Revelation Greenspan admits he was wrong.

McGentrix wrote:

I do not know Goodfielders medical history

which would have been a very good reason not to comment further, from a medical perspective.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What do you think about Greenspan's comments, McG?

0 Replies

I feel the tax cuts were neccessary to spur the economy and greenspan recognized that. I do not believe that Greenspan anticipated the amount the government would spend/waste in the following years nor did he anticipate the attacks of 9/11 which have had a tremendous effect on the economy. Government spending has been completely out of hand.

0 Replies

I like it when people admit their mistakes. If Mr. Bush should ever choose to follow Mr. Greenspan's example, I would be happy to forgive him any whining that might accompany his admission. But I am not holding my breath.

0 Replies

I always thought that tax cuts for the rich didn't actually stimulate the economy because the rich don't increase their spending when given tax cuts. And instituting tax cuts - effectively cutting government income - and yet increasing government spending seems to me to be a bit confused.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

I always thought that tax cuts for the rich didn't actually stimulate the economy because the rich don't increase their spending when given tax cuts. And instituting tax cuts - effectively cutting government income - and yet increasing government spending seems to me to be a bit confused.

If it's short term and in a recession, tax cuts and spending in creases are fairly unproblematic. The guy in my avatar believes in them, and if Al Gore had become president in 2000, he would probably have tried to do something similar. The problem is that Bush's tax cuts are permanent, and so are the deficits they created.

0 Replies

Thanks Thomas. Is that the sort of short-term sharp stimulus that would be considered Keynesian?

0 Replies

It would be considered Keynesian by economists. But in the language of political propaganda, "Keynesian" has come to mean "spending increases". Republicans, in particular, frequently claim that their tax cuts stimulated the economy in the short run, but avoid the K-word to describe the process like vampires avoid garlic.

0 Replies

thanks for that Thomas.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

The point I tried to make was that instead of having the government subsidize millions of dollars worth of drugs, perhaps personal responsibility should be the first line of defense.

No, the point you were trying to make is that you don't feel that it is the government's responsibility to make lifesaving drugs available at an affordable price, so when goodfielder pointed out that he could not afford his Lipitor without government help, you tried to dismiss him as being unworthy of help, as one who is totally responsible for his condition. As if you have the right to pass this judgment.

To compound this arrogance, you told him the following:

McGentrix wrote:

A good diet and excercise would replace your lipitor quite handily.

As if that's all there is to it. Like Lipitor is in one day, diet and exercise are in the next day. No problem at all. Just substitute one for the other, no big deal.

Meanwhile, in the real world, (as opposed to the world McGentrix inhabits), doctors are desperately trying to get their patients to keep taking their medication even though they feel good. Because that is what happens. Patient has heart attack or feels bad, patient goes to doctor and gets prescription, patient starts feeling good, patient stops taking medication, (because, after all, he has diet and exercise), patient gets heart attack and dies.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I do not know Goodfielders medical history, nor do I care to as that's Goodfielders business,

But that does not prevent you from saying that he should substitute diet and exercise for his prescribed Lipitor. Unbelievable.

McGentrix wrote:

but you can hardly claim that every single person that gets their drugs subsidized through the government are deserving.

And who are you to decide who is "deserving" of medication and who is not? What are your qualifications? I presume that if a person has high blood pressure or cholesterol and a doctor has prescribed a drug for it, then it is a shame if the patient cannot get this lifesaving medication.

McGentiix wrote:

some people are simply fat and lazy and have found a drug (statins) that allow them to keep their sedentary lifestyle. Instead of trying to diet and excercise they simply go to their doctor and tell them they want lipitor because they saw it on TV.

A sedentary lifesyle is the price of technological progress. People from all walks of life and all income levels lead sedentary lifestyles-not just those who cannot afford Lipitor.

Yes, it would be better if everyone exercised more and ate better, but until you showed up, I never dreamed anyone would actually try to claim that people should be denied medication because of it. You have really revealed yourself as being an insufferable megalomaniac.

McGentrix wrote:

I really do not beleive that other taxpayers should be burdened by another person's lifestyle choice.

As you have demonstrated here, you don't know squat about medicine, lifesyle choices, or much of anything else. Goodfielder's need for Lipitor is unrelated to his physical activity, yet you have yet to apologize to him for saying otherwise and indulging with Baldimo in a cackling dispay of ignorance about his "lack of personal responsiblity".

This is the face of conservatism in America, 2005. Two people who actually think that they can dismiss a man's medical needs because he doesn't "deserve" it-and when they are shown to be wrong in their assumptions about him, refuse to even apologize.

This is what's beginning to run the country.

0 Replies

BBB
bm

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

I do not know Goodfielders medical history, nor do I care to as that's Goodfielders business,

But that does not prevent you from saying that he should substitute diet and exercise for his prescribed Lipitor. Unbelievable.

McGentrix wrote:
but you can hardly claim that every single person that gets their drugs subsidized through the government are deserving.

And who are you to decide who is "deserving" of medication and who is not? What are your qualifications? I presume that if a person has high blood pressure or cholesterol and a doctor has prescribed a drug for it, then it is a shame if the patient cannot get this lifesaving medication.

McGentiix wrote:
some people are simply fat and lazy and have found a drug (statins) that allow them to keep their sedentary lifestyle. Instead of trying to diet and excercise they simply go to their doctor and tell them they want lipitor because they saw it on TV.

A sedentary lifesyle is the price of technological progress. People from all walks of life and all income levels lead sedentary lifestyles-not just those who cannot afford Lipitor.

Yes, it would be better if everyone exercised more and ate better, but until you showed up, I never dreamed anyone would actually try to claim that people should be denied medication because of it. You have really revealed yourself as being an insufferable megalomaniac.

McGentrix wrote:
I really do not beleive that other taxpayers should be burdened by another person's lifestyle choice.

As you have demonstrated here, you don't know squat about medicine, lifesyle choices, or much of anything else. Goodfielder's need for Lipitor is unrelated to his physical activity, yet you have yet to apologize to him for saying otherwise and indulging with Baldimo in a cackling dispay of ignorance about his "lack of personal responsiblity".

This is the face of conservatism in America, 2005. Two people who actually think that they can dismiss a man's medical needs because he doesn't "deserve" it-and when they are shown to be wrong in their assumptions about him, refuse to even apologize.

This is what's beginning to run the country.

You sure imagine a lot more than what's said. Perhaps you should reign in your fevered imaginings about what has been said and actually read what's been written.

0 Replies

No, McGentrix, the reason I use quote boxes is to illustrate what you said. There has been no imagining on my part at all.

McGentrix, you have every right to make the case against government help for prescriptions. But when you foolishly seek to bolster your case by claiming that the need for Lipitor is a result of lack of personal responsibility on the part of a patient, or come up with theories about "deserving" or "undeserving" patients for lifesaving medication, then you really show yourself off in a bad light.

Nobody pushed you to make these statements, McGentrix. You decided to jump off that cliff all by yourself.

0 Replies

Sorry. but the statin drugs didn't become popular because so many people have some sort of genetic predisposition to high cholesterol, but because they are fat and lazy.

0 Replies

As I stated earlier, Americans as a group would be better off if everyone collectively ate better and exercised. And if everyone did that, yes, the demand for statin drugs would be less-but certainly not disappear.

The fact is that in the year 2005, average Americans living an average American lifestyle and eating an average American diet produce a certain percentage of people who require Lipitor, or who will die. And while it is true that this percentage would certainly be less if the average American lifestyle were better than it is, the fact is that this is where the average American lifestyle is right now, and has been for many, many years.

So you think this gives you the right to declare people who require Lipitor at this time as "undeserving" of life saving medication?

Your attitude is appalling.

You know, McGentrix, I'd like to see the Republicans put you up for office. For once, the people will get a chance to see what the GOP is really about.

0 Replies

kelticwizard
Isn't Bush a bad enough example.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

As I stated earlier, Americans as a group would be better off if everyone collectively ate better and exercised. And if everyone did that, yes, the demand for statin drugs would be less-but certainly not disappear.

The fact is that in the year 2005, average Americans living an average American lifestyle and eating an average American diet produce a certain percentage of people who require Lipitor, or who will die. And while it is true that this percentage would certainly be less if the average American lifestyle were better than it is, the fact is that this is where the average American lifestyle is right now, and has been for many, many years.

So you think this gives you the right to declare people who require Lipitor at this time as "undeserving" of life saving medication?

Your attitude is appalling.

You know, McGentrix, I'd like to see the Republicans put you up for office. For once, the people will get a chance to see what the GOP is really about.

You keep attributing words to me I haven't said. Why is that?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

You keep attributing words to me I haven't said.

Such as?

0 Replies

Forgive him kelticwizard he knows not what he says.

0 Replies

Revelation Greenspan admits he was wrong.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know