Thread: Obama bans federal funding for embryonic stem cell research

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7914976.stm

Presidents don't have line-item veto power (thank Christ), so this is a misleading title anyways.

My complaint here isn't that there won't be federal funding for stem cell research (not worth it), it's that the funding that could have gone to stem cell research (moderately useful, still horrifically inefficient) is going to go to even more bullshit social programs that are even less useful (and, fittingly, less efficient.)

If we wanted change and/or progress, we would be cutting Federal funding, thereby cutting taxes and leaving money in the hands of business owners (to do things like, I dunno, pay salaries which in turn pay things like, say, mortgages) and, ultimately, the economy.

Or I guess we could just print some more fucking funny money and bring our cash in wheelbarrows to the food lines.

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

Presidents don't have line-item veto power (thank Christ), so this is a misleading title anyways.

My complaint here isn't that there won't be federal funding for stem cell research (not worth it), it's that the funding that could have gone to stem cell research (moderately useful, still horrifically inefficient) is going to go to even more bullshit social programs that are even less useful (and, fittingly, less efficient.)

If we wanted change and/or progress, we would be cutting Federal funding, thereby cutting taxes and leaving money in the hands of business owners (to do things like, I dunno, pay salaries which in turn pay things like, say, mortgages) and, ultimately, the economy.

Or I guess we could just print some more fucking funny money and bring our cash in wheelbarrows to the food lines.

Yea, because social programmes are a terrible use of tax money. Helping people out and trying to help them pull themselves up and be better people is such a shitty use of tax money, because everyone is in the same situation and of the same mental/emotional strength to make it on their own.

I want my tax to go to stuff like invading other countries for no reason, or disinforming teenagers about the evils of pre marital sex, instead of helping my fellow country men and women who don't have it as good as I do and need a little assistance.

I don't get conservatives. Social programmes are worthwhile. When you turn your back on those in the gutter, telling them that it is their problem, not yours, eventually it becomes everyones problem. So what if some squander it, waste their opportunities, there will be those who do benefit and can turn it around and that is what makes it worthwhile.

Originally Posted by gismo

Yea, because social programmes are a terrible use of tax money. Helping people out and trying to help them pull themselves up and be better people is such a shitty use of tax money, because everyone is in the same situation and of the same mental/emotional strength to make it on their own.

I want my tax to go to stuff like invading other countries for no reason, or disinforming teenagers about the evils of pre marital sex, instead of helping my fellow country men and women who don't have it as good as I do and need a little assistance.

I don't get conservatives. Social programmes are worthwhile. When you turn your back on those in the gutter, telling them that it is their problem, not yours, eventually it becomes everyones problem. So what if some squander it, waste their opportunities, there will be those who do benefit and can turn it around and that is what makes it worthwhile.

I'm gonna go ahead and ask for proof these social programs work. Where are the statistics of people who are using these programs are able pull themselves together and pull off it.

Social programs just allow those unfit in society to leech off others who are.

Originally Posted by Barack Dalai Lama

By "unfit" you basically mean "the damned darkies who pollute our glorious suburban Valhalla." Meanwhile, the "unfit" (who actually do work) have many organizations to be proud of such as the New Black Panther Party, Five Percenters, etc. Breakfast for Children back in the 60's did far more for the "unfit" than the government did.

No by unfit, I mean those who do nothing, and expect things to be given to them. IE- UAW members who remained in the job bank for years while collecting unemployment. Or those who have children when they don't have the means to support those kids and collect welfare on it. Race has nothing to do with it.

Of course, if by chance there is a racial group that does this or is more often found in these situations, that's your perspective, not mine. Social cancer has no race.

Originally Posted by gismo

Yea, because social programmes are a terrible use of tax money. Helping people out and trying to help them pull themselves up and be better people is such a shitty use of tax money, because everyone is in the same situation and of the same mental/emotional strength to make it on their own.

I want my tax to go to stuff like invading other countries for no reason, or disinforming teenagers about the evils of pre marital sex, instead of helping my fellow country men and women who don't have it as good as I do and need a little assistance.

I don't get conservatives. Social programmes are worthwhile. When you turn your back on those in the gutter, telling them that it is their problem, not yours, eventually it becomes everyones problem. So what if some squander it, waste their opportunities, there will be those who do benefit and can turn it around and that is what makes it worthwhile.

You might be reading, but you certainly aren't comprehending. I didn't say that we should turn our backs on "those in the gutter." I didn't say social programs aren't worthwhile. I've said multiple times on the various incarnations of CD and LWS that I probably give more of my time and money to philanthropic efforts than anyone else here. In fact, in 2009 alone I organized, participated in, and donated to a charity golf tournament, a charity casino night, and volunteered at Habitat for Humanity. It's an absolute joke to say I don't care about people less fortunate than me (well, okay... it's at least a joke to say I don't give back to those people, even if I don't care.)

It's not the place of the government to redistribute wealth by taxing me and giving it to "those in the gutter." If I want to give my time and money to benefit people less fortunate than me, that's my prerogative. If I want to retain earnings in my business so that I can continue to employ the people who work for me, rather than being forced to cut costs, that, too, is my prerogative.

Originally Posted by sycld

Science research funding represents less than 2% of the national budget, maybe something like 1.5%.

Also, since when was research that was responsible for a whole array of technologies that we take for granted and whose production drives the national economy "horrifically inefficient," given that this knowledge comes from such a small fraction of the national budget? It's said that the economic benefit of every dollar spent in basic research is many times greater (exactly how much I unfortunately don't remember), though of course this benefit is a long-term one.

Finally, if you want a model of horrific inefficiency, why don't you attack defense appropriations, which is 1/3 of the national budget? There is essentially no accountability there, and potentially billions of dollars just go up in smoke through embezzlement, ineffectual programs, etc.

I'll never understand why science spending is one of the first targets of public ire during economically difficult times, given that scientific research represents such a tiny fraction of the national budget.



EDIT: On the other hand, if there was an effective commercial system set up for funding science rather than having almost all basic science funded by the government, that'd be great...

Well, I agree that 2% is a sufficiently small portion of the Federal budget that it's not worth battling over in Washington.

However, the whole system is embarrassing. The Federal Government gives gigantic grants to researchers at Universities, who turn around and license their own developments to their privately-held start-ups for pennies, and then sit on all the profits. The taxpayers get no equity out of the deal; it's a bad investment. Of course, I'm not advocating the government start making money on the science budget; they need to stop the spending and let private firms and non-profits handle it.

I agree that we do need an effective commercial system, and I would like to see the government put its money toward making that system run rather than making direct investment (this would, of course, require less money--which should be returned to the taxpayers who paid it.)

Originally Posted by sycld

Well, let me put it this way: 2% is extremely small considering how much science funding gets attacked and is the focus of cuts. It is also extremely small considering how beneficial it is.

And if we just consider money that goes to the DoD as "defense spending," then it's something more like 21 to 23% of the budget.

I ignored it earlier so that I can address it here: the Department of Defense is a necessarily unique entity for the government and while I do not like it for economic principle, I do recognize it's legitimacy in terms of national security. While it is true that DoD spending is largely unregulated, inefficient, and often amounts to a subsidy for American industries that really don't have a competitive advantage over foreign counterparts, this is a necessary evil because we would rather keep our money invested domestically to provide for defense than rely on a foreign power for current wartime technology. While it is contrary to the free market because America is no longer an ideal location for DoD-quality heavy manufacturing, this spending allows us to control our own defensive technology.

A good example of this was Boeing in the 90s, which brought a lot of litigation against Airbus both in America and in Europe, claiming that Airbus' association with European governments gave it a competitive advantage (basically, Airbus had been operating at a loss for 30 years while it continued to take marketshare from Boeing--a company in the free market would have gone bankrupt years before without so much government consortium backing.) Airbus turned around and alleged that Department of Defense contracts were so horribly managed and monitored that they effectively amounted to the same government subsidies Airbus received. The takeaway here is that DoD spending is a form of government subsidy that allows many of our defense manufacturers to continue producing and developing the best military technology; most of the companies that receive their contracts couldn't afford to produce the best defense products if the government didn't help them out because the only market for them is the government.

Unfortunately, the military-industrial complex can't be undone without sacrificing our military strength, which would be not only political suicide but also could very well amount to actual suicide.

Originally Posted by Barack Dalai Lama

By "unfit" you basically mean "the damned darkies who pollute our glorious suburban Valhalla." Meanwhile, the "unfit" (who actually do work) have many organizations to be proud of such as the New Black Panther Party, Five Percenters, etc. Breakfast for Children back in the 60's did far more for the "unfit" than the government did.

I think it's funny that he was supporting my point of view (that the government is inefficient and shouldn't be involved in social programs), and then as a counter-argument, you listed a number of private (read: non-government) groups that provided social outreach more effectively than the government.

You literally just made our point; the government doesn't need to be involved because private sector non-profits are simply more effective.

2% of the entire federal budget is not "such a tiny fraction". It's smaller than many other items if you define "items" broadly (e.g., treat "defense" as a single item, etc.), but I'd still consider it a significant chunk. That said, I agree with what you posted above. Of all the stuff that the federal government flings it's yearly trillions at, funding for scientific research is near the top of the list in terms of meritoriousness.

Why would anyone be proud of a hate group?

you guys sound really smart