Rebloggable by request.
I guess my body, my choice only applies to abortion and nothing else. Idiots…
I get WHY they are banning soda however that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea or right.
Banning soda is not an effective way to target the obesity problem in the United States, which is in fact a serious public health issue.
The areas that face the highest rates of obesity and relate health issues are usually the poorest areas and are frequently “food deserts”. This means the residents of these areas lack access to fresh food (bread, milk, cheese, produce, etc.). Often times the only source of “food” are cornerstores that carry sodas and junk snacks. Sometimes soda, junk food, and fast food are the only available options. That’s why you’re seeing such disturbing health trends.
Want to stop diabetes? Don’t ban soda. Work with cities to help attract actual grocery stores so they can bring in healthy food and provide better options. Work to education and eliminate food deserts. Connect local farmers with cornerstore owners so they can begin to sale fruits and vegetables. Reform food stamp programs so they can’t be used to buy sugary drinks and junk snacks. That’s a PROACTIVE step to combating this health crisis.
Read the facts before getting brainwashed by Ted Cruz and his merry band of chucklehead radicals.
You’re either a talker or a doing. Rubio is a doer, Cruz is a talker and nothing more.
1) There is a time and place to discuss issues related to things such as Boston and Newtown, less than 24 hours after the incident is not the time.
2) There is no evidence that the attack was caused by a right wing group. CNN and MSNBC need to cut that out.
3) There is no reason to believe an action taken by Obama led to this either. Right wingers need to cut that out.
4) There is no evidence to show that the sequester lead to less security at the marathon or more security would have prevented it. The attack came out of nowhere and there wasn’t a reason to believe such a thing would happen.
5) Let Boston and those affected clean up the mess before we turn this into a debate. Thankfully all the family and friends I have who would be in the area were safe and I’m grateful my mother no longer goes to school where she did since it was a block from the bombing. Massachusetts is still coping with this so please let my state pull itself together.
He made about 14k this year…
His taxes went up about $1,000
Sorry who wants to push the same (taxes won’t go up on those making under 250k) lie again? Cause I have proof both in my dad and my boyfriend who both are paying more under our liar of a President.
Well apparently my mom just just laid off…
Change we can believe in right?
My dad pays 10k more in taxes, and he earns well below 250k btw, and my mom…well now she earns nothing…change indeed.
Agreed that one day we’ll get two Labradors and name one Thatcher and the other Reagan. We’ll always have the two greatest conservative forces of the 20th century in our house.
This is one of the many reasons I love my boyfriend.
Still relevant today.
The liberals would prefer that the poor were poorer with a lower standard of living provided the rich were less rich. The liberals push the idea that one’s level of happiness is not a personal measurement but a matter of whether or not you are richer or poorer than your neighbor.
GOOD. The Morning After Pill has been forced by a federal court to be available to women of all ages without a prescription.
So now we are totally ok with 12 year olds buying the morning after pill despite the fact that the FDA and health experts have said the pill is not safe for younger children? Are you people really that dense that you think a 12 year old 1) should be having sex and 2) should be able to buy the morning after pill with no form of ID or prescription!?!
Jesus Christ. You people are really beyond reason. Reproductive justice my ass; it’s social justice lingo for “let’s tell 12 year olds to have sex and ignore the experts because I have a tumblr and therefore I am smarter than everyone else.”
The Democrats in Congress and the White House have (somehow) continue to win pushing grand promises of public good spending that will bring about an era of unprecedented growth and success for all. Our healthcare with be healthier, our schools will be schoolier, and our jobs…well let’s not talk about jobs. All of this is promised by tax hikes on the rich and deficit spending. Democrats have continue to push the lie of long irrelevant Keynesian economics that spending and taxing yourself into debt can somehow be a responsible way to encourage economic growth.
To counter this argument Democrats say that taxing the rich is good because it helps the middle and lower class. This yet another trick. It’s difficult to argue against the argument of the rich having more so needed to pay more however let’s look at what happens in this case. It’s a fact that the wealthy in our economy are the main investors and savers. They have more disposable income which they frequently use to invest in stock/businesses or simply save it. When we tax the wealthy to pay for government spending that means they have less disposable income which means less money will be invested or saved. Less money invested is pretty self explanatory in terms of the negative effects but the saving aspect in less obvious.
Democrats, when it comes to money, seem to have never developed the idea of object permanence. When someone puts they money into savings, most of the time it’s put into a bank. To Democrats this means some 15th Century king is rolling around in it somewhere when in reality it goes into the market of loanable funds. Banks then use this supply to loan money to businesses and people. The more money in the supply side of the market the lower interest rates will be and the more likely banks are to lend to middle and lower income families in the form of mortgages and yes even school loans. If Democrats tax the rich that means the supply of loanable funds will decrease bringing up interest rates (which hurts business and working class families) and lenders will have fewer loans to spread the risk around and therefore be less likely to loan to middle and lower income borrowers. So yes taxing the rich does hurt middle and lower income families.
However deficit spending does not only cause inflation (however that would be my major argument here). When the government finances debt it must also do so in some other way than printing money. Usually that involves selling it’s debt in the form of bonds to foreign countries (like China) but often times heavily at home. Investors or everyday people buy government bonds with the promise of receiving more money than they paid. This means that money that normally would go into investing or savings account is being held in government bonds acting in a very similar way to the tax issue I raised earlier. This leads to less investment and less loans being provided for working class families.
Democrats have always campaigned as champions of the working class. Their promises always are targeted at middle and lower income families as a way to spark class warfare. Their platform of Keynesian economics in reality is a major problem for the very groups they campaign to protect. To middle and lower families (like my family) take this as a warning. Democrats will instead extend one open hand in the form of government stimulus and hide the dagger of Keynesian economics behind their back.