Top Priorities

[Greenbeard]

The evidence is still out on this drug but there are many both doctors and patients who believe the drug to be beneficial. Others are more doubtful. If you read my full post you would have seen that. And would have been perhaps more ethical in your response.

I am saying that the Administration is putting pressure on the FDA to unapprove the drug. That doesn't require tampering. That just requires abuse of power for unethical motives.

Regardless of whether "the evidence is still out," the balance of evidence collected thus far (by the manufacturer itself through clinical drug trials) suggests this drug is ineffective. Hence the FDA panel's recommendation last month. Those are the facts right now, regardless of whatever anecdotes or gut feelings you might wish to invoke.

What evidence do you have that the White House has acted inappropriately here?

 

[antagon]

the irony for me is deriding regulatory capture and corruption in one post, then defending a drug fast-tracked through FDA approval in the next.

the avastin approval broke effectiveness precedent and was approved over the votes of the advisory council. it is one of the world's most expensive drugs, but has not been effective as approved for breast cancer. was this medical or political?

this is the pick and choose nature of partisan political criticism.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

No.

Each party has its own primary: How could a 3rd party candidate acquire ANY % of the votes in a Democrat or Republican Primary?

They can't really can they.

Nope. And they have a hell of a time getting any traction in the debates or other similar exposure because the viable candidates, both GOP and Democrat, do their damndest to make sure nobody else becomes viable.

And in the end, due to fewer choicesin representatives, the citizens of this country are the ones who end up losing.

 

[Spoonman]

My vote of course was for No. 1 up there as the ONLY #1 priority; however, it covers so many other things that it is almost cheating to check just that one.

For instance, let's hope we get enough conservatives/moderates whether GOP or Democrat into Congress in 2010 to stop healthcare reform before we are so completely screwed and/or it is so convoluted that it will be almost impossible to untangle.

For instance, I just became aware of:

Private insurance is going up already to the tune of 20% to 28% per year and will continue to do so in advance of the much heavier risk and cost to insurance companies once all the provisions of the healthcare reform kick in. That of course will likely provide incentive to implement the public option in a way that private insurance will be crowded out and we will have 100% socialized medicine. Some of you no doubt want that outcome. A lot of us do not.

And, there is the Avastin controversy. The FDA approved this drug a few years ago and it is now prescribed every year to around 18,000 women who have breast cancer. It has critics and also those who swear by it. It is an option to help breast cancer patients while not a cure as such. But though Medicare only covers about 40% of the cost, it is very expensive.

The administration does not wish to include that cost in Medicare when the 'reforms' fully kick in but it has pledged not to reduce any benefits.

So. . . .it is looking to have the FDA DISAPPROVE the drug so that nobody can get it. That way they don't have to deny benefits. Won't bother anybody except breast cancer patients who are benefitting from the drug.

That is a probable red flag of how it is going to be in a lot of areas.

This administration is a joke. I have no faith in them at all.

 

[antagon]

No.

Each party has its own primary: How could a 3rd party candidate acquire ANY % of the votes in a Democrat or Republican Primary?

They can't really can they.

Nope. And they have a hell of a time getting any traction in the debates or other similar exposure because the viable candidates, both GOP and Democrat, do their damndest to make sure nobody else becomes viable.

the point i take from this truth is that independent candidates are too weak to be viable in american politics. i am proud we dont have a southern european clusterfuck of parties and candidates muddling our government.

 

[Foxfyre]

They can't really can they.

Nope. And they have a hell of a time getting any traction in the debates or other similar exposure because the viable candidates, both GOP and Democrat, do their damndest to make sure nobody else becomes viable.

the point i take from this truth is that independent candidates are too weak to be viable in american politics. i am proud we dont have a southern european clusterfuck of parties and candidates muddling our government.

Yes, it is more efficient to to have more focus and the more our focus is divided, the less effective we can be. Just look at that list of "top priorities" expressed by our President. Almost certainly one of the reasons he has been an ineffective leader is due to his inability to prioritize. The lowliest among us has to be able to put first things first in order to be efficient in much of anything.

So yes, independent parties that don't have highly charismatic and compelling leadership aren't usually going to be able to raise the money or gain the traction necessary to get somebody elected to high office.

Ross Perot and the Reform Party that formed to support him are evidence that it is possible to win over the GOP and Democrats. I honestly believe that if Perot hadn't gone batshit crazy and accused the GOP of all sorts of nutty stuff, etc., he would have been elected in 1992. He was gaining momentum fast. But after he quit and then got back in, he couldn't regain that momentum because too many of us were no longer willing to take a chance on him.

If somebody like him that can win the trust of the 9/12ers and Tea Partiers does emerge in the next year, we might yet see the stranglehold of the GOP and Democrats broken.

A lot of us are no longer willing to accept the liberal Democrat and liberal lite that we now have to choose from.

 

[Spoonman]

They can't really can they.

Nope. And they have a hell of a time getting any traction in the debates or other similar exposure because the viable candidates, both GOP and Democrat, do their damndest to make sure nobody else becomes viable.

the point i take from this truth is that independent candidates are too weak to be viable in american politics. i am proud we dont have a southern european clusterfuck of parties and candidates muddling our government.

That is Obama's problem. He is too weak. On the political spectrum who the hell is Barak Obama? A nobody. No one owes him anything. Which is why he can't lead. He has no favors to call in.

 

[antagon]

Nope. And they have a hell of a time getting any traction in the debates or other similar exposure because the viable candidates, both GOP and Democrat, do their damndest to make sure nobody else becomes viable.

the point i take from this truth is that independent candidates are too weak to be viable in american politics. i am proud we dont have a southern european clusterfuck of parties and candidates muddling our government.

That is Obama's problem. He is too weak. On the political spectrum who the hell is Barak Obama? A nobody. No one owes him anything. Which is why he can't lead. He has no favors to call in.

many americans are hoping to derail obama and his political agenda that has been on an unobstructed roll since he took office. even moderates are looking to bring some balance back to the political landscape because obama and his party control too much of the power on the hill.

you, my friend, are squarely delirious and likely wouldn't know strength if it knocked you out.

 

[antagon]

A lot of us are no longer willing to accept the liberal Democrat and liberal lite that we now have to choose from.

i think that this is the challenge for the american political system. we need to maintain the integrity of the parties which we have. our two parties have taken on several identities and causes over the years as a result of this.

it is possible for a ross perot to make a splash, but i feel that the way the government is set up is the reason why we have a two party system. the founders and subsequent lawmakers who created our congressional rules have biased them toward stronger majorities and party politics.

i feel a president independent from the parties in congress would just be ignored in his capacity to influence lawmaking. to gain that influence back, such a chief would have to have a strong ideological similarity with one of the parties and would likely have to coalesce on objectives of theirs. the appearance of boss which we associate with the prez is empowered by their relationship with congress on matters of policymaking.

 

[Foxfyre]

A lot of us are no longer willing to accept the liberal Democrat and liberal lite that we now have to choose from.

i think that this is the challenge for the american political system. we need to maintain the integrity of the parties which we have. our two parties have taken on several identities and causes over the years as a result of this.

it is possible for a ross perot to make a splash, but i feel that the way the government is set up is the reason why we have a two party system. the founders and subsequent lawmakers who created our congressional rules have biased them toward stronger majorities and party politics.

i feel a president independent from the parties in congress would just be ignored in his capacity to influence lawmaking. to gain that influence back, such a chief would have to have a strong ideological similarity with one of the parties and would likely have to coalesce on objectives of theirs. the appearance of boss which we associate with the prez is empowered by their relationship with congress on matters of policymaking.

I am going to gently disagree. I think a charismatic, articulate leader with strong convictions and ability to explain them would strike an accommodating chord with the 60 to 70+% of people who would respond to the poll in this thread as most USMB members have responded.

Such a leader, if he made the priorities of his administration to be fiscally responsible while leaving as many resources as possible with the people and private enterprise, who began the process of rolling back unsustainable entitlements in a way as to not break faith with those we have made dependent on them, who pushed for energy independence, a balanced budget, and respect for unalienable rights, would have the support of the large majority of Americans.

And the GOP and Democrats would have no choice but to help him get his agenda done if they wanted to keep their jobs. It might be the only way we will ever see true bipartisanship in our lifetime.

 

[MaggieMae]

Contributing to his falling approval numbers, President Obama is increasingly critized for focusing on issues not important to the American people and failing to hone in on what they do consider important. The President continues to stress that this or that is top priority, but even CBS News is now questioning how many 'top priorities' a President can have.

"Creating jobs in the United States and ensuring a return to sustainable economic growth is the top priority for my Administration," he said in an Executive Order last March on his National Export Initiative. . . . .

. . .In an Address to the Nation two months ago, Mr. Obama declared "our top priority is to recover and rebuild from a recession that has touched the lives of nearly every American.". . . .

And in addition to bail outs and stimulus packages and healthcare legislation , Wall Street Regulation and cap & trade all of which have been made 'top priorities', there has also been:

FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS: "...that's something that's going to be a top priority." (4/27/10)

ENERGY SECURITY: "And that's why my energy security plan has been one of the top priorities of my Administration since the day I took office." (4/28/10)

EDUCATION REFORM: "To train our workers for the jobs of tomorrow, we've made education reform a top priority in this Administration." (2/24/10)

STUDENT LOAN REFORM: "This is something that I've made a top priority." (2/1/10)

EXPORTS BY SMALL BUSINESSES: "This is going to be a top priority." (12/3/09)

HEALTH ASSISTANCE TO 9/11 FIRST RESPONDERS: "I'm not just talking the talk, we've been budgeting this as a top priority for this Administration." (2/3/10)

END HOMELESSNESS AMONG VETERANS: "I've also directed (Veterans Affairs) Secretary Shinseki to focus on a top priority: reducing homeless among veterans." (8/17/09)

HURRICANE PREPAREDNESS: "Our top priority is ensuring the public safety. That means appropriate sheltering in place or if necessary, getting as many people as possible out of harm's way prior to landfall." (5/29/09)

H1N1 FLU VACCINATIONS: "And throughout this process, my top priority has been the health and the safety of the American people." (5/1/09)

SUPPORT FOR MILITARY FAMILIES: "These military families are heroes too. And they are a top priority of Michelle and me. And they will always have our support." (5/30/09)

STRENGTHENING TIES WITH CANADA AND MEXICO: "We're going to make this a top priority..." (10/16/09)

CONSUMER PROTECTION: "During these challenging times, the needs of American consumers are a top priority of my Administration." (2/11/09)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: "So this is going to be a top priority generally improving our environmental quality." (11/5/09)

How Many "Top Priority" Issues Does Obama Have? - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

So how many priorities can be 'top priority'?

How many issues should be 'top priority' and what can wait?

They're ALL top priority, but with the economy not turning around fast enough, it did become THE top priority, as your list suggests, with the top 3 listed interwoven. Your point?

 

[Rozman]

It's gotta be about jobs,and that's it.Jobs first then take your pick.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's gotta be about jobs,and that's it.Jobs first then take your pick.

Jobs, however, require fiscal responsibility including reining and reversing spending, putting unspent money back in the bank , rescinding special costly favors to certain constituencies. And jobs require getting the tax structure back to a business friendly status private industry can count on. And jobs require backing off unnecessary regulation that makes it more and more difficult for small business to take risks.

And NONE of that has been stated as a priority of this administration.

So what do we do about that?

 

[MaggieMae]

Let's imagine that the GOP sweeps the House races this autumn. Do you suppose their "top priority" will be job creation, or subpoena power?

Why are you concerned about subpoena power? Is there something that might lead ongress to investigate obama for something?

I'm concerned that nothing will get done while political zealots gum up the works just to fight dirty politics rather than enact meaningful legislation. Watch Michelle Bachmann in the coming year. She'll make a non-stop campaign if she's in the majority. Daryl Issa scares me most though.

That's exactly what will happen. Nothing. A great big fat zero. If "new" Republican lawmakers think they have the magic keys to solving the myriad problems right now that have taken decades to create, they'll soon find out what a mucky swamp they will need to navigate. Oh they'll make grand speeches on the respective floors, draft new bills attempting to wipe out everything the Democrats have done over the past four years, and be shocked when they butt heads with the process, which only begins with initial debate on a draft bill (if one even gets as far as the floor at all).

 

[MaggieMae]

Why are you concerned about subpoena power? Is there something that might lead ongress to investigate obama for something?

I'm concerned that nothing will get done while political zealots gum up the works just to fight dirty politics rather than enact meaningful legislation. Watch Michelle Bachmann in the coming year. She'll make a non-stop campaign if she's in the majority. Daryl Issa scares me most though.

I don't care HOW gummed up the works get in partisan bickering, just so long as the worst of the damaging legislation that is already passed is reversed. Then I want two priorities:

1. A business friendly environment with incentives for private businesses to get back to work unencumbered by any more government than is necessary.

2. A Congress focused like a laser beam to make itself as lean and mean and thrifty and non essential to American life except as necessary.

I really don't know how much more "friendly" an environment businesses expect. There are thousands of companies sitting on piles of cash that they could easily exploit rock-bottom interest rates to expand or launch new ventures. It's hard to believe that they are sitting idle just because they're waiting for the perfect climate (what? pay nothing in taxes?) in order to move forward. In the meantime, it is THEIR fault that unemployment continues to stagnate. Those business owners aren't practicing good capitalism; they're practicing an expansion of greed, which has been the theme for far too long.

When the unemployed finally do begin new jobs, who do you think will have their gratitude? The Republicans who tried to block every temporary program to help them survive a crisis, including private businesses who forced them to remain unemployed? Or Democrats who fought for them and made sure they had the umbrellas necessary to help them through the rough times?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Contributing to his falling approval numbers, President Obama is increasingly critized for focusing on issues not important to the American people and failing to hone in on what they do consider important. The President continues to stress that this or that is top priority, but even CBS News is now questioning how many 'top priorities' a President can have.

"Creating jobs in the United States and ensuring a return to sustainable economic growth is the top priority for my Administration," he said in an Executive Order last March on his National Export Initiative. . . . .

. . .In an Address to the Nation two months ago, Mr. Obama declared "our top priority is to recover and rebuild from a recession that has touched the lives of nearly every American.". . . .

And in addition to bail outs and stimulus packages and healthcare legislation , Wall Street Regulation and cap & trade all of which have been made 'top priorities', there has also been:

FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS: "...that's something that's going to be a top priority." (4/27/10)

ENERGY SECURITY: "And that's why my energy security plan has been one of the top priorities of my Administration since the day I took office." (4/28/10)

EDUCATION REFORM: "To train our workers for the jobs of tomorrow, we've made education reform a top priority in this Administration." (2/24/10)

STUDENT LOAN REFORM: "This is something that I've made a top priority." (2/1/10)

EXPORTS BY SMALL BUSINESSES: "This is going to be a top priority." (12/3/09)

HEALTH ASSISTANCE TO 9/11 FIRST RESPONDERS: "I'm not just talking the talk, we've been budgeting this as a top priority for this Administration." (2/3/10)

END HOMELESSNESS AMONG VETERANS: "I've also directed (Veterans Affairs) Secretary Shinseki to focus on a top priority: reducing homeless among veterans." (8/17/09)

HURRICANE PREPAREDNESS: "Our top priority is ensuring the public safety. That means appropriate sheltering in place or if necessary, getting as many people as possible out of harm's way prior to landfall." (5/29/09)

H1N1 FLU VACCINATIONS: "And throughout this process, my top priority has been the health and the safety of the American people." (5/1/09)

SUPPORT FOR MILITARY FAMILIES: "These military families are heroes too. And they are a top priority of Michelle and me. And they will always have our support." (5/30/09)

STRENGTHENING TIES WITH CANADA AND MEXICO: "We're going to make this a top priority..." (10/16/09)

CONSUMER PROTECTION: "During these challenging times, the needs of American consumers are a top priority of my Administration." (2/11/09)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: "So this is going to be a top priority generally improving our environmental quality." (11/5/09)

How Many "Top Priority" Issues Does Obama Have? - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

So how many priorities can be 'top priority'?

How many issues should be 'top priority' and what can wait?

They're ALL top priority, but with the economy not turning around fast enough, it did become THE top priority, as your list suggests, with the top 3 listed interwoven. Your point?

And everyone is a winner

Ok ok in all seriousness you really can have only 1 TOP priority, hence it being the TOP priority.

Yes the entire list is important stuff but if your going to have something be your TOP priority than it should be the most focused on and most important.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm concerned that nothing will get done while political zealots gum up the works just to fight dirty politics rather than enact meaningful legislation. Watch Michelle Bachmann in the coming year. She'll make a non-stop campaign if she's in the majority. Daryl Issa scares me most though.

I don't care HOW gummed up the works get in partisan bickering, just so long as the worst of the damaging legislation that is already passed is reversed. Then I want two priorities:

1. A business friendly environment with incentives for private businesses to get back to work unencumbered by any more government than is necessary.

2. A Congress focused like a laser beam to make itself as lean and mean and thrifty and non essential to American life except as necessary.

I really don't know how much more "friendly" an environment businesses expect. There are thousands of companies sitting on piles of cash that they could easily exploit rock-bottom interest rates to expand or launch new ventures. It's hard to believe that they are sitting idle just because they're waiting for the perfect climate (what? pay nothing in taxes?) in order to move forward. In the meantime, it is THEIR fault that unemployment continues to stagnate. Those business owners aren't practicing good capitalism; they're practicing an expansion of greed, which has been the theme for far too long.

When the unemployed finally do begin new jobs, who do you think will have their gratitude? The Republicans who tried to block every temporary program to help them survive a crisis, including private businesses who forced them to remain unemployed? Or Democrats who fought for them and made sure they had the umbrellas necessary to help them through the rough times?

Here is my response again since you apparently missed it the first time:

Jobs, however, require fiscal responsibility including reining and reversing spending, putting unspent money back in the bank , rescinding special costly favors to certain constituencies. And jobs require getting the tax structure back to a business friendly status private industry can count on. And jobs require backing off unnecessary regulation that makes it more and more difficult for small business to take risks.

And NONE of that has been stated as a priority of this administration.

So what do we do about that?

 

[MaggieMae]

I dont think it will change washington very much. Just a slower roll down the hill.

We need new blood that dont subscribe to the republican/democrat doctrines.

Find the candidate who can run and win with that philosophy and you'll find yourself the the 1st congressional district of Oz!

So you agree that the majority of americans are too dim-witted to realize the 2 party system is a sham to keep us divided while they garner more and more power for the government at the expense of our individual liberty?

I don't think any of them have that intent, Republicans or Democrats. I think it's time we stopped envisioning "the government" as a few folks that can be put into a room and smacked around until they're put in their place. Over time, "government" has simply become a bureaucratic behemoth so that it's literally impossible to easily and swiftly accomplish simple things, like ten-page bills designating major policy instead of 1000-page bills. So many agencies depend on the characterization, responsibilities, and input of others that, frankly, it's amazing when something of any import actually does get done in a relatively short timeframe.

Someone needs to come along and propose a complete downsizing of the entire bureaucracy, eliminate the overlaps, the committees for each and every department and agency, the staff that are the paper pushers for all of the above. Until that happens, I can't see any real reduction in the budget, therefore no real deficit reduction either. Any time it's tried, before the ink is dry one agency will be screaming "...well you can't cut there because that will affect what I do over here, and mine is mandated, blah blah blah, etc., etc., etc."

Obama thought he could change all that (the way Washington does business). Ha ha, lotsa luck with that, I thought. Same thing with tea partiers. Good luck trying.

 

[MaggieMae]

Jobs and the economy should be the top priority, because without economic growth, in light of our debts and increasing expenditures, this will lead to further economic deterioration. The problem seems to be a lack of understanding on the part of this administration and congress on just how job and economic growth happens.

Amen! This alone would solve half of the other problems. Get people working and many of our other issues will take care of themselves. When people are working the are paying their bills, their mortgage, buying stuff. Borrowing, lending, it all leads to a healthy economy. Make goods and services that are exportable. The dollar is week, what better opportunity than to increase our exports.

When businesses refuse to hire and people aren't working, they're not spending on the products and services those businesses sell. It's a classic Catch-22 situation (you heard that here first, folks, although I notice a few pundits are now also using the analogy).

 

[MaggieMae]

No, not at all. Indicting the American electorate as 'dim-witted' isn't the conclusion you should jump to.

The two major political parties are, for lack of a better term, professionals. They organize and campaign with well oiled machines. Americans aren't dim-witted. They're hog tied by professional politicos.

Thanks for clarifying and good post

Professional Politicos and the MSM

When there were politcial debates broadcast during 2008, how many 3rd party candidates were involved........?.......

Were there any? How many have historically been involved? Nader and Perrot are the only ones I can think of. Political debates cost money to produce, for starters. And even when the party candidates number a dozen or more and they all get to debate, it's a joke because not enough time is devoted to each in order to have any kind of meaningful result.