Republican Party has evolved into something very dark

Yeah, no.

Hypothetical; let's have a briefing on generic drug usage and adoption, as well as antitrust-laws governing the state of the pharmaceutical industry, the status of FDA generic bio-equivalency metrics etc.

A lot of your random reps go F**K this. this ain't important or I have no idea what the hell is going on.

than medicare goes off the lamb on brand medication for the rest of their lives, as Pfizer and Novartis dictate national drug strategy.

Does this already happen? Sure, to some degree. Would it be much worse if Congress were basically a grand Jury, most of which are uninterested in governing in the first place?

Hell yeah.

I don't see it.

 

why do you have facts in quote? Did Americans not overwhelmingly vote Republican in 2010 in your world?

 

Except that Romney was much further behind until you started to see him getting and putting in much more money.

Keep in mind I am going off of what you yourself said that Obama is more innately popular than Romney (I myself think a big part of Obama's success is also do to money.) Taking your own statement that Obama is more popular then what is keeping Romney competitive? The big factor would appear to be money since he was getting more money for several months than Obama.

Santorum won several states and that appeared to be due to both, being more popular with the base than Romney and a better ground organization than Romney. Santorum himself though cited that Romney was overwhelming him with money as did Gingrich. Whether you think they are bat**** insane or not they were winning in the Republican primaries and by their own admission the money was a the biggest factor.

 

I have a question.

If money really makes so little difference why are corporate interests pouring so much money into the election instead of holding onto or investing it into other parts of their business?

 

Campaign investments are by far the most profitable investments a company can make.

 

I actually agree with a lot of what you said, but the reason this happens is that ordinary people don't give a crap about state politics. The corporations and the people have the right to participate in the political process in states - but only the corporations make the most of their opportunity. If you want a more democratic system, blame the people who actually don't participate in the political system. At the end of the day, even if you took money out of politics, those with influence would be able to leverage their influence because they're the only ones who bothered to show up.

Same reason that ordinary people donate to elections.

 

"...money doesn't talk, it swears."

 

Do you care to elaborate?

 

I am not a Democrat or a Republican. I guess I would be classified as a Conservative. I vote for the best candidate. I study the issues and pick the best person. While I have voted for Democrats in local elections, I have never voted for one in a national election.

That being said, the premise of this thread is stupid. The Democrats have moved so far to the left it is really sad. At one time they may have been for the working man but now they are the entitlement party. They buy votes with government handouts. How fitting that the debt clock crossed 16 TRILLION at the start of the Democrat convention.

 

Remind us which party held the presidency the last time we had a balanced budget.

 

Remind me which party held Congress.

 

So you're saying congress is responsible?
Who's party is holding congress now while the debt is rising?

Yeah, you can't just pick and choose what you want like that.

 

Who was responsible for the declaration of war?

Wars are expensive, its a rudimentary concept, don't act like you can just shove that all on the present incumbent.

 

First of all, I have always said Bush spent too much but look at the chart below. Starting in 2007 the debt exploded. What happened in 2007? The Democrats took over both houses of congress for the first time since 1994. Since 2007 the Republicans have only had the house since January 2011 and every legislative measure they have taken to lower the debt has been ignored by Harry Reid and the Democrat controlled Senate..

LINK

Date B]Dollar Amount[/B]
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

 

Ughh my cut and past didn't work to well and I can't edit. LOL

 

During the Bush administration, there were floods of cash coming in from the housing bubble. Loans were being given to anyone able to fill out a form, and financial institutions were raising the leverage limits as high as 30 times. This created and/or borrow hundreds of billions that offset all the spending and keep the debt from spiking while the bubble grew. Those checks have been bouncing since 2007

 

If the Republicans in Congress at that time had gotten the tax cuts they wanted there wouldn't have been a budget surplus at all.

 

neither.... DO you know what Congress is (should of asked this first) ?

disagree

 

Are you saying that the Democrats taking over the house in 2007 is the reason for the spike in the deficits (primarily due to the recession), but that a year and a half after taking over in January 2011 the Republicans are blameless? Seriously?