$335,000,000 For Std Prevention In Economic Stimulus Bill

[carpro]

OK Obama fans why is this necessary to stimulate the economy?

Still no answer, I see.

 

[Revmitchell]

Still no answer, I see.

And there most likely will not be. It is hard to justify all the pork in this bill. Dems should be ashamed of themselves for attaching all this pork at a critical time. But the good news is this will hurt the dems come next election. The American people have more faith in tax cuts than they do in all this spending.

 

[Gina B]

OK...but be aware that education always involves a system of morality. And most sex ed classes are apalling in the "morality" which they teach.

I agree with you that we should be standard-bearers when it comes to proclaiming the need for godly morals. And yes...I do a ton regarding that. I do talk to our kids about sexuality, and the importance of moral choices that line up with the word of God. I pull no punches. And I have no problem addressing it directly. (Tactfully, not inappropriately, but directly).

But have you sat in on a government school sex ed class? What some of them teach is just plain scary. Scary.

I have, and they can be disgusting.
However, those classes in school are already part of the curriculum and normally taught by teachers already on staff as part of a health course, isn't it?

The type of education addressed here, I'm thinking, is more along the lines of shared results of research with other professionals, pamphlets, programs used in centers, programs for the elderly (you think there's a problem with teens, you should check out the stats on this population!) etc..

Why are people picking this one particular thing out of 647 pages of lists of where this money will go? There is so much in there! Not only that, but STD's were included in a sentence that also included hep and TB, yet the focus people chose was STD's.

I tend to think it's just a way to grab quick attention in order to slam the so called liberals. Unfortunately for those promoting that view, this type of behavior (and the silly arguments that many posted after, yours NOT included rbell as you actually put some effort in it) are only effective on people who already believe the same way.

 

[Revmitchell]

I tend to think it's just a way to grab quick attention in order to slam the so called liberals. Unfortunately for those promoting that view, this type of behavior (and the silly arguments that many posted after, yours NOT included rbell as you actually put some effort in it) are only effective on people who already believe the same way.

Of course you do. But then you have avoided my question in all your fine posting. So how is any of this a stimulus?

 

[Gina B]

Of course you do. But then you have avoided my question in all your fine posting. So how is any of this a stimulus?

I already answered that. Right here: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...8&postcount=15

Here's what it said:

Think about the effects of illness and diseases. Many families are going bankrupt over health care issues. Generations can be affected health-wise by these diseases and their effects.

How does that harm us economically?
An ill person is going to be throwing their money into paying for their health care until they go broke. People don't like to be sick, and they like dying even less. Simply put, sick people don't work as much as healthy people. They have more sick days, more likely to become unemployed, and more likely to become dependent on their families or on government agencies to help them be able to meet basic needs in their lives.

Another thing to consider is health care workers and scientists who work in TB clinics, specialize in HIV/AIDS, disease control (which again is vital to the well-being of a nation) and in other health related education, care, or research settings who will be able to continue working because the money is there for their jobs.

It's a positive economic move for everyone involved. Any time you can create a job, keep a job, or help someone be healthy enough to remain an economically productive member of society it is good for economic health, but now in a crisis situation? One where more people have less access to health care because they don't have money, less people will be able to treat those with health issues because they don't have their jobs? I believe it's a great move and a very important one. Health issues MUST be addressed when talking about the economy.

Your rebuttal to that post was this:

Originally Posted by Revmitchell
It is not the job nor is it constitutional for the federal government to get involved in the sexual health of Americans. Second, this bill is being rammed through congress as being needed immediatey to save the economy from going under. But most of it has nothing to do with being a stimulus. The bill is being misrepresented. And in fact is an excuse to pass every little pet project of liberals. And that is all it is. And in the end it is unconstitutional.

 

[Revmitchell]

I already answered that. Right here: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...8&postcount=15

Here's what it said:

Your rebuttal to that post was this:

That fails to answer the question.

 

[Gina B]

That fails to answer the question.

Have you watched the bi-partisan dancing video I posted earlier? It's very simple and fun to watch! I think the one guy was wearing red, but it may have been blue. What do you think? Was it red or blue?

 

[NiteShift]

That was unwittingly a pretty good analysis, so yes! It's kinda like that.

Let's say John Doe had a great job. Then the economy went down the drain, he lost that great job, and he now works as a waiter.

John needs gas in his car to get to work. He has $100 in his pocket set aside for this. He also has $100 set aside to buy his wife an anniversary gift.

Unfortunately, his daughter, Jane, woke up with a toothache. Knowing that an untreated tooth infection can get in your blood and lead to a serious or even fatal infection, John Doe takes Jane to the dentist. The total cost of gas, antibiotics, root canal, and dentists other charges equals $300.

Now Jane is better, but John can't spend that money at the store for his wife's anniversary gift. He doesn't have enough gas money to get to work. He also is in the hole $100.

But wait! What if there was a new service out there that offered him a reduction in the cost of the dental service? Let's say it only totaled fifty dollars.

Now Mr. Doe can still have gas money to get to work and he can buy his wife an anniversary gift, he'll just make it $50 instead.

He just kept his job and he just put a bit of money out there.

See how that works?

Amazing. And the beauty of it is that any pet project can be billed as stimulus.

 

[Revmitchell]

Still no answer, I see.

Nope, still no answer