This is what I mean when I say altruism should begin at home:
Supporters of the initiative have raised more than $13 million and plan to kick off an intensive television campaign Friday. Opponents have raised less than $200,000 and say they will rely on news coverage and less expensive efforts to get their message across. A statement opposing the measure, for example, was distributed in some Catholic churches recently, reflecting the position of the state’s bishops.
Proposition 71 is on the California ballot. It will fund stem cell research in California–$3 billion worth. Now call me crazy, but wouldn’t that $13 million in donations to a campaign to get this proposition passed have been better spent on research itself?
No. Because then the taxpayers wouldn’t be forced to pay for something they may not agree with.
Hey Bunker, I don’t agree with my tax dollars being pissed away on ever more nuclear tinker toys for the military. I don’t like my tax money being sent down the “missle defense” rat-hole either. At least stem cell research holds the possibility of benefiting man-kind.
Comment by Bubba Bo Bob Brain — September 24, 2004 @ 5:57 pm
No sweat. The government exists “for the common defense.” If you would read it, you would notice that I mentioned the $13 million could have been used to fund the research.
The problem is that “everyone” wants the government to do everything. When did the government ever do anything efficiently?
Comment by Bunker — September 24, 2004 @ 6:14 pm
I read it dude, I was trying to demonstrate that there are expenditures aside from medical research that people disagree with also. I gave two of the more egregious examples (IMHO). Look in all honesty we could cut the frigging defense budget by a third and we would still be spending like 4 times what our nearest “competition” spends, and we’d have enough left over to pay for almost any social goodie we’d want.
Comment by Bubba Bo Bob Brain — September 25, 2004 @ 1:23 pm
No doubt, if the government were more efficient. I understand your sarcasm, but we have far to many expenditures in the “social” area that aren’t allowed via the Constitution as it now stands. I believe there are some things which the government could do in that area, but it requires an Amendment for them to be within the mandate of the Federal government. That does NOT prevent state governments, California in this case, to do otherwise.
I believe the government would be much better if we forced our legislators to live within the bounds of the Constitution (Defense being a part of that), or change it by Amendment.
I get mad when people will donate money to force the government to do something, but they won’t donate money to do that very thing.
Comment by Bunker — September 25, 2004 @ 2:40 pm
Our legislators live with in the constitution?? Not very bloody likely, they like to enforce it, not live by it. And that is the best summary of what is wrong with this nation. Too many people have no clue as to what their “civil-rights” really are. Too many want the “nanny-state” to do stuff for them. I don’t see that attitude changing any time soon.
Comment by Bubba Bo Bob Brain — September 26, 2004 @ 9:27 am
Which is an area I’m considering for the formation of my own 527. I am pondering ways in which to drive things back to where the Constitution is seen as the rule of law for the Government, as intended, rather than laws governing the people.
Comment by Bunker — September 26, 2004 @ 11:57 am