Obama Announces Re-election Bid

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by glatt

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

Major typo on my part. $3-4 Trillion!

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

...

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

Cut spending.

I would suggest the talking is from the supporters of a flat or fair tax who are never able to provide details on request, bit only offer unrealistic economic assumptions.

[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.)

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

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)

Cool, and please tell us, exactly how much of that money has been let? 100%? 75%? 50%?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

I would suggest the talking is from the supporters of a flat or fair tax who are never able to provide details on request, bit only offer unrealistic economic assumptions.

Great, dispute the assumptions. I mean since "every thing you have seen" and a number of major economies have failed at this attempt. Can you ID those countries and exactly how they failed compared to the proposals you have read?

Compare and contrast your observations. Thanks.

[TheMercenary]

rut row..... Obama plan looks like it has not worked...

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Silver soared to an all-time high on Thursday and gold rose to another record, as a falling dollar and signs that the Federal Reserve would maintain a loose monetary policy boosted precious metals' appeal as a hedge against inflation and economic uncertainty.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Silver...&asset=&ccode=

[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]

But yet you did not site or copy and paste the millions of dollars where no jobs were created. Why?

[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?

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Great, dispute the assumptions. I mean since "every thing you have seen" and a number of major economies have failed at this attempt. Can you ID those countries and exactly how they failed compared to the proposals you have read?

Compare and contrast your observations. Thanks.

There are no industrialized countries with a flat tax, after several EU countries gave it a look, because they found that converting from a progressive tax system to a flat tax redistributes wealth in favor of the top taxpayers and harms the middle class, not only because it is more regressive, but also because it also eliminates deductions that benefit the middle class (mortgage interest, health care costs, pension contributions, etc) and because the reliance on models of economic growth at levels that were unrealistic.

If you feel so strongly about the advantages of a flat tax, you should be able to post one that has been proposed that is not regressive, will not cost the middle class more than they are currently paying in taxes, and does not rely on phantom economic growth projections.

Its a bit disingenuous to say a flat tax is fairer and will better address the debt without demonstrating how that would happen.

[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]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

...after several EU countries gave it a look....

bull shit. that is not what you said....

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

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

Cite.

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

Cite.

[Fair&Balanced]

If you want to defend a flat or fair tax, do it with a real example with real numbers and not some undefined economic theory like it will "trickle down" and create more jobs than ever.

That is all I am asking.

You say it would be better. Show me the money.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

If you want to defend a flat or fair tax, do it with a real example with real numbers and not some undefined economic theory like it will "trickle down" and create more jobs than ever.

That is all I am asking.

And all I am asking is that you defend your assertions. I will wait. Go!