The 2012 Elections Thread - Page 42

First of all, I was being tongue in cheek, and inasmuch as I was being serious, I didn't mean that everything was going according to plan. Clearly Newt (who, in my conspiracy theory, is not in on it himself--he's just been set loose like a mad dog) is wreaking havoc on the GOP. Still, I can see *some* Republicans maybe starting to like Romney a little better and getting disenchanted with the hardcore right wing of the party, which has become an albatross, as a result of all this. I'm not saying it's going to win Romney the election, but it might be the corrective surgery the party needs.

As a democrat (well mostly) I can say this primary fight is rather humorous, as of right now. The problem is if it goes on longer and ole Willard gets tested again, as I feel he will in the deep south which Gingrich could win big as he did in South Carolina it will get really ugly like it has been in Florida and actually potentially worse. I feel this is most likely outcome from this and will go to the convention and be massively ugly and get a split party maybe massive of votes to determine the nominee let alone the VP. Much like the old stories I've heard of past conventions. Now like I said this would be very entertaining in a reality show sense but isn't what I want in deciding who will be the opponent against Obama. now I have essentially decided to vote for Obama but feel the process  needs to have a counter point and if Romney and Gingrich eviscerate each other and come out of the convention so bloodied and weak that they want have a chance in hell of winning I feel it hurts the entire country not just democrats and Republicans and thinking in those terms have put us in the place we are right now.

 

That being said the Republican choice of Romney "Mr .00000001 Percent" and Gingrich who comes off as a mix of Lex Luthor as President and generic Bond villain isn't a very compelling and people I've talked to at work already have demonized Romney for personal attacks against Newt so that could be a promblem for old Moneybags if he becomes the nom. 

How does it hurt the country? I actually think steering things further to the left, politically--in terms of the House and Senate, I mean--could have major benefits to the US, which has been weighted to the right for far too long. Yes, I know Democrats controlled the Houses starting in 2008, but they were clogged with "blue dogs" and a Republican party that was determined to filibuster anything they pushed through. A House and Senate filled with actual lefties could go a LONG way to repairing a lot of the damage in the last decade, and I'm talking here about a group of people who could theoretically hold Obama's feet to the fire on stuff like civil liberties and wall street investigations. Far from being one-sided, I think that would be a great balance in terms of reflecting people's opinions while still consisting of people who actually want to get shit done.

 

If, for that to happen, the Republican party needs to self-destruct, I say let it happen. Remember how, post-2008, we kept hearing about how the Republicans needed to spend time "in the wilderness"? That didn't happen. Whereas this, tearing themselves apart from the inside, could be their moment of clarity that helps them rebuild as reasonable adults.

 

Plus, I'd honestly like it if Ron Paul ran as a third candidate. He'd further guarantee a Republican drubbing, he wouldn't win, but he'd continue to keep certain important issues at the forefront. I like the idea that the left might have to make promises about civil liberties in order to win back Paul voters, instead of just being able to point to Mitt and say "I'm not that guy. See you in November."

 

Pretty much agree on all counts. I believe this is why the candidates you mentioned (I would also throw in Christie and maybe Daniels) flat out refused a run. They see the writing on the wall.

 

Now, I don't think Obama is a sure thing in November. I do think however that, as you said, it is an uphill battle, and the establishment recognizes this. 

 

 

I feel not having another party would in the end be a bad thing. When the Whigs died it created a situation that lead to the Civil war. Now if a new pops up, Green Party? But overall an end to either party will hurt our democracy in the long term although Republicans hasn't really helped honestly hopefully they'll got annihilated and have to make a change to make this country better.

 

Hey, the market says that if people don't like what you're selling, you won't be selling it much longer. Isn't that what the Republicans always drill home? Unfortunately, they're making themselves into something unsellable, at least unwinnable, and according to free market theory, their time should be coming to an end.

Democrats left to their own devices will simply add more laws and regulation, because that is how they get elected. For a long time Republicans did the same. What made the Tea Party interesting is that they (may have) created an environment where a politician could get elected by reducing the number of laws and regulations. And Obama has taken notice and begun a process of rationalizing the bureaucracy, discarding obsolete and stupid regulations. This is a good process.

What no one is willing to seriously tackle as of yet is the structural deficits created by Social Security and Medicare. But, they are talking about it in general terms, mostly proposing insignificant cuts elsewhere (Repubs) or just raising taxes until benefits are paid for (Dems).

That would be because Social Security and Medicare aren't the cause of the deficit. They have so much surplus that Congress siphons funds from both programs to finance extracurricular bullshit. The attack on both programs comes from a Libertarian corner that views all human life as disposable once it's out of the womb.
Edited by Reasor - 1/31/12 at 2:24pm

The Republican party isn't going to go away. I'm just talking about having it driven home to them that they're in terrible, unelectable shape, thus hopefully leading to some soul searching. They're reaping the harvest they sowed during the Bush years, and even the Clinton years, and I'm not sure they've learned their lesson yet. The Democrats winning an easy victory isn't going to send us all spiraling off into the sun; lord knows the Republicans had their share of grand slams in the past 30 years.

 

Also: having a lot of defeats hasn't exactly taught the Dems very much. Obama's win in 2008 was pretty much despite the Democrats, not because of them. This is especially true in Congress, where they've veered from scaredy-cat do-nothings to contemptible rank-closers with scandals and corruption. So thinking a trouncing in November will help the Republicans reassess is hopeful but not terribly realistic thinking - especially with fucktards like Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, etc. egging on the siege and war mentality that the far right feeds on.

See this is why I wish a real third party would pop up and keep both of these parties accountable and under control since the republicans and democrats have been proven incomptant of leadership. In the current two party government.

Woah I'd like to see some proof of that. I mean, yeah, Congress stole from the SS funds starting back in the 1960's to fund the War on Poverty. But that's different from saying the SS and Medicare as they exist today are in surplus, but being drained.

 

Look at any chart showing the percentage of Federal Budgets spent on all programs. Social Security and Medicare far outweigh all other expenses including the Military.

Looking bad for Gingrich he's trailing Romney 50 to 28 percent with 14 percent reporting.

CNN called it for Romney.

If you look at the overall number it was a huge loss by Gingrich it was a huge utter loss. But if you deeper at the numbers he did win most of North Florida which is more conservative and more southern than the rest of Florida so it could bode well for Gingrich if he stays in this till the southern states in March so not awful for Gingrich it could have been worse.

Since I failed to answer the real question the first time I responded, let's look at a chart of the real cause of the deficit.



This is from a conservative blog called The American Thinker. The sources they sight for their statistical data are "IRS, Historical Table 23, federal revenue 1930-2002 from US Statistical Abstract, Historical Statistics, federal revenue 2003-07 from US Statistical Abstract, Table 451."

I invite your attention to the red line. Government spending, relative to gross domestic product, remains almost constant over time up to the point that data was available for the authors. I think the table makes clear how this game is played. Give the 1% as close to a free ride as humanly possible, starve the government of funding, then present voters with a false choice of either higher taxes on working households or the abandonment of the social safety net in favor of an entirely privatized system that will exploit your misfortunes for every penny in profit that they can extract from you. This is Grover Norquist's "shrink it (meaning the government) down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

This is what I mean by Social Security and Medicare not causing the deficit. The deficit has been engineered by manipulating tax rates. The false answer Conservatives offer is to throw people who are the least able to fend for themselves to the wolves.
Edited by Reasor - 1/31/12 at 6:54pm

Check this too: http://www.salon.com/2012/01/24/how_conservatives_lie_about_government/

 

Old but apt.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/way-florida-romney-signals-won-t-let-gingrich-185925558.html

 

Could they make this any easier for Obama? And Mitt, the safety net you say is there for the poor is something conservatives are chomping at the bit to destroy.

This is why Romney doesn't stand a chance.  He is, by all accounts, very smart, but has proven himself to be a hopelessly inept politician.

What Will Happen if Obama Wins Again?
Ok, asking as a non-American: you don't actually have elections, right?

I mean, it's all a huge piece of performance art and after November everybody claps and bows and the next few years are spent doing auditions for the next performance.

RIGHT?

Obama needs only this election to cover all the lands with a second darkness.  He is seeking it, seeking it, all his thought is bent on it.

 

Guys like that are the reason why other countries want nukes of their own.

I believe the GOP see their candidates as Harry, Ron and Hermione to Obama's Snape with Soros as He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.

And, of course, his Socialist One World Agenda as the Horcruxes -- kill Nagini/Obamacare and the "Dark" Wizards are thwarted!

Silly Canadian! Republicans don't read!

I liked the lady who though that Obamacare would make things inefficient, like Canada or England.

 

Cause you've got it all sewn up down there. Everything was perfect until Obama fucked it up.

 

Has this woman ever been sick?

If America completely fucking collapses because everybody's entitled to health care I'm going to giggle myself to death.

We can control that with medication.

Is it free?

Shh shh shhhhhhh... worry not about such things, baba mamushka.  Not until we send you the receipt in 6-8 weeks.

*Mumbles to self in Bulgarian*

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/rick-santorum-tells-sick-kid-market-set-drug-004745384--abc-news.html

 

The amount of heartlessness and lack of self awareness these people have doesn't even surprise me anymore.

According to reports, Donald Trump is going to announce his endorsement of Gingrich in the coming days.

Compare and contrast to Australia (which is in Oceania). We have a system called the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). First a drug has to be cleared for use in Australia in terms of safety. Then the PBS considers whether or a cheaper alternative already exists in the system, i.e, is there already a drug on the same scheme that effectively does the same thing. If the drug in question does bring something new to treating a medical condition, the PBS determines how much the consumer has to pay of the cost and how much the government will pay to make up the difference. Here's the good bit, the PBS negotiates with the supplier of the drug as to how much the overall cost of the drug should be. If the cost exceeds what they think the benefit is, they'll just refuse to buy it.

 

This is the perfect example of something that all those alleged US politicians would decry as socialism. A central federal government agency that controls the costs of drugs sold in all states the country. The really good bit? Our costs for drugs are cheaper (often much cheaper) than what you see in the US (the supposed bastion of free market enterprise), because the companies know they have to go through the national gatekeeper to sell anything here. They hate the system here because it forces them to bring their prices down from what they really want to charge. That's the strange thing about the supposed free market and competition going on over there, somehow all the different competing companies seem to know what the highest price they can all get away with for the same product is. I believe there is something comparable to our system which leads to the drug price in Canada being cheaper than the US too.

 

If that was tl;dr, the short version. In Australia with its government controlled centrally planned system of drugs purchases, the price is cheaper for drugs there than the US and its system of seemingly unfettered free market competition. 

Well, we subsidize your cheap drugs so you're welcome. 

 

Drugs cost a shitload to develop.  That money has to be recouped from somewhere.  It doesn't make economic sense to charge the same price they do in Australia in the United States.  They would never turn a profit because they would never recoup their investment costs.  However, the marginal cost of production is really low once the drug is on the market.  Thus it makes sense to still sell in Australia, even if they're making less in return.

Hey, it's that old chestnut. I actually searched for sources about that a while ago. Mostly came up inconclusive, hard numbers wise, but in everything I saw while the US led in terms of research performed, pharmaceuticals didn't especially stand out. So it seems you're not subsidizing our cheap drugs any more than you're subsidizing our smartphones.

 

If you have any numbers to back this I'd gladly give them a look. 

  He then calls himself a Christian. Doesn't he know that most of Jesus's miracles were healing the sick?! I guess Santorum doesn't think Jesus meant it when he said what you do to the least of you, you do to me? Or words to that effect. It seems that the only parts of the Bible these Christians believe are Genesis, one line in Leviticus, and Revelations.

 

  Speaking of George Soros last time somebody was on a rant about what a horrible commie he is, I asked said person who has gotten more US troops killed, Soros or KBR. They just glared at me.

 

I didn't want to recap the 2 hour lecture by the head of my department in my Public Health Lecture but a few things: the figures drug companies claim it cost them to develop a drug are often "creative" to say the least, a lot of that research (and funding) comes from governments, not corporations, our government does believe the makers should be able to profit, just not ridiculously so and often, your drug companies are ripping you off (there's no way to politely say that, sorry).

 

Keep in mind that drugs developed years (even decades ago) and are off patent are often priced higher in the US, so people try to buy them from Canada or elsewhere. Those drugs have long since made much more than they cost to develop. Also, other countries (including our own) actually do develop drugs as well and they have to run the same gauntlet eg: Is it safe?, can something cheaper and pre-existed be substituted? Does it bring something new and significantly beneficial to the treatment of a condition? Is it cost effective? If it answers all those questions (and some more), a price is set as to what it's worth and being a government, it has clout (to contrast, I believe the previous US administration failed to negotiate a discount when buying drugs as part of a giant health plan even though they could have, reasons as to why will vary depending on whom you ask). I do remember Brazil and India breaking US and other countries patents, they claimed on the grounds of acute emergencies though.

 

To be honest, I think governments (and individuals) could save a fortune by using only off patent drugs as much as they can (I only prescribe generic brands where possible) and push public health and preventative behaviour as much as possible as well. We definitely don't need to use every new drug off the pipeline for most people.

 

 

 

Hi! We'd like to welcome you to America. Please have a seat over there, and watch the the screen as we spool up Toddlers and Tiaras, Whitney, and the 2012 Republican Primaries! Corporate sponsored drinks will be served shortly.
 

 

It does kind of mystify me that smart, centrist Republicans can't seem to get a foothold in the public eye, but I think they really just have FOX to blame. When you only have one dog whistle, you only get a certain type of dog.

 

 

 

 

 

Nope, looks like Trump is backing Romney:

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/02/breaking-trump-to-back-romney/?hpt=hp_t2

 

 

good post !

 

to add to the 'name brand'  vs. generic drug conundrum...IIRC, many of the large pharmaceutical manufacturers are manipulating the molecular structure of their drugs just enough to keep their drug patents (profits) going despite having the drug be available for 'generic' manufacture. The drugs will work, more or less(?), the same as the original incarnation but it is different enough to be considered a "new" drug.  This is pretty sneaky shit, if you ask me.

 

On a related but different topic, is anyone else bothered by the fact that companies are patenting sections of the human (and animal?) genome?

Perhaps a different thread for this topic?

Colbert started a hashtag for twitter on his show last night to "help" the GOP candidates "preparethem"

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/407603/february-01-2012/indecision-2012---mitt-romney-s-florida-victory?xrs=share_copy

 

https://twitter.com/#!/search?q=%23preparethem

 

 

Romney, who has spent the campaign so far dodging the "vulture capitalist" label, seriously accepted the endorsement of a TV celebrity whose catch phrase is "you're fired."

Up until now I thought he was seriously running for President. I stand corrected.

Doesn't that undermine the GOP even more? Romney's the "serious" candidate who maybe kinda might theoretically be able to beat Obama. Trump's endorsement is probably going to hurt more than it helps.

 

What I want to know is, who's Ron Paul going to endorse? The guy's got to be dropping out soon, right? Is his third-party candidacy likely?