including Clinton and many other democrats

This is not what they say though, they specifically target irresponsible greedy billionairs who think they are above the law, and in fact onws the law, since as Bernie says, they own congress by bribing every politicians, left and right.

But hitchslap they don't target any pharmaceutical company or executive BY NAME!! This is key otherwise they are blaming the ENTIRE pharmaceutical industry, and thus every person who works for them. This is abject hate-mongering by the Democrats to rally their base and scapegoat and entire sector of the economy for societal problems. Instead of offering solutions they want to offer punishment.

I hope this fucker end up in jail

Yeah his name is Martin Shkreli. And Bernie and Hillary didn't mention his name once even though he is perfect example of corruption and crony capitalism in the pharmaceutical industry. Not every pharmaceutical executive is a dirt bag who wants to steal people's money. Too act like that is true is not only abject falsification its disingenuous.

Edited 1/18/2016 19:51:01

including Clinton and many other democrats

of course, "left and right"
And Bernie called out Hillary on that yesterday

I am just waiting for Clinton to say Carson is racist lol

Edited 1/18/2016 19:51:04

At least Rubio is not married to a serial rapist (unlike Killary Klinton).

This is key otherwise they are blaming the ENTIRE pharmaceutical industry, and thus every person who works for them.

No, i just explained who they were targetting. You don't need names if you specifically talk about the billionairs without morals. Your statement about "every person in the industry" is nonsense. But you thinking that actually kinda "prove" your point, since probably other are thinking like you

Fucker didn't even release the Wu Tang Album he bought.

No, i just explained who they were targetting. You don't need names if you specifically talk about the billionairs without morals.

No you didn't explain who they were targeting because they (Bernie, Hillary, and O'Malley) didn't explain who they were targeting. You can't just say "billionaires without morals"!! You can't use blanket statements especially when it comes to defining vague terms like morality. In what alternate universe is "billionaires without morals" specific?? There are 1645 billionaires in the world? Are all included in your list of billionaires without morals?? My guess is yes because you hate everyone and everything that stinks of making more than $250,000 a year right?

They said the pharmaceutical industry multiple times, they said wall street multiple times, they said police multiple times..all without an ACTUAL NAME. Without attaching any names to these phrases they are in essence blaming the entire industries and professions without giving credit to the fact there are many many people on the right side of law and morality when it comes to banking, pharmacy, and policing.

You're defense of socialism is brave but blatant.

It is just a flat lie to say that they are targeting all the people working in the industry, and you know it. For some reason you think that this strawman is going to fool people. And you are probably right. Just not me. And thx for the adhominem, another proof that you can't have a rational discussion.

and just to make a final point, you don't need ACTUAL NAME, when you target them by their ACTUAL ACTIONS. You failing to understand that is sad, really

Edited 1/18/2016 20:20:41

- reckless speculation
- bribing of politicians
- enflating drugs prices

just to quote a few they have mentionned, since i can see you coming from a mile away

Dont get me wrong though, i wish they could be more specific during debates,but lets not be delusional, they can't say much in a 30 secondes statement. This has to do with the template used for debates. A lot of issues to talk about, and very little time, so they have to be terse.

if you want specifics, you can check their program, or the numerous video clips online.
How is that for specifics?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a04qKUvTKtE

There are 3 frickin candidates on the Democratic debate stage. They have plenty of time to talk and give examples. Don't bring up that bs of no time to talk lol. If anyone has the right to complain about not being able to be specific its the Republicans.

- reckless speculation
- bribing of politicians
- enflating drugs prices

1) Reckless speculation - you do realize that the stock market in of itself is speculation right? What factors or definition are you using for the term reckless? When people deposit money in major institutions they do so knowing that their money is being used by said banking institution to invest in stocks or other financial services. Its a contractual financial exchange. The real problem with the 2008 financial crash is that big banking institutions did not have sufficient real-asset holdings to cover the losses, which is why they needed a bailout. In the last 8 years of Obama the big banks have gotten bigger and the small banking sector has been essentially destroyed. Obama's regulation of the financial sector through Dodd-Frank was to blame...and not in any way political favoritism.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2015/02/12/Spectacular-Way-Too-Big-Failure-Dodd-Frank

2) Bribing of politicians - I'm confused by this one. Do you mean explicit corruption through bribery or are you using a euphemism to say "legal political donations". Corporations are allowed to employ lobbyists and fund super pacs. That's all completely legal and businesses other than pharmaceutical companies and wall street do it (energy sector, car manufacturers, silicon valley, etc).

3) Inflating drug prices - "According to the International Federation of Health Plans, Americans pay anywhere from two to six times more than the rest of the world for brand name prescription drugs. Most Americans feel that drug companies are putting profits before anything else. A recent poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 72% of Americans think drug costs are unreasonable and want drug companies to release information on how they set prices. In other countries, the health system is simpler, there aren't as many organizations trying to buy drugs, so those groups can exert greater purchasing power and that can lower costs. The United Kingdom's National Health Service, for example, purchases drugs for the entire country's supply, known as a formulary. But in the United States, we have individual insurance groups, hospitals and plans that buy for their individual consumers. Plans and groups negotiate their own prices with the pharmaceuticals, resulting in a unregulated variety of pricing." http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/28/health/us-pays-more-for-drugs/

Inflated drug prices in the US are a reflection of our healthcare system and is not (for the most part) a reflection of the greed of pharmaceutical company executives.

Edited 1/18/2016 21:11:06

There are 3 frickin candidates on the Democratic debate stage. They have plenty of time to talk and give examples.

They are asked a question, and they get 30sec to answer. Then next question

In this configuration, the can give a few examples, but the most important thing is to talk about the actual issues. Lingering into a detailed examples would be a political mistake. Who cares about the exact price of a drug sold by whatever specific company. All you need to know is that american pay 3+ times the price for the exact same drug than in other countries. And by the way, Bernie did get specific sometime, when it makes sens. He talked about Goldman Sachs, the Koch brothers, ExxonMobile (maybe not in this debate, but he has talked about it).


1) irresponsible, reckless means just that. They gamble money they can't afford to lose (well they can, at the expense of the average american). And they can do that because the market is not regulated,and they do it because they can, and because they know that there won't be any consequences. I am not an economist so i won't pretend i am, but this kind of speculation also leads to an inflation of the prices for essential goods, because the good aren't actually traded, they just trade virtual goods wich don't reflect the real value of actual goods (pure speculation),wich leads to an inflation on the actual price you get at the grocery store or at the gas pump. So the average american end up paying for the banks greedy gambling. (I don't claim to understand it well, but a number of study have shown that)

edit: Also, the big problem is that the big banks have absobed the little ones, so much so that a handful of banks possess almost all of the americans' capital. And if one of these banks fall, then the rest fall with it. Wich would not happen if the banks were smaller but in greater number. This is why Bernie Sanderns and O'Malley are calling for a modern Glass-Steagall Act, to make sure that the 2008 crisis can't happen again. Unlike Hillary who gets millions in donations by these big banks and therefore won't do a thing to solve the problem.

2) Man i hope you are being stuborn on purpose. Donations by lobby IS bribery, legal bribery, but still bribery. Do you think you can argue against that?

3)

Inflated drug prices in the US are a reflection of our healthcare system and is not (for the most part) a reflection of the greed of pharmaceutical company executives.

The healthcare system is that way BECAUSE of the greed of pharmaceutical company.
-> "Plans and groups negotiate their own prices with the pharmaceuticals, resulting in a unregulated variety of pricing"
Isn't that clear enough?
Watch the video i linked in a previous post, Bernie Sanders adresses this question very well

Edited 1/18/2016 22:10:37

They are asked a question, and they get 30sec to answer.

They get 1 minute to answer each question and 30 seconds to rebuttal. Read the rules.

Koch brothers

Great liberal double standard. When the Koch brothers donate money they're evil corporate cronies who are trying to buy an election. But you almost never hear about George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Paul Singer, Thomas Steyer, and Robert Mercer giving millions of dollars to fund Democratic super pacs. Thomas Steyer single-handedly donated 73 million in ONE year to Democratic super pacs. So let me get this right: when Republicans get donations from billionaires its horrible and evil, but when Democrats get donations from billionaires its honorable? Give me a break. Every person in every party is funded by the rich. If Sanders is the Democratic nominee you think he's going to run without the money brought in by the DNC? Fat chance.

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/10/24/revenge-of-the-democrats/

They gamble money they can't afford to lose (well they can, at the expense of the average american). And they can do that because the market is not regulated,and they do it because they can, and because they know that there won't be any consequences.

You didn't answer my previous question. Do you not agree that when an individual puts money in a bank they are signing a contract that gives permission to the bank to use its money to invest in financial services? Its all based on contractual law. If consumers don't want their money "recklessly" (this is too vague of a term you are using to be specific) speculated, then they have the right and option not to have their money held by said institutional bank. There is always a risk in the financial sector. Democrats would love to convince people they can get rid of market risk by regulating more and breaking up the banks....but its just not true, and you know that.

Also, the big problem is that the big banks have absobed the little ones, so much so that a handful of banks possess almost all of the americans' capital.

Did you actually read the first article I linked to you?? The reason the big banks bought out the small banks is because of Dodd-Frank which was instituted by Barack Obama and the Democrats after the 2008 financial collapse. If you're angry at the big banks getting bigger, be angry at Obama and his law.

healthcare system is that way BECAUSE of the greed of pharmaceutical company.

lol what? Pharmaceutical companies don't make laws the last time I checked. Congress and the federal government created the healthcare system and regulates it. Also if you're worried about increasing drug prices you should be more worried about Obamacare. According to the CBO, drug prices will rise under Obamacare. Don't you hate it when the facts don't match your ideology?
http://budget.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=213965

Edited 1/18/2016 22:50:52

So let me get this right: when Republicans get donations from billionaires its horrible and evil, but when Democrats get donations from billionaires its honorable?

As usual, you get it wrong again
Damn, it is as if we are speaking a different language. I'm tired of responding to false accusation, all the more when i have said exactly the contrary a few post earlier ON THE SAME THREAD. And what do you think I was refering to, when i talked about Goldman Sach, IN THE SAME SENTENCE as the Koch Brothers?????

This is getting fucking annoying, i give up

your only contributing to the liberal sterotype

As usual, you get it wrong again
Damn, it is as if we are speaking a different language. I'm tired of responding to false accusation, all the more when i have said exactly the contrary a few post earlier ON THE SAME THREAD. And what do you think I was refering to, when i talked about Goldman Sach, IN THE SAME SENTENCE as the Koch Brothers?????

This is getting fucking annoying, i give up

When I respond to these kinds of threads, I don't primarily do it for the sake of convincing the people I'm responding to. You're right, that gets tired FAST when the other party seems determined to misinterpret or distort everything you say.

Instead, my primary motivation is simply to hold up the ridiculous for public scrutiny. Someone makes a false accusation? I don't respond to the actual accusation, I just hold it up and show how cheap and dirty and ridiculous it is. Instead of, "Hey, that's not true! I actually did the opposite!", I go, "Hey everyone, look at this jackass false accusation! Isn't it absurd?! That's what you have to resort to when you have no actual argument, I guess. ;-)"

When you think of the interactions that way, it helps a lot for maintaining motivation, in my experience. Instead of being a drag, it can actually be pretty fun! :-)

Edited 1/19/2016 01:08:05

At least I bother to answer his questions and points instead of blatantly dodging every question, article, fact, figure, or point made to the reverse. Literally I think people will see the obvious flaws in Hitchslap's argumentation to the point of which he is simply defending points that are either not-true, too vague, or completely unfounded.

He couldn't even admit that Dodd-Frank was the primary regulatory law that led to the growth of big banks since 2008 and the collapse of small community banks. If he can't even acknowledge that a primarily Democratic law created part of the financial monopolizing that Democrats today are railing against then there's nothing more to discuss. His ideology is blinding him to the facts at hand...which is alright as long as he doesn't get to vote in a US election :)

And the funniest thing about Hitchslap's argument? He thinks the Pharmaceutical Companies created and passed the laws that established our healthcare system instead of the government lol!

Edited 1/19/2016 01:26:09

Well said Jai! I believe the executives responsible for the Recession in 08 should have gone to jail (that reminds me of the Big Short; great movie, I suggest watching it), but blaming "the banks" is silly. Finance is a key part of our economy, and we could hardly live without it. But if we just stuck people in jail if they lie and didn't insure banks so they could do whatever the hell they want, we would be fine. Government actions, specifically bailouts, are the indirect cause of the Recession. If you say people would be risky anyway and squander people's money, well, my other idea of actually PUTTING PEOPLE IN JAIL would deter that. Win-win.

The bailout plan along with not handing out criminal sentences to those responsible in essence gave big banks the green light to continue doing more of the same...that is monopolizing. However the solution is not to destroy the financial services sector or small banks (who were victims of the 208 financial crisis). Sure Wall Street is in large part trading with worthless paper assets that are not backed up by any real hard-value commodities, but those trades generate huge sums of money for the economy: "In 2014, finance and insurance represented 7.2 percent (or $1.26 trillion) of U.S. gross domestic product." That's close to 7X the amount produced by US agriculture.

http://selectusa.commerce.gov/industry-snapshots/financial-services-industry-united-states