|
News: Obama's Shady Dealings
Member Since: 8/3/2012
Posts: 5,193
|
Quote:
Originally posted by TikiMiss
I personally think term limits do more harm than good because as soon as Presidents know that they don't have another election to worry about in the second term, they feel free to go into cruise control and/or show their true colors.
|
Actually... that's a good point. Clinton, Bush & Obama have all had 2nd term cruise control.
That's probably why the next president was the opposite political party.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2012
Posts: 13,110
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Blatboy
Honestly, at this time in gay rights, Romney would have been very bad for us sistren. We didnt hit the lottery with him, but atleast we didn't hit rock bottom
|
But our biggest win in Gay Rights so far didn't come from Obama. It came from the conservative-leaning supreme court. And Romney is such a flip flopper, I'm not sure that he wouldn't have changed his promises once in office and became the moderate that he actually is deep down.
Quote:
Originally posted by thegmangrant
I wouldn't say he fooled people. Romney was a complete dumbass in his campaign. Not to mention the fact that he invented ObamaCare and wanted to be elected so he could stop it
|
true. Obama would have had to have a head shaving meltdown to lose, tbh
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/5/2009
Posts: 13,743
|
Quote:
Originally posted by DivaDown
Actually... that's a good point. Clinton, Bush & Obama have all had 2nd term cruise control.
That's probably why the next president was the opposite political party.
|
Al Gore, Clinton's vice president, won the popular vote, but lost to Bush in the electoral vote.
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 25,228
|
Quote:
Originally posted by iHypeMusic
As a republican, I still believe Mitt Romney was the best thing this country could've had in decades.
|
Obama's term has been a disappointment so far (we're only a year into it btw) because republicans in Congress won't let him do anything. Most of his controversies aren't even that big of a deal, they're just made to be bigger deals by pressed ass republicans.
Nothing about his presidency has been controversial so far, at least nothing memorable. But keep hoping.
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/6/2012
Posts: 29,767
|
Quote:
Originally posted by TikiMiss
1. So now, not only are corporations people in the United States, but they are also countries under these new policies. And up till now, corporations have been having a grand old time expanding and growing in spite of these "hoops" they have to jump through. What is the point in making them even more powerful?
2. But some of these drugs aren't special at all. They just list a specific naturally occurring chemical as the cure for this ailment or that. Also, there are PLENTY of industries like the food industry and the fashion industry that are multiple times the size of the pharmaceutical industry, and they do not have basically ANY patent or copyright protection (very very limited and strictly defined), and they still manage to flourish. The tech industry, also, used to be very guarded but with an increase in open-sourced systems and sharing, tech companies are booming and bigger than ever today. Your argument that keeping the system closed only benefits a monopolistic system, and NOT true capitalism.
3. Look at the countries listed in the agreements: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. We're not dealing with China and Russia here. It's countries that are basically allies of the U.S., friendly, and/or much weaker politically and economically. Using its might to get what it wants certainly isn't unprecedented, but we have tended to look down on those instances of swagger in hindsight ala the big-stick policies toward Latin America in the 19th and early 20th century.
|
1. I agree that the corporations are too powerful so I am let this one rest.
2. I don't think your comparison to other industries is valid at all. The drug development process has virtually nothing in common with those you mentioned outside of the tech industry, and believe it or not "open source" is a very very VERY minor segment of the market and accounts for virtually no revenue or new development. In the medical field it is not uncommon to spend BILLIONS on one drug. In your hypothetical including open source where exactly does the funding for this come from? You can't exactly develop new drugs in your moms basement like you can make software.
So again. What motivation is there to make new drugs if you cannot profit?
3. Fair enough. Though most of those countries already do whatever the USA says anyways so I fail to see how this would change anything.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2012
Posts: 5,193
|
Quote:
Originally posted by thegmangrant
Al Gore, Clinton's vice president, won the popular vote, but lost to Bush in the electoral vote.
|
...and then for Bush's re-election, he won by the biggest margin in Presidential election history.
Doesn't matter HOW you become president. If you're smart enough to focus your campaign in the states that carry the most electoral votes & you win those states, then smart strategy on your behalf. I don't care what political party you belong.
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/5/2009
Posts: 13,743
|
Quote:
Originally posted by DivaDown
...and then for Bush's re-election, he won by the biggest margin in Presidential election history.
Doesn't matter HOW you become president. If you're smart enough to focus your campaign in the states that carry the most electoral votes & you win those states, then smart strategy on your behalf. I don't care what political party you belong.
|
You bitch about shady yet there was a mysterious **** up in Florida of all places where his brother conveniently the current governor.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2012
Posts: 5,193
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike91
Obama's term has been a disappointment so far (we're only a year into it btw) because republicans in Congress won't let him do anything. Most of his controversies aren't even that big of a deal, they're just made to be bigger deals by pressed ass republicans.
Nothing about his presidency has been controversial so far, at least nothing memorable. But keep hoping.
|
Omg. The IRS scandal & the Benghazi scandal were/are HUGE regardless of political affiliations! Get real buddy!
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 25,228
|
Quote:
Originally posted by DivaDown
...and then for Bush's re-election, he won by the biggest margin in Presidential election history.
Doesn't matter HOW you become president. If you're smart enough to focus your campaign in the states that carry the most electoral votes & you win those states, then smart strategy on your behalf. I don't care what political party you belong.
|
Bush's election was very close and came down to my sh*tty state. If Kerry won Ohio, he would have been president....
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2012
Posts: 13,110
|
Quote:
Originally posted by DivaDown
Actually... that's a good point. Clinton, Bush & Obama have all had 2nd term cruise control.
That's probably why the next president was the opposite political party.
|
Clinton wasn't horrible in the second term, to be fair. He managed to get a lot done, though of course it wasn't perfect.
All Presidents, besides FDR (for whom the amendment was made to limit presidents to 2 terms) basically stuck to the 1-2 term tradition. I don't think getting rid of the amendment would make some gun for 3 magically, and even if they did, what's wrong with having them stay on so long as the American people think they are doing a good job and deserve to keep their job?
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike91
Obama's term has been a disappointment so far (we're only a year into it btw) because republicans in Congress won't let him do anything. Most of his controversies aren't even that big of a deal, they're just made to be bigger deals by pressed ass republicans.
Nothing about his presidency has been controversial so far, at least nothing memorable. But keep hoping.
|
NSA spying. Spying on and wiretapping journalists. Spending hundreds of millions on a flop website. These are TERRIBLE.
Quote:
Originally posted by Wafflinson
1. I agree they corporations are too powerful so I am let this one rest.
2. I don't think your comparison to other industries is valid at all. The drug development process has virtually nothing in common with those you mentioned outside of the tech industry, and believe it or not "open source" is a very very VERY minor segment of the market and accounts for virtually no revenue or new development. In the medical field it is not uncommon to spend BILLIONS on one drug. In your hypothetical including open source where exactly does the funding for this come from? You can't exactly develop new drugs in your moms basement like you can make software.
So again. What motivation is there to make new drugs if you cannot profit?
3. Fair enough. Though most of those countries already do whatever the USA says anyways so I fail to see how this would change anything.
|
1.
2. One of the main reasons our drug prices are so expensive is because Americans at home are subsidizing the costs of drugs sold by the same companies in other countries that bargain with the said manufacturer. So yeah, I get that the problem is pretty convoluted, but it's along the lines of profits vs doing some good with the drugs. I agree that researching drugs is a whole 'nother ball game from research in other industries, but so much of that research is subsidized and/or paid for by the U.S. government --> in fact, some of the most important drugs in recent years have come about because of TAXPAYER funded research. Not private. I'll present this:
Quote:
The drug industry’s claim that R&D costs total $500 million for each new drug (including failures) is highly misleading. Extrapolated from an often-misunderstood 1991 study by economist Joseph DiMasi, the $500 million figure includes significant expenses that are tax deductible and unrealistic scenarios of risks.
The actual after-tax cash outlay – or what drug companies really spend on R&D – for each new drug (including failures) according to the DiMasi study is approximately $110 million. (That’s in year 2000 dollars, based on data provided by drug companies.) (See Section I)
A simpler measure – also derived from data provided by the industry – suggests that after-tax R&D costs ranged from $57 million to $71 million for the average new drug brought to market in the 1990s, including failures. (See Section II)
Industry R&D risks and costs are often significantly reduced by taxpayer-funded research, which has helped launch the most medically important drugs in recent years and many of the best-selling drugs, including all of the top five sellers in one recent year surveyed (1995).
An internal National Institutes of Health (NIH) document, obtained by Public Citizen through the Freedom of Information Act, shows how crucial taxpayer-funded research is to top-selling drugs. According to the NIH, taxpayer-funded scientists conducted 55 percent of the research projects that led to the discovery and development of the top five selling drugs in 1995. (See Section III)
The industry fought, and won, a nine-year legal battle to keep congressional investigators from the General Accounting Office from seeing the industry’s complete R&D records. (See Section IV) Congress can subpoena the records but has failed to do so. That might owe to the fact that in 1999-2000 the drug industry spent $262 million on federal lobbying, campaign contributions and ads for candidates thinly disguised as "issue" ads. (See accompanying report, "The Other Drug War: Big Pharma’s 625 Washington Lobbyists")
Drug industry R&D does not appear to be as risky as companies claim. In every year since 1982, the drug industry has been the most profitable in the United States, according to Fortune magazine’s rankings. During this time, the drug industry’s returns on revenue (profit as a percent of sales) have averaged about three times the average for all other industries represented in the Fortune 500. It defies logic that R&D investments are highly risky if the industry is consistently so profitable and returns on investments are so high. (See Section V)
Drug industry R&D is made less risky by the fact that only about 22 percent of the new drugs brought to market in the last two decades were innovative drugs that represented important therapeutic gains over existing drugs. Most were "me-too" drugs, which often replicate existing successful drugs. (See Section VI)
In addition to receiving reearch subsidies, the drug industry is lightly taxed, thanks to tax credits. The drug industry’s effective tax rate is about 40 percent less than the average for all other industries. (See Section VII)
Drug companies also receive a huge financial incentive for testing the effects of drugs on children. This incentive called pediatric exclusivity, which Congress may reauthorize this year, amounts to $600 million in additional profits per year for the drug industry – and that’s just to get companies to test the safety of several hundred drugs for children. It is estimated that the cost of such tests is less than $100 million a year. (See Section VIII)
The drug industry’s top priority increasingly is advertising and marketing, more than R&D. Increases in drug industry advertising budgets have averaged almost 40 percent a year since the government relaxed rules on direct-to-consumer advertising in 1997. Moreover, the Fortune 500 drug companies dedicated 30 percent of their revenues to marketing and administration in the year 2000, and just 12 percent to R&D. (See Section X)
source
|
3. Eh. Not sure about this.
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/6/2012
Posts: 29,767
|
Quote:
Originally posted by DivaDown
Omg. The IRS scandal & the Benghazi scandal were/are HUGE regardless of political affiliations! Get real buddy!
|
TBH no one really knows/understands/cares about Benghazi. Maybe they should, but the GOP brought it up every 5 minutes for months and the general public pretty much shrugged it off.
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 25,228
|
Quote:
Originally posted by DivaDown
Omg. The IRS scandal & the Benghazi scandal were/are HUGE regardless of political affiliations! Get real buddy!
|
They were only big because republicans made a bigger deal out of them than what they were. IRS was bad but nothing major or nothing that permanently tarnished or that will be written into history books.
There was absolutely no controversy when it came to Benghazi. Republicans kept trying to find one but never could. They ended up looking like an even bigger joke after that mess.
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 25,228
|
Quote:
Originally posted by TikiMiss
Clinton wasn't horrible in the second term, to be fair. He managed to get a lot done, though of course it wasn't perfect.
All Presidents, besides FDR (for whom the amendment was made to limit presidents to 2 terms) basically stuck to the 1-2 term tradition. I don't think getting rid of the amendment would make some gun for 3 magically, and even if they did, what's wrong with having them stay on so long as the American people think they are doing a good job and deserve to keep their job?
NSA spying. Spying on and wiretapping journalists. Spending hundreds of millions on a flop website. These are TERRIBLE.
|
Website is up and working now and is now doing well. The website was made into a big deal to try and tarnish Obamacare but now it's doing better than ever and tons of people are singing up.
None of those other things are even memorable. They're not exactly Watergate or comparable to dragging us into an unnecessary war...
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2012
Posts: 5,193
|
Quote:
Originally posted by thegmangrant
You bitch about shady yet there was a mysterious **** up in Florida of all places where his brother conveniently the current governor.
|
It was ONE county (West Palm Beach), not the whole state.
And they counted, recounted & recounted again & got the same result. It was Gore who was pressed & that wanted all those recounts.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2012
Posts: 5,193
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike91
Bush's election was very close and came down to my sh*tty state. If Kerry won Ohio, he would have been president....
|
Wtf.
Kerry was murdered in the election that gave Bush his 2nd term. Wake up!
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/6/2012
Posts: 29,767
|
Quote:
Originally posted by TikiMiss
Clinton wasn't horrible in the second term, to be fair. He managed to get a lot done, though of course it wasn't perfect.
All Presidents, besides FDR (for whom the amendment was made to limit presidents to 2 terms) basically stuck to the 1-2 term tradition. I don't think getting rid of the amendment would make some gun for 3 magically, and even if they did, what's wrong with having them stay on so long as the American people think they are doing a good job and deserve to keep their job?
NSA spying. Spying on and wiretapping journalists. Spending hundreds of millions on a flop website. These are TERRIBLE.
1.
2. One of the main reasons our drug prices are so expensive is because Americans at home are subsidizing the costs of drugs sold by the same companies in other countries that bargain with the said manufacturer. So yeah, I get that the problem is pretty convoluted, but it's along the lines of profits vs doing some good with the drugs. I agree that researching drugs is a whole 'nother ball game from research in other industries, but so much of that research is subsidized and/or paid for by the U.S. government --> in fact, some of the most important drugs in recent years have come about because of TAXPAYER funded research. Not private. I'll present this:
3. Eh. Not sure about this.
|
The article you posted is not from a valid non-partisan source. It is essentially a lobbying organization (ironic considering how much liberals drag lobbying). It was also published in 2001 using data from the mid 1990's. Hardly the most credible of research.
Either way. Even if everything they state is accurate and it isn't as expensive as some claim I don't see how it changes the fact that it costs money to develop drugs, and unless that money is made back they can't develop new drugs.
I am 100% completely in favor of public funded research, but that simply isn't practical at this time. There is NO political will for it today..... and that public money that goes into research (usually through universities) is often accumulated though royalties from them licensing their discoveries through the major drug companies. So if drug companies have no protection the private AND public funding will dry up.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2012
Posts: 13,110
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike91
Website is up and working now and is now doing well. The website was made into a big deal to try and tarnish Obamacare but now it's doing better than ever and tons of people are singing up.
None of those other things are even memorable. They're not exactly Watergate or comparable to dragging us into an unnecessary war...
|
Obamacare's failure was inexcusable though They had years and millions of dollars to get the best website, and it flopped. I'm glad it's working now, but it doesn't excuse the inability and pure inadequacy.
They aren't memorable because they aren't as huge as a President being sucked off by an intern, etc., but they are equally terrible if not worse. Infringing on the first amendment amongst other things is seriously despicable.
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 25,228
|
Quote:
Originally posted by DivaDown
Wtf.
Kerry was murdered in the election that gave Bush his 2nd term. Wake up!
|
No he wasn't.
The electoral vote was 286 (Bush) to 251 (Kerry). If Kerry won Ohio it would have been 266 (Bush) to 271 (Kerry) and Kerry would have won.
And the popular vote was 50% to around 48%.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2012
Posts: 13,110
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Wafflinson
The article you posted is not from a valid non-partisan source. It is essentially a lobbying organization (ironic considering how much liberals drag lobbying). It was also published in 2001 using data from the mid 1990's. Hardly the most credible of research.
Either way. Even if everything they state is accurate and it isn't as expensive as some claim I don't see how it changes the fact that it costs money to develop drugs, and unless that money is made back they can't develop new drugs.
I am 100% completely in favor of public funded research, but that simply isn't practical at this time. There is NO political will for it today..... and that public money that goes into research (usually through universities) is often accumulated though royalties from them licensing their discoveries through the major drug companies. So if drug companies have no protection the private AND public funding will dry up.
|
Fair enough. Obviously the system is effed up for either of us to know the actual reality of it. I'll agree that research costs a whole ton, and that for the most part, it is doing a lot of good. It's just really disturbing to me how the costs will probably go up for lifesaving drugs in poor/developing countries.
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/11/2010
Posts: 28,420
|
I'm convinced that the American government is trying to destroy the country.
|
|
|
|
|