DSE 3 #126 June 22, 2007 That's not how I interpret the statement, although I can see how one *might* interpret it this way. However at face value, that's not what the sentence implies. QuoteFederal funding does not equate one's position on supporting or not supporting the something-to-be-funded. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #127 June 22, 2007 Quote It's our biggest optional expenditure by far. Isn't that part of the problem? Quote Well, the total 2007 budget is 2.8 trillion; 18% of that doesn't seem like "chump change." The entire 18% for defense in 2007 is not going to the Iraq war.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #128 June 22, 2007 >The entire 18% for defense in 2007 is not going to the war. ?? Uh, right. You were the one that was comparing half a trillion (total war cost to date) to the budget. In any case, cutting that half trillion dollar debt and replacing it with, say, a few billion in basic science research would cut our deficit significantly AND result in far fewer US deaths. But that's getting rather far from the original topic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #129 June 22, 2007 Quote Oy vey. Quote Not supporting going to war means very little when one supports continuing such war. Who supports continuing the war? What I said was I support federal funding of war. I support bringing our troops home. I support pressuring Congress to tighten the purse strings to help make this happen. To the second part: You're misunderstanding private vs. federal funding. Oh, and it's just a big, huge fallacy. You presume WAY too much about anyone in particular--let's say me--for the simple fact one generally supports private funding instead of federal. That is abit different than when you simply stated that you support funding the war. As for federal vs private funding, why not have both. Private funding is great if one could garner enough attention to actually cause people and corporations to give. Hell, there are also tax breaks for giving to certian causes yet, even that fails to get the general public and corporations to give. Unless there is a well known face on the masthead not many are going to pay much attention to a cause. Cancer has its faces as does parkinson and alzheimer. AIDS did have a great outpouring of private funds but, it quickly wained when the celebs found another cause. I, for one, am glad for even the small amount of 2.6 billion of yours and mine tax dollars that is added to any private funds that are raised. If just a fraction of my tax dollars could be used in ESC research to find a cure for my illness it is money well spent. Am I understanding that you are for research as long as it does not come from your pocket (your tax dollars)?"...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #130 June 22, 2007 QuoteYou were the one that was comparing half a trillion (total war cost to date) to the budget. ?? Uh, no I didn't. I compared it to what we've spent on other things. One might assume (perhaps I should have said) I was speaking over the same time frame.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #131 June 22, 2007 QuoteThat is abit different than when you simply stated that you support funding the war. For the last time: I said (look back) I support federal funding of war. *I have to run now folks--not ignoring further responses.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #132 June 22, 2007 Quote Quote So the CDC should be privatized? No. The CDC should stay open. There are exceptions to my rule. When there are issues of common use or resources, the government should step in. Roads, as I stated before, are governmental. Air and the environment are governmental issues. Disease "control" - prevention of pandemic, epidemic, vectors, and general virological analyis is a proper use of the government. But development of new medicines, etc. - those things that have a profit motive - should be left to private industry. There is a fine line that divides these things - I admit that. Pretty weasely argument there, Counselor I can make the self same argument about any science research.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #133 June 22, 2007 >I compared it to what we've spent on other things. OK, fair enough. I think you would agree, though, that optional wars are perhaps one of the easiest things to avoid spending money on - and represent one of the biggest possible areas for savings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #134 June 22, 2007 Quote>But, how are military & war funding related to funding of stem cell research? A few ways. Quote1) MoralityI guess it's ok to play the morality card whenever it suits your side of the argument. Irony score 9.8/10... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #135 June 22, 2007 Quote Quote It's our biggest optional expenditure by far. Isn't that part of the problem? Quote Well, the total 2007 budget is 2.8 trillion; 18% of that doesn't seem like "chump change." The entire 18% for defense in 2007 is not going to the Iraq war. It is OPTIONAL for the USA to spend more on "defense" than the next 15 nations combined. The USA could more than adequately defend itself spending 1/4 of what it does.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #136 June 23, 2007 Quote Pretty weasely argument there, Counselor It's my job. Never trust a ferret to do a weasel's work. Arguments can be made - good ones - for anything. You have a particular realm of knowledge that could explain why 2+1 might not equal 3 when viewedin a certain way. The lines, though, are when I personally draw them. I'm not right and I'm not wrong. It's just my humble opinion and how I'd do things if I was the benevolent dictator. Thy are my lines. That is all. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #137 June 23, 2007 Quote OK, fair enough. I think you would agree, though, that optional wars are perhaps one of the easiest things to avoid spending money on - and represent one of the biggest possible areas for savings. One thing we do agree on is get our troops the hell outta dodge and of course, the secondary benefit to that is a huge financial savings. It's a win/win. I love those. It's certainly easier to go with the win/win first, no doubt. I don't want to digress too much from the topic, nor do I really want to dive into federal spending and where & how much we pay for things that, imo, are crazy to be spending (& make the war spending almost look puny by comparison). When we talk about all that, stem cell research is quite a non-issue. Makes more sense to me (and imo more progress would be made) to fund it privately. But then, I think a LOT more things should be funded privately and certainly federal funding of stem cell research would be the LEAST of my worries when it comes to federal spending. I'm just here for the hell of it.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #138 June 23, 2007 No disagreement, we could cut some costs in defense. What else would you cut? Rhetorical question & diversion from the topic.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grue 1 #139 June 23, 2007 I've got mixed feelings. I'd like to see the research done, but I don't think it's an appropriate use of taxpayer money. We need to cut spending and fix the debt, not put ourselves further into it.cavete terrae. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grue 1 #140 June 23, 2007 QuoteNo disagreement, we could cut some costs in defense. What else would you cut? Rhetorical question & diversion from the topic. I can't speak for kallend, but if it were my job to do some work on balancing the budget? Stop playing WorldCop™ and invading countries we don't have any business invading. That'll save heaps of money right there. Shut down or severely reduce a lot of government agencies that are useless or are doing things they shouldn't be (Homeland Security, TSA, IRS, DEA, FCC etc), cut foreign aid, start demanding accountability with government contracts (no more $1,500 hammers), stop pork-barrel shit, etc. Stop the COLA for Congress et al. Stop the "war on drugs" bullshit. Oh, and stop giving religious groups tax exemptions. I'm not fan of taxes, but I see no reason religious groups shouldn't have to pay 'em if I do. I could go on, but I'm going to sleep.cavete terrae. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CaptainOKaos 0 #141 June 23, 2007 Because he's a MORON.You're as wonderful as a slinkie!! NOT REALLY GOOD FOR ANYTHING BUT THEY BRING A SMILE TO YOUR FACE WHEN PUSHED DOWN THE STAIRS. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #142 June 25, 2007 Quote There are quite a few cures already found for certain diseases and cancers but the drug companies have swept them under the rug because they will lose money big time over the drugs they make to just alleviate the symptoms... This is impossible to hide such information. Basically the drug does not exist until it successfully passes clinical tests, which involves A LOT of people. And some of them gonna talk about it.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #143 June 25, 2007 QuoteQuote There are quite a few cures already found for certain diseases and cancers but the drug companies have swept them under the rug because they will lose money big time over the drugs they make to just alleviate the symptoms... This is impossible to hide such information. Basically the drug does not exist until it successfully passes clinical tests, which involves A LOT of people. And some of them gonna talk about it. Impossible[?], maybe so but, without media attention certian findings are swept out of sight. A good example is marijuana's cancer killing properties that the federal government knew about for years yet, continued with a propaganda war on it anyways while serious research should had been done instead. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/armentano-p1.html"...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #144 June 25, 2007 Quote Impossible[?], maybe so but, without media attention certian findings are swept out of sight. That's true, but for important things the media attention is almost guaranteed. Quote A good example is marijuana's cancer killing properties that the federal government knew about for years yet From the article it seems to be in a hypotesis state yet - i.e. there is theory based on mices and in vitro, but not on humans.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
