The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Well, they should be easy enough to identify. Which ones are we talking about?

I don't know the names of everyone, but I'd imagine you could prod through the list of major financial and banking firms that fell massively in debt and required bailouts/assistance and pull up their top executives, boards of directors, and largest shareholders. The people that made $10 look like $15 in a cloud of smoke and mirrors.

The millions who have been laid off are not the ones that caused this mess, they are just the casualties.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Yes, it's true, we should avoid a long-term structural debt that continues to grow but every major economist who's not a major right-winger agreed that deficit spending is necessary during a time of recession to make up for the lack of output in the private and consumer sectors.

Actually they agree with it as long as the guy doing it is named Ronald Reagan.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Finally, I have no fear of the big, bad federal government. Despite my problems with their political positions at times, most Congressman are fairly intelligent people who understand what's going on. Comparatively, most local government is made up of rubes and most state governments are corrupt as hell in one form or the other. So, yes, I trust the guys in DC who people actually know more than the state rep or city commissioner who only 12 people know. You probably disagree with that notion, that's fine.

It isn't as if there is no place for DC...it has more to do with proper checks and balances...the ability of the voter to remove the poorly performing politician. Right now, you can't try to vote out the chairman of the Banking Committee no matter how much you hate the job he has done. You also can't vote for him if you love the job he's done. You'll have to hope Connecticut does the job for you.

I'm not going to try to change your mind on this...I'm just amazed at the comfort level to turn over authority to a small group of people that you may or may not have authority to vote out. Hope for your sake it isn't one of those angry right-wingers next time.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That is horseshit and it angers me more than anything in this health care debate. Drug companies want free markets when it comes to insurance companies and doctors, but not when it comes to their products. This is nothing more than 51 politicians bending the American public over to help the pharmaceutical industry and their shareholders.

I think you may have a different definition of a free market. Allowing re-importation is allowing a fixed market outside of the US to undermine an arguable free market within the US.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't know the names of everyone, but I'd imagine you could prod through the list of major financial and banking firms that fell massively in debt and required bailouts/assistance and pull up their top executives, boards of directors, and largest shareholders. The people that made $10 look like $15 in a cloud of smoke and mirrors.

The millions who have been laid off are not the ones that caused this mess, they are just the casualties.

Do the greedy billionaires get any credit for times of economic prosperity?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That is horseshit and it angers me more than anything in this health care debate. Drug companies want free markets when it comes to insurance companies and doctors, but not when it comes to their products.

Yeah this is BS!

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

I think you may have a different definition of a free market. Allowing re-importation is allowing a fixed market outside of the US to undermine an arguable free market within the US.

It isn't a fixed market outside the U.S. though. Those countries are entities in a global market. No one is forcing Pfizer to sell a drug to Germany at a certain rate, that is simply what has been negotiated. Pfizer has every right to say that the price is too low for their drugs in those countries and that they won't sell them to them without a better price. Their citizens can decide then if their leaders are making the right decisions in regards to that.

What we have now is a fixed market. You have companies that have a monopoly on a product because they have allowed the government to eliminate all competition. It's hardly a free market when a company has a patent on a drug and won't allow you to buy it anywhere but from them at their price. If your county had milk prices much higher than the rest of the country because they banned you from buying it anywhere else, that wouldn't be a free market.

I understand the argument about these companies needing to make money for R&D. But it's also time that other countries started pitching in for this. We are the ones that pay for all of it because some lobbyists tell our politicians to buttfuck us. I understand some regulations on 3rd world or developing countries, but there is no reason that Canada should be paying half the price we do for a drug.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It isn't a fixed market outside the U.S. though. Those countries are entities in a global market. No one is forcing Pfizer to sell a drug to Germany at a certain rate, that is simply what has been negotiated. Pfizer has every right to say that the price is too low for their drugs in those countries and that they won't sell them to them without a better price. Their citizens can decide then if their leaders are making the right decisions in regards to that.

What we have now is a fixed market. You have companies that have a monopoly on a product because they have allowed the government to eliminate all competition. It's hardly a free market when a company has a patent on a drug and won't allow you to buy it anywhere but from them at their price. If your county had milk prices much higher than the rest of the country because they banned you from buying it anywhere else, that wouldn't be a free market.

I understand the argument about these companies needing to make money for R&D. But it's also time that other countries started pitching in for this. We are the ones that pay for all of it because some lobbyists tell our politicians to buttfuck us. I understand some regulations on 3rd world or developing countries, but there is no reason that Canada should be paying half the price we do for a drug.

It is not a free market outside of the US because Germany, Canada or whoever will say to Pfizer, you can sell this new drug that you spent a billion dollars developing in our country for the price we tell you is right or else we will just copy and sell it without giving you any money. If you now let Germany re-import that drug into the US and sell it for a cheaper price, Pfizer cannot recover the cost of development.

Now you confuse me when you say other countries should help pay the R+D costs. By purchasing the drug at a free market price, they would be helping pay for the R+D. Since other countries refuse to honor copyrights without extorting lower prices, they are free riders. If you want to be a free rider too, you will see nobody paying free market prices and therefore a severe drop in drug development. Most drugs do not recoup R+D costs. The successful drugs pay the way for the others.

Also, once a drug cycles, it becomes relatively cheap.

[JPhillips]

Canada and European nations have copyright agreements with the U.S. They do negotiate lower prices, but they follow the agreements made.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm not sure why Democrats are even pressing forward with this botched health care bill at this point. These poll numbers keep going the wrong way for them.

Democrats' Blues Grow Deeper in New Poll - WSJ.com

Obama's Approval Ratings Low for Economy, Health Care - ABC News Washington Post Poll - ABC News

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Canada and European nations have copyright agreements with the U.S. They do negotiate lower prices, but they follow the agreements made.

Your missing the point. The agreement is made with the understanding that US copyright laws will not be honored. They extort an agreement and that is not a free market. Sure the drug company agrees on it, they don't have a choice. Unless you think losing all rights to your product outside of the US is a reasonable choice.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Your missing the point. The agreement is made with the understanding that US copyright laws will not be honored. They extort an agreement and that is not a free market. Sure the drug company agrees on it, they don't have a choice. Unless you think losing all rights to your product outside of the US is a reasonable choice.

No, they don't agree to lower prices because European countries will violate patents. There are international agreements in place that prevent that sort of thing. Anyway, a number of drug countries are based in Europe. Why would they extort their own companies?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm not sure why Democrats are even pressing forward with this botched health care bill at this point. These poll numbers keep going the wrong way for them.

Democrats' Blues Grow Deeper in New Poll - WSJ.com

Obama's Approval Ratings Low for Economy, Health Care - ABC News Washington Post Poll - ABC News

another awesome leadin by MBBF.

Leave out the adjective and youre not spun. Pull an MBBF and you are. You cant even help it at this point.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

another awesome leadin by MBBF.

Leave out the adjective and youre not spun. Pull an MBBF and you are. You cant even help it at this point.

There's an entire thread on this board where both liberal and conservative posters agree that the current bill is very underwhelming. If by spin, you mean everyone agrees that it's a debacle due to the weakening of the bill to please moderates, then I agree. If by spin, you mean that the general public confidence in this bill is low, then I agree.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Your missing the point. The agreement is made with the understanding that US copyright laws will not be honored. They extort an agreement and that is not a free market. Sure the drug company agrees on it, they don't have a choice. Unless you think losing all rights to your product outside of the US is a reasonable choice.

Are you for real?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

There's an entire thread on this board where both liberal and conservative posters agree that the current bill is very underwhelming. If by spin, you mean everyone agrees that it's a debacle due to the weakening of the bill to please moderates, then I agree. If by spin, you mean that the general public confidence in this bill is low, then I agree.

because you leave out the obstructionism, the obfuscation, and the lying (see death panels and killing of autistic kids) that got us here while compromise has been something some of us have been wanting and talking about. You, sir, have voiced your wanting of the bill to be shoved down the throats for a political point allotment. You say botched as if you dont mean torpedoed when you have Senators calling the other Senators 'terrorists'... well intentioned? I think not. Cant wait to see the counter proposals that come in when theyre 'so for change' just not this change....cant wait. Kill Social Security and Medicare too, wouldnt want to be like Mother Russia.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

It is not a free market outside of the US because Germany, Canada or whoever will say to Pfizer, you can sell this new drug that you spent a billion dollars developing in our country for the price we tell you is right or else we will just copy and sell it without giving you any money. If you now let Germany re-import that drug into the US and sell it for a cheaper price, Pfizer cannot recover the cost of development.

Now you confuse me when you say other countries should help pay the R+D costs. By purchasing the drug at a free market price, they would be helping pay for the R+D. Since other countries refuse to honor copyrights without extorting lower prices, they are free riders. If you want to be a free rider too, you will see nobody paying free market prices and therefore a severe drop in drug development. Most drugs do not recoup R+D costs. The successful drugs pay the way for the others.

Also, once a drug cycles, it becomes relatively cheap.

That is completely false. First of all, copyright has nothing to do with prescription drugs. We are talking patents here.

Second, there is a massive agreement with most industrialized countries when it comes to intellectual property. It's called Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). It requires countries to respect the patent laws of pharmaceutical companies. Virtually every industrialized country abides by this agreement. Pfizer is not forced to sell to any country and that country has no right to tell them to fuck off and make it themselves.

I have no problem debating the topic of re-importation, but I can't if you're just going to completely make shit up.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm not sure why Democrats are even pressing forward with this botched health care bill at this point.

What don't you like about the health care plan? Just curious.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What don't you like about the health care plan? Just curious.

It's not even a question of what I like. I call it botched because the Democrats have dumped most of what they promised to their supporters and the public in favor of letting the moderates and the insurance/pharm lobbyists have their way with the bill and watering it down to the point where there's very little true reform. As many have stated in the other thread, if it's worth fighting for, go ahead and fight. Stick the public option in. Cover ALL citizens. Hold a knife to the pharm/insurance lobby's throat and call their bluff. Write the bill so it achieves everything that you feel will truly reform the industry and hold your ground. Just do it already.

[Flasch186]

I, and many, wish that there was an honest partner to achieve a compromise with for the good of the country.

[molson]

Obama did make a campaign promise that Americans would be able to buy imported cheaper drugs from other countries. I'll patiently wait for that to happen (LOL) (though I've been reading the WH feels that keeping that promise is "unnecessary" after the health care reform is done, which I don't quite understand. Wasn't some kind of health care reform assumed when the drug promise was made?).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's not even a question of what I like. I call it botched because the Democrats have dumped most of what they promised to their supporters and the public in favor of letting the moderates and the insurance/pharm lobbyists have their way with the bill and watering it down to the point where there's very little true reform. As many have stated in the other thread, if it's worth fighting for, go ahead and fight. Stick the public option in. Cover ALL citizens. Hold a knife to the pharm/insurance lobby's throat and call their bluff. Write the bill so it achieves everything that you feel will truly reform the industry and hold your ground. Just do it already.

So you're not against the bill, just how the politics was played? Shouldn't this be about the bill and what's best for the country? I mean even if it's stripped down, if it's good, shouldn't we want it to pass?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Obama did make a campaign promise that Americans would be able to buy imported cheaper drugs from other countries. I'll patiently wait for that to happen (LOL) (though I've been reading the WH feels that keeping that promise is "unnecessary" after the health care reform is done, which I don't quite understand. Wasn't some kind of health care reform assumed when the drug promise was made?).

I am of the belief now that special interests have such a hold of not only our politicians, but also voters, that we'll likely never see a government run in the best interest of its citizens.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's not even a question of what I like. I call it botched because the Democrats have dumped most of what they promised to their supporters and the public in favor of letting the moderates and the insurance/pharm lobbyists have their way with the bill and watering it down to the point where there's very little true reform. As many have stated in the other thread, if it's worth fighting for, go ahead and fight. Stick the public option in. Cover ALL citizens. Hold a knife to the pharm/insurance lobby's throat and call their bluff. Write the bill so it achieves everything that you feel will truly reform the industry and hold your ground. Just do it already.

So you've now moved to the concern troll phase.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So you're not against the bill, just how the politics was played? Shouldn't this be about the bill and what's best for the country? I mean even if it's stripped down, if it's good, shouldn't we want it to pass?

I don't think there's any question that the stripped down version is not good. It SHOULD be about what's best for the country. I'm not happy with the Democrats for failing to deliver what they said was true reform. It's not even close. Also, my ire isn't directed at just the Democrats as I stated in the other thread. I'm not very happy with the lack of a true counter-proposal from the Republicans.

Both are at fault, but ultimately, the Democrats are the majority by a clear margin. If they don't get real reform done, the blame falls squarely on them and no one is going to listen to their whimpering excuses about how it's the GOP's fault. The Dems wanted the power. Now they need to show they were worthy of those votes, which they have not thus far.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So you've now moved to the concern troll phase.

I can certainly understand why you don't want to have an honest discussion at this point.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So you're not against the bill, just how the politics was played? Shouldn't this be about the bill and what's best for the country? I mean even if it's stripped down, if it's good, shouldn't we want it to pass?

As one who hates MBBF's debating style as much as anyone, he did have the key bit "watering it down to the point where there's very little true reform" in there, which is my issue with this whole process as well.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

As one who hates MBBF's debating style as much as anyone, he did have the key bit "watering it down to the point where there's very little true reform" in there, which is my issue with this whole process as well.

I'll openly state that I don't believe that the Democrat form of true health care reform will work at all. With that said, if they want to put through a bill that encompasses what they really believe will work, I'm all for it at this point. All of that can be undone if causes major issues. What I refuse to accept personally is the mess that they're considering right now. Someone in the other thread called it a 'shit sandwich' bill. It doesn't achieve anything.

[Flasch186]

color it disingenuous when all of the tactics that the debate was veiled in skewed opinion to and fro when the veil had little to nothing to do with the debate at hand, as I showed at the beginning of that whole vein when the actual threats were coming in for the town halls that you said was BS...and were wrong.

[panerd]

Face it: The insurance companies are in the Republicans pockets, the lawyers in the democrats, the pharmaceutical companies and doctors are in both. If you truly want reform (which I don't want so I have no real side in this debate except to say how stupid more government intervention is) than you would agree that all 4 need to be fixed and on board. Unfortunately each side sees the need for the other to be on board but not their donors. The Repubs are full of shit if they say reform can happen without major insurance overall and sorry boys but the Democrats are full of shit if they don't think tort reform is a needed component. And everyone is full of shit if they don't think our country’s freedom also causes us to be one of the most unhealthy countries in the world. (fast food, high stress jobs, no exercise, drive when we could easily walk or bike, excessive alcohol...) So go ahead and give me some 3% figure for why lawyers should be able to continue their bullshit or some 10% figure for insurance. Be logical each side only wants what doesn't piss off their donors. They don't care about people "dying the the streets" or being denied coverage. They want to be reelected.

[Flasch186]

For example:

Kay Bailey Hutchinson just coted against a second term for Bernanke but when asked who would be a better candidate for the position she said, "From this administration, no one....." - CNBC 5 minutes ago

Its just obstruction at every turn now. No alternatives no recommendation just no.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I am of the belief now that special interests have such a hold of not only our politicians, but also voters, that we'll likely never see a government run in the best interest of its citizens.

You might be right about the likelihood but I'm still optimistic that things could change if people started making decentralizing power a priority. It doesnt necessarily need to be for every topic (i.e. military comes to mind) but it is the only way to get checks and balances back into government.

No matter how well-intentioned we want to believe any politician(s) to be, if there are not proper checks and balances to them, abuse is inevitable. Sounds cliche to say...but seems most have lost sight of it.

What's the phrase? Absolute power corrupts absolutely? Shades of gray to be sure...but certainly applicable in my mind to increasing federal government power.

[JPhillips]

Shorter MBBF:

I'm opposed to HCR, but what really angers me is that Dems won't pass HCR.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

For example:

Kay Bailey Hutchinson just coted against a second term for Bernanke but when asked who would be a better candidate for the position she said, "From this administration, no one....." - CNBC 5 minutes ago

Its just obstruction at every turn now. No alternatives no recommendation just no.

i find that fucking annoying when either side does it.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

For example:

Kay Bailey Hutchinson just coted against a second term for Bernanke but when asked who would be a better candidate for the position she said, "From this administration, no one....." - CNBC 5 minutes ago

Its just obstruction at every turn now. No alternatives no recommendation just no.

And that is different from the Dems from 03 on how?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Roberts confirmation, just offhand.

[Kodos]

Bucc's sig:

LIBERTARIANS support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.

Why do libertarians only "tolerate" diverse lifestyles? Shouldn't they "promote" those as well (instead of merely tolerating diverse lifestyles), if they are truly about personal liberty?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

If everyone tolerates everyone else's lifestyles, then there really would be no need to promote them.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Bucc's sig:



Why do libertarians only "tolerate" diverse lifestyles? Shouldn't they "promote" those as well (instead of merely tolerating diverse lifestyles), if they are truly about personal liberty?

no, that doesn't make sense at all.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Shorter MBBF:

I'm opposed to HCR, but what really angers me is that Dems won't pass HCR.

I guess it's easier to manipulate the words of others into something that wasn't said than to actually respond with a counter point that merits discussion.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by panerd

no, that doesn't make sense at all.

But they should promote everyone's right to lead the lifestyle of their choice, right? Not merely tolerate different lifestyles.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Kodos

But they should promote everyone's right to lead the lifestyle of their choice, right? Not merely tolerate different lifestyles.

I think you might be taking that to mean something it doesnt. Tolerate, in the purest sense, is to not make action against regardless of personal preference. It doesn't imply approval, nor imply disapproval...just that it isn't to be judged.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I think you might be taking that to mean something it doesnt. Tolerate, in the purest sense, is to not make action against regardless of personal preference. It doesn't imply approval, nor imply disapproval...just that it isn't to be judged.

That is the correct answer.

[Kodos]

But to "support maximum liberty", you need to support different lifestyle choices, not merely tolerate. Otherwise, you are limiting the liberty of individuals - for instance, the liberty of individuals to marry any other individual that they want to, regardless of their gender.

[JPhillips]

I'm not going to be happy until I see pics of Buc in a leather bar celebrating Stonewall Day.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Kodos

But to "support maximum liberty", you need to support different lifestyle choices, not merely tolerate. Otherwise, you are limiting the liberty of individuals - for instance, the liberty of individuals to marry any other individual that they want to, regardless of their gender.

That part goes under "defend civil liberties."

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Kodos

But they should promote everyone's right to lead the lifestyle of their choice, right?

Promote = "everyone should be homosexual"
Tolerate = "I'm fine with you being homosexual, heterosexual, bi-sexual, furry, whatever"

I can see why tolerate might have a bit of a negative connotation. Is "Accept" a better word?

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That is completely false. First of all, copyright has nothing to do with prescription drugs. We are talking patents here.

Second, there is a massive agreement with most industrialized countries when it comes to intellectual property. It's called Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). It requires countries to respect the patent laws of pharmaceutical companies. Virtually every industrialized country abides by this agreement. Pfizer is not forced to sell to any country and that country has no right to tell them to fuck off and make it themselves.

I have no problem debating the topic of re-importation, but I can't if you're just going to completely make shit up.

copyright/patent whatever you want to call it, you get the point. If you are going to be a prick about the wording then pass by the post. You are completely wrong, the drug companies would not sell the product cheaper in other countries if there was not a market force in place.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

Face it: The insurance companies are in the Republicans pockets, the lawyers in the democrats, the pharmaceutical companies and doctors are in both.

I hate to quibble over a minor point but ... isn't that backwards of what you mean? Wouldn't it be that the pols are in the pockets of the companies instead of the companies being in the pols pockets?

[JPhillips]

I guess filibustering the military funding solely to derail healthcare reform is now patriotism. Funny how the rules change.