Donald trump. what is your take on him?

[Banzai]

This confuses what I think it the real issue about high US drug prices. For decades (longer) the US has subsidized new drug development with relatively high domestic pricing while foreign nations effectively got a free ride on our coattails.  The drug companies still made small profits from the marginal incremental sales overseas but didn't fund new drug development from that revenue. We are a wealthy and generous country but never get much credit for this.

You don't get much credit, because it's simply not true.

http://time.com/money/4462919/prescription-drug-prices-too-high/

 

[mattiasNYC]

From what I can tell a chief strategist has been chosen by Trump: Breitbarts's Stephen Bannon.

Some headlines from Breitbart:

Trannies Whine About Hilarious Bruce Jenner Billboard

birth control makes women unattractive and crazy

The Solution To Online ‘Harassment’ Is Simple: Women Should Log Off



I don't normally visit the site, having only been led there by links a few times, but it looks quite "alt-righty". The commentary of course can be pretty nauseating. If he allowed that on Breitbart I can't help but feel even more worried now that he's "in government".

 

[micaddict]

Obamacare falls into the second category. Follow the money. It's not socialism, and I can't think of a single other thing he's done that is economic socialism. The country wasn't "turning left", it was just continuing to enrich the already wealthy with a dwindling middle class. That's why the middle class revolted against ALL established politicians with ties to big business.

They'll be in for a surprise now. A whole army of big business soldiers is being installed as we speak.
And if the middle class has anything to fear, it's from BIG business. If need be, they'll be eaten alive.

 

[Matador]

From NPR:

Top Earners Would See Bigger Tax Cuts Under Trump Plan

Effective marginal income tax rates on wages and salaries would be reduced by about 2 percentage points, on average, under Donald Trump’s tax plan compared to current law, the Tax Policy Center says. The top 0.1 percent of earners would see a cut of over 7 percentage points, but those with the lowest incomes would see less than a 1-percentage-point cut.
...
But [Trump] argues the personal-income tax cuts, as well as the Trump proposal to reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent, will help taxpayers by boosting economic growth.
...
The Tax Policy Center says that over the first decade, the government would lose $6.2 trillion in revenue, producing huge budget deficits that could hurt the economy.

Oh man we are witnessing the biggest con of modern history.  I can't decide whether to laugh or cry at everyone pinning their hopes on the "change" candidate.

 

[mattiasNYC]

You've got it all backwards... it's trickle-down economics. All these really wealthy people will immediately invest what amounts to those 6.2T dollars into the economy, creating jobs for all, and all  will live happily ever after.

And if that doesn't happen it's still the fault of the individual who simply isn't applying himself enough to pull himself out of the situation he's in.

January will be interesting.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Well, first of all I don't understand your quips about how some enjoy arguing when you yourself participate. Seems we both enjoy it. Hopefully we can learn something from it.

I would say that neither of us enjoys leaving comments we don't agree with stand unchallenged, and we both pursue the obvious "the only way to get the last word is to keep posting if the other person doesn't stop".  This can become a black hole for time when having discussion with the energizer bunny and/or a team of posters with opposing sentiment. 

The silent majority prefers to remain silent, thus the name. 

Your line of reasoning in general, and that of a lot of other Trump supporters can basically be summed up as: "Yeah, well, that is something I don't agree with, I voted for him for different reasons." Well, when you elect a president you elect the entire package, regardless of whether or not you agree with all of it.

Imagine if I voted for a candidate that had true leftist socialist policies in mind and also said he'd make religious worship illegal. Just hypothetically. Now, if I hear him say all of those things but I only agree with the former, am I absolved of responsibility for enabling the latter? I don't think so.

This is same old debate over which candidate's negatives are worse.  The only way to avoid all negatives is to not vote for either serious candidate. People who don't vote, shouldn't complain, but that is a protected right.

I have already clearly stated my opinion . I see little utility from expanding upon Hillary's negatives after the vote. The only reason I wrote as much as I did about her questionable testimony was because you challenged me about it (and like a dancing monkey I danced). 

I have work to do so you guys can enjoy a group hug with each other for now. It is amusing to hear predictions about the future from people who got so much else wrong  lately. (mea culpa I also incorrectly picked Hillary to win  : , but it appears Trump voters refused to cooperate with pollsters skewing the data in her favor. )

======
@Banzai I took a quick glance at the drug cost article and they seem to be equating drug patents with monopoly... It kind of is but only for a short term. I have followed this industry too for years (I hold no long investments in the drug industry at the moment, too squirrelly with risk of increased regulation. Years ago I made some money investing in generic drug makers). I see some funny business now with new combination of old drug patents to extend protection for expiring drugs***, and anti-competitive agreements between patent holders and generic drug makers to delay the introduction of generic versions to extract more profit from old IP...  Some of this is useful to promote more R&D spending some of this is just sleazy big business (crony capitalism with regulators) market manipulation. Drug prices have risen a bunch since the ACA so far from fixed.

We don't need to break the system that delivers new drug innovation but the cost "reform" doesn't seem to have worked. There seems to be some funny business from the drug industry middle men.

JR


***** Combination drugs... since i am an old fart taking enough medicine daily that I need a pill caddy to keep track of them all I pay attention to what I take. I do not trust the medical community to have my best interests or clinic doctors to be all-knowing. I take a dose of NSAIDs chronically to manage arthritis in one knee (old motorcycle injury and cumulative damage from decades of jogging). A well known problem from chronic use of NSAIDs is stomach irritation and bleeding. 

A neighbor of mine ended up spending a week in the hospital a few months ago after he collapsed from blood loss due to a bleeding ulcer, after using the exact same NSAID I was taking.  ???  He finally fessed up that he was popping them like candy, never a good idea (yes over the counter medicine can kill you). To make this too-long anecdote shorter, after the incident he was prescribed a "new" medicine that just combines an existing stomach acid buffer with a generic NSAID. I haven't bothered to check the price of his "new" medicine but i bet it is way up there. 

I did my own research and found an enteric coated version of the generic NSAID I was taking so it is protected while passing through my stomach. I had to get the local clinic doctor to write me a prescription for this safer version of an over the counter medicine (WTF?).  This obscure safer version cost me about $0.20 a dose so i'm happy. When I asked her about the risk of chronic NSAID use last year she said it was worth the risk for me to remain active. 8) Note: the same doctor advised me to take an enteric coated baby aspirin to reduce heart attack risk.  But like i said doctors can't know everything, another reason why I think expert computer systems can improve healthcare, but that's another topic for another day. 

 

[Andy Peters]

Feeler:  Mike Pence.  What is your take on him?

He favors the horrific "conversion therapy" to make gays and lesbians turn "straight." And that's just the start of his hateful Dominionist Christian beliefs.

A President Pence will be demonstrably worse for anyone other than straight white Protestant men than President Trump.

 

[mattiasNYC]

This is same old debate over which candidate's negatives are worse. 

No, it isn't, it's a debate over whether or not you're responsible for what you're voting  into office. I think you're entirely responsible for it.

And as for whose negatives are worse, I'll just say this then:

You saw less issues with Trump's flirting with violence, xenophobia and misogyny compared to Clinton's... I suppose poor economic policies or personal profiteering.

So again: For those of us at risk of suffering the former you've made a clear evaluation of importance which is duly noted. It all reads like "I'm not against you, but I don't really care as much as you do if he is."

 

[dmp]

Here is a good demo of the polarization of news:
http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/

The us debt has roughly doubled under pres Obama from $11T to near $20T

The data seems to tell more.  It pretty clearly shows the difference when Republicans are in charge. The huge upticks when Republicans took the WH were due to tax cuts without any accompanying spending restraint, while the fiscal balance in the last few Democratic administrations were due to some tax increases and an overall healthy economy. As I've posted before, gov. spending is in line with historical trends, while taxes have been low, due to Republican actions.
You can see the leveling out in the last few years as the economy has strengthened, employment has come up, and spending and revenue have come more into line.

Can someone explain to me why infrastructure spending and tax cuts are a good idea when Trump takes office - but any stimulus spending under Obama was bitterly opposed and the rising debt (during a recession) was somehow supposed to be an indication of irresponsible leadership?  We are about to get another ramp up in the deficient and increase in the debt, right when the country's gotten to a place where it could actually pay down the debt.

 

[mattiasNYC]

You can see the leveling out in the last few years as the economy has strengthened, employment has come up, and spending and revenue have come more into line.

Back home the finance-term for the importance of that was "derivata", which I believe translates into "derivative", in other words what is the direction or "trend" at any given point on a graph. I think it speaks volumes.

 

[sodderboy]

 

Can someone explain to me why infrastructure spending and tax cuts are a good idea when Trump takes office - but any stimulus spending under Obama was bitterly opposed and the rising debt (during a recession) was somehow supposed to be an indication of irresponsible leadership?  We are about to get another ramp up in the deficient and increase in the debt, right when the country's gotten to a place where it could actually pay down the debt.

44 outsourced the stimulus bill to Congress who turned it into a bird feeder for union members, wasteful municipalities, gov grant recipients, and welfare recipients.  Only the pork was shovel-ready.  It was more of the same, expecting a different outcome which did not happen.  The Krugmans and Reichs rationalize that it didn't work because it was only 20% of the size it should have been!  I do not know what Trump is proposing, but it can't be anything similar to what 44 did.  If his stim is more borrowed/printed $$ spread to layers of wasteful government then he will see the same outcome.

 

[Gold]

He favors the horrific "conversion therapy" to make gays and lesbians turn "straight." And that's just the start of his hateful Dominionist Christian beliefs.

A President Pence will be demonstrably worse for anyone other than straight white Protestant men than President Trump.

I agree. He also doesn't believe in evolution or abortion even in the case of rape or incest...

 

[Phrazemaster]

I agree. He also doesn't believe in evolution or abortion even in the case of rape or incest...

Well regardless what he may believe, he can't change the laws according to his whim. He can influence, certainly, but not just overturn.

 

[Gold]

Well regardless what he may believe, he can't change the laws according to his whim. He can influence, certainly, but not just overturn.

Especially evolution.

 

[bruno2000]

The Supreme Court.
The End.
Best,
Bruno2000

 

[micaddict]

When you really dig into it and don't swallow everything thrown at you nowadays, even by scientists, then the evolution theory raises some serious questions, too.
And especially at the root, or may I say the beginning, even evolution (the theory) can't escape from assumptions. Which in fact makes it a belief, as well.

Not so very long ago, evolution was regarded lunacy and sacrilege. Now we're heading towards the total opposite.
I personally believe it's not so "simple", either way.
And I firmly believe we're not as clever as we like to think.

BTW a Dutch scientist has come with a new theory that could seriously shake the laws of physics as we "know" them.
Or so they say.
But please don't ask me to explain that theory ...  ???

 

[Script]

[...] whether or not you're responsible for what you're voting  into office. I think you're entirely responsible for it [...]

I agree, in general. However, (maybe a bit off topic though), 'not voting at all' too is being responsible for what gets voted into office. Many people too easily forget that.

 

[micaddict]

Exactly why a two party system (basically) sucks IMO.

 

[Script]

A two-party system makes it highly apparent, but it also holds true for three-, four- or five-party systems etc.

 

[mattiasNYC]

When you really dig into it and don't swallow everything thrown at you nowadays, even by scientists, then the evolution theory raises some serious questions, too.
And especially at the root, or may I say the beginning, even evolution (the theory) can't escape from assumptions. Which in fact makes it a belief, as well.

At the risk of derailing this, I just have to point out how much I dislike "makes it a belief, as well". To me it resembles the argument that Atheism is essentially a religion, and it is not, by definition. "Belief" in the sense that a scientist has to make an assumption for a theory to work is completely different from the "belief" that essentially goes against science in what we call theism. The former is further proven mostly right through experimentation and observation.

Science has nothing to do with the same type of belief as theism, and neither does Atheism.