NationStates Jolt Archive

I'd like to see figures cited to support your assertion that the US "produces most of the world's drugs". (Spelling and punctuation corrected by me, but otherwise a direct quote).

Last night I read in either the Economist or Foriegn Policy that the US accounts for something like 60% of global medication production, contrasted to the lowest "disease burden" (years of healthy life lost to infectious disease) in the world. The article was actually bitching about it, since much of the US production is for the home market, where it isn't as needed. The same article also said US firms are something like 40% or so of global R&D efforts. As the general tone of the article was decidedly anti-American, I suspect the figures on R&D are if anythign a lowball.

Carter brought for the first time Israel and an Arab country (EGYPT) to peace, and was able to turn Egypt from the Soviet side to the Western side.

Is THIS "Completely inept at foreign policy"?

It was less Carter and more that Egypt realized that, as a Soviet client, they lost a war with Israel every few years, usually almost losing Cairo in the process. They also realized that the reason they still owned Cairo was not Egyptian arms, but American restraint of Israel. So why not join the winning team? Side A offers you costly wars and repeated humiliations and tosses in third-rate hardware, Side B offers you peace and tens of billons of dollars in both direct cash and first-rate hardware.

The Camp David accords were by no means some great stroke of diplomatic genius. The groundwork negotiations for the eventual agreements date back to Kissinger in the wake of the Yom Kippur War, when Egypt did the best they ever did, and STILL only kept Cairo due to US pressure on Israel. The agreement has all the hallmarks of Kissinger-style Realist policy, buying off one of your enemie's junior allies in order to protect one of your own and help along detente by quieting the Arab-Israeli conflicts. The Carter Idealist stuff was tacked on later.

Last night I read in either the Economist or Foriegn Policy that the US accounts for something like 60% of global medication production, contrasted to the lowest "disease burden" (years of healthy life lost to infectious disease) in the world. The article was actually bitching about it, since much of the US production is for the home market, where it isn't as needed. The same article also said US firms are something like 40% or so of global R&D efforts. As the general tone of the article was decidedly anti-American, I suspect the figures on R&D are if anythign a lowball.

So - you might or might not have seen some information which might or might not have been reliable, and which might or might not have helped your argument...

But... you can't remember where you saw it...

I'd like to debate with you, but you really are bringing nothing to the table.

On the contrary. I am a Chemist, and have made pharmaceutical grade drugs.

Machinery is expensive, in unit costs... but, for the most part, medical grade drugs are incredibly INEXPENSIVE to make... mere pennies for thousands of unit batches.

But, those unit prices are not passed on to the customer... thus, Pharmaceutical companies reap enormous profits, because the FDA and the government refuse to allow competition. They have, effectively, created a monopoly for the drug industry.

Are you including the costs for R&D, in your pennies figure?

Are you including the costs for R&D, in your pennies figure?

NO - I was talking about unit prices... but the fact remains that R&D IS included in the pennies figure, anyway.

Seriously - how many aspirin do you think America swallows everyday? How much does that simple product cost to make? (And, it really IS simple.) And, how much does that product cost?

Ford. Definately Ford. He was an inept senator and didn't seem to know what was going on. After Nixon resigned and he became president we found out just how bad he was. He was a senator who had bad relations with the senate, he had big problems talking with foreign dignitaries, pardoned Nixon, vetoed 66 bills (more than any other president in a 4 year term, with many of those bills being social welfare bills), caused a recession by battling with congress over economic policy, killed 41 soldiers trying to rescue 40 crew members of a captured ship (who the public later found out were released before our forces got there), and continued the cold war by secretly funding militia groups to fight in Africa against congresses wishes. Dear Ford, you suck. sincerely, :sniper:

I am appalled that anyone would name Carter as the WORST PRESIDENT EVER.

For Chrissakes, the man won the Nobel Peace Prize.

His inability to be effective had more to do with the republican majority that blocked all his good ideas.

I am guessing that Texaspunditstan thinks that Rush Limbaugh is the greatest thing that ever happened to talk radio. But what do you expect from a Texan?

As for the pharmaceutical prices, we have Reagan to thank for that.

During his term, pharmaceutical companies were allowed to include the cost of ADVERTISING in R&D figures.

The more they advertise, the more they can charge.

Reagan's administration also provided for private corporations to patent drugs that were developed with public funds.

WE, the people of the US paid for the research, and yet the pharmaceutical companies now own the result of that research, and are selling it back to us.

This is just wrong.

Ford. Definately Ford. He was an inept senator and didn't seem to know what was going on. After Nixon resigned and he became president we found out just how bad he was. He was a senator who had bad relations with the senate, he had big problems talking with foreign dignitaries, pardoned Nixon, vetoed 66 bills (more than any other president in a 4 year term, with many of those bills being social welfare bills), caused a recession by battling with congress over economic policy, killed 41 soldiers trying to rescue 40 crew members of a captured ship (who the public later found out were released before our forces got there), and continued the cold war by secretly funding militia groups to fight in Africa against congresses wishes. Dear Ford, you suck. sincerely, :sniper:

Ford was great. He saved Arthur Dent from certain death....

As for the pharmaceutical prices, we have Reagan to thank for that.

During his term, pharmaceutical companies were allowed to include the cost of ADVERTISING in R&D figures.

The more they advertise, the more they can charge.

Reagan's administration also provided for private corporations to patent drugs that were developed with public funds.

WE, the people of the US paid for the research, and yet the pharmaceutical companies now own the result of that research, and are selling it back to us.

This is just wrong.

Good points, but just a continuation of a trend... the Pharmaceutical giants already had the legitimate monopoly at that point.

It is probably no coincidence that the Pharmaceutical companies are HUGE contributors to political parties...

It was less Carter and more that Egypt realized that, as a Soviet client, they lost a war with Israel every few years, usually almost losing Cairo in the process. They also realized that the reason they still owned Cairo was not Egyptian arms, but American restraint of Israel. So why not join the winning team? Side A offers you costly wars and repeated humiliations and tosses in third-rate hardware, Side B offers you peace and tens of billons of dollars in both direct cash and first-rate hardware.

The Camp David accords were by no means some great stroke of diplomatic genius. The groundwork negotiations for the eventual agreements date back to Kissinger in the wake of the Yom Kippur War, when Egypt did the best they ever did, and STILL only kept Cairo due to US pressure on Israel. The agreement has all the hallmarks of Kissinger-style Realist policy, buying off one of your enemie's junior allies in order to protect one of your own and help along detente by quieting the Arab-Israeli conflicts. The Carter Idealist stuff was tacked on later.


Ah, but you see it was under Carter that Egypt saw that it was a viable option to join the US. Republican presidents have a tendency to turn people away from us and settle for any possible alternative, even inferior ones.

Take Dubya. When Clinton was in office Iran was starting to democratize. There was honets discussion about the possibility of lossening the theocratic stranglehold that the country has labored under since throwing off the shackles of our imposed regime.

Now that Dubya's back, there is no talk of a democratizing Iran. They're more rediculously theocratic than ever. You're arguing that Carter was completly inept because he demonstrated basic compotency, but Dubya indicates real incompotence.

legitimate monopoly?

I'd have to say the worse president ever was in fact Carter. Though I wasn't alive when he was the president, I do know much about him. Might I add that the two best presiden'ts, in my opinion, were Reagan and the current Bush now.

legitimate monopoly?

Is this pointed to me?

'Legitimate monopoly' means, here, that the Pharmaceutical companies are given a special exemption to free-trade.

I'd definitely say Grant and a couple of others were bad. LBJ wasn't the man for the job, but he got a raw deal as far as the Vietnam War.

Although I'd like to say King George Bush II is really bad, he actually is closer to a below average President than a bad one. His foriegn policy is idiotic (i've witnessed the results first-hand), and he caters to the rich and powerful, but his second term has not been as bad as his first (so far). He did steal an election and that pisses me off, but as a country, we let him do it.

Reagan set us up for vast economic, social, and international decline.
three phrases to sum up his administration:
1. Star Wars
2. What AIDS?
3. "F##k you, pay me"

Are you including the costs for R&D, in your pennies figure?

You mean the pharmis?

Well a guy looked into that and found that 10 of the last 11 major drugs were bought. If you call acquistion R&D then ok.

Oh please, maybe he made it worse for the rich bastards but he kept millions of people on their feet and got us through it in one piece.
Oh please, milk was dumped in the gutter on his order to raise it's price when people where starving.

I'm not going to argue over social welfare, but I don't see what is wrong with socialised medicine?

Personally - I see no problems with providing medical help to those least able to afford it... and see no reason why there shouldn't ALSO be private healthcare for those who want attention NOW and are willing to pay for that privilege.

Socialised medicine is consistently rejected by American government for financial reasons... yes - but not what you seem to think. They are not worried that social healthcare will bankrupt society - they are worried that social healthcare would cut the illegal monopoly on drugs that the current regime allows.

I agree with you that the current pharmacolical monopoly is an issue and they probably either need to be regulated or broken up for violating anti-trust laws. However, I don't believe anyone is entitled to medical care or anything else for that matter, simply on the basis of existance.

I agree with you that the current pharmacolical monopoly is an issue and they probably either need to be regulated or broken up for violating anti-trust laws. However, I don't believe anyone is entitled to medical care or anything else for that matter, simply on the basis of existance.

I agree... but I don't believe anyone should be deprived of health just because they don't have enough of as incoporeal a resource as 'money'.

Example: For my first 12 months in the US, I could not work, through no 'fault' of my own. During that time I DID need an emergency dental visit, which a friend paid for for me.

What if I had needed real medical help? Did I 'deserve' to die bleeding, just because I didn't have enough 'money'?

I agree with you that the current pharmacolical monopoly is an issue and they probably either need to be regulated or broken up for violating anti-trust laws. However, I don't believe anyone is entitled to medical care or anything else for that matter, simply on the basis of existance.

Well something to consider.

A family up the street were basically illegals. As such no medical for you! One child got really sick, then another until all 4 and a cousin were sick.

My girl plays with them as they are good kids. They include her(she is 4) and they watch out for her.

Finally, they ended up in the emergency room and the prognosis spinal meningitis.

Luckily it turned out to be something else.

However, it did open my eyes to the logic of no medicine. Sure we blocked them because they are illegals but then it could come back to haunt you as you get exposed to something that would have been noticed and the child would have been isolated.

So basic medicine for all.

I don't believe anyone is entitled to medical care or anything else for that matter, simply on the basis of existance.


Passing thought:

So how do you decide who lives and who dies?

Consider the amount of guns in this land as well.

I don't know of very many parents who would not hesitate to put a gun to a doctors head if it meant the death of their child.

Well something to consider.

A family up the street were basically illegals. As such no medical for you! One child got really sick, then another until all 4 and a cousin were sick.

My girl plays with them as they are good kids. They include her(she is 4) and they watch out for her.

Finally, they ended up in the emergency room and the prognosis spinal meningitis.

Luckily it turned out to be something else.

However, it did open my eyes to the logic of no medicine. Sure we blocked them because they are illegals but then it could come back to haunt you as you get exposed to something that would have been noticed and the child would have been isolated.

So basic medicine for all.

I agree... I mean - I think socialised healthcare is a good thing anyway, but I can definitely see the logic that DENIAL of basic healthcare is the best way to bring loads of really bad stuff into a community...

So - you might or might not have seen some information which might or might not have been reliable, and which might or might not have helped your argument...

But... you can't remember where you saw it...

I'd like to debate with you, but you really are bringing nothing to the table.

Mr. Spelling and Grammer,

Thanks for the fix! Where's your stats? You put out a stupid statement and then you expect others to refute your blanket dribble. (Reason questioned by me:) Sorry can't fix your mistakes.

NO - I was talking about unit prices... but the fact remains that R&D IS included in the pennies figure, anyway.

Seriously - how many aspirin do you think America swallows everyday? How much does that simple product cost to make? (And, it really IS simple.) And, how much does that product cost?

Aspirin? You're upset by the cost of aspirin? How hard is it to make a statin like Lipitor? What the fuck are you talking about?

Mr. Spelling and Grammer,

Thanks for the fix! Where's your stats? You put out a stupid statement and then you expect others to refute your blanket dribble. (Reason questioned by me:) Sorry can't fix your mistakes.

Curious way to open a comment...

Are you insulted that I corrected your spelling and grammar when I quoted you?

I even pointed out that I was doing it, so that others couldn't claim I was misquoting... and... this upsets you?

Okay... c'est la vie. I'm not going to lose sleep over you getting worked up about imagined slights.

Where are my stats... what stats?

Why was my statement 'stupid'?

What makes you think I expected anyone to refute my "blanket dribble"? (I left your error in this time... does that make you feel better?)


Sorry, friend - but all you are doing is attempting to insult or goad me, in some fashion.

You're not giving me anything to 'debate'. What do you want from me?

Passing thought:

So how do you decide who lives and who dies?

Consider the amount of guns in this land as well.

I don't know of very many parents who would not hesitate to put a gun to a doctors head if it meant the death of their child.

Illogical emotionalism.

Aspirin? You're upset by the cost of aspirin? How hard is it to make a statin like Lipitor? What the fuck are you talking about?

Okay - way to miss the point.

Aspirin is a common drug.

Aspirin costs far more than it's unit cost.

This is 'an example'... deliberately using a very cheap, very simple, drug... to illustrate the point.

I am saying that, if you divide a pharmaceutical company's TRUE R&D costs (not inflated by advertising...) JUST by the smallest loss-leader product they make... they are STILL making profits, even on those simple drugs.

I agree... but I don't believe anyone should be deprived of health just because they don't have enough of as incoporeal a resource as 'money'.

Example: For my first 12 months in the US, I could not work, through no 'fault' of my own. During that time I DID need an emergency dental visit, which a friend paid for for me.

What if I had needed real medical help? Did I 'deserve' to die bleeding, just because I didn't have enough 'money'?

Have you heard of AFLAC? I love that goose.

Illogical emotionalism.

As contrasted by the other poster's assertion that nobody 'deserves' medical help?

Well something to consider.

A family up the street were basically illegals. As such no medical for you! One child got really sick, then another until all 4 and a cousin were sick.

My girl plays with them as they are good kids. They include her(she is 4) and they watch out for her.

Finally, they ended up in the emergency room and the prognosis spinal meningitis.

Luckily it turned out to be something else.

However, it did open my eyes to the logic of no medicine. Sure we blocked them because they are illegals but then it could come back to haunt you as you get exposed to something that would have been noticed and the child would have been isolated.

So basic medicine for all.

Unfortunately, this happens quite often. The problem is, is that when people who cannot afford to see a doctor get sick(Or their family, for that matter), then they decide to sit it off, and hope it gets better. Now, if they have meningitus, the problem will escalate quickly. Since, they can't afford the doctor, and can't go, the problem will get worse. Thus, when they are basically dying, and they have to go to the hospital, they have to have expensive surgery and care, thus pushing the family further into poverty. This happens all to often, and could have been stopped if the person were able to afford going to the doctor when the primary symptoms occurred.

I think basic health care would not be wrong at all. Or how about a basic "Health Insurance" plan, which is completely optional, and have alternate payment plans for those who are poor. I think this would help those in the lower class and middle class, while not harming the upper class(Because God Forbid they pay a few extra bucks a year, an amount which they would not notice at all).

Have you heard of AFLAC? I love that goose.

Sure, I've heard of AFLAC... what's the connection, here?

(I thought it was funny that they reference the goose in the film version of "Lemony Snicket's Series of Unfortunate Events"...)

Illogical emotionalism.

Maybe you should read the post that I responded...

Finally slick, is anybody ever logical when they are emotional?

Okay - way to miss the point.

Aspirin is a common drug.

Aspirin costs far more than it's unit cost.

This is 'an example'... deliberately using a very cheap, very simple, drug... to illustrate the point.

I am saying that, if you divide a pharmaceutical company's TRUE R&D costs (not inflated by advertising...) JUST by the smallest loss-leader product they make... they are STILL making profits, even on those simple drugs.

What's wrong with making a profit? If I'm willing to produce the product with my money, I should be able to make more money. Would you rather force people to make drugs for the red state?

What's wrong with making a profit? If I'm willing to produce the product with my money, I should be able to make more money. Would you rather force people to make drugs for the red state?

In a free market sure.

But medicine is not something you go well we can't afford it so we can go without.

Besides, there is a difference between making a profit and price gouging.

NO - I was talking about unit prices... but the fact remains that R&D IS included in the pennies figure, anyway.

Seriously - how many aspirin do you think America swallows everyday? How much does that simple product cost to make? (And, it really IS simple.) And, how much does that product cost?

Asprin is dirt cheap. And there are no restrictions on importing it. Start up a little shop and import it from abroad if you care that much. What you are complaining about (free market) isn't because of the FDA or trade laws, but because of patents.

Anyway, you have to remember it's fair enough to talk about trade liberlization for the drug market &c. But all that is going to do is to put costs up for the rest of the world.

The fact is, a lot of pharmaceuticas are sold at a loss around the rest of the world.

This was all discussed fully back during the November elections when Kerry had that silly drug re-importation idea. (Way to destroy Canada's health care). Dig up a thread from back then.

What's wrong with making a profit? If I'm willing to produce the product with my money, I should be able to make more money. Would you rather force people to make drugs for the red state?

The medical drug market is a monopoly. They gouge their prices because they can. I find it hard to stomach paying $80 for a product that cost less than a dollar to produce, R&D and manufacturing included. The fact is, the drug industry is not a "free" market by any means. At the very best it is an oligopoly, but that is if you stretch it. They gouge prices, and the Government actually endorses this behavior. I have problem with them making a profit-it's the gouging that I do.

Ah, but you see it was under Carter that Egypt saw that it was a viable option to join the US. Republican presidents have a tendency to turn people away from us and settle for any possible alternative, even inferior ones.

Take Dubya. When Clinton was in office Iran was starting to democratize. There was honets discussion about the possibility of lossening the theocratic stranglehold that the country has labored under since throwing off the shackles of our imposed regime.

Now that Dubya's back, there is no talk of a democratizing Iran. They're more rediculously theocratic than ever. You're arguing that Carter was completly inept because he demonstrated basic compotency, but Dubya indicates real incompotence.

Yeah, cause China totally wouldn't let Nixon come talk to them. That's why there isn't the saying "only Nixon could go to China." That's why China didn't turn their back on the Soviet Union and triagulate against them with us. Oh, wait, they did.

Yeah, and Reagan totaly didn't negotiate away an entire class of nuclear weapons. Oh, wait, wrong there too, forgot about the IRBM treaty.

I also love how the election of Bush in 2000 is responsible for the crushing of dissent in 1998-1999.

I'm sorry, but your animus against Bush doesn't change 145 years of Republican diplomatic history.

And dude, Clinton's "foreign policy" was a joke, a grab-bag of whatever was convenient at the time. Even folks I know who are foreign affairs scholars who loved Clinton domestically bemoaned the wasted opportunities of his FP.

I was not arguing that Carter was incompetent, I was arguing that Camp David wasn't some example of Carter's brilliant foreign policy.

What's wrong with making a profit? If I'm willing to produce the product with my money, I should be able to make more money. Would you rather force people to make drugs for the red state?

What would be WRONG with making drugs pro bono?

You say it like it would be some kind of sin.

I think there is a lot wrong with making profit, to be honest... since profit means that your product costs more to your consumer than it did to you... which seems somehow dishonest.

But, allowing some profit... that doesn't justify the huge profits... and where did you get the idea that pharmaceutical companies make the drugs with 'their own money'? The money they spend, is part of the money they charge... how is it wrong to ask them to spend that money?

The medical drug market is a monopoly. They gouge their prices because they can. I find it hard to stomach paying $80 for a product that cost less than a dollar to produce, R&D and manufacturing included. The fact is, the drug industry is not a "free" market by any means. At the very best it is an oligopoly, but that is if you stretch it. They gouge prices, and the Government actually endorses this behavior. I have problem with them making a profit-it's the gouging that I do.

I'm all for the government getting out of the way, but you'll still have to pay for the goods.

It's dishonest to make ANYTHING from your labors? My God, even Lenin gave the workers some rubles.

Unfortunately, this happens quite often. The problem is, is that when people who cannot afford to see a doctor get sick(Or their family, for that matter), then they decide to sit it off, and hope it gets better. Now, if they have meningitus, the problem will escalate quickly. Since, they can't afford the doctor, and can't go, the problem will get worse. Thus, when they are basically dying, and they have to go to the hospital, they have to have expensive surgery and care, thus pushing the family further into poverty. This happens all to often, and could have been stopped if the person were able to afford going to the doctor when the primary symptoms occurred.

Except the family doesn't get pushed further into poverty. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip. The care simply isn't paid for. Because medical professionals end up doing so much work that isn't compensated, trauma centers are shutting down all over the American Southwest. And medical insurance premiums are skyrocketing. Those premiums have triggered conflict between employers and employees regarding who will cover the difference, resulting in strikes and layoffs (the most notable conflict being the 19-week Kroger strike that affected 60% of Southern California's grocery stores, and spread to other states, at the conclusion of which the store workers received the shaft).

Illegal immigration is the greatest source of uncompensated medical care, and puts a tremendous burden on the economy, but we don't do anything about it once illegals make it over. That needs to change. When we have fewer uncompensated doctor visits, we can lower insurance premiums and more people can afford it.

For people who are here legally, there are a number of state and federal programs that take care of compensation. My wife (before she was my wife) and mother have received care under one. My best friend's family is enrolled in another.

The medical drug market is a monopoly. They gouge their prices because they can. I find it hard to stomach paying $80 for a product that cost less than a dollar to produce, R&D and manufacturing included. The fact is, the drug industry is not a "free" market by any means. At the very best it is an oligopoly, but that is if you stretch it. They gouge prices, and the Government actually endorses this behavior. I have problem with them making a profit-it's the gouging that I do.

I hope you don't own any nike products then. (Or in fact anything with a brand name).

Asprin is dirt cheap. And there are no restrictions on importing it. Start up a little shop and import it from abroad if you care that much. What you are complaining about (free market) isn't because of the FDA or trade laws, but because of patents.

Anyway, you have to remember it's fair enough to talk about trade liberlization for the drug market &c. But all that is going to do is to put costs up for the rest of the world.

The fact is, a lot of pharmaceuticas are sold at a loss around the rest of the world.

This was all discussed fully back during the November elections when Kerry had that silly drug re-importation idea. (Way to destroy Canada's health care). Dig up a thread from back then.

Wow... there seems to be a conspiracy of 'missing the point' going on here.

I KNOW that Aspirin is dirt cheap... that was kind of the point.

Your argument is circular, and makes no sense... how can the reimportation of a drug be a patent issue?

Patents is a red herring, and you know it.... either that, or you are a mere lapdog to the pharmaceutical propoganda machine.

How do you honestly figure that the US is doing some kind of good service? You argue that removing the monopoly would harm world markets... and yet world markets make the drugs cheaper than the US sells them for... how would that have a negative effect on the world market?

And, of course, when the pharaceutical companies sell outside of US borders, they DO sell into competitive markets... it is only INTERNALLY that the US drug monopoly is holding prices artificially high.

Interesting dig at Kerry, too... I wonder what brought that on...

I hope you don't own any nike products then. (Or in fact anything with a brand name).

Nope. All of my clothing is non brand name. All Nike shoes are are the exact same as non-name brand, with the Nike "Swoosh" stitched on after production. Not to mention that brand name clothing isn't exactly what I would call high-quality, as they fall apart fairly quickly. Hell, I have cloths that are perfectly decent that are running on about 3 years old. Functionality over "what looks cool".

Except the family doesn't get pushed further into poverty. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip. The care simply isn't paid for. Because medical professionals end up doing so much work that isn't compensated, trauma centers are shutting down all over the American Southwest. And medical insurance premiums are skyrocketing. Those premiums have triggered conflict between employers and employees regarding who will cover the difference, resulting in strikes and layoffs (the most notable conflict being the 19-week Kroger strike that affected 60% of Southern California's grocery stores, and spread to other states, at the conclusion of which the store workers received the shaft).

Illegal immigration is the greatest source of uncompensated medical care, and puts a tremendous burden on the economy, but we don't do anything about it once illegals make it over. That needs to change. When we have fewer uncompensated doctor visits, we can lower insurance premiums and more people can afford it.

For people who are here legally, there are a number of state and federal programs that take care of compensation. My wife (before she was my wife) and mother have received care under one. My best friend's family is enrolled in another.

At least partly untrue. I was here legally, but could not get any kind of state (or federal) coverage.

I'm all for the government getting out of the way, but you'll still have to pay for the goods.

Pssst. Listen carefully. Free Market.

There is no "real" competition going on.

As such you regulate.

I hope you don't own any nike products then. (Or in fact anything with a brand name).

Nobody really needs Nike products now do they?

Certain drugs you can do without. Others......

Wow... some interesting choices. I mean.. Lincoln? The only people that he would seem horrible too would be to Southerners only because they got screwed over and guess what? It WAS NOT by him! The radical republicans at the time were the ones that ran reconstruction, not him. The end of the war came after Lincolns assination, so you can't really say he is at fault for things such as the south having all its rights taken away for a couples years... considering he wanted to admit them right back into the union once one-eight of the population of each state took an oath of loyalty to the US. Also, you cannot really say he "broke" the constitution because there isn't an article or an amendment of how to deal with states in rebellion lol.

In my opinion the worst president of all time is probably Grant. While he didn't do anything horrible, what he failed to do made him bad. Corruption was rampant in his administration and he lacked any sort of knowledge on how to run a nation effectively. I mean he nearly collapsed the economy and had his cabinet linked to over 50 illegal activities over the course of his term. Of course, I don't think Grant was a bad man, but he definately shouldn't have been President.

Pssst. Listen carefully. Free Market.

There is no "real" competition going on.

As such you regulate.

True. Thanks in part to the weight of regulations, the ability to enter the market is severely restricted, creating a variant of the Monopoly-Competition market (Limited brands selling nearly the identical thing). There really hasn't been real Antitrust enforcement since Ma Bell was broken up in 1981. The whole Microsoft thing in the '90s was cosmetic, and run for the benefit of Political Contributors.
Essentially, a combination of regulatory, social, and Tort conditions prevent genuine competition in the Drug and Health Care industries, allowing not only price-gouging (limited suppliers), but also price-fixing. This is similar to that seen in the International Oil market vis' OPEC.

The problem is not patents. It's a regulatory and tort structure that protects the largest operations at the expense of smaller competitors.

This is also true in most of your heavy manufacturing sector, and (in the case of Regulations) has provided ample stimulus not only to reduce or eliminate small, recent-phase operations, but also to provide 'push' to send manufacturing overseas.
Coupled with "Free Trade AGreements" that finance the move, and lotus-eating pundits who think a 'service-economy' is just fine, (ignoring that most of the really lucrative service jobs involve either the sex-industry, or can be done offshore just as, if not more, easily), and you've got the pattern for the last forty years of economic degradation in the U.S.

Outsourcing is not the Problem, it's a Symptom of the problem. The Problem, is that laws that look good on the face of them, have consequences that their supporters fail to acknowledge (even as said supporters are waiting in the unemployment line). You can't enter into equal-competition with the third world while hamstringing your own economic engine, it just doesn't work.

Well, Carter nearly decriminalized marijuana. Imagine all the money on the "war on drugs" that could have been saved if he had. I don't think Carter is the worst.

Oddly, I find it hard to pick just one for the "worst." I think it's probably one of the ones no one ever talks about, because they didn't accomplish anything that stands out in history. But I can't say because I was only educated on the big names.

and then imagine all the extra car accidents and resulting deaths/lawsuits that would very likely have followed a marijuana legalization.

if it were legalized, it is highly likely that more people would use it;

and if more people are using it, more people are going to be driving under its influence.

man, those lights are bright when you're high...

(just thought i'd provide The Other Side of the Coin)

John Kerry was the worst president EVER.

;)
You're thinking Gore. Sadly, Kerry was never elected.
Some Americans actually liked Bush better after his disastrously pathetic first term.

and then imagine all the extra car accidents and resulting deaths/lawsuits that would very likely have followed a marijuana legalization.

if it were legalized, it is highly likely that more people would use it;


Never smoked it have you?

Most people really don't feel like doing anything let alone going anywhere. ;)


and if more people are using it, more people are going to be driving under its influence.

man, those lights are bright when you're high...

(just thought i'd provide The Other Side of the Coin)

*Brings out a stamp*

BUMP!
Slippery slope argument! ;)

True. Thanks in part to the weight of regulations, the ability to enter the market is severely restricted, creating a variant of the Monopoly-Competition market (Limited brands selling nearly the identical thing). There really hasn't been real Antitrust enforcement since Ma Bell was broken up in 1981. The whole Microsoft thing in the '90s was cosmetic, and run for the benefit of Political Contributors.
Essentially, a combination of regulatory, social, and Tort conditions prevent genuine competition in the Drug and Health Care industries, allowing not only price-gouging (limited suppliers), but also price-fixing. This is similar to that seen in the International Oil market vis' OPEC.

The problem is not patents. It's a regulatory and tort structure that protects the largest operations at the expense of smaller competitors.

This is also true in most of your heavy manufacturing sector, and (in the case of Regulations) has provided ample stimulus not only to reduce or eliminate small, recent-phase operations, but also to provide 'push' to send manufacturing overseas.
Coupled with "Free Trade AGreements" that finance the move, and lotus-eating pundits who think a 'service-economy' is just fine, (ignoring that most of the really lucrative service jobs involve either the sex-industry, or can be done offshore just as, if not more, easily), and you've got the pattern for the last forty years of economic degradation in the U.S.

Outsourcing is not the Problem, it's a Symptom of the problem. The Problem, is that laws that look good on the face of them, have consequences that their supporters fail to acknowledge (even as said supporters are waiting in the unemployment line). You can't enter into equal-competition with the third world while hamstringing your own economic engine, it just doesn't work.

Excellent post. Gold Star. :)

You're thinking Gore. Sadly, Kerry was never elected.
Some Americans actually liked Bush better after his disastrously pathetic first term.

Even now they are learning. His numbers are in the dumps now.

Only a few more months and he will probably be a lame duck.....

You're thinking Gore. Sadly, Kerry was never elected.
Some Americans actually liked Bush better after his disastrously pathetic first term.
Gore was never elected either.

Never smoked it have you?

Most people really don't feel like doing anything let alone going anywhere. ;)


Add to that, most car-accidents do NOT happen when the driver is creeping along at twenty miles an hour...

True. Thanks in part to the weight of regulations, the ability to enter the market is severely restricted, creating a variant of the Monopoly-Competition market (Limited brands selling nearly the identical thing). There really hasn't been real Antitrust enforcement since Ma Bell was broken up in 1981. The whole Microsoft thing in the '90s was cosmetic, and run for the benefit of Political Contributors.
Essentially, a combination of regulatory, social, and Tort conditions prevent genuine competition in the Drug and Health Care industries, allowing not only price-gouging (limited suppliers), but also price-fixing. This is similar to that seen in the International Oil market vis' OPEC.

The problem is not patents. It's a regulatory and tort structure that protects the largest operations at the expense of smaller competitors.

This is also true in most of your heavy manufacturing sector, and (in the case of Regulations) has provided ample stimulus not only to reduce or eliminate small, recent-phase operations, but also to provide 'push' to send manufacturing overseas.
Coupled with "Free Trade AGreements" that finance the move, and lotus-eating pundits who think a 'service-economy' is just fine, (ignoring that most of the really lucrative service jobs involve either the sex-industry, or can be done offshore just as, if not more, easily), and you've got the pattern for the last forty years of economic degradation in the U.S.

Outsourcing is not the Problem, it's a Symptom of the problem. The Problem, is that laws that look good on the face of them, have consequences that their supporters fail to acknowledge (even as said supporters are waiting in the unemployment line). You can't enter into equal-competition with the third world while hamstringing your own economic engine, it just doesn't work.


Good assessment!

You get a brownie! :p

Add to that, most car-accidents do NOT happen when the driver is creeping along at twenty miles an hour...

On the way to the 7/11, quickiemart, etc. ;)

Only a few more months and he will probably be a lame duck.....

I think I heard someone say he already was...

No, wait... it was just something that SOUNDED like that...

On the way to the 7/11, quickiemart, etc. ;)

I wonder what the accident figures ARE for 20mph car wrecks in pursuit of pizza and chips...?

Sure, I've heard of AFLAC... what's the connection, here?

(I thought it was funny that they reference the goose in the film version of "Lemony Snicket's Series of Unfortunate Events"...)

The connection is self-paid health insurance.
I have a job that doesn't provide health insurance, so I've been pricing it. Cheapest insurance I could find cost as much as an ER visit. Every month. When 'Conservatives' moan and whine about increased tax for 'socialized' health insurance, they never compare it to the cost of profit-based insurance.

And the AFLAC animal is a duck. Geese are very different. Much meaner.

Good assessment!

You get a brownie! :p

Thank you-hope it's not a 'Groovy" brownie, I'm allergic to Cannabis-sativa, and I can't afford treatment for the anaphalactic shock. ;)

Never smoked it have you?

Most people really don't feel like doing anything let alone going anywhere. ;)



*Brings out a stamp*

BUMP!
Slippery slope argument! ;)

no.. comment... (looks over shoulder at work...)

The connection is self-paid health insurance.
I have a job that doesn't provide health insurance, so I've been pricing it. Cheapest insurance I could find cost as much as an ER visit. Every month. When 'Conservatives' moan and whine about increased tax for 'socialized' health insurance, they never compare it to the cost of profit-based insurance.

And the AFLAC animal is a duck. Geese are very different. Much meaner.

Yes, and don't ever underestimate the goose's power to mow one's lawn.

The connection is self-paid health insurance.
I have a job that doesn't provide health insurance, so I've been pricing it. Cheapest insurance I could find cost as much as an ER visit. Every month. When 'Conservatives' moan and whine about increased tax for 'socialized' health insurance, they never compare it to the cost of profit-based insurance.

And the AFLAC animal is a duck. Geese are very different. Much meaner.

There are a couple of major drivers behind that cost-one of which, is the high cost of malpractice insurance, and the other is that the regulatory structure around insurance favours the 'Soak the Rich' mentality to the detriment of those who aren't amazingly wealthy as individuals-again, this is allowed by a combination of factors meant to provide the 'stick' to drive people into collectivised and Averaged systems. More of the wrong kind of regulation, combined with poor to no oversight, and neglect of basic monopoly-busting principles means that you can't find a source that isn't charging "What the rest of the industry is", even when actual costs are lower.

The connection is self-paid health insurance.
I have a job that doesn't provide health insurance, so I've been pricing it. Cheapest insurance I could find cost as much as an ER visit. Every month. When 'Conservatives' moan and whine about increased tax for 'socialized' health insurance, they never compare it to the cost of profit-based insurance.

And the AFLAC animal is a duck. Geese are very different. Much meaner.

I also looked at AFLAC (and others) before I got my current job, which has a halfway decent coverage plan. Basically... you just can't afford to get sick, unless you have so much money that insurance is irelevent anyway...

Of course... medical insurance would be a fraction of the cost, if the medical costs were lower...

Gore was never elected either.
You're right. In 2000 the president wasn't elected. He was selected by an illegal of an activist judiciary. Bush was put in office by a coup.

You're right. In 2000 the president wasn't elected. He was selected by an illegal of an activist judiciary. Bush was put in office by a coup.

I can't let this slide...

a)Florida State Statutes clearly stated that if counties didn't turn in their vote tallies by a certain date after the election -- barring a case of delay due to an Act of God -- that THOSE VOTES WOULD NOT COUNT.

b)Florida State Supreme Court turned activist and legislated from the bench, overturning the above law.

c)The US Supreme Court stepped in and stood up for the legislators of Florida and put a stop to the activist Florida Supreme Court.

the facts hurt...

Had Gore snuck his way in via the law suits, he would have done so with the help of the Florida Supreme Court ... legislating from the bench. THAT would have been a travesty.

The rule of law must be maintained, and the judiciary needs to respect the operations of the legislative branch.

You're right. In 2000 the president wasn't elected. He was selected by an illegal of an activist judiciary. Bush was put in office by a coup.
Even if they had done a recount of the four democratic-heavy districts, like Gore wanted, Bush still would have won.

Even if you're right, you're basically admitting that Bush lawyered up in order to stop all the votes from being counted.

Second, regarding the first post of the thread, if Carter had a second term we'd be energy independent by now and I don't see where he flaunted international law and threatened the American public with mushroom clouds to embroil us in a civil war. Critics of Carter's foreign policy just don't like that he refused to support fascist dictators and death squads as the only alternative to democratic socialism in Central America, like the murderous war criminal Ronald Reagan.

The three worst Presidents the United States ever had, in order (#1 being the worst).....

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. FDR
3. Woodrow Wilson

At least partly untrue. I was here legally, but could not get any kind of state (or federal) coverage.
Well, I didn't say that such programs covered everyone universally. It depends on a lot of factors, including how much money you make.

Of course, if the medical bills are just too overwhelming (as is usually the case), you can just declare bankruptcy. In this case, your care goes uncompensated. However, we can assume the risk that a certain percentage of medical care goes uncompensated... we just can't have so much of it as we do now.

There are a couple of major drivers behind that cost-one of which, is the high cost of malpractice insurance,
Malpractice insurance was actually demonstrated to be a very tiny part of increasing medical costs. http://www.factcheck.org/article133.html

Uncompensated care and drug prescription costs were far more significant.

Even if you're right, you're basically admitting that Bush lawyered up in order to stop all the votes from being counted.

Second, regarding the first post of the thread, if Carter had a second term we'd be energy independent by now and I don't see where he flaunted international law and threatened the American public with mushroom clouds to embroil us in a civil war. Critics of Carter's foreign policy just don't like that he refused to support fascist dictators and death squads as the only alternative to democratic socialism in Central America, like the murderous war criminal Ronald Reagan.

Are you on crack??? Carter did everything but hand the policy over to Greenpeace! Our best chance at energy-independence was killed by Carter! 1979, then-president Carter drafted and signed an executive order barring further research into closed-cycle nuclear power generation, saddling us with a permanent waste-problem. His policies also froze (in practice) the construction of new, safer, and more advanced Nuclear power generation, stopped work on hydroelectric dam construction, and his epa is the reason fields that were capped-but-still useful will have to be re-drilled. (Pumping cement into an oil well effectively prevents that well from being reopened-you have to drill all-over-again.) HIs regulatory practices made sure that smaller oil companies finished dying (Husky being one), and his administration fenced off huge areas to further development.

All this, while people were waiting in line to buy gas at grossly inflated prices.

You obviously didn't live through those years. Carter, making the U.S. Energy Independent? That's hilarious. His administration was the best friend the Emirs ever had in D.C.

Well, I didn't say that such programs covered everyone universally. It depends on a lot of factors, including how much money you make.

Of course, if the medical bills are just too overwhelming (as is usually the case), you can just declare bankruptcy. In this case, your care goes uncompensated. However, we can assume the risk that a certain percentage of medical care goes uncompensated... we just can't have so much of it as we do now.


Malpractice insurance was actually demonstrated to be a very tiny part of increasing medical costs. http://www.factcheck.org/article133.html

Uncompensated care and drug prescription costs were far more significant.


I should have been clearer on that- While the actual costs are a minor factor, the Malpractice insurance thing is a major problem for providers, and is also an effective cover for keeping the rates up. You're right on the uncompensated care issue... but where is the reason for the uncompensated care? Yup. It's not the doctors who charge exhorbitant prices then won't accept alternate payment (scheduled payments, etc.) it's the insurance-driven administration structure-who can do it, because the whole system is designed to grab the free money from Medicare, Medicaid, and Employer-funded health insurance programmes.
All of this is driven by the same monopoly-games being played in other, less lucrative, industries... games that are tacitly permitted by Collectivist Dems and big-busness Repubs.

Are you on crack??? Carter did everything but hand the policy over to Greenpeace! Our best chance at energy-independence was killed by Carter! 1979, then-president Carter drafted and signed an executive order barring further research into closed-cycle nuclear power generation, saddling us with a permanent waste-problem. His policies also froze (in practice) the construction of new, safer, and more advanced Nuclear power generation, stopped work on hydroelectric dam construction, and his epa is the reason fields that were capped-but-still useful will have to be re-drilled. (Pumping cement into an oil well effectively prevents that well from being reopened-you have to drill all-over-again.) HIs regulatory practices made sure that smaller oil companies finished dying (Husky being one), and his administration fenced off huge areas to further development.

All this, while people were waiting in line to buy gas at grossly inflated prices.

You obviously didn't live through those years. Carter, making the U.S. Energy Independent? That's hilarious. His administration was the best friend the Emirs ever had in D.C.


Interesting. Why would a nuclear physist want to kill nuclear power? Could it be that it was not a "clean" setup. That there were far reaching problems in the future?

Could it be that the oil lobby didn't like the idea? The coal producers?

Why didn't the great God Ronnie change this? Why didn't Poppy Bush or the shrub?

Andrew Johnson. Prick deserved to be impeached, man was corrupt unlike the stupid stuff with Clinton.

I think one should ideally judge a president by the policies he instsitutes, but throughout American history, especially in the past 30 years, there have been some presidents that may not have technically qualified as leaders of a democratic state at all. Consider Bush jr. for example. He has undermined decades of progressive regulations concerning all aspects of social welfare, especially the environment. He has done all of this with less than 50% of popularity ratings amoung the public, without consent or consultation from the Democrats, and was "elected" with significant technical "errors", TWICE. The worst part of his rule over the American People has been his elaborate and extremely effective propaganda campaigns. And by propanganda I don't mean advertisement to promote popularity for him or for his policies, I mean that he has intentionally misled the public on a number of occasions, and has started a war and brainwashed millions of Americans. This is the kind of propaganda typical of authoritarian regimes. If you don't believe me, take a look at one thread in the General forum titled something like, "Shouldn't the presidential term be extended for Bush, the greatest president who ever lived?". Now, I believe Clinton was one of America's greatest presidents ever, but I would never promote ammmending the constitution for him, most probably temporarily, and definately not in the sole interests of my own party (reference to the fillibuster debate, anyone?). I've said enough.

Are you on crack??? Carter did everything but hand the policy over to Greenpeace! Our best chance at energy-independence was killed by Carter! 1979, then-president Carter drafted and signed an executive order barring further research into closed-cycle nuclear power generation, saddling us with a permanent waste-problem. His policies also froze (in practice) the construction of new, safer, and more advanced Nuclear power generation, stopped work on hydroelectric dam construction, and his epa is the reason fields that were capped-but-still useful will have to be re-drilled. (Pumping cement into an oil well effectively prevents that well from being reopened-you have to drill all-over-again.) HIs regulatory practices made sure that smaller oil companies finished dying (Husky being one), and his administration fenced off huge areas to further development.

All this, while people were waiting in line to buy gas at grossly inflated prices.

You obviously didn't live through those years. Carter, making the U.S. Energy Independent? That's hilarious. His administration was the best friend the Emirs ever had in D.C.

You obviously did live through those years, but then again, you obviously know nothing about the political structure of the late 70's if you think Carter was responsible for the energy crisis.

Are you on crack??? Carter did everything but hand the policy over to Greenpeace! Our best chance at energy-independence was killed by Carter! 1979, then-president Carter drafted and signed an executive order barring further research into closed-cycle nuclear power generation, saddling us with a permanent waste-problem. His policies also froze (in practice) the construction of new, safer, and more advanced Nuclear power generation, stopped work on hydroelectric dam construction, and his epa is the reason fields that were capped-but-still useful will have to be re-drilled. (Pumping cement into an oil well effectively prevents that well from being reopened-you have to drill all-over-again.) HIs regulatory practices made sure that smaller oil companies finished dying (Husky being one), and his administration fenced off huge areas to further development.

All this, while people were waiting in line to buy gas at grossly inflated prices.

You obviously didn't live through those years. Carter, making the U.S. Energy Independent? That's hilarious. His administration was the best friend the Emirs ever had in D.C.Didn't Nixon create the EPA?

Didn't Nixon create the EPA?

Yup. ;)

As Comic Book Guy would say... worst.. presidents... ever!

5) Ford
4) Carter
3) Andrew Johnson
2) Grant
1) Dubya

Lincoln was the worst president.

Clinton and Nixon and Kennedy were the worst in recent memory.
There were probably bad ones earlier, if any Americans can fill me in.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

HELLOOOO???????

The three worst Presidents the United States ever had, in order (#1 being the worst).....

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. FDR
3. Woodrow Wilson

I can see why a largely conservative person would think that the two worst presidents were the one who ended slavery and the one who defeated the Nazi's, but I don't get what you have against Wilson. He seemed to be the exact same sort of imperialist bastard as Reagan. Is it that he was a democrat and thus proves that democrats evolved beyond current republican policies almost a hundred years ago?

I suppose that would sort of rankle. But you yourself seem like more of a Buchanan republican than a Reagan republican, so you still leave me in a quandary.

There have been a ton of bad presidents. Grant, Nixon, Clinton, LBJ -- but, in my opinion, the absolute worst was Jimmy Carter. Completely inept at foreign policy and a detriment to domestic policy, the guy was a loser all the way around. What's even worse is that he continues to be a thorn in the side of the US. Hell, the only good thing he's done is his work with Habitat for Humanity.

NOTE: I just know there will be a slew of kneejerk idiots hollering "GEORGE BUSH IS SATAN!" in this thread. Get a grip. He's definitely not the best president we've ever had, but he's far from the worst.

Dude, I have to totally agree with you. In fact, I got on this forum mainly to state that exactly point. Glad to see someone out there has a lick of sense.

Lyndon B. Johnson was by far the WORST President this country ever had. A complete idiot all around, horrible war policy, trying to mircomanage a conflict on the other side of the world. Such incompetance.

1) William Howard Taft (he made he income tax, which is technically illegal)


Can you please explain how something that is allowed by the U.S. Constitution can be deemed "illegal"?

Reference of amendment passed during his term:
Amendment XVI
Ratified on 2/3/1913
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

I nominate James K. Polk as worst president. He seized the whole southwest from Mexico and made the English sell.

but I don't get what you have against Wilson.

Well if he is a conservative then I would guess that it was because he started the League of Nations.

Interesting fact: He was a white supremist.

Bush

Anyone who watches CSPAN can attest: this man's an idiot.

FDR was a phony and a self promoter
Lincoln does NOT belong on this list, he was an ok president

Harry Truman was maybe not the best, Right now I'm thinking Dick Nixon or Ronald Reagan was the worst.

Nixon had Watergate, was a paranoid surveillance freak, and tried to make up for it by passing populist agenda items like NEPA

Ronald Reagan was a B-movie actor who knew better than anything how to take the credit for other people's hard work. He is generally credited for "winning" the cold war, this is just a propaganda ploy the CCCP collapsed internally, without aide from the US (read "Spy Handler"). The Star Wars SDI missile shield was a waste of time, effort, and money, Reagan was responsible for the Just Say No Shit of the 1980's as well.

Hoover was not the worst president, by far, he had to deal with an hostile senate , that was his biggest problem.

Without further thought I'd have to say Dick Nixon. Old Hickory (Andy Jackson) rates ppretty high up to for Coercion and Attempted Genocide, definitely one of those two was the worst.

Can you please explain how something that is allowed by the U.S. Constitution can be deemed "illegal"?

I used to work at the IRS, and we got all sorts of letters with blank tax returns from people who said that the Constitution gave congress no power to levy taxes. Some of them even attatched a copy of the Constitution.

They always left off the amendments, one of which says, quite simply, Congress shall have the power to levy taxes.

Though income taxes are constitutional I think there is something about the means in which they are collected that is somehow against the general character of the Constitution, which is not to say that it is unconstitutional in the technical sense.

Personally I think that Federal taxes should be collected directly from the states and leave it to the states to determine how they will be collected.

Grant wasn't a saint, either.



He committed genocide against the Plains Indians, was a slaveowner, an anti-Semite, one of history's greatest nepotists, and his administration was among the most corrupt in history.


US Grant, Unconditional Surrender Grant was also an alcoholic par excellance, but keep in mind he was a General, not a politician, his being clueless is somewhat forgivable. Jackson was just a dick

Well if he is a conservative then I would guess that it was because he started the League of Nations.

Interesting fact: He was a white supremist.

Ya, but we never joined. He should hate Truman.

Lyndon B. Johnson was by far the WORST President this country ever had. A complete idiot all around, horrible war policy, trying to mircomanage a conflict on the other side of the world. Such incompetance.

Not really. He wasn't great, because he really messed up Vietnam, but remember he did do a lot domesticly though. He really did turn around the Civil Rights Movement on the Legeslative side. He pushed and pushed and pushed for the Civil Rights Acts and Voting Act. Everything he did was trying to create equality for African-Americans.

So to call him a complete idiot is foolish.

Interesting. Why would a nuclear physist want to kill nuclear power? Could it be that it was not a "clean" setup. That there were far reaching problems in the future?

Could it be that the oil lobby didn't like the idea? The coal producers?

Why didn't the great God Ronnie change this? Why didn't Poppy Bush or the shrub?

To close the nuclear fuel cycle, you end up making a substance that scares the hell out of most people-Plutonium. Reactor-grade Plutonium is not the same radioactive metal you use in a weapons-grade system.

Somehow, a Nuclear Physicist who should know better missed that point. I suspect there were a few zeros ahead of the period involved.

The Oil Lobby loves restrictive regulations, it lets them charge more for less product, while keeping the small operators out of the market.

The Bush's benefit from this. Can you guess how?

Reagan floated the idea of dropping the restriction through Jim Watt. Note that James Watt didn't last long as Secretary of the Interior-in the 1980's, the one sure way to get a crowd of demonstrators, was to say you were working on Nuclear research-check out the political climate of the times.

As a Physicist, and former Generation expert, Carter knew better-but he took the easy-way-out in the short-run to try and garner some of that visible and massive support for his second run at the Oval Orifice.

In other words, in addition to his demonstrated moral cowardice in International Affairs, his hostility to the Military, and his indecisiveness in Domestic Policy, he also put something in place for a temporary gain that damaged the future beyond his time in office-when he knew better.

You can claim Bush is an idiot, or Clinton was too busy getting his knob polished, you can point out that Reagan's last four years were really Poppy Bush's first (Alzheimers), But there's no excusing Jimmy Carter. Forgiving him, sure. He's paid his dues back with the good things he's done as Citizen Carter, but his term in office was damned near permanently crippling.

Bush

Anyone who watches CSPAN can attest: this man's an idiot.

So are 33-66% of the callers on any given Sunday morning. :D

I used to work at the IRS, and we got all sorts of letters with blank tax returns from people who said that the Constitution gave congress no power to levy taxes. Some of them even attatched a copy of the Constitution.

They always left off the amendments, one of which says, quite simply, Congress shall have the power to levy taxes.

Though income taxes are constitutional I think there is something about the means in which they are collected that is somehow against the general character of the Constitution, which is not to say that it is unconstitutional in the technical sense.

Personally I think that Federal taxes should be collected directly from the states and leave it to the states to determine how they will be collected.
I think that particular agument is based on the fact that the 16th Amendment doesn't change the language of the of Section 8 Article 1 of the Constitution. Normally, when laws are changed, the amendments specifically alter the old language. Look at how the 21st Amendment specifically mentions the 18th Amendment, or the way the USA PATRIOT ACT specifically alters serveral sections of US code by deleting, adding, and replacing words and punctuation.

Anyway, it sounds like a good argument to me, but I know it won't hold up in court and would never recomend it.

Anyway, it sounds like a good argument to me, but I know it won't hold up in court and would never recommend it.

I see. I think the language is clear as to what the amendment set out to do. My argument was going off the basis that the constitution was the supreme law of the land and anything that it said could be done by default was legal. (This whole argument sounds like something out of the Libertarian play book)

Harrison wasn't even smart enough to stay out of the rain. Besides he did some terrible things to the Indians while hewas a soldier. His curse has kiiled many a president too.

I think that particular agument is based on the fact that the 16th Amendment doesn't change the language of the of Section 8 Article 1 of the Constitution. Normally, when laws are changed, the amendments specifically alter the old language. Look at how the 21st Amendment specifically mentions the 18th Amendment, or the way the USA PATRIOT ACT specifically alters serveral sections of US code by deleting, adding, and replacing words and punctuation.

Anyway, it sounds like a good argument to me, but I know it won't hold up in court and would never recomend it.

I'm not sure about this - it's one of the things I heard, rather than one of the things I have discovered myself through my own diligent research...

Wasn't the taxation Amendment pushed through as a temporary measure... or rather, as an open-ended text to support a temporary need?

One of those cases where the spirit of the thing is not upheld, but the letter becomes law?

But there's no excusing Jimmy Carter. Forgiving him, sure. He's paid his dues back with the good things he's done as Citizen Carter, but his term in office was damned near permanently crippling.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying he was a great President. But crippling? Eh we recovered from him. Just like we will recover from the shrub.

I view him more of a case of the Peter Principle vs the outright corruption of a Harding, Nixon, and yes even the shrub.

Besides; I will quote my physics professor when he heard Carter was running.

"If you really want to screw something up; put a physicist in charge!" :D

uh, how about George W? in the opinion of most of the world (when americans arent present of course) we think that he is a fascist pig, that needs to be deposed as quickly as possible....has anyone ever compared the events leading to Adolf Hitler's self appointment to being the Fuher and some american current events? Or even the 14 characteristics of a fascist state and the behaviours of the american government? This is very scary stuff....cant wait till he starts a new Holocaust of the Middle Eastern people....ironically, isnt Israel the land of the Jews....and it happens to be right in the middle east! what a coincidnce!

uh, how about George W? in the opinion of most of the world (when americans arent present of course) we think that he is a fascist pig, that needs to be deposed as quickly as possible....has anyone ever compared the events leading to Adolf Hitler's self appointment to being the Fuher and some american current events? Or even the 14 characteristics of a fascist state and the behaviours of the american government? This is very scary stuff....cant wait till he starts a new Holocaust of the Middle Eastern people....ironically, isnt Israel the land of the Jews....and it happens to be right in the middle east! what a coincidnce!

Now now don't generalize. 58 Million of us voted against him. Comparing him to Hitler? I can't stand the man but I still have to say that is still streatching it.

A holocaust in the Middle East and you mention the land of the Jews? Where is the alignment? Hitler tried to wipe out the Jews and we tend to support Israel. Eventhough our actions can be argued, we don't have a formal program rounding up all Muslims for disposal. We are tossing all Muslims into camps for forced labor.

Stop making me defend the shrub! ;)

Now now don't generalize. 58 Million of us voted against him. Comparing him to Hitler? I can't stand the man but I still have to say that is still streatching it.

A holocaust in the Middle East and you mention the land of the Jews? Where is the alignment? Hitler tried to wipe out the Jews and we tend to support Israel. Eventhough our actions can be argued, we don't have a formal program rounding up all Muslims for disposal. We are tossing all Muslims into camps for forced labor.

Stop making me defend the shrub! ;)

Regarding the 'Hitler' thing... they may be ideologically different, but Bush has definitely used some of the same political playbook that Hitler was using...

Example: Hitler using the threat of war in Europe as an outside motivation for HIS election, and 'the insidious evil of the Jews against all that made Germany great', as an inside motivation.

Compare: Bush using the threat of war in the Middle East as an outside motivation for HIS election, and 'the insidious evil of Homosexuals against all that made America great', as an inside motivation...

I mean, the Republican party even pushed anti-homosexual 'enticement' on the electoral ballot of 11 states, just to make sure that ultra-right-wing fundamentalists would get out and vote Bush.

Calvın Coolıdge.

What the fuck did he ever do?

Oh, you're a neo-con?

The best solution is to give the money taxed by social security back to the people. Abolish socialist insecurity now.

No, I'm not a neo-con. I agree about giving the money back to the people, but you need to see that the Social Security surplus, even though given abck to the people, left future generations with a larger problem ,s o he fixed a short term problem, and didn't look to long term effects. I think everyone will agree that most presidents look for short term fixes, republicans and democrats alike. This is what has caused all our problems, I think it's time for both parties to grow up and sit down and talk and throw around ideas. This country is going to decline to nothing if we keep looking for short term fixes, becuase they do fix an immediate problem, but give and raise a high chance of disater in the future.

I just wanted to say that the biggest problem with the Bush Administration is that they actually act on their promises and get things done!

Also I just wanted to say that I find it ironic that FDR and Lincoln are coming up, becuase you can look at their policies and call them harsh, but when the it was time for them to stand up and lead america they were the ones that did. For example, if FDR didn't use the a-bomb, yes it's wrong and inhumane, we would probably all speaking japanese or german. If Lincoln wouldn't have signed the amanicpation proclamation, and help develop a case for civil war, the black population would still be enslaved, which is wrong.

Just though I'd throw that out there

"Clinton...Not my president"

I mean, the Republican party even pushed anti-homosexual 'enticement' on the electoral ballot of 11 states, just to make sure that ultra-right-wing fundamentalists would get out and vote Bush.


lol, Don't be mad. The Democrats just have to get back in the game... be as creative as the Republicans, the next go-round. ;)

Now now don't generalize. 58 Million of us voted against him. Comparing him to Hitler? I can't stand the man but I still have to say that is still streatching it.

A holocaust in the Middle East and you mention the land of the Jews? Where is the alignment? Hitler tried to wipe out the Jews and we tend to support Israel. Eventhough our actions can be argued, we don't have a formal program rounding up all Muslims for disposal. We are tossing all Muslims into camps for forced labor.

Stop making me defend the shrub! ;)

No matter how far to the left, or the right, you think you are, there's always someone who claims to share your values, but makes you ill.
In my adult life, I don't think I've ever voted in a presidential election for someone I would actually want in the office. My votes usually go to the guy I think is least-likely-to-succeed in destroying my country.
While on the individual level, some of the opposition to bush is rather unhealthy (totally tinfoil-hat, in other words), on the macro-scale, it's a good thing-it prevents him from being worse.

This is the main reason I don't have a problem with Slick Willie, either-he managed to polarize and stimulate his opposition into action, thus limiting his ability to screw things up in a permanent way.

What gets me, is how much of the opposition is tinfoil-hat. There are plentiful things to criticize the Administration on, without inventing shit or believing unsupported allegations.
This is what is wrong with the current crop of opposition, though-they don't go after the man for what is proveably out there, instead, they go after him for unsubstantiated bullshit. This convinces No One who isn't already inclined to believe it.

Things the Left should have put more focus on when it mattered:

1. The Patriot Act. This is some genuinely scary legislation, and it had Bipartisan Support. What's wrong with you people? I'd expect the Reps to push it during a Republican administration, but the only reason for any democrat to vote in favour, is a hope to use it domestically under a Dem President.
If there's a thing worthy of Filibuster, it's this series of turkeys. Ditto for a thing worthy of lawsuits.

2. Social Security. For forty-some years, the Democrats had control of the purse-strings, and responisbility to administer this. What the hell happened? Forty YEARS of IOU's in the account, instead of a surplus to care for the soon-to-retire Boomers, we have a big, sucking hole. It's not like people couldn't see that kids weren't being born in sufficient quantity in 1975, and that it might be a good idea to stop raiding the trust fund while most of the Boomers were still contributing...

3. Border Security. There wouldn't be a club of old men running around in southern Arizona, if the folks in charge of appropriations and Oversight for the last fifty years were doing their damn job. This is an issue where Bush's support in the Southwest could be attacked now-but to do so, the Dems would hae to abandon the coddling of illegals and human-freight-operators (Coyotes). Bush sure as hell isn't doing anything about the problem...

4. Trade/Labour issues. Check it out, if your job is outsourced overseas, your Union Card is a liability. The DP seems more interested in garnering foreign Campaign contributions, than standing up for (a)Working people, (b) Small Business. These used to be Key Constituencies in the Democratic fold, Now, they're turning GOP at enormous rates (fast enough to cost the Democrats control of both house and senate). Monopoly Busting is another area that the Dems should be strong in-but aren't. During the '90s, we went to a single manufacturer of large aircraft domestically, Enron ran rampant, and there were 'consolidations' in other industries (BP buying out Texaco, and Shell Oil for example.) Monopolies aren't good for the Economy, and they're not good for working people. Nor is unrestricted one-way-trade with Dictatorships and Third World hell-holes.
Somehow, this became a 'third rail' in politics, and it's hurting us all.
It's expected of the Republicans-but of the Democrats? yet they're just as guilty of it...

Bill Clinton is the worst.... He is nice but the worst

Warren G. Harding. End of discussion.

I just wanted to say that the biggest problem with the Bush Administration is that they actually act on their promises and get things done!

Also I just wanted to say that I find it ironic that FDR and Lincoln are coming up, becuase you can look at their policies and call them harsh, but when the it was time for them to stand up and lead america they were the ones that did. For example, if FDR didn't use the a-bomb, yes it's wrong and inhumane, we would probably all speaking japanese or german. If Lincoln wouldn't have signed the amanicpation proclamation, and help develop a case for civil war, the black population would still be enslaved, which is wrong.

Just though I'd throw that out there

"Clinton...Not my president"

Whoo-boy.

For your first comment, there is a fine line between strong resolve and stubborness. Bush has shown the latter more than the former.

Second... FDR died before the A-bomb was used. Truman used it. If he hadn't used it, we wouldn't be speaking German, because Germany was already defeated, and Hitler was dead. We also wouldn't be speaking Japanese because Japan didn't have the forces necessary to perform a largescale invasion, one which would have needed to make Normandy look like a bunch of kids with firecrackers.

What would have happened, however, would have been a bloody mess. We would have needed to do an invasion of Japan, the likes of which would have dwarfed Normandy. The deathtolls would have been massive; much more massive than the deaths caused by both A-bombs combined. And that would be just establishing a beachhead. I believe the conjecture was about 100,000 casualities just to establish a beachhead, and about the same to defeat japan. Of course, this isn't including Japanese casualities, which would have numbered easily gone into the hundred(s) of thousands. Considering the A-bombs brought a quick end to an already bloody war, it was a necessary evil.

lol, Don't be mad. The Democrats just have to get back in the game... be as creative as the Republicans, the next go-round. ;)

Politically, they're pretty much as bad as each other, it just seems that the current Bush/Republican party is happy to resort to dirtier tricks.

I'm something of a non-partisan here... I'm just calling foul where I see it. :)

Carter, FDR, and Wilson were the three worst presidents of the 20th century.

Carter was a terrible president. He was incompetent, unable to do the job. He destroyed the economy. He pardoned draft dodgers and further demoralized our country over Vietnam. He made America feel week and small. He used his religion to get elected in a more blatant way than George Bush ever did. The Camp David Accords were a joke. They never brought any real peace. Egypt only agreed to stop attacking Israel because Carter promised Egypt billions of dollars in aid to stop.

On the other hand, FDR was competent, but criminal in his abuse of power. He was a socialist who disregarded the Constitution every time he could. He tried to destroy the Supreme Court and he took away many of our personal liberties. He is to blame for many of the problems in our nation and world today. He sold out Eastern Europe to Soviet oppression. He treaded Stalin as a partner when Stalin was no better than Hitler. I personally think that he knew the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming and did not warn the Navy so that American sentiment would become favorable to entering WW2.

Woodrow Wilson was also terrible. He promised Germany that they would not be punished by the Treaty of Versailles. His incompetence at international relations helped create the conditions that brought Hitler to power in Germany. He was willing to send American men to die in a European War to gain a platform to present his idea of a league of nations.

Now now don't generalize. 58 Million of us voted against him. Comparing him to Hitler? I can't stand the man but I still have to say that is still streatching it.Yeah, really. Hitler was way smarter than Bush.

On the other hand, FDR was competent, but criminal in his abuse of power. He was a socialist who disregarded the Constitution every time he could. He tried to destroy the Supreme Court and he took away many of our personal liberties. He is to blame for many of the problems in our nation and world today. He sold out Eastern Europe to Soviet oppression. He treaded Stalin as a partner when Stalin was no better than Hitler. I personally think that he knew the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming and did not warn the Navy so that American sentiment would become favorable to entering WW2.

Woodrow Wilson was also terrible. He promised Germany that they would not be punished by the Treaty of Versailles. His incompetence at international relations helped create the conditions that brought Hitler to power in Germany. He was willing to send American men to die in a European War to gain a platform to present his idea of a league of nations.

FDR didn't "sell out" Eastern Europe. We pushed East hard so that Russia wouldn't claim a larger portion. Also, if it weren't for Russia, WW2 never would have ended. We had to treat Russia as an ally(A very unlikely ally though) because we needed them. Without them, WW2 would have been a lost cause. However, the reason they were an ally was because Germany was a common enemy, not because we wanted to be. Also, being socialist does not go against the Constitution, nor is it a bad thing. Some of things he did were pretty bad, but not everything. I feel he is rather overrated(He was crippled: Nobody wants to criticize someone in a wheelchair, even after they died), but he is hardly the worst.

Woodrow Wilson can hardly be blaimed for Germany's harsh treatment at Versailles. Blaim that on France and Britain, largely. Woodrow Wilson spent hundreds of hours drawing and redrawing lines, trying to make sure that Germany wasn't unduly punished. He also tried his damndest to get the rest of Europe to lighten up a bit on Germany(Which actually didn't even start the war). The French just wouldn't let up. Woodrow Wilson almost went insane trying to get Germany the best deal possible. Also, we went to war in Europe because of Germany's unconditional sinking of ships in European waters, be they passenger or military. At first they warned the ships, and gave them a brief period of time before they sank them, but then with the unwarned sinking of the Lusitania, we were brought into war. We didn't just enter the war for no good reason.

Yeah, really. Hitler was way smarter than Bush.

Hitler was a brilliant politician and a brilliant public speaker. He told the people exactly what they wanted to hear when they wanted to hear it. Not to mention that his war strategies were well above par in the beginning of the war. However, his mental decline was largely evident, and he did go insane.

Yeah, really. Hitler was way smarter than Bush.

Hitler was way smarter than Kerry, too. And Clinton, and Gore, and Daddy Bush. What's it matter? He was still a dickhead that fucked up bigtime by being so aggressive and neurotic.