Politics - 22 August 2007

Congressional Approval at Lowest Point Ever



Did you see this? "A new Gallup Poll finds Congress' approval rating the lowest it has been since Gallup first tracked public opinion of Congress with this measure in 1974. Just 18% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, while 76% disapprove, according to the August 13-16, 2007, Gallup Poll. That 18% job approval rating matches the low recorded in March 1992, when a check-bouncing scandal was one of several scandals" -- ha! Yeah, the House bank and the House post office. You know, it's amazing. Have you seen any stories out there, folks, on what the Republicans need to do to win back Congress? Every year after 1994, when the Republicans took over Congress, the Drive-By Media was obsessed with what the Democrats "had to do to win back Congress." I haven't yet seen a story on what the Republicans need to do to win back Congress, given all this.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28456

2007-08-22 04:39:03 · 14 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

2007-08-22 04:33:20 · 32 answers · asked by john 2

Is it the parents responsibility or the government? Also what age is appropriate?

2007-08-22 04:30:40 · 36 answers · asked by Anonymous

http://www.politicalcompass.org/index

and based on this next poll, who are your top Candidates for President?

http://www.dehp.net/candidate/index.php

2007-08-22 04:23:59 · 12 answers · asked by Richard V 6

Liberal=Kind Hearted, Open Minded, Pro Civil Rights, Pro Womens Rights, Pro Sexual Preferance, We are for Personall freedoms such as Speech , Religion, and Personal Marijuana use,and Health Care for everyone

Conservative=Cold Hearted, Closed Minded,Anti Civil Rights, Anti Womens Choice,Anti Sexual Preferance, They are against Freedom of Speech(YA is an example say something they do not agree with or call King Bush a name and you get reported), They believe every American should be a christian and live under Christian Laws, they want a Theocracy, They are a against personall Marijuana use, because they have been brainwashed that it is harmful, When is the last time a woman called the cops and said her husband only gets like this when he is high=I dont think so=And they would rather let Kids, as well as other Humans suffer and die if they cant afford Health Insurance

2007-08-22 04:22:39 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

Seems like there's a lot of pent up sexual energy on Y/A this morning....

2007-08-22 04:21:32 · 15 answers · asked by truthisback 3

Or is she wearing a mask? I'm a life long Democrat, and something about Old Hil' just seems fake. Like she's saying what she thinks you want to hear. I'm all for a Woman as President, but is Hillary the one? Your opinions please?

2007-08-22 04:13:43 · 32 answers · asked by Anonymous

All I ever hear about is how abstinence is the only 100% guaranteed birth control. Well, there are forms of sex called 'outer course' which is also 100% effective. Why can't they include that in 'abstinence only' education?

2007-08-22 04:13:30 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-22 04:12:10 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

Why do liberals advocate casual sex when it leads to STDs (many times, DEADLY STDs) and unwanted pregnancies but get mad if someone says that abstinence can be a useful tool to prevent these things?

Sure, safe sex should be taught as well, but we all (even stubborn leftists) know that abstinence is the best.

One does not have to have sex, you know!!

If you can't afford contraceptives and you KNOW you can't afford to raise a child-- YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE SEX.

PERIOD.

2007-08-22 04:04:54 · 49 answers · asked by Frank Dileo 3

2007-08-22 03:59:53 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

According to the Time headline last week, a new study finds that the abortion pill RU-486 is “safe.” The only drug approved by the FDA that is designed to end human life, rather than improve it, “doesn’t increase risks” said the Chicago Tribune headline.

These headlines take deception in journalism to a whole new level. During the last Congress, I served as counsel to the House subcommittee on drug policy that investigated the FDA’s approval of RU-486. Anyone who seriously examines the highly irregular approval process and the serious adverse events associated with this drug can only conclude that it poses a deadly danger to women and should be removed from the market.

Following confirmation by the FDA in late 2005 that four women died from a rare bacterial infection after taking RU-486, Congressman Mark Souder, then-chairman of the House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, initiated a year-long investigation of how the FDA was handling RU-486 and addressing the adverse events associated with it. The subcommittee gathered thousands of documents from the FDA, conducted dozens of interviews, and held a congressional hearing, “RU-486: Demonstrating a Low Standard for Women’s Health?” Ultimately, the subcommittee published an extensive staff report on the drug, recommending its immediate removal from the market.

The report, “FDA and RU-486: Lowering the Standard for Women’s Health” summarizes a mountain of evidence about this drug’s serious and unpredictable danger to women, detailing the reasons that the drug should be immediately withdrawn from the market. Here are just some highlights: RU-486 was fraudulently approved; it has caused the deaths of at least eight women (that are known); and it is at least ten times deadlier than its surgical alternative.

RU-486 is actually a two-drug combination that first blocks nutrition from the developing embryo, which kills it, then causes the uterus to contract and expel the contents. It was approved in the waning days of the Clinton presidency under a highly unusual and specialized federal provision called Subpart H, which applies only to drugs that treat “serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide a meaningful therapeutic benefit” over existing treatments.

RU-486 doesn’t even come close to meeting the Subpart H criteria: a normal pregnancy is not a serious or life-threatening illness (RU-486 is contraindicated for ectopic pregnancies); and surgical alternatives are safer for the mother. In short, FDA violated its own regulations to approve RU-486. (The advocacy group Judicial Watch has a detailed report on the Clinton administration’s drive to approve RU-48; and a Citizens Petition filed against the FDA on behalf of Concerned Women for America, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and Christian Medical Association offers a comprehensive account of the approval violations committed on behalf of RU-486 approval.)

RU-486 has caused a tremendously high rate of adverse events relative to the number of women who have taken the drug. As of last year, when the FDA provided information to the Subcommittee for its investigation, RU-486 had caused the deaths of at least eight women, nine life-threatening incidents, 232 hospitalizations, 116 blood transfusions, and 88 cases of infection. In total, we knew of more than 1070 adverse event cases associated with RU-486, out of only 575,000 prescriptions at most. This is even more alarming in light of the fact that adverse event reporting is notoriously low for any drug, much less a drug associated with abortion, for which reporting is expected to be even lower.

Finally, as explained in detail in The New England Journal of Medicine, RU-486 abortion (sometimes called “medical abortion”) is at least ten times more fatal than its surgical alternative. The figure, based on the most conservative numbers available, compares deaths from RU-486 abortion (a rate of 1 per 100,000) to surgical abortion before eight weeks (a rate of 0.1 per 100,000).

Now, just a few interesting facts about the business and manufacturing of this drug: Danco, the company that imports and distributes RU-486 (under the trade name of Mifeprex), is not a U.S. company, but is based in the Cayman Islands; RU-486 is its only product (making a voluntary withdrawal highly unlikely); and Danco imports RU-486 from that paragon of safe-product production, China.

So what are the options for actually withdrawing this drug from the market? There is a bill in the House that would suspend approval of RU-486 pending a Comptroller General review of the FDA’s initial approval. But approval could be reinstated after a favorable Comptroller General review. The FDA has authority, under a few provisions, for withdrawing a drug unilaterally, such as when a drug cannot be used safely despite restrictions, but it’s highly unlikely the FDA would pursue this course of action. The best current option for withdrawal of RU-486 rests with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who has “Imminent Hazard” authority to remove a drug from the market under certain criteria (such as the unpredictability and severity of adverse events associated with a drug).

Returning to the mendacious headlines claiming RU-486 is “safe,” the careful reader will note that the study prompting this recent PR blitz lauding the abortion pill was not about the safety of RU-486 as a drug, or even as a form of abortion. The study was a comparison of subsequent pregnancy outcomes among women who had prior abortions, concluding that there was no difference between surgical or medical abortion on the impact on subsequent pregnancy.

However, abortion in general poses some risk to subsequent pregnancy; so to say there is no difference in long-term risk after having a medical versus surgical abortion is like saying there is no difference in long-term risk after getting into a traffic accident in a sedan versus a motorcycle. It ignores the fact that traffic accidents are dangerous, and motorcycle accidents are much more deadly.

2007-08-22 03:59:47 · 24 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

Iraq that it is bad news for his party. Im not speaking on political terms but that is an absolutely anti-American to be saying regardless of party, thats basically what the terrorists are saying. Democrat or republican it is wrong. Does anyone know who he was becaues i did not catch his name or anything??

2007-08-22 03:58:50 · 7 answers · asked by stewcat123 1

K, heres what I don't get, people wanna say al kaida was planning 9-11 in 1996 and that was when clinton was president,

then they say what was his policy to stop terrorism,

ok,

heres my question, did President Bush (R) have on his desk in august 2001 a report that said

bin laden determined to drive a plane into a building

---

Now I don't give a sh8t one way or the other about Clinton we can throw him under the bus for not responding to the USS Cole and all that other stuff, I'm fine with that, I'm not a clinton supporter or defender, if he didn't respond he has to live with that.

So here's my question for all the (R) who want to attack Clinton,

isn't it hypocritical to do so since President Bush (R) had that report on his desk that said bin laden determined to ram a plane into a building

What was his policy to stop it?

2007-08-22 03:53:33 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous

This morning on the news, due to Congressional oversight, funding for subsidized birth control of college students was cut . . . birth control prices on campus will increase an average of 300% until additional funding can be secured or corrected. Will the Right to Life Movement or those who are opposed to abortion monitor the case to make sure the funding issue is resolved? Does this concern you? What sort of involvement will the movement provide? Just curious.

2007-08-22 03:48:34 · 17 answers · asked by CHARITY G 7

r they cluking kidding us?

2007-08-22 03:46:03 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

Late last week, the Bush administration announced plans to curb the practice of states putting already-insured and non-needy children on the rolls of a federal program that subsidizes health insurance for uninsured and needy children.

Democrats were outraged.

“This is a political attempt by the administration to try to intimidate states,” Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D., Ill.) told the Washington Post.

The Democratic Congress had just passed two versions of a bill to let states expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to children in families making three and even four times the federal poverty level ($60,000 to $80,000 for a family of four). With his new rules and his veto threats against their bill, President Bush is spoiling their plans.

But aside from the feigned outrage always involved in politics, why are Democrats be so unhappy about dedicating federal money only to those who need it, and not to those who don’t? In most parts of the United States, a family of four making $60,000 is doing pretty well and doesn’t need a handout or even a “hand up.”

The answer is that Democrats in Congress do not just want the government to cover the needy and uninsured. They want to legislate incrementally until they have established universal or near-universal taxpayer-funded coverage, beginning with children.

This is not the paranoid idea of a few conservatives, but a plan outlined in an April 9, 1993, memo from Hillary Clinton’s health-care task force. The memo, which became public later only thanks to lawsuits forcing sunshine rules on the task force, was previously mentioned in a Washington Times report ten years ago, when the SCHIP program was first created.

The memo describes three possible methods of implementing universal health coverage. The first two involve a state-by-state phase-in of plans that involve state and federal government funds and employer mandates for the working uninsured.

But “Option 3” would have implemented a similar program by population group, beginning with children and expanding from there. The proposed name for the program, Kids First, had deeper meaning than one might suspect: it was the front end of a plan that would later cover everyone.

The memo states that:

Part I Kids First is really a precursor to the new system. It is intended to be freestanding and administratively simple, with States given broad flexibility in its design so that it can be easily folded into existing/future program structures.

Part II of this proposal involves the development of purchasing cooperative (PC) structures and the actual phase-in of all other population groups within the PC system.
The memo also laid out a timeline: By January 1995, all employers were to be mandated to purchase health insurance for their employees’ children. By July 1997, all employers would have been required to purchase health plans for the employees themselves.

By January 1998, self-insured adults would have been required to buy policies under the same “purchasing cooperative” structure. The state would then roll into the system children on other government programs besides Kids First, and then perhaps even “early retirees with benefits.”

This grand plan never came to pass because HillaryCare failed. But although Kids First is different in many ways from SCHIP (which has no employer mandates, for example), the political strategy is the same. It fits perfectly with Democrats’ current legislative attempt to expand the program to wealthier families.

It does not fit at all with the Bush administration’s new rules, announced last week. These would, under most circumstances, bar SCHIP for children in families making more than 250 percent of the poverty level (according to 2007 poverty guidelines form the Department of Health and Human Services, that’s a family of four earning $51,625 a year).

The administration’s new rules seem pretty reasonable — even tame. They would make states insure 95 percent of poor children (below 200 percent of the poverty level) before diverting their federal grants on the middle class (above 250 percent). Critics note that no state has put 95 percent of its uninsured children on SCHIP, but this would suggest that states have failed their mission, not that they should start giving handouts to people who can easily insure their own children.

In order to prevent non-needy families and their employers from dropping private coverage and putting children on the dole, the administration will also require non-needy children to be uninsured for a year before they are eligible for SCHIP.

If the income threshold for SCHIP already sounds high for a family of four, it is more so for larger families. My father provided a pretty good life to our family of seven on his comfortable but modest university professor’s salary. He says he never even thought of going on welfare — but maybe he should have. Even Bush’s new “draconian” SCHIP rules would have allowed all five of us kids to go on government health insurance, as long as Dad was making $77,725 or less. The Democrats’ plan would have covered us all on a $93,000 salary, or even (had we lived in New York State) $124,000! (I have trouble imagining my own mother as a six-figure welfare queen.)

The Democrats’ SCHIP outrage, while perhaps politically savvy (who could oppose insuring children?), has nothing to do with the real problem of those poor and uninsured. There are several ways the government could make insurance affordable — President Bush has proposed a generous health-insurance tax deduction, and others have proposed a repeal or circumvention of burdensome state0insurance mandates that massively inflate prices.

But the Democrats’ expansion of SCHIP into the middle class is not a solution to any existing problem. It is welfare for those already faring well, and with an eye toward expanding government in the future.

2007-08-22 03:44:42 · 12 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

"Why isn't birth control a priority? Sex is a part of student development and identity development theory."

"identity development theory?" What is that? And its a theory? How is that persuasive?
"Student development?" I thought learning was, and not the best way to have sex.

As you may see, I obviously disagree with that statement. What say you?
As you can see, i o

2007-08-22 03:40:41 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

Nuking the ME (or anywhere)would cause huge numbers of deaths of innocent civilians in the ME, but also cause radiation fallout to drift on the winds around the world, settle in the USA (and elsewhere) and cause 10's or 100's of thousands or millions of cases of leukemias and other cancers in us and others around the world. And that doesn't even address the issue of irradiating the oil, making it unusable for 100,000 years. Answer the question, now, don't start with the mindless name calling or invitations to live in China or suggest that ordinary ME people are not innocent bystanders caught in the middle of h**l.

2007-08-22 03:37:56 · 4 answers · asked by amazed we've survived this l 4

2007-08-22 03:34:16 · 25 answers · asked by Jasmine 5

Would a defeat in Iraq be President Bush's defeat or would it be America's defeat? Why does it seem like Dems think a victory is such a bad thing? Do they hate Bush that much or do they hate America that much?

2007-08-22 03:30:37 · 16 answers · asked by Jasmine 5

Bush Pledges Federal Support for Minneapolis Bridge Recovery

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

AP
ADVERTISEMENT

MINNEAPOLIS —
President Bush said Tuesday the federal government will use its power to accelerate Minnesota's recovery from a bridge disaster and flash flooding.

Bush's comments here, after a briefing from federal and state authorities, were meant as a boost of confidence for a state that has dealt with twin crises this summer.

The Interstate 35W bridge collapsed into the Mississippi River nearly three weeks ago, killing at least 13 people and shutting down a major transportation artery. And over the weekend, heavy Midwest storms and flooding killed at least 21, seven of them in Minnesota.

Bush confronted both topics before heading nearby for a Republican fundraiser.

"Our job now is to cut through the bureaucracy, as best as possible, and get the people down here a new bridge," Bush said from the Minneapolis/St. Paul Air Reserve Station.

Bush commended those who have led recovery efforts, including military divers who have searched for bodies. He personally met with about 20 of the divers to thank them.

"The spirit that caused the recovery to be well coordinated is the very same spirit that's going to cause this bridge to get rebuilt," Bush promised.

With the search for bodies over at the site of the interstate bridge collapse, authorities will focus on removing tons of wreckage from the Mississippi River so a replacement bridge can be built over the next year.

Bush on Tuesday declared an emergency exists in the state, freeing up the city and state for more federal aid in their recovery efforts.

On the flooding, Bush said the government would move quickly to process requests for help from Minnesota, so that residents could count on a "flood of help" to come down.

He later attended a fundraiser for Sen. Norm Coleman, a Republican whose seat is considered vulnerable in 2008. The event raised $1.2 million for Coleman and the Minnesota Republican Party.

2007-08-22 03:27:45 · 16 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/517061,CST-NWS-birth20.article

That is what the author of this article implies while telling the story of a 20 yr. old college student (Elizabeth Harris) who found that the school issued contraceptives have gone up in price. She said that the price was too high to pay for the contraceptives, but she evidently had a couple of dollars to plan to go to Costa Rica (she can't now because of the pregnancy).

The article states that the jump in prices is due to the 'Deficit Reduction Act' Bush signed last year to decrease federal spending. Basically, they are saying that if Bush had never signed this act, Elizabeth would be headed to Costa Rica (and not pregnant).

What are your thoughts on this?

2007-08-22 03:22:49 · 23 answers · asked by Still Beautifully Conservative 5

One quarter of 1 percent who earn more than $1 million a year got 62% of the tax savings from the change in the law. People with incomes of over $10 million a year got 28% of that group's savings at about $1.9 million each. Citizens For Tax Justice Committee released this and found that the rich are indeed getting richer , thanks to the new laws.

2007-08-22 03:17:18 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous

If so, then shouldn't we take away the profits of entertainment and sports? They make too much money off the people. Their salaries are too high just like the CEOs.

2007-08-22 03:16:45 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-22 03:13:19 · 13 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6

Alot of people that I have spoke with said no because they say that woman are to soft and arent cold hearted enough to demolish a country if needed. I htink that she would make this a better living enviroment for everyone, I too do think that maybe she might not blow up a country if needed but she will be willing to negotiate <-- (i dont think i spelled that right) to make things right but then again woman get stronger and stronger everyday so maybe she will do what is needed to be done.

2007-08-22 03:11:18 · 14 answers · asked by ~*[AnD]*~ 4 lyfe 2

2007-08-22 03:07:37 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

The commies in Russia passed gun control laws, disarmed civilians, and the communists seized control of Russia because no one could fight back. Hitler disarmed the Germans the same way and went on to kill anyone he did not like because they were disarmed. Japan did not attack the US because they knew Americans were armed and that Americans have a history of not being afraid to fight anyone.

I should easily be able to buy any weapon I want except for a nuclear weapon, including autos, or semi-autos. I will never, ever give up my weapons, so I vote for Republicans most of the time so this will not happen. Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama want to ban the sale of semi-automatics, so that proves right there they have no backbone and they would make weak leaders. Bill Clinton did enough to destroy the Second Amendment when he put a ban on the sales of automatics, and I never want to see another Clinton in the White House.

2007-08-22 02:53:18 · 40 answers · asked by Anonymous

"We care for our people and our constitution and can find friends elsewhere," al-Maliki

Yeah, we're well on our way!

2007-08-22 02:36:37 · 19 answers · asked by Paperdoll 1