good fire. But fluffy building design created a bonus.
Next, the politicians work under the assumption that the terrorists are going to roll sevens over and over again and brake the house, never considering it was a lucky one time shot. But in the same token it creates public support to do things one could not do without the irrational panic factor.
Getting back to stem cell research, research money is good, especially when it is from the Government. But we need to separate the stem cell hype from the reality, first. Private business has the option to conduct research. If the research pans outs half o fwhat the the hype indicates, the social and political attitude will change, making federal funding available. It is time for the private sector to prove itself correct by showing reality benefits that far over weighs social costs.
A better use for the money would be the development of the hydrogen bonding model for single and multicellular life. It will allow the bio-sciences to get beyond wasteful experimental empiricsm.
Next, the politicians work under the assumption that the terrorists are going to roll sevens over and over again and brake the house, never considering it was a lucky one time shot. But in the same token it creates public support to do things one could not do without the irrational panic factor.
Getting back to stem cell research, research money is good, especially when it is from the Government. But we need to separate the stem cell hype from the reality, first. Private business has the option to conduct research. If the research pans outs half o fwhat the the hype indicates, the social and political attitude will change, making federal funding available. It is time for the private sector to prove itself correct by showing reality benefits that far over weighs social costs.
A better use for the money would be the development of the hydrogen bonding model for single and multicellular life. It will allow the bio-sciences to get beyond wasteful experimental empiricsm.
QUOTE
Well, considering after those Al Qaeda guys had a good laugh about 9/11 they were planning on bombing us again. Did they? Uh, no. Bush led our counter attack into Afghanistan. Because of him we got intelligence reform and he cleaned up the FBI. He strengthened national security. He destroyed Afghan's terrorist cell.
Show me some evidence of any of the above statements.
Where were they planning to 'bomb us again'?
When did Bush 'lead' the counterattack in Afghanistan? I thought he was in DC the whole time?
Bush 'cleaned up' the FBI. Ahh. No wonder they are so inefficient now with the illegal wiretapping and sloppy disclosures to the press. (lets be honest... the US has always conducted illegal wiretapping of it's citizens. Every nation does. We wiretap every other nation too, I have known a few operators and translators who have done the tapping. He did such a good job 'cleaning up' that the press wrote all about the illegal wiretapping... aka, they suck so bad now they got a leak. This is better how?)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Well, considering after those Al Qaeda guys had a good laugh about 9/11 they were planning on bombing us again. Did they? Uh, no. Bush led our counter attack into Afghanistan. Because of him we got intelligence reform and he cleaned up the FBI. He strengthened national security. He destroyed Afghan's terrorist cell. |
Show me some evidence of any of the above statements.
Where were they planning to 'bomb us again'?
When did Bush 'lead' the counterattack in Afghanistan? I thought he was in DC the whole time?
Bush 'cleaned up' the FBI. Ahh. No wonder they are so inefficient now with the illegal wiretapping and sloppy disclosures to the press. (lets be honest... the US has always conducted illegal wiretapping of it's citizens. Every nation does. We wiretap every other nation too, I have known a few operators and translators who have done the tapping. He did such a good job 'cleaning up' that the press wrote all about the illegal wiretapping... aka, they suck so bad now they got a leak. This is better how?)
Bush had no power in Katrina. There was too much red tape. Sure, he could have ignored the red taped and done something about it, just like Gore could have done something about Osama back in Clinton's time. Niether did. Does that make them bad? Technically, no. But if I were in their possession I sure as hell wouldn't have stood there with my thumb up my ***.
WHAT? Bush APPOINTED the head of FEMA! Bush is who PUT FEMA under Homeland Security! He used FEMA, a critical US emergency management agency, as a place to put political gimme positions. THAT's why it was so pathetic... they thought they were getting paid by the government for free, cushy gimme jobs for campaign supporters. He CAUSED the 'red tape'. THEN he ignored it. Get this straight.
Bush has had his thumb up his *** since he's been in office. Smart people noticed after the first term. Dumb people didn't. So now we have $3 gas, about to be bad inflation or recession no one knows yet, a terrified stock market, a war, an economy that is falling apart at the foundation level when we lost our final major domestic manufacturing industries in his first term.
We are dying, and we just don't know it yet. And I DO put that right at Bush's doorstep.
QUOTE
So now we have $3 gas, about to be bad inflation or recession no one knows yet, a terrified stock market, a war, an economy that is falling apart at the foundation level when we lost our final major domestic manufacturing industries in his first term.
I guess I should IGNORE the MUCHO bucks I've made in the Stock Mkt since Bush took office?
DJIA -
Sept - 01 - 8,800
Sept - 02 - 7,500
Sept - 03 - 9,200
Sept - 04 - 10,000
Sept - 05 - 10,500
July - 06 - 11,100
A war?
We were in a unending war the Day Bush took over, the original Gulf War had never concluded.
Economy Falling apart?
Manufacturing gone?
http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/17/news/econo....reut/index.htm
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Output at U.S. factories, mines and utilities rose by a bigger-than-expected 0.8 percent in June and capacity use also topped expectations in signs of a hot economy that could weigh on an inflation-wary Federal Reserve.
Capacity use rose to 82.4 percent, the highest rate since 82.5 percent in June 2000, the Federal Reserve reported on Monday.
I work out of my home so I could care less what gas prices are. The net of high gas prices will just get people to be even more efficient and develop alternatives, which is not all bad.
Arthur
QUOTE (curious1+)
Show me some evidence of any of the above statements.
Apparently you don't listen to the news. A short while after 9/11 CBS news had a recording of Al Qaeda members sitting on the floor in a small room discussing 9/11 and laughing their asses off.
Apparently you don't listen to the news. A short while after 9/11 CBS news had a recording of Al Qaeda members sitting on the floor in a small room discussing 9/11 and laughing their asses off.
QUOTE (same+)
When did Bush 'lead' the counterattack in Afghanistan? I thought he was in DC the whole time?
Well, he did more than Clinton did when Al Qaeda bomded us in his terms. At least Bush did something.
Well, he did more than Clinton did when Al Qaeda bomded us in his terms. At least Bush did something.
QUOTE (same+)
Bush 'cleaned up' the FBI. Ahh. No wonder they are so inefficient now with the illegal wiretapping and sloppy disclosures to the press. (lets be honest... the US has always conducted illegal wiretapping of it's citizens. Every nation does. We wiretap every other nation too, I have known a few operators and translators who have done the tapping. He did such a good job 'cleaning up' that the press wrote all about the illegal wiretapping... aka, they suck so bad now they got a leak. This is better how?)
Ah, yes. Another demonstration of how you don't watch the news. CBS had several reports on why the FBI failed to stop 9/11. In short, they didn't care. They didn't give the proper intelligence to the President so he didn't know 9/11 was going to happen. They were too busy cutting their achievements so they could complain to congress about inadequate funding.
Ah, yes. Another demonstration of how you don't watch the news. CBS had several reports on why the FBI failed to stop 9/11. In short, they didn't care. They didn't give the proper intelligence to the President so he didn't know 9/11 was going to happen. They were too busy cutting their achievements so they could complain to congress about inadequate funding.
QUOTE (curious1+)
WHAT? Bush APPOINTED the head of FEMA! Bush is who PUT FEMA under Homeland Security!
So what you're saying is after making those changes and appointing the director he had no red tape? No, no, no. He still had no authority.
Really? Where do you get your news?
Last I heard, the the economy is doing just fine and you seem to be just about the only person pissed off about gas prices. Apparently that or people would rather cuss than cut back. Personally, I'd rather cut back than cuss. Pluss, gas here is $2.90 a gallon. 
And how is that Bush's fault? What exactly did he do to the gasoline? Is he the one who cut the American people out of the money they were suppose to earn from the gulf drillings? As I recall, it was congress. But if you want to blame the president who was in office at the time, then it was Clinton. I heard the oil companies owe us $10,000 each.
High gas prices are because of price gouging. And Congress has their hands in the loot so don't expect anything to change.
So what you're saying is after making those changes and appointing the director he had no red tape? No, no, no. He still had no authority.
QUOTE
Bush has had his thumb up his *** since he's been in office. Smart people noticed after the first term. Dumb people didn't. So now we have $3 gas, about to be bad inflation or recession no one knows yet, a terrified stock market, a war, an economy that is falling apart at the foundation level when we lost our final major domestic manufacturing industries in his first term.
Really? Where do you get your news?
Last I heard, the the economy is doing just fine and you seem to be just about the only person pissed off about gas prices. Apparently that or people would rather cuss than cut back. Personally, I'd rather cut back than cuss. Pluss, gas here is $2.90 a gallon. And how is that Bush's fault? What exactly did he do to the gasoline? Is he the one who cut the American people out of the money they were suppose to earn from the gulf drillings? As I recall, it was congress. But if you want to blame the president who was in office at the time, then it was Clinton. I heard the oil companies owe us $10,000 each.
High gas prices are because of price gouging. And Congress has their hands in the loot so don't expect anything to change.
High gas prices are actually due to the fact that there's a great deal of uncertainty in the ME - I wonder who caused that?
In addition, the people doing the 'gouging' are those who are selling their reserves - I wonder whose friends had massive gasoline reserves before Bush screwed everything up?
In addition regarding the economy (How can high gas prices NOT be bad for an economy, as a side-note?) - adding $3 trillion to the debt (or 50%) is a huge problem that's coming around. The stock market is partially doing so well because the economy is so flush with borrowed cash. It's similar to how my house looks nice because I've borrowed against it to pretty it up. Since most of the pork projects are not appreciating assets, the assets gained will disappear faster than the cost of borrowing for them.
In addition, the people doing the 'gouging' are those who are selling their reserves - I wonder whose friends had massive gasoline reserves before Bush screwed everything up?
In addition regarding the economy (How can high gas prices NOT be bad for an economy, as a side-note?) - adding $3 trillion to the debt (or 50%) is a huge problem that's coming around. The stock market is partially doing so well because the economy is so flush with borrowed cash. It's similar to how my house looks nice because I've borrowed against it to pretty it up. Since most of the pork projects are not appreciating assets, the assets gained will disappear faster than the cost of borrowing for them.
QUOTE (El_Machinae+)
High gas prices are actually due to the fact that there's a great deal of uncertainty in the ME - I wonder who caused that?
Osama Bin Laden and his thugs.
Osama Bin Laden and his thugs.
QUOTE (same+)
In addition, the people doing the 'gouging' are those who are selling their reserves - I wonder who's friends had massive gasoline reserves before Bush screwed everything up?
They're making 300% profits.
Arthur, if you held your stocks thru 1999-2000, you did not make 'mucho bucks'. You have not broken even yet, and are still down by quite a bit. Ask me how I know. Some large caps, like Boeing, have recovered/performed beautifully, and if you bought in 2000, you did really well. But this hasn't been a broad recovery, and the shakeout from telecoms, airlines, biotech and some tech have been appalling to a lot of portfolios. It all depends on what you bought and when you bought it.
Manufacturing... what sectors of Manufacturing is the US still strong in? Name one that we still dominate that hasn't been outsourced to another nation... what do we PRODUCE domestically? We're even starting to import more of our produce from South America.
I believe most of that manufacturing data is coming from US based companies who own factories 'overseas'. WE aren't doing the manufacturing, we own the factories or joint venture them. So when trade becomes a problem due to poor foreign relations, tarriffs/trade restrictions can screw our economy very quickly.
Arthur, if you held your stocks thru 1999-2000, you did not make 'mucho bucks'. You have not broken even yet, and are still down by quite a bit. Ask me how I know. Some large caps, like Boeing, have recovered/performed beautifully, and if you bought in 2000, you did really well. But this hasn't been a broad recovery, and the shakeout from telecoms, airlines, biotech and some tech have been appalling to a lot of portfolios. It all depends on what you bought and when you bought it.
Manufacturing... what sectors of Manufacturing is the US still strong in? Name one that we still dominate that hasn't been outsourced to another nation... what do we PRODUCE domestically? We're even starting to import more of our produce from South America.
I believe most of that manufacturing data is coming from US based companies who own factories 'overseas'. WE aren't doing the manufacturing, we own the factories or joint venture them. So when trade becomes a problem due to poor foreign relations, tarriffs/trade restrictions can screw our economy very quickly.
Apparently you don't listen to the news. A short while after 9/11 CBS news had a recording of Al Qaeda members sitting on the floor in a small room discussing 9/11 and laughing their asses off.
I'm sure they aren't laughing now.
But that begs the question of what Bush stopped that was similar to 9-11. I watch plenty of news. I know that the news is fed by politicians and well placed leaks. Because 9-11 hasn't happened AGAIN since then due to Bush's actions, then you can also infer that 9-11 didn't happen BEFORE due to Clinton's actions. And all of that is just surmise and not a real feather in his cap.
It's an endemic problem. Your congress should be voted out, clearly (really, $3 trillion in new debt? It boggles my mind).
I'm not saying Bush is totally responsible; but the economy is not doing as well as people think it is.
Oh, and there're hosts of American profits who're doing quite well with the elevated tensions. Guess who they're friends with?
This veto still pisses me off. Mainly because it was done for all the wrong reasons, and hurts everyone. Even the currently frozen embryos (for those who care about them)
They're making 300% profits.
QUOTE (same+)
The stock market is partially doing so well because the economy is so flush with borrowed cash. It's similar to how my house looks nice because I've borrowed against it to pretty it up. Since most of the pork projects are not appreciating assets, the assets gained will disappear faster than the cost of borrowing for them.
You know, it's not like Congress has no power.
You know, it's not like Congress has no power.
QUOTE
I guess I should IGNORE the MUCHO bucks I've made in the Stock Mkt since Bush took office?
Arthur, if you held your stocks thru 1999-2000, you did not make 'mucho bucks'. You have not broken even yet, and are still down by quite a bit. Ask me how I know. Some large caps, like Boeing, have recovered/performed beautifully, and if you bought in 2000, you did really well. But this hasn't been a broad recovery, and the shakeout from telecoms, airlines, biotech and some tech have been appalling to a lot of portfolios. It all depends on what you bought and when you bought it.
Manufacturing... what sectors of Manufacturing is the US still strong in? Name one that we still dominate that hasn't been outsourced to another nation... what do we PRODUCE domestically? We're even starting to import more of our produce from South America.
I believe most of that manufacturing data is coming from US based companies who own factories 'overseas'. WE aren't doing the manufacturing, we own the factories or joint venture them. So when trade becomes a problem due to poor foreign relations, tarriffs/trade restrictions can screw our economy very quickly.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I guess I should IGNORE the MUCHO bucks I've made in the Stock Mkt since Bush took office? |
Arthur, if you held your stocks thru 1999-2000, you did not make 'mucho bucks'. You have not broken even yet, and are still down by quite a bit. Ask me how I know. Some large caps, like Boeing, have recovered/performed beautifully, and if you bought in 2000, you did really well. But this hasn't been a broad recovery, and the shakeout from telecoms, airlines, biotech and some tech have been appalling to a lot of portfolios. It all depends on what you bought and when you bought it.
Manufacturing... what sectors of Manufacturing is the US still strong in? Name one that we still dominate that hasn't been outsourced to another nation... what do we PRODUCE domestically? We're even starting to import more of our produce from South America.
I believe most of that manufacturing data is coming from US based companies who own factories 'overseas'. WE aren't doing the manufacturing, we own the factories or joint venture them. So when trade becomes a problem due to poor foreign relations, tarriffs/trade restrictions can screw our economy very quickly.
Apparently you don't listen to the news. A short while after 9/11 CBS news had a recording of Al Qaeda members sitting on the floor in a small room discussing 9/11 and laughing their asses off.
I'm sure they aren't laughing now.
But that begs the question of what Bush stopped that was similar to 9-11. I watch plenty of news. I know that the news is fed by politicians and well placed leaks. Because 9-11 hasn't happened AGAIN since then due to Bush's actions, then you can also infer that 9-11 didn't happen BEFORE due to Clinton's actions. And all of that is just surmise and not a real feather in his cap.
Curious1 the data is for US manufacturing capacity, not offshore.
The US remains the LARGEST manufacturing country in the world.
BY FAR.
Arthur
The US remains the LARGEST manufacturing country in the world.
BY FAR.
Arthur
QUOTE
You know, it's not like Congress has no power.
It's an endemic problem. Your congress should be voted out, clearly (really, $3 trillion in new debt? It boggles my mind).
I'm not saying Bush is totally responsible; but the economy is not doing as well as people think it is.
Oh, and there're hosts of American profits who're doing quite well with the elevated tensions. Guess who they're friends with?
This veto still pisses me off. Mainly because it was done for all the wrong reasons, and hurts everyone. Even the currently frozen embryos (for those who care about them)
You know, I've been thinking about the possibility of starting my own business. But if I do, I will most certainly do it OUTSIDE the U.S. Why? Pensions, the Union, the government forcing you to pay your employees TWICE minimum wage, I mean, COME ON!! What corporation wants to be bollied by their own country??!!!
Without the Union and whatnot I would try to give my employees a good deal. But this country is making you live by its rules. I don't know if you realized this, but that sucks.
Without the Union and whatnot I would try to give my employees a good deal. But this country is making you live by its rules. I don't know if you realized this, but that sucks.
QUOTE (El_Machinae+)
This veto still pisses me off. Mainly because it was done for all the wrong reasons, and hurts everyone. Even the currently frozen embryos (for those who care about them)
Bush has a mailing address. If enough people send him a polite, thought out letter he'd encourage congress to make a bill he'd be willing to pass. It's not the end of the world.
Bush has a mailing address. If enough people send him a polite, thought out letter he'd encourage congress to make a bill he'd be willing to pass. It's not the end of the world.
I don't think Bush will be changing his mind any time soon regarding his idea of biology.
As long as people ignorantly think that embryos are people (and assume that ESC research involves killing embryos) and anything resembling an embryo is a person (unless, of course, it conflicts with their world view) - then the research will be hampered.
The press and opponents commonly decry stem cell research as killing embryos (when it's clearly not) and then decry cloning research as creating embryos (which it clearly does not), then there will be stagnation.
We have to convince the majority of ESC opponents that their opinions are based on illusions. Even their religious viewpoints are not being reflected in their attitudes regarding this research (because religious sensitivities can easily be worked with; scientific inaccuracy cannot)
As long as people ignorantly think that embryos are people (and assume that ESC research involves killing embryos) and anything resembling an embryo is a person (unless, of course, it conflicts with their world view) - then the research will be hampered.
The press and opponents commonly decry stem cell research as killing embryos (when it's clearly not) and then decry cloning research as creating embryos (which it clearly does not), then there will be stagnation.
We have to convince the majority of ESC opponents that their opinions are based on illusions. Even their religious viewpoints are not being reflected in their attitudes regarding this research (because religious sensitivities can easily be worked with; scientific inaccuracy cannot)
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Jul 28 2006, 03:25 PM)
I don't think Bush will be changing his mind any time soon regarding his idea of biology.
Your loss.
Your loss.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.