I'm going to begin with your conclusion and then return to a point by point response.
SINCE WHEN DID A POOR MAN CREATE JOBS?
_________________________________
Hmmm, how exactly does this coincide with my opinion that the Democratic Party can beat the Republican Party by showing and proving that cronyism and corruption have made this country less safe?
It's not an argument against rich people, it's an argument against illegal behavior. Frankly, I believe that companies serve a purpose, but they need strong unions and a strong government to ensure that profits for stockholders isn't the only consideration.
Now, you requested documentation without providing any to disprove my statements, but here you go!
___________________
"We've got defense contractors bribing republican congressional leaders for contracts".
Who is this and where is the proof? I have read many allegations, a lot fabricated, but have seen no proof. I am with you, if there is corruption from anyone they should go to jail.
-----------------------
Uh, who are you and where have you been? This isn't even a pending case and innocent until proved guilty. This is:
"In November, San Diego Republican Congressman "Duke" Cunningham pleaded guilty to conspiracy and tax charges, admitting he took two-point-four (m) million dollars in bribes to steer defense contracts to conspirators."
http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=4301943&nav=9qrx---------------------
Sorry, to disappoint you here but it was the environmental groups that defeated the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Government Body not a "rich" contractor) that was prevented from reinforcing the levees and building new ones in order "to protect the wetlands" Well they sure got protected. IT HAPPENED TWICE THAT THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS DEFEATED THE NEW LEVEES AND REINFORCING THE OLD DILAPIDATED.
-----------------
I don't blame the Army Corp of Engineers, THEY WANTED TO FIX THE LEVEES. But the Bush Admin. had other priorities. (And if you tell me that the Bushes gave into enviro's that's a big belly laugh)
"It appears that the money has been moved in the president’s budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that’s the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can’t be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us.
-- Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; New Orleans Times-Picayune, June 8, 2004.
---------------------------------
"...while republicans refuse to shore up nuclear power plants."
More of the same rhetoric without facts. Again, it is the environmental groups that prevent nuclear power and the rebuilding/reinforcement. Please come up with some substantiated facts.
----------------------------------
There are plenty of facts about the Nuclear Power Industry being subsidized by the government and routinely failing safety inspections.
"But nuclear utilities say they should not be required to protect against enemies of the state, nor should they have to pay for measures they believe are excessive. The Nuclear Security Act would require plants to pay for federal guards, increased NRC security testing, and more physical barriers. "I don't think this is economic-driven opposition," Mitch Singer of the Nuclear Energy Institute said. "It is the industry's position that the way the system is set up now is pretty good."
Industry critics say utility lobbyists are following the same pattern they have for years -- denying the existence of a problem while delaying the rule-making process to save money on security. It's the same approach the airline industry used to stall tougher security measures on airplanes and in airports, said Edwin Lyman, scientific director of the D.C.-based Nuclear Control Institute, an anti-nuclear group. "It's exactly the same at nuclear plants," he said. "The industry is involved heavily in trying to shape things the way they want them. Things slow to a crawl, and meanwhile, the vulnerability is still there."
Additionally, they need subsidies both to build new reactors as well as insure against potential catastrophic disasters which shows that they cannot exist in a "free market."
http://www.citizen.org/documents/NukeSubsidies.pdfhttp://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2002/03/28/safety/But with or without HR 2983, existing nuclear plants keep their insurance breaks--and, no doubt, industry spokespeople will continue to boast that taxpayer-subsidized nuclear power is "cheap." Congress could, of course, revoke those protections, and force the industry to buy its own insurance--i.e., to pay its own way. But no one in Congress is seriously discussing such radical free-market shock therapy.
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/20460/story.htmhttp://www.necnp.org/files/TimeNASSpentFuel.pdf____________________________
"...we've got people dying because they can't afford prescription drugs that the government is not allowed to negotiate down the price of because the rich pharmaceutical industry gives them lots of money."
Again, more of the same rhetoric about rich companies and rich, rich, rich. This is more of government handouts, not just prescription drugs, but the whole welfare scheme.
____________________________________
Hmm, it doesn't appear that you're refuting anything I said, namely that the republican congress strictly prohibited Medicare from negotiating down the prices of prescription drugs, which the Veterans Administration and Canada already do with much success, creating a HUGE boon to the Pharmaceutical Industry.
Dems
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(337 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
Even Timmy doesn't know.
