Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: The Coach on May 07, 2009, 08:58:53 PM
-
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama wants to eliminate spending on abstinence-only education and spend the money on programs to reduce teen pregnancy that do not take an abstinence-only approach.
The proposal in Obama's 2010 budget plan released Thursday could run into opposition from conservatives.
Administration budget documents say Obama wants to redirect funding from "abstinence-only education programs to evidence-based and promising teen pregnancy prevention programs."
The state grant program for abstinence education that Obama wants to eliminate is getting $38 million in 2009. He is requesting $50 million instead to support existing teen pregnancy prevention programs and develop new ones.
The most positive results, Obama's budget plan asserts, come from programs that "provide a range of services in addition to comprehensive sex education."
-
Bad decision. Now watch him try and divert money to Planned Parenthood. ::)
-
Personally, I think ALL sex education programs are a bad idea - whether they are abstinence only or not. Parents should teach thier kids about sex, not impersonal beurocrats that they dont even know. It is not the business of schools to be teaching kids about sex. If the government would stop making it economically feasible for single moms to have kids, I can guarantee you that parents would find a way to keep it from happening. For some kids that might include abstinence only. For some kids it might include teaching about protected sex. Parents will make that decision.
-
Personally, I think ALL sex education programs are a bad idea - whether they are abstinence only or not. Parents should teach thier kids about sex, not impersonal beurocrats that they dont even know. It is not the business of schools to be teaching kids about sex. If the government would stop making it economically feasible for single moms to have kids, I can guarantee you that parents would find a way to keep it from happening. For some kids that might include abstinence only. For some kids it might include teaching about protected sex. Parents will make that decision.
I'm not sure I'd call them all a bad idea, but I definitely understand your point. It is the parents' responsibility to educate their kids. Maybe the government should get out of this business altogether.
-
If parents were doing a good job we wouldn't have teen pregnancy and abortion to deal with as social issues. There need to be programs and an understanding that abortion really shouldn't be the preferred method of birth control. Unfortunately the issue is more politicized than plain common sense.
-
If parents were doing a good job we wouldn't have teen pregnancy and abortion to deal with as social issues. There need to be programs and an understanding that abortion really shouldn't be the preferred method of birth control. Unfortunately the issue is more politicized than plain common sense.
Shit's been around forever. Nothing will change that, old as humanity itself.
-
Shit's been around forever. Nothing will change that, old as humanity itself.
True. It should have been addressed a long time ago but America did the same thing we always do with problems..... ignore them until the middle class gets affected. :)
-
Obama Bin Laden.
-
President Barack Obama wants to eliminate spending on abstinence-only education and spend the money on programs to reduce teen pregnancy that do not take an abstinence-only approach.
Bad decision. Now watch him try and divert money to Planned Parenthood. ::)
He's stopping abstinence ONLY programs because they've proven to be an abject failure and instead diverting that money to other programs in an attempt to reduce teen pregnancy. Isn't that the objective the failed abstinence only programs in the first place.
Why should we keeping throwing money at a failed idea. He might as well just take the money and have a bonfire of the front lawn of the White House as spend it on abstinence ONLY programs.
Thank Jeebus we don't have another brain dead evangelical running this country
-
He's stopping abstinence ONLY programs because they've proven to be an abject failure and instead diverting that money to other programs in an attempt to reduce teen pregnancy. Isn't that the objective the failed abstinence only programs in the first place.
Why should we keeping throwing money at a failed idea. He might as well just take the money and have a bonfire of the front lawn of the White House as spend it on abstinence ONLY programs.
Thank Jeebus we don't have another brain dead evangelical running this country
AIG and GM are failed ideas.
-
AIG and GM are failed ideas.
they're definitely failed companies (for different reasons)
-
Administration budget documents say Obama wants to redirect funding from "abstinence-only education programs to evidence-basedand promising teen pregnancy prevention programs."
why do christians hate evidence?
why must we keep throwing money at a failed idea?
-
they're definitely failed companies (for different reasons)
Point is that 'failure' is pretty subjective if you're talking about something like an abstinence program. If a small percentage of unplanned pregnancies can be avoided then we'll have less poverty and suffering in children.
It's my opinion that welfare needs to be drastically changed to really affect unplanned pregnancies but no one would ever go for any idea that shifted responsibility back to individuals.
-
Point is that 'failure' is pretty subjective if you're talking about something like an abstinence program. If a small percentage of unplanned pregnancies can be avoided then we'll have less poverty and suffering in children.
It's my opinion that welfare needs to be drastically changed to really affect unplanned pregnancies but no one would ever go for any idea that shifted responsibility back to individuals.
failure of abstince ONLY training is not "pretty subjective" and I don't think they are eliminating abstinence but rather just adding other programs
The most positive results, Obama's budget plan asserts, come from programs that "provide a range of services in addition to comprehensive sex education."
-
why do christians hate evidence?
why must we keep throwing money at a failed idea?
I'm both a Christian and a Conservative, but I don't let evidence get in the way. I do believe that people should hold off on sex until marriage, but it's been proven time and again that AO education doesn't work. The only people who promote it are those who want today's kids as miserable and repressed as they are.
-
I'm both a Christian and a Conservative, but I don't let evidence get in the way. I do believe that people should hold off on sex until marriage, but it's been proven time and again that AO education doesn't work. The only people who promote it are those who want today's kids as miserable and repressed as they are.
fair enough - not all christians hate evidence. I actually think there are many more christians like you and the "abstinence only" crowd is probably an ever shrinking minority.
-
I'm both a Christian and a Conservative, but I don't let evidence get in the way. I do believe that people should hold off on sex until marriage, but it's been proven time and again that AO education doesn't work. The only people who promote it are those who want today's kids as miserable and repressed as they are.
Christian, Conservative and Evidence do not belong in the same sentence nor can they exist with any uniformity.
-
Instead of wasting more time bashing Christians people should concentrate on what best would protect children from being born into poverty with unprepared parents.
-
Instead of wasting more time bashing Christians people should concentrate on what best would protect children from being born into poverty with unprepared parents.
All genetics...
-
Isn't the point being that abstinence only education doesn't work... Abstinence will still be taught... Just in conjunction with other forms of sex education.
Seems pretty cut and dried to me... More education, not less.
-
White House may seek funding for abstinence-only education
Posted: 12:46 PM ET
From CNN's Lauren Kornreich
WASHINGTON (CNN) - Although President Obama cut funding for abstinence-only sex education from his new budget, a White House official said Tuesday that some programs could eventually receive government money.
"The President is deeply committed to reducing levels of teen pregnancy and believes that parents, families, communities, and the government must come together to address this issue," a White House official told CNN contributor David Brody. "The budget increases overall funding for teenage pregnancy prevention, which may include education on abstinence, and supports programs based on research."
The official told Brody that 75 percent of funding for teen pregnancy prevention will go towards programs that are proven to lower rates, and that some abstinence-only education could qualify.
The official added that the rest of the funds will be directed to "promising, but not yet proven" programs which have given "some indication" of effectiveness in preventing teen pregnancy. "Those programs would have to agree to participate in a rigorous evaluation, and abstinence-only programs could qualify," said the aide.
The president's budget, unveiled last week, eliminated funding for Community-Based Abstinence Education," but allocated millions of dollars to "community-based and faith-based efforts to reduce teen pregnancy using evidence-based and promising models."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
-
so AO programs "might" qualify for a few $$$'s provided they agree to a rigorous evaluation of the actual results? IMO it's probably more money down the drain but if they can prove some effectiveness then I'm sure no one will complain and if they are proven worthless (again) then I'm sure the christians won't have a problem with that either.....right?
-
What exactly do you learn in AO training?
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf
-
why do christians hate evidence?
Because it interfers with their delusional fantasies.
-
Because it interfers with their delusional fantasies.
ok - why do they ask non-christians or even rationale christians to induldge their delusional fantasies...not only indulge but also subordinate our own rational conclusions?
-
Why sex ed is taught in ANY schools is beyond me.Just teach the fucking kids to read and do math.Let the parents worry about sex ed.Since they began teaching sex ed,teen pregancies have gone up,STDs have gone up.Its silly.
-
Why sex ed is taught in ANY schools is beyond me.Just teach the fucking kids to read and do math.Let the parents worry about sex ed.Since they began teaching sex ed,teen pregancies have gone up,STDs have gone up.Its silly.
These kids can put a condom on a cucumber but can't even spell their own name.
-
ok - why do they ask non-christians or even rationale christians to induldge their delusional fantasies...not only indulge but also subordinate our own rational conclusions?
Because they expect everyone to suspend belief in reality in order to lend credibility to the fairy tale they are so desperately wishing to follow themselves.
-
He's stopping abstinence ONLY programs because they've proven to be an abject failure and instead diverting that money to other programs in an attempt to reduce teen pregnancy. Isn't that the objective the failed abstinence only programs in the first place.
Why should we keeping throwing money at a failed idea. He might as well just take the money and have a bonfire of the front lawn of the White House as spend it on abstinence ONLY programs.
Thank Jeebus we don't have another brain dead evangelical running this country
planned parenthood has also failed at preventing teen pregnancy. i dont understand why you think that if we "throw money" at them instead of abstinence only programs that it will help prevent teen pregnancy. funny that i never hear you ridiculing planned parenthood for their "abject failure" in preventing teen pregnancy. And PLEASE dont try and say that they dont have the funding cuz ill have to go and bang my head against my wall.
-
planned parenthood has also failed at preventing teen pregnancy. i dont understand why you think that if we "throw money" at them instead of abstinence only programs that it will help prevent teen pregnancy. funny that i never hear you ridiculing planned parenthood for their "abject failure" in preventing teen pregnancy. And PLEASE dont try and say that they dont have the funding cuz ill have to go and bang my head against my wall.
PP is mostly (~ 65% according to Wiki) funded by private donations so I don't see the comparison in terms of spending
Do you have any #'s or direct comparison of PP vs. AO?
Do you even know what the curriculim of AO training is? From what I've read it's mostly based on lies, bad science and and religioun (christianity)
-
PP is mostly (~ 65% according to Wiki) funded by private donations so I don't see the comparison in terms of spending
Do you have any #'s or direct comparison of PP vs. AO?
Do you even know what the curriculim of AO training is? From what I've read it's mostly based on lies, bad science and and religioun (christianity)
what lies? if you dont have sex you wont have kids. the lie is that if we teach a 15 year old what a condom is then we can trust him to use it.
and you're completely wrong on planned parenthoods funding sources. They are primarily funded through the U.S. government Title X and Medicaid programs to the tune of about $300-500 million a year. and dont argue with me about the source of that. its from their website. i think someone has been telling you lies.
-
This issue is so tertiary it's not even funny...
-
what lies? if you dont have sex you wont have kids. the lie is that if we teach a 15 year old what a condom is then we can trust him to use it.
and you're completely wrong on planned parenthoods funding sources. They are primarily funded through the U.S. government Title X and Medicaid programs to the tune of about $300-500 million a year. and dont argue with me about the source of that. its from their website. i think someone has been telling you lies.
lies = false and misleading information
your tax dollars at work: http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf
from Wiki:
Planned Parenthood receives about a third of its money in government grants and contracts ($349.6 million in FY 2008). In the 2007–08 Annual Report, clinic income totaled $374.7 million and miscellaneous operating revenues $68.9 million. Planned Parenthood is also heavily sponsored by private individuals, with over 700,000 active individual contributors.[6] Large donors such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation contribute a substantial part of the organization's budget.[7]
-
lies = false and misleading information
your tax dollars at work: http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf
from Wiki:
Planned Parenthood receives about a third of its money in government grants and contracts ($349.6 million in FY 2008). In the 2007–08 Annual Report, clinic income totaled $374.7 million and miscellaneous operating revenues $68.9 million. Planned Parenthood is also heavily sponsored by private individuals, with over 700,000 active individual contributors.[6] Large donors such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation contribute a substantial part of the organization's budget.[7]
It's good people argue about this irrelevant shit whilst we spend untold amounts of money on a wasteful military budget and make more enemies for ourselves...
-
It's good people argue about this irrelevant shit whilst we spend untold amounts of money on a wasteful military budget and make more enemies for ourselves...
i dont think it irrelevant necessarily. i think its morally reprehensible that people are forced to pay for something that they are morally against.
-
i dont think it irrelevant necessarily. i think its morally reprehensible that people are forced to pay for something that they are morally against.
They are going to say the same should go for the wars.
-
They are going to say the same should go for the wars.
yeah they will.
-
yeah they will.
I don't thin federal money should be spent on wars or child welfarism...
-
I don't thin federal money should be spent on wars or child welfarism...
What about securing the border?
-
What about securing the border?
I am for that because that falls within the jurisdiction of what I think the government is there for. I am a minarchist, so I believe we should have courts, a police/fire force and a military and that is it.
-
I don't thin federal money should be spent on wars or child welfarism...
heres a story i think is pertinent to this discussion. i remember getting into a HUGE fight with my family soon after 9/11, on thanksgiving i think. my whole family was there. aunts, uncles, cousins. we were watching tv and there was this show on about "Never forget 9/11". The emotional music was playin and people in the room were crying and i burst out laughing because i knew that it was all just a bunch of horseshit. i told them this country wont stand together for anything. tomorrow we'll all go back to being democrats and republicans. i knew then that in a few years we would all be fighting with eachother and no one would give two shits that we were attacked. they were FURIOUS. they all ganged up on me and i had to sit there and take it. they all said that this was a turning point for the USA. i continued to laugh. they got even more pist. i ruined thanksgiving for everyone. but every holiday after that i remind them of what i said and how they treated me. and i tell them that i will remind them every holiday. they deserve it. they said horrible things to me that day. how ignorant i was. how i was young and stupid and didnt know shit about this country. i have to admit i am sad that i was right.
because no one cares what happened on 9/11. they all think our military is a sham. sad.
-
I am for that because that falls within the jurisdiction of what I think the government is there for. I am a minarchist, so I believe we should have courts, a police/fire force and a military and that is it.
well if your government includes a military that includes wars right?
-
well if your government includes a military that includes wars right?
Yes, in defence of the country; neither Afghanistan nor Iraq have ANYTHING to do with defence of the USA.
-
Yes, in defence of the country; neither Afghanistan nor Iraq have ANYTHING to do with defence of the USA.
one could argue that we have no enemies. who are our enemies? do you think we have any? serious question.
-
one could argue that we have no enemies. who are our enemies? do you think we have any? serious question.
Sure we have enemies and every day we spend bombing and occupying other countries we create more. Look at the mess in Afghanistan and now in Pakistan. It makes no sense to be in Central Asia or in Iraq, total waste of time, money and resources as well as human lives. Not very different from Vietnam and few would argue today retrospectively that invading Indo-China was a good thing and helped us, no we had guns and butter, same as now and we paid for it in the mid and late 70's. We are inciting people over there to still more hatred and violence because we are dropping bombs on civilians and people who would otherwise not get riled up about all this. Sadam Hussein was perhaps hostile but was no danger to the USA and there was no GOOD reason to invade. Never mind the total lack of constitutionality of it all. Rightwingers love to complain about leftwingers overspending, well our overseas empire costs over a trillion a year. Imagine if we saved that or we spent it at home at least for infrastructure. We would be a lot safer if we minded our own business and gave up the empire. How does the empire benefit ordinary Americans? other than draining their tax dollars? So yes, we have enemies but the answer is not to make more enemies.
-
Sure we have enemies and every day we spend bombing and occupying other countries we create more. Look at the mess in Afghanistan and now in Pakistan. It makes no sense to be in Central Asia or in Iraq, total waste of time, money and resources as well as human lives. Not very different from Vietnam and few would argue today retrospectively that invading Indo-China was a good thing and helped us, no we had guns and butter, same as now and we paid for it in the mid and late 70's. We are inciting people over there to still more hatred and violence because we are dropping bombs on civilians and people who would otherwise not get riled up about all this. Sadam Hussein was perhaps hostile but was no danger to the USA and there was no GOOD reason to invade. Never mind the total lack of constitutionality of it all. Rightwingers love to complain about leftwingers overspending, well our overseas empire costs over a trillion a year. Imagine if we saved that or we spent it at home at least for infrastructure. We would be a lot safer if we minded our own business and gave up the empire. How does the empire benefit ordinary Americans? other than draining their tax dollars? So yes, we have enemies but the answer is not to make more enemies.
i agree with most of what you are saying. except there are a few things that i believe you take for granted. you believe that sadaam was no threat to us. well thats only because we went over there and found out that he wasnt as far along with gaining nukes as we thought he was. every time bill clinton addressed the nation the last 2 years of his presidency he warned us about the danger of sadaam and his regime and the dire consequences we would face if he were to get his hands on nukes. every one thought he was dangerous. left and right. GWB went and found out just how dangerous he was. Fact is we dont know what other dangers we faced that the Bush administration prevented. Its easy to sit there and say none but that's just your bias speaking. fact is we dont know.
I do believe now that the best option after 9/11 was probably just to take it and do nothing. thats the sad reality. but could you imagine if GWB did nothing? could you imagine the conspiracy theories michael moore would have made up? could you imagine what the left would be saying about him?
I do agree with you that we are at this point just wasting money and making enemies. there is really nothing we can do. i think its funny that we think obama is going to change their hatred of us. we think because of the pigment of his skin that he has a better chance to bring peace with the middle east. its a joke and it reflects the simpleminedness of our country's citizens.
i didnt vote for obama. but i will tell you this. i trust obama to defend our soil. he is my president. i will put my politics aside and support him when it comes to any military decision that he may have to make. he knows more than i do about our situation. i think its the apex of arrogance and ignorance to think that i know more about the dangers we face from watching fox news and msnbc than he does from being briefed by our intelligence community.
-
Actually, I think his complete ignorance on military issue may work as a benefit since he will more likely take their advice on things.
-
i agree with most of what you are saying. except there are a few things that i believe you take for granted. you believe that sadaam was no threat to us. well thats only because we went over there and found out that he wasnt as far along with gaining nukes as we thought he was. every time bill clinton addressed the nation the last 2 years of his presidency he warned us about the danger of sadaam and his regime and the dire consequences we would face if he were to get his hands on nukes. every one thought he was dangerous. left and right. GWB went and found out just how dangerous he was. Fact is we dont know what other dangers we faced that the Bush administration prevented. Its easy to sit there and say none but that's just your bias speaking. fact is we dont know.
I do believe now that the best option after 9/11 was probably just to take it and do nothing. thats the sad reality. but could you imagine if GWB did nothing? could you imagine the conspiracy theories michael moore would have made up? could you imagine what the left would be saying about him?
I do agree with you that we are at this point just wasting money and making enemies. there is really nothing we can do. i think its funny that we think obama is going to change their hatred of us. we think because of the pigment of his skin that he has a better chance to bring peace with the middle east. its a joke and it reflects the simpleminedness of our country's citizens.
i didnt vote for obama. but i will tell you this. i trust obama to defend our soil. he is my president. i will put my politics aside and support him when it comes to any military decision that he may have to make. he knows more than i do about our situation. i think its the apex of arrogance and ignorance to think that i know more about the dangers we face from watching fox news and msnbc than he does from being briefed by our intelligence community.
The general, agreed on consensus is that we were lied into the war.
-
We're #1.
The biggest dog on the block has to pick a fight every once in awhile to keep his cred.
-
We're #1.
The biggest dog on the block has to pick a fight every once in awhile to keep his cred.
You know how I feel about that my Taco crushing friend...
-
The general, agreed on consensus is that we were lied into the war.
.
i cant believe thats how you interpret that. lied into the war for what purpose?
-
.
i cant believe thats how you interpret that. lied into the war for what purpose?
I think there were a number of reasons. In 2000 Sadam expressed his desire to sell his oil for Euros as a reaction the sanctions we had imposed on his country which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children, which would have perhaps begun a chain of breaking away from the Petro Dollar Recycling programme we have had since the 70's, the desire to control oil resources and the powerful influence of neo-con think-tanks like the Project for a New America. None of this worked out as planned and it should have been known, Cheney knew it and said it in 1994:
Nothing changed in the nigh 10 years that served as an interlude between declaring 'mission accomplished' and this interview. All in all I think the Iraq war is the product of poorly executed ambitions, though no doubt many special interests, particularly those in the Military Industrial Complex have profited greatly.
-
I think there were a number of reasons. In 2000 Sadam expressed his desire to sell his oil for Euros as a reaction the sanctions we had imposed on his country which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children, which would have perhaps begun a chain of breaking away from the Petro Dollar Recycling programme we have had since the 70's, the desire to control oil resources and the powerful influence of neo-con think-tanks like the Project for a New America. None of this worked out as planned and it should have been known, Cheney knew it and said it in 1994:
Nothing changed in the nigh 10 years that served as an interlude between declaring 'mission accomplished' and this interview. All in all I think the Iraq war is the product of poorly executed ambitions, though no doubt many special interests, particularly those in the Military Industrial Complex have profited greatly.
what you believe makes sense to a biased mind who wants america to be the bad guy. read this. its a great summary of what congress and the UN had to go through with regards to the sanctions imposed on Sadaam following the first Gulf War.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2003/0727right.htm