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

[bripat9643]

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.

lol it's so convenient that you just ignore all the drugs and chemicals the FDA successfully banned because of their harm. Obviously that matters.

Really? Name one besides besides Thalidomide.

BTW, the FDA does not "ban" drugs. It doesn't approve them for sale.

They do retroactively ban drugs as well retard. Here's a list of drugs banned by the FDA and ones banned world wide. Plenty of examples the FDA has banned.

It's amazing how you demand proof yet you provide no proof of your own.

where is the list?

If they "retroactively ban drugs," that means they made a mistake approving them in the first place. You said the point of having the FDA was to prevent dangerous drugs from getting on the market. You just admitted that it doesn't work.

 

[shintao]

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.

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.

Indeed, it is time we turned to the Mexico style of small government, and reign in the big spending. Downsize the military by 90% and bring all the troops home. Let the UN do their job. Cut Corporations off from Congress, make lobbying illegal. End the stock market and make corporations share more earnings with workers, so they can go out and stimulate the economy. End foreign aid and tell Israel to get a job.

Downsize all departments except human services by 90%, cut taxes across the board by 50%. Make it a mean and lean economy. Cut workers wages & benefits by 50% so employers can hire one more worker to double his production and profits, while emptying the welfare and unemployment lines by putting these people to work, which cuts taxes for all workers.

Raise imports by 50% to force foreign country's to have company's here if they want to sell to us. Take all the Nationally owned resources and have the government sell them, thus eliminating the middle men ripping off the US citizens and lower prices on products made here.

 

[Billy000]

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.

lol it's so convenient that you just ignore all the drugs and chemicals the FDA successfully banned because of their harm. Obviously that matters.

Really? Name one besides besides Thalidomide.

BTW, the FDA does not "ban" drugs. It doesn't approve them for sale.

They do retroactively ban drugs as well retard. Here's a list of drugs banned by the FDA and ones banned world wide. Plenty of examples the FDA has banned.

It's amazing how you demand proof yet you provide no proof of your own.

where is the list?

If the "retroactively ban drugs," that means the made a mistake approving them in the first place. You said the point of having the FDA was to prevent dangerous drugs from getting on the market. You just admitted that it doesn't work.

http://medimoon.com/2012/10/list-of-banned-drugs-by-fda/

There's your list. When are you going to provide proof of...anything? And yeah, the FDA both restricts drugs from even being sold AND retroactively ban drugs they shouldn't have approved. Obviously no one is perfect but clearly we need oversight on these medications. That doesn't mean we get rid of the FDA and let MORE bad products in. We just FIX the shortcomings. This isn't hard to figure out.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

lol it's so convenient that you just ignore all the drugs and chemicals the FDA successfully banned because of their harm. Obviously that matters.

Really? Name one besides besides Thalidomide.

BTW, the FDA does not "ban" drugs. It doesn't approve them for sale.

They do retroactively ban drugs as well retard. Here's a list of drugs banned by the FDA and ones banned world wide. Plenty of examples the FDA has banned.

It's amazing how you demand proof yet you provide no proof of your own.

where is the list?

If the "retroactively ban drugs," that means the made a mistake approving them in the first place. You said the point of having the FDA was to prevent dangerous drugs from getting on the market. You just admitted that it doesn't work.

http://medimoon.com/2012/10/list-of-banned-drugs-by-fda/

There's your list. When are you going to provide proof of...anything? And yeah, the FDA both restricts drugs from even being sold AND retroactively ban drugs they shouldn't have approved. Obviously no one is perfect but clearly we need oversight on these medications. That doesn't mean we get rid of the FDA and let MORE bad products in. We just FIX the shortcomings. This isn't hard to figure out.

Almost all these drugs were all approved by the FDA before they were "withdrawn," so you just made my case for me. The FDA doesn't prevent dangerous drugs from getting on the market.

Private agencies like UL and the threat of lawsuits is all the "oversight" needed. The FDA drives up the cost of drugs by several orders of magnitude, and it doesn't even accomplish the task you set for it.

 

[shintao]

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.

Oh, come on now. Everyone knows that new drugs don't need to be developed or tested or refined. There's no scientific process involved at all.

Drugs actually grow on trees, and if it wasn't for the Mean Ol' Gubmint, anyone could just drive to the local orchard and pick as many drugs for as many illnesses as they needed.

Only a leftwing idiot like you believes corporations think killing their customers is a good way to make money. Do you really think a multi billion dollar corporation will put a product on the market unless they are dead certain it won't harm people?

Remember when the tobacco industry was able to run rampant selling and telling Americans that cigarette smoke was actually GOOD for them?

Regulations stopped that BS.

Corporations don't give a flying fig about American citizens, they only care about getting their money.

The government has a responsibility to maintain the welfare of the American citizens.

Think...

I don't recall the founders ever using the phrase Cradle-to-Grave.

The government is supposed to promote general welfare, not fund it.

Indeed, cut the welfare military by 90% and stop cradle to graving these people. Bring these dependents home and show them how to get a real job. Make the stock market illegal and tell those people to get a job and earn money like the rest of us. Dump Foreign aid, tell them to pull themselves up by the boot straps and put their own country together.

 

[eagle7_31]

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.

lol it's so convenient that you just ignore all the drugs and chemicals the FDA successfully banned because of their harm. Obviously that matters.

Really? Name one besides besides Thalidomide.

BTW, the FDA does not "ban" drugs. It doesn't approve them for sale.

They do retroactively ban drugs as well retard. Here's a list of drugs banned by the FDA and ones banned world wide. Plenty of examples the FDA has banned.

It's amazing how you demand proof yet you provide no proof of your own.

where is the list?

If the "retroactively ban drugs," that means the made a mistake approving them in the first place. You said the point of having the FDA was to prevent dangerous drugs from getting on the market. You just admitted that it doesn't work.

http://medimoon.com/2012/10/list-of-banned-drugs-by-fda/

There's your list. When are you going to provide proof of...anything? And yeah, the FDA both restricts drugs from even being sold AND retroactively ban drugs they shouldn't have approved. Obviously no one is perfect but clearly we need oversight on these medications. That doesn't mean we get rid of the FDA and let MORE bad products in. We just FIX the shortcomings. This isn't hard to figure out.

When it comes to government regulation, I am of the FFH school, so to speak. FFH meaning force, fraud and health. I also recall what John D. Rockefeller said 'competition is a sin'.

 

[Billy000]

lol it's so convenient that you just ignore all the drugs and chemicals the FDA successfully banned because of their harm. Obviously that matters.

Really? Name one besides besides Thalidomide.

BTW, the FDA does not "ban" drugs. It doesn't approve them for sale.

They do retroactively ban drugs as well retard. Here's a list of drugs banned by the FDA and ones banned world wide. Plenty of examples the FDA has banned.

It's amazing how you demand proof yet you provide no proof of your own.

where is the list?

If the "retroactively ban drugs," that means the made a mistake approving them in the first place. You said the point of having the FDA was to prevent dangerous drugs from getting on the market. You just admitted that it doesn't work.

List Of Banned Drugs By FDA

There's your list. When are you going to provide proof of...anything? And yeah, the FDA both restricts drugs from even being sold AND retroactively ban drugs they shouldn't have approved. Obviously no one is perfect but clearly we need oversight on these medications. That doesn't mean we get rid of the FDA and let MORE bad products in. We just FIX the shortcomings. This isn't hard to figure out.

Almost all these drugs were all approved by the FDA before they were "withdrawn," so you just made my case for me. The FDA doesn't prevent dangerous drugs from getting on the market.

Private agencies like UL and the threat of lawsuits is all the "oversight" needed. The FDA drives up the cost of drugs by several orders of magnitude, and it doesn't even accomplish the task you set for it.

You idiot lol. You just said a few posts ago that the FDA does not approve drugs for sale. Obviously that's always been the case.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

It has little to do with 'thinking,' and more to do with blindly adhering to failed, wrongheaded conservative dogma.

 

[bripat9643]

Really? Name one besides besides Thalidomide.

BTW, the FDA does not "ban" drugs. It doesn't approve them for sale.

They do retroactively ban drugs as well retard. Here's a list of drugs banned by the FDA and ones banned world wide. Plenty of examples the FDA has banned.

It's amazing how you demand proof yet you provide no proof of your own.

where is the list?

If the "retroactively ban drugs," that means the made a mistake approving them in the first place. You said the point of having the FDA was to prevent dangerous drugs from getting on the market. You just admitted that it doesn't work.

List Of Banned Drugs By FDA

There's your list. When are you going to provide proof of...anything? And yeah, the FDA both restricts drugs from even being sold AND retroactively ban drugs they shouldn't have approved. Obviously no one is perfect but clearly we need oversight on these medications. That doesn't mean we get rid of the FDA and let MORE bad products in. We just FIX the shortcomings. This isn't hard to figure out.

Almost all these drugs were all approved by the FDA before they were "withdrawn," so you just made my case for me. The FDA doesn't prevent dangerous drugs from getting on the market.

Private agencies like UL and the threat of lawsuits is all the "oversight" needed. The FDA drives up the cost of drugs by several orders of magnitude, and it doesn't even accomplish the task you set for it.

You idiot lol. You just said a few posts ago that the FDA does not approve drugs for sale. Obviously that's always been the case.

Wrong. I said it doesn't ban them. Of course, any drug sold has to be FDA approved.

 

[bripat9643]

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

It has little to do with 'thinking,' and more to do with blindly adhering to failed, wrongheaded conservative dogma.

 

[eagle7_31]

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

It has little to do with 'thinking,' and more to do with blindly adhering to failed, wrongheaded conservative dogma.

Like wrong headed liberal dogma.

 

[Weatherman2020]

How would reducing government fix our crumbling infrastructure system that ranks one of the worst in the developed world?

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 system 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?

What we need is a larger police state. You know, like the Soviet Union had. Soviet people never had nuclear radiation poisoning, high suicide rate, lack of basic medical services, poverty living conditions for even hard educated workers, pollution so bad all life died in some areas.

Oh wait, they did.
Never mind.

 

[Billy000]

They do retroactively ban drugs as well retard. Here's a list of drugs banned by the FDA and ones banned world wide. Plenty of examples the FDA has banned.

It's amazing how you demand proof yet you provide no proof of your own.

where is the list?

If the "retroactively ban drugs," that means the made a mistake approving them in the first place. You said the point of having the FDA was to prevent dangerous drugs from getting on the market. You just admitted that it doesn't work.

List Of Banned Drugs By FDA

There's your list. When are you going to provide proof of...anything? And yeah, the FDA both restricts drugs from even being sold AND retroactively ban drugs they shouldn't have approved. Obviously no one is perfect but clearly we need oversight on these medications. That doesn't mean we get rid of the FDA and let MORE bad products in. We just FIX the shortcomings. This isn't hard to figure out.

Almost all these drugs were all approved by the FDA before they were "withdrawn," so you just made my case for me. The FDA doesn't prevent dangerous drugs from getting on the market.

Private agencies like UL and the threat of lawsuits is all the "oversight" needed. The FDA drives up the cost of drugs by several orders of magnitude, and it doesn't even accomplish the task you set for it.

You idiot lol. You just said a few posts ago that the FDA does not approve drugs for sale. Obviously that's always been the case.

Wrong. I said it doesn't ban them. Of course, any drug sold has to be FDA approved.

Lol you are such an idiot. You're arguing with yourself.

 

[bripat9643]

How would reducing government fix our crumbling infrastructure system that ranks one of the worst in the developed world?

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 system 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?

What we need is a larger police state. You know, like the Soviet Union had. Soviet people never had nuclear radiation poisoning, high suicide rate, lack of basic medical services, poverty living conditions for even hard educated workers, pollution so bad all life died in some areas.

Oh wait, they did.
Never mind.

If the liberal theory about regulation is correct, then the Soviet Union should have been a paradise.

 

[bripat9643]

where is the list?

If the "retroactively ban drugs," that means the made a mistake approving them in the first place. You said the point of having the FDA was to prevent dangerous drugs from getting on the market. You just admitted that it doesn't work.

List Of Banned Drugs By FDA

There's your list. When are you going to provide proof of...anything? And yeah, the FDA both restricts drugs from even being sold AND retroactively ban drugs they shouldn't have approved. Obviously no one is perfect but clearly we need oversight on these medications. That doesn't mean we get rid of the FDA and let MORE bad products in. We just FIX the shortcomings. This isn't hard to figure out.

Almost all these drugs were all approved by the FDA before they were "withdrawn," so you just made my case for me. The FDA doesn't prevent dangerous drugs from getting on the market.

Private agencies like UL and the threat of lawsuits is all the "oversight" needed. The FDA drives up the cost of drugs by several orders of magnitude, and it doesn't even accomplish the task you set for it.

You idiot lol. You just said a few posts ago that the FDA does not approve drugs for sale. Obviously that's always been the case.

Wrong. I said it doesn't ban them. Of course, any drug sold has to be FDA approved.

Lol you are such an idiot. You're arguing with yourself.

Now take your ball and run home to mama, little boy.

 

[Weatherman2020]

 

[Arianrhod]

Because something is seriously wrong when you have more people working for the government that you have working for private companies. Then to add insult to injury they are making more money than the people in private industries,

That does sound dystopic. I'm sure you have the data to support it.

 

[WheelieAddict]

You know, a constructive debate could be had about limiting some govt agencies from what they are or removing some bad regulations. But no, far right retards like Bi Pat and Toasterpatriot will have nothing of it.

Eliminate some regulations that don't work, or replace them with ones that do? No! All bad! No rules! Eliminate them all period!

Or reform a needed govt agency, even lessening their power? No! They were never needed! No rules! All govt bad!

These childish morons are like adults that are pissed they had to follow a rule on the playground when they were kids and carried their resentment into their adulthood.

 

[bripat9643]

You know, a constructive debate could be had about limiting some govt agencies from what they are or removing some bad regulations. But no, far right retards like Bi Pat and Toasterpatriot will have nothing of it.

Eliminate some regulations that don't work, or replace them with ones that do? No! All bad! No rules! Eliminate them all period!

Or reform a needed govt agency, even lessening their power? No! They were never needed! No rules! All govt bad!

These childish morons are like adults that are pissed they had to follow a rule on the playground when they were kids and carried their resentment into their adulthood.

When have leftwing douche nozzles ever considered limiting government agencies? They're constantly screaming that Republicans are destroying America by deregulating when regulations increase every year.

I've said many times that the phrase "limited government" is an oxymoron.

 

[WheelieAddict]

How would reducing government fix our crumbling infrastructure system that ranks one of the worst in the developed world?

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 system 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?

What we need is a larger police state. You know, like the Soviet Union had. Soviet people never had nuclear radiation poisoning, high suicide rate, lack of basic medical services, poverty living conditions for even hard educated workers, pollution so bad all life died in some areas.

Oh wait, they did.
Never mind.

If the liberal theory about regulation is correct, then the Soviet Union should have been a paradise.

If the conservative theory about no regulations is correct, then Somalia should be a paradise.

See how stupid your little black and white world is moron? How about a happy medium in between anarchy and totalitarianism?

But no! My moronic worldview is right because I believe in it!

Fucking adult children.