THE POLITICAL ARENA!!! Political Gladiators Inside!!

[songsmith]

Source: Health & Healing, March 2011 issue

By, Julian Whitaker, MD

Incredibly, our government has decided to give taxpayer money, lots of money, to Big Pharma. As reported in The New York Times, "The Obama administration has become so concerned about the slowing pace of new drugs coming out of the pharmaceutical industry that officials have decided to start a billion-dollar government drug development center to help create medicinces. " Let's get some facts on the table.

1. The large drug companies are cash cows. According to Fortune 500 rankings, their mean profit margin is about 20 percent, compared to an 8 percent average across all industries.

2. The pharmaceutical industry makes the most dangerous products on the planet. Prescription meds are our fourth leading cause of death, and some of them have unthinkable side effects. Psychiatric drugs, for instance, have been linked to countless suicides, school shootings, and other bizarre acts of violence, such as mothers killing their own children.

3. These companies have limited liability for damages caused by their products. For example, if your child develops autism after receiving dozens of required inoculations, you'll have to sue the federal government, which has agreed to shoulder vaccine-related liability-with taxpayer money.

4. Big Pharma gets irrational sweetheart deals from the government. For Medicare prescription drug coverage, prices are not negotiable. They can charge the government what ever they want!

5. This industry spend nearly twice as much on advertising as they do on research and development. Direct-to-consumer advertising, which is allowed only in the US and New Zealand, has created unprecedent demand for medications, driven up usage and profits, and corrupted the doctor-patient relationship.

6. The US is broke! Do you really want your children and grand children to work overtime to "help" Big Pharma?"

This looks suspiciously like one of my posts regarding Big Pharma, from 5 years ago, or yesterday. Big Pharma was part of Bush's Unholy Trinity of favored industries (with Big Oil and the Banksters) who contributed heavily to his campaigns, and had to be appeased once he took office. All 3 industry lobbies grew exponentially during his reign of stupidity, and all 3 profited vastly, as well. I remember being chastised here and told that each new drug averages a billion-dollar investment for research and FDA approval, but I've seen where it was done for $30 million. Sometimes, pharmacorps simply game the whole process, like they did for the gout drug Colcrys, whose usage predated the FDA... when one company got the drug approved, they also got total control over it's manufacture... an investment of a few hunderd thousand dollars, and the drug price went up 2600%, from $6 per dose, to $185 per dose. You can't blame government for not protecting us out of one side of your mouth, and blame government for too many rules out of the other.
Thanks for posting what I've been saying all along, that Big Pharma is out of control.

[RobTheDrummer]

Well, basically both sides are corrupt. Financially, Bush was bad. Obama was worse. We need someone to change it up. That's really the reason I like Cain. Romney, Perry, Obama....all a bunch of double-talk shitsters that are after your dollar. At least Cain makes some sense. Even if you don't like his 999 thing, he's better than all of these career politicians.

Johnny, you're right about Pharma, what has your boy Obama done about it? Kept it going. Big Oil? What about big Sun? Cronyism is cronyism, regardless of the party. They are all corrupt, spending our taxes on their behalf.

[Banned]

Source: Health & Healing, March 2011 issue

By, Julian Whitaker, MD

Incredibly, our government has decided to give taxpayer money, lots of money, to Big Pharma. As reported in The New York Times, "The Obama administration has become so concerned about the slowing pace of new drugs coming out of the pharmaceutical industry that officials have decided to start a billion-dollar government drug development center to help create medicinces. " Let's get some facts on the table.

1. The large drug companies are cash cows. According to Fortune 500 rankings, their mean profit margin is about 20 percent, compared to an 8 percent average across all industries.

2. The pharmaceutical industry makes the most dangerous products on the planet. Prescription meds are our fourth leading cause of death, and some of them have unthinkable side effects. Psychiatric drugs, for instance, have been linked to countless suicides, school shootings, and other bizarre acts of violence, such as mothers killing their own children.

3. These companies have limited liability for damages caused by their products. For example, if your child develops autism after receiving dozens of required inoculations, you'll have to sue the federal government, which has agreed to shoulder vaccine-related liability-with taxpayer money.

4. Big Pharma gets irrational sweetheart deals from the government. For Medicare prescription drug coverage, prices are not negotiable. They can charge the government what ever they want!

5. This industry spend nearly twice as much on advertising as they do on research and development. Direct-to-consumer advertising, which is allowed only in the US and New Zealand, has created unprecedent demand for medications, driven up usage and profits, and corrupted the doctor-patient relationship.

6. The US is broke! Do you really want your children and grand children to work overtime to "help" Big Pharma?"

This looks suspiciously like one of my posts regarding Big Pharma, from 5 years ago, or yesterday. Big Pharma was part of Bush's Unholy Trinity of favored industries (with Big Oil and the Banksters) who contributed heavily to his campaigns, and had to be appeased once he took office. All 3 industry lobbies grew exponentially during his reign of stupidity, and all 3 profited vastly, as well. I remember being chastised here and told that each new drug averages a billion-dollar investment for research and FDA approval, but I've seen where it was done for $30 million. Sometimes, pharmacorps simply game the whole process, like they did for the gout drug Colcrys, whose usage predated the FDA... when one company got the drug approved, they also got total control over it's manufacture... an investment of a few hunderd thousand dollars, and the drug price went up 2600%, from $6 per dose, to $185 per dose. You can't blame government for not protecting us out of one side of your mouth, and blame government for too many rules out of the other.
Thanks for posting what I've been saying all along, that Big Pharma is out of control.

Who contributes to Obama? , Big Wallstreet, including the biggest crook out there, George Soros. He has more Wall St. execs as high ranking advisers than any other president. If you made millions at Goldman Sacs, welcome to Obama's White House.

Notice johnny or Bill never mention this????

[Hawk]

Well, basically both sides are corrupt. Financially, Bush was bad. Obama was worse. We need someone to change it up. That's really the reason I like Cain. Romney, Perry, Obama....all a bunch of double-talk shitsters that are after your dollar. At least Cain makes some sense. Even if you don't like his 999 thing, he's better than all of these career politicians.

Johnny, you're right about Pharma, what has your boy Obama done about it? Kept it going. Big Oil? What about big Sun? Cronyism is cronyism, regardless of the party. They are all corrupt, spending our taxes on their behalf.

OMG Rob and I never write OMG.
Cain announced that the Koch brothers have bought him out. "The Kock brothers and I are brothers of another mother" Herman Cain. And they contribute heavily to him. And they are ALL about taking your job down Rob. No unions and privitise everything. Check out the Wiscinsin Governer the Koch brothers own.

[Hawk]

Source: Health & Healing, March 2011 issue

By, Julian Whitaker, MD

Incredibly, our government has decided to give taxpayer money, lots of money, to Big Pharma. As reported in The New York Times, "The Obama administration has become so concerned about the slowing pace of new drugs coming out of the pharmaceutical industry that officials have decided to start a billion-dollar government drug development center to help create medicinces. " Let's get some facts on the table.

1. The large drug companies are cash cows. According to Fortune 500 rankings, their mean profit margin is about 20 percent, compared to an 8 percent average across all industries.

2. The pharmaceutical industry makes the most dangerous products on the planet. Prescription meds are our fourth leading cause of death, and some of them have unthinkable side effects. Psychiatric drugs, for instance, have been linked to countless suicides, school shootings, and other bizarre acts of violence, such as mothers killing their own children.

3. These companies have limited liability for damages caused by their products. For example, if your child develops autism after receiving dozens of required inoculations, you'll have to sue the federal government, which has agreed to shoulder vaccine-related liability-with taxpayer money.

4. Big Pharma gets irrational sweetheart deals from the government. For Medicare prescription drug coverage, prices are not negotiable. They can charge the government what ever they want!

5. This industry spend nearly twice as much on advertising as they do on research and development. Direct-to-consumer advertising, which is allowed only in the US and New Zealand, has created unprecedent demand for medications, driven up usage and profits, and corrupted the doctor-patient relationship.

6. The US is broke! Do you really want your children and grand children to work overtime to "help" Big Pharma?"

This looks suspiciously like one of my posts regarding Big Pharma, from 5 years ago, or yesterday. Big Pharma was part of Bush's Unholy Trinity of favored industries (with Big Oil and the Banksters) who contributed heavily to his campaigns, and had to be appeased once he took office. All 3 industry lobbies grew exponentially during his reign of stupidity, and all 3 profited vastly, as well. I remember being chastised here and told that each new drug averages a billion-dollar investment for research and FDA approval, but I've seen where it was done for $30 million. Sometimes, pharmacorps simply game the whole process, like they did for the gout drug Colcrys, whose usage predated the FDA... when one company got the drug approved, they also got total control over it's manufacture... an investment of a few hunderd thousand dollars, and the drug price went up 2600%, from $6 per dose, to $185 per dose. You can't blame government for not protecting us out of one side of your mouth, and blame government for too many rules out of the other.
Thanks for posting what I've been saying all along, that Big Pharma is out of control.

Who contributes to Obama? , Big Wallstreet, including the biggest crook out there, George Soros. He has more Wall St. execs as high ranking advisers than any other president. If you made millions at Goldman Sacs, welcome to Obama's White House.

Notice johnny or Bill never mention this????

You only see what you want to see. Notice Bill complained several times about the contributions of Soros.

[f.sciarrillo]

I am wondering how the allegations of sex crimes against Cain are going to affect him.

[Banned]

"U.S. Approaches $15 Trillion Debt Limit"

"It will be the latest sobering economic milestone that few were hoping to see: The U.S. national debt – any day now – will soar above the $15 trillion mark.

As of this writing, the total debt is $14.97 trillion, so moving beyond the symbolic $15 trillion is a foregone conclusion. When the unwelcome milestone is reached, it will come at a volatile time both in this country and abroad."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... ebt-limit/

The Proudest achievement of Bill's government. But Bill feels better because "needs" are being met.

Long after we are all gone, I wonder how Bill's great grandchildren will feel about paying for all of this debt.

[Hawk]

I am wondering how the allegations of sex crimes against Cain are going to affect him.

It appears not much affect at all from his base. In fact it seems to have fired them up. What's funny to me is now he's wants to use the race card. A man who said race discrimination is nonexistent.

It also kills me that the likes of Limbaugh pounded into the ground that the only reason people voted for Obama was to prove they weren't racists. That same allegation has crept in about Cain and the Cain supporters are appalled by the suggestion (as they should be). But where were they when Limbaugh spouted it out daily in reference to Obama supporters ? I guess they were okay with it then.

[Banned]

I am wondering how the allegations of sex crimes against Cain are going to affect him.

What sex crimes? The allegations are of sexual harassment in the workplace. Not a crime, but HR wienies live for these situations.

Bill Clinton was accused of sex crimes, several ladies have accused him of rape. Rape is a sex crime. BTW, most of the major media ignored the rape charges. To this day, NBC has never even mentioned the rape charges against Clinton.

But allegations against Cain have been non stop on the major media.

Tell me the media is not leaning to the left. ha ha ha

[Hawk]

"U.S. Approaches $15 Trillion Debt Limit"

"It will be the latest sobering economic milestone that few were hoping to see: The U.S. national debt – any day now – will soar above the $15 trillion mark.

As of this writing, the total debt is $14.97 trillion, so moving beyond the symbolic $15 trillion is a foregone conclusion. When the unwelcome milestone is reached, it will come at a volatile time both in this country and abroad."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... ebt-limit/

The Proudest achievement of Bill's government. But Bill feels better because "needs" are being met.

Long after we are all gone, I wonder how Bill's great grandchildren will feel about paying for all of this debt.

Don't like the debt at all Joe.

Raise taxes to the top 5%. Pay a decent wage so that the bottom 47% can afford to pay federal taxes. Close tax loop holes. More spending occurs, more profits for those who invest in America, more revenue occurs, debt goes down.

Now how will you explain to your grand children the polution that they have to deal with, they already can't eat a lot of the fish, because you wanted more money for yourself ? How will you explain that we have a debt because you wanted the top 5% to get richer ?

[Hawk]

I am wondering how the allegations of sex crimes against Cain are going to affect him.

What sex crimes? The allegations are of sexual harassment in the workplace. Not a crime, but HR wienies live for these situations.

Bill Clinton was accused of sex crimes, several ladies have accused him of rape. Rape is a sex crime. BTW, most of the major media ignored the rape charges. To this day, NBC has never even mentioned the rape charges against Clinton.

But allegations against Cain have been non stop on the major media.

Tell me the media is not leaning to the left. ha ha ha

Major media coverage was non stop with the Clinton sex scandal (as it should have been). Where were you ?

[Hawk]

I am wondering how the allegations of sex crimes against Cain are going to affect him.

What sex crimes? The allegations are of sexual harassment in the workplace. Not a crime, but HR wienies live for these situations.

Bill Clinton was accused of sex crimes, several ladies have accused him of rape. Rape is a sex crime. BTW, most of the major media ignored the rape charges. To this day, NBC has never even mentioned the rape charges against Clinton.

But allegations against Cain have been non stop on the major media.

Tell me the media is not leaning to the left. ha ha ha

Do you EVER get tired of being wrong ?

"In 1997, Broaddrick had filed a sworn affidavit with Paula Jones' lawyers, denying that Clinton had ever assaulted her: "During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies... These allegations are untrue ...."[1] In November 1998, Broaddrick contradicted her sworn statement in an interview with Dateline NBC.[2][3] The interview, broadcast in February 1999, centered around Broaddrick's accusation that Clinton had raped her on April 25, 1978, during his first campaign for the governorship of the U.S. state of Arkansas, at a time when Clinton was the Attorney General for the state."

In March 1999, a few months after the allegations publicly aired, 56% of Americans believed the allegations were false, while a third believed that Broaddrick's allegation of rape was at least possibly true. Similarly, 29% of the public felt the press should continue to cover the story, while 66% felt that the media should stop pursuing the story.[8]

"According to Jack Nelson, Washington bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times, many journalists were skeptical: "This is a story that's been knocked down and discredited so many times, I was shocked to see it in the [Wall Street] Journal today.... [E]veryone's taken a slice of it, and after looking at it, everyone's knocked it down. The woman has changed her story about whether it happened. It just wasn't credible."[9] Joe Conason and Gene Lyons' book The Hunting of the President argued that Broaddrick's claim is not credible and contains numerous inconsistencies."

[lonewolf]

Raise taxes to the top 5%. Pay a decent wage so that the bottom 47% can afford to pay federal taxes. Close tax loop holes. More spending occurs, more profits for those who invest in America, more revenue occurs, debt goes down.

Incorrect.

More revenue occurs, but not anywhere near enough to cover the $1.3T annual deficit. Debt continues to rise. As economic conditions improve, the federal reserve is forced to raise short term interest rates and more than a $trillion in sideline "cash" moves out of US treasuries and into equities, forcing long term interest rates higher.

Higher interest rates on the debt mushrooms government interest payment and offsets any gains from new revenues.

The only thing that works is cutting spending by at about a $trillion per year.

[Banned]

"In 1997, Broaddrick had filed a sworn affidavit with Paula Jones' lawyers, denying that Clinton had ever assaulted her: "During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies... These allegations are untrue ...."[1] In November 1998, Broaddrick contradicted her sworn statement in an interview with Dateline NBC.[2][3] The interview, broadcast in February 1999, centered around Broaddrick's accusation that Clinton had raped her on April 25, 1978, during his first campaign for the governorship of the U.S. state of Arkansas, at a time when Clinton was the Attorney General for the state."

In March 1999, a few months after the allegations publicly aired, 56% of Americans believed the allegations were false, while a third believed that Broaddrick's allegation of rape was at least possibly true. Similarly, 29% of the public felt the press should continue to cover the story, while 66% felt that the media should stop pursuing the story.[8]

"According to Jack Nelson, Washington bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times, many journalists were skeptical: "This is a story that's been knocked down and discredited so many times, I was shocked to see it in the [Wall Street] Journal today.... [E]veryone's taken a slice of it, and after looking at it, everyone's knocked it down. The woman has changed her story about whether it happened. It just wasn't credible."[9] Joe Conason and Gene Lyons' book The Hunting of the President argued that Broaddrick's claim is not credible and contains numerous inconsistencies."

Bill, nice words on the screen. Where are they from? Where is the hyperlink that one can connect to to read the whole story?

You mentioned one rape accuser. What about the others? Many, many sourses claim Broadrick's claim was very credible. Just because you post this does mean it is true.

You lie again Bill. When you don't agree with my links you call me a liar. Turnabout is fair play, liar.

[onegunguitar]

[/url]

[Hawk]

"In 1997, Broaddrick had filed a sworn affidavit with Paula Jones' lawyers, denying that Clinton had ever assaulted her: "During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies... These allegations are untrue ...."[1] In November 1998, Broaddrick contradicted her sworn statement in an interview with Dateline NBC.[2][3] The interview, broadcast in February 1999, centered around Broaddrick's accusation that Clinton had raped her on April 25, 1978, during his first campaign for the governorship of the U.S. state of Arkansas, at a time when Clinton was the Attorney General for the state."

In March 1999, a few months after the allegations publicly aired, 56% of Americans believed the allegations were false, while a third believed that Broaddrick's allegation of rape was at least possibly true. Similarly, 29% of the public felt the press should continue to cover the story, while 66% felt that the media should stop pursuing the story.[8]

"According to Jack Nelson, Washington bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times, many journalists were skeptical: "This is a story that's been knocked down and discredited so many times, I was shocked to see it in the [Wall Street] Journal today.... [E]veryone's taken a slice of it, and after looking at it, everyone's knocked it down. The woman has changed her story about whether it happened. It just wasn't credible."[9] Joe Conason and Gene Lyons' book The Hunting of the President argued that Broaddrick's claim is not credible and contains numerous inconsistencies."

Bill, nice words on the screen. Where are they from? Where is the hyperlink that one can connect to to read the whole story?

You mentioned one rape accuser. What about the others? Many, many sourses claim Broadrick's claim was very credible. Just because you post this does mean it is true.

You lie again Bill. When you don't agree with my links you call me a liar. Turnabout is fair play, liar.

First of all, what others accused him of rape and where is your link regarding multiple rape accusations ?

Second, I'll teach you a little trick. Take a sentence from my quoted post, say the first sentence, cut and paste to your search engine and it takes you to the link. Takes as much time and effort as clicking onto a link.

Your claim was that NBC wouldn't mention it and that it wasn't covered. That is what I proved you are wrong about.

This was the topic I responded to:

Joe: "Bill Clinton was accused of sex crimes, several ladies have accused him of rape. Rape is a sex crime. BTW, most of the major media ignored the rape charges. To this day, NBC has never even mentioned the rape charges against Clinton.

But allegations against Cain have been non stop on the major media.

Tell me the media is not leaning to the left. ha ha ha"

Given that she changed her story was a reason given for a decline in media attention. There is no way for anyone to know if she is lying or not. Just like we don't know about the Cain accusers.

Given that NBC took the time to interview the accuser, after you said they wouldn't even mention it, will you be happy to admit you're wrong yet ?

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

[Hawk]

[/url]

Key quote from President Obama:
“This morning, we learned that in the month of September, our economy gained 64,000 jobs in the private sector. July and August private sector job numbers were revised upwards. So we’ve now seen nine straight months of private sector job growth –- in all, more than 850,000 private sector jobs gained this year, which is in sharp contrast to the almost 800,000 jobs that we were losing when I first took office. "

Governments have cut a half million jobs, which has an effect on the overall numbers, given that half million people also stopped spending.

[Hawk]

[/url]

Given that the top 1% refuse to help the economy and the Republicans block every effort, employment would / could be much better. Add to that the half million people who lost government jobs.

Obama doesn't set gas prices, but as you have learned he has greatly increased drilling.


Given that he's blocked from increasing taxes on people who make over a million dollars a year, and the top 1% prefer to hoard well over ONE TRILLION dollars rather than invest it in American labor (12% of which are union) preventing job creation and therefore a lack of revenue, added to the Wars Bush started, the debt would be going down instead of up.

If better wages were paid (did I mention that they are hoarding well over a trillion dollars) there would be less need for food stamps and that would be a cut in federal spending.

So insurance premiums weren't going up until Obama became president ?

Come on, everone knows there was a housing bubble that collapsed before Obama became president. It was a called a "bubble" because the prices were artificially high and now they have come down.

Americans in poverty while companies are making RECORD PROFITS ? Seems to me the answer to the poverty is self explanatory.

[Hawk]

Excerpts from :
By JOHN M. BERRY, The Fiscal Times
June 14, 2011

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2 ... aspx#page1

"Of course most of the jobs have to be created in the private sector. But before those jobs appear, the companies doing the hiring have good reason to expect there will be increased demand for the goods and services they will be selling. And if the politicians are counting on tax cuts to encourage entrepreneurs, they also have to stop deluding themselves: there is no evidence whatsoever that tax cuts pay for themselves.

Instead, to keep large tax cuts from exploding deficits, spending has to be cut as well. Like it or not, spending cuts will eat into demand for goods and services. The hard facts of state and local government employment since the end of 2008 clearly demonstrate that.

Yes, the budget was balanced when President Bill Clinton was in office—but partly only because taxes were raised under President George H.W. Bush in 1991 and again in 1993 under Clinton. Those were the rates in effect when President George W. Bush took office in 1991 and promptly slashed in order to generate more economic growth and added substantially to later deficits.

Pawlenty’s nostrums are more extreme than those of some of the others seeking the GOP nomination. Rep. Ron Paul’s libertarian views are far more extreme, of course—but they have a lot in common: a reliance on tax cuts, large spending cuts and the belief in what Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist and Princeton University economics professor, calls “the confidence fairy.”

Cut taxes, cut spending and so improve business confidence that owners and managers will immediately start to hire more workers. And ignore everything else, including where the demand for goods and services comes from and the direct and indirect job losses associated with the spending cuts.

Given the genuine long-term fiscal problems of the federal government, the economic problem has always been one of timing: how to move the revenue and spending path toward balance in the long-run without slowing the economy too much in the short-run. Right now that's the problem the Obama administration officials negotiating with Congress over how to rein in deficits should have in the front of their minds.

The Republicans with whom they are negotiating should too, but then they profess to believe there’s no connection between spending cuts and jobs."

[Hawk]

Raise taxes to the top 5%. Pay a decent wage so that the bottom 47% can afford to pay federal taxes. Close tax loop holes. More spending occurs, more profits for those who invest in America, more revenue occurs, debt goes down.

Incorrect.

More revenue occurs, but not anywhere near enough to cover the $1.3T annual deficit. Debt continues to rise. As economic conditions improve, the federal reserve is forced to raise short term interest rates and more than a $trillion in sideline "cash" moves out of US treasuries and into equities, forcing long term interest rates higher.

Higher interest rates on the debt mushrooms government interest payment and offsets any gains from new revenues.

The only thing that works is cutting spending by at about a $trillion per year.

You fail to recognize that if jobs increase the goverment will be able to cut spending, which is the bottom line we all want.

[Gallowglass]

...So insurance premiums weren't going up until Obama became president ?

Come on, everone knows there was a housing bubble that collapsed before Obama became president. It was a called a "bubble" because the prices were artificially high and now they have come down.

For me, these two statements lie at the crux of the biscuit. The single biggest factor in both the rise in insurance premiums and the rise of bubbles is government involvement and regulation of these markets. Now extrapolate that across the broader market and number of regulations/involvement the government participates in. I know you are probably going to disagree with that, but that's how I feel. We may very well be at a philosophical gridlock. I do not pretend for one skinny minute that the governmental models that I favor will stop all the injustices, disparities, or problems that we face; however I do feel that in a sum loss game where Freedom, Liberty, and the pragmatic resolution of problems are concerned, I will opt for less government involvement every time. It might not be the utopic solution, but I'd bet my money that the market will ultimately find the most equitable solutions for the most involved over time rather than interventionist solutions. The only reason that I am saying all this is because I'd like to voice that the reasons behind my beliefs are actually motivated by what will do the most good for the most people while still allowing for personal freedom. I guess I care about that more than some, but I feel that to trade freedom for some promise of "security" is a dangerous game that usually doesn't end very well. I don't post very much, so I just wanted to lay that out there in order to avoid any misconstrued interpretations of my political philosophy. That's all.

[onegunguitar]

...So insurance premiums weren't going up until Obama became president ?

Come on, everone knows there was a housing bubble that collapsed before Obama became president. It was a called a "bubble" because the prices were artificially high and now they have come down.

For me, these two statements lie at the crux of the biscuit. The single biggest factor in both the rise in insurance premiums and the rise of bubbles is government involvement and regulation of these markets. Now extrapolate that across the broader market and number of regulations/involvement the government participates in. I know you are probably going to disagree with that, but that's how I feel. We may very well be at a philosophical gridlock. I do not pretend for one skinny minute that the governmental models that I favor will stop all the injustices, disparities, or problems that we face; however I do feel that in a sum loss game where Freedom, Liberty, and the pragmatic resolution of problems are concerned, I will opt for less government involvement every time. It might not be the utopic solution, but I'd bet my money that the market will ultimately find the most equitable solutions for the most involved over time rather than interventionist solutions. The only reason that I am saying all this is because I'd like to voice that the reasons behind my beliefs are actually motivated by what will do the most good for the most people while still allowing for personal freedom. I guess I care about that more than some, but I feel that to trade freedom for some promise of "security" is a dangerous game that usually doesn't end very well. I don't post very much, so I just wanted to lay that out there in order to avoid any misconstrued interpretations of my political philosophy. That's all.

You be quiet mister

[Gallowglass]

...So insurance premiums weren't going up until Obama became president ?

Come on, everone knows there was a housing bubble that collapsed before Obama became president. It was a called a "bubble" because the prices were artificially high and now they have come down.

For me, these two statements lie at the crux of the biscuit. The single biggest factor in both the rise in insurance premiums and the rise of bubbles is government involvement and regulation of these markets. Now extrapolate that across the broader market and number of regulations/involvement the government participates in. I know you are probably going to disagree with that, but that's how I feel. We may very well be at a philosophical gridlock. I do not pretend for one skinny minute that the governmental models that I favor will stop all the injustices, disparities, or problems that we face; however I do feel that in a sum loss game where Freedom, Liberty, and the pragmatic resolution of problems are concerned, I will opt for less government involvement every time. It might not be the utopic solution, but I'd bet my money that the market will ultimately find the most equitable solutions for the most involved over time rather than interventionist solutions. The only reason that I am saying all this is because I'd like to voice that the reasons behind my beliefs are actually motivated by what will do the most good for the most people while still allowing for personal freedom. I guess I care about that more than some, but I feel that to trade freedom for some promise of "security" is a dangerous game that usually doesn't end very well. I don't post very much, so I just wanted to lay that out there in order to avoid any misconstrued interpretations of my political philosophy. That's all.

You be quiet mister

[Hawk]

...So insurance premiums weren't going up until Obama became president ?

Come on, everone knows there was a housing bubble that collapsed before Obama became president. It was a called a "bubble" because the prices were artificially high and now they have come down.

For me, these two statements lie at the crux of the biscuit. The single biggest factor in both the rise in insurance premiums and the rise of bubbles is government involvement and regulation of these markets. Now extrapolate that across the broader market and number of regulations/involvement the government participates in. I know you are probably going to disagree with that, but that's how I feel. We may very well be at a philosophical gridlock. I do not pretend for one skinny minute that the governmental models that I favor will stop all the injustices, disparities, or problems that we face; however I do feel that in a sum loss game where Freedom, Liberty, and the pragmatic resolution of problems are concerned, I will opt for less government involvement every time. It might not be the utopic solution, but I'd bet my money that the market will ultimately find the most equitable solutions for the most involved over time rather than interventionist solutions. The only reason that I am saying all this is because I'd like to voice that the reasons behind my beliefs are actually motivated by what will do the most good for the most people while still allowing for personal freedom. I guess I care about that more than some, but I feel that to trade freedom for some promise of "security" is a dangerous game that usually doesn't end very well. I don't post very much, so I just wanted to lay that out there in order to avoid any misconstrued interpretations of my political philosophy. That's all.

I respect your insight and opinions. I see the problems as a result of a lack of oversight. Although I'm cool with an agreed upon political / philosophical truce (due to gridlock) between us. But I won't mind discussing our ideological differences as I find them interesting.

The ability for a lack of compitition and monopolies forming are a thing I would fear from the Libertarian economic system.

A lack of compitition due to a lack of anti trust laws for insurance is one of the reasons for high costs.

The housing bubble came about because of a lack of government oversight under Bush. Banks took bad loans, bundled them with good loans and sold them off to companies who later failed because of said bad loans. If the banks had not been allowed to sell off the bad loans (edit to insert the following)- this is where government oversight was needed-, they either would not have taken them in the first place or they (the individual banks) should have dealt with the loss. Fanny and Freddie took a big hit because of this.

[Hawk]

...So insurance premiums weren't going up until Obama became president ?

Come on, everone knows there was a housing bubble that collapsed before Obama became president. It was a called a "bubble" because the prices were artificially high and now they have come down.

For me, these two statements lie at the crux of the biscuit. The single biggest factor in both the rise in insurance premiums and the rise of bubbles is government involvement and regulation of these markets. Now extrapolate that across the broader market and number of regulations/involvement the government participates in. I know you are probably going to disagree with that, but that's how I feel. We may very well be at a philosophical gridlock. I do not pretend for one skinny minute that the governmental models that I favor will stop all the injustices, disparities, or problems that we face; however I do feel that in a sum loss game where Freedom, Liberty, and the pragmatic resolution of problems are concerned, I will opt for less government involvement every time. It might not be the utopic solution, but I'd bet my money that the market will ultimately find the most equitable solutions for the most involved over time rather than interventionist solutions. The only reason that I am saying all this is because I'd like to voice that the reasons behind my beliefs are actually motivated by what will do the most good for the most people while still allowing for personal freedom. I guess I care about that more than some, but I feel that to trade freedom for some promise of "security" is a dangerous game that usually doesn't end very well. I don't post very much, so I just wanted to lay that out there in order to avoid any misconstrued interpretations of my political philosophy. That's all.

That's how the playground intellectual responds to a given comment by another on the political RP playground. Kudos !