Obama Announces Re-election Bid

[glatt]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You can't run up the credit cards and then cry fowl because you don't have enough money in the bank.

If you are going to use the household analogy, the proper analogy is that you have a family that has maxed out its credit cards while also choosing to go from full time employment to part time hours so they can spend more time on the golf course.

That family needs to go back to working full time, and also cut up their credit cards and cancel the cable and stop eating out in restaurants.

[TheMercenary]

Agreed. And to really make it they need to start growing some food and save, not spend for things they can't afford.

[Jill]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You can't run up the credit cards and then cry fowl because you don't have enough money in the bank. It is a typical Demoncrat ploy, spend, spend, spend.... tax. Sounds like the days where the Airforce would build a base and put in elaborate quarters and a great O'Club and then cry off because they didn't have enough money for the runway. Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.....

Would you care to point to anywhere in any of my posts where I suggested we just "spend, spend, spend", then "tax"?

Is it a typical Republican ploy to intentionally misrepresent the arguments being put forth by their political opponents, then dismiss them with a broad brush insult? If so, good job!

[TheMercenary]

Hey, look who just voted against the unions!

http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-2...ns-health-care

[Jill]

Oh yeah, another issue I'd LOVE to see Congress and this Administration take on -- the fucking Pharmaceutical industry! Now there's an industry both Republicans and Democrats have been in the pocket of, to the enormous detriment of our country's fiscal health.

Let's start by doing away with granting exclusive patents for drugs, that allow Big Pharma to jack up prices exponentially, ultimately costing all of us dearly. For an example, see this story about the FDA granting an exclusive patent to KV Pharmaceuticals to manufacture a drug that compounding pharmacies have been providing for decades for $10 per injection, who then immediately jacked up the price to $1,500 per injection!

http://www.tampabay.com/incoming/pre...o-1500/1156358

The idea behind taking "production" away from individual compounding pharmacies and centralizing its manufacture was well-intended. It was meant to ensure a consistent product and wider availability. But no one anticipated that the greedy Pharma creeps would literally gouge the public for a drug they did absolutely NO R&D ON! Now it's going to cost us $30 million more annually, much of that burden being spread to all of us in higher insurance premiums, and a significant portion being picked up by the government who will have to subsidize it for Medicaid patients.

I acknowledge that Republicans are against more government regulation, but I contend regulating the price of pharmaceuticals is not only called-for, but a moral imperative. When I lived in Mexico, I could buy my name-brand (not generic) birth control pills, over the counter, for $1 a month. In the U.S. I had to have a prescription and they cost $25 a month. You can't tell me that it's fair that Americans should have to fork over 25 times the cost because Big Pharma lies and says they have to recoup R&D costs. Why on our backs and not on those in other countries? Why after so many years on the market, when it's clear the initial R&D costs are already long paid for? Medicare Part D was nothing but a gigantic gift with a huge bow for the Pharmaceutical Industry.

We stopped allowing cigarette companies to advertise on television decades ago. It's time to prohibit drug companies from spending billions of dollars on television advertising. Those billions should be used to cover the costs of R&D and to actually pay for the manufacture of medications. Individuals can't just walk into a store and buy these medications over the counter anyway. They can only be prescribed by a doctor. So limit Drug Company advertising to Professional publications and direct marketing to the doctors who would be prescribing them. This would, by default, drive costs down.

There are BIG ways we can severely reduce the cost of healthcare in this country without decimating Medicare as we know it, which will make a big impact on government spending. But our Representatives aren't willing to even put these things on the table. Instead we spend months and years arguing over $375 million for Title X funding, which is nothing in the grand scheme of things.

[glatt]

The advertisements for drugs is pretty weird, and I would prefer it if they weren't on tv, but the argument in favor of them is that some consumers won't even know there is a drug that can help them unless those commercials exist.

I disagree with you on patents. The idea of a patent is that you invent something and then it's yours. You can keep other people from making that item until the patent expires. The tradeoff is that in the patent, you tell the world how you did it, so that once the patent has expired, human knowledge is advanced, and other people can build upon that invention. The term of a patent is only 20 years. If you take patent protection away from some people or companies, why in the world would they bother to invent anything? People are just going to steal their invention.

There are lots of drugs out there that are no longer covered by patents. I take generic claritin this time of year because my allergies act up. That patent expired a few years ago and that drug, which is quite helpful to me, is now available for my use for a very low price.

[Jill]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I can't agree. Look what we got for our money. How many jobs were created? At what cost? Many went to pet projects for the Dem majority. Look at the millions spent and the product we got from them.

http://stimuluswatch.org/2.0/

Pelosi, Reid, and Obama rammed programs through without being to explain their costs to the people, and when they did so, they used smoke and mirrors. They controlled congress for 4 years and the spending has gone up astronomically.

And I can't agree with you. Using your site, and clicking the tab for where the highest stimulus spending occurred, we find this:

Type	    Description	            	                     	    		Amount 		Jobs    	
Grant 	    State Fiscal Stabilization Fund - Education Fund			$4,387,948,882 	53,391
Grant 	    State Fiscal Stabilization Fund -Education Fund			$2,177,682,329 	416
Grant 	    State Fiscal Stabilization Fund - Reporting				$1,653,933,720 	18,604
Grant 	    State Fiscal Stabilization Fund - Education Fund			$1,479,922,294 	13,197
Contract    Recovery Act Projects at SRNS consist of: Project A			$1,407,839,884 	800
Contract    									$1,359,715,229 	621
Grant 	    Recovery Act Capital Program- National Railroad Passenger		$1,293,525,000 	779
Grant 	    Grants to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities	$1,226,944,052 	4,162
Grant 	    STATE FISCAL STABILIZATION FUND - EDUCATION				$1,126,357,559 	8,689
Grant 	    Title I - Grants to LEAs, Recovery Act				$1,124,920,473 	4,389
Grant 	    State Fiscal Stabilization Fund - Government Services		$1,084,768,673 	18,229
Grant 	    State Fiscal Stabilization Fund - Education Fund			  $980,685,675 	3,400
Grant 	    Title I, Part A--Improving Basic Programs				  $948,737,780 	1,721
Grant 	    Grants to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities	  $945,636,328 	1,734
Grant 	    Title I, Part A -- Improving Basic Programs			 	  $907,152,149 	6,101
Grant 	    State Fiscal Stabilization Fund-Education Fund			  $872,587,225 	12,454 
Grant 	    State Fiscal Stabilization Funds- Education Grants		   	  $844,735,394 	9,658
Grant 	    State Fiscal Stabilization Fund - Education Fund			  $778,494,148 	8,917
Grant 	    Grants to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities	  $759,193,324 	3,544
Grant 	    State Fiscal Stabilization Fund-Education Fund			  $729,184,969 	11,378
Grant 	    State Fiscal Stabilization Fund-Government Services		 	  $723,165,683 	0
Grant 	    State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) - Education State Grants	  $659,190,155 	3,306
Grant 	    Grants to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities	  $627,262,665 	3,181
Grant 	    State Fiscal Stabilization Fund-Education Fund			  $625,982,529 	13,232
Grant 	    State Fiscal Stabilization Fund - Education Grants		 	  $557,352,452 	6,977
Grant 	    State Fiscal Stabilization Fund - Education Fund			  $549,364,388 	24,242
Grant 	    State Fiscal Stabilization Fund - Education Stabilization Fund	  $544,913,152 	3,800
Grant 	    State Fiscal Stabilization Funds- Education Grants		 	  $536,720,284 	0
Loan 	Innovative Energy Technology					 	  $535,000,000 	118
Grant 	    State Fiscal Stabilization Fund - Education Fund			  $519,340,474 	2,011
Grant 	    State Fiscal Stabilization Fund - Education Fund			  $510,967,172 	0
Grant 	    SPECIAL EDUCATION - GRANTS TO STATES		 		  $506,479,753 	62
Grant 	    State Fiscal Stabilization Fund - Education Fund			  $504,625,464 	8,541
Grant 	    State Fiscal Stabilization Fund - Government Services Fund	 	  $491,453,230 	1,035
Grant 	    Title I, Part A--Improving Basic Programs				  $490,575,352 	2,054
Grant 	    WIA Youth, Adult, and Dislocated Worker Formula Combined	 	  $488,646,876 	12,462
Grant 	    State Fiscal Stabilization Fund - Education Fund			  $482,183,579 	916
Grant 	    State Stabilization Fund- Education Fund				  $480,615,789 	3,932
Grant 	    Construction of highways, streets, roads, public sidewalks       	  $477,170,897 	406
Grant 	    State Fiscal Stabilization Fund - Education Fund			  $447,485,056 	5,868
Grant 	    Special Education - Grants to States, Recovery Act		 	  $437,736,052 	2,054
Contract    This award provides for the performance of current contracts	  $437,675,000 	496
Grant 	    The New York State -- infrastructure construction projects	 	  $432,564,200 	59
Grant 	    GRANTS TO STATES FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILI	 			  $427,178,222 	49
Grant 	    Replacement and upgrade of elevators, boilers, roofs, brickwork  	  $423,284,344 	27
Grant 	    TITLE I GRANTS TO LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCIES	 			  $420,263,561 	1
Grant 	    State Fiscal Stabalization Fund-Education Grants, Recovery Funds	  $416,658,526 	2,673
Grant 	    Grants to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities	  $400,607,836 	698
Grant 	    TITLE I, PART A--IMPROVING BASIC PROGRAMS		 		  $400,603,678 	482
Grant 	    Weatherization Assistance Program				 	  $394,686,513 	43		
Total Jobs ----->  									        280,909

Looks like an incredible amount of educational and infrastructure grants to me, not so much "pet projects". And over 280,000 jobs created.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

They bailed out Goldman, gave out the bonus money to the top execs and then Obama hired a bunch of them into the government. Fannie and Freddy were pushed by the dems and pressure came down for them to make more and more loans.

I'm none too happy with the number of WS guys in the Obama cabinet, but it wasn't Obama who gave out bonuses, it was the bailed out businesses. And Obama's response was to rescind them.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

But I would agree that no one party is to blame for the housing mess. They should have taken all that money and just paid off the banks for the bad loans, then re-vamped the whole thing. Obama forced large banks to take bail outs they did not want or need, why? So they could impose greater regulations on them. And then when they tried to pay back the money the administration refused it. Why? because they want control.

I'd like a cite for this, please.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Obama and this administration are not to be trusted any more than people didn't and shouldn't have trusted what went on when Bush was in office.

Suffice it to say, I don't agree with this contention, either. I don't like everything I see with this Administration, but I don't find them untrustworthy, and I see enormous improvement over the Bush years.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Jill

. I'm none too happy with the number of WS guys in the Obama cabinet, but it wasn't Obama who gave out bonuses, it was the bailed out businesses. And Obama's response was to rescind them.

Really? BS, they got them and Obama hired them.

Suffice it to say, I don't agree with this contention, either. I don't like everything I see with this Administration, but I don't find them untrustworthy, and I see enormous improvement over the Bush years.

Really? An exponential increase in the deficit since 2009 and a downgrade in our credit rating? Really? What happens to us when the world drops the dollar and the source of the world's reserve currency?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Jill

And I can't agree with you. Using your site, and clicking the tab for where the highest stimulus spending occurred, we find this:

Who gives a shit? How many shovel ready jobs were created at that time and how many exist today? Any clue? When the Stimulus money runs out who pays for it? Any clue? The states? The taxpayers are just suppose to pick up the slack? Are people not already being laid off as the Stimulus dollars fade away? Get a grip.

[TheMercenary]

Don't they just tweak one little thing in a patent and that makes it legal to make? Isn't that where the whole idea of knock offs comes from?

[glatt]

It gets complicated, because then you have to get approval from the FDA, and that's where the real expense is.

The generics often tell the court they are being sued in for patent infringement that their drug is totally different from the patented one and that they aren't infringing. And out of the other side of their mouth, they tell the FDA that their drugs are exactly the same as the one they are copying so that they don't have to go through all the patient trials to prove it's safe.

[TheMercenary]

It is a conundrum. They have a right to a profit. But do we have a right to get generics from Canada? And many of the big Pharms give drugs away in the third world compared to what Americans pay for them. Who knows. But when government starts to interfer in the free market and tell companies how much profit they can make or who can or cannot run their companies I have a problem with that.

[Fair&Balanced]

Start with drug reimportation legislation that allows importing from Canada and EU, with regulatory safeguards to prevent import of counterfeits.

It has widespread, bi-partisan support but dies a quiet death every year:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...19&tab=related

Unfortunately, even with bi-partisan support again this year, it will get loss in the shuffle.

and to close this out:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Under TARP or the Stimulus #1 and #2?

Strictly ARRA (stimulus) - 1/3 tax cuts and tax relief (middle class and small business), 1/3 benefit increases (UI, COBRA extensions, etc) and 1/3 grants/contracts (job creation)

[Jill]

Originally Posted by glatt

The advertisements for drugs is pretty weird, and I would prefer it if they weren't on tv, but the argument in favor of them is that some consumers won't even know there is a drug that can help them unless those commercials exist.

I don't buy that argument at all. Men wouldn't know they have erectile dysfunction? People wouldn't know they have arthritis or asthma?

Here's how that "problem" fixes itself -- healthcare reform that pays for primary care so people will be able to get annual exams at a minimum. Let doctors diagnose, not Joe Schmoe sitting on his couch deciding he must have restless leg syndrome.

Replace a portion of drug advertising with PSAs that encourage people to see their doctor.

Originally Posted by glatt

I disagree with you on patents. The idea of a patent is that you invent something and then it's yours. You can keep other people from making that item until the patent expires. The tradeoff is that in the patent, you tell the world how you did it, so that once the patent has expired, human knowledge is advanced, and other people can build upon that invention. The term of a patent is only 20 years. If you take patent protection away from some people or companies, why in the world would they bother to invent anything? People are just going to steal their invention.

There are lots of drugs out there that are no longer covered by patents. I take generic claritin this time of year because my allergies act up. That patent expired a few years ago and that drug, which is quite helpful to me, is now available for my use for a very low price.

You missed the point of the linked story. That company didn't invent or create that drug. They hadn't even been manufacturing it. It was being done "on the side" by compounding pharmacies for $10 a pop. Then the government came in (with the support of March of Dimes, ftr) and assigned a drug company to start manufacturing that drug, prohibited the compounding pharmacies from doing it anymore, and the drug company, who had nothing whatsoever to do with developing that drug, jacked up the price to $1,500 a shot. How is that "free market"? How is that in any way, shape or form "fair"? Especially to the American taxpayer who's going to have to start picking up the $30 million dollar tab for this??

More later, but gotta run now. Hasta!

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Jill

You missed the point of the linked story.

I honestly didn't even read the story. I was responding to your comment: "Let's start by doing away with granting exclusive patents for drugs"

The whole point of patents is that they are exclusive for a limited amount of time.

Are drugs expensive? Yes. Do drug companies gouge consumers? Yes. I'm not sure how to fix that. Stifling innovation isn't the best way. (Not that there's a tremendous amount f innovation going on in the drug industry today.)