I was watching John Edwards speaking at the University of North Carolina last night. As I was listening, what came to my mind was, “this guy speeches are convincing,” but it was something that was not right about his speech. He made statements that he and John Kerry were going to do that President Bush failed to do. All these statements that he made were very high level. For example, he mentioned “the Bush administration miscalculated by rushing to war by deciding to go it alone without strong allies,” and that John Kerry and himself will work closer with the United Nations. Besides Tony Blair and maybe a few other folks, there was no one else that was going to back the US into this war. Then he goes to mention, “the war on terrorism CAN be won.” Winning the war on terrorism is like saying you can destroy every caca roach in the world. Maybe John Edwards is going to sit down and have a meeting with the terrorist and ask them politely to stop terrorism and have a terrorism treaty. Winning the war on terrorism is like making the US having 0 crime rate. It can’t happen! What President Bush said is true, “President Bush said he doesn’t think the war on terrorism can be won, but that conditions can be created around the world that make terrorists less acceptable.” There were some other things he said that I couldn’t remember, but I am going to look for his complete speech via web.

Intel just announced successfully creating a 70 megabit memory chip using 35nanometer technology. Intel is far in the future with this accomplishment. Currently, many companies are still having leakage current and power issues with 90nanomemter technology, which is being used in today’s electronics. Also, many companies are just starting to look into 65nanometer technology, while Intel has a functional 35nanometer chip. What can you say but, WOW!

The Santa Clara, California-based company said Monday it’s created a fully functional 70 megabit memory chip with transistor switches measuring just 35 nanometers — about 30 percent smaller than those found on today’s state-of-the-art chips.

Intel said products built with its 65-nanometer process technology — a label that describes the average size of the minuscule chip features — are on track for delivery in 2005.

It is very important for electronic devices like cell phones, PDAs, or any portable device that are operated by batteries that transistor become smaller and smaller. These nanometer technologies enable these devices to become smaller and more powerful.

Many liberals claim that the Bush tax cut only benefits the wealthy. Anyone with basic math skills can prove this is not true. Actually, “President Bush tax cut” cuts the most on the lowest income bracket. The income tax goes as follows for filing single:

Current Tax:

New Tax

This chart breaks down per income tax bracket on the differences of income taxes comparing President Bush tax cut vs. current taxes.

As we can see from this chart, the tax bracket $0-$6,000 has the greatest decrease in taxes which is 33%. The only tax bracket that was not effected was the tax bracket $6,000-$27,050. The second greatest decrease in taxes is 19% from tax bracket $65,550-$136,750. This is proof that President Bush tax cut is not only for the wealthy, but also for the lower and middle income tax bracket.

Other benefits from President Bush tax cut includes:

• Doubling the child tax credit to $1,000 per child and applying the credit to the Alternative Minimum Tax
• Reducing the marriage penalty by reinstating the 10 percent deduction for two-earner couples
• Eliminating the death tax
• Expanding the charitable deduction to non-itemiser
• Making Research and Experimentation (R&D) tax credit permannet

I came across this article “Understanding Income Inequality in the United States”. This article quotes vice presidential candidate John Edwards saying,

“two Americas…one privileged, the other burdened…one America that does the work, another that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks.”

In essence, he is saying that the poor does all the work and the rich takes the benefits. This is jargon and I can prove it. Lets take two people, person A and person B. Lets say person A makes a yearly income of $25,000 and person B makes a yearly income of $250,000. Using the current tax bracket, person A pays 15% income tax a year and person B pays 33% income tax a year. Therefore, person A pays $3,750 in taxes per year were as person B pays $82,500 in taxes per year. That means person B pays 2,200% more in taxes then person A. So why do John Edwards say, “One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks.” Now lets look at the lives of person A and person B. Typically, making $25,000 a year, a person would either be a clerk, filing papers, or working in a non-professional area. A person that makes around $250,000 is typically a business owner, or some type of executive at a large corporation. Making higher income levels typically requires high education or a higher risk factor. To make a high income level is a very hard thing to do. I once heard a saying, “If it is easy, then every one will do it.” Meaning, if getting rich is easy, then everyone would be rich. So, why did John Edwards say, “one America that does the work, another that reaps the reward.” Maybe it should be the other way around.

This article also states that the top fifth of the US households, whose income is above $84,000, pay 82.5 percent of the total federal income taxes where as the lower income families pays 1.1 percent.

Still, the top fifth of U.S. households (with incomes above $84,000) remain perennial targets of class-warfare enmity. These families, however, perform a third of all labor in the economy. They contain the best-educated and most productive workers, and they provide a disproportionate share of the investment needed to create jobs and spur economic growth. Nearly all are married-couple families, many with two or more earners. Far from shirking the tax burden, these families pay 82.5 percent of total federal income taxes and two-thirds of federal taxes overall. By contrast, the bottom quintile pays 1.1 percent of total federal taxes.

In one sense, John Edwards is correct: There is one America that works a lot and pays a lot in taxes, and there is another America that works less and pays little. However, the reality is the opposite of what Edwards suggests. It is the higher-income families who work a lot and pay nearly all the taxes. Raising taxes even higher on hard-working families would be unfair and, by reducing future investments, would reduce economic growth, harming all Americans in the long run.

It really boils my blood when people like vice presidential candidate John Edward talks jargon. Misinforming public America about economics and making lower income people feel that they are doing most, if not all the work and paying most of the taxes. This is non-sense! Especially in a presidential election. The sad thing about this is, sense his statement flowed and sounds persuasive, many uninformed people are going to believe him. Urrr… I know this is not a perfect world, but a presidential election should be based off of facts and not images, on what one believes and not on what just gets votes. I would respect John Kerry and John Edwards a lot more if they just stuck to the truth instead of an image.

The article “The appeasement disease” by Walter Williams explains how many of the Bush’s foreign-policy critics share the same views as the people who previously led worldwide chaos.

President Bush’s foreign-policy critics at home and abroad share characteristics and visions that have previously led to worldwide chaos and untold loss of lives. These people believe that negotiation, appeasement and caving in to the demands of vicious totalitarian leaders can produce good-faith behavior. Their vision not only has a long record of failure but devastating consequences.

Walter Williams then gives a couple of examples how in the past, some governmental leaders appeased vicious leader’s demands which was then lead into disaster.

During the late 1930s, France and Britain hoped that allowing Adolf Hitler to annex Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia would satisfy his territorial ambitions. This was after a long string of German violations of the terms of the Versailles Treaty ending World War I. Appeasement didn’t work. It was seen as weakness, and it simply emboldened Hitler.

At the Yalta Conference, near the end of World War II, Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt thought they could appease Josef Stalin by giving away Eastern Europe and making other concessions that ultimately marked the beginning of the nearly half-century Cold War and Soviet/China expansionism. War-weary Westerners hoped that brutal tyrants would act in good faith. Failing to stand up to Stalin resulted in unspeakable atrocities, enslavement and human suffering.

There is an interesting point Walter Williams make. What would happen if Britain or France launched a military attack on Germany between 1934 and 1935? Maybe 50 million lives could have been spared.

Western appeasers, most notably Europeans, were quite willing to respond to Saddam Hussein’s violation of peace terms in a fashion similar to their earlier counterparts’ response to Hitler’s violation of the peace terms of the Versailles Treaty. Had Britain or France launched a military attack on Germany between 1934 and 1935, when Hitler started his arms buildup in violation of the Versailles Treaty and before he fully developed his military capability, he would have been defeated and at least 50 million lives would have been spared.

Since there was physical proof that Saddam sent his army to destroy 4000 villages and killed 180,000 Kurds with sarin and mustard gases, maybe the Iraqi war was not a bad idea after all. Maybe the US had prevented another Hitler’s massacre.

One thing the US proved to this world is that we will not tolerate terrorism. I honestly believe that there has not been any more terrorism on the US soil because of the war with Afghanistan and Iraq.

Kudos for the US women’s basketball team as they win a gold medal beating Australia 74-63.

Johnson and Thompson gave the United States a huge lift with their second-half scoring, and the Americans beat Australia 74-63 on Saturday for their third straight Olympic basketball title.

Some highlights of the game.

She drove the lane and scooped in an underhanded layup with 32.1 seconds left and, with U.S. fans waving flags and chanting “U-S-A, U-S-A,” she made two free throws to finish it off.

They huddled and held a U.S. flag over their heads like a tent, savoring the moment.

Illegal immigration has been a problem for many years now, yet the lawmakers in DC are considering loosing up the immigration laws.

Washington, DC, Aug. 25 (UPI) — Lawmakers continue to battle on whether or not to loosen immigration laws, particularly on the possibility of allowing illegal immigrants from Mexico to stay legitimately and potentially become U.S. citizens.

Although illegal immigrants may be beneficial for small business because of cheap labor, it is very costly to the taxpayer’s dollars. It cost more in social care for illegal immigrants then what they bring to the table.

But while the politically sensitive debate continues, some analysts argue that the cost to care for illegal immigrants far outweighs the potential benefits they bring to the table. The Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington think-tank, for one argued Wednesday that unlawful aliens are draining the federal government’s coffers.

According to the center’s latest study on the cost of illegal immigration, families that are in the United States used $10.4 billion more in government services than they paid in taxes in 2002.

If illegal immigrants become legal and pay taxes and use social services, the deficit per household would almost triple.

“If illegal aliens were legalized and began to pay taxes and use services like legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual fiscal deficit at the federal level would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total federal deficit of $29 billion,” said Steven Camarota, director of research at the center.

Having loose borders not only burden the US with illegal immigrants, but it also open doors for terrorist and lowers the US per capita.

I have been doing some research and inquiring on the Material Witness law and I see that this law poses a threat to our rights as citizens. The Material Witness law allows the detainment of any person that has information pertaining to a criminal investigation for testifying in court. This material witness can be detained for any length of time. It can be the time from which you testify in court to the time the trial is over, which can take months or years.

Can you imagine being detained as a material witness for a couple of years and you did not even commit a crime? According to this law, an innocent LAW ABIDING citizen can witness a crime and be detained for years because they have information on a criminal investigation. Talking about being at the wrong place at the wrong time! WOW! Lets say that this innocent law abiding citizen spends one year under custody. Do you know how much this would affect his life? There is a strong chance he might lose his job. This might put his marriage in jeopardy. His business that he worked so hard for might go down the drain. All this, for what? Just to be a witness in the court of law. Do the benefits for detaining a witness out weighs the effects?

From my understanding of this law, criminals are treated better than material witnesses for a couple of reasons. First, they at least are read their Miranda rights. Second, at least the criminals know when they are getting out of jail were as material witnesses are sometimes held until the government are ready to release them.

The only way to be released from being a material witness is if you have a valid claim to your Fifth Amendment right. Meaning, if testifying in the court of law would incriminate you and the judge determines it is a valid claim, then you would be released from being a material witness.

There have been a couple of cases where the Material Witness law has been abused. For example, Abdullah al Kidd. Kidd is an American citizen who was heading to Saudi Arabia to study for his doctorate in Islamic studies. In March 2003, Kidd was taken in as a material witness for a terrorism investigation. While being detained, Kidd was mistreated and humiliated. They made him sit in a small cell for hours butt naked. Kidd was held for 16 months and he was never charged of a crime and he never testified in court. After his release, Kidd now works as a mover. His marriage has been shaken into pieces and he lost his scholarship in Saudi Arabia. What a price to pay!

I understand that the Material Witness law is in place to ensure that criminals are put where they belong, but I do not think it is the government’s right to take away a citizen’s right in order to do so. I believe this law gives too much power to the government and should be re-visited.

I read this interesting article on Price Control on drugs by Ronald Trowbridge. He stated how his wife was diagnosed with lung cancer and how a miracle had occurred. His wife agreed to try this new drug manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline and within eight weeks, her lung tumor shrunk by at least 10 percent.

I am driven by gratitude to share with the world a story about a miracle – a miracle created by man, but miraculous nonetheless.

Recently my wife was diagnosed with stage 4 inoperable non-smoker’s non small cell lung cancer. The five-year prognosis for lung cancer survival is 15 percent. We felt it was a death sentence, and were consumed with grief every waking and sleepless moment.
Clinging to hope, my wife agreed to a clinical drug trial conducted by the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, testing a new growth inhibitor manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline.

In just eight short weeks we had the initial findings: the inhibitor had shrunk the lung tumor by at least 10 percent! If that is not a man-made miracle, nothing is.

Ronald Trowbridge then goes into how he read this article by E.O Wilson. This article stated:

That of all the species in the universe, “fewer than 2 million are in the scientific register” and that “an estimated 5 million to 100 million – or more – await discovery.”

With this note, he says that medicine is the same. The medicine we have today is only a fraction of what has not been discovered yet.

Now Ronald Trowbridge gets to his point about why price control on drugs are bad and how drug companies are restricted by them.

My point is obvious: If drug companies are restricted by price controls, if they are not able to realize a meaningful profit, they will have no incentive to take huge risks and invest prodigious sums of money in finding cures to human diseases.

In the remaining 100 million species yet to be discovered might be the cure for Alzheimer’s or AIDS or cancer, but they would remain largely untapped. This neglect would be inhumane – not to us in the immediate present – but to countless numbers of us when we’re older, and to our children and grandchildren.

I agree with Ronald Trowbridge 100 percent. Yes, it is true that when a new drug first comes to the market, it is expensive. But as time goes on, that drug will become cheaper. When a drug is very profitable, many pharmaceutical companies want their share of the profit, thus creating competition. With competition comes cheaper prices.

Large profits are incentive why pharmaceutical companies create drugs. If drugs were price controlled, that removes the incentive, leaving us with very few drug selections.

This is what I am talking about, an African American male in the world doing his thing. Kwame Jackson started in the reality TV show Apprentice. Outside of the show Apprentice, he just completed a multi billion dollar deal with real estate.

The runner-up in the first season of the NBC reality show “The Apprentice” (search) has completed a multibillion dollar real-estate deal of his own. With two other partners, Jackson has made a deal with officials in Prince George’s County in Maryland to develop an 80 to 130 acre area into commercial and residential property.

The deal is worth $3.8 billion and will provide over 32,000 jobs, Jackson said.

“For me, ‘The Apprentice’ was the beginning,” he told The Associated Press Tuesday. “It’s not a ceiling, it’s a floor.”

The poliovirus invades the nervous system, which a person can be paralyzed in hours. This virus is spreading across western and eastern African. The root of this virus started in northern Nigeria, which is being blamed for not vaccinating the area properly. Anyone can get this virus but it is mainly targets children under the age of three.

Africa could be on the verge of a major polio outbreak, the World Health Organization has warned.

The WHO had previously predicted that polio could be eradicated by the end of this year.

Unable to vaccinate in the region, the WHO tried to prevent polio spreading further by protecting people in neighbouring countries.

Ten African countries, which had previously eradicated the virus, have now reported new cases.

The Pacific island nation is planning to supply the island of Samoa with full Internet access to help promote business and the economy. Currently, about 30% of the population has access to a basic phone and less the 2% uses the Internet.

Samoa is at the the heart of tropical Polynesia. It has a population of 180,000, but only 30% presently have access to a basic telephone.
Less than 2% ever use the Internet. But the government plans a major drive to promote online access for all.

With Samoa having access to the internet, they will be able to market their goods like woven bags online.

She foresees the day when a computer-literate population sells Samoan goods such as woven bags and Polynesian prints over the internet, promoting economic growth.

Some Samoans fear that the internet will impact their culture by bringing western values and other fears about child pornography.

In this rush to embrace new technology, there are some warning voices.

“One of the things that I worry about is how this exposure is going to impact on the culture,” says Ioanna Chan-Mow, Dean of the Faculty of Science and the National University of Samoa.

“We’re exposing ourselves to a whole lot of philosophies and ways of life, bringing in a lot of western values.”

Samoan culture is centred around the traditional family unit, each headed by a Matai or Chief. Attendance at Christian church services is high.

Of particular concern to many people is internet pornography.

At one of the few private schools which provided pupils with internet access, the PCs had to be moved after it was discovered children had been accessing inappropriate websites.

The prime minister believes the benefits of the internet will far outweigh any disadvantages.

“The internet is OK so long as we impose the necessary controls to cut out pornography which would be damaging for our people,” he says.

This stem cell topic never seems to go away. It came up again at work yesterday. Maybe it was I with my passion about this topic, that brings it up subconsciously. Well anyway, I was forwarded an article with more information about embryonic stem cell research from Times Magazine. I cannot blockquote any excerpts from this article because the article was scanned and was forwarded to me as a jpeg file. Well instead of blockquoting excerpts, I’ll post the image file:

A friend of mine (Kevin) and I were discussing stem cell research and its issues in my office yesterday. While discussing this topic, I brought up the main point of this article: “Since fertility clinics destroys far more human embryos than stem cell research ever would, why not use the embryonic stem cells that are thrown away or frozen for stem cell research?” I did not say this in exact words, buy my argument was close enough. Kevin then made a good point saying that if we used these destroyed stem cells, that would then create motive for the clinics to sell the stem cells to researchers. This is a common argument. But I, the BLACKPUNDIT, think I have a solution for this. The main motive for this issue is money. If we controlled motive by forbidding monetary exchange for destroyed embryos, this will then solve the motive issue. If the clinics donate embryos to researchers instead of selling it, this will then be a choice and not a motive.

This post is inspired by Socialism is Evil (I & II) and Free Healthcare by Walter Williams, War on Poverty by Thomas Sowell, and Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.

The ultimate goal for economics is to get the best results with the littlest effort possible and to add wealth to the community. Lets look at socialism and see how it affects the economy in a negative way.

Lets first start of by the definition of socialism: Socialism is various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

In essence, socialism is taking hard earned money from one person and giving it to another person. This creates equality amongst people, which then reduces competition. Without competition, there is no motivation to do better or to create better goods and services.

Social program reflects higher taxes. The higher the taxes are the greater deterrent for private production and employment. For every dollar a cooperation lose is a dollar lost and for every dollar won, only about forty cents are kept due to high taxes. This becomes a high risk and leaves very little incentive for creations of private production.

Although we live in a capitalist society, there are still some forms of socialism on both sides of the political party. Liberals give tax dollars to social programs like welfare, and low-income housing. Where as conservative gives tax dollars in forms of tariffs, for example giving tax dollars to farms, and bankrupted companies like the airline industry. Although you may feel that these funds are need for these examples, they are still taxpayer’s dollars. You are still taking someone’s hard earned money and giving it to someone else. In the long run, tariff reduces efficiency, production, and wealth.

Taxpayer’s dollars are strictly for public goods and service such as public schools, postal services, police and fire departments, and the maintenance of public streets and public places. To get a better glance of what taxpayer’s dollars are for, look at Article I Section VIII of the Constitution.

The results of higher taxes and social programs like health care encourage companies to move to different areas that are cheaper in taxes and health care. For example, many businesses are moving from California to areas like Nevada and Arizona for lower taxes and health care. Therefore, leaving fewer jobs for California. The results of this are more social services because of less employment. A few months back, a famous knife company started and based in San Diego was on the news signing customer’s knives because they were packing their bags and heading to another state because of high taxes and health care in California. More and more companies are heading this route.

China is a communist society using a capitalist marketing strategy. Since China developed this strategy, they are now competing to become the next Super Power. A capitalist society promotes competition. Therefore, promoting better goods and services and adding wealth to the community.

Health care in Canada is socialized. Because it is socialized, patients have to wait 16 to 17 weeks from the time of appointment to treatment because the supply for doctors does not meet the demand. In the 1990s many doctors fled to the US, leaving nurses responsible for doctor’s practices. Waiting list for Canada also occurred for CT and MRI with a range waiting time of two to twenty-four weeks. Also, in 2003 the government of British of Columbia enacted Bill 82, which prohibits anyone paying clinical fees for surgery. For some medical services, Canadians commute to the US just to get better and faster medical services.

Many social programs are for the worse. For example, the “War on Poverty” legislative that was signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1964. This War on Poverty turned the African American community from making positive efforts in life to depending on social welfare and making the African Americans less effective, therefore, destroying the African American community.

Increasing minimum wage affects the economy in a negative way. Boosting the minimum wage hurts small businesses the most, who employs a significant amount of people. I guess many socialists believes raising minimum wage only burden the businesses. No, the burden will be on the people who are looking for jobs because many of the small businesses will hire less. Businesses pay people on which they feel their level of skills are worth. Therefore, many businesses will hire higher-level skilled people, leaving the extremely lower skilled or extremely lower educated people jobless. Also, cutting the gap between wages on lower skilled jobs vs. jobs that require higher education reduces the productivity and incentive to work harder for those of the higher educated workforce.

In conclusion, we can see how a social society affects the economy. Social programs are brought up because economist only sees the immediate effects instead of seeing the long-term effects.

Highly paid professionals might lose their over time pay.

Employers have sought changes for decades, complaining the regulations were ambiguous and out of date, and questioning why highly paid professionals should get overtime pay. Labor unions, however, say the new rules are intended to reduce employers’ costs by cutting the number of workers who are eligible for overtime pay.

The original purpose of overtime have changed since the 1930’s when it was originated.

The original purpose of overtime was to stop employers from working people overtime to make employers hire more workers. In the 1930’s it was more expensive to pay time and one-half than to hire another worker.

Since we are not using overtime pay in its original content, maybe we should re-evaluate it.

Scientist says that there were more water on mars than expected.

LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) — The hills of Mars yielded more tantalizing clues about how water shaped the Red Planet in tests by NASA’s robotic geologist, Spirit, while its twin, Opportunity, observed the deep crater it climbed into two months ago, scientists said on Wednesday.

“This is different from the rocks out on the plain, where we saw coatings and veins apparently due to effects of a small amount of water. Here we have a more thorough, deeper alteration, suggesting much more water.”

Although we spend billions of tax dollars (sorry, $820 million combined cost) on a project like Opportunity and Spirit, I think it is worthwhile to explore outside of our own planet. Maybe we can then find answers to unsolved questions or maybe we find more technical advances.

Republican Sue Myrick of North Carolina has written House Speaker for a vote to overturn the all firearms ban at the nations capitol, DC.

Conservative Republican members of Congress are pressing for a House floor debate Sept. 13 on a bill to overturn the District of Columbia’s ban on all firearms in the nation’s capitol.

Rep. Sue Myrick of North Carolina, representing the conservative Republican Study Committee, has written House Speaker Dennis Hastert asking for the vote. Sept. 13 is the date when the federal ban on assault weapons expires because Republican leaders don’t plan to bring it up in the House.

Besides being the nation’s capitol, DC is also the murder capitol. In my post Gun Control, I state that gun control takes away guns from law abiding citizens which then promotes violence. I believe this is the same case for DC. All DC law abiding citizens need their Second Amendment Right, “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms” to protect themselves from criminals and murderers.

The famous HispanicPundit and I (BlackPundit) had a good yahoo IM debate about federal spending for stem cell research. I though this topic was quite interesting so I decided to post it. I know its long, but read it anyway. Parental Guidance is Advised!

HispanicPundit: I have been meaning to talk to you about your stem cell discussion
HispanicPundit: you miss a subtle point on one of your responses
BlackPundit: what was that
HispanicPundit: Federal funding can boost research for quicker results. Let me ask you this, did the private sector get us to the moon? No, federal funding did.
HispanicPundit: that’s what you wrote
HispanicPundit: but like I explained to your bud BJ, you can’t use the moon example to rebut the private sector argument
BlackPundit: why not
HispanicPundit: there was NO compelling reason for the private sector to get into going to the moon, no money to be made, so the federal government had to fund it, or it wouldn’t go anywhere, HOWEVER, with Stem Cell Research there is HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY TO BE MADE *if* the predictions turn out to be true, so the fact that they are still reluctant to enter, is a clear indicator that even the non-partisan market doesn’t believe all the hype
BlackPundit: but still, just for the fact that federal spending will boost results that is a benefit in itself
BlackPundit: but it is a good enough comparison
HispanicPundit: but remember, your not asking for federal funding per se, since Bush already is giving more than any past president, your asking for MUCH MORE
BlackPundit: and who’s to say going to the moon cannot make any money. that is not true, that is the same technology that gets satellites to orbit the earth
HispanicPundit: no, its a horrible comparison, the main reason people bring up the “private sector argument” is because everybody knows that the markets are VERY efficient, they are an objective measure of true potential, as objective as you can get, and this objective measuring stick isn’t buying all the hype behind embryonic stem cell research, so you never addressed that aspect of the argument, the STRONGEST part of the argument
HispanicPundit: cost/profit ratio of getting to the moon is horrible
BlackPundit: that is not a horrible comparison
BlackPundit: nope, not true
HispanicPundit: if you understand the power of the argument it is
BlackPundit: all these satellite companies that uses the same approach to get to the moon
HispanicPundit: think about this T
HispanicPundit: it costs the US BILLIONS to get to the moon, HUGE amounts, if you adjust for inflation, it cost the US more than the whole of Qualcomm is worth
HispanicPundit: there is no way any private sector could have recuperated that from the technology it invented
HispanicPundit: to get us there
HispanicPundit: it would have been a dead idea, worse than globalstar
BlackPundit: there are thousands of companies that use satellites
HispanicPundit: right, they would have got some of the money back, but not a lot of it
HispanicPundit: they would have still been negative
BlackPundit: we would not have all these cool technologies w/o satellites
BlackPundit: especially military benefits
HispanicPundit: yes we would have
BlackPundit: so your argument is not true
HispanicPundit: were going off on a tangent here
HispanicPundit: my point with the satellite thing is not to say that it was worthless
BlackPundit: we are talking about the comparison of fed spending for going to the moon vs fed funding stem cell research
HispanicPundit: I am only saying that any private sector company could not have been able to recoup its $$
HispanicPundit: it invested
HispanicPundit: w/ the moon
HispanicPundit: but w/ embryonic stem cell research, if the promises were there, they would recoup WAY MORE than what they invested
BlackPundit: with all these sat companies, yes they have
BlackPundit: do you not know how many sat are in orbit
HispanicPundit: fool, look at Globalstar that alone tanked
HispanicPundit: tanked
BlackPundit: one technology, woopty doo
HispanicPundit: so did Motorola
BlackPundit: look at military advances
BlackPundit: Boeing, Lockheed Martin, direct TV, there are thousands of satellite companies
HispanicPundit: right, but the private sector does not make money off of military
BlackPundit: that is not true
HispanicPundit: Boeing, and military contracts are like 10% of the private sector
BlackPundit: Boeing is private sector
BlackPundit: which makes money of military, and tons of it.
HispanicPundit: right, but it just doesn’t work for the military
BlackPundit: exactly
HispanicPundit: ok, you’re not getting my point
HispanicPundit: and I don’t want to keep typing the same point over and over
BlackPundit: they are private sector that making money because of the results of federal spending for going to the moon
BlackPundit: that is my point
HispanicPundit: I am NOT arguing against that
BlackPundit: yes u is
HispanicPundit: I am arguing that no private sector would have made profits by being the ones that got us to the moon
HispanicPundit: notice the difference
HispanicPundit: ?
BlackPundit: u said I couldn’t compare fed spending for going to the moon cause there was no money to be made
HispanicPundit: I am arguing that no private sector would have made profits by being the ones that got us to the moon
HispanicPundit: please try and grasp my point
BlackPundit: ok I understand that, but that doesn’t mean my comparison is not correct w/ stem cell
HispanicPundit: yes
HispanicPundit: because that is not the same case with embryonic stem cell research
HispanicPundit: any company that invents a cure for any one of these diseases it is supposed to cure will go from small to HUGE over night
BlackPundit: my comparison is that fed funded going to the moon, private sector made money off of it. stem cell funded by feds, private sector makes money off of it
BlackPundit: that is my comparison
BlackPundit: which is true
HispanicPundit: but when your the private sector, you are asking yourself can YOU AS THE PRIVATE SECTOR make money on it
BlackPundit: eventually they will
BlackPundit: once fed boost the research
HispanicPundit: no way, they would OVERNIGHT
HispanicPundit: with embryonic stem cell research
BlackPundit: huh?
HispanicPundit: if I owned a company, and my company through embryonic stem cell research discovered the cure for Alzheimer’s, you don’t think that I would become HUGELY rich over night
HispanicPundit: ?
BlackPundit: of course
HispanicPundit: that is what I am trying to say
BlackPundit: but at this time that is not the case
BlackPundit: there are still a lot of issues with the stem cell theory
BlackPundit: and that is why I feel it is a good idea for feds to fund it to boost getting these issues out the way
HispanicPundit: right, but if the potential for making cures really there, private sectors themselves would start the much needed research, since there was so much money to be made if a cure did come out
HispanicPundit: THAT’S MY POINT
HispanicPundit: if the potential were really there, it would get the funding from the private sector
HispanicPundit: because of what may happen when these results come out
BlackPundit: like my article said, it is the theory that is promising
HispanicPundit: but if that theory really is promising, why haven’t the private sectors RUSHED TO IT?
BlackPundit: plus, each technology is approached differently
BlackPundit: there are still a lot of bugs
HispanicPundit: Qualcomm invested BILLIONS into CDMA when EVERYBODY thought it couldn’t be done, that it was “impossible” yet it got its much needed research from the private sector
BlackPundit: what im saying is, let fed fund it to get out all the bugs and then the private sector will come in and take over
BlackPundit: you cannot compare all technologies the same
HispanicPundit: look T
HispanicPundit: you are still missing my point
BlackPundit: no I am not
HispanicPundit: we are debating whether those bugs are SERIOUS or not
HispanicPundit: that is the debate
BlackPundit: Man you have chaged this debat like thee different times. Can you let me know when youa are going to chage it again. I completely understand what you are saying
HispanicPundit: we both agree the fed shouldn’t just throw money at who ever ask for it
HispanicPundit: you are not understanding my point
BlackPundit: at the point of time, the bugs are that serious where the private sector is hesitant to fund it completely
HispanicPundit: right, so if the private industry sees embryonic stem cell research as not worth pouring in the money into it, why should the fed do it?
BlackPundit: like technology, you cannot expect things to be perfect at the beginning of research
BlackPundit: because the theory is promising
BlackPundit: it needs to be looked at
HispanicPundit: you see, your begging the question
HispanicPundit: you can’t assume “the theory is promising”
BlackPundit: it is!
HispanicPundit: that is precisely what we are debating here
HispanicPundit: HOW PROMISING
HispanicPundit: not talking about imagination promising, but the scienctifical promising
BlackPundit: if we had your mentality, we would be a third world country
HispanicPundit: obviously the private sector doesn’t think it’s promising enough to invest money into it
HispanicPundit: if we had YOUR mentality, we would be a third world country
BlackPundit: lol
HispanicPundit: your advocating throwing money at anything that sounds good
BlackPundit: look, some things you have to look at and make a call on what to do. and I think this research is worth gambling on.
BlackPundit: if we can be the first ones to make a big break through with this technology, we will be the SHIT
BlackPundit: I understand what you are saying. I guess the difference between you and me is that I am the gambler and you are not
HispanicPundit: no, the difference between you and me is that I want my taxes smaller, so I hate government waste
HispanicPundit: for anything to get federal funding it has to pass some level of “true promising” for me to allow my tax dollars to go to it
BlackPundit: this is something I would not mind spending my tax dollars on. Just like spending my tax dollars on going to the moon.
HispanicPundit: yes, but if you had this same mentality to all federal funding, we’d be paying 90% taxes
BlackPundit: yea and we will be a third world country with no advances in technology and a weak military
BlackPundit: well maybe I’ll send stem cell research a donation
BlackPundit: cause I want to live forever
HispanicPundit: besides, the question isn’t federal funding, REMEMBER, Bush is already spending MUCH MORE federal funding than any past president, what y our are asking for is MORE THAN IS ALREADY GIVEN
BlackPundit: I’m not asking for more
BlackPundit: I’m happy for what he has done

I was commented by my Kerry misleading the public on Bush funding ESC post and some really good questions were asked. So I decided to post the question and answers.

If embryonic stem cell research holds so much potential to cure all that ails humanity why aren’t private companies willing to put their own money into the research? Why all the clamouring for government money?

Samantha, for your first question, I would like to state that there is still a lot unknown about stem cell research. Therefore, at this time it is very risky for the private sector. The theory of stem cell research is promising. That is why so much focus is on federal funding. Federal funding can boost research for quicker results. Let me ask you this, did the private sector get us to the moon? No, federal funding did. Also, here is a good article about the private sector funding stem cell research.

Why do people rarely make the distinction between embryonic stem cells and adult stems?

People do make distinction between the two. My article about stem cell research explains the pros and cons of both embryonic and adult stem cell. Kerry is making the distinction by saying President George Bush is banning embryonic stem cell research.

From what I’ve read adult stem cells are much more reliable and they don’t stir up the ethical dilemma that using embryonic stem cells does.

True, adult stem cell research is much more reliable because there is no rejection to the immune system. But adult stem cell is not as promising as embryonic stem cell. Embryonic stem cell can evolve in to any type of cell where as adult stem cell are limited to which kind of cell it can evolve to. My stem cell article explains this.

Another question, can stem cell research really deliver on all that has been promised?

This is still in the making. Like any other science revolution, it starts by either theory or being stumbled over.

Samantha, these were some really good questions and I hope I answered all of them.

According to Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI), President Bush new “Ownership Society” for social security reform can prevent social security from bankruptcy. This can be achieved without raising taxes and cutting benefits.

(Washington, DC): President Bush’s new “Ownership Society” calls for Social Security reform and swings the door open for Americans to build a personal, retirement nest egg. According to the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI), President Bush can achieve this reform without cutting benefits or raising taxes.

“Revolutionary legislation introduced by Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wis) and Senator John Sununu (R-NH) is, hands-down, the best option for the president’s reform goals,” says Peter Ferrara, IPI senior research fellow and author of a Social Security reform plan scored by Social Security’s Chief Actuary and supported by leading conservative organizations.

“The Ryan-Sununu bill saves Social Security from bankruptcy while guaranteeing current promised benefits without any tax increases. It’s a no-brainer for the administration to adopt this bill over other damaging proposals that rely upon tax increases or benefit cuts.”

The Ryan-Sununu bill also provides:
· Large, personal accounts (6.4 percent of the current 12.4 percent contributions)
· Largest reduction in government debt in world history by eliminating Social Security’s $11 trillion unfunded liability
· Permanent surplus for Social Security

“The President’s dedication to reform Social Security is vital to the future prosperity of workers and retirees,” Ferrara added.

Social security is a retirement system where an individual have no control over their benefits and no control over their own money. Some people cannot afford to invest in an extra retirement accounts like an IRA or 401K. Therefore, if the social security program runs a deficit in 2016, these people will be left without money to retire.

Currently, social security is the exchange of money for trust funds. This money is not pre-funded and is used to fund goverment spending. Therefore, the goverment must pay this money back with interest. If the goverment is spending the money instead of investing it, who is paying the interest?

Currently, there are two types of stem cell research being tested. Adult stem cell which are stem cells that are derived from bone marrow, muscle, liver, blood, and umbilical cord, etc… And embryonic stem cell research (ESC) which are stem cells derived from fertilized embryos less than a week old. Both stem cell research has its pros and cons.

Embryonic stem cell research:

(pros) ESC have the ability to form any adult cell.

(cons) Controversy about abortion since they are derived from fertilized embryos. There is vitro fertilization which is a process that ESC are made in the labs and the embryos never see the inside of a woman’s uterus. But the argument with this is anti-abortionist claims that life starts at conception. Therefore, the abortion issue still arises. Another con for ESC is that ESC from a donor introduced into a patient could cause transplant rejection from the immune system. There have been theories to clone stem cells to prevent the immune system rejection, but that is opening another can of worms.

Adult stem cell research:

(pros) No abortion issue. The use of the patient’s own adult stem cells would mean that the cells would not be rejected by the immune system.

(cons) Adult cells are already specialized, their potential to regenerate damaged tissue is very limited. Stem cell derived from skin cells will only become skin cell, etc.. Also, there are not many stem cells in vital organs. Meaning, if you have any lung or heart diseases, stem cell will not help you much. And to close this con, adult stem cells are difficult to grow in the lab and their potential to reproduce diminishes with age.

Technically speaking, I do feel abortion is wrong, but the reality is abortion will be here for a very long time. Science has a chance to extremely prolong life, and find cures for diseases scientist haven’t even came close to finding a cure. This will enable grand parents to see further down their generation line. Before cars or planes were invented, people lived without these concepts and was able to survive decently. Could you imagine not having a car or plane today? Do you see how advanced life is and how much better life is from having the inventions of cars and planes? Same for stem cell research. I’m pretty sure 20 to 50 years down the line after stem cell has been fully tested and used, people can not image living without it and its benefits. And I know someone out there is still yelling “abortion is wrong”. What will it take from you to agree with embryonic stem cell research? Would it take for you to have Parkinson disease to agree? Would it take for you to have all of your hair falling out from chemotherapy? Or would it take for you to be on your death bed because of heart failure to agree with ESC research? I don’t know what would it take for you to agree. You tell me!