Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (1124256)	3/12/2019 6:46:27 PM
From: sylvester80	Respond to of 1575773

CRONY CAPITALISM HAS FAILED you dumbass!!!! WAKE THE F**K UP!!!!!

To: RetiredNow who wrote (1124256)	3/12/2019 6:51:23 PM
From: sylvester80	Respond to of 1575773

For profit health care like the US has is NOT centralized you dumbass. And it's the CRONY CAPITALISM and massive income inequality that puts profit before people that it's slowly pushing the US to a different model more like the Scandinavian countries. ACA was just the beginning... single payer healthcare is coming... whether you like it or not... and all the insurance company CEOs should be rounded up and thrown in jail for all the CRIMES and MURDERS they committed throughout the years by bankrupting people and refusing to cover pre-existing conditions...

To: RetiredNow who wrote (1124256)	3/13/2019 8:44:33 AM
From: sylvester80	Respond to of 1575773

OOPS! Wyoming’s coal plants are so unprofitable Republicans turned to a ‘socialist program’ to save them; Wyoming Republican lawmakers pass bill forcing ratepayers to buy dirty, uneconomic coal power. JOE ROMM MAR 12, 2019, 1:18 PM thinkprogress.org A COAL PROCESSING PLANT IN GILLETTE, WY IN JUNE, 2006. CREDIT: ROBERT NICKELSBERG/GETTY IMAGES. Wyoming recently enacted a law that forces utilities seeking to shut down unprofitable coal plants to try to sell them first, and then to buy back the power from the new owner, even if cheaper power is available. Shutting down these coal plants and replacing them with cheaper sources, all of which produce cleaner power, would save ratepayers tens of millions of dollars a year. But state Republicans want to artificially prop up these plants, regardless of the economic reality, while their party leaders in Washington have been characterizing Democratic efforts to speed up clean energy deployment to save a livable climate as “ socialism.” Wyoming isn’t alone; Republican lawmakers in Montana are pursuing similar legislation. And for the past two years, as coal continues its steady decline, the Trump administration has pushed multiple efforts to force utilities to keep money-losing coal plants open. Wyoming Republicans, who have a supermajority in the state legislature, began to consider their new bill after PacifiCorp — which owns the state’s largest utility, Rocky Mountain Power, as well as most of its coal plants and two coal mines — reported late last year that 60 percent of its coal plants are uneconomic, including ones in Wyoming. “They’re asking the citizens of Wyoming who pay [for] energy to pay more to keep coal plants going,” University of Wyoming economist Jason Shogren told the Wyoming Tribune Eagle. “In one sense, it’s a very socialist program.” Trump plan to bail out coal industry punishes red states the most Similarly, Montana’s legislation, as Utility Dive reported last week, would let its utility “buy a larger share of the newest unit of the Colstrip power plant for $1 and pass the costs onto its captive customers.” The hard reality is that coal-fired power plants have simply become t oo expensive to operate compared to natural gas and renewable energy. Indeed, building and running new wind and solar farms is now cheaper than just running existing coal plants in many places. That’s why, despite repeated campaign pledges to save the dirtiest of fossil fuels, President Donald Trump has presided over a faster rate of coal plant retirements in his first two years than President Barack Obama saw in his entire first term. Under Trump, coal’s rate of collapse to be ‘more than twice’ what analysts previously projected The Trump administration has proposed bailouts for the industry; it has tried urging utilities not to shut down coal plants; and the Department of Energy is providing up to $38 million in funding to improve the performance and reliability of existing coal plants. Do all of the efforts by Trump and GOP lawmakers around the country rise to the level of “socialism for coal?” Not by the traditional definition, which the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, says is “a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production.” But we’re in a world where Republicans define “socialism” to include all Democratic proposals to help stave off the existential threat posed by fossil fuel emissions. Indeed, those accusations have increased exponentially with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-NY) introduction of the Green New Deal, the goal of which is to speed up the replacement of dirty fossil fuels with clean energy as fast as the latest climate science says we must in order to preserve a livable climate. Scientists say Ocasio-Cortez’s dire climate warning is spot on In this world, the GOP effort to use the government to force uneconomic fossil fuel plants to stay open is the most dangerous and self-destructive centrally-planned economy imaginable.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (1124256)	3/13/2019 9:22:10 AM
From: sylvester80	1 Recommendation Recommended By Celtictrader Respond to of 1575773

CRONY CAPITALISM MUST DIE: FDA medical adviser: 'Congress is owned by pharma' Adriana Belmonte Associate Editor Yahoo Finance•March 13, 2019 finance.yahoo.com Pharmaceutical companies are under the spotlight with congressional hearings on the cost of drug prices and allegations of the industry’s role in the opioid crisis. Dr. Raeford Brown, a pediatric anesthesia specialist at the UK Kentucky Children’s Hospital and chair of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Committee on Analgesics and Anesthetics, has been openly critical of big pharma and the lack of proper oversight from the FDA. Despite many politicians, particularly declared presidential candidates, beginning to speak out against big pharma, Brown does not think that anything will come out of it “because Congress is owned by pharma.” “The pharmaceutical industry pours millions of dollars into the legislative branch every single year,” he told Yahoo Finance. “In 2016, they put $100 million into the elections. That’s a ton of money.” ‘It’s really about Congress’ Contributions from the pharmaceutical and health products industry during the 2017-2018 election cycle. (Photo: screenshot/Open Secrets) More Open Secrets, a website operated by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, tracks money in U.S. politics. It ranked the top 20 members of the House and the Senate that have received the most campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical and health products industry during the 2017-2018 election cycle. The website defines the industry as including “not only drug manufacturers but also dealers of medical products and nutritional and dietary supplements.” Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, (D-N. Dak)., leaves the Capitol after a vote on Thursday, June 14, 2018. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call) More During the ‘17-’18 election cycle, Kevin McCarthy, now the House minority leader after midterms, received the second-highest amount of funds in Congress. The California-based politician received a total of $380,350 in campaign contributions, with a large sum coming from pharma companies such as Abbott Laboratories ( ABT), Pfizer ( PFE), Johnson & Johnson ( JNJ), Eli Lilly ( LLY), Amgen ( AMGN), and Merck ( MRK). “I’m really much more concerned because Congress is supposed to have oversight for the FDA,” Brown said. “If the FDA isn’t going to hold pharma accountable, and Congress is getting paid to not hold pharma accountable, then it really doesn’t matter who the president is because it’s really about Congress.” Democrats and Republicans alike benefit from Big Pharma donations. (Photo: screenshot/Open Secrets) More Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the former speaker of the House, was ranked 10th among members of Congress. He received $222,070, seeing most of the funds coming from Merck. Fourteen out of the top 20 recipients in the House were Republicans. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas), a former congressman who almost upset Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in the 2018 midterms, was 18th on the list. O’Rourke, seen as a potential 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, received $171,255. Dems top list of big pharma Senate donations Democrats and Republicans alike benefit from Big Pharma donations. (Photo: screenshot/Open Secrets) More In the Senate, notable names include Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Hatch received $238,289 in donations, with Merck being the biggest donor among manufacturing companies. McConnell, ranked 12th among senators on the list, received $149,113, with Eli Lilly being the prevailing big pharma company. Fifteen out of the top 20 recipients in the Senate were Democrats. Gillibrand, a Democratic candidate for president in the 2020 election, was ranked 11th on the list. Over half of the big pharma money she received during the 2017-2018 cycle came from Pfizer, with Amgen, AbbVie ( ABBV), and Johnson & Johnson also in the mix. Overall, she received a total of $151,197 from the pharmaceutical/health product industry. Gillibrand announced in February 2019 that she and Senator Sherrod Brown (D-O.H.) were introducing legislation that would “penalize pharmaceutical companies believed to be engaging in price gouging without cause, leading to price spikes for patients who rely on medication to treat diseases ranging from cancer to addiction.” Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y. ) on Monday, Feb. 25, 2019. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta) More Minnesota senator and Democratic presidential candidate Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) has repeatedly stated in public appearances that she will not be bought by big pharma. “In Minnesota and across the country, no place has been immune from the devastating effects of opioid abuse,” Sen. Klobuchar said in a statement to Yahoo Finance. “In my state, deaths from prescription drug abuse now claims the lives of more Minnesotans than homicides or car crashes. We need to continue to work together to tackle the scourge of opioid addiction that continues to take lives each day.” At the same time, thanks to the U.S. campaign finance system, Klobuchar has also received money from some of the companies contributing to the opioid epidemic. According to Open Secrets, Klobuchar received $65,491 in campaign funds during the 2017-2018 election cycle, with $8,500 coming from pharmaceutical companies. Abbott Laboratories was her biggest pharma donor at $8,000. ‘If we don’t change ... it will happen again’ Top pharma contributions in the 2017-18 election cycle by company. (Photo: screenshot/Open Secrets) More Purdue Pharma is one company that has come under fire as of late, as it faces roughly 2,000 lawsuits, including one by the state of Massachusetts that alleged that it “created the [opioid] epidemic and profited from it through a web of illegal deceit.” Although Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) isn’t among the top 20 senators in big pharma money, he did receive the largest sum of donations from Purdue in the 2017-2018 election cycle, a total of $6,000. Since 2007, Purdue has contributed $170,250 to his campaigns, according to Kaiser Health News. As a result of the lawsuits, Purdue Pharma is exploring filing for bankruptcy. Filing for Chapter 11 protection “would halt the lawsuits and allow Purdue to negotiate legal claims with plaintiffs under the supervision of a U.S. bankruptcy judge,” Reuters reported this month. The lawsuit is only one part of the massive opioid epidemic plaguing the country, which Brown said derives from the pharmaceutical industry’s desire to make a profit. “If we don’t change the regulatory process for opioids, it will happen again,” Brown said.