Posted on 08/28/2007 11:29:33 AM PDT by meandog
I’m all for it.....IF.....he takes the money away from the AIDS Research the government (you and me) is paying for.
You're right. Unfortunately the liberals in both parties have meant those words to mean much
Well how does an ex governor do that?
If you have a “dream,” why have such a modest one? A better dream is take all the money and return it to the taxpayers.
Why? Did you expect better from Mitt? Give his past record of opportunism, flip-flopism and statism, some of us see at as par for the course.
Looks like all the Romulans, with the help of the Mod, have all departed this thread...they run faster than Mitt did from a draft notice.
R&D funding for cancer research, better health care and medical advances should come from the private sector.
Mitt Romney wants a form of nationalized health care, on a state by state basis and he wants the Feds to play a role in solving the maladies of human life. That is not what government exists for. Enough already.
Heck I'll bet some of the founders at one time wouldn't even construe "provide for the common defense" to mean a standing army. Local and state militias were more the order of the day to handle North American disputes. Unfortunately the rest of the world intruded, as it always does.
Well ironically, the guy that's doing so (Ron Paul) happens to be the most hated candidate here.
That's the spirit!! Of course defense could be construed standing army or not, but I didn't realize the Framers didn't have to deal with disease of any sort. Bet they didn't have cancer either. That the sort of 'rest of the world' intrusion you're speaking of?
It is heartwarming to see how many Republicans have not only embraced, but protect, the machinations of big government because it’s good for us...and the children of course...
Are you from Texas?
Lance Armstrong is behind a push to get $3 billion fund for cancer research in Texas. All the Republican officials are behind it, even though it appears to be just more of the same - govt throwing money at problem X.
But the logic politically is compelling.
The Democrats have used stem cell research as a trojan horse for attacking sanctity of life.
The Democrats have accused the GOP of being anti-science and
The reality is that we are spending oodles of money on NIH and medical research anyway. Why not be ‘for’ something that govt is doing already and will do anyway. If you jump on that bandwagon, it may end up being a free ride ... kind of like getting up there and saying you are for clean drinking water and safe streets. motherhood and apple pie.
“Yep, I guess Taxotere, Taxol, Femara and many other anti-cancer drugs could never have been developed without federal funding.”
I don’t know about those specifically, but its true that many drugs wouldn’t have been developed without federal money.
“Don’t really see a diff between Mitt-care and Brit-care?”
There are vast differences, with private providers/health-insurers in Mitt-care vs public/Soviet-style-employees in Brit NHS as one difference. About as big a difference as between a Japanese Toyota and a Russian Lada.
“Well if he cuts like George Bush and the Republican controlled Congress, he’ll only grow the federal government 2-3 times inflation!”
Spending in Mass under Romney, according to Club for Growth, was below the inflation+population benchmark - he’d likely be a much better fiscal steward than Bush was if you go by his record:
“On balance, his record comes out more positive than negative, especially when one considers that average spending increased only 2.22% over his four years, well below the population plus inflation benchmark of nearly 3%.[18]
Governor Romney receives credit for actual spending in FY 2003, even though he entered office halfway into the fiscal year, because of the tremendous spending cuts he forced down the Legislature’s throat in January of 2003. Facing a $650 million deficit he inherited from the previous administration, Romney convinced the unfriendly State Legislature to grant him unilateral power to make budget cuts and unveiled $343 million in cuts to cities, healthcare, and state agencies.[19] This fiscal discipline continued in 2004, in which Romney continued to slash “nearly every part of state government” to close a $3 billion deficit.[20]”
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/08/mitt_romneys_record_on_economi.php
I expect you forgot the sarcasm tag. It doesn't surprise me much at all nor does it warm my heart. But I do understand the human motivation. Gov't is already so overwhelming big that few can conceive of a place to start. And of course there are differences of opinion and motivation about what should and shouldn't be cut. That's why cross the board cut proposals are popular. Still to make substantial cuts, priorities must be set. Supposedly politicians represent their constituencies for setting priorities.
And of course it's quite human to want to help our children. Unfortunately, we have become a nation that eats too much, drinks too much, and smokes too much. We take the path of least resistance; we give up too easily and we have the attention span of gnats. The blessings of wealth and freedom sometimes conspire to obscure the lessons of self-discipline and personal responsibility.
Personally, I blame the invention of the remote control. :-)
Not from Texas, just a cycling fan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.