The United States' Deficit

[Auberean]

Well, I'm sorry that we weren't able to reach some kind of understanding.

 

 

 

 

And now I'm going to stop wasting my time. No one reads the larger part of what I say anyway.

 

 

 

The world tends to unfold as it should, it's a beautiful arrangement.

[rotundra87]

ah but does anyone know who the majority of the debt is owed to?

 

 

 

Its China :ohnoes:

 

 

 

 

 

just think about that for awhile. all the political and economic issues involved there...

[Oy_the_Great]

 

And now I'm going to stop wasting my time. No one reads the larger part of what I say anyway.

 

 

 

The world tends to unfold as it should, it's a beautiful arrangement.

 

 

 

Don't make me pissed. It's not my fault large bodies of text scare people.

[pianofrieak2]

Tigra, I can actually agree with you a little bit on this point.

 

 

 

 

Show respect to whom? The man who's going to make the majority of my life miserable because I'll be too busy trying to play catch-up to do anything else? Yea, right. Screw George Bush right in his big, floppy monkey ears.

 

 

 

Hey, he DID win by a majority of the votes. But how has he made your life miserable? It's not like you're going to go to war or anything.

 

 

 

How does it effect you? As you grow older, you're going to find yourself paying all your money to the government so they can WASTE IT ON NOTHING.

 

 

 

I totally agree. That's why I'm a conservative civil libertarian. Scrap the government down to as little as it takes to work and then no more. I'm running more independent now anyway.

 

 

 

Here's a good way to cut spending!

 

 

 

1. Pull out of Iraq. Admit defeat. We will *never* win there. Ever. We've trained police and military, now we leave. Also, we're spending a butt-load of money just to rebuild crap after we BLEW IT UP WITH A FEW $80,000 BOMBS, loaded up on a $5.2 MILLION DOLLAR JET.

 

 

 

That's a terrible idea. Leave after we wasted all of this money and let Iraq enter another civil war? I thought we were supposed to care about the innocent people over there? Many of them will die unless we do something to prevent tyranny. I'm not saying that entering Iraq was a good idea, but at the time, I think Bush made the right decision.

 

 

 

Look at the times: America had just endured the first attack from on outside country on their soil since the Revolutionary War. We're mad and the public needs to blame somebody instead of sitting on our rears wanting the UN to do something. Secondly, we knew that Saddam had kicked out UN nuclear checks to see if he was building nuclear bombs that could hit Israel. We had no evidence besides that, which seems pretty incriminating in and of itself.

 

 

 

2. Stop pampering government workers? They're workers just like the rest of us, yet for some reason, they do less - only for more money. Not only are they highly over-paid (and getting raises? WHY?), but they drive around in gas-guzzling, over-priced, government funded SUV's. Oh, and don't forget the Congressional Vacation I'm *SURE* we are paying for ourselves. I want a vacation if I'm going to be paying for it. The list goes on, but I think those examples will make the point.

 

 

 

I couldn't agree more! Make the Senate have the same healthcare system as normal people and they'll fix it so fast, we won't know what hit us. Make the government have some accountability. Oh, but wait! You need some good people in government and have a small bureaucratic system! Too bad people in power only want more power...

 

 

 

3. Stop completely moronic spending in general. There are so many examples of this, I have no idea where to start. When an ordinary person see's spending like this, they think "What?! WHY?!", but when a government worker see's these things, they see them as necessary and would like more. They're spoiled little brats that have ZERO CONCEPT of money. They're like my 16 year old sister, really.

 

 

 

Totally true.

 

 

 

But instead of cutting obviously wasted spending, we instead cut education, health care, etc...You know...Stuff that already sucks and we need MORE of. Lame.

 

 

 

Education needs to pay teachers more and make their jobs competitive. Seconly, we need to limit the amount of money that passes through bureaucratic people for healthcare. Then, we need to limit our spending and NOT SPEND IT. Just save it to pay off our debt...

 

 

 

And Tigra, we don't need more socialized healthcare. Canada's one great example. The government pays much of it, but the people pay around 70% of their income as taxes. Then, the wait lines take years and the service is far below that of America. Why do so many cross the border to pay up the nose for American service???

 

 

 

Oy, I saw your post but I can't say I understood it all. I am content to say that you know what you're talking about even though I still disagree with it. Taxing the wealthy is great, but one can definately over-do it. Then we get into socialism which rewards the lazy...especially in a sinful world that we have right now.

[Auberean]

 

And now I'm going to stop wasting my time. No one reads the larger part of what I say anyway.

 

 

 

The world tends to unfold as it should, it's a beautiful arrangement.

 

 

 

Don't make me pissed. It's not my fault large bodies of text scare people.

 

 

 

I mean that even though people don't pay attention to you, it's okay because they're the ones that are missing out.

[kido14]

 

Show respect to whom? The man who's going to make the majority of my life miserable because I'll be too busy trying to play catch-up to do anything else? Yea, right. Screw George Bush right in his big, floppy monkey ears.

 

 

 

 

Piano basically summed up a lot of what I was thinking. I doubt the majority of your life is miserable because of him. Even if he is making your life even a little bit worse, he's only human. I would love to see any of you "bush-bashers" do better under the circumstances he has been in. As for the attack on Bush's physical appearance, that was pretty lame.

 

 

 

Otherwise, thank you for the rest of you constructive post. It helped fill me in on a few things, even though I don't agree with everything you said.

[Tigra00]

 

Show respect to whom? The man who's going to make the majority of my life miserable because I'll be too busy trying to play catch-up to do anything else? Yea, right. Screw George Bush right in his big, floppy monkey ears.

 

 

 

 

Piano basically summed up a lot of what I was thinking. I doubt the majority of your life is miserable because of him. Even if he is making your life even a little bit worse, he's only human. I would love to see any of you "bush-bashers" do better under the circumstances he has been in. As for the attack on Bush's physical appearance, that was pretty lame.

 

 

 

Otherwise, thank you for the rest of you constructive post. It helped fill me in on a few things, even though I don't agree with everything you said.

 

 

 

Come on, he does kind of look monkey-esque.

 

 

 

In all seriousness though, currently, he isn't making my life miserable, except the fact that everytime he veto's something helpful to the country, I want to rip my eyes out. He *will* be making ALL of our lives miserable, because who is paying for this war? Him? No, us. And the majority of us do not even support it and he labels us un-American. You want to see un-American? How about I stop paying my taxes, you ungrateful bigot. Oh, whats that? Then I'll go to prison for tax evasion? Seems you win again, Bush.

 

 

 

Just wait several years, man. And even if it doesn't effect you in your life-time (experts say it WILL), it will surely effect your children. I'm to the point where I've decided not to have any, because it wouldn't be fair to them. Wait, I take that first statement back...It will effect you in your lifetime...Social Security is going to be drained completely by...whatever year it was. Look it up, I'm too lazy at the moment honestly. :P

 

 

 

And to what Pianofreak said:

 

 

 

Cutting out from the Iraw war is INDEED a terrible idea, because it only shows terrorist groups that we were too weak to defeat them. But the truth is, we indeed ARE too weak to beat them. Maybe not physically weak in power, but we jsut cannot do it militarily. It won't happen. These people are dedicated psycho-religionists who wish for nothing but death. Surely they should all just charge us and die gracefully, but they are death-wishing cowards, it seems. Being dedicated to their religions cause, they will NEVER give up. It's like thinking a Christian will all of a sudden say, "Whelp, I didn't see Jesus today...I think I'm not going to believe in him anymore."

 

 

 

If Iraw goes into a civil war, it would be just like America is today. Well, it would be worse, I mean there is a group with rocket launchers instead of simple firearms like American criminals, but still. Iraq now has trained police forces and trained military personel. If they can't deal with it, then we've failed in all respects. What is the current statistics on money spent per day in Iraq/Afghanisan? I heard it was something like $1 billion per day. I have no source to prove that, and I'm too lazy to look, but if that is indeed true, and even if it's not, even if it's much lower, is it worth that to you? Is it worth it to spend so much massive amounts of money on something we will never see the fruits of our money's labor to? You must remember, Iraq has nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11. Not one thing. You seem to believe the propaganda that we are "fighting terrorism" in Iraq, when we are not. The whole "Terrorism" battle was supposed to be reserved for Afghanistan, and the "Disarm Saddam" was reserved for Iraq, of course. This line has now completely blurred since we realised Saddam had NO WEAPONS. That right there is propoganda, and you've seem to have bought into it. Don't feel different though, the Bush admisinstration has fooled 30% of America aswell...Maybe more, but 70% just do not approve of him nor his war. Supporters of Bush simply HAVE to have been tricked into believing this...If they didn't, they wouldn't support him...There is no reason to.

 

 

 

Also, you say we're supposed to be protecting the innocent people, and you're completely correct. The best way to protect them is to protect them FROM US, it seems. Since the war started, what was it, 30 or 40,000 civilians have been killed? Were those people not "innocent" enough to be protected, or what? See, this is where it is obvious people have been fooled. They would agree with something even though it makes zero sense. George Bush cares nothing for protecting civilians, and he's proved that simply by refering to the deaths as "30,000, give or take.." and "the cost of democracy". If that's the cost of democracy, then I demand we, the American people, sacrifice 10,000 people per year on the alter of democracy. Not happening? Didn't think so. Hmph. :uhh:

 

 

 

I can see your point on health care, because I'll be damned if I'm paying 70% of my money just to get healthcare I *might* need. I'm almost NEVER sick, so I barely ever use mine as it is. However, what pisses me off is that I'm expected to pay $900/month for health insurance. Why? Because my fathers business makes a ton of money....However, they fail to realise, none of that money is his. Thus, we cannot afford health care. All the money he makes goes to other people's hands for building materials and labor. He makes his 30 or 40 grand per year (only a guess, honestly...you think it'd be less the way we live sometimes - my mom can't work). I have a cavity in one of my teeth that I cannot get filled because there is a waiting list for the type of insurance we were awarded by the state for being too damn broke to get "normal" stuff. Don't ask me how that works...One second we're too rich, the next we're too poor? Whatever. We call up every dentist around and they simply say "Sorry, list is full for your insurance, call back in a month." and your chances of getting them to help are, like, zero. I dunno' when I'll get this thing fixed...I just hope it doesn't start to hurt, because I'll go insane knowing I could have been helped, but was not on a technicality.

 

 

 

Basically, from what I'm seeing in personal experience, healthcare doesn't need more money necessarily, it needs a...review? Or something? I mean, does it make any sense that one second my entire family is so wealthy they're expected to pay $900/month for insurance, then the next, we're so poor we are awarded state-insurance stuff from Blue Cross? Keep in mind, nothing about our financial situation changed. Nothing at all. I just don't understand this bullcrap and it makes me really nervous about going out on my own. I'll probably NEVER have health insurance because I don't NEED it, I'm a healthy person, however, my girlfriend, who I plan on marrying, may need it...Her family has a history of cancer and her mom just had a histerectomy for some weird reason. Bah.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

Here's a good way to cut spending!

 

 

 

1. Pull out of Iraq. Admit defeat. We will *never* win there. Ever. We've trained police and military, now we leave. Also, we're spending a butt-load of money just to rebuild crap after we BLEW IT UP WITH A FEW $80,000 BOMBS, loaded up on a $5.2 MILLION DOLLAR JET.

 

 

 

That's a terrible idea. Leave after we wasted all of this money and let Iraq enter another civil war? I thought we were supposed to care about the innocent people over there? Many of them will die unless we do something to prevent tyranny. I'm not saying that entering Iraq was a good idea, but at the time, I think Bush made the right decision.

 

 

 

Hahahaha...haha..haha.. Oh.. you were.. serious?

 

 

 

Iraq is in a civil war. There is no longer any full-out tyranny in Iraq other than the one we are imposing.

 

Saddam was keeping peace between dozens of smaller groups, because they knew if they did anything, he would kick their [wagon].

 

Not that his peace was a good peace, but it was still peace, to a certain degree.

 

Now that we've taken him out (which was a good thing, in the long run), all of those smaller groups are trying to fight for control.

 

 

 

Also, when you say Bush made the right decision, but you disagree with entering Iraq, you realize you're blatantly contradicting yourself, right?

 

 

 

Look at the times: America had just endured the first attack from on outside country on their soil since the Revolutionary War. We're mad and the public needs to blame somebody instead of sitting on our rears wanting the UN to do something. Secondly, we knew that Saddam had kicked out UN nuclear checks to see if he was building nuclear bombs that could hit Israel. We had no evidence besides that, which seems pretty incriminating in and of itself.

 

 

 

Um, are we forgetting the first attack on the world trade center? And Pearl fing Harbor for god's sake?! To name a couple.

 

It was certainly the most greivous attack since Pearl Harbor though.

 

 

 

However, you do realize that it was this little thing called the Taliban that orchestrated the attacks on the world trade center, right?

 

 

 

(The following is more speculative)

 

Once Bush realized things were going nowhere in Afghanistan, instead of doing the smart thing, and cutting down troops to just maintain a watch watch for Osama/The Taliban, Bush decided to way overreach and go into Iraq for some trumped-up WMD accusations. (Not entirely trumped-up, but pretty damn).

 

Now we're stuck smack-dab in the middle of a war that's being fought not only against us but against itself, and that, at least under the current administration, is doing more or lsess squat.

[BlueTear]

 

However, you do realize that it was this little thing called the Taliban that orchestrated the attacks on the world trade center, right?

 

 

 

 

I didn't get that. Osama bin Laden, although harboured by the taliban and having a relationship with them, was not a taliban, nor was his organization a taliban organization?

[Ragen]

I think he ment Al-Qaeda :D

[Greatsilverwyrm]

Yeah.. sorry..

 

 

 

At any rate, it wasn't Saddam or Iraq.

[Bmw]

I'm kind of interested in where all of these numbers come from, people seem to throw them around pretty freely.

 

 

 

Same here. According to GSW, the USA has at least a $9 Trillion deficit? I really want to find out how you know that exactly...

 

 

 

For crying out loud! Can't you people bother to read what others have posted? I just answered it.

 

 

 

No, you didn't just answer it. It's easy for you to say "it's just some complex formula", and then go on ranting that the USA has a $9 Trillion deficit (no, you didn't say that in specific, but someone did). I'm just trying to say don't assume everything you read is real :?

 

 

 

If whoever says the USA has an $11T deficit, it must be true, right? :?

[Greatsilverwyrm]

I know this from some news a few months back that congress had to increase the national defecieit cap from something like 8.3 tril to 8.9ish tril or we would reach that limit within a few days.

 

 

 

*shrug* It was a reputable news source, and several others were carrying the story at the time.

[Not]

The United States does not have a Budget Deficit of 9 Trillion dollars, it has National Debt of 8.45 Trillion dollars. The Deficit is the yearly amount that has to be borrowed by the government in order to pay for services because not enough is collected in taxes.

 

 

 

When Clinton was president he had years of surplus, meaning that he was able to pay off a portion of the debt, not that we were out of debt.

 

 

 

A little more than 2 trillion dollars of the debt is held by foreigners. Japan holds the largest amount of that at roughly 650 billion dollars, not China as some said before owning most of it (Only about 350 billion dollars).

 

 

 

Oh here is a link to congress raising the debt ceiling http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5282521

[Tigra00]

Japan just better remember: We may owe them money, but we have nuked them before.

 

 

 

:-w

 

 

 

I keed, I keed.

[pianofrieak2]

Come on, he does kind of look monkey-esque.

 

 

 

You're right, lol, but I see no reason why that is relevant.

 

 

 

In all seriousness though, currently, he isn't making my life miserable, except the fact that everytime he veto's something helpful to the country, I want to rip my eyes out. He *will* be making ALL of our lives miserable, because who is paying for this war? Him? No, us. And the majority of us do not even support it and he labels us un-American. You want to see un-American? How about I stop paying my taxes, you ungrateful bigot. Oh, whats that? Then I'll go to prison for tax evasion? Seems you win again, Bush.

 

 

 

He's vetoed once. In over two years. Please...

 

And besides, if you disagree, then petition him. Vote democrat or independent. Those are your options, I guess.

 

 

 

Just wait several years, man. And even if it doesn't effect you in your life-time (experts say it WILL), it will surely effect your children. I'm to the point where I've decided not to have any, because it wouldn't be fair to them. Wait, I take that first statement back...It will effect you in your lifetime...Social Security is going to be drained completely by...whatever year it was. Look it up, I'm too lazy at the moment honestly. :P

 

 

 

Every president would drain Social Security. I don't even like Bush much anymore, but don't be ridiculous in blaming Social Security on Bush. Every president since it started has been taking money from there instead of going into debt more when there is a national deficit.

 

 

 

And besides, I'm not even counting on Social Security. You'd better figure out a new way to retire on since the government isn't dependable. Just save up your own money.

 

 

 

And to what Pianofreak said:

 

 

 

Cutting out from the Iraw war is INDEED a terrible idea, because it only shows terrorist groups that we were too weak to defeat them. But the truth is, we indeed ARE too weak to beat them. Maybe not physically weak in power, but we jsut cannot do it militarily. It won't happen. These people are dedicated psycho-religionists who wish for nothing but death. Surely they should all just charge us and die gracefully, but they are death-wishing cowards, it seems. Being dedicated to their religions cause, they will NEVER give up. It's like thinking a Christian will all of a sudden say, "Whelp, I didn't see Jesus today...I think I'm not going to believe in him anymore."

 

 

 

You're right. It's going to take more than millions of dollars to make those people realize they're wrong. (Send more missionaries! :)). Anyway, I agree with you on that point.

 

 

 

If Iraw goes into a civil war, it would be just like America is today. Well, it would be worse, I mean there is a group with rocket launchers instead of simple firearms like American criminals, but still. Iraq now has trained police forces and trained military personel. If they can't deal with it, then we've failed in all respects. What is the current statistics on money spent per day in Iraq/Afghanisan? I heard it was something like $1 billion per day. I have no source to prove that, and I'm too lazy to look, but if that is indeed true, and even if it's not, even if it's much lower, is it worth that to you? Is it worth it to spend so much massive amounts of money on something we will never see the fruits of our money's labor to?

 

 

 

Now you're being ridiculous again. You can't count on 4 years to see what is going to be the effects. It's like presidents and economies. You can't tell which system works until 8-10 years AFTER the president. For instance, Clinton inherited a booming economy under Reagan and then Bush inherited when it was declining due to Clinton. (Now I'm not naive enough to say that that is the entire reason, but it played a part.)

 

 

 

You must remember, Iraq has nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11. Not one thing. You seem to believe the propaganda that we are "fighting terrorism" in Iraq, when we are not. The whole "Terrorism" battle was supposed to be reserved for Afghanistan, and the "Disarm Saddam" was reserved for Iraq, of course.

 

 

 

You're correct. Both you and GreatWyrm have made that point. Therefore, let me explain myself.

 

 

 

First off, we didn't know what Iraq had. We just knew they were acting suspicious, kicked out UN nuclear inspectors, and was committing genocide against his enemies. We invaded to protect Israel and got nothing. He bluffed us, but he bluffed us well. But now we're stuck. We're inside and we can't get out without looking like complete idiots and admitting we wasted billions of dollars.

 

 

 

That's my whole point. Invading Iraq was a bad idea, but at the time, it was a good idea.

 

 

 

This line has now completely blurred since we realised Saddam had NO WEAPONS. That right there is propoganda, and you've seem to have bought into it. Don't feel different though, the Bush admisinstration has fooled 30% of America aswell...Maybe more, but 70% just do not approve of him nor his war. Supporters of Bush simply HAVE to have been tricked into believing this...If they didn't, they wouldn't support him...There is no reason to.

 

 

 

You yourself said that we can't leave Iraq. I agree.

 

You said that we shouldn't have ever entered Iraq. I say that is foolish thinking. We had no idea which way to go, but we wanted revenge, he was committing genocide, and he MIGHT have had them. There you go.

 

 

 

Also, you say we're supposed to be protecting the innocent people, and you're completely correct. The best way to protect them is to protect them FROM US, it seems. Since the war started, what was it, 30 or 40,000 civilians have been killed? Were those people not "innocent" enough to be protected, or what? See, this is where it is obvious people have been fooled. They would agree with something even though it makes zero sense. George Bush cares nothing for protecting civilians, and he's proved that simply by refering to the deaths as "30,000, give or take.." and "the cost of democracy". If that's the cost of democracy, then I demand we, the American people, sacrifice 10,000 people per year on the alter of democracy. Not happening? Didn't think so. Hmph. :uhh:

 

 

 

Protect innocent people from ourselves? Saddam murdered tens of thousands of Kurds simply because they were Kurds. At least we kill those who try to kill us. And it wasn't 30,000 from us. It was 30,000 from us and the suicide bombers who killed their own people. Don't go blaming everything wrong on us since they were the ones who instigated it and currently keep it going. If they'd quit, we'd get the heck out of there.

 

 

 

I can see your point on health care, because I'll be damned if I'm paying 70% of my money just to get healthcare I *might* need. I'm almost NEVER sick, so I barely ever use mine as it is. However, what pisses me off is that I'm expected to pay $900/month for health insurance. Why? Because my fathers business makes a ton of money....However, they fail to realise, none of that money is his. Thus, we cannot afford health care.

 

 

 

Thank you for at least seeing my point. Most people who disagree feel upset if they can agree with even a little bit of their opponent's view so they get all upset and rant. I'm glad you're more mature.

 

 

 

All the money he makes goes to other people's hands for building materials and labor. He makes his 30 or 40 grand per year (only a guess, honestly...you think it'd be less the way we live sometimes - my mom can't work). I have a cavity in one of my teeth that I cannot get filled because there is a waiting list for the type of insurance we were awarded by the state for being too damn broke to get "normal" stuff. Don't ask me how that works...One second we're too rich, the next we're too poor? Whatever. We call up every dentist around and they simply say "Sorry, list is full for your insurance, call back in a month." and your chances of getting them to help are, like, zero. I dunno' when I'll get this thing fixed...I just hope it doesn't start to hurt, because I'll go insane knowing I could have been helped, but was not on a technicality.

 

 

 

I'm really sorry about your situation. But I know a little bit about it since I used to work at a healthcare company. I was one of their accountants.

 

 

 

Basically, from what I'm seeing in personal experience, healthcare doesn't need more money necessarily, it needs a...review? Or something?

 

 

 

And the only way to get that is to get the Senate off their butts and use normal-people's healthcare. It'll be fixed quick.

 

 

 

I mean, does it make any sense that one second my entire family is so wealthy they're expected to pay $900/month for insurance, then the next, we're so poor we are awarded state-insurance stuff from Blue Cross?

 

 

 

BCBS...lol. Again, I'm sorry about your situation but it just makes me laugh at our impractical government.

 

 

 

Vote Independent!

[Tigra00]

I'll just address this since I only have a minute or two:

 

 

 

We didn't know what Saddam had, that is correct. He bluffed. Again, correct. However, we know EXACTLY what Iran and N. Korea have and we're not even THINKING of touching them. If you're going to label a war with a "spread domacracy" propoganda label, you should probably stomp in some other countries faces that need to be "crusaded". I honestly wish they'd just do it already. For some reason, I disagree with the war as it is now completely, but that's because we invaded a country that wasn't threatening. We helped civilians out I suppose (and killed a ton too, but hey, they were in the way?) but if we would actually invade threatening countries, I think I'd approve of it more. Iran is developing nukes, as is N. Korea. Not cool. N. Korea's leader is also starving his people. They need our help aswell, but again, we're doing nothing.

 

 

 

Seems a bit convenient. Makes me just think the entire war is a BS oil-grabber. I'm not a band-wagon hopping conspiracy theorist, but it seems convenient we'll only attack a country that will benefit us, then say it's benefitting them.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

But now we're stuck. We're inside and we can't get out without looking like complete idiots and admitting we wasted billions of dollars.

 

 

 

No, the only reason we're not pulling out now is because Bush is a stubborn Knob who won't admit defeat even though it's jumping around in front of him on stilts and wearing a pink tutu. We're not fooling anyone. Everyone knows we lost billions of dollars, everyone thinks we're idiots.

 

We can pull out and save face. I'm trusting the next administration to do that for us.

[Tigra00]

I'm trusting the next administration to do a lot of things. Luckily, the Republican and Democratic hopefuls right now (Dean and Clinton, I think?) both seem to have their heads on and firmly on their shoulders, as opposed to in someone's anus. I'm looking forward to them passing the stem cell bill Dubya vetoed, too.

[pianofrieak2]

But now we're stuck. We're inside and we can't get out without looking like complete idiots and admitting we wasted billions of dollars.

 

 

 

No, the only reason we're not pulling out now is because Bush is a stubborn Knob who won't admit defeat even though it's jumping around in front of him on stilts and wearing a pink tutu. We're not fooling anyone. Everyone knows we lost billions of dollars, everyone thinks we're idiots.

 

We can pull out and save face. I'm trusting the next administration to do that for us.

 

 

 

Oh, believe me, I know that Bush is stubborn. He's done a poor job of being honest with the public and admitting his mistakes. I'm no fool.

 

 

 

However, leaving right now would probably not be a great idea. Even Hillary Clinton said that... :-k

 

 

 

And Tigra, I think we already had a discussion on stem cell research. So I will just say that I'm glad Bush vetoed EMBRYONIC stem cell research.

 

 

 

I'll try to highlight the points I want to make. If you care, though, then read the entire article.

 

 

 

Federal Stem Cell Research: What Taxpayers Should Know

 

by Robert Moffit, Ph.D., Kelly Hollowell, Ph.D., Phil Coelho, and the Honorable Dave Weldon

 

WebMemo #749

 

 

 

May 24, 2005 | |

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

 

We are in the midst of a major national debate on stem cell research. There are a variety of ethical and religious views on this issue, and these perspectives are important. But there are also practical and scientific issues. The Heritage Foundation recently hosted a panel discussion to raise and discuss these issues. This paper presents excerpts from the remarks of three speakers at that event. All three have expertise in the subject and regularly address the public policy questions involved in stem cell research. Kelly Hollowell, Ph.D., is a molecular and cellular pharmacologist and a patent attorney. Phil Coelho is CEO and Chairman of the Board of Thermogenesis Corp., which provides cord blood stem cell processing and cryopreservation systems used by major cord blood stem cell banks. And Representative Dave Weldon is a physician and represents the 15th Congressional District of Florida.

 

 

 

--Robert Moffit, Ph.D.

 

 

 

Basics:

 

 

 

Kelly Hollowell, Ph.D.: Embryonic stem cells are the unspecialized cells that form the basic building blocks for all of the specialized cell types in the body. Researchers hope to treat human diseases by using stem cells taken from embryos. The primary sources for embryonic stem cells are aborted fetuses and the donated and unused embryos housed in in vitro fertilization (IVF) facilities. To obtain embryonic stem cells, an embryo is formed and allowed to mature for five to seven days. The inner mass of the stem cells is then removed, plated, and treated with chemicals to become specialized cell types. In theory, these specialized cells will be used to treat dead, diseased, or dying tissue.

 

 

 

Ethical IssuesIn the process of harvesting embryonic stem cells, the embryo is destroyed. The primary ethical question raised is whether embryos are people or property. A second ethical issue lies in the extreme inefficiency of harvesting embryonic stem cells. Specifically, the process requires womenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s eggs. To treat, for example, the 17 million diabetes patients in the United States will require a minimum of 850 million to 1.7 billion human eggs. Collecting 10 eggs per donor will require a minimum of 85 to 170 million women. The total cost would be astronomical, at $100,000 to $200,000 for 50 to 100 human eggs per each patient.

 

 

 

Even more important than the dollars and the difficulty is that the process of harvesting a womanÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s eggs for stem cells places that woman at risk. Superovulation regimens for fertility treatments would be used to obtain womenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s eggs. The risks associated with superovulation regimens or high-dose hormone therapies are debated. But there is a growing body of evidence showing that these practices, when used for standard IVF, can cause a wide spectrum of problems including memory loss, seizure, stroke, infertility, cancer, and even death. This points to yet another ethical issue: the future commercial exploitation of women, and particularly poor women, to collect their eggs.

 

 

 

Practical Results

 

No currently approved treatments have been obtained using embryonic stem cells. There are no human trialsÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

[Tigra00]

I understand because of religious conviction's that you're glad he did, that's fine. Problem is, Dubya's religious conviction's have no part in his decision-making...Well, they SHOULDN'T, but they did.

 

 

 

I submit this:

 

 

 

Emryo's are killed daily via abortions. The fetus's are discarded, thus making their "death" in vain. Wouldn't you rather a "death" helped others out? Let us not forget that he vetoed the use of a single cell aswell, which isn't human life no matter how much you say it is. Saying that is human life is like saying all females are murderer's for going through their menstrual cycle (in which an egg - potential human life, dies).

 

 

 

Abortion is legal, and probably will be for a long time to come, however, ya'll would rather worry about a "might-be" than an "already-is"? For some reason, Christian's fear that babies will be made, killed and picked as if they were simple fields of grain. That's not the case. I don't think any scientist intended to go around making babies to kill them - They're already being killed.

 

 

 

That confuses me. Why you would not be more worried about what is already happening instead of what you fear happening seems a bit...Well, funny.

[pianofrieak2]

I understand because of religious conviction's that you're glad he did, that's fine. Problem is, Dubya's religious conviction's have no part in his decision-making...Well, they SHOULDN'T, but they did.

 

 

 

I submit this:

 

 

 

Emryo's are killed daily via abortions. The fetus's are discarded, thus making their "death" in vain. Wouldn't you rather a "death" helped others out? Let us not forget that he vetoed the use of a single cell aswell, which isn't human life no matter how much you say it is. Saying that is human life is like saying all females are murderer's for going through their menstrual cycle (in which an egg - potential human life, dies).

 

 

 

Abortion is legal, and probably will be for a long time to come, however, ya'll would rather worry about a "might-be" than an "already-is"? For some reason, Christian's fear that babies will be made, killed and picked as if they were simple fields of grain. That's not the case. I don't think any scientist intended to go around making babies to kill them - They're already being killed.

 

 

 

That confuses me. Why you would not be more worried about what is already happening instead of what you fear happening seems a bit...Well, funny.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but I find it ironic that you don't even mention my points put forth in my proof. I realize that you don't care about the other side, though it be foolish in my opinion. But if you're going to respond by debunking the moral reason (which isn't even addressed in my sources), then you're missing out on the key parts of my sources.

 

 

 

Now, let me address the points you DID raise.

 

1. I'm pro-life. A fetus/baby is living and deserves to live. I don't care if it's in the womb or what time it becomes self-conscious. It is living and deserves to live. Heck, we freak out when seagulls die, but we don't care if a human baby does.

 

2. A living cell is alive and deserves to live. A woman's menstrual cycle doesnt kill anything because the egg is not living: it just has the POTENTIAL for life. At least a fetus is living and growing.

 

3. I'm also fearful of stem cell research because of the future of the world regarding this technology, but I can't stop it and that can't be a reason. That is called a logical fallacy; in fact, it's the "appeal to the future" and logical fallacies have no place in a serious talk.

 

4. Read my points and then talk about the scientific side.

[Tigra00]

Sorry, uhh, that whole quote you had in your post...Somehow I missed that. I don't know if my browser lagged and I skipped over that area conveniently or WHAT, but I didn't see it. :lol:

 

 

 

Some of the science there sounds pretty iffy, some sounds about right. That's really all I can say about it. I will say this: Paying taxes for stem cell research of some sort is just like paying taxes for anything else - It may never effect you, but it effects millions of others, so you do it...So I don't feel the "Wow, they're making us pay for it! Lame!" arguement in that text really meant anything. :P The rest of it was okay though...I'm curious why they even need embryotic stem cell research if adult stem cells will work just as good...I haven't read that much into it, but if they're the same damn thing, then we really don't even need to step on any moral lines. I still think Dubya vetoing it because of his religious convictions is wrong as a whole, though maybe that's just because he's an out-spoken Christian...If he had never said he was religious, maybe I wouldn't have a problem with it. It just seems wrong as-is now, though.