Why do conservatives think reducing government would fix our nation's problems?

[NYcarbineer]

How would reducing government fix our crumbling infrastructure system that ranks one of the worst in the developed world? Beyond the economic toll this has on our country, scientists warn that natural disasters could severely cripple our unstable power grid.

How would reducing government lower medical costs such as prescription drug costs?

How would reducing government raise wages in the lower classes and keep all income gains from going to the top earners?

How would reducing government fix our public school which for decades is one of the worst in the developed world?

How would reducing government keep environmental crises like Flint crisis from happening elsewhere?

How would reducing government stop Wall Street corruption?

It's simple: government has caused all our nation's problems that are humanly solvable. Solution: get rid of the problem.

Solve the pollution problem without the use of government.

Go!

 

[rdean]

How would reducing government fix our crumbling infrastructure system that ranks one of the worst in the developed world? Beyond the economic toll this has on our country, scientists warn that natural disasters could severely cripple our unstable power grid.

How would reducing government lower medical costs such as prescription drug costs?

How would reducing government raise wages in the lower classes and keep all income gains from going to the top earners?

How would reducing government fix our public school which for decades is one of the worst in the developed world?

How would reducing government keep environmental crises like Flint crisis from happening elsewhere?

How would reducing government stop Wall Street corruption?

It's simple: government has caused all our nation's problems that are humanly solvable. Solution: get rid of the problem.

Solved by creating government.

 

[rdean]

How would reducing government fix our crumbling infrastructure system that ranks one of the worst in the developed world? Beyond the economic toll this has on our country, scientists warn that natural disasters could severely cripple our unstable power grid.

How would reducing government lower medical costs such as prescription drug costs?

How would reducing government raise wages in the lower classes and keep all income gains from going to the top earners?

How would reducing government fix our public school which for decades is one of the worst in the developed world?

How would reducing government keep environmental crises like Flint crisis from happening elsewhere?

How would reducing government stop Wall Street corruption?

It's simple: government has caused all our nation's problems that are humanly solvable. Solution: get rid of the problem.

Solve the pollution problem without the use of government.

Go!

Republicans don't see a pollution problem. Filth agrees with their sensibilities.

 

[Brain357]

How would reducing government fix our crumbling infrastructure system that ranks one of the worst in the developed world? Beyond the economic toll this has on our country, scientists warn that natural disasters could severely cripple our unstable power grid.

How would reducing government lower medical costs such as prescription drug costs?

How would reducing government raise wages in the lower classes and keep all income gains from going to the top earners?

How would reducing government fix our public school which for decades is one of the worst in the developed world?

How would reducing government keep environmental crises like Flint crisis from happening elsewhere?

How would reducing government stop Wall Street corruption?

It's simple: government has caused all our nation's problems that are humanly solvable. Solution: get rid of the problem.

Solve the pollution problem without the use of government.

Go!

China has few pollution laws and you can't even see the sun there. Yeah that's what we want.

 

[rightwinger]

Because the debt is an even bigger problem than most of those. The debt can cause the government and economy to collapse. Remember when our credit rating was reduced? That was just a warning that the US government is not too big to fail, and that if we don't get serious about this debt, very bad things are coming.

Our credit was reduced because Congress was acting like a bunch of dicks threatening to default on our debts

 

[Brain357]

Interesting read:
The Story of the Laws Behind the Labels

 

[bripat9643]

How would reducing government fix our crumbling infrastructure system that ranks one of the worst in the developed world? Beyond the economic toll this has on our country, scientists warn that natural disasters could severely cripple our unstable power grid.

How would reducing government lower medical costs such as prescription drug costs?

How would reducing government raise wages in the lower classes and keep all income gains from going to the top earners?

How would reducing government fix our public school which for decades is one of the worst in the developed world?

How would reducing government keep environmental crises like Flint crisis from happening elsewhere?

How would reducing government stop Wall Street corruption?

It's simple: government has caused all our nation's problems that are humanly solvable. Solution: get rid of the problem.

Solve the pollution problem without the use of government.

Go!

All pollution occurs on government property or unknowned property. Simply sell off all government owned property and the problem is solved. Sell off the water rights to all rivers, lakes and streams. The owners will then sue anyone who puts pollution in the water.

 

[bripat9643]

How would reducing government fix our crumbling infrastructure system that ranks one of the worst in the developed world? Beyond the economic toll this has on our country, scientists warn that natural disasters could severely cripple our unstable power grid.

How would reducing government lower medical costs such as prescription drug costs?

How would reducing government raise wages in the lower classes and keep all income gains from going to the top earners?

How would reducing government fix our public school which for decades is one of the worst in the developed world?

How would reducing government keep environmental crises like Flint crisis from happening elsewhere?

How would reducing government stop Wall Street corruption?

It's simple: government has caused all our nation's problems that are humanly solvable. Solution: get rid of the problem.

Solve the pollution problem without the use of government.

Go!

China has few pollution laws and you can't even see the sun there. Yeah that's what we want.

Yeah, China is a great example of the free market.

Are you serious?

 

[bripat9643]

How would reducing government fix our crumbling infrastructure system that ranks one of the worst in the developed world? Beyond the economic toll this has on our country, scientists warn that natural disasters could severely cripple our unstable power grid.

How would reducing government lower medical costs such as prescription drug costs?

How would reducing government raise wages in the lower classes and keep all income gains from going to the top earners?

How would reducing government fix our public school which for decades is one of the worst in the developed world?

How would reducing government keep environmental crises like Flint crisis from happening elsewhere?

How would reducing government stop Wall Street corruption?

It's simple: government has caused all our nation's problems that are humanly solvable. Solution: get rid of the problem.

Solved by creating government.

? I said government created the problems.

You can read, can't you?

 

[bripat9643]

How would reducing government fix our crumbling infrastructure system that ranks one of the worst in the developed world? Beyond the economic toll this has on our country, scientists warn that natural disasters could severely cripple our unstable power grid.

How would reducing government lower medical costs such as prescription drug costs?

How would reducing government raise wages in the lower classes and keep all income gains from going to the top earners?

How would reducing government fix our public school which for decades is one of the worst in the developed world?

How would reducing government keep environmental crises like Flint crisis from happening elsewhere?

How would reducing government stop Wall Street corruption?

It's simple: government has caused all our nation's problems that are humanly solvable. Solution: get rid of the problem.

Solve the pollution problem without the use of government.

Go!

Republicans don't see a pollution problem. Filth agrees with their sensibilities.

Pollution is a problem the government created.

 

[Brain357]

How would reducing government fix our crumbling infrastructure system that ranks one of the worst in the developed world? Beyond the economic toll this has on our country, scientists warn that natural disasters could severely cripple our unstable power grid.

How would reducing government lower medical costs such as prescription drug costs?

How would reducing government raise wages in the lower classes and keep all income gains from going to the top earners?

How would reducing government fix our public school which for decades is one of the worst in the developed world?

How would reducing government keep environmental crises like Flint crisis from happening elsewhere?

How would reducing government stop Wall Street corruption?

It's simple: government has caused all our nation's problems that are humanly solvable. Solution: get rid of the problem.

Solve the pollution problem without the use of government.

Go!

China has few pollution laws and you can't even see the sun there. Yeah that's what we want.

Yeah, China is a great example of the free market.

Are you serious?

They are a good example of few regulations.

 

[Billy000]

Wrong.

No, it's actually 100% correct. If you look at any of the problems this country has, at bottom the government is the cause. Just take the price of new drugs, for instance. It costs about $5 billion to bring a new drug to market. The FDA is almost entirely the cause of this incomprehensible expense. Get rid of the FDA and the price of developing new drugs would drop to something like $1 million.

Oh that's a fantastic idea. Let's get rid of any oversight on the drugs being produced. Let's let any drug companies put in any ingredients they like and we'll just ignore any harmful side effects.

It's amazing you don't think these things through.

If drug companies sell dangerous drugs, they get sued for billions of dollars. The FDA is counter productive since it lets them get away with selling drugs that harm people.

Oh right because never mind those cases would take years to build AND without any government oversight, the powerful corporate lawyers could easily argue they didn't break any laws. People could die and become ill well in the meantime

Whether they broke any laws isn't the issue. If they lose their case they are going to lose billions of dollars. The minute a lawsuit is filed they are going to know they may be in big trouble. If they suspect one of their drugs is going to produce thousands of multi-million dollar lawsuits, they will undoubtedly stop sales and do additional testing to make sure the drug is indeed safe.

They wouldn't lose the case without the laws in place jackass.

 

[bripat9643]

How would reducing government fix our crumbling infrastructure system that ranks one of the worst in the developed world? Beyond the economic toll this has on our country, scientists warn that natural disasters could severely cripple our unstable power grid.

How would reducing government lower medical costs such as prescription drug costs?

How would reducing government raise wages in the lower classes and keep all income gains from going to the top earners?

How would reducing government fix our public school which for decades is one of the worst in the developed world?

How would reducing government keep environmental crises like Flint crisis from happening elsewhere?

How would reducing government stop Wall Street corruption?

It's simple: government has caused all our nation's problems that are humanly solvable. Solution: get rid of the problem.

Solve the pollution problem without the use of government.

Go!

China has few pollution laws and you can't even see the sun there. Yeah that's what we want.

Yeah, China is a great example of the free market.

Are you serious?

They are a good example of few regulations.

ROFL! You do realize that the government builds all the coal fired power plants in China, don't you? And government prevents people from suing if their water has toxic chemicals in it. Almost all the pollution is caused by the government. The same thing went on in the Soviet Union. It had pollution problems far worse than the United States ever dreamed of.

 

[bripat9643]

No, it's actually 100% correct. If you look at any of the problems this country has, at bottom the government is the cause. Just take the price of new drugs, for instance. It costs about $5 billion to bring a new drug to market. The FDA is almost entirely the cause of this incomprehensible expense. Get rid of the FDA and the price of developing new drugs would drop to something like $1 million.

Oh that's a fantastic idea. Let's get rid of any oversight on the drugs being produced. Let's let any drug companies put in any ingredients they like and we'll just ignore any harmful side effects.

It's amazing you don't think these things through.

If drug companies sell dangerous drugs, they get sued for billions of dollars. The FDA is counter productive since it lets them get away with selling drugs that harm people.

Oh right because never mind those cases would take years to build AND without any government oversight, the powerful corporate lawyers could easily argue they didn't break any laws. People could die and become ill well in the meantime

Whether they broke any laws isn't the issue. If they lose their case they are going to lose billions of dollars. The minute a lawsuit is filed they are going to know they may be in big trouble. If they suspect one of their drugs is going to produce thousands of multi-million dollar lawsuits, they will undoubtedly stop sales and do additional testing to make sure the drug is indeed safe.

They wouldn't lose the case without the laws in place jackass.

The only law needed is the one that says you can sue for damages if someone causes you harm.

 

[Billy000]

Oh that's a fantastic idea. Let's get rid of any oversight on the drugs being produced. Let's let any drug companies put in any ingredients they like and we'll just ignore any harmful side effects.

It's amazing you don't think these things through.

If drug companies sell dangerous drugs, they get sued for billions of dollars. The FDA is counter productive since it lets them get away with selling drugs that harm people.

How many have to die before a good lawsuit can even be put together ? Do you realize how difficult that is?

How many people died from taking phentermine after the FDA approved it? How many people died because of FDA imposed delays in approving life saving drugs?

Many more would die with no FDA oversight at all. How can the FDA possibly predict the perfect outcome of these drugs when we have 10s of thousands of chemicals produced in the market that have not been scientifically tested? That lack of oversight has caused the FDA's shortcomings.

ROFL! I suppose you have some kind of evidence that more people would die? Obviously not. Tens of thousands of people have died because the FDA delayed the approval of life saving drugs for people that were terminally ill.

Apparently you are whining that the FDA is ineffective. So why do you insist it's necessary in the same paragraph?

The logic for the existence of the FDA is totally non-existent. Drug companies have to spend billions of dollars testing drugs to meet FDA regulations. Most of this testing is totally redundant and useless.If a drug has been in use in Europe for a decade, the company that owns it still has to put it through the usual FDA testing regime if it wants to market the drug in the United States. That is pure stupidity.

The FDA is the reason the price of drugs is so high. So what's the liberal solution? Impose price controls on drugs and remove any incentive for a company to develop new drugs. By by medical progress.

Government is the cause of all of our countries problems, and therefor liberals are the cause because they're the ones who always propose the government solution.

You idiot. It has shortcomings. You fix the shortcomings. You don't get rid of the agency. It still succeeds in getting other dangerous drugs off the market. You really suck at thinking critically.

Redundant and useless? Obviously you are just making shit up.

 

[Brain357]

It's simple: government has caused all our nation's problems that are humanly solvable. Solution: get rid of the problem.

Solve the pollution problem without the use of government.

Go!

China has few pollution laws and you can't even see the sun there. Yeah that's what we want.

Yeah, China is a great example of the free market.

Are you serious?

They are a good example of few regulations.

ROFL! You do realize that the government builds all the coal fired power plants in China, don't you? And government prevents people from suing if their water has toxic chemicals in it. Almost all the pollution is caused by the government. The same thing went on in the Soviet Union. It had pollution problems far worse than the United States ever dreamed of.

The companies do most the polluting. When the Olympics were there the factories were shut down to clear up the air. If it is legal to pollute how can you sue?

 

[Billy000]

Oh that's a fantastic idea. Let's get rid of any oversight on the drugs being produced. Let's let any drug companies put in any ingredients they like and we'll just ignore any harmful side effects.

It's amazing you don't think these things through.

If drug companies sell dangerous drugs, they get sued for billions of dollars. The FDA is counter productive since it lets them get away with selling drugs that harm people.

Oh right because never mind those cases would take years to build AND without any government oversight, the powerful corporate lawyers could easily argue they didn't break any laws. People could die and become ill well in the meantime

Whether they broke any laws isn't the issue. If they lose their case they are going to lose billions of dollars. The minute a lawsuit is filed they are going to know they may be in big trouble. If they suspect one of their drugs is going to produce thousands of multi-million dollar lawsuits, they will undoubtedly stop sales and do additional testing to make sure the drug is indeed safe.

They wouldn't lose the case without the laws in place jackass.

The only law needed is the one that says you can sue for damages if someone causes you harm.

And how could the client prove which drug was harmful if there aren't specific laws that would tie the company to them?

 

[Billy000]

No if we got rid of all the tax loopholes and stopped rich people from taking advantage of cash havens, we would have a lot more revenue to spend.

Which loopholes do we need to get rid of? Be specific.

All of the ones that allow some corporations to pay a zero percent effective federal tax rate. That in combination with havens, cost 100 billion per year in revenue.

All of the ones that allow some corporations to pay a zero percent effective federal tax rate.

Yeah, that sounds awful. So be specific. Which ones?

Why would it matter to you that I single them out? I wont do that because the facts already state tax loopholes as a collective inhibit revenue. i know you think you are tripping me up by refusal to single them out, but we both know it doesn't matter since I can easily provide proof of their collective effect.

Why would it matter to you that I single them out?

How can we eliminate a loophole if you don't single it out?
Unless you're just ignorant and don't know what a loophole is?

Would you like the evidence these collective loopholes affect the economy? It's just a google click away.

 

[bripat9643]

If drug companies sell dangerous drugs, they get sued for billions of dollars. The FDA is counter productive since it lets them get away with selling drugs that harm people.

How many have to die before a good lawsuit can even be put together ? Do you realize how difficult that is?

How many people died from taking phentermine after the FDA approved it? How many people died because of FDA imposed delays in approving life saving drugs?

Many more would die with no FDA oversight at all. How can the FDA possibly predict the perfect outcome of these drugs when we have 10s of thousands of chemicals produced in the market that have not been scientifically tested? That lack of oversight has caused the FDA's shortcomings.

ROFL! I suppose you have some kind of evidence that more people would die? Obviously not. Tens of thousands of people have died because the FDA delayed the approval of life saving drugs for people that were terminally ill.

Apparently you are whining that the FDA is ineffective. So why do you insist it's necessary in the same paragraph?

The logic for the existence of the FDA is totally non-existent. Drug companies have to spend billions of dollars testing drugs to meet FDA regulations. Most of this testing is totally redundant and useless.If a drug has been in use in Europe for a decade, the company that owns it still has to put it through the usual FDA testing regime if it wants to market the drug in the United States. That is pure stupidity.

The FDA is the reason the price of drugs is so high. So what's the liberal solution? Impose price controls on drugs and remove any incentive for a company to develop new drugs. By by medical progress.

Government is the cause of all of our countries problems, and therefor liberals are the cause because they're the ones who always propose the government solution.

You idiot. It has shortcomings. You fix the shortcomings. You don't get rid of the agency. It still succeeds in getting other dangerous drugs off the market. You really suck at thinking critically.

Redundant and useless? Obviously you are just making shit up.

The "shortcoming" is that it's the government. It has all the problems inherent with government. There's no evidence that the FDA is any better at keeping dangerous drugs off the market than the tort system. It's also well known that the FDA keeps life saving drugs off the market and thereby kills thousands of people.

The only way you win this argument is by insisting that I accept your premises. Too bad I don't.

 

[Brain357]

If drug companies sell dangerous drugs, they get sued for billions of dollars. The FDA is counter productive since it lets them get away with selling drugs that harm people.

Oh right because never mind those cases would take years to build AND without any government oversight, the powerful corporate lawyers could easily argue they didn't break any laws. People could die and become ill well in the meantime

Whether they broke any laws isn't the issue. If they lose their case they are going to lose billions of dollars. The minute a lawsuit is filed they are going to know they may be in big trouble. If they suspect one of their drugs is going to produce thousands of multi-million dollar lawsuits, they will undoubtedly stop sales and do additional testing to make sure the drug is indeed safe.

They wouldn't lose the case without the laws in place jackass.

The only law needed is the one that says you can sue for damages if someone causes you harm.

And how could the client prove which drug was harmful if there aren't specific laws that would tie the company to them?

Imagine how many cures would be sold that don't even work.