Conservatives are literally killing us

I'm sure we will get the normal backlash against anything that says conservatives might not have all the answers, but it's an interesting read nonetheless.

This idea that we are somehow the greatest country in the world, is just not so. The numbers simply don't bear it out. It doesn't mean we can't one day be that country again, but it will be a long, tough road.

http://aattp.org/its-official-the-co...g-the-country/ Originally Posted by WombRaider

Every week Baby Killer sets a new standard for lowness and this week he does it again. Conservatives (by the definition conservatives are trying to maintain, or conserve) are tearing apart this country? Progressives, liberals, socialists all want change, rapid change for this country. There is who is tearing the country apart. I will not even read your silly little link because your OP is so fatally flawed how can anyone take it, or you, seriously.
If, as you say, the numbers don't bear it out then why consider how many liberals run cities in this country; New York City, Detroit, Baltimore, San Fransisco, Boston, Washington, etc. Where are the problems? I just named some of them. Half a century of progressive politics is killing Baltimore, Detroit is all but dead, and Chicago is becoming a murder capital of not just this country but the world.

What an unbelievably stupid post for Baby Killer.

Why don't you title your next post as whores in favor of chasity.

Agree to disagree I guess, although I'd rather let the facts speak for themselves. Originally Posted by shanm

I am not trying to disagree. I've actually read both good and bad in the wake of this thread. If Canada's Healthcare system is that superior to ours, America should also provide free healthcare to all Americans. I am bit skeptical about anything free from the government though.

Jim

I have had many Canadian people state how disgraceful they think it is how some people treat Obama. All you guys are here are living proofs of why Canadians mock us. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Let's follow the Obama example and blame Bush. If only Bush had been able to stop all of those nasty lies and personal attacks aimed at him, BHO wouldn't have to face all of this disgraceful treatment.

I'm sure we will get the normal backlash against anything that says conservatives might not have all the answers, but it's an interesting read nonetheless.

This idea that we are somehow the greatest country in the world, is just not so. The numbers simply don't bear it out. It doesn't mean we can't one day be that country again, but it will be a long, tough road.

http://aattp.org/its-official-the-co...g-the-country/ Originally Posted by WombRaider

What illiterate wrote that article? And why are you linking to it?

"Austerity economics"? Since WHEN have we practiced austerity? Either party?

We are borrowing tons of money from our grandchildren to pay our current expenses. What part of that qualifies as austerity?

Also, read your own article:

-------------------------------------
"Before I go any further, let me note something positive: the United States is, without a doubt, a land of highs. High fat, high infant mortality, high teenage pregnancy, and high incarceration.
The United States has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the industrial world. It also has one of the highest rates of single parenthood, with nearly a quarter of children living with one parent. Infant mortality has also soared under the watch of the so-called “Pro-Life” movement, with a mortality rate twice what it is Germany, meaning that our family fabric is in pretty bad shape."
-------------------------------------------

Nearly ALL of that is related to life-style choices.

What does austerity economics have to do with eating fat? And teen pregnancy? And drug abuse? And children living with their mom because dad abandoned them?

Neither England nor Mexico practices anything like austerity economics and BOTH are fatter than we are.

And single parenthood is running rampant in Europe, not just the US. Do the countries of Europe practice austerity economics?

All of these trends have been going on for DECADES in the entire Western world. But in fevered "progressive" minds, it is somehow the fault of conservative economics in the US rather than loosening public morals.

Infant mortality has soared "under the watch of the Pro-Life movement"? Really? When did they take over the country? I don't remember the coup. I do remember Roe v. Wade and the number of abortions in the US soaring through the roof in the last 40 years. Was that "under the watch" of the Pro-Life movement?

Every post you make demonstrates your stupidity.

Obamacare
Common core
Executive amnesty
Voting rights for felons
Voting rights for illegal aliens
IRS voting suppression
Blocking press access
Federalizing the police forces
Federalizing civil penalties
Usurption of land owner rights


Just a few of things proposed by, or acted upon by the progressive moment in order to change this country.

Womb, you seem like a fart smeller. I mean, you seem like a smart feller. When you read stuff like this, a little bit of critical thinking comes in handy.

Lets break down the few claims the article really makes.

* The rate of single parenthood is high in the US. According to the article, 1/4 of children in the US live with a single parent. The article doesn't bother to give us an idea of what the rate is in other countries, so we are left to assume it must be lower.

* The US has one of the worst infant mortality rates among industrialized nations.

* Life expectancy has fallen behind other countries.

And this is pretty much the gist of it.

So lets start with single parenthood. The article makes no effort at explaining our high rate of single parenthood. Nor does it really make any attempt at citing any data aside from the one fourth statistic. In 1964, the rate of births to unwed mothers was about 3% for whites, and 29% for non-whites (1). Today the rate is 29% among whites, 72% among blacks, and an overall average of 40% (2).

So why, in this age of access to a variety of birth control options, as well as access to safe and legal abortions, has the rate of births to single mothers skyrocketed? Well, we all know that you get what you pay for in life. It is also true, that the more you pay for something, the more of it you get. For the last 50 years, we have been paying women to have children out of wedlock, and women of all ages and races have responded abundantly.

Your article posits that the problems it lists are examples of how conservatives are killing us. I am reasonably certain that the cash for kids enterprise the government has been running for the past 50 years was a liberal idea, not a conservative one.

So lets move on. Your article also claims that the United States has fallen far behind other industrialized nations in terms of infant mortality rates. I don't blame you for believing this one. The statistics showing that the US has an abysmal infant mortality rate have been bandied about for years. The problem is, it just ain't so. Our infant mortality rate is comparable to, or better than, many of the countries we supposedly lag behind. The reason why? Well, sadly, some countries cheat. They fudge the numbers. We don't.

"Infant mortality" is defined as the number of children who die before reaching 12 months old, per 1,000 live births. The critical difference though, is how "live birth" is defined. In the United States, ALL births are recorded as a live birth if the newborn is born with a heart beat. All of them. In a number of industrialized nations, this is not the case. Infants born weighing less than 500 grams are often not recorded as live births, regardless of how long the infant survives. Fudging the numbers in this way keeps the infant mortality rate for these countries significantly lower than it would be if they recorded all births as live births, regardless of birth weight. (3)

Lastly, life expectancy has fallen behind other countries. Well, your article sort of makes that claim. Kind of. At least, it is implied in your article, because it does mention that we used to be ranked #13 for life expectancy for girls, and are now ranked #34. Again, your article is lean on facts, and long on conjecture when it comes to analyzing the how and why our life expectancy has progressed more slowly than in other countries. For instance, does "life expectancy for girls" mean infant girls who survive to childhood? Does it mean girls in general, who live to the ripe age 70, while still remaining girls? The article is not clear.

Nevertheless, the spirit of the article intends for you, dear reader, to assume that our life expectancy is abysmal compared to other countries, so lets just go with that. The article also never specifically states why our life expectancy has progressed slower than other countries, but given that it proceeds into a statement about the "obscene rate of income disparity" which the article claims stems directly from "Reagan's voo-doo economics". So I assume the article intends for me to conclude that life expectancy stagnation is tied to income inequality, even though the article never tells me why.

However, I'm willing to offer two explanations for the disparity in our life expectancy. Our homicide rate, and our obesity rate. According to one study, our homicide rate reduces our overall life expectancy by as much as 2 years (4). Furthermore, one study claims that obesity is responsible for as much as 40% of the gap between our life expectancy, and the life expectancy in countries with significantly lower rates of obesity (5). In other words, if our homicide rate and our obesity rate were comparable to other industrialized nations, our life expectancy would also be comparable, if not higher than, other industrialized nations.

Now, lets talk about homicides. The relationship between life expectancy and gun violence would make a great argument for gun control. Except, it doesn't. Canada has gun ownership rates as high as ours. Yet their homicide rate is a fraction of ours. Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, yet their homicide rate is also a fraction of ours. We do have a problem with gun violence in this country. There is no question about it. But it is not gun ownership itself that is the problem. One thing we DO have that neither Canada nor Switzerland have, is a gang problem. So dealing with gangs is probably a better place to start rather than restricting law abiding citizens from owning guns.

Now, lets talk about obesity. There is also an argument to be made that poverty is directly tied to obesity because the cheapest and most affordable foods also tend to be the most fattening. I admit, that until recently, I thought this was true myself. But I am discovering that it is not in fact true.

I've been a diagnosed diabetic for almost 15 years now. Over the past year, I have had more and more difficulty keeping my blood sugars stable. It is extremely frustrating to follow what seems to be a good diet, while taking medications as prescribed, and still find myself unable to control my blood sugar. So I have been looking at food labels more carefully than ever, and many of the foods I *thought* were good choices, I discovered were not. Practically everything you buy in a grocery store is loaded with sugar. Every damned thing.

So, I have been buying more fresh fruits and vegetables, more meats, and preparing more of my foods rather than buying boxed meals, soups, and other foods I thought were Ok to eat since they were "low fat" or "low calorie". I fully expected that my grocery bill would go up as I transitioned to more whole foods, and less processed foods. However, not only has my grocery bill not gone up, I am actually spending much less at the grocery store than I used to.

So as it turns out, a diet consisting primarily of fresh produce, whole grains, lean meats, and lean dairies actually isn't more expensive after all. So, our obesity problem is not so much about economics, as it is about convenience and preference.

Citations:
1. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_21/sr21_015.pdf
2. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...hs-roger-clegg
3. http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e746
4. http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/08/...fe-expectancy/
5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62367/ Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Excellent post!

I am not trying to disagree. I've actually read both good and bad in the wake of this thread. If Canada's Healthcare system is that superior to ours, America should also provide free healthcare to all Americans. I am bit skeptical about anything free from the government though.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Nothing the government provides is actually "free".

Every week Baby Killer sets a new standard for lowness and this week he does it again. Conservatives (by the definition conservatives are trying to maintain, or conserve) are tearing apart this country? Progressives, liberals, socialists all want change, rapid change for this country. There is who is tearing the country apart. I will not even read your silly little link because your OP is so fatally flawed how can anyone take it, or you, seriously.
If, as you say, the numbers don't bear it out then why consider how many liberals run cities in this country; New York City, Detroit, Baltimore, San Fransisco, Boston, Washington, etc. Where are the problems? I just named some of them. Half a century of progressive politics is killing Baltimore, Detroit is all but dead, and Chicago is becoming a murder capital of not just this country but the world.

What an unbelievably stupid post for Baby Killer.

Why don't you title your next post as whores in favor of chasity. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

And you've proven me correct, yet again. You rant against something that you won't even read. The height of stupidity.

Obamacare
Common core
Executive amnesty
Voting rights for felons
Voting rights for illegal aliens
IRS voting suppression
Blocking press access
Federalizing the police forces
Federalizing civil penalties
Usurption of land owner rights


Just a few of things proposed by, or acted upon by the progressive moment in order to change this country. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You know who fears change? Ignoramuses. Half of your list isn't even true.

Let's follow the Obama example and blame Bush. If only Bush had been able to stop all of those nasty lies and personal attacks aimed at him, BHO wouldn't have to face all of this disgraceful treatment. Originally Posted by filbone

The big difference is Bush was to blame you moron - 911 happened on his watch - 2 wars on his watch- collapse economy on his watch - here's the analogy - the starting pitcher gives up 10 runs - the relief pitcher comes in and gives up 2 runs - if the team loses 12 to 10 whom do you blame the starting pitcher who have up 10 runs or the relief who gave up 2 runs ?

What illiterate wrote that article? And why are you linking to it?

"Austerity economics"? Since WHEN have we practiced austerity? Either party?

We are borrowing tons of money from our grandchildren to pay our current expenses. What part of that qualifies as austerity?

Also, read your own article:

-------------------------------------
"Before I go any further, let me note something positive: the United States is, without a doubt, a land of highs. High fat, high infant mortality, high teenage pregnancy, and high incarceration.
The United States has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the industrial world. It also has one of the highest rates of single parenthood, with nearly a quarter of children living with one parent. Infant mortality has also soared under the watch of the so-called “Pro-Life” movement, with a mortality rate twice what it is Germany, meaning that our family fabric is in pretty bad shape."
-------------------------------------------

Nearly ALL of that is related to life-style choices.

What does austerity economics have to do with eating fat? And teen pregnancy? And drug abuse? And children living with their mom because dad abandoned them?

Neither England nor Mexico practices anything like austerity economics and BOTH are fatter than we are.

And single parenthood is running rampant in Europe, not just the US. Do the countries of Europe practice austerity economics?

All of these trends have been going on for DECADES in the entire Western world. But in fevered "progressive" minds, it is somehow the fault of conservative economics in the US rather than loosening public morals.

Infant mortality has soared "under the watch of the Pro-Life movement"? Really? When did they take over the country? I don't remember the coup. I do remember Roe v. Wade and the number of abortions in the US soaring through the roof in the last 40 years. Was that "under the watch" of the Pro-Life movement?

Every post you make demonstrates your stupidity. Originally Posted by ExNYer

You fucking idiot. Firstly, pro-life was in quotes, denoting a facetious tone to the comment. Loosening public morals? On a hooker board? You obviously didn't click on any of the links within the article that led to studies and research backing up the claims. Income inequality is the key, you seemed to miss that.

You know who fears change? Ignoramuses. Half of your list isn't even true. Originally Posted by WombRaider

LMAO... so you're saying to all these nice people that half of my list IS TRUE and you're willing to admit that? The other half...there is no accounting for your stupidity.

I'm not ranting against the article that I did not read, I'm ranting against you Uber Cunt/Baby Killer/ and what other name you want to hide behind for your very stupid post. You're like a child, you'll post anything. If someone disagrees then you piss yourself and go into a tizzy. Got news for you, not everything you find on the Internet is true. REPEAT that, not everything is true. You need to think about things first. Like I said, the idea behind the conservative moment is to preserve but your OP and I assume your linkage ignores the obvious. Wasn't it Obama who came out for HOPE and CHANGE. The is kind of the kiss of death to your little article right there.

Now why don't we get back to why you are against free speech, the second amendment, and America in general you racist little Nazi bastard.

The big difference is Bush was to blame you moron - 911 happened on his watch - 2 wars on his watch- collapse economy on his watch - here's the analogy - the starting pitcher gives up 10 runs - the relief pitcher comes in and gives up 2 runs - if the team loses 12 to 10 whom do you blame the starting pitcher who have up 10 runs or the relief who gave up 2 runs ? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

False analogy;

Your relief pitcher (Bush) comes in after the previous pitcher (Clinton) has loaded the bases and gotten no outs. He is facing a surprise batter with no track history, it's his first time at bat (Bin Laden). The batter hits a grandslam home run but then we find out that the previous pitcher knew that this batter loved the high, fast ball but just forgot to mention to the relief pitcher when they met on the mound. The relief pitcher (Bush) battles his way out of the inning with a couple of strikeouts and a pop up. Our side comes into bat and we get ahead by a run. A new pitcher is called, a rookie who talks a big game. He then starts by walking batter after batter and pitching no strikes. Between innings he goes out to a reporter and complains how bad things were for him when he took the mound but he promises that things will turn around the next inning. He comes back from the next inning complaining about how bads things were for him when he took the mound but he promises that things will turn around. He comes back from the next inning complaining about how bads things were for him when he took the mound but he promises that things will turn around.
Now that is a more perfect sports analogy.

Clinton knee about Bin Laden in 1995 but didn't give it any priority and didn't leave any big document to Bush on the matter. There was also the tech bubble collapse in 1998 that you forgot about. Bush inherited that. Bush won the war in Iraq (two strikeouts in an inning and a batter down with two strikes) when Obama fucked up the peace.

Secondly, and this is more important, the costs for prescriptions is MUCH less subjective than, let's say, doctor's fees. Originally Posted by shanm

You couldn't be more wrong, sham-man. The way Big Pharma and biotech firms price new drugs is EXTREMELY subjective. You obviously don't understand their cost structures. It's all R&D. Once approved, a new drug typically costs pennies to manufacture. New drugs are supposed to be priced to recover all of their huge upfront R&D costs. The problem is that the prices often reflect not only the costs of developing the successful drugs, but also the unsuccessful ones that never obtain FDA approval or make it to the market. So drug pricing can be all over the map and is HIGHLY subjective.

Canada regulates and forces US drug companies to charge far lower prices there than they do in the US. In essence, Canadians get a "free ride" and benefit from all of our expensive new drugs without really paying for them. In effect, we subsidize the Canadians, since our drug firms have to charge more in the US to make up for charging less in Canada.

.