|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Interesting read....... /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1454256777 Message started by raydawg on 01/31/16 at 08:12:57 |
|
Title: Interesting read....... Post by raydawg on 01/31/16 at 08:12:57 For profit only? Empathy for a cost? The implications are far reaching, and very revealing, ugly at its core. Joe Biden’s proposal for a cancer moon shot has struck a deep nerve in the research community, where cutting-edge scientists blame an entrenched medical establishment for hoarding the data needed to make breakthroughs. Biden, whose son Beau died of brain cancer in May, said earlier this month that vast troves of research were “trapped in silos, preventing faster progress and greater reach to patients.” While few researchers disagree, many are still reluctant to share the raw data used in their research, posing big obstacles to the vice president’s initiative. Story Continued Below The tension boiled over this month when Jeffrey Drazen, editor of the New England Journal, and co-author Dan Longo, wrote in an op-ed that while sharing was all well and good, it had to be done collaboratively, not by “data parasites” who stole or misused work that might have taken bench scientists decades to assemble. The editorial did not mention Biden’s initiative, but many commenters noted its relevance. Over a snowbound weekend, the Twittersphere exploded with angry attacks on the Journal, which gave the impression of an ivory tower beset by flame-throwing iconoclasts. Geneticist Michael Eisen, at the University of California, Berkeley, decried the editorial (which Drazen toned down four days later) as “one of the most shockingly anti-science things ever written.” The debate, which revolves around how fast researchers should have to share results from government-funded clinical trials, aired biomedicine’s dirty laundry in public. “Big data” has produced breakthroughs but it has also put some traditional researchers on the defensive. So have reports showing that most research papers—the bread and butter of careers—yield results that can’t be reproduced. For many genetic studies in particular, the only way to get reliable, replicable results is to contribute to studies that amass huge amounts of data—and thereby surrender the glory of publishing alone. That’s not an easy sell to those in the medical trenches. Researchers need to publish original articles to advance their careers. In addition, their institutions are encouraged to monetize the information under the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act, which encouraged universities to commercialize discoveries. Committees for ethical review and data management also get in on the act to protect the rights of patients and scientific integrity. Often, the process just looks like a waste of time, producing red tape and silos that threaten to block the administration’s efforts. Some kind of incentive may be required to cut them loose, said John Wilbanks of Sage Bionetworks, a nonprofit that supports open science projects. “If they’re serious about a moon shot, they have to advocate for the creation of a new system that doesn’t have to fight all these various power structures,” Wilbanks said. Biden has promised to “break down silos and bring all the cancer fighters together.” But he has not yet offered specifics about how to do that. "Biden is absolutely right to focus on robust data sharing as a key tenet of cancer research,” says David Shaywitz, chief medical officer of DNAnexus, a biotech company. “Leading academic cancer centers are clamoring for government money to subsidize sequencing projects, but unless this funding is explicitly coupled to actual data sharing, we'll wind up enlarging existing silos rather than leveling them." “Data sharing is in the Zeitgeist—that’s why Biden said it,” added Wilbanks. But to force the transition to easier data handover, it will be necessary for the government to attach strings to its grants, he said. A lot of scientists disagree, including those in the private sector. “I don’t think that kind of mandate will work,” said Brad Fenwick, a vice president at the academic publisher Elsevier, most of whose journals require high fees to read. He said such ideas reflect a “lack of appreciation of the difference between disciplines. Everyone sees the world from where they sit.” Most academic researchers “perceive very little upside in generously and richly sharing their raw data,” Shaywitz acknowledges. “At a minimum, it’s regarded as a thankless hassle.” “At what point is data so free that you might wake up and find some part of your long, arduously created trial published by someone you’ve never heard of?” says Clifford Hudis, chief advocacy officer at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. There are scientific risks to sharing data as well. Hidden elements in a dataset – details, for example, about a study population that the original researcher understood but didn’t communicate in a publication—add mistakes when crunched into multiple sets, says biostatistician Donald Berry of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. NIH typically requires data from clinical trials it funds to be published within a year of the completion of the trial. Releasing it before it’s collected can bias investigators, said Walter Kibbe, director of bioinformatics at the National Cancer Institute. But to meet the administration’s goal of a personalized approach to disease, patients’ genetic variations will have to be matched against large databases of people with the same diseases. That isn’t possible when it takes months to access the data, especially if the patient is gravely ill with cancer or some other condition. “Nothing we do in rare disease space doesn’t totally rely on data sharing,” says Daniel MacArthur, a genomics expert with appointments at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. Scientists describe some of the barriers as cultural differences that are generational, or entrenched in particular scientific disciplines. “The clinical trialists like [the New England Journal’s] Drazen are basically in a totally different universe” from data scientists, says cancer genome expert Michael Hoffman of the University of Toronto. “The sky doesn’t fall because people use my research files without listing me as a co-author on their paper.” “’Research parasites’ is a rather hilarious thing to say,” adds Jeremy Leipzig, a bioinformatics software developer at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “A statistician sitting in India might have nothing to do with your study, but have an excellent way of analyzing data that gives us terrific insight into the etiology of a disease.” As an example of problems with sharing, researchers cite NIH’s Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes, created in 2006 to archive and distribute biomedical data generated in NIH-funded studies. Scientists complain that it takes months to learn whether they can access files, and sometimes the answer is ‘no’ without explanation. It’s not entirely the government’s fault. Each institution that donates data to the site has its own rules about using them, rules that vary from study to study. Technical problems can make it hard to upload vast files. The NIH crew that manages the database seems underfunded and overworked, said Leipzig. Despite these factors, fewer than a third of those requesting access to the database have been refused, notes Laura Lyman Rodriguez, chief of the policy office at the NIH’s genome institute. She and others interviewed for this article see a trend toward more data sharing, and hope Biden’s cancer push will speed it along. Groups that started work in the 1990s on the federally backed Human Genome Project had a head start dealing with big collaborations and terabytes of data. Now, every biomedical lab needs a computer scientist and a statistician to stay on the cutting edge, said Louis Staudt, who leads the Center for Cancer Genomics at NCI. The “dataheads” enjoy the support of patient groups, which are pressing scientists to share their results early and often, so the best knowledge can get to doctors faster. The scientific value of the data, and the push for patient participation, are “shifting the conversation,” Rodriguez said. Obama used a February 2013 executive action to require public access to data created with public funding. The feds, cancer centers and advocacy groups are building collaborative projects that make it easier for clinicians and researchers to keep abreast of the latest findings. “Biden’s onto something,” said Leipzig of Children’s Hospital. “He’s right. The more we can to encourage data sharing, the faster science will progress.” Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/joe-biden-cancer-researchers-rift-218465#ixzz3yq4c9EDL |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/31/16 at 14:06:36 I've been watching drives for donations to research foundations pretty much all my life. I'm not Against searching for cures, but I find it strange that there is virtually no mention of cause. Sure, cigarettes, big deal, as IF anyone actually Needed a scientific study to know that smoking is not a good idea. And, I smoke anyway. But, I buy imported tobacco, NOT sprayed with thimerosal, and, AFAIK, American tobacco is the only tobacco that is sprayed with it. And the New, fire resistant papers have rings of chemicals to extinguish it if you're not actively smoking it. I don't trust the chemical stew that is in childrens clothes is good, sold as fire resistant..Same is true of the mattresses we all buy. Women and breast cancer. The body stores garbage in fat. Boobs are mostly fat. Underarm deodorants, and the other garbage we eat that has no business being in food, and the things that are added to vaccines that have no justification for being there, and what we have come to call water,, formaldehyde in the carpets and the glue that holds the countertop down.. The list of carcinogens that are just ubiquitous istoo long to even get them all found. I'm not a believer in taking a boob and smashing it flat and xraying it. I wonder what the cancer rate is in the uncivilized tribes, places where nobody has ever seen a hamburger or a coke. I'm gonna step way out on a limb and say it is a Bunch lower. |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by Serowbot on 01/31/16 at 17:00:43 3F2026213C3B0A3A0A32202C67550 wrote:
What?,.. that's good exercise, that is... ;D |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/31/16 at 17:10:47 I said mashing, not sucking. |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by Serowbot on 01/31/16 at 22:19:52 Seriously,... Disposing of ego... is a monumental task... Perhaps, more so, than curing cancer... Pray for them... Dawg?.... Buddhism is all about this... I think I may be a Buddhist, that can't do yoga.... :-/... ;D ;D ;D... |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by WebsterMark on 02/01/16 at 05:40:19 I wonder what the cancer rate is in the uncivilized tribes, places where nobody has ever seen a hamburger or a coke. I'm gonna step way out on a limb and say it is a Bunch lower. Probably almost impossible to study since it would be like comparing apples to oranges. Lifespan in 'uncivilized tribes' is much shorter etc... but there's probably something to your premise about modern life increase occurrences. As much as Pro-Death advocates, Democrats and Planned Parenthood try to hide it, abortion does increase breast cancer rates. Could wiping Secret on her underarm everyday for 40 years cause it? I don't know, kinda doubt it. Skin is a pretty good protection. One thing I do know because I'm in the food industry, organic, locally sourced, fresh, non-GMO etc.... foods can make you sick or kill you just as foods produced by all those evil corporations like Tyson, Nestle, ConAgra etc... if not quicker. The last two outbreaks this year with deaths involved were from fresh vegetables. E Coli is a 'natural' pathogen for example that lives in the soil as does listeria, along with many others. Don't think that just because it's fresh from the farm it's safe. |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by HovisPresley on 02/01/16 at 05:52:34 447671606776615E726178130 wrote:
....................................................... What do you do in the food industry that gives you this idea? |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by WebsterMark on 02/01/16 at 09:33:26 My job takes me into food & beverage processing facilities. I was in 3 last week. Snow storm this week messed up my schedule or I would have been in a couple more this week. I've been in this industry on and off for 20+ years. Seen a lot of changes. There are a lot of smaller processors opening up last couple years who are taking advantage of the wholesome food craze. Craft breweries are probably the most obvious, but there are a lot of smaller animal, fruit and vegetable processors who've opened. While major processors certainly let bad food get out, it's a mistake to think that terms like organic or fresh produce or that locally sourced or promises of non-GMO equals safe food. I follow all the food recall notices from both the FDA and USDA as well as the Canadian regulatory agency and many if not most, of the recalls (the ones not related to allergens) are not from national, well known processors. And if you were to take into account the volume of food recalled between large processors and small, the ratio is enormous, which you would expect and frankly, what you would want to see. |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/01/16 at 11:52:30 Christianity is about Putting the old man On the cross Being reborn That is not an exercise in building self esteem and ego. |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by raydawg on 02/01/16 at 16:49:21 415E585F42457444744C5E52192B0 wrote:
Not sure how this post ( JOGS ) has anything to do with the original post on cancer research, and Bot was just trying to bridge another post unto this one, tho faintly, I think I can see what he was trying to get at, if you generalize, I guess. And my final input Jog would be to offer you is, its more than what list, as we ALL fall short of perfect.... Its about grace. Now if y'all excuse me, I think I wanna watch Bot try yoga, seems he might be getting it.... Heck, he already exhibits the ability to shove his head half way up his arse ;D JOKE....JOKE......JOKE.......JOKE.....ALERT....ALERT.....ALERT, whew |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/01/16 at 17:29:16 Grace? Or Mercy? Often confused E Coli is a Natural problem , but only becomes a problem when food is mishandled. And the pumping of human waste into a field as fertilizer or a worker taking a dump in the lettuce,, Just because a problem Can arise in a product that Should be safe and healthy doesn't make that product even almost as hazardous as a known hazard, such as GMO . I'm tired of the discussion. I've linked to the pictures of mice with hair between their teeth. Note, if you will, how celiac disease and gluten intolerance have followed the development of GMO wheat. Try to not allow the rhetoric to get between you and observed reality. |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by WebsterMark on 02/01/16 at 18:17:54 Classic case, just got this today a little while after my last post. Braga Organic Farms Issues Voluntary Recall of Pistachios Due to Possible Health Risk FDA posts press releases and other notices of recalls and market withdrawals from the firms involved as a service to consumers, the media, and other interested parties. FDA does not endorse either the product or the company. Braga Organic Farms announces the voluntary recall of pistachios due to potential contamination with Salmonella, an organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella can experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by WebsterMark on 02/01/16 at 18:21:10 Try to not allow the rhetoric to get between you and observed reality. Observed reality is my livelihood. Conspiracy is your hobby. |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/01/16 at 18:59:57 See? There you go. I've posted, numerous times, pictures SHOWING the effects of GMO foods over three or four generations. And E Coli is just the result of bad hygiene and food handling, yet you not only want to conflate the two, you Want to pretend that E Coli is the greater hazard. Why? You Talk, but back it up with nothing but personal attacks. |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by WebsterMark on 02/01/16 at 19:38:12 I don't recall seeing a mouse with hair in its teeth..... So if I leave my Fruity Pebbles out for a mouse, he'll need to braid the hair growing out of his mouth? |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by WebsterMark on 02/01/16 at 19:41:16 and yes, E Coli and listeria are the greater threats. |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/01/16 at 20:18:28 They're just the result of bad practice. GMO is bad, unless you trash it. You just talk. I show evidence. Blahh blaahh, blaah. You're in the food industry. And so what? You're addicted to reality? The hair in the teeth mean nothing. Food allergies, gee, wonder why those are growing.. |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by Steve H on 02/02/16 at 05:01:10 If the idea is to cure cancer, the AMA and several governmental organizations have the information and formulae from several different sources. It was cured by several different people nearly 100 years ago. They were all basically 'run out with a pitchfork' by big pharma and the American Medical Association for messing with their big money maker. All the clinical studies, x-rays, technical reports, etc. to prove it were there and presented. You can't make much money off a natural cure that costs $1 a gallon to make(can't patent it) and apparantly they can't synthesize the active ingredients to charge outrageous amounts for them. |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by WebsterMark on 02/02/16 at 05:13:54 58431A19181F1D122B0 wrote:
Oh Jesus H Christ.......you can't be serious.... |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by pg on 02/02/16 at 05:20:50 073532232435221D31223B500 wrote:
Oh Jesus H Christ.......you can't be serious....[/quote] The medical field is a business just like anything else. Someone I work with was diagnosed with cancer and they told here they are going to start with 3 months of chemo and they they will need a couple weeks of radiation. They went to another doctor and they said you'll need thee weeks of radiation and you'll have a good chance to being completely healed. Just because they have PHD in doesn't mean they have your best interests at heart. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by WebsterMark on 02/02/16 at 05:32:46 514E484F52556454645C4E42093B0 wrote:
They're "growing" for the same reasons autism is growing for example. The definition of what constitutes autism has been broadened so educators identity children more now than in the past plus teachers in general, for right or wrong, look for explanations for behavior problems. Doctors become doctors in part to make a nice living. Some of those doctors become algerist. Surprise, surprise, surprise as Gomer Pyle would say but those doctors find all kinds of new allergies to treat.... If I were in school today, I would be labeled an asthmatic. I'd be just another statistic to prove some link between a chemical or global warming or whatever some wacho on YouTube could convince Jenny McCarthy to rant about....... I'm not in school today, but someone else like me is so we have a higher rate of asmatics today than 45 years ago. You guys just kill me.... Let me guess, cancer was cured a 100 years ago by Granny but because Don Drysdale's bank couldn't make a buck off it, he stole the cure from Granny and Jane Hathaway buried it in a mason jar behind the cement pond right? And if we could just find that right mixture of coon and possum juice, the woman I know who's going to die in the next 2-3 days from throat cancer could go home tomorrow...... |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by Serowbot on 02/02/16 at 07:17:26 437176676071665975667F140 wrote:
;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by pg on 02/02/16 at 16:42:57 6A585F4E49584F705C4F563D0 wrote:
Well, you said it not me. http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2015/09/valeant%20price%20chart_0.jpg Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by WebsterMark on 02/02/16 at 20:01:18 and that's suppose to mean what? |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/03/16 at 04:50:53 Learn more about Royal Raymond Rife. |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by pg on 02/03/16 at 05:05:34 142621303726310E223128430 wrote:
It supports my position that the medical industry is just that; an industry, and they are here to make money off you and I. I provide documentation for my arguments as opposed to mythical antidotes that are condescending in nature……. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by WebsterMark on 02/03/16 at 06:08:08 Do you think anybody is surprised to know the medical industry, is in fact, an industry?! Who doesn't know that? Did you think I was going to be shocked at those percentages? If anything I'm shocked that they're not higher. Do you think my belief is the medical industry or food processing executives are really angels in disguise simply intent on providing us with the best care and food possible? That money and profits never enter into the equation? What ever gave you that idea? You should see some of the procedures I see in food plants. It would make your stomach turn. There was a guy who was actually swapping heads off of healthy slaughterd cattle so that bad cattle at sneak through because the inspectors would see good heads. It was a very complicated and one hell of a scam that went on for a while but eventually got caught. Now he's in jail. But those really horrendous actions are rare. The people who have the mindset to do those things tend to get weeded out earlier in their career. It's sort of like a hockey player that fight too much. That's what the minor-league's are for. If you think I'm being condescending it's probably because I'm laughing so hard that somebody actually thinks there's a cure for cancer but it's being hidden away so pharmaceuticals and hospitals can make money. When I was a kid there was a big story that a carburetor had been invented that would get 100 miles to the gallon but General Motors stole the plans and killed the inventor. or the other big story was you could buy a Trans Am in perfect condition except that 4 guys had overdosed in the woods and their bodies rotted and no one could get the smell of the interior. You could buy the car for $500 but you have to put up with the smell. I think MythBusters even did a show on that. you may have heard similar stories when you were younger, did you believe them then? |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by Serowbot on 02/03/16 at 07:20:29 That new Hepatitis drug, costs as little as $900 in other countries... Here in America,... it's $82,000... The drug company will make nearly $5 billion this year, from it's Hepatitis treatments. Vets,.. can get it for $41,000... what a deal!... ::) |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by WebsterMark on 02/03/16 at 09:01:02 The USA basically pays for the rest of the world's drugs because we are richer than the rest of the world and we still haven't yielded completely to socialized medicine. Complain all you want but drug companies are out to make money. Without them, we'd be left with fewer drugs. What? Did you think there's a drug fairy out there swinging a wand and new drugs pop into existence? But cheer up; maybe in our lifetimes, Obama's desire to see the USA crumble to 3rd world status will come true. Then, maybe the Chinese people can foot the bill for drug research and we'll get cheap drugs through out bankruptcy-inducing Obamacare..... |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by Serowbot on 02/03/16 at 09:37:35 ...but, there should be some limits... 5 billion profit from one class of drug, in 1 year,... seems a bit much to put on the backs of the sick. Could you afford an $82,000 treatment?... I know Trump could... but, not many others... I know we Americans subsidize some costs for poorer countries,... ... the "Donalds" of this country should subsidize a little for us... The difference is,.. they can afford to... |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by WebsterMark on 02/03/16 at 11:24:18 well let's see, Hillary Clinton could afford that, Chelsea Clinton could afford that, Bernie Sanders could afford that, Martin O'Malley could afford that, Joe Biden could afford that, George Soros could afford that, Sean Penn could afford that, Barbra Streisand could afford that, Matt Damon could afford that, any of the Kennedys could before that, Nancy Peluosi could afford that, Harry Reid afford that ...I think you see my point. there's all kinds of medical procedures only a very few can afford and that's not going to change even if Obamacare progresses to its natural conclusion. Do you think the rich people in England rely solely on their socialize medicine? I agree it certainly seems unfair but I ask you, what is the alternative? Take the profit motive away from research and development and research and development will dry up. there's a fine line between what you see as compassion and what others see as destroying the invisible hand that runs the economy. that goes for healthcare too. Once you start putting dollar limits on how much is a fair compensation then you started down a slippery slope of that literally and figuratively ends at the bottom. You think you want to go there but you really don't. And you certainly wouldn't if you were on the other end of the slide! It's easy advocating taking someone else's money. Like I always say to you who want to take more money from people you consider to be too wealthy, go hang out at a Ruth Chris steakhouse and ask somebody dressed in a nice suit for 50 bucks when he comes out the door. have the courage to cut out the middleman and do the job yourself. |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by Serowbot on 02/03/16 at 12:53:22 Webster,.. send me $50... ;D |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by pg on 02/03/16 at 17:13:25 467473626574635C70637A110 wrote:
I know 3 people personally that have cancer and have been told to go through unnecessary chemo treatments, unnecessary surgery, and drug treatments that were literally 15,000% higher than what the appropriate rate was. I'm not laughing as one is a family member & another is a person I would with so pharmaceuticals and hospitals can make money. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by pg on 02/03/16 at 17:17:18 4254435E46535E45310 wrote:
Well, here are a few.... http://freebeacon.com/politics/more-democrats-than-republicans-sit-on-10-richest-members-of-congress-list/ More Democrats than Republicans Sit on 10 Richest Members of Congress List SHARE TWEET Money BY: Stephanie Wang January 15, 2014 4:59 am While Republicans often get the reputation for being “the party of the rich,” seven of the 10 richest members of Congress are Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). CRP compiled a list of the 10 richest members of Congress using 2012 personal finance disclosure information, the latest available. These wealthy Democrats are not afraid to use their big bucks and high-powered connections to get ahead. Here are the seven Democrats in the top 10 list: Mark Warner Mark WarnerMark Warner / AP Mark Warner, the senior senator from Virginia, is the richest member of the Senate. CRP estimates his net worth at up to $418,742,000. Warner used his political connections to make his millions, according to the 2014 Almanac of American Politics. Warner worked as a fundraiser at the Democratic National Convention after graduating from law school. While there, he made some crucial connections that would allow him to become a successful venture capitalist. Warner served as chairman of the Virginia Democratic Party from 1993-1995. He was elected governor of Virginia in 2000. Jared Polis Jared PolisJared Polis / AP Jared Polis, who serves as representative to Colorado’s 2nd District, has a net worth of up to $326,099,998, according to CRP. Polis made his fortune as an entrepreneur, launching popular sites such as electronic greeting card site bluemountainarts.com and fresh flower delivery site proflowers.com. The retired florist (Polis still hands out business cards with that title) came to Washington in 2008 and is currently serving his third term. Polis criticized the Citizens United case on the House floor in 2010, saying corporations are using their money to “confuse and trick people” with “massive and misleading public relations attacks.” He made no mention of how he uses his own money, Vincent Carroll of the Denver Post noted. His political committee, for example, gave out more than $400,000 to other members of Congress and national campaign groups in 2010 alone. John K. Delaney John DelaneyJohn Delaney / AP The net worth of John K. Delaney of Maryland’s 6th District is up to $244,051,998. Delaney founded Healthcare Financial Partners, a company that offered financing to healthcare providers, in 1993 and served as the company’s CEO until 2000 when he founded a new company, CapitalSource, another commercial lender for small and middle-market companies. Delaney is serving his first term in Congress. Two high-powered friends, Bill and Hillary Clinton, helped Delaney win his seat. Delaney donated to Hillary’s 2008 campaign and also bundled contributions for her campaign. Bill Clinton then endorsed Delaney in his primary. Scott Peters Scott PetersScott Peters / Wikimedia Commons Scott Peters, of California’s 2nd District has a net worth of up to $197,415,991. Peters was a successful lawyer for 16 years, eventually opening his own practice. His wife was successful in private equity. He was elected to San Diego City Council in 2000 and became the city’s port commissioner in 2009. The self-proclaimed environmentalist became embroiled in controversy when it was revealed that his personal water consumption was eight times higher than the average consumer. Peters defended his consumption, arguing his property is much larger than the average consumer. Richard Blumenthal Richard BlumenthalRichard Blumenthal / AP Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut’s senior senator, has a net worth of up to $121,299,056. The second-richest man in the Senate was born to wealthy parents in New York. He held a number of political positions, including U.S. attorney in Connecticut, administrative assistant to a Sen. Abraham Ribicoff, and a staff assistant to the White House Office of Economic Opportunity, before running for Senate in 2010. Much of his wealth comes from his wife, Cynthia, who is the daughter of real estate tycoon Peter Malkin. Jay Rockefeller Jay RockefellerJay Rockefeller / AP Jay Rockefeller, senior senator from West Virginia, has an estimated net worth of up to $139,312,004. Rockefeller is currently serving his fifth term in the Senate. He was elected in 1984 after serving in the West Virginia House, as West Virginia secretary of state, and as the state’s governor. Rocherfeller’s great-grandfather was oil billionaire John D. Rockefeller, who was at one time America’s richest man. Nancy Pelosi Nancy PelosiNancy Pelosi / AP CRP estimates the net worth of Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California’s 12th District to be up to $174,947,989. Pelosi’s husband is a successful real estate investor. The couple also made up to $5 million in offshore investments in Asia. Pelosi was elected to the House of Representatives in 1987. Prior to her time in the House, she served as the California Democratic Party northern chairman, the state chairman of California, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chairman. The former House Speaker, who often claims to be a champion for the poor, spends her money on lavish vacations. She spent Christmas 2011 at a Four Seasons Hotel in Hawaii, where rooms run up to $10,000 per night. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by Serowbot on 02/03/16 at 17:39:08 Even split... http://media.cq.com/50Richest/...but, missing the point entirely... |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/03/16 at 18:41:25 Both sides are sucking the marrow out of the bones of America. Unless we have a REAL change in policy, America is finished. |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by Serowbot on 02/03/16 at 21:24:22 7B646265787F4E7E4E76646823110 wrote:
How many years have you been saying that?.. Better yet,... how many years has that been said?...:-? Change, is not death,... stagnation is death... |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by raydawg on 02/04/16 at 03:50:09 3721362B33262B30440 wrote:
How many years have you been saying that?.. Better yet,... how many years has that been said?...:-? Change, is not death,... stagnation is death...[/quote] Yeah...... Global Warming is....... LMFAO! |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by pg on 02/04/16 at 05:09:12 3127302D35202D36420 wrote:
How many years have you been saying that?.. Better yet,... how many years has that been said?...:-? [/quote] I think this is what JOG is referring to. But our economy is not producing many of those jobs. Instead, most of the growth has been in low paying service jobs. The Middle class in the United States is being slowly but surely shredded, and our politicians don’t seem to care. If you doubt that the middle class is falling apart, just check out the following numbers which come from my previous article entitled “Sayonara Middle Class: 22 Stunning Pieces Of Evidence That Show The Middle Class In America Is Dying“… #1 This week we learned that for the first time ever recorded, middle class Americans make up a minority of the population. But back in 1971, 61 percent of all Americans lived in middle class households. #2 According to the Pew Research Center, the median income of middle class households declined by 4 percent from 2000 to 2014. #3 The Pew Research Center has also found that median wealth for middle class households dropped by an astounding 28 percent between 2001 and 2013. #4 In 1970, the middle class took home approximately 62 percent of all income. Today, that number has plummeted to just 43 percent. #5 There are still 900,000 fewer middle class jobs in America than there were when the last recession began, but our population has gotten significantly larger since that time. #6 According to the Social Security Administration, 51 percent of all American workers make less than $30,000 a year. #7 For the poorest 20 percent of all Americans, median household wealth declined from negative 905 dollars in 2000 to negative 6,029 dollars in 2011. #8 A recent nationwide survey discovered that 48 percent of all U.S. adults under the age of 30 believe that “the American Dream is dead”. #9 At this point, the U.S. only ranks 19th in the world when it comes to median wealth per adult. #10 Traditionally, entrepreneurship has been one of the engines that has fueled the growth of the middle class in the United States, but today the level of entrepreneurship in this country is sitting at an all-time low. #11 If you can believe it, the 20 wealthiest people in this country now have more money than the poorest 152 million Americans combined. #12 The top 0.1 percent of all American families have about as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent of all American families combined. #13 If you have no debt and you also have ten dollars in your pocket, that gives you a greater net worth than about 25 percent of all Americans. #14 The number of Americans that are living in concentrated areas of high poverty has doubled since the year 2000. #15 An astounding 48.8 percent of all 25-year-old Americans still live at home with their parents. #16 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 49 percent of all Americans now live in a home that receives money from the government each month, and nearly 47 million Americans are living in poverty right now. #17 In 2007, about one out of every eight children in America was on food stamps. Today, that number is one out of every five. #18 According to Kathryn J. Edin and H. Luke Shaefer, the authors of a new book entitled “$2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America“, there are 1.5 million “ultrapoor” households in the United States that live on less than two dollars a day. That number has doubled since 1996. #19 46 million Americans use food banks each year, and lines start forming at some U.S. food banks as early as 6:30 in the morning because people want to get something before the food supplies run out. #20 The number of homeless children in the U.S. has increased by 60 percent over the past six years. #21 According to Poverty USA, 1.6 million American children slept in a homeless shelter or some other form of emergency housing last year. #22 The median net worth of families in the United States was $137, 955 in 2007. Today, it is just $82,756. So is there a solution? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-30/rise-temp-economy-more-us-employers-ever-want-disposable-workforce Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Interesting read....... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/04/16 at 22:16:17 I've pointed out the downward spiral. I've talked about impending doom. We fail HERE to achieve a REAL change in policy to start to rectify the NAFTA disaster and all the other trade agreements, we step back from the endless war for the military industrial complex, we stop raping the People, THIS ELECTION, or the Chance to change will be gone. America will be finished. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |