Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pcstel who wrote (146013)	9/23/2014 12:05:22 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 149317

"THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965." There were a lot of conservative Dems in '65, like Strom Thurmond, who later became an R. There were also liberal and moderate R's. That's why it says conservative and liberal instead of using party labels.

To: pcstel who wrote (146013)	9/23/2014 7:02:34 AM
From: koan	Respond to of 149317

You are either very uninformed or being very dishonest. The Democrats that voted against the 1964 civil rights act were "Dixiecrats" which were hard core conservatives and mostly changed to the Republican party after the 1964 Civil Rights act. That chart was liberal versus conservative, not Republican versus Democrat. The Republicans that voted for the 1964 civil rights act were liberal Republicans. The Republican party was the home of the liberals between 1850 and 1900. The north was liberal and Republican between 1850 and 1900 and the south was Democrat and conservative So yes, Lincoln was a northern Republican liberal. Then the liberals changed to the Democratic party around 1900, except for the Dixiecrats in the south who were hard core conservatives. As mentioned they fled to the Republican party when the liberals forced the south to integrate, which shows how wrong they were/are. << LOL!!! Man o' man.. .. You guys gotta quit watching Rachel Maddow... "Conservatives opposed Blacks and Women Voting". govtrack.us S. 1564, THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965. Opposed "NYE" by these Democratic Senators from... 2 Alabama, 2 Arkansas 2 Louisiana 2 Georgia 2 Mississippi 2 North Carolina 1 South Carolina 1 Virginia Only opposed by 2, Count them 2 Republican Senators While the Democrats provided 16 Nay's and 2 Democrats refused to vote. Come on guys.. You guys claim to be so much more intelligent, and so much more informed than the Right.. But, at the end of the day.. You lack the same oversight as those Rush Limbaugh idiots. I could post completely baseless purpose built propaganda (example below) and lies all day also... But, I have integrity. I do not sell my soul to a political ideology because I have so much self-bitterness about my fellow man. And so it goes, PCSTEL

To: pcstel who wrote (146013)	9/29/2014 11:59:50 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 149317

September 22, 2012 7:24 AM Shocker stat of the day: life expectancy decreases by 4 years among poor white people in the U.S.By Kathleen Geier =Shocker]Facebook Twitter Digg Reddit StumbleUpon Delicious [iframe src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonmonthly.com%2Fpolitical-animal-a%2F2012_09%2Fshocker_stat_of_the_day_life_e040058.php&send=false&layout=button_count&width=150&show_faces=false&action=like&colorscheme=light&font&height=21" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="border: currentColor; width: 120px; height: 21px; overflow: hidden; border-image: none;" allowtransparency="true"][/iframe] Yesterday, the New York Times reported on an alarming new study: researchers have documented that the least educated white Americans are experiencing sharp declines in life expectancy. Between 1990 and 2008, white women without a high school diploma lost a full five years of their lives, while their male counterparts lost three years. Experts say that declines in life expectancy in developed countries are exceedingly rare, and that in the U.S., decreases on this scale “have not been seen in the U.S. since the Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918.” Even during the Great Depression, which wrought economic devastation and severe psychic trauma for millions of Americans, average life expectancy was on the increase. What are the reasons for the disturbing drop in life expectancy among poor white folks, and in particular for the unusually large magnitude of the decline? According to the Times, researchers are baffled: one expert said, “There’s this enormous issue of why … It’s very puzzling and we don’t have a great explanation.” Undoubtedly, the increasing numbers of low-income Americans without health insurance is a major contributor factor. Researchers also say that lifestyle factors such as smoking, which has increased among low-income white women, play a role; poor folks tend to engage in more risky health behaviors than their more affluent counterparts. I will offer an alternative hypothesis, one which is not explicitly identified in the Times article: inequality. In the U.S., the period between 1990 and 2008, which is a period that saw such steep declines in life expectancy for the least well-off white people, is also a period during which economic inequality soared. Moreover, there is a compelling body of research that suggests that inequality itself — quite apart from low incomes, or lack of health insurance — is associated with more negative health outcomes for those at the bottom of the heap. One of the most famous series of studies of the social determinants of health, Britain’s Whitehall Studies, had as their subjects British civil servants, all of whom health insurance and (presumably) decent enough jobs. Intriguingly, these studies found a strong association between grade levels of civil servant employment and mortality rates from a range of causes. Men in the lowest grade (messengers, doorkeepers, etc.) had a mortality rate three times higher than that of men in the highest grade (administrators). The Whitehall studies found that while workers in the lower grades were more likely to be at risk for coronary heart disease due to factors such as higher rates of smoking, higher blood pressure, etc., even after controlling for those confounding factors, these workers still experienced significantly higher mortality rates. So what was behind such disparate health incomes among high-status and low-status workers? Researchers pointed the finger at inequality, hypothesizing that various psychosocial factors associated with inequality — such as the higher levels of stress at work and at home experienced by the lower tier workers, as well as their lower levels of self-esteem — were behind the dramatic differences in mortality rates. I believe that inequality-related stressors are likely to be the determining factors in declining American life expectancies, as well. I’m surprised, in fact, that the Times article did not specifically identify inequality as a causal factor, because the health risks associated with economic inequality are well-established in the scientific literature. For decades, the United States has been making a series of political choices that has distributed wealth and power upwards and left working Americans not only poorer and sicker, but also feeling far more burdened and distressed, and experiencing far less security and control over their lives. The consequences of these choices have been devastating, and absent a dramatic reversal in our political course, they are likely to get even worse. Where inequality is concerned, Republicans have their foot on the accelerator, while the best the Democrats seem to be able to do is to (temporarily) put their foot on the brake. We are on a trajectory all right, and it’s not a good one. washingtonmonthly.com