The Trump Presidency

Rambo

The Trollest Of Trolls
Moderator
Messages
27,584
Ratings
13,742
http://www.ianwelsh.net/trump-promises-to-reduce-drug-prices

Trump Promises To Reduce Drug Prices
2017 JANUARY 12
by Ian Welsh

So, there was a lot of hoopla over Trump’s press conference, most of it concentrating on the release of the oppo research file on him, containing not one proven assertion.

I decided, once again, to read the actual transcript. And found out that there was little coverage of something which should matter more to most Americans: Trump’s promise to lower Pharma prices.

We’ve got to get our drug industry back. Our drug industry has been disastrous. They’re leaving left and right. They supply our drugs, but they don’t make them here, to a large extent. And the other thing we have to do is create new bidding procedures for the drug industry because they’re getting away with murder.

Pharma, pharma has a lot of lobbies and a lot of lobbyists and a lot of power and there’s very little bidding on drugs. We’re the largest buyer of drugs in the world and yet we don’t bid properly and we’re going to start bidding and we’re going to save billions of dollars over a period of time.
The business press seem to be taking this seriously.

It is also, AGAIN, something which should have been tackled long ago. Obama deliberately refused to allow price negotiation with pharma and so did Bush. In both cases they gave into the lobby. Insane.

Nor, as some say, will this mean that pharma prices will have to rise overseas. Pharma is aprofitable industry which spends more on marketing and advertising than on drug research, which researches mostly the wrong drugs, and so on. They can just make less money, high profits to Pharma are mis-allocated resources.

Next Trump talked about was the F-35 (for those who don’t keep track, it basically can’t fly and is vastly over cost.)

And we’re going to do that with a lot of other industries. I’m very much involved with the generals and admirals on the airplane, the F-35, you’ve been reading about it. And it’s way, way behind schedule and many, many billions of dollars over budget. I don’t like that. And the admirals have been fantastic, the generals have been fantastic. I’ve really gotten to know them well. And we’re going to do some big things on the F-35 program…
AGAIN something which should have already been dealt with.

Trump thinks like a deal-maker and a business man, and what he sees is that the government is vastly over-paying for services and products, and he doesn’t like that. And what he sees is that Americans are overpaying as well, because the government refuses to act on their behalf.

I’m sorry, I’m very sorry. Trump will certainly do bad things, but if he follows thru on these two things (especially pharma), he’ll be doing very good things that people like Obama would not do.

This is of a piece with Trump killing the Trans Pacific Partnership, while reports have regularly indicated that getting it passed was Obama’s most important legislative priority, likely of his entire Presidency.

Understand clearly that this is the sort of stuff that Trump was elected to do, along with bringing jobs back, curtailing immigration and so on.

The next thing to watch will be what replaces the ACA (Obamacare). I am not optimistic, because health care accounts are a terrible idea. But let’s see. (Or, alternatively, call your Congress critters and insist the ACA not be repealed. You might win.)

But right now, as I score it, Trump is more or less on track to do what he said he would do. I think his tax cuts will be disastrous, especially in the long run, I don’t like Obamacare but I expect him to replace it with something worse, but in a lot of areas he’s talking about doing things that should have been done long ago.

When the people too many liberals think are “good” like Obama, won’t do what everyone knows what must be done, they will eventually be done by people liberals consider “bad”, in ways liberals might not like.

There’s a lesson there.
 

Rambo

The Trollest Of Trolls
Moderator
Messages
27,584
Ratings
13,742
The Machine The Machine was interested in thoughts on Trump's business plan for his empire. I'm of two minds on this:

-on the one hand, we've GOT to maintain clear ethical and moral guidelines on what the president can and cannot do with his power when it comes to personal or familial enrichment. in this situation, clearly it would be to make Trump sell off his entire empire. make a clear break so that we know he's not giving favors to enrich his family or business.

-on the other hand, we've never had a business man as president. and DEFINITELY not a businessman like this. how the fuck are we to expect him to just sell off his entire empire that he's spent his whole life building, for what would undoubtably be pennies on the dollar? even if he does keep the business in the family, they're just hotels. yes, he could favor an economic deal with a country where he has hotels, but he has hotels in numerous countries already. is he going to sell us out to every country on earth? plus, these people need to stay somewhere. is it really that big of a difference if they stay in a starwoods hotel vs. a trump hotel? does this really matter in the long term scheme of things?

in regards to the appointing of jared kushner, i do not see a problem with this. the law was put into place to keep people from taking appointed positions in the government. if he's got a kid or relation he trusts, why wouldn't he want them around?
 

Monkeyface

Monochromatic Clothing Troll
Supporter
Messages
4,759
Ratings
5,342
The Machine The Machine was interested in thoughts on Trump's business plan for his empire. I'm of two minds on this:

-on the one hand, we've GOT to maintain clear ethical and moral guidelines on what the president can and cannot do with his power when it comes to personal or familial enrichment. in this situation, clearly it would be to make Trump sell off his entire empire. make a clear break so that we know he's not giving favors to enrich his family or business.

-on the other hand, we've never had a business man as president. and DEFINITELY not a businessman like this. how the fuck are we to expect him to just sell off his entire empire that he's spent his whole life building, for what would undoubtably be pennies on the dollar? even if he does keep the business in the family, they're just hotels. yes, he could favor an economic deal with a country where he has hotels, but he has hotels in numerous countries already. is he going to sell us out to every country on earth? plus, these people need to stay somewhere. is it really that big of a difference if they stay in a starwoods hotel vs. a trump hotel? does this really matter in the long term scheme of things?

in regards to the appointing of jared kushner, i do not see a problem with this. the law was put into place to keep people from taking appointed positions in the government. if he's got a kid or relation he trusts, why wouldn't he want them around?
Not just hotels. Mostly real estate and licensing his name. Also, you have no idea what you're talking about so please spare us the analysis. Saves you some time as well, so win-win! How's that for a deal?
 

Rambo

The Trollest Of Trolls
Moderator
Messages
27,584
Ratings
13,742
Not just hotels. Mostly real estate and licensing his name. Also, you have no idea what you're talking about so please spare us the analysis. Saves you some time as well, so win-win! How's that for a deal?
see, he's rubbing off on you already!
 

Monkeyface

Monochromatic Clothing Troll
Supporter
Messages
4,759
Ratings
5,342
see, he's rubbing off on you already!
I'll just leave this wonderful sentence here:

“Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart —you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you’re a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.”
 

The Machine

Well-Known Member
Messages
139
Ratings
64
-on the other hand, we've never had a business man as president. and DEFINITELY not a businessman like this. how the fuck are we to expect him to just sell off his entire empire that he's spent his whole life building, for what would undoubtably be pennies on the dollar?
Yes we should expect him to do this. Sell it all off or put it in control of a blind trust. He wanted the job and it's not the public's fault that he didn't think this all through. If he can't live with it then he simply needs to resign.

There are ethical rules and standards for elected officials and public employees all the way down. No reason the President should be exempt from them just because of his business background.
 

Rambo

The Trollest Of Trolls
Moderator
Messages
27,584
Ratings
13,742
He wanted the job and it's not the public's fault that he didn't think this all through. If he can't live with it then he simply needs to resign.
but that's not his fault. its our fault. he never agreed to do any of this shit ahead of time. if the people of the country had a problem with this before the election they shouldn't have voted for him.

as far as the ethical rules, how many of our wonderful congressmen and women continue to hold onto property or investments that they benefit from? if we're going to wring our hands over trump then it need to be from top to bottom. none of this bullshit just with him because he's not on your/our/their team.
 

The Machine

Well-Known Member
Messages
139
Ratings
64
but that's not his fault. its our fault. he never agreed to do any of this shit ahead of time. if the people of the country had a problem with this before the election they shouldn't have voted for him.
You don't get to take a job and not agree to the rules. Life doesn't work that way.


as far as the ethical rules, how many of our wonderful congressmen and women continue to hold onto property or investments that they benefit from? if we're going to wring our hands over trump then it need to be from top to bottom. none of this bullshit just with him because he's not on your/our/their team.
Politicians who try to avoid playing by the rules face scrutiny all the time.
 

Rambo

The Trollest Of Trolls
Moderator
Messages
27,584
Ratings
13,742
You don't get to take a job and not agree to the rules. Life doesn't work that way.
That's EXACTLY how this country works when you've got as much money as Trump does. You're deluding yourself to think otherwise.
Politicians who try to avoid playing by the rules face scrutiny all the time.
How's that working out for us?
 

The Machine

Well-Known Member
Messages
139
Ratings
64
How's that working out for us?
First you insinuate that Trump's being singled out as part of your typical partisan bullshit from him not being part of your/our/their team and then when it's pointed out that politicians face scrutiny over these issues all the time you reply with this?

Ok.

The system isn't perfect but politicians are put in check for similar ethical issues frequently. If you disagree spend a little time researching it before you reply. Ethical rules relating to enriching oneself or one's family while holding a public job or office are nothing new. Neither is the intent to enforce them.
 

Rambo

The Trollest Of Trolls
Moderator
Messages
27,584
Ratings
13,742
First you insinuate that Trump's being singled out as part of your typical partisan bullshit from him not being part of your/our/their team and then when it's pointed out that politicians face scrutiny over these issues all the time you reply with this?
no i didn't. i didn't insinuate anything. i flat out said he's being singled out. and that's ok that he is. these are complex issues we've never dealt with before. but the american people have overwhelmingly spoken that they don't really give a fuck about this particular issue.

The system isn't perfect but politicians are put in check for similar ethical issues frequently. If you disagree spend a little time researching it before you reply. Ethical rules relating to enriching oneself or one's family while holding a public job or office are nothing new. Neither is the intent to enforce them.
no, no they're not put in check at all. and even when they are found out, they hardly ever lose their jobs. charlie rangel, alan grayson, david vitter, the keating five, tom delay, etc. et. al.. the list goes on and on and on and on and on. not to mention the extensive insider trading that goes on. remember that big fuss they made about banning it a few years ago? yeah, they went and rolled it back:

Congress Quickly And Quietly Rolls Back Insider Trading Rules For Itself
from the can't-mess-with-the-profits dept
In November of 2011, the TV show 60 Minutes did a big expose on insider trading within Congress. While everyone else is subject to basic insider trading rules, it turned out that members of Congress were exempt from the rules. And, as you would imagine, many in Congress have access to market-moving, non-public information. And they made use of it. To make lots and lots of money. Of course, after that report came out and got lots of attention, Congress had to act, and within months they had passed the STOCK Act with overwhelming support in Congress to make insider trading laws that apply to everyone else finally apply to Congress and Congressional staffers as well. As that link notes:The lopsided votes showed lawmakers desperate to regain public trust in an election year, when the public approval rating of Congress has sunk below 15 percent.Of course, here we are in 2013 and, lo and behold, it is no longer an election year. And apparently some of the details of the ban on insider trading were beginning to chafe Congressional staffers, who found it hard to pad their income with some friendly trades on insider knowledge.

So... with very little fanfare, Congress quietly rolled back a big part of the law late last week. Specifically the part that required staffers to post disclosures about their financial transactions, so that the public could make sure there was no insider trading going on. Congress tried to cover up this fairly significant change because they, themselves, claimed that it would pose a "national risk" to have this information public. A national risk to their bank accounts.

It was such a national risk that Congress did the whole thing quietly, with no debate. The bill was introduced in the Senate on Thursday and quickly voted on late that night when no one was paying attention. Friday afternoon (the best time to sneak through news), the House picked it up by unanimous consent. The House ignored its own promise to give Congress three days to read a bill before holding a vote, because this kind of thing is too important to let anyone read the bill before Congress had to pass it.

And, of course, yesterday, President Obama signed it into law. Because the best way to rebuild trust in Congress, apparently, is to roll back the fact that people there need to obey the same laws as everyone else. That won't lead the public to think that Congress is corrupt. No, not at all.
So please, don't lecture me about how awful and corrupt el jefe trumpo is when all of these other miserable cocksuckers are dealing dirty on a smaller scale.
 

Lord Buckley

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,940
Ratings
966

The Machine

Well-Known Member
Messages
139
Ratings
64
no i didn't. i didn't insinuate anything. i flat out said he's being singled out. and that's ok that he is. these are complex issues we've never dealt with before. but the american people have overwhelmingly spoken that they don't really give a fuck about this particular issue.
Let's pretend for a second that everyone who cast a vote for Trump assumed he would proceed with the plan he announced on Wed and were 100% ok with it, he still got far less then the majority of votes. So I guess that means the American people have "overwhelmingly" spoken that they are ok with these shenanigans?

As for being "singled out" what do you expect? He's about to be sworn in as the President of the United States and just announced an unprecedented game plan in regards to his business dealings. Blowing the outrage off as typical partisan bullshit doesn't demonstrate a strong understanding of the ethical issues at play here.

no, no they're not put in check at all. and even when they are found out, they hardly ever lose their jobs. charlie rangel, alan grayson, david vitter, the keating five, tom delay, etc. et. al.. the list goes on and on and on and on and on. not to mention the extensive insider trading that goes on. remember that big fuss they made about banning it a few years ago? yeah, they went and rolled it back:
Nice list of public officials who got seemingly got away with wrongdoings. So the fact that our imperfect system allows some assholes to get away with bullshit should have a substantial impact on how we view the issue at hand here with Trump? Whole system is fucked so why the hell are people upset about the future President's bullshit?

Ok.

I'll keep expressing my view that what Trump proposed should not be allowed regardless of other failures in the system.
 

Lord Buckley

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,940
Ratings
966
As an outsider, I am astonished at how such an obviously bent, bought and owned candidate like Hillary, particularly money from the Gulf, is being painted as some kind of social justice warrior and Mother Teresa type figure.

If you can't look after your own, it's game over, this is what we are learning in Europe. And soon enough when the money starts running out, we will experience the true and absolute limits of good intentions.

It's time to take the remote control from the career politicians who have created a false virtual ideal, whilst reality continues to bite.
 

Rambo

The Trollest Of Trolls
Moderator
Messages
27,584
Ratings
13,742
Let's pretend for a second that everyone who cast a vote for Trump assumed he would proceed with the plan he announced on Wed and were 100% ok with it, he still got far less then the majority of votes. So I guess that means the American people have "overwhelmingly" spoken that they are ok with these shenanigans?
no he didn't get far less than the majority of votes. if you take california away he actually won on votes as well. so in 49 of the 50 states the people said "fuck it". for good or bad.
As for being "singled out" what do you expect? He's about to be sworn in as the President of the United States and just announced an unprecedented game plan in regards to his business dealings. Blowing the outrage off as typical partisan bullshit doesn't demonstrate a strong understanding of the ethical issues at play here.
when i said singled out i didn't mean in a bad way, more that its the first time this particular situation has happened. you can put assets like investments or holdings in a blind trust. you can't put an entire business empire into one and its fairly stupid of these pundits to continue to press this issue. you're going to let some dumb jerkoffs run your business and have no one you know or trust run it? give me a break.
Nice list of public officials who got seemingly got away with wrongdoings. So the fact that our imperfect system allows some assholes to get away with bullshit should have a substantial impact on how we view the issue at hand here with Trump? Whole system is fucked so why the hell are people upset about the future President's bullshit?

Ok.

I'll keep expressing my view that what Trump proposed should not be allowed regardless of other failures in the system.
seemingly? they all got away practically scot free. why are you so indignant about the system being a complete trainwreck when it comes to this issue?

you should keep fighting the good fight on this issue. i'm just trying to tell you that in the long run it doesn't matter.
 

Rambo

The Trollest Of Trolls
Moderator
Messages
27,584
Ratings
13,742
As an outsider, I am astonished at how such an obviously bent, bought and owned candidate like Hillary, particularly money from the Gulf, is being painted as some kind of social justice warrior and Mother Teresa type figure.
because it was a "charity" she was running and not a business. never mind that charity = racket in this instance. lets all pretend that she was just a fucking saint so the pussy grabber doesn't get into office.
If you can't look after your own, it's game over, this is what we are learning in Europe. And soon enough when the money starts running out, we will experience the true and absolute limits of good intentions.
the government has long since abdicated this responsibility to "the states". and you see how well this is going in america.

you should watch Incorporated on sci-fi. a good dystopian view of our future when our corporate masters come for the government.
 

Pauly Chase

Hip Dairy Farmer
Supporter
Messages
5,773
Ratings
2,873
I have to agree with Rambo Rambo . I think the media has really singled out Trump during this election. Hence the reason I think he actually could be a good president because he knows he will be scrutinized unlike anyone else before.
 

WildBlue

Well-Known Member
Messages
217
Ratings
232
I have to agree with Rambo Rambo . I think the media has really singled out Trump during this election. Hence the reason I think he actually could be a good president because he knows he will be scrutinized unlike anyone else before.
Here in Italy the news were literally licking Clinton's backside for the entire campaign, giving very little coverage to her scandals and blowing up the "grab them by the pussy" thing. When Trump won, the live shows and journalists were all clearly surprised, they really thought someone as corrupt and bought as Hillary would win and preserve the status quo.

Media is clearly biased, I understand this and don't have too many problems with it, as long as the affiliations are clearly outlined and given to the citisen to scrutinise so he or she can make an informed choice. However, using information for the SOLE purpose of defamation and/or political gain is truly a dick move.
 

Pauly Chase

Hip Dairy Farmer
Supporter
Messages
5,773
Ratings
2,873
I am not surprised at all that Europe as a whole is a Hilary supporter as it is left leaning and corrupt. Trump winning was a surprise to all, including himself. Obama and gang are desperately trying destroy him before leaving office, which is even more pathetic. Sadly Americans are also too dumb to see beyond the empty rhetoric.
 

Rambo

The Trollest Of Trolls
Moderator
Messages
27,584
Ratings
13,742
I have to agree with Rambo Rambo . I think the media has really singled out Trump during this election. Hence the reason I think he actually could be a good president because he knows he will be scrutinized unlike anyone else before.
Again, it's not that they're scrutinizing him. This is their job. It was that after ALL the scrutiny, the people voted him in anyway. The handwringing from liberals is ridiculous.
 

WildBlue

Well-Known Member
Messages
217
Ratings
232
Would have turned a lot of Italians for Trump no?
You see, a proper Italian man would never say it that directly, he'd do it, but with a good tempo and charm, we are not of the "Surprise Blitzkrieg in your face" camp. Explains why we lost the war, I guess, so you either are great at sex and a terrible warrior, or your are an efficient robot with terrible humour that is not laughing matter.

Plus, we already had Berlusconi and no world leader can steal his spot as "bratty puttaniere", excuse my french. Throw in the mix that the average italian has 2 neurons playing hide and seek (I have 4, so atleast it's a team effort, 2vs2), therefore it comes as no surprise that if the media tells that something is bad then he/she'll believe it.
 

QuandoDio

Well-Known Member
Messages
702
Ratings
1,270
Hilary/ Trump? Both bampots.

However, it really is amusing when Trump laments 'fake news' when the majority of the fake news is spewed the man himself, all there in the public domain.
 

Rambo

The Trollest Of Trolls
Moderator
Messages
27,584
Ratings
13,742
This coming from you? Impressive.
I'm an old lefty, not a liberal. This political party is filled with striving cocksuckers and people who think that they should be called ze or zin. They're just as good at selling out the working class as the republicans now anyway. See Corey Booker's latest bullshit in the politics comedy thread.
 

Pauly Chase

Hip Dairy Farmer
Supporter
Messages
5,773
Ratings
2,873
I stopped watching all news channels at this point. Repubs and Dems establishments are all the same, cocksuckers. I am happy there is someone who is standing up against both parties, whether he will deliver is another story.
 

WildBlue

Well-Known Member
Messages
217
Ratings
232
I stopped watching all news channels at this point. Repubs and Dems establishments are all the same, cocksuckers. I am happy there is someone who is standing up against both parties, whether he will deliver is another story.
I was disappointed by Gary Johnson, who turned out to be everything but a proper libertarian. One of the greatest banes in the US administration, I think, is the two party system; seriously, how can just two choices accurately represent the desires of a nation?

Don't get me wrong, the fault also lies on the american public which, using the "third party has no chance" cop out, manages to make Dems or Repubs the only viable choices, yet complain that there's no other option. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
 

Pauly Chase

Hip Dairy Farmer
Supporter
Messages
5,773
Ratings
2,873
Well Dems had Bernie the Socialist Sanders as their alternative this time. My family worked its asses off to leave a socialist country, and I will be damned if I end up in one. Americans are so stupid they actually believe the crap Bernie spewed. I heard similar rhetoric from Deng, Zhang, and Hu and it was all too familiar.

Trump wasn't my first choice either. People I liked weren't even running. But I prefer him over KRoD.
 

Pauly Chase

Hip Dairy Farmer
Supporter
Messages
5,773
Ratings
2,873
Socialist ideas are great except in practice. People are selfish, and that's nature and fact. Automatic altruism on a national level is impossible, particularly in a country such as the US where most people are generally self centered.
 
Top Bottom