the one that almost killed my daughter the first time? how about you do what wou will and I will do what I will. The reason I picked five is because that is when school starts, in the mean time I will get them the big baddies polio and the like and leave chicken pox up to fate.
"Because chicken pox is preventable and life-threatening to those who did not get it as children and the immuno-suppressed."
Fine then mandate it for high school and immune suppressed kids! I could live with that.
"A better question is "Why the hell should they have to die because you don't like the national vaccination policy?""
Which could be followed by why is it better that this kid mentioned up thread died because of the policy..
"No. The fact that we have so many antibiotic resistant diseases explains why this is not true."
Actually that's proof that the medical community over medicates... not exactly a shining example for the give your kid every shot under the sun crowd.. The only time I have ever given my kids antibiotics is for bad ear infections but our first ped wanted to give it to them like candy.
"I don't really want your kid to die of a preventable disease just because your a libertarian"
Im not a libertarian when it comes to polio, chicken pox is a different issue.
"I see no difference between your belief in your ability to second guess the medical establishment and Christian Scientists treating their children through prayer."
Nor do I, not that I treat my kid with prayer alone I'm quite found of our current ped and have a good give and take relationship with him as far as treatments go. But were I to decide to go off the deep end and not treat at all that's my families business how far do we squash rights for the common good? when it comes to putting the government in the doctors office I draw the line.
"You're causing a serious problem in the community entirely because you're some combination of selfish and stupid."
Did I say I am not going to get them vaccinated *or* did I say I wanted to wait until they had their own functional immune systems.
"There's some small risk in vaccination (very small, but it exists)."
There are risks either way and with the exception of things like Polio nothing should be mandated.
"You want everyone else's kids to take the risk so that your kid doesn't have to. That's evil."
Sigh... yea that's just what I said.. its not like I said I was going to look into it again when they were a touch older or anything I must be some selfish bastard. I did start immunizations on my first kid just when the doc said I should.... she had a terrible allergic reaction here is a clue those are more dangerous in infants and small kids than they are in older kids and adults.
"No, it's best to do them early. When they're not done we see outbreaks quite quickly. This anti-vaccination movement has already led to several outbreaks of previously controlled diseases. The CDC publishes stats on this stuff. It's pretty easy for even a layman to follow."
Actually most outbreaks of previously controlled disease are due to immigration (specifically illegal immigration) but yea lets just assume its the very small % of parents who dont vaccinate an 8 week old baby..
"I think you're advocating for exactly what we already have. An expert board that constantly reviews what diseases we have vaccines for and when we should vaccinate for them."
Pardon my french but that board is doing a shitty job they have not met a vaccine they don't like. Why the hell is chicken pox mandatory it makes no earthly sense. The disease is almost *never* serious and the natural immunity is stronger and life long than the 20 year vaccine. Also getting that disease when a kid is young is preferable to old.
"I don't think we should have a popular vote of parents or doctors deciding when they are scheduled."
Medical decisions should be made by parents, period.
"No one is saying vaccines are without side effects. It's just that they are rare, and their effects on society are minuscule compared to the effects of the diseases if large numbers of people fail to vaccinate."
Right... the scourge of chicken pox!
Some vaccines like polio and small pox are aimed at saving lives, the can and should be mostly mandatory at a reasonable age.
Some vaccines like chicken pox are given so that we can be productive little cattle and get those kids into school, they should be 100% voluntary.
"But even if there was a small risk of autism related to the vaccination the risks involved by not being vaccinated are higher and the risk of an epidemic is higher if there is no vaccination performed."
Depends on when does it not. Seriously other than a few common (serious) diseases common among infants why vaccinate for any before age 5-10? Firstly for the first six months (breast feeding or not) the kid has antibodies to everything the mother does (save very premature babies).
FYI my oldest kids first round of vaccinations triggered a very bad allergic reaction, she has not had another shot. When she is old enough 5 or so, Ill reexamine the issue but the move by people away from vaccinating their kids has less to do with fearing the 'concept' of vaccination and more the fact we are injecting two month olds with dozes on different things.
My daughter cut her lip recently so when she got stitches I also get her the Tetanus shot the difference is she is 2 now with a relatively mature immune system, not 2 months still working off of her mothers.
"I.e, exactly what was said is entirely true, but I don't like it so I will pretend it is not. News flash: 'Land owner' is correct."
--
People who did not 'own land' also got to vote, ergo land owner is not correct..
--
"Yes, if you didn't happen to own land at the specific moment you could point to a large amount of other property you owned, and if you didn't happen to own that you could pay a large fee. (Thus proving you were a man of means.)"
--
Pretty much what I said, land ownership was not a requirement a stake in funding the federal Government was.
"We clashed a while back on some story here about Gitmo, I think."
Could be, in any event glad I made an impression;)
"Anyway, you keep bringing up the Federalist Papers, and I think you mean to be supporting the Anti-Federalist Papers since the Federalist Papers were about expanding the reach of the federal government after the failure of the Articles of Confederation."
I bring them up to point out that the average American was not some dumb hick dirt farmer as is implied by 'they did x because people were dumb'. Yes the federalist papers were about a more central governmnet one which, among other things, would mint money and do all foreign relations, it does not follow that they inteded the level of federal meddling that we see today.
"The entire existence of the Constitution is because originally the founders/framers wanted, "states to do most of the heavy lifting in governing""
Were that the case the tenth amendment would never have been put in the constitution. They wanted *some* things to go to the central government but not everything under the sun (which is about where we are).
"The real reason to do this is to fix a flaw in the Constitution. The founders (perhaps for pragmatic reasons--no public education at the time) considered "common" people to be too dumb to vote."
Ummm no, try to get the average 30yo American to read and understand the federalist papers before you slam the intelligence of the revolutionary era population. The reason for the Electoral Collage is because the founders wanted states to do most of the heavy lifting in governing. We were a federal republic in which the states maintained many rights aside from the federal government.
"They decided only free, land-owning males have enough education or intelligence to make such an important decision."
Free yes, land owning? not so
Each of the thirteen colonies required voters either to own a certain amount of land or personal property, or to pay a specified amount in taxes. It was about the people who pay for things voting, Im not saying its right but this 'land owners meme' has to be stopped.
It makes more sense than X receiving 51% and Y receiving 49% and Y getting 100% of the votes because X did better nationally. All this system does is officially guarantee a third party will never get electoral votes.
and it disenfranchises voters by, potentially, giving their electors to someone who last the state. A better solution is along the lines of Maine and Nebraska. Award electors by congressional district and give the two extra to the winner of the state.
"I suggest a 100% payroll tax cut for the bottom 40% of household incomes, paid for by a a carbon tax of $0.50/gallon on gasoline and a $5/short ton on coal."
Are you kidding! that will throttle business at *best* it will offset the savings in payroll with more energy costs.
If you want to get rid of the payroll tax and turn SS into welfare just eliminate the cap on wages contributed an dont tax the first 40K of household earnings.
I mean the people most likely to lose their home in the next 24 months.
I am actually for a flat or sale tax but that is beyond the scope of this bill.. There is a time to fight for top to bottom tax cuts but this is not it..
Lenders began to offer more and more loans to higher-risk borrowers, including illegal immigrants. Subprime mortgages amounted to $35 billion (5% of total originations) in 1994, 9% in 1996, $160 billion (13%) in 1999,and $600 billion (20%) in 2006.
A study by the Federal Reserve found that the average difference between subprime and prime mortgage interest rates (the "subprime markup") declined from 280 basis points in 2001, to 130 basis points in 2007. In other words, the risk premium required by lenders to offer a subprime loan declined. This occurred even though the credit ratings of subprime borrowers, and the characteristics of subprime loans, both declined during the 2001-2006 period, which should have had the opposite effect.
In 1995, the GSEs began receiving government incentive payments for purchasing mortgage backed securities which included loans to low income borrowers. Thus began the involvement of the GSE with the subprime market.[105] Subprime mortgage originations rose by 25% per year between 1994 and 2003
The focus on tax cuts by republicans is ridiculous Im all for tax cuts but we tried handing everyone a check last year and it did little to prevent this. People are saving money right now (those who can) if you give them more its not going to get spent.
The Democrats trying to use this as a do everything bill hiring more teachers, nurses, cops, and the like is *not* stimulus, its not a bad thing to do but every teacher you hire has an indefinite growing expense. Are you going to fire all these teachers when the package has run its course or have you just increased the ongoing expense of government?
--
The Tax cuts, if any, should be limited to people within 15% of the poverty line.
The Spending should only be for capital projects Build a birdge and there is a much smaller annual cost for maintenance when the package is done.
--
The Republicans are doing nothing but fighting for ground to piss on, and Obama and the Congressional Dems are doing nothing but using FUD to push though a package with some stimulus and mostly wasteful open ended government spending.
That's a fair assessment, but the US east of the Mississippi is a lot like any European country.
So you're saying, for example, Kentucky (101.7 People/sq mi)is about the same as France (297/sq mi)?
"Lots of cities withing short distance of each other."
Look at New York state.. The second largest city (Buffalo) is five hundred or so miles away from the largest city. Now it might be fair to say the US eastern seaboard up to two hundred miles inland is the same as Western Europe but 'east of the Mississippi?
"The argument that the US is too spread out applies only to the western states."
It applies to everything away from the coast (east, west, and gulf) from the Ohio Valley to the Sierra Nevada. Now were the abandoned waste land that might matter but near half the US population lives in that area.
"I think there's a real problem here with broadband. At the very least the east coast would have 100mbps service to be on par with Korea or some European nations."
Im left to ask why? is this *really* a priority given everything else we are going through?
I suppose the first thing would be to change zoneing and infrastructure improvements to stop developing low lands any more than we already have. Planning what new crops will be grown where, planning for warmer temperature diseases (sub tropical to tropical) would be a very good place to start.. While all thats going on we need to prove golbal warming is because of man.
Now if you could prove that then I suppose you need to start mitigating the things causing it. Cafe standards, public transportation, nuclear power, wind/solar and the like. Planting more dense wood trees in the areas that are going to suddenly become more fruitful would also help.
Im not an extreemest on the issue one way or the other..
"That sure as hell proves that man can not be responsible for Global Warming"
I never said that proved any such thing but posts that follow the logic that because we set off a few bombs maybe that has something to do with it. *if* global warming is caused by man its not because of the nuclear weapons that have been set off.
"but you also claim there is no Global Warming, even that"
I don't claim anything over the past ten years temperature have been *dropping* to the point now where we are now at 1980 temps. Also the readjustment of 'top world temps' that took place last year moved the hottest years on record back to the 30's. This could be a blip, we could be warming, and I can be convinced of that.
I'm just not a climatological chicken little and I am skeptical of folks who are especially when 'climate change' is used by everyone and their mother to push pet causes like birth control, vegan diets,
Slashdot Mirror
the one that almost killed my daughter the first time? how about you do what wou will and I will do what I will. The reason I picked five is because that is when school starts, in the mean time I will get them the big baddies polio and the like and leave chicken pox up to fate.
"Because chicken pox is preventable and life-threatening to those who did not get it as children and the immuno-suppressed."
Fine then mandate it for high school and immune suppressed kids! I could live with that.
"A better question is "Why the hell should they have to die because you don't like the national vaccination policy?""
Which could be followed by why is it better that this kid mentioned up thread died because of the policy..
"No. The fact that we have so many antibiotic resistant diseases explains why this is not true."
Actually that's proof that the medical community over medicates... not exactly a shining example for the give your kid every shot under the sun crowd.. The only time I have ever given my kids antibiotics is for bad ear infections but our first ped wanted to give it to them like candy.
"I don't really want your kid to die of a preventable disease just because your a libertarian"
Im not a libertarian when it comes to polio, chicken pox is a different issue.
"I see no difference between your belief in your ability to second guess the medical establishment and Christian Scientists treating their children through prayer."
Nor do I, not that I treat my kid with prayer alone I'm quite found of our current ped and have a good give and take relationship with him as far as treatments go. But were I to decide to go off the deep end and not treat at all that's my families business how far do we squash rights for the common good? when it comes to putting the government in the doctors office I draw the line.
Maybe I could have kept giving my kid shots she was allergic to right?
"You're causing a serious problem in the community entirely because you're some combination of selfish and stupid."
Did I say I am not going to get them vaccinated *or* did I say I wanted to wait until they had their own functional immune systems.
"There's some small risk in vaccination (very small, but it exists)."
There are risks either way and with the exception of things like Polio nothing should be mandated.
"You want everyone else's kids to take the risk so that your kid doesn't have to. That's evil."
Sigh... yea that's just what I said.. its not like I said I was going to look into it again when they were a touch older or anything I must be some selfish bastard. I did start immunizations on my first kid just when the doc said I should.... she had a terrible allergic reaction here is a clue those are more dangerous in infants and small kids than they are in older kids and adults.
"No, it's best to do them early. When they're not done we see outbreaks quite quickly. This anti-vaccination movement has already led to several outbreaks of previously controlled diseases. The CDC publishes stats on this stuff. It's pretty easy for even a layman to follow."
Actually most outbreaks of previously controlled disease are due to immigration (specifically illegal immigration) but yea lets just assume its the very small % of parents who dont vaccinate an 8 week old baby..
"I think you're advocating for exactly what we already have. An expert board that constantly reviews what diseases we have vaccines for and when we should vaccinate for them."
Pardon my french but that board is doing a shitty job they have not met a vaccine they don't like. Why the hell is chicken pox mandatory it makes no earthly sense. The disease is almost *never* serious and the natural immunity is stronger and life long than the 20 year vaccine. Also getting that disease when a kid is young is preferable to old.
"I don't think we should have a popular vote of parents or doctors deciding when they are scheduled."
Medical decisions should be made by parents, period.
why is it everyone thinks this is an 'in for a penny in for a pound' issue?
Small pox vaccine for 5 yo = good idea...
Chicken pox vaccine for a 5 yo = wtf?
whooping cough vaccine for infants = good idea
barely tested hpv vaccine for 9yo girls = wtf?
"No one is saying vaccines are without side effects. It's just that they are rare, and their effects on society are minuscule compared to the effects of the diseases if large numbers of people fail to vaccinate."
Right... the scourge of chicken pox!
Some vaccines like polio and small pox are aimed at saving lives, the can and should be mostly mandatory at a reasonable age.
Some vaccines like chicken pox are given so that we can be productive little cattle and get those kids into school, they should be 100% voluntary.
"But even if there was a small risk of autism related to the vaccination the risks involved by not being vaccinated are higher and the risk of an epidemic is higher if there is no vaccination performed."
Depends on when does it not. Seriously other than a few common (serious) diseases common among infants why vaccinate for any before age 5-10? Firstly for the first six months (breast feeding or not) the kid has antibodies to everything the mother does (save very premature babies).
Yea nobody ever dies from a vaccination
http://stanford.wellsphere.com/autism-autism-spectrum-article/zaire-knott-5-week-old-foster-child-dies-at-dyfs-office/389368
""An exact cause of death will be determined at a later date pending the results of an autopsy," according to the police statement. DYFS officials suspect the immunizations -- for hepatitis B and polio -- "caused the distress or some sort of reaction," Williams said."
--
FYI my oldest kids first round of vaccinations triggered a very bad allergic reaction, she has not had another shot. When she is old enough 5 or so, Ill reexamine the issue but the move by people away from vaccinating their kids has less to do with fearing the 'concept' of vaccination and more the fact we are injecting two month olds with dozes on different things.
My daughter cut her lip recently so when she got stitches I also get her the Tetanus shot the difference is she is 2 now with a relatively mature immune system, not 2 months still working off of her mothers.
a court once determined the earth was at the center of the solar system as well..
evidence about autism is not as iron clad but a court cant rule on what causes autism, that's for scientist to worry about.
"I.e, exactly what was said is entirely true, but I don't like it so I will pretend it is not.
News flash: 'Land owner' is correct."
--
People who did not 'own land' also got to vote, ergo land owner is not correct..
--
"Yes, if you didn't happen to own land at the specific moment you could point to a large amount of other property you owned, and if you didn't happen to own that you could pay a large fee. (Thus proving you were a man of means.)"
--
Pretty much what I said, land ownership was not a requirement a stake in funding the federal Government was.
"We clashed a while back on some story here about Gitmo, I think."
Could be, in any event glad I made an impression ;)
"Anyway, you keep bringing up the Federalist Papers, and I think you mean to be supporting the Anti-Federalist Papers since the Federalist Papers were about expanding the reach of the federal government after the failure of the Articles of Confederation."
I bring them up to point out that the average American was not some dumb hick dirt farmer as is implied by 'they did x because people were dumb'. Yes the federalist papers were about a more central governmnet one which, among other things, would mint money and do all foreign relations, it does not follow that they inteded the level of federal meddling that we see today.
"The entire existence of the Constitution is because originally the founders/framers wanted, "states to do most of the heavy lifting in governing""
Were that the case the tenth amendment would never have been put in the constitution. They wanted *some* things to go to the central government but not everything under the sun (which is about where we are).
"The real reason to do this is to fix a flaw in the Constitution. The founders (perhaps for pragmatic reasons--no public education at the time) considered "common" people to be too dumb to vote."
Ummm no, try to get the average 30yo American to read and understand the federalist papers before you slam the intelligence of the revolutionary era population. The reason for the Electoral Collage is because the founders wanted states to do most of the heavy lifting in governing. We were a federal republic in which the states maintained many rights aside from the federal government.
"They decided only free, land-owning males have enough education or intelligence to make such an important decision."
Free yes, land owning? not so
Each of the thirteen colonies required voters either to own a certain amount of land or personal property, or to pay a specified amount in taxes. It was about the people who pay for things voting, Im not saying its right but this 'land owners meme' has to be stopped.
It makes more sense than X receiving 51% and Y receiving 49% and Y getting 100% of the votes because X did better nationally. All this system does is officially guarantee a third party will never get electoral votes.
and it disenfranchises voters by, potentially, giving their electors to someone who last the state. A better solution is along the lines of Maine and Nebraska. Award electors by congressional district and give the two extra to the winner of the state.
"I suggest a 100% payroll tax cut for the bottom 40% of household incomes, paid for by a a carbon tax of $0.50/gallon on gasoline and a $5/short ton on coal."
Are you kidding! that will throttle business at *best* it will offset the savings in payroll with more energy costs.
If you want to get rid of the payroll tax and turn SS into welfare just eliminate the cap on wages contributed an dont tax the first 40K of household earnings.
I mean the people most likely to lose their home in the next 24 months.
I am actually for a flat or sale tax but that is beyond the scope of this bill.. There is a time to fight for top to bottom tax cuts but this is not it..
"Surprise rebates are drastically different from tax cuts. With a tax cut, you know you'll have X amount more money for years"
Right... Cause its not like they would ever raise or sunset them?
really? where have you been hiding..
Lenders began to offer more and more loans to higher-risk borrowers, including illegal immigrants. Subprime mortgages amounted to $35 billion (5% of total originations) in 1994, 9% in 1996, $160 billion (13%) in 1999,and $600 billion (20%) in 2006.
A study by the Federal Reserve found that the average difference between subprime and prime mortgage interest rates (the "subprime markup") declined from 280 basis points in 2001, to 130 basis points in 2007. In other words, the risk premium required by lenders to offer a subprime loan declined. This occurred even though the credit ratings of subprime borrowers, and the characteristics of subprime loans, both declined during the 2001-2006 period, which should have had the opposite effect.
In 1995, the GSEs began receiving government incentive payments for purchasing mortgage backed securities which included loans to low income borrowers. Thus began the involvement of the GSE with the subprime market.[105] Subprime mortgage originations rose by 25% per year between 1994 and 2003
--
from wiki
The focus on tax cuts by republicans is ridiculous Im all for tax cuts but we tried handing everyone a check last year and it did little to prevent this. People are saving money right now (those who can) if you give them more its not going to get spent.
The Democrats trying to use this as a do everything bill hiring more teachers, nurses, cops, and the like is *not* stimulus, its not a bad thing to do but every teacher you hire has an indefinite growing expense. Are you going to fire all these teachers when the package has run its course or have you just increased the ongoing expense of government?
--
The Tax cuts, if any, should be limited to people within 15% of the poverty line.
The Spending should only be for capital projects Build a birdge and there is a much smaller annual cost for maintenance when the package is done.
--
The Republicans are doing nothing but fighting for ground to piss on, and Obama and the Congressional Dems are doing nothing but using FUD to push though a package with some stimulus and mostly wasteful open ended government spending.
Because I did not RTFA I have to guess the power (at least in Saudi Arabia) is coming from burning oil...
Its not a Russian OS, its a Russian Distribution...
That's a fair assessment, but the US east of the Mississippi is a lot like any European country.
So you're saying, for example, Kentucky (101.7 People/sq mi)is about the same as France (297/sq mi)?
"Lots of cities withing short distance of each other."
Look at New York state.. The second largest city (Buffalo) is five hundred or so miles away from the largest city. Now it might be fair to say the US eastern seaboard up to two hundred miles inland is the same as Western Europe but 'east of the Mississippi?
"The argument that the US is too spread out applies only to the western states."
It applies to everything away from the coast (east, west, and gulf) from the Ohio Valley to the Sierra Nevada. Now were the abandoned waste land that might matter but near half the US population lives in that area.
"I think there's a real problem here with broadband. At the very least the east coast would have 100mbps service to be on par with Korea or some European nations."
Im left to ask why? is this *really* a priority given everything else we are going through?
I suppose the first thing would be to change zoneing and infrastructure improvements to stop developing low lands any more than we already have. Planning what new crops will be grown where, planning for warmer temperature diseases (sub tropical to tropical) would be a very good place to start.. While all thats going on we need to prove golbal warming is because of man.
Now if you could prove that then I suppose you need to start mitigating the things causing it. Cafe standards, public transportation, nuclear power, wind/solar and the like. Planting more dense wood trees in the areas that are going to suddenly become more fruitful would also help.
Im not an extreemest on the issue one way or the other..
"That sure as hell proves that man can not be responsible for Global Warming"
I never said that proved any such thing but posts that follow the logic that because we set off a few bombs maybe that has something to do with it. *if* global warming is caused by man its not because of the nuclear weapons that have been set off.
"but you also claim there is no Global Warming, even that"
I don't claim anything over the past ten years temperature have been *dropping* to the point now where we are now at 1980 temps. Also the readjustment of 'top world temps' that took place last year moved the hottest years on record back to the 30's. This could be a blip, we could be warming, and I can be convinced of that.
I'm just not a climatological chicken little and I am skeptical of folks who are especially when 'climate change' is used by everyone and their mother to push pet causes like birth control, vegan diets,