Posts
Mob Rule or Democracy in Action? Health Care Debate Focuses on Opponents Over Substance - Political News - FOXNews.com: "Democrats are stepping up their campaign against opponents of health care reforms, depicting town hall audiences protesting a Democratic-sponsored bill as angry mobs duped into hostile actions by special interest groups.
The Democratic National Committee released a Web video and e-mail on Wednesday blasting opponents of the 10-year, $1 trillion plan.
Titled 'Enough of the Mob,' the ad warns that the 'right wing extremist base' is back after losing the presidential election, a series of legislative battles and the confidence of Americans.
'Now, desperate Republicans and their well-funded allies are organizing angry mobs -- just like they did during the election,' the ad says. 'Their goal? Destroy President Obama and stop the change Americans voted for overwhelmingly in November.'
The ad goes on to dismiss the protests as 'mob activity straight from the playbook of high-level Republican political operatives. They have no plan for moving our country forward, so they've called out the mob.'"
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
iPS cells as alternative to embryonic stem cells — Cranach: The Blog of Veith
iPS cells as alternative to embryonic stem cells — Cranach: The Blog of Veith: "In papers published online Thursday by two scientific journals, separate teams of researchers from Beijing and Shanghai reported that they had for the first time created virtual genetic duplicates of mice using skin cells from adult animals that had been coaxed into the equivalent of embryonic stem cells.
The findings were welcomed by supporters and opponents of human embryonic stem cell research as a long-sought vital step in proving that the cells could be as useful as embryonic cells for studying and curing many illnesses. . . ."
The findings were welcomed by supporters and opponents of human embryonic stem cell research as a long-sought vital step in proving that the cells could be as useful as embryonic cells for studying and curing many illnesses. . . ."
Multimillion Dollar U.N. Strategy Shows Little Effect in Bangladesh - United Nations - FOXNews.com
Multimillion Dollar U.N. Strategy Shows Little Effect in Bangladesh - United Nations - FOXNews.com: "Bangladesh is the only country where researchers compared results between areas that implemented the U.N. strategy with those that did not. In research published in the medical journal Lancet on Friday, experts found the program had no major impact on saving children.
U.N. officials could not say how much the program in Bangladesh cost, but said millions have been spent on its implementation around the world.
'It's remarkable the program has achieved so little,' said Philip Stevens, a director at the International Policy Network, a London think-tank. 'And it's baffling that it has been rolled out globally without any evidence that it works.'"
Where have you been Mr. Stevens? Have you ignored everything the U.N. has done? This is normal for a U.N. program (just like any other bloated bureaucracy).
U.N. officials could not say how much the program in Bangladesh cost, but said millions have been spent on its implementation around the world.
'It's remarkable the program has achieved so little,' said Philip Stevens, a director at the International Policy Network, a London think-tank. 'And it's baffling that it has been rolled out globally without any evidence that it works.'"
Where have you been Mr. Stevens? Have you ignored everything the U.N. has done? This is normal for a U.N. program (just like any other bloated bureaucracy).
Running on Empty, 'Clunkers' Program Highlights Government Incompetence, Critics Say - Political News - FOXNews.com
Running on Empty, 'Clunkers' Program Highlights Government Incompetence, Critics Say - Political News - FOXNews.com: "'This is not good for economic growth,' said Dan Mitchell, a senior fellow in economics at the Cato Institute. 'You're simply getting people to use existing income to spend on cars. Getting people to spend more of their money on cars mean they will have less money to spend on other things.'
Economic growth, Mitchell argued, is not getting people to spend more money on products, it's getting them to have more income. Mitchell also believes the program is counterproductive for the auto industry down the road because the acceleration in car purchases will precede a 'big downturn in the future.'
'Giving someone a shot of heroin is not good for their long term health,' he told FOXNews.com.
The program, Mitchell added, shows that the government is 'incompetent.'"
'"It's hard to say they're incompetent when the program is creating jobs, stimulating the overall economy and reducing emissions. Where's the loss here?" he said. "You can say it's not administered as well. But this is like picking at gnats when you look at the big picture."'
The loss is the billion dollars it cost to do those things!
Economic growth, Mitchell argued, is not getting people to spend more money on products, it's getting them to have more income. Mitchell also believes the program is counterproductive for the auto industry down the road because the acceleration in car purchases will precede a 'big downturn in the future.'
'Giving someone a shot of heroin is not good for their long term health,' he told FOXNews.com.
The program, Mitchell added, shows that the government is 'incompetent.'"
'"It's hard to say they're incompetent when the program is creating jobs, stimulating the overall economy and reducing emissions. Where's the loss here?" he said. "You can say it's not administered as well. But this is like picking at gnats when you look at the big picture."'
The loss is the billion dollars it cost to do those things!
Raul Castro Says Cuba to Cut Spending, Communism Secure - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com
Raul Castro Says Cuba to Cut Spending, Communism Secure - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com: "The former defense minister who took over the presidency last year called state spending 'simply unsustainable' and said the cash-strapped government would reorganize rural schools and scrutinize its free health care system in search of ways to save money."
The communist realizes that spending needs to be cut but our government doesn't. :-/
The communist realizes that spending needs to be cut but our government doesn't. :-/
Obama Officials Don't Dismiss Possibility of New Taxes - Political News - FOXNews.com
Obama Officials Don't Dismiss Possibility of New Taxes - Political News - FOXNews.com: "Administration officials say they hope to see positive economic growth before the end of the year, and credit the $787 billion Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed in February with preventing recession from going into depression.
The legislation -- opposed by all but three Republicans in the House and Senate -- was intended to help save or create 3 million to 4 million jobs. But since that time, the jobless rate has grown to 9.5 percent, higher than the administration predicted even without a stimulus package."
If your predictions are proved completely wrong then maybe you should rethink your theory!
The legislation -- opposed by all but three Republicans in the House and Senate -- was intended to help save or create 3 million to 4 million jobs. But since that time, the jobless rate has grown to 9.5 percent, higher than the administration predicted even without a stimulus package."
If your predictions are proved completely wrong then maybe you should rethink your theory!
Geithner: Smaller Federal Deficit Vital to Sustaining Economic Recovery - Political News - FOXNews.com
Geithner: Smaller Federal Deficit Vital to Sustaining Economic Recovery - Political News - FOXNews.com: "Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said a smaller federal deficit is vital to sustaining an economic recovery. But Geithner isn't saying how exactly the Obama administration plans to achieve that.
He said in an interview airing Sunday on ABC's 'This Week' that it will take hard choices to lower the deficit 'very dramatically.' He said overhauling the health care system and lowering costs are keys to getting the deficit under control.
Geithner was asked in the interview whether he would rule out new taxes. He said the country needs to understand the administration will do 'what's necessary.'"
A smaller deficit is vital to vital to a stronger economy but the administration has been working in the opposite direction! All estimates say that the health care reform will cost tons of money so it won't reduce the deficit. Taxes won't help the economy either.
He said in an interview airing Sunday on ABC's 'This Week' that it will take hard choices to lower the deficit 'very dramatically.' He said overhauling the health care system and lowering costs are keys to getting the deficit under control.
Geithner was asked in the interview whether he would rule out new taxes. He said the country needs to understand the administration will do 'what's necessary.'"
A smaller deficit is vital to vital to a stronger economy but the administration has been working in the opposite direction! All estimates say that the health care reform will cost tons of money so it won't reduce the deficit. Taxes won't help the economy either.
The Trade Collapse | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary
The Trade Collapse | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary: "If the U.S. trade deficit were to disappear, do you think that would be a good or bad thing? For years, many in the media and the political world wailed about the U.S. trade deficit, but it is rapidly disappearing — and the consequences are going to be disastrous.
The table shows the U.S. trade deficit dropped 52 percent between January and May of this year, as compared to the January-through-May periods of the two previous years. During the same interval, exports of goods and services dropped 19 percent and imports dropped 28 percent. The U.S. trade deficit might disappear within the next year.
Over the past several decades, many foreign countries — notably Japan and China — exported much more to the United States than they imported, and as a result, they accumulated several trillion U.S. dollars. Most of those dollars were, in turn, invested back in the United States. Foreign individuals, companies and governments bought U.S. government securities. They invested money in U.S. real estate, often spending funds to renovate old hotels and shopping centers. They invested money in the U.S. stock market and in new high-tech start-ups."
"When trade expands because of fewer trade barriers and growing global demand, it is a win-win situation for both exporters and importers. The world's consumers have access to more goods and services at lower prices (which means they have a rise in their real incomes), and the world's producers have many more customers and thus are able to expand production and create jobs."
Criton M. Zoakos, noted: "In Europe, the U.S. and Japan, massive financial bailout programs ... have committed approximately $35 trillion of public funds to support financial asset prices at pre-crisis levels. ... All of these governments won initial public approval for these stupendous bailout commitments by claiming that they were needed to restore credit flows to 'businesses and households' and save jobs. However, the fact is that nine months after approval of these plans, and the commitment of $35 trillion, lending to non-financial businesses and to households has declined in the United States (by 5.5 %), Britain (by 5.6%), Eurozone (by 0.4%) and Japan (by 3.4%)."
The table shows the U.S. trade deficit dropped 52 percent between January and May of this year, as compared to the January-through-May periods of the two previous years. During the same interval, exports of goods and services dropped 19 percent and imports dropped 28 percent. The U.S. trade deficit might disappear within the next year.
Over the past several decades, many foreign countries — notably Japan and China — exported much more to the United States than they imported, and as a result, they accumulated several trillion U.S. dollars. Most of those dollars were, in turn, invested back in the United States. Foreign individuals, companies and governments bought U.S. government securities. They invested money in U.S. real estate, often spending funds to renovate old hotels and shopping centers. They invested money in the U.S. stock market and in new high-tech start-ups."
"When trade expands because of fewer trade barriers and growing global demand, it is a win-win situation for both exporters and importers. The world's consumers have access to more goods and services at lower prices (which means they have a rise in their real incomes), and the world's producers have many more customers and thus are able to expand production and create jobs."
Criton M. Zoakos, noted: "In Europe, the U.S. and Japan, massive financial bailout programs ... have committed approximately $35 trillion of public funds to support financial asset prices at pre-crisis levels. ... All of these governments won initial public approval for these stupendous bailout commitments by claiming that they were needed to restore credit flows to 'businesses and households' and save jobs. However, the fact is that nine months after approval of these plans, and the commitment of $35 trillion, lending to non-financial businesses and to households has declined in the United States (by 5.5 %), Britain (by 5.6%), Eurozone (by 0.4%) and Japan (by 3.4%)."
State-Of-The-Art Health Care For Everyone? | William Poole | Cato Institute: Commentary
State-Of-The-Art Health Care For Everyone? | William Poole | Cato Institute: Commentary: "A nation cannot afford state-of-the-art health care for everyone. The current effort to expand health care insurance is designed to make the same health care available to both those with extensive insurance and to those currently uninsured. This effort ignores the fact that resources to make such care available to everyone do not exist.
For every major category of goods, higher income families spend more than lower-income families. Health care is not an exception."
"Let's assume that the highest income group can afford state-of-the-art health care, which we would like to make available to everyone. Based on these data, that would increase national health care outlays by 70%. To achieve this outcome, the nation would need many more physicians, nurses, medical technicians, hospitals, medical schools, MRI machines, drugs and so forth. It would be easier for the space program to send astronauts to Mars than to increase the scale of the medical establishment by 70%.
Providing today's state-of-the-art health care for everyone is simply impossible. Moreover, relentless and highly desirable technical improvements keep pushing the health care frontier outward. An ambitious goal, like sending astronauts to the moon, may be desirable, depending on a calculation of benefits and costs. An impossible goal, like state-of-the-art health care for everyone, is foolish."
"There are only two ways to say no. One is through bureaucratic processes that approve some insurance claims and deny others. The second is for society to put the decision in the hands of families and their physicians. Their decisions will necessarily be based in part on what families can afford. Higher income families can afford insurance policies that cover a wider range of ailments and treatments. From their own resources, they can pay expenses not covered by insurance. In some cases, families and their physicians may choose not to incur certain expenses the family could otherwise afford, choosing instead to leave larger bequests to children and grandchildren.
It is surely true that there are ways to improve the efficiency of existing health care resources. However, it is a pipe dream to believe that the nation can get 70% more health care from existing resources."
For every major category of goods, higher income families spend more than lower-income families. Health care is not an exception."
"Let's assume that the highest income group can afford state-of-the-art health care, which we would like to make available to everyone. Based on these data, that would increase national health care outlays by 70%. To achieve this outcome, the nation would need many more physicians, nurses, medical technicians, hospitals, medical schools, MRI machines, drugs and so forth. It would be easier for the space program to send astronauts to Mars than to increase the scale of the medical establishment by 70%.
Providing today's state-of-the-art health care for everyone is simply impossible. Moreover, relentless and highly desirable technical improvements keep pushing the health care frontier outward. An ambitious goal, like sending astronauts to the moon, may be desirable, depending on a calculation of benefits and costs. An impossible goal, like state-of-the-art health care for everyone, is foolish."
"There are only two ways to say no. One is through bureaucratic processes that approve some insurance claims and deny others. The second is for society to put the decision in the hands of families and their physicians. Their decisions will necessarily be based in part on what families can afford. Higher income families can afford insurance policies that cover a wider range of ailments and treatments. From their own resources, they can pay expenses not covered by insurance. In some cases, families and their physicians may choose not to incur certain expenses the family could otherwise afford, choosing instead to leave larger bequests to children and grandchildren.
It is surely true that there are ways to improve the efficiency of existing health care resources. However, it is a pipe dream to believe that the nation can get 70% more health care from existing resources."
Not Enough Healthcare to Go Around | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary
Not Enough Healthcare to Go Around | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary: "If a treatment can save our lives or increase quality of life, we want it. Therefore, in the long run, the only way to spend less on healthcare is to consume less healthcare. Someone, sometime, has to say no.
Take just one example. If everyone were to receive a CT brain scan every year as part of an annual physical, we would undoubtedly discover a small number of brain cancers earlier than we otherwise would, perhaps early enough to save a few lives. But given the scan's cost, adding it to all annual physicals would quickly bankrupt the nation."
"The real debate, therefore, is not about whether we should ration care but about who should ration it. Currently, that decision is often made by insurance companies or other third-party payers. Obama and congressional Democrats want to shift that decision-making power to the federal government. Some, frustrated by the insurance-based rationing of the current system, naively believe that putting the government in charge would mean unlimited access to the care they need and desire. When Michael Moore, in Sicko, showcased emotional tales of people denied experimental treatment by insurance companies, he implied that a government-run system would certainly pay for it.
The reality, however, is that every government-run healthcare system around the world rations care."
"Free-market healthcare reformers, on the other hand, want to shift more of the decisions (and therefore the financial responsibility) back to the individual.
People should have the absolute right to spend their own money on whatever they want, including buying as much healthcare as they want. And, if they are spending their own money, they will make their own rationing decisions based on price and value.
That CT scan that looked so desirable when someone else was paying may not be so desirable if you have to pay for it yourself. The consumer himself becomes the one who says no.
Of course, as a compassionate society, we may choose to help others pay for some care. That's a worthwhile debate to have. But our resources are not unlimited. Choices will have to be made. And, therefore, the real question should be: Who will make those choices?
The only way to spend less on healthcare is to consume less healthcare."
Take just one example. If everyone were to receive a CT brain scan every year as part of an annual physical, we would undoubtedly discover a small number of brain cancers earlier than we otherwise would, perhaps early enough to save a few lives. But given the scan's cost, adding it to all annual physicals would quickly bankrupt the nation."
"The real debate, therefore, is not about whether we should ration care but about who should ration it. Currently, that decision is often made by insurance companies or other third-party payers. Obama and congressional Democrats want to shift that decision-making power to the federal government. Some, frustrated by the insurance-based rationing of the current system, naively believe that putting the government in charge would mean unlimited access to the care they need and desire. When Michael Moore, in Sicko, showcased emotional tales of people denied experimental treatment by insurance companies, he implied that a government-run system would certainly pay for it.
The reality, however, is that every government-run healthcare system around the world rations care."
"Free-market healthcare reformers, on the other hand, want to shift more of the decisions (and therefore the financial responsibility) back to the individual.
People should have the absolute right to spend their own money on whatever they want, including buying as much healthcare as they want. And, if they are spending their own money, they will make their own rationing decisions based on price and value.
That CT scan that looked so desirable when someone else was paying may not be so desirable if you have to pay for it yourself. The consumer himself becomes the one who says no.
Of course, as a compassionate society, we may choose to help others pay for some care. That's a worthwhile debate to have. But our resources are not unlimited. Choices will have to be made. And, therefore, the real question should be: Who will make those choices?
The only way to spend less on healthcare is to consume less healthcare."
Does Inequality Still Matter? | Will Wilkinson | Cato Institute: Commentary
Does Inequality Still Matter? | Will Wilkinson | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Income inequality can rise and fall for all sorts of reasons. Twenty-somethings just starting out and retired seventy-somethings both earn a lot less on average than peak-earning fifty-somethings. As the age profile of the population shifts, income inequality figures shift, too. So what? Consider another example. A generous immigration policy can widen the income gap in this country while at the same time reducing world poverty. That's good, if you ask me.
Income inequality can also rise as a side-effect of injustice in our socio-economic system. But injustice should be rooted out because it is wrong, not because it widens the income gap as a side effect. If, just to take a wildly hypothetical example, the government has unjustly dumped loads of taxpayer money on Goldman Sachs, such a narrow allocation of public funds for private use should concern us for its own sake — not because Goldman's bountiful bonuses are likely to exacerbate income inequality."
Income inequality can also rise as a side-effect of injustice in our socio-economic system. But injustice should be rooted out because it is wrong, not because it widens the income gap as a side effect. If, just to take a wildly hypothetical example, the government has unjustly dumped loads of taxpayer money on Goldman Sachs, such a narrow allocation of public funds for private use should concern us for its own sake — not because Goldman's bountiful bonuses are likely to exacerbate income inequality."
Report: Obama Daughters Featured in Controversial Food Ad - Political News - FOXNews.com
Report: Obama Daughters Featured in Controversial Food Ad - Political News - FOXNews.com: "While the ad is part of a campaign to petition Congress to require healthier foods in schools, Politico newspaper reports that 'targeting' the Obama girls is no way to win friends at the White House.
'This is not the way to win the heart of the president,' Brookings Institution Governance Studies Director Darrell West told Politico. 'It's dangerous to target Obama's daughters because many people view family members as off limits for political advocacy. That's especially relevant in this case because his daughters are so young.'"
It's not about the girls -- its about the choices her father makes and how that affects them.
'This is not the way to win the heart of the president,' Brookings Institution Governance Studies Director Darrell West told Politico. 'It's dangerous to target Obama's daughters because many people view family members as off limits for political advocacy. That's especially relevant in this case because his daughters are so young.'"
It's not about the girls -- its about the choices her father makes and how that affects them.
George: Gay Marriage, Democracy and the Supreme Court - WSJ.com
George: Gay Marriage, Democracy and the Supreme Court - WSJ.com: "Even many supporters of legal abortion now consider Roe a mistake. Lacking any basis in the text, logic or original understanding of the Constitution, the decision became a symbol of the judicial usurpation of authority vested in the people and their representatives. It sent the message that judges need not be impartial umpires—as both John Roberts and Sonia Sotomayor say they should be—but that judges can impose their policy preferences under the pretext of enforcing constitutional guarantees.
By short-circuiting the democratic process, Roe inflamed the culture war that has divided our nation and polarized our politics. Abortion, which the Court purported to settle in 1973, remains the most unsettled issue in American politics—and the most unsettling. Another Roe would deepen the culture war and prolong it indefinitely."
'Candid and clear-thinking advocates of redefining marriage recognize that doing so entails abandoning norms such as monogamy. In a 2006 statement entitled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” over 300 lesbian, gay, and allied activists, educators, lawyers, and community organizers—including Gloria Steinem, Barbara Ehrenreich, and prominent Yale, Columbia and Georgetown professors—call for legally recognizing multiple sex partner (“polyamorous”) relationships. Their logic is unassailable once the historic definition of marriage is overthrown.
Is this a red herring? This week’s Newsweek reports more than 500,000 polyamorous households in the U.S.
So, before judging whether traditional marriage laws should be junked, we must decide what marriage is. It is this crucial and logically prior question that some want to shuffle off stage.'
By short-circuiting the democratic process, Roe inflamed the culture war that has divided our nation and polarized our politics. Abortion, which the Court purported to settle in 1973, remains the most unsettled issue in American politics—and the most unsettling. Another Roe would deepen the culture war and prolong it indefinitely."
'Candid and clear-thinking advocates of redefining marriage recognize that doing so entails abandoning norms such as monogamy. In a 2006 statement entitled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” over 300 lesbian, gay, and allied activists, educators, lawyers, and community organizers—including Gloria Steinem, Barbara Ehrenreich, and prominent Yale, Columbia and Georgetown professors—call for legally recognizing multiple sex partner (“polyamorous”) relationships. Their logic is unassailable once the historic definition of marriage is overthrown.
Is this a red herring? This week’s Newsweek reports more than 500,000 polyamorous households in the U.S.
So, before judging whether traditional marriage laws should be junked, we must decide what marriage is. It is this crucial and logically prior question that some want to shuffle off stage.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)