Stimulus Waste - ABC news

[vurbano]

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/stimulus-slammed-republican-senators-release-report-alleging-waste/story?id=11309090

[WalksInDarkness]

Hah-hah-hah! Money to do research on Monkeys snorting rails of Blow! That's just hilarious...

[Bob Haller]

and where were these complainers when the bill passed? Local news reports a pittsburgh one.

The tunnel under the river for just light rail service to 2 stadiums pirates and steelers. Part Of PAT port authority transit I rant about..... this project should of never been funded, its a tunnel to no where:( and might end up costing a billion dollars, its well on its way:(

Stuff like this MUST END to even begin to put our budget in order.

all of these wasteful spenders should get immediate zero budget

[Bear Paws]

Big dig II...
Whats news here is that ABC is even talking about it. With Obama's approval at 41% with a -15 index and sinking faster than Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf, the less committed progressive media rats are looking to jump off before the approvals hit the 30s..thus dragging them down further with him. Not that is even possible. The Codependent Main Stream Media other than FOX already has lost all credibility and are barely higher than Congress in approval at 20.4% with a negitive of 66.9%....

So long as it keeps practicing "Omerta", they all will be lucky to be selling their corporations for $1.00 like Newsweek did today.. Newsweek's death spiral started for certain to tighten in 2008 with the unflattering intentionally unretouched Sarah Palin close up face shot on the cover.The long suspected ageda was out of the bag and in the open....

[WalksInDarkness]

I'm split 50/50 on the Big Dig. Dropping 93 under the city was a boondoggle, by the time it was finally built it was already under-sized for the increased amounts of Traffic. HOWEVER, getting a direct route from the Pike to the Airport was a necessity; getting there was a 1.5 hour odyssey, a maze of tunnels and tollbooths. The tunnels were structurally unsound, and these days the log-jam traffic would make it a real hazard. It didn't matter which 3 points of the compass you were coming from, the was no "easy" route in. Now I can get there in less than half the time @ ~45 minutes, I have made it in ~30 mins once (barreling down the Pike @ 100+mph at 5am on a Saturday morning, shh...). That all being said, I am sure they could have scrapped the 93 part and made the Pike tunnel for 1/3 of the cost. Meh...

[HDRoberts]

I'm split 50/50 on the Big Dig. Dropping 93 under the city was a boondoggle, by the time it was finally built it was already under-sized for the increased amounts of Traffic. HOWEVER, getting a direct route from the Pike to the Airport was a necessity; getting there was a 1.5 hour odyssey, a maze of tunnels and tollbooths. The tunnels were structurally unsound, and these days the log-jam traffic would make it a real hazard. It didn't matter which 3 points of the compass you were coming from, the was no "easy" route in. Now I can get there in less than half the time @ ~45 minutes, I have made it in ~30 mins once (barreling down the Pike @ 100+mph at 5am on a Saturday morning, shh...). That all being said, I am sure they could have scrapped the 93 part and made the Pike tunnel for 1/3 of the cost. Meh...

Oh, I see, you are only vehemently against government waste when it doesn't help you. But no big deal if you see some personal benefits?

This is why I see so much hypocrisy from the right.

[WalksInDarkness]

Oh, I see, you are only vehemently against government waste when it doesn't help you. But no big deal if you see some personal benefits?

This is why I see so much hypocrisy from the right.

I did not say that at all. Your reply is typical Leftist confabulation, reinterpreting someone else's statements to fit your own warped view of the world. Either that or your reading comprehension is just plain sub-par.

Anyhow, like I said, Recessing Rt.93 under the city accomplished NOTHING. It all was designed nearly 20 years before being finished, sure it was designed for 2x capacity - the traffic was nearly 3x as heavy. Once you are underground, there is NO way to expand. OTOH, the Tunnels to the Airport are more than adequate for the Traffic; even though the Airport Traffic has increased, there is no exponential explosion in Commuter Traffic. You would understand the Dynamics of large/old/landlocked Cities, if you weren't a mid-western rube. I've been all over Ohio, my division's "sister plant" is located in Dayton; sorry to say, but Cincinnati/Cleveland/Columbus are not even close to real metropolitan cities - and they face none of the challenges associated with 400yo Coastal "International Class" cities, the closest thing you have out there is Chicago (everything else is Podunk).

[HDRoberts]

I did not say that at all. Your reply is typical Leftist confabulation, reinterpreting someone else's statements to fit your own warped view of the world. Either that or your reading comprehension is just plain sub-par.

Anyhow, like I said, Recessing Rt.93 under the city accomplished NOTHING. It all was designed nearly 20 years before being finished, sure it was designed for 2x capacity - the traffic was nearly 3x as heavy. Once you are underground, there is NO way to expand. OTOH, the Tunnels to the Airport are more than adequate for the Traffic; even though the Airport Traffic has increased, there is no exponential explosion in Commuter Traffic. You would understand the Dynamics of large/old/landlocked Cities, if you weren't a mid-western rube. I've been all over Ohio, my division's "sister plant" is located in Dayton; sorry to say, but Cincinnati/Cleveland/Columbus are not even close to real metropolitan cities - and they face none of the challenges associated with 400yo Coastal "International Class" cities, the closest thing you have out there is Chicago (everything else is Podunk).

If I may quote your reaction on this board to this $14.6 Billion dollar project, "meh". But spend a few million to help the poor and you (and other conservatives, which is what I'm getting at) scream bloody murder. This is simply typical of what I see on this board. Another example is public schools. While conservatives here want limited government when it comes to social programs, the seem to love public schools, since their kids get to take advantage. There is also things like military spending, backed without question by conservatives despite limited government ideals.

And by the way, Dayton does not approach the size of Cleveland. Yes, we are smaller than Boston and Chicago, but we are not Podunk (Which, by the way, takes it's name from several areas found in New England).

[Salsadancer7]

If I may quote your reaction on this board to this $14.6 Billion dollar project, "meh". But spend a few million to help the poor and you (and other conservatives, which is what I'm getting at) scream bloody murder. This is simply typical of what I see on this board. Another example is public schools. While conservatives here want limited government when it comes to social programs, the seem to love public schools, since their kids get to take advantage. There is also things like military spending, backed without question by conservatives despite limited government ideals.

And by the way, Dayton does not approach the size of Cleveland. Yes, we are smaller than Boston and Chicago, but we are not Podunk (Which, by the way, takes it's name from several areas found in New England).

good post. Let's see, smarta$$ "you are a socialist commie" in 5....4....3...2....

[msmith198025]

I am against many social programs for various reasons that have been explained in previous threads. I am however for the public school system. I think education is one of, if not THE most important tool we can provide for our kids. What they do with that gift is up to them, and I have a hard time using these often abused programs to prop up those that abuse or disregard the gift of education.

And....I went to a private school.

[HDRoberts]

good post. Let's see, smarta$$ "you are a socialist commie" in 5....4....3...2....

Indeed, I'm the socialist commie that wants to bring troops home from everywhere, massively cutting military expenditures, privatize all education, including k-12, and end social security and medicare. Yep, that sounds like the USSR to me.:augentreher:

[msmith198025]

Indeed, I'm the socialist commie that wants to bring troops home from everywhere, massively cutting military expenditures, privatize all education, including k-12, and end social security and medicare. Yep, that sounds like the USSR to me.:augentreher:

Yet you want gov healthcare to be expanded, and do not mind taxes going up on higher wage earners, and seem to want to keep or expand other social programs. See, you are for some and against others. Yet you call everyone else hypocrites.

[HDRoberts]

Yet you want gov healthcare to be expanded, and do not mind taxes going up on higher wage earners, and seem to want to keep or expand other social programs. See, you are for some and against others. Yet you call everyone else hypocrites.

I'm for programs that expand efficiency and help all Americans. To me, having hundreds of different health insurers is one of the most interference parts of our health care system. All I propose is we stop giving our premiums to profit motivated companies and give it to the government to accomplish the same services. Profit motive and health care are simply 2 things that don't go together.

Single payer health care, reasonable unemployment insurance, and children and family social services (i.e. yanking kids out of abusive homes, and helping seniors navigate available help) are about the only social programs I support that I can think of. I suppose you might count local police, fire, and EMS, and public highways and national parks, but I;d hardly calls those social services.

And, yes, I'm for "raising" taxes on the wealthy. By raising them, I simply want to see the top to rates returned to where they were during the Clinton years (heck, even Alan Greenspan just came out saying maintaining tax cuts with borrowed money is a bad idea), and counting capital gains as income, rather than giving them a preferred tax rate.

[Salsadancer7]

I'm for programs that expand efficiency and help all Americans. To me, having hundreds of different health insurers is one of the most interference parts of our health care system. All I propose is we stop giving our premiums to profit motivated companies and give it to the government to accomplish the same services. Profit motive and health care are simply 2 things that don't go together.

Single payer health care, reasonable unemployment insurance, and children and family social services (i.e. yanking kids out of abusive homes, and helping seniors navigate available help) are about the only social programs I support that I can think of. I suppose you might count local police, fire, and EMS, and public highways and national parks, but I;d hardly calls those social services.

And, yes, I'm for "raising" taxes on the wealthy. By raising them, I simply want to see the top to rates returned to where they were during the Clinton years (heck, even Alan Greenspan just came out saying maintaining tax cuts with borrowed money is a bad idea), and counting capital gains as income, rather than giving them a preferred tax rate.

The response or responsive should be interesting.....

[msmith198025]

Education does not raise efficiency and help all Americans?

[WalksInDarkness]

If I may quote your reaction on this board to this $14.6 Billion dollar project, "meh". But spend a few million to help the poor and you (and other conservatives, which is what I'm getting at) scream bloody murder. This is simply typical of what I see on this board. Another example is public schools. While conservatives here want limited government when it comes to social programs, the seem to love public schools, since their kids get to take advantage. There is also things like military spending, backed without question by conservatives despite limited government ideals.

And by the way, Dayton does not approach the size of Cleveland. Yes, we are smaller than Boston and Chicago, but we are not Podunk (Which, by the way, takes it's name from several areas found in New England).

I'm talking about highways, please try to read and play along. Don't try to drag me down into your Liberal WhirlPool and try to lump many subjects into one, it makes you sound like a overly chatty 13yo girl. We can discuss all of your other whining points at another time.

[HDRoberts]

Education does not raise efficiency and help all Americans?

Maybe if we nationalized it. But education is a local issue. And it helps some way more than others. Single people subsidize those who want to put through 3+ kids. Also, opting out should be an option. If my parents knew I could be free of a lifetime of taxes by not opting in, I would have been home schooled. It feels unfair to say that I have to pay off a "debt" earned not by my choice, starting when I was 5 years old.

[NickG420]

Profit motive and health care are simply 2 things that don't go together.
You don't really believe that do you? I mean that's a pretty clever slogan to throw on the cover of some Liberal agenda book but it's total BS and you know it, or at least I hope you do.

I mean what do you think makes companies spend billion in research on diseases for? The betterment of mankind? Just because they are good guys and the want to help all Americans? Of course not...They are spending those billions trying to find the next big Medical innovation. The one that will make the billions they spent a drop in the bucket compared to the billions they will make in return of their innovation. That's what drives medical discoveries, technology, and pharmaceutical research. Profit is what makes this world go round, like it or not. I would much rather a corporation be driven by profit to find a cure for cancer than to wait on the government who is driven by....What was it they would be driven by again?

[msmith198025]

Maybe if we nationalized it. But education is a local issue. And it helps some way more than others. Single people subsidize those who want to put through 3+ kids. Also, opting out should be an option. If my parents knew I could be free of a lifetime of taxes by not opting in, I would have been home schooled. It feels unfair to say that I have to pay off a "debt" earned not by my choice, starting when I was 5 years old.

So you dont like that you have to pay for it and are not getting the benefit of it (with your own kids I mean), I assume you did go to a public school yourself based on what you posted.

I am sorry HD, but it sounds like you are making the same type of argument that you are criticizing others for making about different issues. It helps others more, ect.

[msmith198025]

I want to use the opt out option on other things HD. I want to opt out of paying taxes to fund the healthcare plan, since I will still have my own private coverage. That cool?

[cybok0]

The school system needs to be better to make this country better.

[msmith198025]

The school system needs to be better to make this country better.

I can agree with that.

[HDRoberts]

You don't really believe that do you? I mean that's a pretty clever slogan to throw on the cover of some Liberal agenda book but it's total BS and you know it, or at least I hope you do.

I mean what do you think makes companies spend billion in research on diseases for? The betterment of mankind? Just because they are good guys and the want to help all Americans? Of course not...They are spending those billions trying to find the next big Medical innovation. The one that will make the billions they spent a drop in the bucket compared to the billions they will make in return of their innovation. That's what drives medical discoveries, technology, and pharmaceutical research. Profit is what makes this world go round, like it or not. I would much rather a corporation be driven by profit to find a cure for cancer than to wait on the government who is driven by....What was it they would be driven by again?

And when they develop said cure, the only give it to those who can pay, while leaving billions suffering, either still having the disease, or with crushing debt to pay for the cure. It can be done another way. Look at Jonas Salk. He didn't need a profit to cure polio. He famously said, when asked if the vaccine was patented "There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?" For him, curing a disease that killed people was enough reward. And the result? Instead of curing polio only among the rich, polio was nearly wiped out worldwide in just a couple years. Today, I shudder to think of a cure for cancer or AIDS, knowing so many will probably not be able to avail themselves of it because of poverty.

[HDRoberts]

I want to use the opt out option on other things HD. I want to opt out of paying taxes to fund the healthcare plan, since I will still have my own private coverage. That cool?

Under my planned single payer, fine, if you wish to pay for everything out of pocket. Heck, considering the CBO indicates the deficit will be reduced thought the health care plan, it doesn't sound like there will be any change in your taxes to fund healthcare.

[msmith198025]

Under my planned single payer, fine, if you wish to pay for everything out of pocket. Heck, considering the CBO indicates the deficit will be reduced thought the health care plan, it doesn't sound like there will be any change in your taxes to fund healthcare.


:free-happy-smileys-:free-happy-smileys-:free-happy-smileys-

[HDRoberts]

:free-happy-smileys-:free-happy-smileys-:free-happy-smileys-

Care to point out where the law raised your taxes? Section and paragraph, please.

But when a new school funding levy comes out, I see exactly how it changes my taxes.

[msmith198025]

Care to point out where the law raised your taxes? Section and paragraph, please.

But when a new school funding levy comes out, I see exactly how it changes my taxes.

I am mainly laughing at the part where it says it will reduce the deficit. That is laughable.

As for my taxes going up to pay for it, there may not be a specific tax named to pay for this, but it is being paid for with tax money. Taxes that will go up on many americans (mainly higher wage earners) sooner or later to cover it.
Not to mention the increase in coverage costs that the insurance providers will pass along to us to cover themselves from the increased costs that they will incur. It is going to save us money? Not americans that already have coverage. It would not surprise me to see my premiums double in the next few years, and mainly because of this (yes I know they go up anyway, I said mainly).

[NickG420]

And when they develop said cure, the only give it to those who can pay, while leaving billions suffering, either still having the disease, or with crushing debt to pay for the cure. It can be done another way. Look at Jonas Salk. He didn't need a profit to cure polio. He famously said, when asked if the vaccine was patented "There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?" For him, curing a disease that killed people was enough reward. And the result? Instead of curing polio only among the rich, polio was nearly wiped out worldwide in just a couple years. Today, I shudder to think of a cure for cancer or AIDS, knowing so many will probably not be able to avail themselves of it because of poverty.

Jonas Salk was one man on a team of researchers. You can bet your ass the pharmaceutical company that mass produced the vaccine saw a profit. Maybe not the billions we see today, but I'm not sure it cost them billions to find the cure either. Much of that research funding was privately donated anyway. So no while Jonas Salk did not, nor did he want to, profit directly from his discovery, I'm positive someone else did. Was that the driving factor for either of them? Probably not. However, in your example it seems like you're saying if a company spends 100 billion dollars finding a cure for AIDS or Cancer they should just eat that cost and give it away to everyone who needs it because it's the right thing to do. Or are you suggesting making those that CAN pay, do so at an outrageous price so that those who can't pay for it get the cure for free? I'm not sure I'm understanding what it is you want to see as an end result.

[HDRoberts]

Jonas Salk was one man on a team of researchers. You can bet your ass the pharmaceutical company that mass produced the vaccine saw a profit. Maybe not the billions we see today, but I'm not sure it cost them billions to find the cure either. Much of that research funding was privately donated anyway. So no while Jonas Salk did not, nor did he want to, profit directly from his discovery, I'm positive someone else did. Was that the driving factor for either of them? Probably not. However, in your example it seems like you're saying if a company spends 100 billion dollars finding a cure for AIDS or Cancer they should just eat that cost and give it away to everyone who needs it because it's the right thing to do. Or are you suggesting making those that CAN pay, do so at an outrageous price so that those who can't pay for it get the cure for free? I'm not sure I'm understanding what it is you want to see as an end result.

No, I'm saying they should realize it costs $100 Billion to make the cure, and there 6 Billion some people, so they should charge no more than $16.67 per dose, plus whatever the manufacturing costs are, and work with worldwide governments to get everyone a dose.

[HDRoberts]

I am mainly laughing at the part where it says it will reduce the deficit. That is laughable.

As for my taxes going up to pay for it, there may not be a specific tax named to pay for this, but it is being paid for with tax money. Taxes that will go up on many americans (mainly higher wage earners) sooner or later to cover it.
Not to mention the increase in coverage costs that the insurance providers will pass along to us to cover themselves from the increased costs that they will incur. It is going to save us money? Not americans that already have coverage. It would not surprise me to see my premiums double in the next few years, and mainly because of this (yes I know they go up anyway, I said mainly).

Well, yell at the nonpartisan CBO, as their accountants came up with that, not me.

Sadly, I do think premiums will rise because of this bill, but not because of increased costs. They are getting a ton of new customers that will pay for that. Rather, they will use the bill as an excuse to raise rates, record record profits, and give themselves all bonuses. And sadly, stupid politicians on both sides of the aisle will not stop to question why rates and profits are rising at identical rates.

[msmith198025]

I am "yelling" at them. Well really laughing, but you get the point. Do YOU think that it will reduce the deficit?

Premiums WILL go up, of that there is no doubt. We disagree on why though. New customers by themselves will not offset, IMO, the added costs they will have. I do not think it would even be close. I think if that was all they had to fall back on to keep profits at the levels that they were at, they would fail. So they raise rates.

[HDRoberts]

I am "yelling" at them. Well really laughing, but you get the point. Do YOU think that it will reduce the deficit?

Premiums WILL go up, of that there is no doubt. We disagree on why though. New customers by themselves will not offset, IMO, the added costs they will have. I do not think it would even be close. I think if that was all they had to fall back on to keep profits at the levels that they were at, they would fail. So they raise rates.


Considering we are already paying for a lot of health care, I think it is possible.

[NickG420]

No, I'm saying they should realize it costs $100 Billion to make the cure, and there 6 Billion some people, so they should charge no more than $16.67 per dose, plus whatever the manufacturing costs are, and work with worldwide governments to get everyone a dose.
So they spent $100 billion to make ~$20 million. Have you ever ran a business or been a part of running a business? Have you ever worked in a sales or marketing position? Spending $100 billion dollars to bring in a gross profit of ~$20 million is so laughable it doesn't even deem a real response... Do you know how quickly you would get fired in any corporation presenting an idea like that?

[HDRoberts]

So they spent $100 billion to make ~$20 million. Have you ever ran a business or been a part of running a business? Have you ever worked in a sales or marketing position? Spending $100 billion dollars to bring in a gross profit of ~$20 million is so laughable it doesn't even deem a real response... Do you know how quickly you would get fired in any corporation presenting an idea like that?

Um, do you fail at math? If everyone gets a dose, they break even. Where do you get that only 1.2 million people get a vaccine?

[WalksInDarkness]

So they spent $100 billion to make ~$20 million. Have you ever ran a business or been a part of running a business? Have you ever worked in a sales or marketing position? Spending $100 billion dollars to bring in a gross profit of ~$20 million is so laughable it doesn't even deem a real response... Do you know how quickly you would get fired in any corporation presenting an idea like that?

Heee. Damn straight. If I told my bosses I was investing ANY amount to realize a 0.02% "Margin Contribution", I would wake up in the Parking Lot with a expensive shoeprint on my forehead...:augentreher:

[msmith198025]

Um, do you fail at math? If everyone gets a dose, they break even. Where do you get that only 1.2 million people get a vaccine?

I do not think you understood him.
He is saying they showed a PROFIT of 20 million over the investment of $100 billion, and his point is that it is not worth investing/risking that much money for such a small comparative return.

They are not in business to break even. Or even show a small (minuscule) return on the investment.

[HDRoberts]

I do not think you understood him. They are not in business to break even. Or even show a small (minuscule) return on the investment.

In that case, it goes EXACTLY to my point about profit motive and health care not mixing. No doubt, if a cure for cancer were developed, they would want to make a mighty profit and charge 6 or 7 figures, rather than get it to everyone at reasonable cost, much like the polio vaccine was distributed.

[msmith198025]

In that case, it goes EXACTLY to my point about profit motive and health care not mixing. No doubt, if a cure for cancer were developed, they would want to make a mighty profit and charge 6 or 7 figures, rather than get it to everyone at reasonable cost, much like the polio vaccine was distributed.

Any business wants to make a hefty return on the investment of billions, certainly much more than .02%. If you ran a buisiness, you would as well. I know we wouldnt run our mill year in and year out for that. It simply would not be worth it.
When it is your billions on the line, I would bet you would sing a different tune.

[HDRoberts]

Any business wants to make a hefty return on the investment of billions, certainly much more than .02%. If you ran a buisiness, you would as well. I know we wouldnt run our mill year in and year out for that. It simply would not be worth it.
When it is your billions on the line, I would bet you would sing a different tune.

If it meant curing one of the diseases that kill millions on this planet, then I'd be fine breaking even.

Of course, can anyone even name a disease that costs $100 Billion to develop a single treatment?

[msmith198025]

If it meant curing one of the diseases that kill millions on this planet, then I'd be fine breaking even.

Of course, can anyone even name a disease that costs $100 Billion to develop a single treatment?

The size of the investment is really irrelevant be it $100 or $100 million (or billion), the return number is what I am harping on.

And like I said, not being your money, that is very easy to say. I would like to say that myself. Most of us wouldnt however if we were in the BUSINESS of developing cures.

[NickG420]

In that case, it goes EXACTLY to my point about profit motive and health care not mixing. No doubt, if a cure for cancer were developed, they would want to make a mighty profit and charge 6 or 7 figures, rather than get it to everyone at reasonable cost, much like the polio vaccine was distributed.

I don't know why you keep saying that. You keep refering to Jonas Salk, one man in a sea of researchers paid from donations from the March of Dimes. I hate to break it to you but every vaccine sold to every doctor made a profit, and every doctor that administered that vaccine made a profit. Was it a grossly over inflated profit? Depends on what it cost to develop the vaccine. Which if memory serves me correct it was something ~$200 million. How much money do you think had been made on Polio vaccines since it's discovery?

[HDRoberts]

The size of the investment is really irrelevant be it $100 or $100 million (or billion), the return number is what I am harping on.

And like I said, not being your money, that is very easy to say. I would like to say that myself. Most of us wouldnt however if we were in the BUSINESS of developing cures.

Which is why I was saying maybe it shouldn't be a buisness.

[msmith198025]

HDRoberts, would you put your money in a bank account that gave you a .02% return? Or one that gave you a 5% return?
Would you invest in a company that gives you a .02% return? Or one that could double your money?

Investors will not invest if you can not give them a reason to do so. If the investors do not invest, there is no money in the first place for these large pharmaceutical companies to find these cures. Profit is tied into this whether you like it or not. Profit is driving the push to find these cures.

[msmith198025]

Which is why I was saying maybe it shouldn't be a buisness.

Then how should it be done? Government run cure development?

[HDRoberts]

Then how should it be done? Government run cure development?

Universities, much the way the Salk vaccine was developed.

[WalksInDarkness]

HDRoberts, would you put your money in a bank account that gave you a .02% return? Or one that gave you a 5% return?
Would you invest in a company that gives you a .02% return? Or one that could double your money?

Investors will not invest if you can not give them a reason to do so. If the investors do not invest, there is no money in the first place for these large pharmaceutical companies to find these cures. Profit is tied into this whether you like it or not. Profit is driving the push to find these cures.

He wont get it. You and I know the "cause" would be better served if they put the $100billion into a well managed fund, then use the profits to buy the Vaccine developed by a company that would get tax breaks during development and on subsequent profits.

[HDRoberts]

I want to know how cures to smallpox, polio, whooping cough, measles, and mumps were developed and became widespread if profit was the only reason to cure a disease. Just a sign of what is wrong with this planet, I guess.

[NickG420]

I want to know how cures to smallpox, polio, whooping cough, measles, and mumps were developed and became widespread if profit was the only reason to cure a disease. Just a sign of what is wrong with this planet, I guess.
Who said it was the ONLY reason?? None of us are saying that. But you seem to think companies should spend enormous amounts of money to find cures and just give it away. Businesses are in business to make money. Their sole goal is to turn a profit. Now the people they employ. The researchers, scientist, doctors, ect ect are there because they believe in finding cures and helping people. The company funding them...That's not their job. Their job is to pay these people to develop a product that turns a profit.

Let's be clear here...Someone has to pay for all this research, all this equipment, and all these doctors and scientists. So if corporations are not paying for them who do you think should be paying for all of this? The government? With tax dollars? So you either pay for a product that has profit built into it, or you pay higher taxes so we can find a cure AIDS and give it away for the good of the people. You think the lobbyist are bad now you go down that road and see what happens.

I'll play your game though. Let's say a company funds all the cost associated with finding a cure for cancer and AIDS and decides to give it away. How do you dictate who gets it first? I mean this stuff is not in just infinite supply, I am sure demand will outlast supply for years and years. Most people contract AIDS through poor lifestyle choices. Drug abuse, unprtected sex with multiple partners. Should we reward that type of behavior? What about the people who have lung cancer from years of smoking, or skin cancer from too much tanning? Are we to take care of them too? These are decisions that must be made if you are going to "give away cures". Furthermore who should be appointed to make these decisions? There's no such thing as a utopian world with no profit and no disease where everyone is equal. The sooner everyone stops trying to create one the better off this country will be...

[WalksInDarkness]

Salk finding the Polio Vaccine was a bit of a Fluke. Cancer has been around forever, and AIDS for at least 40 years; these aren't going to be cured from the mold off of some phd's ham sandwich. It would take the expertise and "scale of economy" of a major pharma to pull off the development/production/distribution of such a world changing cure.

[froggigger]

There would be no incentive to develop anything without the profit motive. Until the liberals realize that profit is not a dirty word, they will never understand a basic Economics 101 truth, ie. profit and loss is essential for a healthy economy.

[Bob Haller]

Pittsburghs tunnel to no where made the top 10 list of wasteful spending, #3..........

I heard a legislator basically pleading to let the 75% finished project be completed, and in his words to not walk away and let it rot.......

his claim was it would waste all the money spent so far.....

my response since every single ride for the next 30 years will cost the port authority about a 2 buck loss per ride we cant afford to finish it.

perhaps it could be made into a pedestrian tunnel to the 2 stadiums? but other than that its a big loser

[Bear Paws]

In that case, it goes EXACTLY to my point about profit motive and health care not mixing. No doubt, if a cure for cancer were developed, they would want to make a mighty profit and charge 6 or 7 figures, rather than get it to everyone at reasonable cost, much like the polio vaccine was distributed.Hmmm There is where your liberal ignorance about business rears its ugly head.. Where do you thing the original 100 billion for the research came from if not from profits. Certainly not from investors like you that wants some good return on his 401k and generous pension investments to keep your contributions low.

Your operating under the misguided notion that companies just happen to have a 100 billion laying around under their money tree to support a research team/staff/facility for a couple of decades while the research and then the 7-10 year FDA trials goes on.. There would be no research to begin with, let alone a drug company, had there been no profit to begin with. Even if they started out selling Snake oil elixirs and grew the business from there.. It was profit that got them into a position to have that 100 billion on hand to risk into research without any guarantees they 1) would find a cure and 2) the would find it before someone else making their years of vaccine research obsolete. With those risks/rewards no sane bank or investor would loan a dime on a project like that.

Just Like happened to Salk. He knew Sabin was hot on his ass with a safer oral vaccine. So lets not get all pious and sanctimonious about Salk here. Yes credits due but altruism is not why he "gave" the vaccine code away...

Another thing. You said the rich/wealthy should pay at a higher rate and more in taxes.. Why??? They use less of the public services and pay proportionally for what they use like roads etc with the gas tax and sales tax where applicable.. Someone already called you out on opting out. Why under your theory are the wealthy not allowed to opt out of school taxes, SS and Medicare for example?

Just trying to catch up to the thread.