Obama Announces Re-election Bid

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Good post. Although your agnst for one party while ignoring what the other has done or not done over the last 15 or 20 years is a bit over the top.

Sorta like you forgetting that the biggest deficit spenders over the past 30 years were Bush (#1) and Reagan (#2)

We can fix a lot of these problems with a flat or fair tax. You could take 100% of the money from the top 1 or 2 percent and it would not finance us out of our problems for a month. Spending has to be cut, period. The deficit needs to be addressed for the long term but not the short term. First cut spending.

I havent seen any flat or "fair" tax proposal where the numbers work or that is not highly regressive.

In fact in the few highly industrialized countries where they were attempted, they failed miserably in meeting revenue projections.

If you have the details of proposal that dosnt rely on voodoo economics, I'd love to see it. Most of the proposals are short on details and heavy on ideological (and unsubstantiated) assumptions.

But, in the meantime, both the CBO and the Joint Econ Committee have found that extending the Bush tax cuts on the top bracket will cost $3-4 billion over the next 10 years.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Jill

And although President Obama had to continue the Republican bailout programs, unfortunately to a greater degree, as more and more devastation to our economy was exposed, it was an absolute necessity to avoid a massive Depression. If John McCain had been elected, he would have been forced to do the exact same thing, and make no mistake, he absolutely would have.

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. 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. 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. 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. There is enough duplicity to go around when you attack one party over the other. And don't get me wrong, I don't give Bush a pass...

[Fair&Balanced]

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.

Over 1 million private sector jobs created last year; an additonal 250,000+ in each of the first three months of this year (BLS stats). Many resutling directly and indirectly from stimulus projects.

After seven straight quarters of GDP decline in 07-08, seven straight quarters of GDP growth starting when the stimulus program kicked in.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Sorta like you forgetting that the biggest deficit spenders over the past 30 years were Bush (#1) and Reagan (#2)

Look at the graph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

I havent seen any flat or "fair" tax proposal where the numbers work or that is not highly regressive.

That is progressive talking points for "make everyone pay something" towards the Federal Income tax.

But, in the meantime, both the CBO and the Joint Econ Committee have found that extending the Bush tax cuts on the top bracket will cost $3-4 billion over the next 10 years.

Cut spending.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Over 1 million private sector jobs created last year; an additonal 250,000+ in each of the first three months of this year. (BLS stats)

After seven straigth quarters of GDP decline in 078-08, seven straight quarters of GDP growth starting when the stimulus program began:

At what cost? It was a fucking boondoggle. Not a complete waste, but waste never the less.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

At what cost? It was a fucking boondoggle. Not a complete waste, but waste never the less.

At the cost of avoiding an economy in free fall and a depression that would have been much deeper and lasted much longer.

Also, dont forget that 2/3 of the stimulus funding was for tax cuts and tax relief, mostly for small businesses and middle class, along with increased benefit for large number of unemployed in the preceeding 2-3 years ....the kind of tax cuts that Republicans generally like (maybe not the increased benefits part) but refused to support in the stimulus bill for political reasons.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

But, in the meantime, both the CBO and the Joint Econ Committee have found that extending the Bush tax cuts on the top bracket will cost $3-4 billion over the next 10 years.

Really? That's all? I though it was much more than that.

[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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Over 1 million private sector jobs created last year; an additonal 250,000+ in each of the first three months of this year (BLS stats). Many resutling directly and indirectly from stimulus projects.

After seven straight quarters of GDP decline in 07-08, seven straight quarters of GDP growth starting when the stimulus program kicked in.

Todays news.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/More-p....html?x=0&.v=2

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

At the cost of avoiding an economy in free fall and a depression that would have been much deeper and lasted much longer.

What was the probability that would have actually happened? Not every thing that was bailed out needed to be bailed out.

Also, dont forget that 2/3 of the stimulus funding was for tax cuts and tax relief, mostly for small businesses and middle class, along with increased benefit for large number of unemployed in the preceeding 2-3 years ....the kind of tax cuts that Republicans generally like (maybe not the increased benefits part) but refused to support in the stimulus bill for political reasons.

Under TARP or the Stimulus #1 and #2?

[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.

[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)