Ian WhiteRepublicans want you to Die
December 8th 2010 13:09
Category: No Category
It seems gaining their power back after a two year layoff has not changed the tune of America's favorite "party of no." Perhaps they aren't even humans. Maybe the government is testing out androids so as to eliminate human error and stupidly from politics. However now we get computer error and callousness. This is plausible right? At least it's easier to digest than the fact that people wish to give money and power to individuals that have no regard for the safety of the voters. Well now a new bill has traveled down the partisan assembly line and automatically been stamped with a no by Republicans.
There is a food safety act that was put through by the senate meant to dramatically increase the safety of our food supply by among other things, giving the FDA the power to recall products. This is long overdue and a response to the recent disease outbreaks in eggs and in other foods. This would seem like a no brainer to vote for, but unfortunately the republicans have a mind that is only set on bureaucracy and stupidity without the intervention of a conscience. They have decided on two main arguments for the opposition of this bill: It costs money and it allows the government to control your food.
In regards to the first line of talking points, it only will cost 1.4 billion over 5 years. As opposed to the 800 billion dollar handjob to the banks, or the trillion dollars spent on war since 2001, or the demanded extension of the bush tax cuts for the rich that would add another trillion to the deficit. No they are only cost conscious when it's for something that goes against their warped ideology or conflicts with whichever lobby is paying them off.
I have a theory. Republicans are against health based reform because of these three lobbies: Junk food, Insurance, and Pharmaceutical. Healthy options means less junk food, which also means less heart disease and combined with healthcare reform equals lower insurance costs, which means reduced medication purchases, all leading to the same conclusion...less money for billion dollar industries. So the companies have to make sure they have political support. Capitalism ladies and gentleman!
The second argument has been the drum they beat to start the tea party movement. They preach to the angry baby boomers and their brainwashed kids about being anti-government, which ironically is coming directly from people in government. They convince these ignorant people that things automatically proposed by the government are bad. So if the government wants the FDA to better insure that your food is safe, what they mean is that the government, led by evil-muslim-nazi-socialist-Ob ama (code for the n word), is trying to put the boot of tyranny on your neck. If the government proposes healthcare reform, it means they want to give welfare queens more handouts. (This is always code for black people) The funny thing about the latter is the healthcare "debaters" were in large part old people living off the "government handouts" of Medicare and social security. Both programs republicans say they will cut, but with verbal gymnastics avoid directly saying that they will cut them for fear of losing their rocking chair base. It's the height of absurdity. Sarah Palin came to Pennsylvania to argue against healthy food in schools, instead she encouraged parents to keep stuffing their kids with the snacks that will give them diabetes before they can legally drive. They're hopelessly uninformed about what it means to be critical of the government. But that’s what happens when you listen to the Glenn Beck's of the world. They won't tell you that without government there will be no ambulance to take you to the hospital when you get salmonella from unrecalled eggs.
It is a travesty that the health of citizens falls under the partisan umbrella. 9/11 responders, underpaid hero's who risked their lives to pull people from the rubble and suffered long-term health effects from it STILL can't get healthcare. I thought you couldn't put a price on human decency. But I guess if it isn't war or lining the pockets of the wealthy, the price is too steep.
There is a food safety act that was put through by the senate meant to dramatically increase the safety of our food supply by among other things, giving the FDA the power to recall products. This is long overdue and a response to the recent disease outbreaks in eggs and in other foods. This would seem like a no brainer to vote for, but unfortunately the republicans have a mind that is only set on bureaucracy and stupidity without the intervention of a conscience. They have decided on two main arguments for the opposition of this bill: It costs money and it allows the government to control your food.
In regards to the first line of talking points, it only will cost 1.4 billion over 5 years. As opposed to the 800 billion dollar handjob to the banks, or the trillion dollars spent on war since 2001, or the demanded extension of the bush tax cuts for the rich that would add another trillion to the deficit. No they are only cost conscious when it's for something that goes against their warped ideology or conflicts with whichever lobby is paying them off.
I have a theory. Republicans are against health based reform because of these three lobbies: Junk food, Insurance, and Pharmaceutical. Healthy options means less junk food, which also means less heart disease and combined with healthcare reform equals lower insurance costs, which means reduced medication purchases, all leading to the same conclusion...less money for billion dollar industries. So the companies have to make sure they have political support. Capitalism ladies and gentleman!
The second argument has been the drum they beat to start the tea party movement. They preach to the angry baby boomers and their brainwashed kids about being anti-government, which ironically is coming directly from people in government. They convince these ignorant people that things automatically proposed by the government are bad. So if the government wants the FDA to better insure that your food is safe, what they mean is that the government, led by evil-muslim-nazi-socialist-Ob ama (code for the n word), is trying to put the boot of tyranny on your neck. If the government proposes healthcare reform, it means they want to give welfare queens more handouts. (This is always code for black people) The funny thing about the latter is the healthcare "debaters" were in large part old people living off the "government handouts" of Medicare and social security. Both programs republicans say they will cut, but with verbal gymnastics avoid directly saying that they will cut them for fear of losing their rocking chair base. It's the height of absurdity. Sarah Palin came to Pennsylvania to argue against healthy food in schools, instead she encouraged parents to keep stuffing their kids with the snacks that will give them diabetes before they can legally drive. They're hopelessly uninformed about what it means to be critical of the government. But that’s what happens when you listen to the Glenn Beck's of the world. They won't tell you that without government there will be no ambulance to take you to the hospital when you get salmonella from unrecalled eggs.
It is a travesty that the health of citizens falls under the partisan umbrella. 9/11 responders, underpaid hero's who risked their lives to pull people from the rubble and suffered long-term health effects from it STILL can't get healthcare. I thought you couldn't put a price on human decency. But I guess if it isn't war or lining the pockets of the wealthy, the price is too steep.
| 99 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by My Opinion
Political Ramble
Today's Thoughts
If this is what you want why don't you move to Cuba or North Korea? See how you like it there!!
Comment by Ian White
A Cynic's-Eye-View
Amuse I
Collective Wit
Daily Wit
Comment by My Opinion
Political Ramble
Today's Thoughts
Money- This is a big issue. I was not for any of the bailouts or other items that were needed to save the economy. I do believe that war is sometime unavoidable/needed and taxes should be low. I also believe that the budges should be balanced and spending reduced. This is hard to do, but I do it in my family every month.
I also believe in limited government. There is nothing wrong with this. I think overall everyone in DC has done badly with this. Yes there does need to be regulation over what we eat, to make sure that it is not dangerous. But, I don't think it should go to the extreme of putting McDonalds out of business. Eggs with a disease is one thing but if you want to eat Big Mac’s until you gain 1000 lbs and dies that is you business, not the government! You can not make people be healthy. They have to take some responsibility.
Comment by Ian White
A Cynic's-Eye-View
Amuse I
Collective Wit
Daily Wit
Ideally you don't want a massive all reaching government but you can't get by on a limited one either and you can't fight wars, especially ones for no practical reason and not spend money. You can't lower taxes on everybody and expect to cut spending, because as we're seeing with the Bush tax cut settlement, atleast 700 billion will be added to the deficit. The solutions are to reform social security and medicare, give healthcare a public option, stop fighting wars, stop depending on foreign oil and offshore drilling, and severely regulate the financial industry.
Capitalism sounds nice in theory but when everything is about profit and there is no oversight, you get what happened with the bankers bringing down the economy and BP destroying the gulf. They only cared about making a buck and didn't think for a second about anybody other than themselves and with no government to keep an eye on them ran wild.
Nobody has proposed anything that would put McDonalds out of business. If people choose to eat crap and die, thats fine, but if all you give them are negative choices, then you aren't really allowing them to choose. If all you see are fast food commercials on TV and all you drive by are fast food places, then you're more likely to eat fast food. Places like Mcdonalds should atleast make their food with better ingredients like healthier bread for sandwiches, and getting rid of the transfat. They also must provide nutrition facts on the menu so people know how much they are intaking.
Also public school desperately needs a health food intervention. There are no healthy options offered at all so when you combine bad lunch with reduced gym, you get unhealthy children.
Comment by My Opinion
Political Ramble
Today's Thoughts
Well, as far as the economy goes, I would not have done anything. The government caused the problem and the government is keeping us in it longer the more they spend and regulate. The problem started because Clinton (I think it was him) passes laws making it easier for people to get mortgages, even those that could not afford it and should have never been given a mortgage. Whey they could not pay their house payments it started all of this. Secondly, why is the government’s budget not like mine? Yes theirs is much bigger, but spending less that you bring in is not as hard of a concept as people make it out to be. The US did it for a long time. This massive debt issue did not start until the 1960’s ish.
You say you can’t get by on a limited government. Why not? We fought two world wars, won out independence, and many other things on a limited government. People think that the government has always been large. Not true. It was not until the New Deal and all of the welfare programs started that government grew by leaps and bounds in size. If we cut these immoral programs we can cut taxes and cut spending at the same time!
As far as no oversight causing the bankers bringing down the economy, the exact opposite is true. It was the forced rules making these banks give out risky loans that caused the problems. The crap about too big to fail is a pant load!! If some of those businesses were allowed to fail, I bet fewer companies in the future would have made the same mistakes. But now they know the government will bail them out.
As far as McDonalds and negative choices, the solution to your problem is capitalism. If there are only negative options, someone will come out with a health option, since they know they can make money on it. No one goes to McDonalds and thinks that what they are eating is good for them. Most people don’t even understand the nutrition facts anyways. If they did they would pay more attention to what they buy at the store!!!
As far as school goes, I will give you that one. They do need to increase the amount of gym and physical activity time. Also school lunches can always be improved. So I guess we can agree on something!!!
Comment by Ian White
A Cynic's-Eye-View
Amuse I
Collective Wit
Daily Wit
The bankers had no oversight whatsover. Thats what is meant by deregulation. They had free reign and they orchestrated the biggest financial heist in american history. I do think they should have been left to fend for themselves. They should have had to make the billionaire CEOs pay out of pocket rather than write them a check and further screw the tax payers.
The solution to the fast food problem isn't that. There aren't healthy options even to this day because there is an inherent bias for crappy food. There are no billion dollar vegan companies. Junk food is superfluous and cheap. Healthy food is expensive and hard to find.
Comment by nightlydvdreview
Nightly DVD Review
Cinema Voyage
Green and Healthy
The Writer's Nook
1. Wiki-Leaks vs Global Warming. Some libs believe blindly in GW (nope not Bush). Perhaps they should do a simple boolea search concerning the documents wikileaks released against the sacred cow of Global Warming. Look it up. Boolean search wikileaks global warming. I would tell you how it comes out, but I don't spoil the ending of movies, and to do differently in this would be hypocritical.
2. Dems create social programs, say they will not be taxed, tax them, and blame the republicans. Don't believe it? Who created Social Security? Who said it would never be part of the general fund? Who made it part of the general fund? Who decided to tax it? (I'll spoil that one, Clinton did.)
3. Answering the charge of racism of republicans. Hmmm... may have worked 40 years ago. Doesn't hold water today. What you are saying with that statement is that if I disagree with Bush it was his policies. If I say that a one-term senator is not qualified to run the USA because of lack of experience and I think he is doing a poor job it's because he's black. Three words on that one. "GET ANOTHER ARGUMENT" That one is SO tired now it no longer has any power. Lay it to rest, talk about the issues, and stop the childish name-calling.
4. Health-Care Reform
If this program is SO very important, why could Nancy Pelosi not decide that the bill needed to be read before passed? Why is it that the Teamster's Union who vehemently supported the bill now have filed to opt out until 2014? Many other unions have done the same. They are just one example.
What you seem to miss while you blindly follow the dems is the simple fact of the nomenclature of the word, "politics"
Poly = multiple or many.
Tic(k)s = little blood-sucking parasites.
ergo... politics = many little blood-sucking parasites.
Of course I know that is not the literal translation, but it fits, does it not?
Point is, you are fixated on one side of an issue without looking at both perspectives. That is not how an informed person makes a decision. You cannot trust ANY of them. Obama is proving that with his "transparent" government and disallowment of any government employees or contractors to read any of the Wikileaks documents under penalty of law. Does THAT sound like transparency to you or does that sound like business as usual? You decide.
Thanks for taking the time to read this post.
Comment by Ian White
A Cynic's-Eye-View
Amuse I
Collective Wit
Daily Wit
1. I don't recall mentioning this at all but, Global Warming isn't debatable. What is up for argument is whether it's mostly man made. Whether Climate change is natural or not. The effects of our pollution are plainly visible and the planet is warming so if thats what you're arguing you are gravely mistaken.
2. Democrats and Republicans have both put forth costly initiatives. Social Security (the republicans have supported it) needs to be reformed, but the Bush tax cuts were a terrible and costly idea, as was the war on terror. Blaming the republicans may be counter productive but it isn't unjustified. They screwed up massively. Both parties did.
3. You need only watch a Tea party rally or turn to fox news for proof of republican racism. I know it's easier to pretend it doesn't exist but it does. But I'm sure you have a better excuse for conservatives calling Obama a muslim-nazi-socialist. And I'd love to hear it.
4. This last part totally lost all logic. As I've addressed above, I've given no indication that I follow the Dems but to be clear I hate politicians. I don't know what you're getting at about Pelosi. I was talking about Health reform not the crap that Obama just signed after a year of ridiculous debate. Assumptions are very dangerous my friend when they aren't based on much.