Order of Hasson

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... aign_ads_1

The ad says that for Kerry "a stronger America begins at home" and highlights his domestic plans to create jobs, lower health care costs and make the nation less reliant on Middle Eastern oil. The ad also promises "a strong military and strong alliances to defeat terror."

Wow he lays out a lot of plans in a single 30 second ad...

1) Create jobs

How exactly do you create jobs? Unless you force companies to hire, then I can only imagine he means for the government to hire more workers. Who pays their salaries?

2) Lower health care costs

Health care costs what the pharmaceuticals and hospitals charge. So to lower costs means to subsidize them. Who pays for that?

3) Make the nation less reliant on Middle Eastern oil

The only way I see to become less reliant on Mideast Oil is to use our own. I don't know about you guys (excluding Liltyger) but I prefer to use their oil for now. Years from now when/if oil is more scarce, then we can use our enormous stockpile.

Despite high gas prices, I see no reason for the US to stop stockpiling oil or, as some democrats are pushing, release some of our stockpile to lower prices. An increase in supply should be made by OPEC, not the US.

I really dont see what the big deal is about the high oil prices. They really arent THAT high when you look at what you are getting and its not like bitching is going to make them drop.

And there is no way that I think we should tap into our reserves. Dont touch that shit until we NEED it, and as long as oil is available for purchase we dont need to tap it.

Politics piss me off. Everytime someone runs for an office they come up with the same promises politians have been spitting for as long as I can remember. Never once do I see these statements quantified as they should be.

What did Bush promise 4 years ago and what has he done while in office? Nothing comes to mind. What was the last major bill to actually get passed that has affected us all?

What did Bush promise 4 years ago and what has he done while in office? Nothing comes to mind.

He cut taxes.

The thought that you can cut dependency on Middle Eastern oil and still build effective alliances against (Islamic) terrorism is beyond stupid.

A political ad that makes promises and doesn't back them up?!? Well I never!

1) this is BS, the economy is making the jobs right now. It's just getting back on track, you could make a case that Bush has helped or has hindered or that it's Congress doing. Either way the jobs are going to keep growing and I'm sure Kerry will be happy to take credit if he wins, even though he would have no right to... he's a politician.

2) This is possible, right now America is paying for the drug companies R&D and our prices are much higher than other countries. I guess something could be done about the cost of malpractice insurance, but that's more of an Edwards thing not Kerry. Edwards for VP!

3) More efficient engines, hybrids, and furthering the fuel cell research (from Bush's State of the Union a year a two ago) will take big steps towards this. I don't know what Kerry's plan is but hopefull it's not tapping our resources.

Typical political ad, we'll see them form every candidate. I just want the cowboy out I'm not happy with him or much of his staff. I'll be voting to keep Congress Republican.

1) I don't know if I would personify the economy. It isn't some whimsical creator and destroyer of jobs. Fiscal policy (interest rates, import tariffs, domestic taxes) has a lot to do with it. A lot of jobs are made to accomodate increases in consumer demand, demand that goes up with personal income. One way for the goverment to increase individual income is to cut taxes.

2) We pay for drug company R&D? Through what programs? I was under the impression that the only way the government helped cover R&D costs was to provide patents.

3) I would consider this ironic given your statement #1. This is an aspect I would consider the president to have less control over. Making more fuel efficient engines is up to the car manufacturers, with a little consideration given to the laws of thermodynamics.

Here is what I consider when buying a car: Comfort, Acceleration, and Cost (and non-Aztecness). Comfort being how well I can fit in the damn thing and how much room I have for passengers and luggage. I would also like to fit at least four adults comfortably, so I think you can rule out your compact class and smaller.

I could care less if my top speed is 90 or 190, but I do like to accelerate when I press the gas pedal. I consider most accidents to be caused by defensive drivers who go slow in the left lane or slam on the breaks (to 10 mph below the limit) when they see a parked cop car. The quicker I can get around these people, the better. Sadly, a larger car eats up a lot of horsepower with air resistance, so you can rule out anything less than a V-6.

Finally is cost. You show me a car that gets 60mpg and runs a V-6 with enough horsepower to do what I want for less than $25k and I will buy it (as long as it doesn't look like an Aztec). I don't see where Bush can affect this choice of the American consumer without increasing gas taxes to make these cars unaffordable to the middle class. Is that what you want?

1) I don't know if I would personify the economy. It isn't some whimsical creator and destroyer of jobs. Fiscal policy (interest rates, import tariffs, domestic taxes) has a lot to do with it. A lot of jobs are made to accomodate increases in consumer demand, demand that goes up with personal income. One way for the goverment to increase individual income is to cut taxes.

Yes and no. It depends on whose income is aided.

Those in higher tax brackets usually take their tax relief and invest it into thing that build more wealth, such as property or equities (stocks).

Those in lower tax brackets usually take their tax relief and spend it on consumer goods.

So if the idea is to raise the level of total demand, you should cut taxes on the poor. That, however, is rarely done, because the most onerous (federal) taxation on the poor is in the form of payroll taxes like Social Security.

2) We pay for drug company R&D? Through what programs? I was under the impression that the only way the government helped cover R&D costs was to provide patents.

The government does help subsidize drug R&D to a degree.

From Lilytyger:

This is possible, right now America is paying for the drug companies R&D and our prices are much higher than other countries.

Canada has much lower prescription drug costs because they have price caps. Which is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

As for the oil issue:

It is possible to get oil from other foreign sources than just the Middle East. Russia and the other Caspian Sea nations are gearing up for some serious oil pumping. Mexico also has vast oil sources that are untapped due to the fact that Mexico's oil industry is very inefficiently nationalized.
Venezuela is actually one of the US's largest suppliers and I think ranks 2nd behind Saudi Arabia.

Those in higher tax brackets usually take their tax relief and invest it into thing that build more wealth, such as property or equities (stocks).

Those in lower tax brackets usually take their tax relief and spend it on consumer goods.

Quick diversion but aren't the job creators usually in the higher tax bracket? Also, isn't an increase in the purchase of property and equities an increase in demand?

The government does help subsidize drug R&D to a degree.

Wow, I have never seen a statement before now that perfectly embodies the term 'pussy-footing'. Either they subsidize drug R&D or they don't. I don't think they do and would welcome any evidence to the contrary.

Canada has much lower prescription drug costs because they have price caps. Which is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

Oh yeah I missed this from the original post. I wonder how the high the quality of medicine is in Canada when all of their real talent comes to work in the U.S.? If anything needs reform it would be the judicial system's awards for malpractice.

It is possible to get oil from other foreign sources than just the Middle East. Russia and the other Caspian Sea nations are gearing up for some serious oil pumping. Mexico also has vast oil sources that are untapped due to the fact that Mexico's oil industry is very inefficiently nationalized.
Venezuela is actually one of the US's largest suppliers and I think ranks 2nd behind Saudi Arabia.

Eliminate the Mideast as a supplier and gas prices will rise sharply no matter how you slice it. We have never been dependant on them unless you count 'enjoying low gas prices' as a dependance.

bah I oversimplified, lemme splain a little more...

1. Economy is making large strides in recovering from 9/11 and recession, this was pretty much a given. The ecomomy and fiscal policy dance around each other each affecting the other, each influencing the other. It's much too complex with so many varibles to describe or to totally grasp... much like a person. It's easier to descibe that way so I'm gonna.

2. It's not just Canada that has lower prices, it's everywhere else in the world. Our drug prices do mot make sense and as things stand now it borders on price fixing / monopolisitic behavior. We are forced to pay more because we can, and because the drug companies can get away with it.

3. Funding research to make hybrid / fuel cell technology more efficient and cheaper allows the governement to show the auto industry that it supports these technologies. Why would a car manufacturer throw their weight into fuel cell research if they think the government has no intrest? There's a lot of infrustructure changes or additions and the government will have to play a large hand in that. And I don't see you you can argue that the federal tax break for buying a Hybrid hasn't made a difference.

ANYWAY all that aside you'll have your car in about 10 years, give or take 5. All major manufacturers are jumping on board the Hybrid kick even if they have to buy their motors from Toyota.

Here you go, the MPG will follow soon: http://pressroom.toyota.com/photo_libra ... 04rx400h_r

Economy is making large strides in recovering from 9/11 and recession, this was pretty much a given. The ecomomy and fiscal policy dance around each other each affecting the other, each influencing the other. It's much too complex with so many varibles to describe or to totally grasp... much like a person. It's easier to descibe that way so I'm gonna.

Sorry, Adam Smith, but I do believe that an administration can drive an economy into the ground just as easily as it can bring it out of one... which is to say that it isn't easy but it is possible. No invisible hand ensured that the ecomony was going to recover from 9/11. I think plummeting interest rates had alot to do with it.

It's not just Canada that has lower prices, it's everywhere else in the world. Our drug prices do mot make sense and as things stand now it borders on price fixing / monopolisitic behavior. We are forced to pay more because we can, and because the drug companies can get away with it.

Damn that FDA and their "regulations". If I want to pay low prices for cheaply made drugs, I should be able to! Anyway, this seems like a complete 180 for you. Above you are all lasseiz-faire and now you are talking about price fixing and monopolies. You want an administration that steps in and regulates drug prices? Or just one that doesn't protect the consumer?

Funding research to make hybrid / fuel cell technology more efficient and cheaper allows the governement to show the auto industry that it supports these technologies. Why would a car manufacturer throw their weight into fuel cell research if they think the government has no intrest?

Because the government isn't their target customer? Why would they care if the government throws money at fuel cell research? Why would car manufactures give a rat's ass how fuel efficient their cars are? They only care about people buying their cars. If people are basing their decision on cost, they make em cheaper. If they base it on comfort, they make them bigger. If they base it on fuel effiency, they make it fuel efficient. They haven't before because no one really cared that much... here in the states anyway.

And I don't see you you can argue that the federal tax break for buying a Hybrid hasn't made a difference.

Now you are talking. If the government wants to create a fuel-conscious society, they can do stuff like this. I am pretty sure this is how Britain does it. You are taxed based on engine size, not to mention that gas is ridiculously expensive in Europe.

Seriously, how many people quit smoking because the surgeon general said it was bad for them and how many quit because cigarettes are $4 a pack and smoking is being banned in public places?

Just to recap: throwing money at fuel research, Bad. Fiddling with prices, good. Guess how much fiddling with prices costs the government? Last I checked, taxes made money.

ANYWAY all that aside you'll have your car in about 10 years, give or take 5. All major manufacturers are jumping on board the Hybrid kick even if they have to buy their motors from Toyota.

Hey lay it on me. The sooner the better. I would be ecstatic if my car got 60mpg instead of 20. Ceteris paribus.

Quick diversion but aren't the job creators usually in the higher tax bracket? Also, isn't an increase in the purchase of property and equities an increase in demand?

No.

In Macroeconomic terms, equity investment makes corporate finance easier, so it comes out as an increase in the supply of money (for corporations). Cutting taxes on the rich eases the supply-side of the economic graph, not the demand side.

The government does help subsidize drug R&D to a degree.

Wow, I have never seen a statement before now that perfectly embodies the term 'pussy-footing'. Either they subsidize drug R&D or they don't. I don't think they do and would welcome any evidence to the contrary.

The US Pharmaceutical industry (at least a few years ago) enjoyed substantial tax breaks. While not a direct subsidy, the effect is similar.

Eliminate the Mideast as a supplier and gas prices will rise sharply no matter how you slice it. We have never been dependant on them unless you count 'enjoying low gas prices' as a dependance.

Well yeah. I was just pointing out that the Middle East is not our only source of foreign oil, as most people seem to think it is.

Invisable hand, No. America's semi-capitialism and materialism, Yes.

All drugs are made cheaply, they're tiny and cost next to nothing to manufacture. Pills made in America and shipped to foreign countries cost less to buy than if you bought them here. Some of it's buying power from national healthcares, but that doesn't account for everything. The reason drug companies can price gouge is due to the amount of protection the government provides in order to promote research. I'm not talking about doing anything more that tweaking the current system because it is flawed.

The government is a target customer, esp. California right now. There will be no shortage of buyers for fuel cell vechicles if we use the Hybrids as an example. But no one will buy a car they can't get fuel for, that's where the governement comes in and that's why we're spending money on research.

Ford is claiming 36 MPG for their SUV. That may be 4 cyl, but a hybrid 4 cyl has the same power as a gas V6.

The ecomomy and fiscal policy dance around each other each affecting the other, each influencing the other. It's much too complex with so many varibles to describe or to totally grasp... much like a person. It's easier to descibe that way so I'm gonna.

The "economy as a person" is a false analogy but sure, we can run with that.

Saying it's too complex with too many variables to grasp is patently false though. There are certain things that are sure fire ways to kill a person, such as shooting them in the face with a rocket or poisoning them with cyanide.

In the same way, passing retarded laws and taxation policies is a sure fire way to obliterate industries or entire economies.

If you want to run with the "economy is a person" analogy, fiscal policy is the nutrition, or environment of the economy.

2. It's not just Canada that has lower prices, it's everywhere else in the world. Our drug prices do mot make sense and as things stand now it borders on price fixing / monopolisitic behavior. We are forced to pay more because we can, and because the drug companies can get away with it.

There is not some magic wand that other countries use to make drug prices lower. They instead use subsidation, and it means that the tax burden in those countries is sickening. Or they can pick the even stupider system Canada uses, which is price caps.

The US pays higher prices for drugs because we actually are interested in seeing new drugs get developed. Drug companies "get away" with "monopolistic" prices because they own the patents on drugs.

There is no consitutional amendment that says you or I have the God-given right to free or even low cost, or even -any- drugs. If the person or firm that spends literally billions of dollars figuring out how to make your penis erect or your liver not shut down decides they want to actually *gasp* -recoup- that investment for a *gasp!* profit, cheers for them.

Because for every drug they "monopolisitcally scalp" on the market, they pay for the failed R&D for 8-10 others. But by all means, please call these people monopolists. I mean, after all, -patents- are by definition monopolies, but I guess that makes Intel a fucking monopolist because they dare charge money for pentiums.

3. Funding research to make hybrid / fuel cell technology more efficient and cheaper allows the governement to show the auto industry that it supports these technologies.

Why, exactly, does the Auto industry give one flying flip about the interests of government? They care about one thing only: the interests of people who buy cars. Not people who debate cars. People who buy them.

Why would a car manufacturer throw their weight into fuel cell research if they think the government has no intrest?

Because the -market- suddenly drinks from the LSD-treated water one day and says "Holy shit, I want fuel-cells for my car!" That is what it will take for auto makers to want to make fuel-cell cars. Demand. Not Government research.

Government research can help make it possible, but it cannot make the market profitable. And until the market is profitable (or has the potential) you won't see real movement on this issue by the auto makers.

Cars are not where fuel-cells will be used. It's a stupid idea. They don't cut pollution at all, and are less efficient for cars than gasoline (and will remain that way for at least decades if not generations). They are, however, not bad as portable power sources.

And I don't see you you can argue that the federal tax break for buying a Hybrid hasn't made a difference.

Tax breaks are not research. Tax breaks also affect -the market-.

In Macroeconomic terms, equity investment makes corporate finance easier, so it comes out as an increase in the supply of money (for corporations). Cutting taxes on the rich eases the supply-side of the economic graph, not the demand side.

Corporations with more money tend to have more employees. Either way, cuts are creating jobs. I believe we are barking up different sides of the same proverbial tree. The original point was that the government can't affect the job market. We can agree that it can?

The US Pharmaceutical industry (at least a few years ago) enjoyed substantial tax breaks. While not a direct subsidy, the effect is similar.

I can see the logic that not charging them money is the same as giving it to them. Any idea what tax breaks they got over every other business?

All drugs are made cheaply, they're tiny and cost next to nothing to manufacture.

It is cheap to -manufacture- a drug.

It is insanely expensive to -design- a drug.

It is damn near prohibitively expensive to design more than one drug at once.

Pills made in America and shipped to foreign countries cost less to buy than if you bought them here. Some of it's buying power from national healthcares, but that doesn't account for everything.

Quite right. There is also the price-caps issue, like in Canada.

The reason drug companies can price gouge is due to the amount of protection the government provides in order to promote research. I'm not talking about doing anything more that tweaking the current system because it is flawed.

That "Government protection" is called a patent, and without it, the entire system isn't "tweaked." it's removed.

The government is a target customer, esp. California right now. There will be no shortage of buyers for fuel cell vechicles if we use the Hybrids as an example.

Fuel cell technology is not remotely comparable to the hybrids.

But no one will buy a car they can't get fuel for, that's where the governement comes in and that's why we're spending money on research.

We are spending money on fuel cell tech not for cars but for other applications, like laptop batteries and portable power supply for soldiers in the field.