PDA

View Full Version : GWB: Partisan Hackery or totally egocentric?



Sun Wukong
21st June 07, 02:20 AM
President Bush vetoed a new stem cell research bill today, making it the 3rd veto of his administration. His three vetoes were Stem cells, stem cells, and withdrawing from Iraq. All highly popular idea which will save american lives, all utterly unacceptable to GWB's admin.

Now, I don't know which is worse: the fact that GWB ignored every partisan republican bill that went in front of him, except the one that was widely popular with both parties except for the extreme religous right or the fact that he's done virtually nothing except get us into an unwinnable war and make a mockery of democraticy.

Just to give our readers at home a little understanding of GWB's partisanship and total lack of leadership, here's a little list of vetoes by former presidents:

Nixon: 43 (impeached in his 5th year)
Ford: 66 (only 3 years of a term)
Carter: 31 (only 1 term)
Reagan: 78
GW Sr.: 44 (only 1 term)
Clinton: 37 (two terms, 3/4ths under a republican congress)

George W. Bush: 3

emboesso
21st June 07, 05:43 AM
Just to give our readers at home a better understanding, the issued vetoed was embryonic stem cell research funded by the government. Other types of stem cell research will continue to be government funded.

Embryonic stem cell research may continue to be done by private corporations as it always has been.

jubei33
21st June 07, 06:10 AM
well, to be fair, how many democrat sponsored bills has he allowed passed? Let me ask that one...

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
21st June 07, 06:44 AM
Just to give our readers at home a better understanding, the issued vetoed was embryonic stem cell research funded by the government. Other types of stem cell research will continue to be government funded.

Embryonic stem cell research may continue to be done by private corporations as it always has been.

Just to give our readers at home a better understanding, the issued vetoed was cure for cancer research funded by the government. Other types of cancer research will continue to be government funded.

Research for a cure for cancer may continue to be done by private corporations as it always has been.

emboesso
21st June 07, 07:07 AM
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And Christopher Reeve getting right up out of his wheelchair and walking away, if only it weren't for that damned Bush.

John Edwards in 2008!

As far as I'm concerned they can take everyone on the planet under the age of 12 and throw them into a huge meat grinder and feed the drippings to cancer patients if it will cure them, because I hate fuckin' kids from embryonic stage all the way up to puberty.

Everyone is entitled to their ethical standards. I happen to be alone in mine, but the President isn't alone in his.

Quikfeet509
21st June 07, 07:27 AM
It is ironic that Duyah would veto this bill because "life is sacred" yet have such a strong desire to declare war on Iraq that he would ignore the evidence.


BS.



I am cynical though with tax-dollars being spent to fund embryonic stem cell research, because it is fairly certain that if a cure was developed, it would lead to a patent which a private company would "have the right to buy" and they would make billions off federally funded research.


Three cheers for biotech welfare!

emboesso
21st June 07, 07:42 AM
I am cynical though with tax-dollars being spent to fund embryonic stem cell research, because it is fairly certain that if a cure was developed, it would lead to a patent which a private company would "have the right to buy" and they would make billions off federally funded research.


Off the top of my head I can't think of anything productive that came out of government medical research. It would be a conflict of interest anyway, having one branch of government (the FDA) reviewing and giving approval to a drug/treatment created by another branch.

And where would the lawsuits that always accompany new drugs be directed? At the US government?

Embryonic stem cell research is being done in universities. If they come up with something that looks promising they'll go to a major pharmaceutical company for R&D funding, and if something eventually gets approval, they'll be some kind of profit sharing partnership.

I don't know how that will work at this point, whether "no government funding" includes tax deductability for R&D work by corporations as well.

The blood-thinning drug Warfarin got its start this way. "Warf" stands for Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation. A professor there was studying why dairy cows were dying. He found that the cows were eating mowed down clover from decaying piles. The decaying process produced a compound that thinned the cows' blood and caused them to die from internal hemorraghing.

Wisconsin took the compound to Endo Pharmaceuticals who developed it and got FDA approval. Little use was seen for it at that time, but eventually it became a hot item because uses were found for heart and blood pressure patients. It is also now known as cumadin.

WarPhalange
21st June 07, 12:49 PM
We can't fund stem cell research. That won't leave enough money for the war!

Sun Wukong
21st June 07, 02:27 PM
CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- President Bush warned Congress on Saturday that he will use his veto power to stop runaway government spending.

"The American people do not want to return to the days of tax-and-spend policies," Bush said in his radio address.

The House of Representatives on Friday passed a $37 billion budget for the Department of Homeland Security, but Republicans rallied enough votes to uphold a promised veto from Bush.

The measure -- one of several annual spending bills that Congress began to consider this week -- exceeds Bush's request for the department by $2.1 billion.

The administration, hoping to appease Republicans who demand fiscal restraint, has pledged to keep overall spending to the level in Bush's proposed budget in February.

The president has had uneven success.

Most recently, Democrats added $17 billion to an Iraq war funding bill, money not sought by Bush. All told, Democrats plan spending increases for annual agency budgets of about $23 billion above the White House budget request.

House GOP conservatives have pledged to come up with the votes needed to uphold any Bush vetoes.

"I am not alone in my opposition," Bush said, stressing that 147 Republicans in the House have pledged to stand with him. "These 147 members are more than the one-third needed to sustain my veto of any bills that spend too much."

The president, though, has backed away from his veto threat of the politically sensitive bill to fund veterans' programs. It exceeds Bush's request by $4 billion, or 7 percent, but the president acquiesced when GOP lawmakers made it clear that with troops overseas, they were not interested in squaring off with Democrats over spending for veterans.

In his radio broadcast, Bush also railed against "earmarks" -- a common Capitol Hill practice of slipping pet projects into spending bills.

He said that in January, the House passed a rule that called for full disclosure of earmarks. To give the public a chance to peek at earmarks, he said the administration has started posting them on a Web site called www.earmarks.omb.gov (http://www.earmarks.omb.gov).

When they ran the House, Republicans larded legislation with these pet projects. But on Thursday, they were the ones forcing Democrats to be more open about Congress' pork barrel ways.

After days of bickering, Democrats this week abandoned plans to pass spending bills without allowing foes of so-called earmarks to challenge them in the full House. The hope is that by shedding more light on earmarks, excessive spending on home district projects will be curtailed.

Dagon Akujin
22nd June 07, 12:41 AM
I love the logic of the religious right:

#1: A fertilized egg is a human life and it is sacred!
#2: We love life and families!
#3: We can't use a fertilized egg in scientific testing (science = bad = evolution).
#4: Pretend that we don't throw tens of thousands of fertilized eggs away each year because, fertility clinics are good and make families! They do not make unused and unwanted "human lives"!!

#5: They make test-tube baby Jesus cry!

Dagon

Sun Wukong
22nd June 07, 04:47 PM
"The American people do not want to return to the days of tax-and-spend policies," Bush said in his radio address.


As opposed to "Spend and Spend" policies of the Bush Admin for the last 6 years.

I'm sure it's completely logical to spend way more and reduce taxes across the board for only the wealthiest people in america.

Wait a minute while i smoke some crack, drop some acid and digest some powdered lead....


Just another minute...

Not yet...

Yes, I see it now. It makes total sense. Less money coming in, and way more going out is a fucking ingenius fiscal policy. Why oh why didn't we think of that earlier? Oh right, we did. Ronald Reagan did almost exactly the same thing, but if only he dcould have bogged us down in an unwinnable war with a foreign culture he demonstrated absolutely no understanding of. That would have been a WAY better policy.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
22nd June 07, 08:55 PM
he's deficeit spending

Olorin
22nd June 07, 09:53 PM
Nixon: 43 (impeached in his 5th year)
Ford: 66 (only 3 years of a term)
Carter: 31 (only 1 term)
Reagan: 78
GW Sr.: 44 (only 1 term)
Clinton: 37 (two terms, 3/4ths under a republican congress)

George W. Bush: 3

George Washington 2
John Adams 0
Thomas Jefferson 0
James Madison 5
James Monroe 1
John Q. Adams 0
Andrew Jackson 5
Martin Van Buren 0
WH Harrison 0
Zachery Tyler 6
James K. Polk 2
Millard Fillmore 0

And Nixon was never impeached he resigned.

Just FYI

emboesso
22nd June 07, 10:01 PM
Yes, I see it now. It makes total sense. Less money coming in, and way more going out is a fucking ingenius fiscal policy. Why oh why didn't we think of that earlier? Oh right, we did. Ronald Reagan did almost exactly the same thing, but if only he dcould have bogged us down in an unwinnable war with a foreign culture he demonstrated absolutely no understanding of. That would have been a WAY better policy.

Between 1981 and 1990, tax revenues doubled despite the tax cuts during the Reagan years. Deficits? Easy to explain, Congress spent at a rate faster than the tax revenues were growing.

The economy is not a zero-sum game. There is no finite number of dollars ciruclating in the US economy.

Supply-side economics was nothing new under Reagan. JFK had the same idea with his remark along the lines of "a rising tide lifts all ships."

WarPhalange
22nd June 07, 10:28 PM
George Washington 2
John Adams 0
Thomas Jefferson 0
James Madison 5
James Monroe 1
John Q. Adams 0
Andrew Jackson 5
Martin Van Buren 0
WH Harrison 0
Zachery Tyler 6
James K. Polk 2
Millard Fillmore 0

And Nixon was never impeached he resigned.

Just FYI

How many laws were being or tried to be passed every year back then? That's kind of relevent.

Olorin
23rd June 07, 12:12 AM
How many laws were being or tried to be passed every year back then?

None, the country didn't have any laws.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
23rd June 07, 12:20 AM
More importantly half those presidents were terrible. You even had William Henry Harrison. Try again.

AAAhmed46
23rd June 07, 12:56 AM
wait...didn't they find an alternative to using aborted babies for stem cell research?

Olorin
23rd June 07, 01:11 AM
More importantly half those presidents were terrible. You even had William Henry Harrison. Try again.

They were in chronological order. 1-12.

Plus I do not recall making any kind of argument.

WarPhalange
23rd June 07, 01:12 AM
Non-aborted babies.

Sun Wukong
23rd June 07, 02:39 PM
Olorin,


The population of the United States in 1853 at the end of Millard Fillmore's Presidency was 23 million people. The population of the united states in 1790 was only about 2.6 million people.

Given the state of todays massive flow of information and the demands of people besides a largely homogenous group consisting of only white ethnic groups, I'd say comparing GWB to Millard Fillmore isn't exactly relavent.

Also, you're right. Nixon did resign to save face for the American People while he was sitting under the weight of a impending impeachment, so is it our fault Bush is still president or his? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/US_Population_Graph_-_1790_to_Present.svg

Olorin
23rd June 07, 03:44 PM
I'd say comparing GWB to Millard Fillmore isn't exactly relavent.

I was not comparing the two. It seemed from your original post that you were stating that a low number of vetoes was unprecedented, and for recent history you are right, but it is not unusual historically nor is it a sign of weak leadership. (see Andrew Jackson 5 vetoes)

I think that Bush’s low number of vetoes shows how he used spending to keep his party in line instead of vetoing bills. He would allow all kinds of spending into bills as long as he got what he wanted. As far as a lack of leadership, I think that it is hard to argue that he is not a strong leader who defiantly wants things his way. Usually the Democratic critique of Bush it that he has taken this stubbornness to the extreme and refuses to alter his views.

Even if 90% or the American people wanted Stem Cell research Bush would still veto it. He is completely unaffected by polls even of his own party. For an example of this just take a look at the recent dust up over the Immigration Bill. People who like Bush call this strong leadership, people who do not, call it stubbornness and a refusal to compromise.

I imagine if the Pelosi/Reed start passing a lot of bills we will finally see a lot of vetoes.

.

Quikfeet509
23rd June 07, 08:37 PM
Off the top of my head I can't think of anything productive that came out of government medical research. It would be a conflict of interest anyway, having one branch of government (the FDA) reviewing and giving approval to a drug/treatment created by another branch.

And where would the lawsuits that always accompany new drugs be directed? At the US government?

Embryonic stem cell research is being done in universities. If they come up with something that looks promising they'll go to a major pharmaceutical company for R&D funding, and if something eventually gets approval, they'll be some kind of profit sharing partnership.

I don't know how that will work at this point, whether "no government funding" includes tax deductability for R&D work by corporations as well.

The blood-thinning drug Warfarin got its start this way. "Warf" stands for Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation. A professor there was studying why dairy cows were dying. He found that the cows were eating mowed down clover from decaying piles. The decaying process produced a compound that thinned the cows' blood and caused them to die from internal hemorraghing.

Wisconsin took the compound to Endo Pharmaceuticals who developed it and got FDA approval. Little use was seen for it at that time, but eventually it became a hot item because uses were found for heart and blood pressure patients. It is also now known as cumadin.


You actually do have a point, but I think the fear from those in my demographic is that tax money funds much of the research at universities and when they discover something useful, the biotech companies purchase the patent for a mere fraction of what they charge. But if the biotech company is fitting the bill for the university research, then more power to them.

emboesso
23rd June 07, 09:14 PM
You actually do have a point, but I think the fear from those in my demographic is that tax money funds much of the research at universities and when they discover something useful, the biotech companies purchase the patent for a mere fraction of what they charge. But if the biotech company is fitting the bill for the university research, then more power to them.

In the case of Warfarin, the Wisconisin Alumni Research Foundation (W.A.R.F.) actually footed the bill for initial development of the compound. Hence the name; Warfarin.

No matter how promising a compound initially appears, still less than 5% of them make it all the way through to FDA approval. And of that small number, only a miniscule number become blockbuster profit makers.

The time and costs involved essentially require a major pharma corporation to become involved.

Pharma companies are always subsidizing university research. A tax write-off PLUS potentially long-run profit making.

Sun Wukong
23rd June 07, 09:33 PM
I I think that it is hard to argue that he is not a strong leader who defiantly wants things his way. Usually the Democratic critique of Bush it that he has taken this stubbornness to the extreme and refuses to alter his views.

.
Perhaps we're both just mincing words here, but we seem to have different understandings about what it takes to be a strong leader.

I would argue that stubborness doesn't equal strength. It seems that the adjective strong shouldn't apply to someone who is really terrible at something. For instance: that one legged guy is a strong swimmer... too bad he can only swim in circles.

Just doesn't seem to fit.

Yes, I imagine you're right though. He probably will veto the hell out of most every bill that he comes across regardless of scope and design while referring to it as "Tax and Spend" policy. As opposed to his brilliant and daring new plan, "Borrow and Spend".

Olorin
24th June 07, 12:41 AM
Perhaps we're both just mincing words here

Possibly...Its just that while we can accuse Bush of a lot of things I do not think that weak leadership or partisan hackery fits.

Its like if I called Bill Clinton politically stupid just because I did not like him.

ironlurker
24th June 07, 12:55 AM
Possibly...Its just that while we can accuse Bush of a lot of things I do not think that weak leadership or partisan hackery fits.
I think if anything many of the republicans have been mystified/frustrated with him, so I don't think he's exactly partisan. Many of the rank and file are against the immigration bill which he has named one of the most important goals of his presidency. And many repub's say "WTF" on his Africa funding. You can add spending in general, intervention in the schools, etc. The Bush family isn't very conservative, (grand)Mama has been publicly pro-choice for decades. I think many of what conservative positions they do have are actually politically expedient.

There's good stubborn and bad stubborn, depending on your opinion of him, but I think even many GWB supporters would admit that he is stubborn in general.

All of the above attributes may fit into the picture that some have described of a man who only trusts and listens to a very small group of people.

Dagon Akujin
24th June 07, 03:33 AM
All of the above attributes may fit into the picture that some have described of a man who only trusts and listens to a very small group of people.

Doing whatever a small group of people say, while simply ignoring the rest and pretending that they don't exist (coughcoughfreespeechzonescoughcoughcough (http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html)), does not mean you are a "strong" leader.


...I do not think that weak leadership...

In politics, I'd at least think that a "strong" leader (coughcoughchavezcoughcough) would have some degree of support (http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm) from his constituents (you certainly don't have to like Chavez, but the people he governs do).

Dagon

ironlurker
24th June 07, 07:25 AM
Doing whatever a small group of people say, while simply ignoring the rest and pretending that they don't exist (coughcoughfreespeechzonescoughcoughcough (http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html)), does not mean you are a "strong" leader.

dint say he wuz

TM
24th June 07, 10:10 AM
Kennedy issued silver certificates. That hardly jibes with supporting a floating economy and supply side economics.
For those that don't do bean counter speak, supply side economics = fuck-um.

emboesso
24th June 07, 10:23 AM
Doing whatever a small group of people say, while simply ignoring the rest and pretending that they don't exist (coughcoughfreespeechzonescoughcoughcough (http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html)), does not mean you are a "strong" leader.


Sticking your finger in your mouth then holding it up to see which way the wind is blowing does not make one strong leader either. This is exactly the kind of populist games the opposition party is taking. Calling them "leaders" is laughable.

The President presented his case to the Congress and the people who supported his course of action. Things get tough and public opinion gets antsy. A strong leader does not get swayed by shifting public opinions influenced by sound-bite politics.

That said, a strong leader would step forward and address the public and lead them back to his way of thinking, which the President has consistently failed to do. Each time he's strung together a few public appearances his approval rating has shot up. Unfortunately, like his father, he prefers to consider himself "above" the fray of partisan politics.

He is right, but he is not being a strong leader on the issue.

What he's doing with the Immigration bill completely escapes me. Its supporters keep saying it is the right thing to do, but no one can articulate exactly why it is the right thing to do and fail to address the arguments of its opposers.

And if Chavez is so popular why is attacking the media opposition, threatening to shut it down, and forcing civil servants to go out and stage counter-demonstrations?

emboesso
24th June 07, 10:38 AM
Kennedy issued silver certificates. That hardly jibes with supporting a floating economy and supply side economics.
For those that don't do bean counter speak, supply side economics = fuck-um.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1443.cfm

(see link for charts)


The 1960s
President John F. Kennedy proposed a series of tax rate reductions in 1963; the following year, legislation was passed that brought the top rate down from 91 percent in 1963 to 70 percent by 1965. 17

The Kennedy tax cuts helped to trigger a record economic expansion. Between 1961 and 1968, the inflation-adjusted economy expanded by more than 42 percent. On a yearly basis, economic growth averaged more than 5 percent.

Tax revenues grew strongly, rising by 62 percent between 1961 and 1968. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third (see Chart 3).

Just as in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased. As Chart 4 shows, tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent. 18

According to President Kennedy,

"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions and any new recession would break all deficit records. In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now." 19

TM
26th June 07, 09:41 AM
Good points. The difference is I believe that Kennedy actually understood what he was trying to do and Reagan did not. Perhaps some in his cabinet did.

emboesso
26th June 07, 08:28 PM
Good points. The difference is I believe that Kennedy actually understood what he was trying to do and Reagan did not. Perhaps some in his cabinet did.

C'mon, that's a cheap shot and uncalled for. President Reagan majored in economics in Eureka College and always had his own ideas about the economy.

frumpleswift
26th June 07, 09:03 PM
Off the top of my head I can't think of anything productive that came out of government medical research. It would be a conflict of interest anyway, having one branch of government (the FDA) reviewing and giving approval to a drug/treatment created by another branch.

Pretty much all cutting edge cancer research going on right now has some level of government funding. It has created a bit of a stir in the medical community because the NIH is pressuring researchers who use government funding to publish their research for free online through the NIH study, whereas the medical publishing industry wants to retain the rights to publish.

I used to work in publishing for an Oncology association (Michael Moore got kicked out of their last convention while filming his new movie) and upper management was always talking about the publishing rights issue.



Embryonic stem cell research is being done in universities. If they come up with something that looks promising they'll go to a major pharmaceutical company for R&D funding, and if something eventually gets approval, they'll be some kind of profit sharing partnership.

You are oversimplifying a very complex situation. By banning government funding of stem cell research, we are basically banning most meaningful research, as all of the major reseach institutions (including private corporations) receive large amounts of government funding.


The worst aspect of Bush's veto, is that he shows his contempt of the American people. Something like 70% of Americans support the funding.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
26th June 07, 09:13 PM
C'mon, that's a cheap shot and uncalled for. President Reagan majored in economics in Eureka College and always had his own ideas about the economy.

Yeah, like how he could most efficiently funnel money to rich people.

emboesso
27th June 07, 07:24 PM
You are oversimplifying a very complex situation. By banning government funding of stem cell research, we are basically banning most meaningful research

I disagree.

I think if this were really as promising as some would have us believe, big pharma would be all over it like they are with the human genome research.

And a lot of researchers see more promise in adult stem cell research.

It is only gov't funded research that is banned, and only on new lines of embryonic stem cells. This doesn't apply to already existing lines.

If Merck or Pfizer see big dollars at the end of the pipeline on this they'll get on it. That's what they do.

frumpleswift
27th June 07, 09:12 PM
Big Pharma DOES conduct stem cell research...they move that research overseas to countries that support it, so basically we are just allowing U.S. medical science to fall behind.

As for only being gov't funded research...pretty much ALL research has some level of government funding to it. Big Pharma and Universities are often partners in the research process and when the University stops stem cell research so as not to lose gov't funding, the big Pharma just goes to a university willing to play ball (often overseas).

And even if other lines are promissing, why cut off a perfectly useful line of research to pander to fucking morons who don't even believe in evolution?