Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Actually all Obama had to do was sign the budget Congress sent him. But he is an obstructionist and spoiled brat. And he smells funny.Our credit was reduced because Congress was acting like a bunch of dicks threatening to default on our debtsBecause the debt is an even bigger problem than most of those. The debt can cause the government and economy to collapse. Remember when our credit rating was reduced? That was just a warning that the US government is not too big to fail, and that if we don't get serious about this debt, very bad things are coming.
Congress didn't send him a budget.Actually all Obama had to do was sign the budget Congress sent him. But he is an obstructionist and spoiled brat. And he smells funny.Our credit was reduced because Congress was acting like a bunch of dicks threatening to default on our debtsBecause the debt is an even bigger problem than most of those. The debt can cause the government and economy to collapse. Remember when our credit rating was reduced? That was just a warning that the US government is not too big to fail, and that if we don't get serious about this debt, very bad things are coming.
Because problems don't get solved if you wait for someone else to solve them.
And the government causes more problems than it solves
Not true . The gov is reactionary . The FDA doesn't pre date the drug industry . It's business bad behavior that brings on regulation .
Not wrong.Wrong.Oh that's a fantastic idea. Let's get rid of any oversight on the drugs being produced. Let's let any drug companies put in any ingredients they like and we'll just ignore any harmful side effects.Wrong.It's simple: government has caused all our nation's problems that are humanly solvable. Solution: get rid of the problem.
No, it's actually 100% correct. If you look at any of the problems this country has, at bottom the government is the cause. Just take the price of new drugs, for instance. It costs about $5 billion to bring a new drug to market. The FDA is almost entirely the cause of this incomprehensible expense. Get rid of the FDA and the price of developing new drugs would drop to something like $1 million.
It's amazing you don't think these things through.
If drug companies sell dangerous drugs, they get sued for billions of dollars. The FDA is counter productive since it lets them get away with selling drugs that harm people.
Remember when the tobacco industry was able to run rampant selling and telling Americans that cigarette smoke was actually GOOD for them?Oh that's a fantastic idea. Let's get rid of any oversight on the drugs being produced. Let's let any drug companies put in any ingredients they like and we'll just ignore any harmful side effects.Wrong.It's simple: government has caused all our nation's problems that are humanly solvable. Solution: get rid of the problem.
No, it's actually 100% correct. If you look at any of the problems this country has, at bottom the government is the cause. Just take the price of new drugs, for instance. It costs about $5 billion to bring a new drug to market. The FDA is almost entirely the cause of this incomprehensible expense. Get rid of the FDA and the price of developing new drugs would drop to something like $1 million.
It's amazing you don't think these things through.
Oh, come on now. Everyone knows that new drugs don't need to be developed or tested or refined. There's no scientific process involved at all.
Drugs actually grow on trees, and if it wasn't for the Mean Ol' Gubmint, anyone could just drive to the local orchard and pick as many drugs for as many illnesses as they needed.
Only a leftwing idiot like you believes corporations think killing their customers is a good way to make money. Do you really think a multi billion dollar corporation will put a product on the market unless they are dead certain it won't harm people?
You're confusing the FDA with some Canuck agency you worked with.Not wrong.Wrong.Oh that's a fantastic idea. Let's get rid of any oversight on the drugs being produced. Let's let any drug companies put in any ingredients they like and we'll just ignore any harmful side effects.Wrong.
No, it's actually 100% correct. If you look at any of the problems this country has, at bottom the government is the cause. Just take the price of new drugs, for instance. It costs about $5 billion to bring a new drug to market. The FDA is almost entirely the cause of this incomprehensible expense. Get rid of the FDA and the price of developing new drugs would drop to something like $1 million.
It's amazing you don't think these things through.
If drug companies sell dangerous drugs, they get sued for billions of dollars. The FDA is counter productive since it lets them get away with selling drugs that harm people.
Remember when the tobacco industry was able to run rampant selling and telling Americans that cigarette smoke was actually GOOD for them?Oh that's a fantastic idea. Let's get rid of any oversight on the drugs being produced. Let's let any drug companies put in any ingredients they like and we'll just ignore any harmful side effects.Wrong.
No, it's actually 100% correct. If you look at any of the problems this country has, at bottom the government is the cause. Just take the price of new drugs, for instance. It costs about $5 billion to bring a new drug to market. The FDA is almost entirely the cause of this incomprehensible expense. Get rid of the FDA and the price of developing new drugs would drop to something like $1 million.
It's amazing you don't think these things through.
Oh, come on now. Everyone knows that new drugs don't need to be developed or tested or refined. There's no scientific process involved at all.
Drugs actually grow on trees, and if it wasn't for the Mean Ol' Gubmint, anyone could just drive to the local orchard and pick as many drugs for as many illnesses as they needed.
Only a leftwing idiot like you believes corporations think killing their customers is a good way to make money. Do you really think a multi billion dollar corporation will put a product on the market unless they are dead certain it won't harm people?
Regulations stopped that BS.
Corporations don't give a flying fig about American citizens, they only care about getting their money.
The government has a responsibility to maintain the welfare of the American citizens.
Think...
Remember when the tobacco industry was able to run rampant selling and telling Americans that cigarette smoke was actually GOOD for them?Oh that's a fantastic idea. Let's get rid of any oversight on the drugs being produced. Let's let any drug companies put in any ingredients they like and we'll just ignore any harmful side effects.Wrong.
No, it's actually 100% correct. If you look at any of the problems this country has, at bottom the government is the cause. Just take the price of new drugs, for instance. It costs about $5 billion to bring a new drug to market. The FDA is almost entirely the cause of this incomprehensible expense. Get rid of the FDA and the price of developing new drugs would drop to something like $1 million.
It's amazing you don't think these things through.
Oh, come on now. Everyone knows that new drugs don't need to be developed or tested or refined. There's no scientific process involved at all.
Drugs actually grow on trees, and if it wasn't for the Mean Ol' Gubmint, anyone could just drive to the local orchard and pick as many drugs for as many illnesses as they needed.
Only a leftwing idiot like you believes corporations think killing their customers is a good way to make money. Do you really think a multi billion dollar corporation will put a product on the market unless they are dead certain it won't harm people?
Regulations stopped that BS.
Corporations don't give a flying fig about American citizens, they only care about getting their money.
The government has a responsibility to maintain the welfare of the American citizens.
Think...
Wrong.You're confusing the FDA with some Canuck agency you worked with.Not wrong.Wrong.Oh that's a fantastic idea. Let's get rid of any oversight on the drugs being produced. Let's let any drug companies put in any ingredients they like and we'll just ignore any harmful side effects.No, it's actually 100% correct. If you look at any of the problems this country has, at bottom the government is the cause. Just take the price of new drugs, for instance. It costs about $5 billion to bring a new drug to market. The FDA is almost entirely the cause of this incomprehensible expense. Get rid of the FDA and the price of developing new drugs would drop to something like $1 million.
It's amazing you don't think these things through.
If drug companies sell dangerous drugs, they get sued for billions of dollars. The FDA is counter productive since it lets them get away with selling drugs that harm people.
What does it matter whether or not I know them individually? I gave you proof they have cost us 150 billion. What I know means nothing. I gave you objective proof.Here is all the evidence you need. 150 billion per year is what we lose in revenue to loopholes.Would you like the evidence these collective loopholes affect the economy? It's just a google click away.Why would it matter to you that I single them out? I wont do that because the facts already state tax loopholes as a collective inhibit revenue. i know you think you are tripping me up by refusal to single them out, but we both know it doesn't matter since I can easily provide proof of their collective effect.
Why would it matter to you that I single them out?
How can we eliminate a loophole if you don't single it out?
Unless you're just ignorant and don't know what a loophole is?
Would you like the evidence these collective loopholes affect the economy?
Are you ignorant of the loopholes?
Or are you just afraid to name them?
Close Corporate Tax Loopholes | PennPIRG
150 billion per year is what we lose in revenue to loopholes.
Which loopholes? Post a few.
What does it matter whether or not I know them individually? I gave you proof they have cost us 150 billion. What I know means nothing. I gave you objective proof.Here is all the evidence you need. 150 billion per year is what we lose in revenue to loopholes.Would you like the evidence these collective loopholes affect the economy? It's just a google click away.Why would it matter to you that I single them out?
How can we eliminate a loophole if you don't single it out?
Unless you're just ignorant and don't know what a loophole is?
Would you like the evidence these collective loopholes affect the economy?
Are you ignorant of the loopholes?
Or are you just afraid to name them?
Close Corporate Tax Loopholes | PennPIRG
150 billion per year is what we lose in revenue to loopholes.
Which loopholes? Post a few.
If conservatives want to present themselves as 'advocates' of 'less government,' then they must be consistent in their advocacy.
Less government also means not interfering with a woman's right to decide whether to have a child or not, less government means allowing same-sex couples to access marriage law they're eligible to participate in, less government means not compelling citizens to be drug tested against their will, and less government means not burdening the right to vote.
Once conservatives are true champions of less government – including less government for those whom the oppose and disapprove of – then their argument for less government will have merit.
If conservatives want to present themselves as 'advocates' of 'less government,' then they must be consistent in their advocacy.
Less government also means not interfering with a woman's right to decide whether to have a child or not, less government means allowing same-sex couples to access marriage law they're eligible to participate in, less government means not compelling citizens to be drug tested against their will, and less government means not burdening the right to vote.
Once conservatives are true champions of less government – including less government for those whom the oppose and disapprove of – then their argument for less government will have merit.
They do retroactively ban drugs as well retard. Here's a list of drugs banned by the FDA and ones banned world wide. Plenty of examples the FDA has banned.lol it's so convenient that you just ignore all the drugs and chemicals the FDA successfully banned because of their harm. Obviously that matters.You idiot. It has shortcomings. You fix the shortcomings. You don't get rid of the agency. It still succeeds in getting other dangerous drugs off the market. You really suck at thinking critically.Many more would die with no FDA oversight at all. How can the FDA possibly predict the perfect outcome of these drugs when we have 10s of thousands of chemicals produced in the market that have not been scientifically tested? That lack of oversight has caused the FDA's shortcomings.
ROFL! I suppose you have some kind of evidence that more people would die? Obviously not. Tens of thousands of people have died because the FDA delayed the approval of life saving drugs for people that were terminally ill.
Apparently you are whining that the FDA is ineffective. So why do you insist it's necessary in the same paragraph?
The logic for the existence of the FDA is totally non-existent. Drug companies have to spend billions of dollars testing drugs to meet FDA regulations. Most of this testing is totally redundant and useless.If a drug has been in use in Europe for a decade, the company that owns it still has to put it through the usual FDA testing regime if it wants to market the drug in the United States. That is pure stupidity.
The FDA is the reason the price of drugs is so high. So what's the liberal solution? Impose price controls on drugs and remove any incentive for a company to develop new drugs. By by medical progress.
Government is the cause of all of our countries problems, and therefor liberals are the cause because they're the ones who always propose the government solution.
Redundant and useless? Obviously you are just making shit up.
The "shortcoming" is that it's the government. It has all the problems inherent with government. There's no evidence that the FDA is any better at keeping dangerous drugs off the market than the tort system. It's also well known that the FDA keeps life saving drugs off the market and thereby kills thousands of people.
The only way you win this argument is by insisting that I accept your premises. Too bad I don't.
Really? Name one besides besides Thalidomide.
BTW, the FDA does not "ban" drugs. It doesn't approve them for sale.
More efficient government, dumbass!How would reducing government fix our crumbling infrastructure system that ranks one of the worst in the developed world?
How would reducing government lower medical costs such as prescription drug costs?
How would reducing government raise wages in the lower classes and keep all income gains from going to the top earners?
How would reducing government fix our public school system which for decades is one of the worst in the developed world?
How would reducing government keep environmental crises like Flint crisis from happening elsewhere?
How would reducing government stop Wall Street corruption?
Must have been the Kenya Menya aftershave. What budget congress sent him to sign?Actually all Obama had to do was sign the budget Congress sent him. But he is an obstructionist and spoiled brat. And he smells funny.Our credit was reduced because Congress was acting like a bunch of dicks threatening to default on our debtsBecause the debt is an even bigger problem than most of those. The debt can cause the government and economy to collapse. Remember when our credit rating was reduced? That was just a warning that the US government is not too big to fail, and that if we don't get serious about this debt, very bad things are coming.
If conservatives want to present themselves as 'advocates' of 'less government,' then they must be consistent in their advocacy.
Less government also means not interfering with a woman's right to decide whether to have a child or not, less government means allowing same-sex couples to access marriage law they're eligible to participate in, less government means not compelling citizens to be drug tested against their will, and less government means not burdening the right to vote.
Once conservatives are true champions of less government – including less government for those whom the oppose and disapprove of – then their argument for less government will have merit.
Remember when the tobacco industry was able to run rampant selling and telling Americans that cigarette smoke was actually GOOD for them?Oh that's a fantastic idea. Let's get rid of any oversight on the drugs being produced. Let's let any drug companies put in any ingredients they like and we'll just ignore any harmful side effects.Wrong.
No, it's actually 100% correct. If you look at any of the problems this country has, at bottom the government is the cause. Just take the price of new drugs, for instance. It costs about $5 billion to bring a new drug to market. The FDA is almost entirely the cause of this incomprehensible expense. Get rid of the FDA and the price of developing new drugs would drop to something like $1 million.
It's amazing you don't think these things through.
Oh, come on now. Everyone knows that new drugs don't need to be developed or tested or refined. There's no scientific process involved at all.
Drugs actually grow on trees, and if it wasn't for the Mean Ol' Gubmint, anyone could just drive to the local orchard and pick as many drugs for as many illnesses as they needed.
Only a leftwing idiot like you believes corporations think killing their customers is a good way to make money. Do you really think a multi billion dollar corporation will put a product on the market unless they are dead certain it won't harm people?
Regulations stopped that BS.
Corporations don't give a flying fig about American citizens, they only care about getting their money.
The government has a responsibility to maintain the welfare of the American citizens.
Think...
