Will 2008 Be the Last Free Election?

Some ugly stuff from the 2nd article hotlink?

“We really know who Obama’s community leaders are,” issue by issue, said Thomas Gensemer, the managing director of Blue State Digital, the Washington-based mobilizer of online communities created by four Dean campaign veterans.

Instead of e-mailing members of Congress, Gensemer continued, Obama’s most effective supporters will meet with them in their district offices and press them at local town hall meetings.

Trippi offered a more dramatic scenario: “Obama will be able to say these are the 10 members of Congress standing in our way on health care. Basically, it’ll be the president and the people united, with some members of Congress in between, which won’t be a very comfortable place to be.”

Uh… isn’t this “meeting in district offices and pressing them at local town hall meetings” called lobbying and special interest? Something Obama is supposed to be against?

Worse yet, it’s lobbying with an especially ugly twist… intimidation.

“Copious new regulations, especially environmental, to be used selectively to ensnare other conservative malcontents.”
The environmental stuff is a double edged sword, carbon taxes will make waging war unaffordable. B ut even if he cuts the Military by 25 percent, how long before an Omar Bradley we don’t know about yet surrounds the white house and congress with a bunch of carbon belching M1s and ends our democratic experiment in totally different and nonenvironmental fashion

This “comment” sounds like you are the author, Larry. Either that, or you and comment Bob | 11.6.08 @ 7:53AM are twins on your theory that a “cold, calculating” Obama will ultimately do the right thing. The only thing that makes me think it’s not you is this Bob guys says he’s been a party member of 40 years, and you’ve already ‘fessed up about your presidential voting record….

And with your picks for president not getting into office, your business has flourished and grown. Now that you have your pick of the litter, we shall see if that remains the case, yes? So it’s not just us in a wait and see mode. You have banked on Obama, putting up the ante of your business prosperity.

Time will only tell, and frankly we will all be overjoyed if Obama manages to grow the economy, provide a structure friendly for American business, and maintain the superiority of our military. But personally, I wouldn’t put a wooden nickel on that happening at this point… based, of course, on his “just words”. I shall await to be “pleasantly surprised” as you say, but poised to fight tooth and nail on the wrong direction.

…because I don’t see that his expansion of government will be sufficiently funded by his redistribution of wealth. …I don’t see that his protectionist trade policies will do anything for American business, but will certainly remove needed competitive prices from goods the citizens use daily.

Joe said: 2008 was free?

Nope… cost Obama over $425 million. Wait, let me correct that. It cost Obama nothing. He spent other people’s cash to the tune of $425+ mil….

Evidently all those “just words” about campaign finance reform are… well… “just words”. And now, the threshold of how much cash it will take to get elected to federal office has been upped considerably. Another proud moment in US politics…. not.

“- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach”

LOL… Huntington Beach or Huntington Post? Boy, you have no judgment. You seem to know nothing about politics. I really feel sorry for people like you. But I won’t be sorry for you personally when your country goes down the drain. You voted for that stupid idiot bum, good for you. The day you will lose your business, because you will, I will laugh at you.

P.S.: But you know what? I don’t even believe you have a business. To have a business you would have to be smart and obviously, you are not.

Craig:

Well, since you bring it up, I’ll talk a little about my business.

I’m a lot more Joe the Plumber than Joe the Plumber is ever likely to be. Since 1992, I’ve run a small, private laboratory, employing an average of 8-10 people over the years. I’ve never cleared more than $290,000 (adjusted gross income), but three years in the last 10, I was over $250,000 and had to pay alternative minimum tax. I’ll see my marginal rate go up 3 percentage points the next time I hit that level. But it certainly won’t be a disincentive to me.

What’s hurt is seeing my retirement account lose 45% in value over the past 18 months. Seeing the value of my investment property (one commercial; two residential) plummet. My house, I don’t sweat. It’s shelter and not an investment.

I don’t think it was a good idea to double the national debt in the past 7 years, to provide a one trillion dollar tax cut to people who didn’t need it. 9% of the national budget goes to paying interest on our debt. The trillion dollar tax cut was paid for by borrowing a half trillion from China and the rest from other creditors. The debt will eventually have to be paid back by my children. So it wasn’t a tax cut; it was a tax deferment.

Because taxes were cut so drastically at a time when we had increasing budgetary obligations (Iraq War, etc.), it was necessary for Alan Greenspan to lower interest rates to 1% and keep them there, in order to try to grow the economy enough to keep the deficit in a reasonable range. This contributed to the capital glut which had nowhere to go, so it went to mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps.

So now we are going to raise taxes back to Clinton-era levels (when I also had some good years), to put government more on a pay as you go basis.

The years I made the most money, I also paid the most taxes.

Making enough money to pay more taxes is one of life’s more high class problems.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach

Larry Weisenthal:

In your comments to Craig: who the hell do you think set the ‘alternative minimum tax’? If your retirement account has lost 45% in value Over The Last 18 Months, then you made some bad investment. The Dow has been consistently around 13,000 until the flame out Created By Democrats, by the way.

I recall reading a post somewhere on the most simplistic explanation of paying taxes as possible and I think you could capische this. I will see if can find it. By the way, how do you determine who needs a tax cut and who doesn’t.

If “The trillion dollar tax cut was paid for by borrowing a half trillion from China and the rest from other creditors”, then why was it necessary for Greenspan to lower interest rates to 1% (who the hell gets money at 1%?) if the tax deficit at the time was already neutralized by the borrowing you indicate?

“This contributed to the capital glut which had nowhere to go, so it went to mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps.” Capital didn’t have anywhere to go?? Lord Have Mercy!

So you think raising taxes “back to Clinton era levels”, when you had your ‘good’ years will solve the problem of the present flame out of the mortgage/bank practices? Government has NEVER been on a ‘pay as you go’ basis, the more that goes to Washington, the more that is spent.

“The years I made the most money, I also paid the most taxes.” Duh? Simple arithmetic.

You guys can’t see the forest for the trees.

Steve, you misunderstand. I never had a problem with the alternative minimum tax. As I said, making enough money to pay more taxes is a high class problem. You grin and bear it, all the way to the bank. The marginal tax rate was 90% during the Eisenhower years; the ratio of debt to GNP fell sharply; people were motivated to work. Here we are talking about raising the marginal rate from 36% to 39% and Joe the Plumber says that this will take away his incentive to work hard. This attitude is precisely why he’ll never make enough from his plumbing job to ever have to worry about it.

The cause of the financial meltdown was too much capital chasing too few investment opportunities. The capital glut was exacerbated by the low interest rates which were kept too low too long in an attempt to grow the economy enough to trigger a fanciful Laffer Curve effect. Didn’t work, but did create the demand for exotic securities and swaps.

There is always a business cycle. I don’t usually give Presidents either credit or blame for economic ups and downs. But this particular perfect storm was a product of the capital markets having a glut of capital, which didn’t go into business expansion or IPOs, which would have grown the economy, but instead went into Ponzi investment schemes.

Relevant data: Only 1/4 – 1/3 of sub prime paper went through Fannie/Freddie. 2/3 to 3/4 were entirely outside the quasi federal system. Fannie/Freddie management made the same bad decisions, driven by the same motivation (profit seeking) as did entirely private sector banking management. Of all the sub prime loans, only 9% were for owner-occupied first mortgages and certainly less than 1% of all of these loans (in terms of capital) went for Community Redevelopment type loans.

Contrary to urban legend, the financial meltdown wasn’t because of any government programs to expand housing opportunities to poor people, which is precisely why McCain and all the Senators who lost their seats didn’t try to make it a campaign issue. Rather, it was entirely a product of the capital glut.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach

The leftist MSM is still going after Sarah.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw3V_WU0qn8&eurl=http://www.newshounds.us/2008/11/06/fox_throws_sarah_palin_so_far_under_the_bus_she_shoots_out_other_side_and_goes_under_next_

I don’t think one should get that paranoid over Obama’s and the Democrat’s abilities. Sure they can change some laws, but I doubt they can force their power to keep the Republicans at bay. Carter came in on hope and change back in 1976. He got in from the perfect storm. Then he ran into problems immediately. His own staff also got into the mix. Remember that alternative energy corruption known as Three Mile Island? Three Miles Island didn’t fall apart on its own, the people inside did.

If the Republican’s bread and butter policies are to be believed, the liberals will eventually blow it and want the conservatives back. They’ll want somebody to bomb Iran, allow them to drive gas powered cars and trade around the world (Democrats are protectionists). A few trade wars later and Obama will not be seen as the cool one, but the one keeping the eventual recession going (maybe we will see some stagflation).

The next Republicans should run on a hand up rather than hand out program and develop a cheaper alternative than the Democrats. I already gave my plan here on how to create jobs, fix the infrastructure, provide health care to the uninsured and balance the budget with the money the federal government already gets. It’s that type of plan where something more can be gained by not spending more.

Mike, I am personally opposed to using the fairness doctrine to try and stifle talk radio. I’ll be disappointed if the Dems try and do this. I think that Obama is much too smart to go along with this. No one listens to Rush and Sean, et al, beyond those people who’d never consider voting for Obama in a hundred years. This would be a classic “over reach,” of the type he’s determined to avoid.

I don’t understand how “complaining” about vote fraud equates with a prosecutable offense (voter suppression). Vote fraud should be prevented and punished; so should voter suppression.

Peacefully protesting anything is a first amendment right. Denying First Amendment rights is a crime. I was against McCain-Feingold. I’m very much pro-2nd Amendment. I don’t know what Obama’s personal inclinations are, but he knows the 2nd Amendment is a true third rail in American politics. He won’t go there.

Obama doesn’t have a big social agenda. He’ll try and enact an energy/infrastructure program. He’ll try to get health care reform. He’ll have to do something about Social Security and Medicare. He’ll try and get the Debt/GNP ratio headed downward again. Hopefully, he’ll keep a nuclear bomb from going off in Long Beach Harbor and keep anthrax spores out of the New York subway system (these being the true terrorist security threats, as opposed to anything at all ever going on in Iraq).

If he does those things, he’ll be re-elected in a landslide. If he doesn’t, then silencing Rush Limbaugh won’t help him.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach

“- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Post”,

You are inspired by internet’s sites who are anti-capitalism. No wonder you voted for THE MESSIAH! You are hopeless.

Larry, there’s a few things I’d like to address, from different posts. So I’ll just repeat the pertinent phrases.

I don’t think it was a good idea to double the national debt in the past 7 years, to provide a one trillion dollar tax cut to people who didn’t need it. 9% of the national budget goes to paying interest on our debt. The trillion dollar tax cut was paid for by borrowing a half trillion from China and the rest from other creditors. The debt will eventually have to be paid back by my children. So it wasn’t a tax cut; it was a tax deferment.

And that trillion nat’l debt is set to balloon up to $4.3 trillion under a President Obama, and with only being able to calculate in about 44% of his proposed programs. The Obama campaign team did not provide their calculations and specifics to the Tax Policy Center to add in the rest.

Granted, the same has McCain in that range of nat’l debt by the same era. And that… to my very basic “smaller government” philosophy was appalling. But at least between the two big spenders, McCain’s is “spreading the wealth” differently than Obama’s. A “stimulus package” or less income of x amount yearly may sound just wonderful to many, but it just doesn’t create jobs or opportunities to grow the economy.

What it does create is the ability for Obama’s “middle and lower class” to buy a second TV, a new refrigerator, etc. Hardly a major huge boost in product sales or manufacturing, and even at that, a one time only moment. It is not a sustainable stimulus.

Obama’s grandiose plans are larger than the US wallets… including the top 3% that he wishes to burden with the bulk of it. There simply isn’t enough cash he can steal via taxes to pay for what he wants. The earning capacity is going down… and under projected Obama’nomics, will continue to go down. This is the opposite of what you call the “tax cuts to those that don’t need it”. And the first example of that is the low unemployment numbers under this current admin.

Second… why do all you guys talk about Iraq? It’s a 1/3 of the defense budget, and the $4.3 trillion Obama promises to add to the national debt is equivalent to 75 years in Iraq. You’re talking about a drop in the bucket for the proposed domestic spending. And as far as I’m concerned, the military defense is the top reason for the feds existance. Whether they spend 1/3 of that on the wars, or elsewhere is irrelevant. It’s already allocated to military use, not domestic welfare programs… as it should be.

Which brings me to the second point

Because taxes were cut so drastically at a time when we had increasing budgetary obligations (Iraq War, etc.), it was necessary for Alan Greenspan to lower interest rates to 1% and keep them there, in order to try to grow the economy enough to keep the deficit in a reasonable range. This contributed to the capital glut which had nowhere to go, so it went to mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps.

So now we are going to raise taxes back to Clinton-era levels (when I also had some good years), to put government more on a pay as you go basis.

and from another comment…

The cause of the financial meltdown was too much capital chasing too few investment opportunities. The capital glut was exacerbated by the low interest rates which were kept too low too long in an attempt to grow the economy enough to trigger a fanciful Laffer Curve effect. Didn’t work, but did create the demand for exotic securities and swaps.

~~~

Contrary to urban legend, the financial meltdown wasn’t because of any government programs to expand housing opportunities to poor people, which is precisely why McCain and all the Senators who lost their seats didn’t try to make it a campaign issue. Rather, it was entirely a product of the capital glut.

We’re going thru some half truths here, Larry. You cannot disassociate capital from the bundled investments.. which is not a bad thing as long as you are bundling solid investments. What you had was too much money being lended on too few actual value securitized assets. And this entire economic situation is the result of an out of control housing/lender bubble that should have burst sooner than later.

And “perfect storm” is a perfect term. You say CRA had nothing to do with it. In the free market, it has everything to do with it. You cannot legally discriminate, mandating loans that will “qualify” the unqualifiable only to a certain sector of the public. Why should a guy who can’t show adequate income to debt ratios and good credit be allowed easier money than a good risk? The entire concept is insane.

Frankly, the loans created because of the redlining battles… i.e. low/no doc, ARMs, bridge loans, 80/15/5s, etal… were created in order to get the unqualifiable borrower *thru the automated underwriting systems* of Fannie/Freddie (LCI and DU, for example… all the loan officers use them). Tehse creative loans were great financial tools for many, and in high demand. And the majority who used these tools are not the problem

The easy money to risky borrowers increased demand v supply, and started driving the real estate values up from 1995-2001 at a rate unseen for two decades before.

Then came 911. 911 took an already recovering economy from the late 90s slow down (yes… there was a market slowing) and tanked it. When Greenspan dropped the rates, it was to stimulate the hit back into action.

Now it’s the easy credit money, risky buyers, and long term low rates…. the real estate prices took the already dangerous escalation to new heights. And yes, Greenspan kept the rates low for too long… he now admits.

But every bit of this still starts with the creation of easy credit in order to meet Congressional mandates. The CRA banks would never be able to handle the high demand for these (including to those that were a good risk), so the free market came in and added to the fray. That still wasn’t the problem.

You say Fannie/Freddie didn’t have these loans go thru them. You are incorrect. Almost all conforming loans end up in the Fanne/Freddie portfolio on the secondary mortgage market. The automated underwriting programs I mentioned above? All based on Fannie/Freddie guidelines for resale. And Congress, at the same time, was encouraging the GSE’s to buy up an astromonical asset ratio.

In short, the problem was not bundling, and buying up by the GSEs or anyone else. It was the bundling of bad product. Somewhere, someone along the line is going to take the hit. Then add the heavy demand vs existing supply for the unsustainable value increases.

This was all foreseeable. But none wanted to foresee it since everyone was busy lining their pockets. And that includes most especially the DNC Congressional members.

There. I have filled in the rest of your half-story… You want to give the CRA sanctioned banks a pass, and blame it on the private banking and investment industry. That’s like saying the CRA banks are allowed to bake and sell arsenic cookies, but no one else can. That way we won’t flood the market with arsenic cookies.

Wow. Obama’s REQUIRING volunteerism???

http://tinyurl.com/5m8clv

“When you choose to serve — whether it’s your nation, your community or simply your neighborhood — you are connected to that fundamental American ideal that we want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not just for ourselves, but for all Americans. That’s why it’s called the American dream.”

The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.”

Thank you for correcting my sloppy attribution Mike’s America. Something Larry said put me out of sorts, and though I recognized the quote, it did not register in my mind that it was not from Jefferson. Normally I will create my own prose, but I did not trust myself to behave in a civilized fashion.

Larry,

I truly think he aspires to achieve historical recognition as the greatest President in history.

History is full of leaders who rose to power fueled by this aspiration. Mostly we call them despots, tyrants, and megalomaniacs. The desire to secure one’s place in the history books does not translate into properly serving the best interests, preserving the liberties, or even realistically considering the safety of the people such a self serving leader is in charge of.

Larry Weisenthal,

I want you to get back to me after you have watch the Video of Milton Friedman that I suggested to you in my comment #33.

Please watch it.

You say CRA had nothing to do with it. In the free market, it has everything to do with it.

No, not really. First of all, the CRA didn’t apply to private mortgage lenders and they accounted for an enormous amount of the junk loans:

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
By David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2008

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height vrom 2004 to 2006.
Federal Reserve Board data show that:

_ More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

The CRA banks were mandated to show x amount of loans to minorities as proof they were not redlining. In order to do that, lenders had to create exotic loans that would get them past criteria they could not pass.

Welcome no doc/low doc and other exotic loans.

That’s not what happened. In fact, Fannie, as you noted, can’t accept non-conforming (Alt-A, no or low document loans). The CRA requires that the loans to poor people be financially sound, not crap.

Barack reminds me of Woodrow Wilson in many ways. Crisis (whether in WW’s case war or in this case financial crisis) + massive expansion of Government along progressive lines + propaganda/intimidation.

Except Barack is too young and healthy to give up the ghost 7 years in.

He’s going to finish what Wilson started. That’s his fucking “legacy” of “what’s right” for America, Larry.

Please tell me you’re not this simple, Steve J…..

Regulations effective beginning of 1995. Theoretically to affect the CRA banks

Lenders receive and must revamp loan packages with new guidelines for those.

The loans start being offered to the CRA banks

They get popular

The free market picks up on them.

And you wonder why they are “flat” for 12-24 months until they catch on from compliance creation to hitting the market? Hang… it can take the mortgage market 6-9 months just to create the new loan package and full guidelines. This stuff and the appropriate paperwork doesn’t happen overnight.

REP. MICA: What was Lehman Brothers’ exposure to the debt of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? And what role did their collapse play in precipitating some of your financial troubles?

MR. FULD: Our –

REP. MICA: Did it matter?

MR. FULD: Our exposure to both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was de minimis, sir.

SOURCE:
Federal News Service

October 6, 2008 Monday

PANEL II OF HEARING OF THE HOUSE OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE;
SUBJECT: THE CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF THE LEHMAN BROTHERS BANKRUPTCY;
CHAIRED BY: REPRESENTATIVE HENRY WAXMAN (D-CA) WITNESS RICHARD FULD, JR., CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS

SECTION: PRESS CONFERENCE OR SPEECH

LENGTH: 16936 words

Steve J, how many subprime loans do you think Lehman Bros made… duh

So your point?

UPDATE: I’ll clarify… Lehman Bros was an investment banker. They bought bundled secured assets. Of course they have minimal contacts with Fannie/Freddie.

So what’s the problem? That a guy buys bushels of apples? Or that someone knowingly throws apples in the bushels to sell that are rotten because it became mandated to throw bad apples into the barrel?

UPDATE #2: I owe you an apology, Steve J. I did checking, and Lehman Bros did expand into the residential mortgage market in 2003 and 2004, by purchasing five morgage companies. These subsidiaries did originate loans, which were bundled and sold to Lehman investors via their investment banking services.

Obviously they didn’t believe they were packaging losing propositions and attempting to sink their own ship by buying their own risky paper inter corporation. But sink they did… as they did not get a bailout.

So on that point, mea culpa.

However their participating in lucrative, high demand loans created by redlining compliance regs is not the problem. The arsenic cookies and rotten apples in the bushel theory still applies. It’s just with Lehman, they had their subsidiaries create many of the loans they purchased, instead of buying them from outside mortgage companies.

Like others before me in this thread, I reject the premise that 2008 was a free election. The help Obama got from the MSM, the fraudulent internet donations, ACORN. It all adds up to the first SHAM election. They tried twice before in 2000 and 2004. Third time was the charm.

Ya know, Larry… if this were late 2010, I might be willing to engage in such speculation with you. But it’s three days after a two year 2008 election. And frankly, there’s much water to flow under the bridge in the next four years.

Not to mention… I am just sick to death of “campaigns” at the moment.

But I do have a question that has been gnawing at me about Obama’s proposed way to save money in Medicare. That that is importing more drugs from Mexico, Canda, etal.

To my mind, that is nothing more than another form of outsourcing. But I’m willing to keep an open mind. Just what do you think the feds, contracting most of the Medicare pharmas from foreign nations, will do to the local US pharma research and suppliers?

Think there will be any job cuts? Think they’ll move to Mexico or Canada to compete?

Renegotiations is one thing, But the US companies have a higher bottom line. I cannot see a way for them to meet the foreign market prices, and remain in busines… nor keep up R&D.

This is something I suspect you know quite a bit about. So will Obama’s foreign drug imports create loss of jobs and loss of business here?

Craig, haven’t watched the Friedman video yet, but I’m a fan, and I’ll try to do so over the weekend.

Mata, thank you for the question of drug costs; it’s near and dear to my heart. A huge component of the runaway health care costs are prescription drug costs. And it’s getting worse. The average new cancer drug costs between $5,000 and $11,000 PER MONTH!

The greatest special interest buy off in history was when Big Pharma got inserted into the Medicare Prescription Drug law a PROHIBITION against Medicare negotiating with the drug companies regarding drug costs. In one fell swoop, government (1) gave Big Pharma a pricing monopoly and (2) guaranteed payment from the government. This was a sweetheart deal worth hundreds of billions of dollars. No other sell out to non-military special interests in history ever came close.

The problem is how do you build in some form of competition? The only way to do this is by allowing importation of drugs from overseas (or across the Canadian border). It’s already legal to import drugs for private use. Members of my own family have done this, and it’s worked brilliantly. Just Google “Canadian Internet Pharmacy” and you’ll find lots of licensed, reputable choices. All you’ll need is to fax a prescription and give them a credit card number and you’ll get your drugs — usually at a huge savings (we saved 75% on an expensive drug for one of my family members).

Now, what about pharmaceutical R&D if drug prices go down? This is the big scare tactic bogeyman. That’s all it is. Pharma spends a tiny fraction of its budget on R&D, relative to marketing. It’s like those Apple commercials about Microsoft and VISTA. Big amount of money for advertising. Tiny amount for “fixing VISTA.”

The USA single handedly supports the global pharmaceutical industry (much of which is headquartered in Europe, by the way, e.g. Roche, Novartis, Astra-Zeneca, Bayer, etc.). With true competition, Americans will pay less and Europeans will pay more. And probably, we’ll see a little less advertising. But pharma has to do R&D, or it will die.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Larry and Mata,

This video should interest you. It is on the abusive regulation of drugs. This is why the drugs in USA are so expensive. The title is in French, but the video is in English.

RÉGLEMENTATION PERVERSE
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6pkkq_fda_news

And I also found this:

HERE IS A PICTURE OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY IN USA IN 2008:

- Time to develop a new drug: 10-15 years.
- Average cost to develop a new drug: 1,318 billion of dollars.
- Investment in R&D: 58, 8 billions of dollars.
- Numbers of drugs approved in 2007: 23.
- Average wear of a “patent” to protect a drug: 11 years.
- Percentage of commercial drugs revenues that equals or exceeds the cost of R&D: 20%.
- Percentage of generic drugs: 67%.

For each commercialized drug, the pharmaceutical industry has to do research on 5,000 to10, 000 compounds. But only 0, 01% to 0, 02% of those compound are commercialized.

Beat me to it, Aye…. “Cut’n'paste” amoeba Jan is busy following my threads around. Might be a personal vendetta because I slapped her down for trying to make a scandal over Palin and the wardrobe…. still… LOL

Now she’s busy trying to convince us that the SOFA is only going forward because Obama was elected. Ya know, I get better comprehension from my six year old granddaughter than some of these obama keyboard warriors.

INRE the thread hijack. Glad you’re benevolent, but it’s been on my mind for quite a while to do a post on the pharma/drug/Obama plan bit. Pulling together the background of how we got from here to today first, so we can start from a common ground. Patience…. I keep getting interrupted!

I won’t “remove” the above comments, but will duplicate them. (you guys need to do that on your own to maintain your identity..) Maybe we joe blow citizenry can straighten out Congress with our debates.

Then again, as the bailout proved… they don’t listen to us anyway.

O boy, Larry! You will fall off your chair when you will hear my boots on our ground experience of Health care. Disastrous. But let’s wait for Mata’s thread.