The Presidential Debate

[FredF]

Now, Fred, you also claim that:
I have asked you before if you felt this was a greater or lesser evil than Reagan lying to Congress, in sworn testimony, about selling missiles to a sworn enemy of the US, a nation identified by the current president as part of the 'Axis of Evil'. Do you think it is, Fred?

[post="189446"][/post]​

One at a time here and I will answer.

First, I personally don't remember Regan testafying before congress so I cannot address that issue at all since I have no knowledge of it. At the very least how the world looked 20 years agoe is vastly different than today so it is not really fair to compare them but even so....

I have to ask if you feel that Ted Stevens actions are acceptable but Tom Daschle's aren't?

NOPE not at all.
I think that all of the pork should be done away with. Party Affiliation aside. I only used Daschle because that was the most recent one I read and was on the top of my head.

The liberals in congress have for so long created soo many programs to provide for soo many people, that they are winning this battle.
Considering that BOTH houses of Congress, along with the Executive and Judicial branches are controlled by the Republicans, and the Republican party is currently under the control of the NeoConservative faction within it, exactly how did the 'liberals' accomplish this feat? Why have the Republicans done nothing to fix it?

Fist, the liberals controlled congress for 40 years so they have a head start. Next, there are so many in the country that have become beholden upon mother federal governement that it has become a race to see who can outspend the other so they can stay elected. Additionally, there are very few people in cogress that have the spine to stand up and vote this stuff down and when they do, they either loose power in congress or loose their seats. As I said, I truly suppor the notion of "First Congress"


I don't have alot of data on the bottom 50% of the people that pay 3.97 % of all the federal income tax.


Now Just to me sure that I understand what you are saying here when you say:

Both of these actions take money away from the middle class by placing a greater portion of the tax burden upon them. These actions transfer money directly from the middle class to the corporations and the wealthy.

Are you saying that the tax rates went up for these individuals? Are you saying that money is taken away from the middle class here and paid out, actually money is paid out to the so called upper class? Not that they get to keep a larger share of what they have alread made, but the get, in effect a bonus of money they did not earn?

 

[KCFlyer]

One at a time here and I will answer.

At the very least how the world looked 20 years agoe is vastly different than today so it is not really fair to compare them but even so....

[post="189841"][/post]​

Yet just a few short weeks ago, what happened 35 years ago in a swift boat in vietnam was of prime importance. You can't recall....read up on Iran Contra and you'll see that that was a favorite response from Reagan. But again...lying 20 years ago is vastly different than lying today.

 

[FredF]

KC, I looked through thtat census report and the big problem I see with it is that it reports median income levels not mean income levels.

They are not the same thing.

 

[KCFlyer]

KC, I looked through thtat census report and the big problem I see with it is that it reports median income levels not mean income levels.

They are not the same thing.

[post="189845"][/post]​

A drop is a drop is a drop. And a rise is a rise is a rise. income rates dropped. Poverty rates rose. Economy is good. Go figure.

 

[FredF]

Yet just a few short weeks ago, what happened 35 years ago in a swift boat in vietnam was of prime importance. You can't recall....read up on Iran Contra and you'll see that that was a favorite response from Reagan. But again...lying 20 years ago is vastly different than lying today.

[post="189843"][/post]​

KC you seem to have a double standard here.

If Regan were alive and running for office then what he did back then would be releveant. Regan keeps getting brough up here to try to defend or deflect away from Clinton and Kerry. I don't bring it up and I try not to bring up Clinton. I may respond to conversations about him, but I try no to bring him up.

Kerry, on the other hand, started his campaign using his experience in Viet Nam 30 years ago as a centerpiece. He wants to run on that experice, then it is relevant to discuss it. The candidate wanted everyone to know just what type of a sailor he was, so it became fair to asses him by the period of time he, not me, but Kerry, was a sailor for.

That is how it became relevant.

 

[FredF]

A drop is a drop is a drop. And a rise is a rise is a rise. income rates dropped. Poverty rates rose. Economy is good. Go figure.

[post="189847"][/post]​

No they are not the same thing. That is what I am trying to say. The median is not the same thing as the mean. Ask any beginning statistics teacher.


Yes, poverty rates rose, so did the poverty level. So I gues using you a drop is a drop argument, that makes it a wash right?


I also seem to remember, I could be off here, that this country has if not the highest, on of the highest poverty level of country.

 

[Busdrvr]

"Medicine did pretty well under those 'dumb@ass lefties' during the 20th century. Jonas Salk wasn't working for GlaxoSmithKlineBeechamLilly LLC when he cured Polio, he was working on a government grant from a bunch of 'dumb@ss lefties' who thought curing the illness was more important than worrying about who profited from it."

🙄 It's been tried. It didn't work. It's called communism. But in case you still don't get it:

http://www.bain.com/bainweb/publications/p...ns_overview.asp

Now if you take the lucrative US market completely out of the mix, you'd better hope you don't get something aspirin won't fix.

Like you have a choice. When new drugs are brought to market, the older drugs that did the same job are 'sunsetted', or retired, so that your choices are limited to one manufacturers expensive drug or another.

Is it reasonable for a drug company to expect to amortize their R&D costs in the first three years rather than in the 20 years of exclusivity they have on the patent on that drug? Even airlines don't expect airplanes to pay for themselves instantly.

Actually, nothing stops the generic folks to make it as fast as they want in that case. The reason we go to the new stuff is because it often works better. As to the "20 years", that's for a completely new chemical compound, and the clock starts long before it comes to market. Typically, the max "protection" is around 7 years.

 

[Busdrvr]

KC, the census data is old, and it includes all the capital gains from the run-up in the stock market, but not the extra money people got back from taxes. My check was around $12,000.

 

[NWA/AMT]

First, I personally don't remember Regan testafying before congress so I cannot address that issue at all since I have no knowledge of it. At the very least how the world looked 20 years agoe is vastly different than today so it is not really fair to compare them but even so....

[post="189841"][/post]​

That's interesting, "I don't recall" was Reagan's testimony as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

Despite a January 1, 1986 entry in Reagan's personal diary that stated "I agreed to sell TOWs to Iran," the Tower Commission, which implicated North, Poindexter, and Weinberger, amongst others, could not conclusively determine the degree of Reagan's involvement.

Fist, the liberals controlled congress for 40 years so they have a head start.

No, Fred, the Democrats did and in the Democratic party there are liberals and conservatives. Once upon a time there was a difference between party affiliation and schools of political thought.

Next, there are so many in the country that have become beholden upon mother federal governement that it has become a race to see who can outspend the other so they can stay elected.

That explains why when Newt was in Congress both I-75 and I-85 got resurfaced every year, I suppose.

Thanks, Fred, I'm looking forward to reading the rest of your answers to the other questions later.

 

[NWA/AMT]

It's been tried. It didn't work.

[post="189859"][/post]​

Got Polio? Got Smallpox? Seems like it worked then.

It's called communism.

Government support for drug research equates to communism? Interesting definition. I guess when Bush campaigns on the money his administration spent on AIDS drug research he's admitting to being a communist?

But in case you still don't get it:

A link from a business consulting firm that works for the drug industry? I'm sure THAT will be unbiased. (I am surprised that NWA hasn't sued them over their logo though.) If you want to understand the issues involved in drug pricing, read this article from a less biased source:

Financing Drug Research: What Are the Issues?

Now if you take the lucrative US market completely out of the mix, you'd better hope you don't get something aspirin won't fix.

From your article: In the decade that ended in 2002, Europe's R&D spending barely doubled to $21 billion, while U.S. expenditures nearly tripled to $26 billion. So the Europeans went from $10.5 Billion to $21 Billion and we went from $8.6 Billion to $26 Billion over ten years? Sounds like the Europeans were investing more heavily in R&D from the start.........how do you say 'asprin' in German?

Actually, nothing stops the generic folks to make it as fast as they want in that case.

Nothing except patent laws that require them to pay license fees to the holders of the patents of the drugs they're copying. Even when patents end, the cost benefits of generic drugs are being eliminated as manufacturers seek to maximize profits.

As Drug Patents End, Costs for Generics Surge

The reason we go to the new stuff is because it often works better.

That and the millions spent on advertising the drug to the consumer and to the physician.

As to the "20 years", that's for a completely new chemical compound, and the clock starts long before it comes to market.

The 20 year figure is for a new drug under a new patent, rather than a patent for a modification of an existing drug. For such drugs 20 years means 20 years, although generics can be produced, under license (for which the patent holder is paid) after 7 years. Since the manufacturer makes money even if they don't make the drug, that hardly qualifies as 'max protection'.

Even the most conservative estimates of drug company profits place their profit margin around 18% and it's generally accepted that the actual number is about 25%. Blaming high drug costs on R&D expenditures is like blaming airline losses on the caterers.

 

[KCFlyer]

KC, the census data is old, and it includes all the capital gains from the run-up in the stock market, but not the extra money people got back from taxes. My check was around $12,000.

[post="189860"][/post]​

The census data is from 2003.

 

[NWA/AMT]

Thanks, Fred, I'm looking forward to reading the rest of your answers to the other questions later.

[post="189870"][/post]​

Still waiting, Fred. You can answer them one at a time if you'd like.

 

[sentrido]

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/200...yment_situ.html