Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="joshpoints" data-source="post: 564338" data-attributes="member: 546465">&quot;People just need to wake up, grow up, and take responsibility for their actions, and find some intelligence concerning action and consequence.&quot;This is where most of the problems in america could be fixed.&nbsp; No one wants to be responsible for anything.I didn&#039;t see the whole debate but from what I saw on a local news station afterwards I thought Edwards did a better job.&nbsp; I found that Edwards brought up some of the decisions Bush made.All that Cheney and Bush have to do is use economics to explain how Kerry and Edwards plain with hurt america.&nbsp; For example Edwards talked about medical going up.&nbsp; It&#039;s going up and will continue to go up because more things are being covered by insurance companies.&nbsp; Then edwards will bring up socialized health care and this can be shot down by saying that the money will still have to come from somewhere and this somewhere is the pockets of americans.&nbsp; THen edwards would say we&#039;ll tax corporate america and the rich and then Cheney can simply bring up the longterm set backs that this causes in economic expansion and Cheney could bring up examples in Europe.&nbsp; Then edwards would say well we&#039;ll bring down the costs by importing canadian drugs.&nbsp; Then Cheney could say this is essentially outsourcing because because american drug companies that get these drugs passed by the FDA and creates these drugs will have a huge disadvantage because of all the costs involved in this process which the canadian drug companies could avoid would hurt the american companies.&nbsp; Essentially Edwards and Kerry would help the outsourcing of drug companies.&nbsp; Then Cheney could say we have two options if we take this path that Kerry has. Option1 is eliminate the process of getting drugs approved by the FDA or Option 2 have the government pay the companies to create drugs.&nbsp; Now breaking it down to these two options is enough for some americans to see the problems ahead but for most it is not.&nbsp; Unfortunately I don&#039;t feel like typing anymore so I&#039;ll leave it at that.&nbsp; Both options have problems.&nbsp; It&#039;s like people see the goods of an idea but don&#039;t do a longterm cost benefit analysis of it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="joshpoints, post: 564338, member: 546465"] "People just need to wake up, grow up, and take responsibility for their actions, and find some intelligence concerning action and consequence." This is where most of the problems in america could be fixed. No one wants to be responsible for anything. I didn't see the whole debate but from what I saw on a local news station afterwards I thought Edwards did a better job. I found that Edwards brought up some of the decisions Bush made. All that Cheney and Bush have to do is use economics to explain how Kerry and Edwards plain with hurt america. For example Edwards talked about medical going up. It's going up and will continue to go up because more things are being covered by insurance companies. Then edwards will bring up socialized health care and this can be shot down by saying that the money will still have to come from somewhere and this somewhere is the pockets of americans. THen edwards would say we'll tax corporate america and the rich and then Cheney can simply bring up the longterm set backs that this causes in economic expansion and Cheney could bring up examples in Europe. Then edwards would say well we'll bring down the costs by importing canadian drugs. Then Cheney could say this is essentially outsourcing because because american drug companies that get these drugs passed by the FDA and creates these drugs will have a huge disadvantage because of all the costs involved in this process which the canadian drug companies could avoid would hurt the american companies. Essentially Edwards and Kerry would help the outsourcing of drug companies. Then Cheney could say we have two options if we take this path that Kerry has. Option1 is eliminate the process of getting drugs approved by the FDA or Option 2 have the government pay the companies to create drugs. Now breaking it down to these two options is enough for some americans to see the problems ahead but for most it is not. Unfortunately I don't feel like typing anymore so I'll leave it at that. Both options have problems. It's like people see the goods of an idea but don't do a longterm cost benefit analysis of it. [/QUOTE]

Verification