Msg ID:
2731256 |
Isn’t the left awesome +1/-2
|
Author:Old Guy
6/3/2022 12:06:32 PM
|
They had a distribution plan for crack pipes, but not for baby formula! |
|
Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2731259 |
Your problem is that you consider anybody less "rightist", less reactionary +3/-0
|
Author:TheCrow
6/3/2022 12:15:12 PM
Reply to: 2731256
|
They had a distribution plan for crack pipes, but not for baby formula!
Cite that.
Your problem is that you consider anybody less "rightist", less reactionary than you to be a 'lib'.
The second problem you have is that you believe your politics are revealed truth from a divine source.
What exactly is/was/will be your plan to resolve the "baby formula" problem.
|
|
Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2731261 |
Your problem is that you consider anybody less "rightist", less reactionary +1/-2
|
Author:Old Guy
6/3/2022 12:34:04 PM
Reply to: 2731259
|
Because I believe that you pay no attention to the news, I will post a link. But from now on, look stuff up yourself!
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/crack-pipes-distrubtion-funded-hhs
>while you are looking stuff up, you could investigate into the incompetent White House and baby formula.
|
|
Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2731264 |
No, the federal government isn’t spending $30 million on ‘crack pipes’ +3/-0
|
Author:TheCrow
6/3/2022 12:49:52 PM
Reply to: 2731261
|
Updated February 10, 2022 at 1:55 p.m. EST|Published February 9, 2022 at 8:48 p.m. EST
Conservative figures have launched an online furor this week, claiming that the government planned to spend $30 million on pipes for smoking crack cocaine.
The heightened concern came months after the Department of Health and Human Services announced a federal grant for local programs that provide myriad “harm reduction” tools, or services that minimize the risks associated with drug use, including distributing drug paraphernalia such as clean needles. Republicans seized on “crack pipes,” causing the phrase to trend on Twitter on Tuesday, the latest in continued resistance from the GOP against harm-reduction techniques at a time when people are dying of drug overdoses at record rates in the United States.
“It’s really disappointing that Republicans are trying to win political points by putting lives at risk and creating misinformation about harm reduction,” said Jamie Favaro, executive director of NEXT Distro, one of the groups that applied for the grants. If given the funds, NEXT Distro would spend funds to distribute the overdose-reversing drug naloxone and clean syringes in Georgia, Louisiana and Nevada.
Amid mounting outrage fueled in part by Fox News and other conservative outlets, here’s what to know about the federal grant:
What is the grant for?
In a first-of-its-kind federal grant to be distributed by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, a branch of HHS, dozens of organizations across the country would be able to spend the money over three years on a preapproved list of resources, including referrals to treatment, infectious-disease testing kits, condoms, and vaccinations for hepatitis A and B.
Also on the list: “safe smoking kits.” Typically, such kits include a rubber mouthpiece to prevent cuts and burns, brass screens to filter contaminants and disinfectant wipes, according to Harm Reduction International.
Favaro, whose program does not distribute the “safe smoking kits” approved by HHS, said groups that provide kits typically don’t include a glass pipe as it is expensive relative to providing the rubber mouthpiece. Clean glass pipes are intended to curb sharing pipes and spreading oral infections or injecting with needles, a riskier method of doing drugs.
Keith Humphreys, an addiction researcher at Stanford University School of Medicine, said researchers haven’t found that providing glass pipes works as intended, in part because of the difficulty of tracking infectious diseases spreading among drug users. But addiction, like other health problems, requires solutions beyond cures to reduce suffering, he said.
“Obviously, we would like everybody who is addicted to never use drugs again, but if we can’t have that, we should be grateful to at least reduce use or reduce the damage of use to that person or to the people around them,” he said.
On Wednesday, the White House and HHS denied the funds would be spent on the pipes. HHS did not answer a question from The Washington Post about whether the kits could include glass stems.
“HHS and ONDCP are focused on using our resources smartly to reduce harm and save lives. Accordingly, no federal funding will be used directly or through subsequent reimbursement of grantees to put pipes in safe smoking kits,” HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra and Office of National Drug Control Policy Director Rahul Gupta said in a statement. “The goal of harm reduction is to save lives.”
White House press secretary Jen Psaki also on Wednesday dismissed a report as “inaccurate” from the conservative outlet Washington Free Beacon that an HHS spokesperson said the White House would be distributing crack pipes.
“We wanted to put out information to make that clear,” Psaki said. “The safe smoking kit may contain alcohol swabs, lip balm, other materials to promote hygiene and reduce the transmission of diseases like HIV and hepatitis.”
On Feb. 9, White House press secretary Jen Psaki pushed back on reports in right win media that the government has been distributing drug paraphernalia. (Video: The Washington Post)
The funding is “a historic moment” in drug policy as most harm reduction programs have been otherwise ineligible for federal funding in years past, according to Sheila Vakharia, an expert at the Drug Policy Alliance.
These groups, often at the front line in communities hit hardest by the latest waves of the overdose epidemic, directly service people who use drugs, deploying “the law of attraction” to get people otherwise marginalized or unable to access health-care resources, such as information about treatment, Vakharia said, a necessity when people who use drugs are often stigmatized.
“Harm reduction as a practice and as a philosophy is all about helping people make informed and safer decisions,” Vakharia said. “It’s about saying, ‘This is a place where we accept you for who you are and here are the tools for you to help stay safe while you’re smoking, and in addition, we’ve got condoms, and we can teach you about identifying someone overdosing, and here’s naloxone.’ ”
What’s the controversy?
“Biden crime policy: Crack pipes for all. What could go wrong?” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) tweeted.
Republican lawmakers and online talking heads painted an absurd image of government-issued crack pipes being mailed to each American like coronavirus tests, alleging that language that said the money would be awarded to underserved communities meant the federal government would target Black people.
“The Biden administration is going to be sending crack pipes and meth pipes, targeting minority communities,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said in a video message. “I know that sounds insane, I know that sounds too crazy to be true.”
In reality, the investment in harm reduction is a drop in the bucket of federal spending, unworthy of a “massive cultural war blowup,” Humphreys said.
“Even if the pipes do no good at all I don’t think we should get our knickers in a twist over this,” Humphreys wrote in an email.
Republicans did not take issue with just the grant’s potential uses, but also the administration’s response to the controversy they’ve raised.
“Once again, ‘misinformation’ just means true facts that make Democrats look bad,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) tweeted.
After the White House’s response, Rubio announced he would introduce legislation to prohibit the federal funds from going toward “crack pipes or similar drug paraphernalia.” His spokesman later clarified that the proposed bill would be “narrowly focused on crack pipes.”
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) threatened to block a stopgap measure to keep the federal government funded until March 11 if she did not receive assurance from the Biden administration that no funds would be allotted for the distribution of crack pipes.
Blackburn faced criticism in her last election for taking money from the pharmaceutical makers and distributors blamed for fueling the opioid epidemic, after a Washington Post investigation found a law she sponsored tied the hands of the Drug Enforcement Administration in its efforts to keep addictive painkillers out of the black market.
Why is this coming up now?
Frustrations aired by Blackburn and others are only the latest fury aimed at drug policy evolving amid the increasingly deadly drug crisis. More than 100,000 people died of overdoses in the 12 months between April 2020 and April 2021, a milestone in a decades-long health crisis.
Mike Pence, as governor of Indiana, oversaw in 2015 the worst HIV outbreak in the state’s history, which critics blamed in part on Pence’s opposition to authorizing a needle exchange program.
For those in the harm reduction world, this rhetoric isn’t new, but it’s coming at a terrible time when overdoses are soaring.
“It doesn’t surprise me someone ran with those talking points,” said Jennifer Plumb, the founder and medical director of Utah Naloxone. Her group, which applied for the grant, would supply clean needles and the overdose antidote throughout her state. Despite hesitancy around harm reduction, Plumb said she’s seen firsthand how effective it is at mitigating the worst repercussions of the drug crisis.
More than 7,000 overdoses have been reversed in over six years with the naloxone her group distributes, Plumb said. When naysayers have criticized her group’s work, Plumb has invited them to speak to drug users.
“I suppose some folks aren’t interested in the reasonableness,” she said. “They are more interested in the fiery flash points of inciting faux rage where there doesn’t need to be any rage. This is a realm that needs compassion and awareness.”
|
|
Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2731268 |
OK, I will change my post to read - +0/-2
|
Author:Old Guy
6/3/2022 12:58:56 PM
Reply to: 2731264
|
They have a plan to distribute drug harm reduction tools, but no plan for baby formula!
IS THAT BETTER YOU, USEFUL IDIOT |
|
Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2731270 |
Again, I ask you: are you really, truly a conservative? Nope. +1/-0
|
Author:TheCrow
6/3/2022 1:12:15 PM
Reply to: 2731268
|
They have a plan to distribute drug harm reduction tools, but no plan for baby formula!
You are a reactionary. Your posts on this issue prove it.
The next step in your logic will be that the federal government should produce and distribute baby formula.
But- I'm glad that you endorse rational harm reduction drug laws.
That will do important things-
First, and very important, it will take the profit motive out of illicit drug trafficking. That will stabilize Latin American politics.
Next, and most obvious- it will reduce the numbers of deaths of addicts. |
|
Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2731276 |
What exactly is/was/will be your plan to resolve the "baby formula" problem +1/-0
|
Author:TheCrow
6/3/2022 2:23:39 PM
Reply to: 2731268
|
still waiting... |
|
Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2731267 |
You post it, you substantiate it. Or not, in which case it's reasonable to +3/-0
|
Author:TheCrow
6/3/2022 12:58:40 PM
Reply to: 2731261
|
You post it, you substantiate it. Or not, in which case it's reasonable to assume you are posting fictions, propaganda.
Didn't TrumpeRINO frog boys protest fake news? But you post dubious sources...
RIGHT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.
- Overall, we rate the Washington Free Beacon Right Biased based on story selection that favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to misleading and false claims.
Detailed Report
Bias Rating: RIGHT Factual Reporting: MIXED Country: USA Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE Media Type: Website Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY
History
The Washington Free Beacon is an American politically conservative political journalism website that publishes news and opinion commentary. Founded in 2012, the editor-in-chief is Matthew Continetti.
The site is noted for its conservative reporting, modeled after liberal counterparts in the media such as ThinkProgress and Talking Points Memo, intended to publicize stories and influence mainstream media coverage.
From October 2015 to May 2016, the Washington Free Beacon hired Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research on “multiple candidates” during the 2016 presidential election, including Donald Trump. The Free Beacon stopped funding this research when Donald Trump had clinched the Republican nomination.
Funded by / Ownership
The Washington Free Beacon is a privately owned, for-profit online newspaper primarily funded through online advertising.
Analysis / Bias
In review, the Washington Free Beacon often uses loaded words in their headlines that favor the right such as Michael Moore’s Ex-Wife Claims He Stiffed Her out of Movie Profits. The Free Beacon usually sources their information properly but occasionally uses Mixed factual sources. When it comes to factual reporting, the Washington Free Beacon has a mixed track record. See below.
Failed Fact Checks
Overall, we rate the Washington Free Beacon Right Biased based on story selection that favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to misleading and false claims. (7/19/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 02/09/2022)
Source: https://freebeacon.com/
|
|
Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2731271 |
What a bunch of Bull shit +0/-2
|
Author:Old Guy
6/3/2022 1:28:50 PM
Reply to: 2731267
|
Over and over you link to sources that are not realistic, even your Media Bias/Fack Check is just opinion.
Look at your last post, Bull shit. You compare a market at the beginning of Biden's administration and end if as of today. But you totally ignore that the market had climbed close to 38,000, but then some of Biden's policies kicked in and it is dropping, around 500 Trillion Dollars have been lost.
Next in the same post was complete Bull Shit about me and the free enterprise. Anyone with a brain knows that Biden and his government regulations are what is driving the cost of gas, world wide up! It is the foundation of the inflation the world is experiencing. WHAT IS HAPPENED UNDER BIDEN IS THE OPPOSITE OF A FREE MARKET. You think you know but what you know is very little.
And I get a real laugh with your post about Trumps economy, Boy! the numbers really get twisted on that one.
Just a useful idiot |
|
Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2731274 |
What a bunch of Bull shit +3/-1
|
Author:TheCrow
6/3/2022 2:19:11 PM
Reply to: 2731271
|
Over and over you link to sources that are not realistic, even your Media Bias/Fack Check is just opinion.
Yes, it's opinion. Being an opinion is not the same as being wrong. Mediabiasfactcheck offers evidence to substantiate their opinions.
Look at your last post, Bull shit. You compare a market at the beginning of Biden's administration and end if as of today. But you totally ignore that the market had climbed close to 38,000, but then some of Biden's policies kicked in and it is dropping, around 500 Trillion Dollars have been lost.
Who lost that money? Well, anybody who sold after the start of Trump's Covid Recession and before the 2020 election, that's who.
Where did that money come from? Other investers. As I said, the market goes up and down. Ride the market downs out so you can sell when it's up.
Personal anecdote:
At the height of the 2007-2009 I was talking about investing with a friend who was bemoaning the market downturn. I asked him whether he had sold or thought it was a good time to sell? Well no, he said. And I said something to the effect that that was good, it was only a potential loss on paper until he sold. That's still true.
Next in the same post was complete Bull Shit about me and the free enterprise. Anyone with a brain knows that Biden and his government regulations are what is driving the cost of gas, world wide up! It is the foundation of the inflation the world is experiencing. WHAT IS HAPPENED UNDER BIDEN IS THE OPPOSITE OF A FREE MARKET. You think you know but what you know is very little.
Substantiate that.
What, specifically, has Biden done to increase gas prices?
"The person in the White House is responsible for what we're seeing at the pump, in the public's imagination — no question about that," said historian Meg Jacobs, author of author of "Panic at the Pump: The Energy Crisis and the Transformation of American Politics in the 1970s." "That was true in the '70s. That remains true today."
"And I get a real laugh with your post about Trumps economy, Boy! the numbers really get twisted on that one."
So, i'll attempt to un-twist them with graphs in this article.
The pandemic was partly to blame, and there are some measures that make his record look better. But it was not a stellar performance.
GDP: A Trump obsession.
Photographer: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
August 2, 2021, 6:30 AM EDT
It was the whopping-yet-still-disappointing 6.5% annualized growth number for the second quarter that got most of the attention when the U.S. gross domestic product report came out Thursday. But the data release from the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis also included revisions to GDP and related measures back to 1999, making this an opportune time to take another look at economic growth under Donald Trump and his predecessors.
This is, let’s be clear from the start, not a perfect way of measuring presidential economic performance. There are lots of things that determine economic growth rates other than who is in the White House, and when a president does make a difference the results may be felt long after he’s left Washington. Still, it’s a widely used metric and Trump was downright obsessed with it, so here goes.
OK, maybe that GDP obsession didn’t work out so well for Trump. The chart starts with Dwight Eisenhower because his was the first presidency for which the BEA has full quarterly GDP data. Annual GDP numbers go back to 1929, and if you measure from Herbert Hoover’s first year in office (1929) to the year he left (1933), annualized growth was negative 7.4 percent. So Trump did a lot better than that! But his was the worst GDP performance since then (measured the same way as with Hoover, annualized GDP growth was 9.1% under Franklin Roosevelt and 1.8% under Harry Truman).
This does seem a bit unfair, given the pandemic and all. Trump didn’t always rise to the challenges posed by Covid-19, but thanks in part to legislation he signed and a vaccine-development program his administration put in motion, the U.S. economy has experienced one of the world’s quicker recoveries. Lots of other presidents have suffered economic setbacks due to events outside their control, of course, and you can’t just ignore a quarter or two because they were affected by bad economic luck. But there is something to be said for trying some other ways of measuring growth during his term.
One is to adjust the timing. For the above chart I’ve taken real GDP in the quarter a president entered office and the quarter he left, and calculated the compound annual growth rate from one to the other. Here’s what it looks like if you shift that back or forward by a quarter.
Presidents and GDP Growth
Annualized real growth from first quarter in office to last
Presidents and GDP Growth, Time-Shifted
Presidents and Economic Growth
Annualized real growth in the average of gross domestic product and gross domestic income from first to last quarter in office
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
It looks a lot better for Trump (not to mention Barack Obama, and Gerald Ford) if you shift a quarter later, although this still puts him behind everyone but George W. Bush. There’s an argument for shifting the measurement period even later, given how long it can take for the effects of economic policies to be felt, but there’s also a point beyond which that starts to get a little ridiculous, plus we don’t have the data yet to do that for Trump.
Another adjustment involves incorporating the BEA’s estimate of gross domestic income, which in theory should be equal to gross domestic product but is compiled from different measures and never comes out quite the same. It has been argued that an average of GDI and GDP captures the timing of economic activity better than GDP alone does, so here’s what that looks like.
This puts Trump ahead of both George Bushes, although still trailing everyone else.
Economic growth is generally lower than it was a few decades ago, and this is probably not the fault of a particular president. One likely cause is the slowdown in population growth. Correct for that using the BEA’s quarterly estimates of U.S. population, and it brings a few more changes.
Presidents and Per-Capita Economic Growth
Annualized real growth in per-capita average of gross domestic product and gross domestic income from first to last quarter in office:
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
More from
BloombergOpinion
The rapid population growth during Eisenhower’s time in office (1.8% per year, highest among the presidents on the chart) consisted almost entirely of babies, who tend not to be big economic contributors from the get-go, so I would advise cutting Ike some slack here. In the past I have tried using the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ monthly estimates of 16-and-older civilian population to get around this, but for reasons involving the end of the Korean War and the fact that the BLS estimates exclude uniformed military personnel, that doesn’t entirely bail him out either. For Trump, factoring in population growth puts him well ahead of three presidents (Eisenhower and the Bushes) and not far behind Nixon and Obama, although still nowhere close to top performers such as Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and, ahem, Jimmy Carter.
All of those top performers except Reagan were Democrats, which has not gone unnoticed by economists. Over the nearly 75 years for which we have reliable quarterly GDP and monthly jobs numbers, the growth of both has been markedly faster during Democratic presidencies than Republican ones. In 2016 the very eminent Alan S. Blinder and Mark W. Watson of Princeton undertook “An Econometric Exploration” of this phenomenon for the American Economic Review and came to the not especially helpful conclusion that:
the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior total factor productivity (TFP) performance, a more favorable international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term future.
That sounds mainly as if the Democrats have just been luckier, and perhaps better at inculcating optimism. In an updated analysis earlier this year, David Leonhardt of the New York Times suggested that it might also have something to do with Democrats being more pragmatic than Republicans, who since 1980 have focused on tax cuts as the main instrument of national economic policy, or with Democratic economic pressure groups such as labor unions favoring policies “that lift broad-based economic growth” while Republican economic pressure groups focus, again, on tax cuts.
Trump offered hints of a different economic approach, but the signature legislative accomplishment of his term was another big tax cut and his growth numbers will drag the Republican averages down even further. Maybe it’s mostly bad luck. This is getting to be an awfully long run of it, though.
Just a useful idiot |
|
Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2731279 |
That is a option article, numbers manipulated (NT) +0/-2
|
Author:Old Guy
6/3/2022 3:40:31 PM
Reply to: 2731274
|
|
|
Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2731637 |
Labeling is a leftist tactic crofraud. Always has been +0/-1
|
Author:observer II
6/8/2022 7:57:23 AM
Reply to: 2731259
|
You guys also excel in crying.
You push someone, and the minute they push back, you cry foul. It's quite entertaining actually
No wonder our LGBTQABCD community is growing.
Ask Disney if it's working out for them. OUCH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
Return-To-Index
|
|