Democratic Debate Charleston SC - January 17th [MERGED]

[TX-Beau]

Did we pay for Japan too?

 

[BenDan]

Brooks is critisizing Obama from the left - because Obama is to the right of David Brooks.

try again, Ben

that's ok

did you miss the "obviously joking" part ?

or have you read David Brooks work EVER ?

what a gay man won't do to try (and epically fail) to make a point that no one buys

 

[BenDan]

Herein lies the problem.

Our American Republican Party is so absurdly skewed to the right that anyone to the left of that is considered "left wing." Which is an absurd definition, when the policies most of such people espouse can hardly be considered "left" by tradition measures.

National health care, for example, is enjoyed by every single industrial democracy on earth. Every last one of them. Except, of course, the United States. But bringing the USA up to world standards is somehow regarded as "left wing" socialist extremism by Republicans. That's absurd. National health care is as centrist as centrist gets.

America has two political parties: Right and Far Right.

double down by all means

was Karl Marx a rightie ? LOL

 

[T-Rexx]

that's ok

did you miss the "obviously joking" part ?

The "joke" part was Brooks' description of Obama as a "right wing extremist."As the article points out, Brooks critisized Obama as too right wing because he was spending too little money on education and infrastruction and too much on deficit reduction.

Since you refuse to read this article, I will quote a relevant passage for you:

having spent five years gently and thoughtfully but consistently criticizing Obama from the right, as too much the doctrinaire big government liberal, he is now gently and thoughtfully criticizing him from the left. His column argues that Obama should aim for less deficit reduction and bigger increases in government investment in education and infrastructure.

Also, Charles Krautheimer (yes, that Charles Krautheimer) is quoted in the same article, also critisizing Obama from the left:

Now, of course Brooks is a moderate. But there does seem to be an odd trend in the air of conservative pundits attacking him from the left. Charles Krauthammer today, after warming up with some standard right-wing talking points, tosses out a suggestion that Republicans agree to big revenue increases:

the GOP should offer Obama a major concession: a 50 percent solution in which only half the loophole money goes to reduce tax rates. The rest goes to the Treasury, to be spent or saved as Congress decides.

or have you read David Brooks work EVER ?

I have.

And I wish you would.

Both The Telegraph and the Daily Intelligencer linked articles describe Obama policies as right wing. The latter even quotes Republicans complaining that Obama is too right wing on certain issues.

 

[evanrick]

The "joke" part was Brooks' description of Obama as a "right wing extremist."As the article points out, Brooks critisized Obama as too right wing because he was spending too little money on education and infrastruction and too much on deficit reduction.

Since you refuse to read this article, I will quote a relevant passage for you:



Also, Charles Krautheimer (yes, that Charles Krautheimer) is quoted in the same article, also critisizing Obama from the left:






I have.

And I wish you would.

Both The Telegraph and the Daily Intelligencer linked articles describe Obama policies as right wing. The latter even quotes Republicans complaining that Obama is too right wing on certain issues.

you are correct, republicans are unhappy that Obama has been too conservative because the need someone to rile up their constituents about, even if their conservative consitutens approve of democrats ideas by wide margins, especially if their constituents approve of democrats ideas by wide margins, so that republicans can steal democrats ideas and rebrand it in order to not lose support. politics.

its a subtle attempt to steal credibility from the president, for which the GOP has none.

 

[kallipolis]

We are by far the largest and richest industrial democracy, and we have gotten here be fending off socialism as best we can, and defending the other industrial democracies from communism. I doubt if people would be as satisfied with their socialized medicine had they not have had the beneft of the vast sums we have spent on research and development, and subsidized theirs.

That the world beyond the USA also has a highly developed pharmaceutical presence should be appreciated. I will not dwell on the German, Swiss, French, and Japanese pharmaceutical companies preferring to reference the UK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_industry_in_the_United_Kingdom

In 2007 the UK had the third-highest share of global pharmaceutical R&D expenditure of any nation, with 9% of the total, behind the United States (49%) and Japan (15%). The UK has the largest pharmaceutical R&D expenditure of any European nation, accounting for 23% of the total; followed by France (20%), Germany (19%), and Switzerland (11%).[34]

Top 25 UK investors in pharmaceuticals & biotechnology R&D - 2009/10
Companya R&D spendingb (£m)
1 GlaxoSmithKline 3,629.00
2 AstraZeneca 2,745.68
3 Shire 346.71
4 Pfizer UK 325.66
5 Roche Products 208.44
6 Eisai Europe 151.13
7 Brinton Healthcare UK Ltd 140.13
8 Eli Lilly and Company 130.21
9 Amgen 127.06
10 Merial 102.42
11 Novartis Pharmaceuticals 90.27
12 John Wyeth & Brother 60.33
13 Bristol-Myers Squibb 55.49
14 Janssen-Cilag 54.37
15 PowderMed 45.57
16 Aventis Pharma 44.92
17 Allergan 37.40
18 Organon Laboratories 36.78
19 Vectura 36.40
20 Antisoma 35.77
21 Boehringer Ingelheim 29.29
22 Genus 28.60
23 BTG 27.00
24 Servier R&D 25.10
25 Ipsen Developments 23.97
26 Renovo 18.07

 

[Benvolio]

That the world beyond the USA also has a highly developed pharmaceutical presence should be appreciated. I will not dwell on the German, Swiss, French, and Japanese pharmaceutical companies preferring to reference the UK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_industry_in_the_United_Kingdom

Of course. What you are missing is that the large R&D expenditures in those countries is made possible and motivated in part by sales and anticipated sales in the US market, the third most populous and richest market in the world and with no price controls.

 

[jbrown329]

Of course. What you are missing is that the large R&D expenditures in those countries is made possible and motivated in part by sales and anticipated sales in the US market, the third most populous and richest market in the world and with no price controls.

Where the poor can't afford the cost of drugs. Oh, repukes think that the poor should just get sick and die quickly.

 

[evanrick]

i agree socialism will help many but its not a cure all, it is for sure better than the cruel system of captialism we have today.

 

[Benvolio]

That the world beyond the USA also has a highly developed pharmaceutical presence should be appreciated. I will not dwell on the German, Swiss, French, and Japanese pharmaceutical companies preferring to reference the UK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_industry_in_the_United_Kingdom

For most or all those companies, the US is by far the largest and most profitable market, simply because it is such a huge rich market and does not have price controls. Without the profits from US sales, their R&D budgets would be much less and they would be less willing to risk large amounts on R&D. So, to that extent we do subsidize foreign research. With Obamacare or other socialized medicine it is inevitable that the US will begin to control prices, reducing R&D world wide.

 

[kallipolis]

For most or all those companies, the US is by far the largest and most profitable market, simply because it is such a huge rich market and does not have price controls. Without the profits from US sales, their R&D budgets would be much less and they would be less willing to risk large amounts on R&D. So, to that extent we do subsidize foreign research. With Obamacare or other socialized medicine it is inevitable that the US will begin to control prices, reducing R&D world wide.

The profit margins of non United States pharmaceutical companies are substantial enough for them to continue investing huge sums in R&D without fear, that the national health services of various countries will enrage their share holders when negotiating fair prices for the products.