I thought that was Mayor Pete?

It's pretty much the whole lot.  Same Santa Claus message built on historically failed policy.

There's absolutely no substance or personality in the entire lot.

Birds of a feather, I suppose.

Ooooo, feathers! I bet a few of them like that treatment too!

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

His point is that he doesn't think the government should have extra money lying around.
Right?
How does the fact that government is what creates money the first place comport with that sentiment?

That wasn't my point at all.

The government should not have any excess cash that they confiscate from us.

The government isn't in the business of "giving out prizes".  The government should not be picking winners and losers no matter the industry.

The government needs to let the free market innovate and set prices.

How is awarding a cash prize to a company that develops a new drug different from awarding a contract to a company that's doing any other kind of work for the government? Like building new barracks or new post offices or new roads or new airplanes?
Here is the work the government wants to see done.
Do the work.
Collect the money.
Where is the difference?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

That wasn't my point at all.

The government should not have any excess cash that they confiscate from us.

The government isn't in the business of "giving out prizes".  The government should not be picking winners and losers no matter the industry.

The government needs to let the free market innovate and set prices.

How is awarding a cash prize to a company that develops a new drug different from awarding a contract to a company that's doing any other kind of work for the government? Like building new barracks or new post offices or new roads or new airplanes?
Here is the work the government wants to see done.
Do the work.
Collect the money.
Where is the difference?

A company developing a new product != government contract.

First of all that's not the way government contracts work.  In a nutshell the government creates a Statement Of Work (SOW) and opens it up for bidding.  Companies decide whether or not they want to bid on the contract based on the SOW.  Once bids are submitted they are reviewed and the contract is awarded to a company based on best technical plan/lowest cost.

Drug companies doing research and development of new drugs do so in the free market.  Government should get out of the way of that process.  The free market would be the ultimate decider of what the "cash prize" is should a drug company develop a new drug as it should be.

It's called Capitalism.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

How is awarding a cash prize to a company that develops a new drug different from awarding a contract to a company that's doing any other kind of work for the government? Like building new barracks or new post offices or new roads or new airplanes?
Here is the work the government wants to see done.
Do the work.
Collect the money.
Where is the difference?

A company developing a new product != government contract.

First of all that's not the way government contracts work.  In a nutshell the government creates a Statement Of Work (SOW) and opens it up for bidding.  Companies decide whether or not they want to bid on the contract based on the SOW.  Once bids are submitted they are reviewed and the contract is awarded to a company based on best technical plan/lowest cost.

Drug companies doing research and development of new drugs do so in the free market.  Government should get out of the way of that process.  The free market would be the ultimate decider of what the "cash prize" is should a drug company develop a new drug as it should be.

It's called Capitalism.

The free market would assign almost no reward without the protections of patent law.  The problem is that patent law seems to be giving to high of rewards, at too much cost to too many desperate, dying people.  

The cash prize idea would be basically the same as the statement of work you describe.  Statement of work: show that X cures Y in animal trials - get cash prize if it does.  Then get offered a new SOW - show that X cures Y in small human study - get a second cash prize if it does.  More complex than this of course, but not fundamentally different.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

A company developing a new product != government contract.

First of all that's not the way government contracts work.  In a nutshell the government creates a Statement Of Work (SOW) and opens it up for bidding.  Companies decide whether or not they want to bid on the contract based on the SOW.  Once bids are submitted they are reviewed and the contract is awarded to a company based on best technical plan/lowest cost.

Drug companies doing research and development of new drugs do so in the free market.  Government should get out of the way of that process.  The free market would be the ultimate decider of what the "cash prize" is should a drug company develop a new drug as it should be.

It's called Capitalism.

The free market would assign almost no reward without the protections of patent law.  The problem is that patent law seems to be giving to high of rewards, at too much cost to too many desperate, dying people.  

The cash prize idea would be basically the same as the statement of work you describe.  Statement of work: show that X cures Y in animal trials - get cash prize if it does.  Then get offered a new SOW - show that X cures Y in small human study - get a second cash prize if it does.  More complex than this of course, but not fundamentally different.

Sigh...  You just don't understand how government contracts work.  I do.  I have been a government contractor for the last 20 years and I can tell you that it doesn't get awarded or paid after the work is done.  That's a whole other topic.

What you are basically proposing is the government micro-managing an industry.  Again, it's not up to the government to pick winners and losers.  It's not up to the government to drive innovation.

We have gotten off-topic here and should steer back to the point of the thread... the weak bunch of loons that the democrats are fielding right now.  A few weeks ago I thought that Kamala Harris might be the new "chosen one" for the democrat party, but it looks like Pocahontas is doing very well right now.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

The free market would assign almost no reward without the protections of patent law.  The problem is that patent law seems to be giving to high of rewards, at too much cost to too many desperate, dying people.  

The cash prize idea would be basically the same as the statement of work you describe.  Statement of work: show that X cures Y in animal trials - get cash prize if it does.  Then get offered a new SOW - show that X cures Y in small human study - get a second cash prize if it does.  More complex than this of course, but not fundamentally different.

Sigh...  You just don't understand how government contracts work.  I do.  I have been a government contractor for the last 20 years and I can tell you that it doesn't get awarded or paid after the work is done.  That's a whole other topic.

What you are basically proposing is the government micro-managing an industry.  Again, it's not up to the government to pick winners and losers.  It's not up to the government to drive innovation.

We have gotten off-topic here and should steer back to the point of the thread... the weak bunch of loons that the democrats are fielding right now.  A few weeks ago I thought that Kamala Harris might be the new "chosen one" for the democrat party, but it looks like Pocahontas is doing very well right now.

Right most government contracts are paid in phases.
Some of the money comes at signing, and then the rest comes at certain milestones.
Sometimes there's an arbitrary reduction.
Sometimes scope is added.
The point is there's nothing wrong with the government spending money to pay private actors to do work that the government wants to be done.
Obviously, most economic activity should be private, but there's nothing inherently wrong with bits of it being public. Inevitably some of it will be public. Only a simpleton would think it's black and white or easy to determine which activities should always be private and which should sometimes be public. Times change, technologies change, enemies change, needs change.

As for you wanting to get back on topic, I suspect in the end it will come down to Warren and Biden. I think all the Democrats like Warren, they just doubt she can win. And Biden is the one that most of the people who worry about electability think is the most electable. So as candidates get eliminated, their supporters will go to Warren if they think any Democrat can win, and they will go to Biden if they worry that only a certain type can win.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Beto bites the dust.

Your AR-15s will sleep well tonight.

I wonder if this bum goes back to Robert Francis now.

---

Beto bites the dust.

Your AR-15s will sleep well tonight.

I wonder if this bum goes back to Robert Francis now.

I hope they kick him out of Texas. Exile him go live with the other hippies in California.

---

Harris is next.
I wonder if either of them will endorse a remaining candidate. If so, will the candidate they endorse get a boost in the polls?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Harris is next.
I wonder if either of them will endorse a remaining candidate.  If so, will the candidate they endorse get a boost in the polls?

I hope her and Booker are the next to go.

---

Pelosi reveals the Democrat 2020 slogan:

Throw a punch...for the children!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H1wQwlVMWY

---

Another one bites the dust.... Hilarious that Gabbard outlasted Harris. Now she can go back to destroying California.

---

Bloomberg's poll numbers were higher than Kamala's. Guess she saw the writing on the wall.

---

Bloomberg's poll numbers were higher than Kamala's.  Guess she saw the writing on the wall.

No, it’s because she’s not a billionaire, or something.

---

Crazy Joe tells coal miners to learn how to code.

You just can't make this stuff up.

---

Crazy Joe tells coal miners to learn how to code.

You just can't make this stuff up.

Hillary said the same thing. It's not that a coal miner couldn't code. Most of them totally could. They just don't want desk jobs.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Trump continues to steam ahead, outperforming what's left of the scrap heap mess of dem candidates.

Not unexpected. There's simply no substance on the other side.

Like last election, with the democratic oversampling any potential contender would have to be going into November with a 10 point lead over Trump to have a chance. With the economy rolling and the country strong, not looking good at all for anyone hoping to better Trump at the ballot. He's likely to wipe the floor with them in debates like last time as well, so that's not even a factor yet. Oof.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Some guy named Castro just dropped out. Mayor Pete is no longer Mayor. Tulsi went surfing in NH on 1-foot waves.

---

Who is Castro? Are we in Cuba?

Book coming out in 3,2,1....

---

Wait, he was a candidate? Well, at least both of his supporters can write his name in on the ballot.

---