A more reasoned approach is to allow privately funded research. The private sector tends to be more focused on results than obtaining the next rounds of grant money.
If and when a plausible area of application is found…then taxpayer money can be applied for and awarded if deemed of value.
But then thats a logical approach. Therein may be the philosophical divergence.
BBC Article on President Obama’s first 50 days. It’s a interesting take on the situation with some clever snipes at both parties.
Washington diary: Doing too much?
[quote]
…
But here is the danger. Just as the new administration is hurling around spending figures that look like bogus telephone numbers, the American public is counting the pennies, treading carefully, preserving scraps, allergic to any gambles.
The savings ratio is finally up. Uncle Sam has rediscovered the joys of parsimony. He is forgoing that Starbucks Latte, flat screen TV or new car because he is afraid of what the future might bring. [/quote]
[quote]
…
If America were a patient, then the eager surgeons in the White House have been resetting broken limbs (healthcare), cutting out a few malignant tumours (education), while also performing a nose job (lifting the ban on stem cell research).
They have been doing all this desirable stuff, while leaving the all-important heart (the banking system) to flutter perilously and the entire patient in mortal danger. [/quote]
[quote]But in a much anticipated court filing, the Justice Department argued that the president has the authority to detain terrorism suspects there without criminal charges, much as the Bush administration had asserted. It provided a broad definition of those who can be held, which was not significantly different from the one used by the Bush administration. The filing signaled that, as long as Guantánamo remains open, the new administration will aggressively defend its ability to hold some detainees there. “The president has the authority to detain persons” who planned or aided the 2001 terrorist attacks as well as those “who were part of, or substantially supported, Taliban or Al Qaeda forces,” administration lawyers wrote. The Obama administration said it was relying on existing principles of the international law of war. A public statement indicated that the government was moving away from claims of expansive executive power often used by the Bush administration to justify Guantánamo.
The new administration took pains to try to point out that it was taking a different approach. It said the new definition “does not rely on the president’s authority as commander in chief” beyond the powers authorized by Congress. The filing, in Federal District Court in Washington, was meant to provide a definition of those detainees who can be held and bitterly disappointed critics of Guantánamo, who said it seemed to continue the policies they have criticized for more than seven years.
It was the latest example of the Obama administration’s taking ownership of Guantánamo, even after having announced it would close the prison, where 241 men remain. “This seems fundamentally consistent with the positions of the prior administration,” said Steven A. Engel, who was a senior lawyer responsible for detainee issues in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel until the final day of the Bush administration. Mr. Engel added that the term “enemy combatant” was not the issue. “The important point is that they recognize that we can detain members of the enemy” during a war, he said.
The new administration’s position had been the subject of wide speculation before a court deadline Friday for the administration to tell federal judges what definition it believes the courts should use in the habeas corpus cases reviewing detainees’ cases. Some detainees’ lawyers had hoped for a much narrower definition, perhaps one that would have eliminated simply “supporting” the Taliban or Al Qaeda as a ground for detention. Such a change, some of the detainees’ lawyers had predicted, could have undercut the government’s justification for holding as many as half of the remaining prisoners, including jihadists captured in Afghanistan who never fought the United States and others who the government has indicated may have had only tangential ties to Al Qaeda or the Taliban.
The new definition did add a requirement that to justify detention a detainee would have to have “substantially supported” Al Qaeda, the Taliban or forces associated with them. But the administration did not define “substantial,” and the detainees’ lawyers said they doubted that the change would help many of their clients.
The filing, which was made in some 40 habeas corpus cases of detainees’ challenging their imprisonment, is expected to be the government’s position in more than 200 such cases and to govern a separate review of all cases outside of court that has been ordered by President Obama.
Some critics of Guantánamo said that Friday’s filing fitted a pattern of recent moves by the administration that seemed intended to undercut continued criticism of Guantánamo but did not make significant changes in detention policy.
They noted that after Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. visited the detention camp last month, he proclaimed it “well run.” They said they had been stung as well by a Pentagon report commissioned by the new administration that said last month that the detention camp on the naval base at Guantánamo Bay meets the humane-treatment requirements of the Geneva conventions.
Ramzi Kassem, a detainees’ lawyer who teaches at Yale Law School, said Friday that the new administration had yet to deal effectively either with efforts to release many of the detainees or to improve the conditions at the camp.
Mr. Kassem said the filing Friday was an additional indication that the new administration had yet to grapple with the complexities of Guantánamo or the detainees’ cases. “I think they may be very much under the influence of the rhetoric of the outgoing administration,” he said.
But the Department of Justice filing portrayed the adjustment of the government’s position in expansive terms. In a public statement accompanying its filing, the department said the government’s position had been devised to adhere closely to the requirements of the international law of war, longstanding principles that permit enemy fighters to be held until the completion of hostilities.
The Bush administration made those arguments as well, but it also often included extensive assertions of broad executive authority.
Obama administration officials have repeatedly argued in recent months that they intend to make decisions about detention policy that they see as more rooted in legal principles than their predecessors. Although the term “enemy combatant” had been used in a World War II Supreme Court case, critics of the Bush administration said officials used it to permit detentions that would not have been authorized under the international rules of warfare.
In their court filing, Justice Department lawyers repeatedly cited the international law of war and its principle that “capture and detention of enemy forces” is authorized. But the filing made it clear that the Obama administration rejected arguments of detainees’ lawyers that it should sharply depart from many policies of the last seven years.
The government lawyers noted that some detainees’ lawyers had argued that only those detainees who have been alleged to have directly participated in hostilities against American forces should be detained. The law of warfare does not limit the United States’ authority to hold only those with such direct involvement in fighting Americans, the filing said. [/quote]
So much for change (except the “terms” used)… why the change? (irony intended)
There has got to be a better way of raising the $540 million needed for our Veterans Administration than by charging the private insurance of our servicemen, and women, for the treatment of their service related injuries. It’s reassuring that Senator Akaka won’t advance the legislation, and that very few in the Senate or House would take this idea seriously, but still it’s not the right path to take.
I’m glad to see that President Obama is increasing the funding of our chronically underfunded VA but he should quietly drop this idea. It won’t make it anywhere and just serve as a big target on his back for criticism.
According to the International Herald Tribune, NATO is not stepping up to the plate in Afghanistan or anywhere. Its 60th anniversary may be the first rung on the ladder of dissolution.
[quote]At NATO’s 60th anniversary summit meeting next month, the stage is set for celebrations and self-congratulations. But President Barack Obama may have to face some very uncomfortable questions about the alliance’s future.
The meeting, at least on paper, is a cause for pride. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, established by the United States in 1949 to defend Western Europe from the military might of the Soviet Union, will celebrate its 60th anniversary. That is no small feat for a trans-Atlantic alliance, especially since the end of the Cold War in 1991, as its relevance has repeatedly been called into question.
The Obama administration is threatening to sideline NATO in Afghanistan, the alliance’s most important theater of operations. Faced with a deteriorating military and political situation, particularly in the south, Mr. Obama has decided to send an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan. If the Europeans do not match this new commitment — and there is no sign that they will — the U.S. military will quietly push NATO out of decision-making there.
The scene for a U.S. takeover of operations is already set. The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, or I.S.A.F., and Operation Enduring Freedom, the special U.S anti-insurgency mission, are both led by American generals. NATO says the two missions are separate. In reality, the United States is in charge of both and can push out the Europeans at any time.
“How else would you expect the U.S. to react?” said Marcel de Haas, security expert at the Netherlands Institute for International Relations, Clingendael. “NATO is divided over defense spending, Russia, further enlargement and generating troops for Afghanistan. Obama is finding out that almost no European country is prepared to deliver anything more to Afghanistan.”[/quote]
You’re a lawyer, right? Then you should appreciate the difference in the two administration’s legal arguments, even if the results are similar. Obama is claiming the right to detain enemies during wartime based on domestic law and the Geneva and Hague Protocols, not on executive authority or the insistence that the UN documents do not apply to terrorists. I for one am more comfortable with the POTUS obeying the laws and treaties written and ratified by Congress than declaring his executive powers to be sufficient to do whatever he thinks is necessary.
Yes, that is a valid and interesting point. Now, I have a quick question: Given the level of vitriol that seems to be prevalent in the ridiculous legacy of Bush II thread… I perceive that most of the posters (notably Muzhaman) are outraged by the treatment accorded to various prisoners and not by what legal niceties or treaty loopholes would enable the administration to escape censure. So what is it? Morality over all? or wink wink nod nod name changes that allow the same treatment to continue albeit legally?
This then leads to a more pertinent question in my view: Is Obama all talk and no action? Is he willing to sell out his most crucial campaign promises? OR has he discovered that there is a valid reason for detaining these individuals and thus Bush and his administration are thus vindicated at least from a moral perspective if not a legal one?
[quote=“dantesolieri”]or wink wink nod nod name changes that allow the same treatment to continue albeit legally?[/quote]That’s exactly what it sounds like to me.
marboulette
So what are our conclusions? Obama is a lying weasel or there is justification for having such policies because of national security interests?
The more I read about him, the more I think it’s the former. And you strike me as being among those who think he needs more time before we make a judgment. I’m starting to think that it’s you, and half of Americans, who need more time to come to grip that the guy is, indeed, not what people hoped he was.
But yes, you are right in that time will tell. My hope is shrinking by the day, though. 
Even if it was legal and “justified,” the problem I see with it, after reading a bit about it, is that the legislation is far too broad. They almost have the right to incarcerate you if you only visited an anti-American website once.
marboulette
How much will the health care overhaul actually cost?
Health-Care Overhaul May Cost $1.5 Trillion
[quote]
(WASHINGTON) — Guaranteeing health insurance for all Americans may cost about $1.5 trillion over the next decade, health experts say. That’s more than double the $634 billion ‘down payment’ President Barack Obama set aside for health reform in his budget, raising the prospect of sticker shock at a time of record federal spending. Administration officials have pointedly avoided providing a ballpark estimate, saying it depends on details to be worked out with Congress. The White House had no immediate response to questions Tuesday.
Still, the potential costs are raising concerns among Republicans and some Democrats as Congress prepares to draft next year’s budget. “We shouldn’t just be throwing more money on top of the present system, because the present system is so wasteful,” said Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee.
[…]
John Sheils, a senior vice president of the Lewin Group, said about $1.5 trillion to $1.7 trillion would be a credible estimate for a plan that commits the nation to covering all its citizens. That would amount to around 4 percent of projected health care costs over the next 10 years, he added. [/quote]
While I understand the need to reform health care so that millions of people don’t show up at emergency rooms with what should have been a preventable injury or disease, but 1.5 trillion over 10 years? That’s a lot of money and almost double what President Obama had planned for in his budget. Where are we going to get that extra money for to pay 150 billion a year to cover the costs of the program without financing it through debt?
Is anyone else getting less and less shocked at these huge numbers? A trillion here, a trillion there, a deficit of a trillion a year. Should I be worried that I’m no longer being shocked by how much is being proposed to be spent?
The EU has just put a stop to this gigantic spending following the logic we have to give huge tax payers money injections into the economy.
Kind of thinking, the economy will eventually heal itself. IMO, politicians can not to much about the economy, it is always just show when they pretend otherwise.
I was thinking if the US will recover in 2109 from the current crisis, if so much money is spent right now.
So what to do? Are the Republicans training swamp rabbits for an attack on the president? [Carter thingy?]
[quote=“bob_honest”]The EU has just put a stop to this gigantic spending following the logic we have to give huge tax payers money injections into the economy.
Kind of thinking, the economy will eventually heal itself. IMO, politicians can not to much about the economy, it is always just show when they pretend otherwise.
I was thinking if the US will recover in 2109 from the current crisis, if so much money is spent right now.
So what to do? Are the Republicans training swamp rabbits for an attack on the president? [Carter thingy?][/quote]
Politicians, of all stripes, feel the need to show their constituents that they are doing something. It doesn’t matter what the policy is, how much damage it will do in the long term for short term gain, etc. Politicians are more worried about getting reelected than if their policy actually works. Leaders, who are rare, have the ability to look at the crowd and tell them to shove off. While they don’t sit back and do nothing, they realize that sometimes the best option is to allow a situation to fix itself. That’s painful, and unpopular, but best for the future.
The swamp rabbits are currently occupied in our hunt of Osama Bin Laden since our troops can’t get close enough without being seen. 
I certainly agree that this is part of it, but if consumption completely shuts down, then there is obviously a lot more economic pain that exacerbates the worsening financial condition that makes the economic pain worse… I think that some stimulus is needed to jump start the economy. I don’t think that this is one where I would sit back and wait for the situation to fix itself. I do, however, disagree with Obama’s extra social programs. There seems to be a lot of money that is being spent rather than actually serving as stimulus. That is where the politicians need to be called to the carpet.
[quote=“dantesolieri”]
I certainly agree that this is part of it, but if consumption completely shuts down, then there is obviously a lot more economic pain that exacerbates the worsening financial condition that makes the economic pain worse… I think that some stimulus is needed to jump start the economy. I don’t think that this is one where I would sit back and wait for the situation to fix itself. I do, however, disagree with Obama’s extra social programs. There seems to be a lot of money that is being spent rather than actually serving as stimulus. That is where the politicians need to be called to the carpet.[/quote]
I wouldn’t want consumption to completely shut down, and I don’t think it has or will reach that any time soon. I think consumption levels need to be brought back down to a point where people aren’t spending money they don’t have. There is a difference between a 0% savings rate, and having 100% consumption of today’s goods, and having a negative savings rate. If everyone had a 0% savings rate then it wouldn’t be as painful now as it is. So many Americans had a negative savings rate, spending money they didn’t have on the assumption they would get a raise or their houses would increase quickly in value so they could sell it and make a quick buck.
We really should have anywhere between a 4 to 8% savings rate in the US. Consume, but save for the future too. The consumption levels have come down, will eventually stabilize and then stay flat for a long time. Trying to jump in and restart the economy too soon is going to blow our economy straight to hell. First thing is to get the sub-prime market and credit markets dealt with. Then once you’ve stabilized the system can you finally do something about actually getting consumers to spend again. If you try too soon you’ll create more bubbles, like how they are trying to lower interest rates again to stimulate the housing market. That and all the money they are throwing around is going to send our inflation rate sky fucking high.
If President Obama doesn’t get the economy fixed then he won’t have any options about expanding health care or any of his other domestic plans.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]A more reasoned approach is to allow privately funded research. The private sector tends to be more focused on results than obtaining the next rounds of grant money.
If and when a plausible area of application is found…then taxpayer money can be applied for and awarded if deemed of value.
But then thats a logical approach. Therein may be the philosophical divergence.[/quote]
That is already happening in at least one state: Missouri:
[quote]…in Missouri, voters last November [2006] passed a constitutional amendment protecting the right to pursue all forms of stem cell research allowed under federal law – but not funding it. This ensured that the state kept the door open for private laboratories like the Stowers Institute for Medical Research, which employs an international team of researchers and $2 billion in private endowments. For years, Stowers has been doing extraordinary research on adult stem cells, and the amendment will see to it that the progress continues as the lab expands into embryonic stem cell research in the future. And since it’s privately funded, there’ll be no bond issues, no debts, no interest to pay, and no taxpayer liability.
Stowers has shown tremendous success in adult stem cell research. Earlier this year, they documented the development of cancer stem cells. And just last month, they discovered the mechanism by which certain stem cells regenerate themselves – a process essential to therapies that may one day heal damaged organ tissue. They are working now to expand current research programs to include embryonic stem cell research.[/quote]
What the hell is happening to the white house?
[quote]Pakistani Taliban threatens attack on White House
By NAHAL TOOSI and KATHY GANNON – 1 day ago
ISLAMABAD (AP) — Pakistan’s Taliban chief has claimed responsibility for a deadly assault on a police academy, saying he wanted to retaliate for U.S. missile attacks on the militant bases on the border with Afghanistan.
Baitullah Mehsud, who has a $5 million bounty on his head from the United States, also vowed to “amaze everyone in the world” with an attack on Washington or even the White House.
The FBI, however, said he had made similar threats previously and there was no indication of anything imminent.
google.com/hostednews/ap/art … AD979FF500
[/quote]
Terrorist threatens to attack white house and the CIA says “no big deal”? Is scaremongering out of style now or what?
[quote]
Terrorist threatens to attack white house and the CIA says “no big deal”? Is scaremongering out of style now or what?[quote]
They’ve gotten bored with it. Threatening the White House is on the first page of the Axis of Evil Handbook for Terrorists
Here’s a policy I Very Much hope gets implemented. Farm subsidies are a ridiculous, protectionist measure. The sooner axed the better.
[quote=“NYT: Obama’s farm subsidy cuts run into trouble”]Among the audacious proposals in President Obama’s budget was a plan to save more than $9.7 billion over a decade by putting strict limits on farm subsidies that are disbursed regardless of market conditions or even whether the land is actively farmed.
But Mr. Obama’s grand ambitions have run into political reality.
The budget outlines approved by the House and Senate on Thursday night do not include limits on farm subsidies at all, and even champions of change say that if the president’s plan can be revived, it will have to be scaled back so significantly that the savings could amount to just several hundred million dollars.
Some of the fiercest critics of farm subsidy programs say the new administration overreached in offering a proposal that could have cut off payment not just to large corporate agribusinesses, but also to medium-sized family farms that might not even be profitable, setting off a huge alarm in the powerful farm lobby.
The White House plan would have prohibited so-called direct payments to farms whose annual gross receipts exceeded $500,000 — a large sum on the surface, but one that did not take account of whether those receipts yielded any real profits. [/quote]
Obama To Lift Travel Restrictions On Cuba
Pentagon lets media see return of US war dead
:bravo:
Freedom is a good thing.