Political Statements
- This topic has 1,317 replies, 68 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“In cash-strapped California, public health officials announced this week that the state’s government-provided mammogram program, “Every Woman Counts” for low-income women will no longer screen women below age 50.”
Great. I don’t particularly know or care about US politics, but I read New Scientist, and I’m pretty sure I read that mammograms earlier than that and the unnecessary interventions and stress that go along with them generally do more harm than good. Of course, if somebody finds a lump during self-examination and/or has a family history of early breast cancer, it’d be worthwhile.
Per the article, $43 billion spread over ten years. The $460 billion figure doesn’t appear in that article. I must say, it seems surreal to hear Republican opposition to Medicare cuts.
What percentage of doctors in the USA would probably take early retirement or quit if this bill doesn’t pass? There are a lot of boomers who are contemplating retirement in any case. As boomers start getting Medicare, reimbursements will drop under the status quo. Critics of this bill are seldom considering the consequences of doing nothing, an option which is scary in its own right.
As Angelastic notes, pre-50 mammograms have fallen out of favor lately, independent of the California budget. The false positive rate is ridiculously high, and the small number of malignant tumors they find sufficiently early to allow effective treatment is apparently offset by the increased risk that comes from the radiation dose. Mammography incurs a small but statistically significant risk, and if the test isn’t of tangible benefit to younger women, they’re better off without it. It’s interesting that this was announced at the same time as similar “don’t even bother” news regarding PSA assays; I suspect it was decided to announce the official fall from favor of both tests at the same time lest the scientists involved be accused of gender bias.
This song seems to be related to the tea party thing.
Based on the title I have to think that some people do not know the difference between two different types of Americans. One group believes in supporting their Constitution, in the rule of law, in limited government, in fiscal conservatism and in governmental accountability to the people; the others are people who engage in male dominance rituals in frat houses involving forced submission to the alpha male in a homoerotic manner. The details their behavior I will let you look up since there are some underaged persons who might read this. Not that they don’t have google and probably already know what teabagging is, of course.
Try to keep those two straight, ok? Supporters of the founding documents of this country vs drunk frat boys acting like morons. I know they might LOOK similar to some folks, but there is a difference.One group believes in supporting their Constitution, in the rule of law, in limited government, in fiscal conservatism and in governmental accountability to the people;
You mean the critics of Bush’s signing statements, the Patriot Act, wartime budgets, Wall Street bailouts, and dubious elections in Florida and Ohio?
Supporters of the founding documents of this country
What, like professors of constitutional law
vs drunk frat boys acting like morons
That’s a bit harsh. He’s been on the wagon for decades!
I generally consider myself a centrist. I’m broadly amused, though, by the potential of each party to steal the other’s rhetoric.
I, and many people I know, complained and called our representatives about various aspects of Bushes domestic policies, especially his apparent inability to use the veto to strike down the massive ammounts of spending being done by the Democrat controlled house and senate these past few years. His focus was on winning in Iraq, in spite of people who annouced that we had lost over and over in the house and senate and were doing everything they could to lose the war in Iraq and to dispirit our troops there. Like calling General Petraus “General Betrayus” and saying that the surge had failed- right before he got here and was able to prove how well it had worked. It wasn’t until this year however, when the rate of personal freedoms went from gradual erosion to a massive shift to a socialist agenda that I finally had enough and started to really act. I disapproved of the bailouts last fall on Bushes watch and think he should have vetoed all of them. Fannie and Freddie should have been audited and fully investigated to stop the crash they caused, but Pelosi and Reid and Frank blocked it at every turn. I disagree with the confiscation of Chrysler by the federal government and the turning over of the majority share to the Union, which was a blatent politcial reward to them for supporting Obama.
The votes in Florida were counted at LEAST five times, Mark, and he won with each recount, no matter what organization was doing the counting, no matter if the absentee ballots were removed, thus denying our soldiers wishes in the matter. Over and over and over they couldn’t get the numbers to add up to a Gore win. If they could have, they would have. Get over it already!
The Tea Party movement is not one color, one party or even one philosophy, save for the ideals of fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets. We come in every shade of color, every faith and creed including athiests and devout pastafarians for all I know. . We have lifelong Democrats, Republicans, independants, and libertarians. We have one big thing in common- we are all Americans, and we all want to be free.when the rate of personal freedoms went from gradual erosion to a massive shift to a socialist agenda
That kind of statement is very irritating. There’s been no “massive shift to a socialist agenda” except if you’re watching Fox “News”. The bailouts were to prevent a national disaster (and were started by a Republican president). That’s what we have a government for, to try to prevent national disasters. Health care reform is no more socialist than Medicare and Social Security are.
we all want to be free
Free from what? No one’s out to get you. It’s the acting like the government is suddenly trying to destroy America that’s so silly.
We have one big thing in common- we are all Americans, and we all want to be free.
Ugh. Does this mean that folks not in the tea party movement are not Americans and don’t want to be free? Just because we disagree about how to get there? Really?
I didn’t say whether the song was for or against the Tea Party movement… I don’t know enough about the movement and I haven’t listened to the song enough times to determine that. I just said it seemed to be related. So it would probably amuse people on one side of the debate or the other. Or maybe both, if it’s well done.
Angelastic-The term “teabagging” is used for one reason- to mock and shame the people in the tea party movement into shutting up and going away. It reflects more on those who use it then on those it is being used on. It is like any other word intended to hurt and belittle people, a verbal means of insult and desired domination to prevent a discussion which might result in a loss of power for the person using the term through logical discourse. If you didn’t know that before, well, google the term and see why I find it to be so insulting.
Colleen- All dogs have fur. Not all fur bearing animals are dogs. All Tea Party Patriots are Americans, or to be more precise for our Canadian and South and central American friends, members of the United States of America, and want to be free (to make their own health care decisions and to choose how to spend the money that they earned). Not all people who are Americans (etc etc) and desire freedom over their lives are members of the TPP. I forget which arguement in logic that is called, it has been 30 plus years since I took the class. So all of A=B but not all of B=A. I never said that those who are not members of the TPP are not Americans nor that they do not desire freedom, I only stated what >we< were and believed in.
Spiff- None of my beliefs or fears are based on Fox news; I watch virtually no tv any more. I get my info from a variety of on line sources which usually connect to published research papers. Here is an example. Since January 2008, the various "stimulus" bills proposed and enacted by the House and Senate to bail out Fanny, Freddie, banks and auto makers has resulted in the Federal goverment taking control of 30% of the US economy. Yes, this did start to happen on Bushes watch, and yes he should have vetoed the lot of them IMO- but he did not propose ANY of these spending bills. That was all Reid and Pelosi and crew. If the cap and trade bill passes, with the projected loss of over a million jobs, another 15% of the evonomy will be then controlled by the feds, bring the total up to 45%. If the health care bill passes that is estimated to result in another 18% of the economy being run by federal agencies. These numbers are from a study by an economics prof in the U of Arizona published this past July.
The constitution was created to put checks and balances and reins on the federal government, not to give it more and more power over the states and the people. Out founding fathers wanted the people to have the ultimate power over their lives, not some bureaucrat in DC swapping favors for a continued existance feeding at the public trough while forcing the public to pay for it all.
Government is best that governs least.
@JoAnn:
I never said that those who are not members of the TPP are not Americans nor that they do not desire freedom
What you did say:
some people do not know the difference between two different types of Americans. One group believes in … limited government, in fiscal conservatism … the others are people who engage in male dominance rituals … in a homoerotic manner.
What you meant:
We don’t describe ourselves as “teabaggers.” That’s describing something else entirely. Please don’t use that term.
How it came across:
There are only two types of Americans: members of the TPP, and faggots.
Pretty manichaean, isn’t it? Now you understand some of the negative reaction you received?
Regarding “socialism,” the government has been unloading the assets it had purchased, banks have been paying back TARP funds, and things have generally been getting back to normal. This wasn’t a Venezuelan-style strong-arm nationalization; it was a matter of desperate industry, unable to secure credit from the market, asking the government to act as a lender of last resort, with the government receiving equity in some of these companies in order to protect the interests of taxpayers. Neither the affected industries nor the government was really crazy about this arrangement, and those companies that are healthy enough to do so have been paying off the debts.
Regarding cap and trade, I think it’s too subject to fraud and abuse, especially in the spurious science behind some carbon offsets. IMHO, a gradually increasing carbon tax will be much more effective, and decreased demand for petroleum would weaken Iran, Venezuela, Russia, etc. I’m not as worried about coal, but the petroleum-based economy has lead to foreign policy nightmares, and reducing petroleum consumption, not just domestically but internationally, is a critical component of a far-sighted foreign policy.
The constitution wasn’t created to put reins on the federal government; it was created to establish the federal government. Checks and balances were created concurrently, and further reins were added shortly thereafter, but it’s simply incorrect to say that the primary purpose of the constitution was to restrict the powers of something that didn’t previously exist.
On the subject of limited government, I’d be curious to hear what the TPP have to say about abortion, gay marriage, and the war on drugs. These are contexts in which social conservatives (which I’ll grant are not always in complete agreement with fiscal conservatives, but they’re closely allied these days) come out against limited government.
Worrying all of a sudden about fiscal responsibility when the world’s economies are collapsing is like worrying about water conservation when your house is on fire — a well-meaning and reasonable thing to worry about at a more appropriate time. Better to get the fire out first. 😉
Angelastic-The term “teabagging” is used for one reason- to mock and shame the people in the tea party movement into shutting up and going away.
I’ve heard of the term in its more general sense, but I don’t know enough about the Tea Party movement and haven’t listened to the song enough to know whether the term is used to mock the Tea Party movement or to mock the policies that the movement is against. It could be either or both. All I know, and all I said, is that the song seems to be related to it. So if it’s mocking the movement, then I guess it’s not for you to enjoy, but some of the other posters here might like it. ETA: In fact, even somebody who disagrees with everything in the song says it kicks ass.
Brainwave caused by a one-word intersection of two threads: If we run out of fossil fuels, then all the boys and girls should be naughty so that they get coal from Santa. Of course, it’s only a short-term solution, because once they burn the coal, the Arctic ice will melt and Santa will have to relocate to Antarctica or drown, but short term thinking and magical thinking got us into this mess, so surely it can get us out. 😉
- The topic ‘Political Statements’ is closed to new replies.