How likely is your child to survive?

Now, give us the same data before Republicans ran the state. Dems ran the place for at least 125 years.  It takes time to turn a ship and rectify 125 years of mismanagement.

I always thought that if you can't afford to raise kids then don't have any.

at this point in time there is no one at the helm. the ship is being dragged along by Bentley's tbagers.

so I must assume dire the raincoat old man loves Alabama most when she's draggin up the rear on all fronts. Idiots are not in short supply among his task force. Dire's theory:  We've been last for 125 years lutts keepitatway

no urine, it's not that; republicans historically have had a problem with sex in general. It's just not one of the Ten Commandments.

No indication that Bentley is making things worst.  However, old Squirrelly Dawg's suggestion we return to the Dems is even more half witted.

We have had a Republican Governor for 22 of the last 27 years. How long does it take for the Republicans to "turn things around" Dire? You guys thought that President Obama should have fixed the mess that Bush left behind within a matter of months. I couldn't tell you how many times I have seen one of you right wingers say that it doesn't matter what Bush did it is now Obama's mess and he should have done more by now. The Alabama Republicans have not only had the Governors mansion they have also had the congress. What is their excuse for running one of the poorest, unhealthiest states in the union? 

Also as you well know most of the 125 years you speak of was controlled by conservatives. Doesn't matter if they had a D after their names. What this state needs is real progressives running the show. Then we would see progress.

 "What this state needs is real progressives running the show. Then we would see progress"

Amen Jank.

_____________

now jank.. there you go using logic against the conservatives, again.. you know better than that.. they only believe the 'truth' they make up.. you know that!

Heck yeah, let's raise some taxes and start some new state run programs, that ought to fix things right up!!!

BTW, wasn't Abraham Lincoln born to a poor family living in a log cabin?  WAsn't Harry Truman born and raised in Missouri to a low income family?

Wait a minunte, I was bron in MS to a low income family and my parents did not even graduate high school, shouldn't I be considered low brith weight and behind the academic curve?

The typial "progressive stance" is to throw money at a siutation and it will automatically remedy itself.  For the sake of argument, and for those of us who are still not convinced, please tell us what things are being done right now in Montgomery that are destroying the welfare of our children and how that can be remedied, I am really curious to know a solution to the probems we supposedly have.

First, we aren't living in or talking about France. I know you are obsessed with that country, but try to stay focused. Also, if you will read what I wrote again (and this time try to comprehend it) I was talking about conservative vs progressives. No one but you said anything about size of government, but since you did, President Obama has reduced the size of government more than the last 3 Republican Presidents. So....not sure why you would throw that out there as some sort of "gotcha". 

Second. Are you serious? You have seen no improvement from the Bush administrations mess? Really? Either you are living in some sort of fantasy world or else you have bought into the Fox news propaganda. GDP is up, stocks are up, unemployment is down, we are currently not in 2 wars, our debt is down, people aren't loosing their homes at alarming rates, we are adding jobs instead of hemorrhaging them. 

Thrid. If you think 22 years of Republican leadership is not enough time to show an improvement, then how much time do you think we should give them? Also, as I said just because some of our past governors had a D beside their name does not mean they were progressives (and most certainly not Liberal) The track record of Alabama governors has never been an example of progressive politics. Those that served under the Democratic party name we way more conservative than your beloved Reagan. Heck by their standards he was a flaming liberal. 

________________

How about we just start using our taxes to actually do something that helps the people instead of corporations? We don't have to raise taxes on individuals, heck we could probably lower taxes if our state government didn't promise corporations that moved here that they could pay slave wages and very little taxes (if any taxes at all) Look at states that spend their tax revenue to actually educate their children all the way through college. They don't have to bribe corporations to come there with the promise of a free tax ride and low wage employees. They move to those states because they have a skilled and educated workforce. 

There are always exceptions to every rule, but statistically children raised in severe poverty (like you find here in Alabama) do poorly in school and suffer far more illnesses. Surely as a Dr you know this. 

"Bentley and the repugs are working hard for the wealthy and leaving your children to suffer for the benefit of corporate greed."      Quaildog

Explain please.

First, we aren't living in or talking about France. I know you are obsessed with that country, but try to stay focused. Also, if you will read what I wrote again (and this time try to comprehend it) I was talking about conservative vs progressives. No one but you said anything about size of government, but since you did, President Obama has reduced the size of government more than the last 3 Republican Presidents. So....not sure why you would throw that out there as some sort of "gotcha". 

 I used the example of how the word liberal has remained in its original definition on the European continent.  Conservative vs. progressive in 2014 equals conservative vs. liberal as the word liberal was so associated with failure, that they dug up the old term progressive as a replacement.  However, using 19^th century definitions, again, conservative of today equals liberal of that era.  Progressive of today equals conservative of yesteryear or liberal of a few decades ago.  Hope this isn’t too complicated for you.  My reference to small government refers to the powers of the federal government, not the size by employment.  However, except, for the military, explain to me how Obama cut the size of government while spending so much more.  I’ll give you one hint – they are contracting out a number of services, instead of hiring.  Pogo.org has done research on this if you wish more info.

 Second. Are you serious? You have seen no improvement from the Bush administrations mess? Really? Either you are living in some sort of fantasy world or else you have bought into the Fox news propaganda. GDP is up, stocks are up, unemployment is down, we are currently not in 2 wars, our debt is down, people aren't (sic) loosing their homes at alarming rates, we are adding jobs instead of hemorrhaging them. 

 Once more, GDP since 2009 has only risen an average1.6 percent.  That is the worst recovery since the Depression.  In another thread, I carefully explained why stocks are rising.  But, once more.  The Fed has caused interest rates for savings accounts and CDs to drop to just about zero -- even long term CDs pay about one percent.  Investors are desperate to place their money someplace where it will grow.  The stock market is one of the few such places.  Investors are bidding up the cost of stocks well above the actual value of assets.  Recently, the EU central bank went the Fed one better -- depositors are charged a fee for putting money in savings accounts -- a negative interest rate.  Money is fleeing Europe to the US further fueling the stock market bubble.   Come 2015, the Fed is supposed to increase interest rates to deflate the bubble -- hope it works like a slow leak on a tire, rather than the pinpr^ick of a a balloon.  Underemployment/unemployment, the U6, is still above 13 percent. The rise of the deficit is down from the earlier years of the Obama administration, but still well above that of the Bush era.

(sic) Thrid. If you think 22 years of Republican leadership is not enough time to show an improvement, then how much time do you think we should give them? Also, as I said just because some of our past governors had a D beside their name does not mean they were progressives (and most certainly not Liberal) The track record of Alabama governors has never been an example of progressive politics. Those that served under the Democratic party name we way more conservative than your beloved Reagan. Heck by their standards he was a flaming liberal. 

Republicans have not had complete control of the government as the Dems did.

Amen

______________________________________________________________

Just like Detroit!

Or, Flint Michigan, or Chi-town, or any city suffering from Democrat rule for decades.  Guess Birmingham and Jefferson county can join the pack.

I think that the quality of parents and their choices matter more than magic-wand waving robbin' hood politicians in determining a child's welfare.

The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau as taken from various government reports:

• 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. In 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
• 92 percent of poor households have a microwave.
• Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.
• Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV.
• Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and 70 percent have a VCR.
• Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers.
• More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.
• 43 percent have Internet access.
• One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.
• One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo.         http://www.heritage.org/Resear...-About-Americas-Poor

Jank,

That knee jerk reaction that all the money is going to help corporations is not altogether true.  How do you expect to grow a solid business base of good paying jobs?  Do you actually think companies like Mercedes, and Hyundia, and Remington are low paying jobs that were not worthy of attracting?  How about Airbus? I had much rather see that money being spent to attract those companies, and lets face it these comapnies are shopping around because other states refuse to do it, and if we don't court them someone else will.  I had reather see that money spent on these companies than I had on saving a turtle or some other ridiculous project.

The Progressives are still up in a tizzy over the failure of this state to support the ACA, but if you were actually familiar with it you would know that in the long run it would bankrupt this state.  In the short term, yes a few more people would have a crappy insurance policy, nothing more than Medicaid, which a large number of doctors outside of this area do not even take.  I think the recent court rulings will cause this issue to be addressed, because it is still not settled.

Instead of telling me how the state is spending money on businesses give me some real expamples of where the money needs to be spent.  I am truly interested to hear how we could effectively address this problem.

In your defense I think the first place we ought to start is leveling land taxes on the large belts of timber in the south which go untaxed and belong to large mills. Land is land and should be taxed in a similar fashion.  I pay more in proerty tax for my home and lot than some of these places pay on thousands of acres.

herein doth lie the problem sports fans; there are those who covet articles held by the "poor"

Stank, what will you do with all those microwaves held by the "poor"?

Do you propose dividing them amongst those more fortunate as yourself?

.and t, while you are sizing up each patient as to their deserving  medical care, I'm wondering who the first doctor was that signed on to the first HMO. Was it you?

Redistribution is best left to thieves and progressives, if one can discern the difference.

QD,

Where do you read that I am sizing up people who deserve medical care? If you actually read what I wrote you would see that I dislike Medicaid because of the fact that it is hard to find a phsyciain who will take a new medicaid patitent because of what they pay.  That is not the case in my part, but try getting someone in to see a specialist or even a new GP and see how well that goes over.

It would suit me fine for the state to go into the ACA program as a businessman, but when my taxes come due each April in the near future I could look forward to huge increase in my tax rates to pay for it.

Quail,

I do not think anyone covets what the "poor" have, they just do not like paying for non-essentials like xboxes, cell phones and cable tv.   If money is short the first thing to go should be pleasure non essentials like such.

Quail, I don't mind poor folks warming up nutritious leftovers or cooking taters in microwaves for their kids, but warming junk food for the kids and cooking crack in the same microwave might not be in the best interests of the younguns.

you're not a businessman first; you are a doctor.

so...... stank, you want to have the cell phones and x-boxes too? Somewhere down the line some learned behavior just hopefully override your genetic birthright to the poor's stuff.

stank HF

Quail, I don't mind what the poor buy with their own money, but I do mind if the kids get shortchanged because smokes and suds or illegal things are more important than healthy food for the kids and I'm paying for it.

I agree witcha stank on the smoke,suds,and illegal stuff. but does it not bother you that the burden is not shared by the greedy wealthy? You don't want the poor to survive but you have no trouble with the greedy robbing workers of their fair share to have hundreds of x-boxes.

I've studied this phenomena quite extensively concerning human behavior. I truly don't think you can help yourself without some great effort and as I mentioned before that maybe some "learned behavior" might give relief to your indifference at the expense of your neighbor. BTW are you a religious person by chance?

...............and BTW stank a decent living wage heals many of these inconsistences in the model citizen that does not include the poor in your estimation. 

 Many of the "po' folks" willfully sat out school and have no interest in bettering themselves, so why should we rob those who worked hard at bettering themselves for them? Why should I vote for politicians who preach hate for the productive individuals and bribe the unproductive for their votes. Keeping people poor and ignorant is not helping them. History shows that people only respond to the "carrot and stick" method and we should remember what the Apostle Paul wrote in 2 Thessalonians: " For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.". I know there are many who cannot physically or mentally work for a living so this doesn't apply to them.

Stank your definition of the deserving apparently includes the Wall Street crooks and bankers that stole billions upon billions being the cause of the effect on millions who just give up on trying.

I hear your Thessalonians business. Those who threw down their nets and followed Jesus were then on welfare as I remember.

If modern day religion is invoked on behalf of the rich there is no remedy for the poor here on Earth except satisfaction that the practitioners of it in hell won’t be bothered by the disadvantaged.  

Quail, who said this:

"The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole our relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of a sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers."

I'll give you a hint, it was one of your gods.

Quail, we will always differ on which side of a Chinese proverb we believe in and I suspect that you would want a Dept. of Fish Sharing with thousands of unionized fish cleaning experts so poor folk don't hurt themselves. Even if the rich actually stole the billions of bucks as you believe, that's a pittance to the stolen lives and trillions wasted just for LBJ's and the dems desire to buy votes. The last I remember the cost of welfare entitlements since the "Great Society" was between 15 and 20 Trillion dollars.

stank, I guess if one stays busy counting his own money he is never concerned with those who have none.

I'll bet this is not in your copy of the Bible:

Matthew 19:21-22

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and  sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in  heaven; and come and follow me.  But when the young man heard that saying,  he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions.

Oh, I have and still do give what I can to those in need, but I will not give to those who are con artists. I like to check the backgrounds of charities before I give so I don't just enrich thieves.

stank, self acquittal by any means is standard practice in most religious arguments

And self-righteous blather is the standard sign of frauds and hypocrites.

Yes I would definitely include that as one of the favorite religious virtues.