It’s not often Democrats have an issue that so many moderate Republicans and independents split from the GOP on, but thanks to the Republican party being in debt to the far right, stem cell research is one of them.
Democrats are pressing their support for embryonic stem cell research in Congressional races around the country, seeking to move back to center stage an issue they believe resonates with voters and to exploit a division between conservatives who oppose the science and other Republicans more open to it.
The question of whether the government should support or limit stem cell research has cropped up in Senate races in Maryland and Missouri, and in House races in California, Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin, especially in suburban swing districts.
“What Democrats want to do is gin up their turnout in the suburbs and divide Republicans, and right now they may do that,” said Jennifer E. Duffy, who tracks Senate races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. “This is the first real wedge issue Democrats have had with Republicans.”
Here in Maryland Michael Steele was already in a bad position as a right wing Republican in a moderate Democratic state, but his numbers really got hurt when he compared stem cell research to Nazi science in front of a Jewish audience. This has given likely opponent Ben Cardin yet another front to distinguish himself from Steele on and show Steele and his party to be out of the mainstream.
Bill Frist and the Washington Republicans have stubbornly refused to give the stem cell bill a fair up or down vote in the Senate after it overwhelmingly passed in the House. It’s time to remind people about that.
Nice to see you’re obfuscating the difference between adult stem cells & embryonic stem cells.
It’s all the difference in the world.
I don’t think that dog will hunt, Farris. Either you’re pro-science or you’re not. Which is it?
Really? You favor anything in the name of science?
Ouch. Michael Steele must be trying for worse numbers than Alan Keyes.
I have a question for the pro-blastocyst right:
It costs money to maintain the embryos. Are you willing to dedicate federal money for protection of frozen embryos, where the owners cannot and will not pay the maintenance fees to keep the embryo?
If embryos can’t be destroyed for medical science, even if the owners of the embryo approve, then when may they be destroyed?
Oh here it comes. Embryonic Stem Cell Research = Holocaust, yadda yadda yadda, verse 3422.
Rheinhard: No, the “yadda. yadda. yadda” is already here:
Either you re pro-science or you re not.
Gimme a break
In case you haven’t noticed, SS goes under in 12 years. I don’t know about you, but I’d like to have a plan for WHEN that happens (not if). And the sooner the better.
That’s how you get elected: agendas. So far, all the Democrats have is raising CAFE standards and censure/Impeachment. I doubt that’ll win over the electorate but hey, give it a shot!
I wasn’t going to compare stem cell research to anything. I’m just wondering how “pro-science” you really are.
“In case you haven t noticed, SS goes under in 12 years.”
Cite? (Getting popcorn)
BTW, this thread is about stem cell research. Just thought I would mention it.
Frank, in case you hadn’t noticed, Bush stopped trying to gut social security months ago. Go update your talking points.
And we can give all the solutions to Iraq, immagration, and retirement that you want, but until we’re actually in power, its just going to be plans. Which means you’re going to discount them anyway for lack of deal, so I’ll save it for someone who’s actually interested instead of trolling.
BTW, this isn’t a wedge issue at all…
I think will just confirm what “Joe Six – Pack” already knows: The Democrats are always involved in some newfangled crap, instead of taking care of what’s going on in the real world.
How are you going to get us out of Iraq?
How are you going to solve the immigration problem?
How are you going to make sure that my retirement’s OK?
And all the other “kitchen table” stuff?
Apoligies for the thread-jacking.
My defense? Frank started it!
Projected OASDI tax income will begin to fall short of outlays in 2017
In that case, ferris, then the Federal government is under right now.
Since the post you linked is that the outlays exceed the income, you know. Fortunately, because we have been collecting more than the required for today’s retirees, we have enough to fund SS perpetually, assuming 3% GDP growth.
Are you ready to then retract your lie about SS?
Factcheck said:
I’d like to go along with you here, but what we’ve been putting money into is IOUs. All that extra money has been put into buying government bonds, not into a savings account. In 2017 or 2018, the SS administration will have to start cashing in those bonds, instead of buying them. Theoretically, SS is solvent into perpetuity. In reality, it’s only solvent so long as the government honors those bonds.
Grover Norquist may not have to wait all that long to get his wish of a bankrupt government (fiscally, I mean – morally, he’s been getting all the bankrupt government the country can stand for several years now).
Bullshit. Utter fear mongering bullshit. This seems now to be one of two principal Republican electoral strategies:
Scare-mongering lies: “Social Security will go under by next week! If you don’t vote for our ill-conceived privatization, your grandma will be eating dog food!”, “Dems are weak on security! Vote Republican or all your kids will be reading the Koran!”, “Stem cell research! Dems want to vacuum out your babies and put them in test tubes!”
Hate: “Homos! Vote D and your kids will catch teh gay!”, “Dems don’t want to build a high enough wall! Your kids may marry a brown person!”
JWG, you wrote,
Everyone knows that is the precursor to the Godwin’s Law invoking argument, “Well, if you favor anything in the name of science, then what about medical experimentation on humans? Are you in favor of using Mengele’s data? Huh? Huh?”
It is simply not worth debating the particulars of science with people who will insist a clump of 4 undifferentiated cells is the moral equivalent of a human being.
Hey FrankD, you think the Republicans have answers on any of the points you listed?
They got us into Iraq and we’re still there.
They poisoned the immigration bill and failed to pass it.
They gutted pension protection and want to sell some crap Social Security program on misrepresentations and moonbeams.
Social Security goes under in 12 years! Oh no! To action Republicans! We better jack another $2 trillion expense onto it for privatization so some donors can make a ton of money and the benefits can be like nearly every other country that has tried this crap: a fraction of the guaranteed government benefit.
How are you going to get us out of Iraq?
How are you going to solve the immigration problem?
How are you going to make sure that my retirement s OK
These are questions I imagined the average voter is asking, not challenges to the lefties…
And since when is asking questions trolling?
And, do you what a troll is?
troll A term used to define a public message… that is posted for the sole purpose of offending people and/or generating an enormous flood of non-topic replies.
a troll is not “someone who disagrees with me”
Moderation. Bah!
So, ferris, are you saying that US Treasury Bonds are worthless? Because that is what instrument the SS trust fund is held.
I’m sick of explaining to flat earthers what the issue is in stem cells. You anti-science types value blastocysts more than living, suffering people.
I think it’s funny that Frank mentions those issues, because it’s clear that almost 3/4 of the country would rather not let his party lead on those issues.
Iraq Bush 33% Approval
Bush & Social Security Privatization = Clinton Health Care Debacle
Immigration Your hopes rest on a “Guest Worker” program? Are you kidding me?
You guys have plenty of ideas Frank. The problem is, they all suck.
JK
And instead of actually banking them, they’ve already been spent. It’s how we “balanced” the budget, remember?
No lie was made. As such, no retraction. Sorry.
Now about those stem cells…
The correct term is loaned. The excess revenues have been used to purchase Treasury Bonds, the world’s most secure investment vehicle.
And yes, the general fund–which borrowed the money has spent it to prevent Mr. Bush’s deficits from growing even larger than they already are.
What happens when the “trust fund” tries to cash those in? Which pocket does that come out of? Education? Highways? Defense? Or there some magic bank vault that houses all the cash to pay off every bond in circulation?
The. Money. Has. Already. Been. Spent.
So it isn’t Social Security that goes under SaveFarris, it’s the US government. It’s the US government that owes the money and if they can’t pay, trust in the US government’s ability to pay it’s debts goes. And so goes the country.
Since I haven’t made this argument, it is obviously a strawman. Go ahead and run away, or defend your “you’re pro-science or you’re not” statement. In reality, you probably realize that was an overly simplistic statement and are trying to bail out.
Bingo! That’s why the situation must be dealt with NOW and not kicked down the road like all the “There Is No Crisis” folks want to do.
Then deal with the situation SaveFarris, the crisis situation is the sky rocketing federal budget deficits not social security. War and tax cuts. Jacking the social security system doesn’t change this. Adding Bush’s transition costs can only make it worse.
SaveFarris said:
The only real solution is to roll back not make permanent tax cuts we won’t be able to afford 10 years from now – but your crowd stick their fingers in their ears and shout, “LA LA LA LA! I can’t hear you!” when anyone tries to point that out.
Or just remove the cap on SS contributions. Of course, the cons KNOW there is no danger in losing ss, the biggest danger is the cons themselves.
Farris has obviously overdosed on the kool-aid. He must be snorting it or injecting it or something by now. I guess none of this kool-aid is enough to make that young republican even CONSIDER joining the military so he can fight for the war he wants.
Yes, revenues are up- just like the have been in 45 of the last 54 years, taking a break only during the Republican recessions. Thanks to Quaker for blowing up that foolish meme.
Although, if Farris even believes the stupid memes he puts forth here, aren’t TAX CUTS resulting in TOO MUCH TAXATION? That would be the logical divination, right? The more tax cuts, the more revenues, right! So by tax cuts, the cons are actually RAISING the tax burden in this country! Great work!
Guess noone has seen any recent data from the Fed. After the Tax Cuts, revenues are … UP, growing the economy just like we said they would.
SaveFarris: You just don’t understand… Congress views all revenue as a “Gift from God” to be spent on whatever they want.
Only tax increases can decrease the budget deficit…
After all, that’s how most people handle their family’s budget deficits — by robbing the local liquor store?
JK, I see no reason to denigrate dirt like that. Dirt has a purpose.
>>Only tax increases can decrease the budget deficit&
How’d that work out for Clinton without one GOP vote in 1993?
Man, you are as dumb as dirt.
JK
If the federal deficit picture is so rosy, why the hell are you so worried about social security?
JK: Apparently, even though I’m dumber than dirt, I’m smarter than you…
F.I.C.A. is a Tax.
Increasing it was the sleight of hand Clinton (he who did away with the deficit without decreasing spending) used to “balance the budget.”
As for Quaker’s “blowing up that foolish meme”, if revenues have increased because of the tax cuts, then what’s wrong with the tax cuts?
And second, increases in revenues because personal incomes have increased means that the chunk coming out of people’s wallets is the same.
Not so with tax cuts. So Quaker only exploded the meme that there weren’t any increased revenues before there were tax cuts. And, of course, no one, at anytime, anywhere, said that.
Sort of like “proving” there aren’t any McDonald’s on Jupiter
JK,perhaps you could explain yourself before you insult me. It makes you look a wee bit less like an ass.
fact check: Very clever comment… Did you think of it all by yourself, or did your second grade teacher help you?
midderpidge: What does increasing revenue have to do with decreasing the deficit, if the spending keeps increasing/
Got this from Ken Mehlman today: Note the ABSENCE of any mention of stem cell research
1.) Which issues will be most important in determining your vote this November? (select up to three)
Keeping Taxes Low
Immigration & border security
Winning the War On Terror
Growing Our Economy
Improving education
Increasing access to affordable health care
Protecting Social Security
Energy independence
Appointing qualified judges
Strengthening marriage and the family
Morals and ethics in government
2.) What is the most important reason for maintaining and expanding our Republican majorities in 2006? (select one)
To ensure that America continues to stand united and strong in fighting the War on Terror
To help President Bush enact his reform agenda for America
To keep Democrat leaders like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Howard Dean from pushing through their extreme left-wing agenda
To make President Bush’s tax cuts permanent and keep our economy growing
To uphold our nation’s bedrock values
3.) If the Democrats win control of the Congress in 2006, what is the one thing you would be most worried would happen?
Democrats will try to censure or impeach President Bush
Democrat would raise your taxes
Democrats would cut and run from the central front in the War on Terror
Democrats would sell out American values to Hollywood liberals
Democrats would impose government-run health care
4.) As you know, President Bush has announced a bold reform agenda for 2006. Which of his initiatives is most important to you? (select one)
Fighting and Winning the War on Terror
Comprehensive immigration reform that secures our borders
Making tax relief permanent for all taxpayers
Making America more competitive in the global marketplace
Reducing America’s dependence on foreign sources of energy by half
5.) From which sources do you receive most of your news and political information? (select multiple)
ABC News
CBS News
NBC News
Fox News Channel
CNN
MSNBC
News websites
Blogs
Daily Newspaper
Radio
E-mail
News/Opinion Magazines
Friends and Family
Other
6.) On a scale of 0 to 10, how likely is it that you would recommend voting Republican in the next election to a friend or a colleague?
7.) As an online activist, what features would you like to see on GOP.com? (select multiple)
More ways to connect with fellow Republicans
Volunteer opportunities in my area
Web videos & podcasts with key newsmakers
Online polls
The latest breaking news
Information on the issues important to me
Information on GOP candidates and elected officials
Online Diaries from GOP political leaders
Other
8.) In what year were you born?
9.) Did you vote in the year 2004?
Yes
No
fact check: aren t TAX CUTS resulting in TOO MUCH TAXATION?
Does not compute… Does not compute… Must lie down…
Yeah, the revenue things is funny funny funny. “revenues are up! The economy is growing!”
It always does that.
And yes, social security might actually be in trouble now, after bush has been raiding it to pay for Bush’s Boondoggle.
You guys are aboslutely amazing. You take a budget surplus, squander it, then brag about it.
You also are all about private citizens investing stupidly, but get upset and complain about “IOUs” when the government invests safely.
WTF?
Wow, he’s sending you a message that says don’t vote Republican. They are doing poorly or failing in nearly every category he named.
Category Grade
Keeping Taxes Low (for the wealthy) C (A)
Immigration & border security F
Winning the War On Terror F
Growing Our Economy C
Improving education D
Increasing access to affordable health care F
Protecting Social Security F
Energy independence F
Appointing qualified judges D
Strengthening marriage and the family C
Morals and ethics in government F
I don’t know to explain this slowly to you, using a keyboard, midderpidge:
It is a questionnaire. The person who answers the questionnaire — a reasonable, intelligent and sober person — obviously, not you midderpidge, — is being asked to make choices as to what things he thinks the Republican Party should focus on.
In no place, or on any question, is a person asked to decide how well the Republicans are doing in any area, or how well the Democrats might do.
So, while your circuitous attempt at deriding Republicans gets around a “B” for effort, you get an “F” in comprehension, and an “F” in insight.
Total score = D-
Wow, Farris.
I had no idea you were so acrobatic.
On one hand, you argue gloom and doom that there’s no way the general fund can ever afford to pay off those bogus bonds owed to the Social Security fund. Why, we’ll have to take money away from education or highways or defense.
But at the very same time, everything is all sunshine and roses what with the economy just booming away as a result of those nifty Bush tax cuts. Revenues are up! Hooray!
Your position raises an interesting question: At what rate of economic growth will projected tax revenues be sufficient to cover Social Security obligations? Are we there yet?
Let’s review, for those with impaired short-term memory.
In 45 out of the last 54 fiscal years, tax revenues set a new record. It happened in years when there were tax decreases. It happened in years when there were no tax changes. It happened in years when there were tax increases.
In short, you can’t simply assume that a tax cut caused the record revenues that followed. Record high revenues happen all the time, no matter what tax policies are implemented.
Let’s review, for those who don’t read their own blockquotes: In short, you can t simply assume that a tax cut caused the record revenues that followed. Record high revenues happen all the time, no matter what tax policies are implemented.
I ask you again: Who said that tax decreases, and tax decreases alone, caused revenue increases?
You probably don’t remember this, but someone — not you — had said that the tax increases did not cause revenues to increase. Your “meme – breaking” research only served to show that revenues increased with or without tax decreases.
Which means, of course that revenues increased after a tax cut.
So I ask again (that’s three times now) if revenues increase with the tax cuts [thus making the cry that, "We can't afford tax cuts!" totally bogus], then what is wrong with tax cuts?