Objective review of Republican candidates for President

[Lethevich]

"The Mormons are the Chosen People. And the time is now for a Mormon leader to usher in the second coming of Christ and install the political Kingdom of God in Washington, D.C."

Well, this doesn't sound creepy at all

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/29/mitt_and_the_white_horse_prophecy/singleton/

[drogulus]

And big governments are even less suited to creating such a society and even more suited to keeping goods in the hands of people with power and authority, since it's easier with a big government to assert such control.

     Then there are no prosperous societies. How'd that happen?

     But there are prosperous societies and all of them have big governments that grew as the societies grew and developed. This is something that conservatives and probably many liberals don't understand. Government doesn't have a proper size considered in the abstract, because the success of a society is not separated from its government. The conservative habit of seeing the government as a foreign growth like a cancer is stupid and defeatist. It's a fundamental conceptual error. Any government good enough to play a proper role in an advanced society will have to be "too big". Other than the usual pejorative meaning, "too big" has none. Liberals are quite justified in ignoring the size of government. They don't favor "big government", they favor government that does what they want done.

     About the differences between social and economic conservatism, the divide is significant in Republican circles but not generally. Most conservatives lean one way or another but favor both. Libertarians are not conservatives and in spite of their recent prominence don't count for much. They are soon headed back into the obscurity they deserve.

Think, for instance, of how businesses use the regulation systems, especially at state and local levels, to block or at least seriously hinder possible competitors, by helping put in place regulations that are easy for them to comply with because they have the equipment/capital/etc. but potential starts up do not.

Or to look at it from another perspective: the bigger the government, the more power is available to be misused by those with an interest to misuse it (meaning the "haves"); the smaller the government, the less less power available for misuse.

     I have thought about that point. The house burned down next door, so let's abolish the fire department. Criminals cleverly outwit the police, which shows the folly of "big government" efforts to catch them.

    Doctors shouldn't anesthetize patients. It gives them too much power.

    The argument that government, that foreign body you hate so much, will be given too much power if it's used to do things we want is not convincing. It depends on the thesis that governments can't be controlled, which is bizarre. What are conservatives trying to do, prove that they can't control government? I know that! They prove it all the time. Now they can't be trusted with the finances of the country, which used to be their selling point. These "fiscal conservatives" have tried to destroy the economy to prove a point. Government can't be trusted? No, the point they succeed in proving is they can't be trusted.

[drogulus]

     Conservatives insist that under "big government" the poor who have less power will be worse off, not better. This is how anti-empiricism bites them badly, since the social democracies have less poverty and more income equality. See? If you start by asking which societies are best to be low income in, you know the answer. The answer doesn't change because you think big government is bad or has too much power.

     But conservatives fail to treat an obviously empirical question as a matter of fact, and instead they opine about how well off the poor will be, as though we didn't know the answer to an abstract question, or that we're powerless to adjust programs to make them work better. That's pure dogmatism.

     Why not try to get the answer (easy enough) instead of acting as though a warning must be issued (the poor will be worse off if the government tries to help). Who's in a position to warn who? I don't listen to warnings from people who have so little sense. Look at your society! How does it really work, not how should it work according to some ideal that's never been practiced?

[Karl Henning]

"The Mormons are the Chosen People. And the time is now for a Mormon leader to usher in the second coming of Christ and install the political Kingdom of God in Washington, D.C."

Well, this doesn't sound creepy at all

Super-creepy.  Of course, I shouldn't blame Mitt for all the wacky ideas slung around him.  There were some pretty creepy notions slung around Dubya, too . . . whom I preferred to disagree with on his own merits.

And there's deep creepiness out there yet, with (a) all the people who are convinced that Obama is an extra-national Muslim, combined with (b) all of those who feel in their heart that, if Obama were a Muslim, it would be horrible, horrible, horrible.

[Karl Henning]

His opponents could run out of money. Or it could become so clear that he will win a majority of delegates that his opponents retreat.

Not when the opponents are Newt and Ron Paul, they won't retreat.

RTWT here.

[Karl Henning]

Perhaps it is frustration, especially among talk-show hosts, at not being able to derail Romney. Maybe some shrill bloggers understand that Romney threatens to prove that they are less in tune with Republicans than the "squishy" Republican candidates and officeholders. And maybe conservative political journalists have more in common with their mainstream counterparts than they'd like to admit — a suspicion of wealth, ignorance of the business world and a fixation on the candidates' interaction with them. After all, Romney never really courted and flattered conservative pundits the way Newt Gingrich did (especially by bashing the mainstream media competition).

RTWT here.

[Josquin des Prez]

Talking about the pros and cons of free enterprise vs government control in business is a bit naive when both parties are essentially nothing more then criminal rackets:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WCQ8NGfcCE&feature=related

Its pretty pointless to talk about fiscal conservatism when you have Al Capone running the show.

[Karl Henning]

Trump's latest publicity stunt: two views.

Jennifer Rubin

Jno Capehart

[Lethevich]

Santorum Tells Sick Kid Not To Complain About $1 Million Drug Costs Because People Pay $900 For An iPad

Kinda weird how "being evil" is now considered an admirable political ideology.

[ibanezmonster]

After reading that and some of the comments... if I get sick and need medication that only rich people can afford, it sounds like there's a possibility of buying drugs from Canada online. Or am I just supposed to die?

[ibanezmonster]

Oh, wait, why'd I ask? Just look it up! 

canadadrugs.com

If you have Web of Trust, it's an orange color, but read the user reviews, and you'll see pages and pages of positive reviews. Just one more awesome thing about the internet. 

[Todd]

Kinda weird how "being evil" is now considered an admirable political ideology.

Hmm, how exactly is he being "evil"?  Is anyone who disagrees with you now evil?  Since the article you linked is hardly objective, or complete, it's hard to tell what really happened, and while I think it's safe to assume that Santorum blustered on, it's ridiculous to throw around the word evil in this case. 

Oh, and you may want to question claims such as a $1 million per year cost to treat schizophrenia.  Seriously, are people so gullible as to believe that?  Really?  How come a 30 day supply lists for $600 online from a US pharmacy?  (I found it in 20 seconds.)  In the world I live in, that translates into about $7200 a year.  Even if the kid is super crazy and requires triple dosage, that's a far cry from $1 million!!!   (Say in one's best Dr Evil voice.) 

[DavidW]

Kinda weird how "being evil" is now considered an admirable political ideology.

I don't think that Santorum is being evil, but I do think he is being stupid and insensitive.  The people who are buying ipads also can afford expensive medication (especially since they also most likely have insurance).  The people that can't afford that medicine are also people that would consider an ipad a luxury they can't afford.  Ipads are for the upper middle class, the lower class and the lower middle class are not "entitled" they're simply desperate.

He is right that pharmaceutical companies need to make a profit, and if they couldn't that drug wouldn't exist in the first place.  That article vilified him, here is a more neutral quote from the original source:

"Santorum told a large Tea Party crowd here that he sympathized with the boy's case, but he also believed in the marketplace."

He was saying that bigger picture more people will be helped if the free market worked for drug companies:

" I sympathize with these compassionate cases. ... I want your son to stay alive on much-needed drugs. Fact is, we need companies to have incentives to make drugs. If they don't have incentives, they won't make those drugs. We either believe in markets or we don't."

I think that there needs to be a better solution for lower income households, but I agree with Santorum's point even if it sounded callous and stupid.

[ibanezmonster]

Oh, and you may want to question claims such as a $1 million per year cost to treat schizophrenia.  Seriously, are people so gullible as to believe that?  Really?  How come a 30 day supply lists for $600 online from a US pharmacy?  (I found it in 20 seconds.)  In the world I live in, that translates into about $7200 a year.  Even if the kid is super crazy and requires triple dosage, that's a far cry from $1 million!!!   (Say in one's best Dr Evil voice.)

It would have been nice if they told exactly which medication he needed. $1 million does seem like an exaggeration of any kind, though if he had some rare form of schizophrenia, who knows (I sure have no idea).

Still, $600 a month is outrageous. No one I know could afford to pay that much each month- $600 is almost entirely what I make each month, and even if I worked full time, all of the money left over would be going towards gas and car insurance, with maybe $50 extra after that (I've worked at the same place for 4 years).  How would you eat and pay rent?

[ibanezmonster]

I don't think that Santorum is being evil, but I do think he is being stupid and insensitive.  The people who are buying ipads also can afford expensive medication (especially since they also most likely have insurance).  The people that can't afford that medicine are also people that would consider an ipad a luxury they can't afford.  Ipads are for the upper middle class, the lower class and the lower middle class are not "entitled" they're simply desperate.

He is right that pharmaceutical companies need to make a profit, and if they couldn't that drug wouldn't exist in the first place.  That article vilified him, here is a more neutral quote from the original source:

"Santorum told a large Tea Party crowd here that he sympathized with the boy's case, but he also believed in the marketplace."

He was saying that bigger picture more people will be helped if the free market worked for drug companies:

" I sympathize with these compassionate cases. ... I want your son to stay alive on much-needed drugs. Fact is, we need companies to have incentives to make drugs. If they don't have incentives, they won't make those drugs. We either believe in markets or we don't."

I think that there needs to be a better solution for lower income households, but I agree with Santorum's point even if it sounded callous and stupid.

I read a comment that makes a point worthy of being looked up and verified if it's true or not: that the drug companies spend twice as much on advertising than on research. Another comment states (again, have no idea if it's true or not) that tax dollars are often used to fund research on drugs at universities.

[Todd]

that the drug companies spend twice as much on advertising than on research.

I thought it was higher than that.  So?

[ibanezmonster]

I thought it was higher than that.  So?

I think you know what I'm getting at... if they have that much money, why don't they spend it all on research instead of advertising?

[Todd]

I think you know what I'm getting at... if they have that much money, why don't they spend it all on research instead of advertising?

I know what you're getting at, but my question remains.  And I have a new one: why would or should any company do what you suggest?  They must earn returns for shareholders.  Advertising helps achieve that goal. 

[ibanezmonster]

I know what you're getting at, but my question remains.  And I have a new one: why would or should any company do what you suggest?  They must earn returns for shareholders.  Advertising helps achieve that goal.

Not saying what they should or shouldn't do, just wondering about Santorum's point. He makes it sound like research is the only reason why drug prices are so high; but obviously, there's something more to it than that if they have enough extra money to run so many ads.

[Todd]

Not saying what they should or shouldn't do

Yes, you are.  Your prior post, and this most recent, imply or state that pharma companies should drop all advertising for R&D.  I maintain they should not.  Yep, they are profitable - that's rather the point of patents and the temporary monopoly they bestow, wouldn't you agree? - but advertising helps reap some profits.