This week the FDA produced a series of visual warnings designed to help smokers face long-term consequences of their habit. Here are a few of the juicer warning images that will be mashed up with the cigarette brand and logo:
Gruesome reality can be a good teacher.
That got me to thinking…perhaps we need something like that for politics. In particular, we need a similar scheme to re-acquaint voters of the real-world consequences of voting Republican. I think the FEC could institute this on the federal level anyway, but states would have to do it for statewide and local elections. The idea is that every time a G.O.P. logo is plastered on a TV screen, web site, or piece of paper, a corresponding “health” warning would tag along.
Here are a few ideas I’ve put together….
Unbelievably good Darryl!
Genius…and right fucking on!
Freaking great!
Hey here’s finally a Republican jobs program and sure enough it ain’t working:
http://www.ajc.com/news/survey.....69812.html
What’s the problem right wing farmers? Isn’t this what you wanted? Aren’t the gays, liberals and illegals the source of all your troubles? Well now you’re running the undocumented laborers off and now you got no one to harvest your crop!
But your favorite xenophobic politicians like Lamar Alexander say to the unemployed, “let them pick lettuce!”
This made me glad there is such a thing as tehinterwebs
King Kounty Kommunists!
There’s some truth in advertising for ya!
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.....hp?ref=fpb
Republican’s protecting their own. max-imumdumbass and puddybitch NOT included.
http://thinkprogress.org/secur.....-u-s-wars/
Presented without comment.
Remember the GOP mantra we were brainwashed with as kids? The one that goes: “If you work hard, you can achieve the American Dream.”
Well, that’s not how it works. What really happens is, if you work hard they’ll get rich.
A new article in Mother Jones magazine demonstrates just how true this is. Since 1970, inflation-adjusted household income has stagnated at about $50,000 a year, even while productivity soared. If wages had kept pace with economic growth, that income figure would be $92,000. In other words, growth has almost doubled what American workers produce over the last 40 years, but America’s selfish rich have taken all of those gains for themselves!
What this shows is workers and the rich have unequal bargaining power in the economy. This is sort of obvious; it’s not an accident that 40 years of worker exploitation have coincided with 40 years of predominantly Republican rule and conservative economic policies. During that time, unions have been dismantled, jobs have been outsourced, and structural unemployment has risen.
And, of course, as the richer grow ever richer, they also grow more politically powerfully, so this trend will only accelerate — unless we make structural changes to our political system. That requires, among other things, reversing the policies of conservative activist judges that have purported to give First Amendment rights to corporations, struck down laws aimed at regulating the influence of money in politics, and restricting the rights of workers and consumers in the courts. If we don’t do that, the rich will become even more powerful, the rest of us will grow poorer, and more of us will become more voiceless.
The first important step in reversing America’s drift into oligarchy is, of course, never ever vote Republican. Because voting Republican is hazardous to your wealth and your freedom.
http://lifeinc.today.com/_news.....king-money
@3 Next thing you know, they’ll want to bus suburban white kids to eastern Washington to pick apples.
@5 A Republican is someone who thinks any worker who wants to keep his own wages earned with his own sweat is a communist.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi.....hp?ref=fpb
Like the Republican Party?
That’s easily the best post I’ve seen in a while. Awesome.
Brilliant, Darryl. Kudos.
It really is a great post.
Ha, ha, suck it Republicans.
15
House Republicans sure are a principled group, aren’t they?
Yesterday’s twin Supreme Court decisions saying (a) generic drug makers don’t have to warn consumers about newly discovered risks or side effects and (b) consumers can’t sue them if they don’t … really underscore a bigger picture of the wrong direction our country has taken.
In 2010, prefers-GOP-party candidates campaigned on a job-creating theme. Since taking over the House of Representatives they’ve done absolutely nothing to create jobs. Instead, they’ve focused on repealing health care reform, cutting funding for social programs, and preserving tax cuts and tax loopholes for the rich.
The court cases were decided on technical grounds by a bare conservative majority. Basically, they said federal laws regulating drug manufacturers preempt state laws that attempt to regulate drug manufacturers. This position isn’t inevitable; the court could just as easily have said that, while state drug regulation can’t override federal drug regulation, it can supplement it. That regimen already exists in many areas of federal-state regulation.
One thing we don’t have to worry about is this conservative-dominated court getting carried away with states’ rights theology. Whatever these conservative justices are, they aren’t states’ righters. That was made clear yesterday.
There are those who feel yesterday’s rulings were wrong — perhaps egregiously wrong. See, e.g.,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43.....alth_care/
But hand-wringing doesn’t solve anything. What will solve the problem created by the court’s rulings is electing a Democratic Congress to change federal drug laws.
The practical problem for patients and consumers created by yesterday’s rulings was created by the court’s interpretation of federal enactments, and can be changed by rewording federal law. All it takes is for Congress to insert a clause into the existing law that authorizes states to enact supplemental regulations over and above what federal regulators require. Enforcing those laws would be the responsibility of states, not the FDA.
The drug industry probably won’t like that, because they sell to a national (and international market), and while they may be willing to be regulated by government bureaucrats — after all, they get a marketing benefit from the public trust in their products that government safety regulations create — they want the rules to be the same in every jurisdiction. That’s understandable.
So, if state supplementation isn’t the answer, then Congress can simply amend federal law to require the kind of disclosure the court struck down yesterday — and give patients the right to sue.
But we’ll never get such enactments from a Republican-controlled Congress (or House). First of all, you need to understand that the pharmaceutical industry is one of the GOP’s top conributors, just as trial lawyers are one of the Democratic Party’s top contributors. GOP congressmen are not going to pass any drug legislation except that which is requested by, and written by, the industry and its lobbyists. If you want meaningful consumer protection, that has to be passed by a Democratic Congress.
And the only way you’ll get a Democratic Congress is by electing one. You can’t get from Point A to Point B by voting for Republicans. Until the GOP’s 2010 congressional gains are reversed by voters, yesterday’s Supreme Court decisions will be far more than just technical rulings on the interaction between federal and state laws; they will dictate the way things are in this country for drug consumers.
That’s just one more reason why voting Republican is irresponsible and anti-American, because a vote for a Republican candidate for congress — regardless of the district you live in — is a vote against the health, safety, and economic well-being of 98% of your fellow American citizens.
That being so, unless you’re one of the two-percenters, why would you vote Republican? Why would anyone?
15, 16 – Republicans are always for GOP wars and always against Democratic wars.
They’re painting themselves in a corner with Libya. By challenging Obama’s authority to assist NATO’s operations against the Tripoli dictator, they’re helping to prop up a vicious murdered who has killed Americans and committed war crimes against his own people.
That’s not a platform I would want to run on in 2012.
@18
‘ain’t life grand.
I just read an article in the Financial Times which said that you should start saving early in order to become a millionaire, and noted the rise in the number of under-45 millionaires since 2008. It suggested putting more money into your 401(k), and starting early in your career.
Although starting to save early is generally good advice, and there are some tax advantages to 401(k) plans, it is hardly likely that the millionairs-by-age-45 got there by using their 401(k)s. More likely, those who became millionaires by the time they got to age 45 probably got a big boost from their parents or grandparents somewhere along the way (a few notable technology geeks being the exception).
I’ve been putting the maximum amount my company allows into a 401(k) plan for over 15 years. But the plan has several “drains” which limit it’s ability to make money. The first is that it only allows a handful of mutual funds from which to choose, thereby limiting your potential returns. Secondly, the mutual funds themselves have significant management fees which are deducted from your savings. Third, the company’s trustee (plan administrator) deducts his own fees at the end of each year from the plan. The end result is that your returns on investment have to exceed the 3-1/2 percent total “administrative fees”, each year, before you can see any positive return. That’s why the plan has seldom achieved actual returns greater than 5%, even in the best years – and in the bad years the drop is greater than that of the market as a whole.
That is why, even though I’ve been in the plan for 15 years and contributing more than three times greater than the minimum matching amounts, I still only 1/10 of the way to having a million dollars in the plan. So if I work and contribute another 140 years to the 401(k) plan, only then can I get to be a millionaire using only the 401(k) plan. Of course, inflation will get me there before that, but by then the cost of a Happy Meal will be $75.00 by then, also.
I can only make changes once a year, but by October I plan to reduce my 401(k) deductions to only the matching amount, and invest the remainder myself. I hardly doubt I could do much worse.
It’s almost July and it’s dark and freezing out! We’ve fucked-over the planet and I’m starting to think it may never be warm here again.
It might be time to move somewhere warm and sunny. This is awful.
@8 When I was a kid in he 1960’s, you could tell the difference between doctors and lawyers versus engineers by whether they drove a late-model Cadillac or a Porsche or Mercedes. In most of our neighborhood’s households, only Dad worked outside the home, and if he was a Boeing Engineer he got paid maybe $25K a year and didn’t have any trouble making payments on a 30-year fixed rate mortgage and that Porsche, along with putting a kid of two through the UW at $115 a quarter. 19 cents would buy a pound of hamburger (without shit in it) or a gallon of gas. Everybody got employer-provided medical insurance and a retirement plan.
Now there are a lot of families struggling on two $75K salaries, and they’re leveraged so badly that the loss of one job or a major illness would mean total catastrophe. They have no idea how they’re going to avoid going broke before they croak.
The Republicans’ approach to the economy is rather analogous to eighteenth-century medicine: bleed the patient to let out the “evil humours”.
@17 What would be wrong with simply getting the FDA to do its damn job?
It’s pretty simple – let the f’ing Republicans negotiate entitlement cuts with a Republican President in charge.
If there’s going to be ANY spending cuts for debt management purposes on Obama’s watch then revenue increases are going to be part of the package – period.
Shit in principle they don’t even have to touch the brackets. They can just agree to close loopholes like this guy did 11 times:
http://www.capitalgainsandgame.....-increases
@20 All 401(k)s force you into mutual funds, and 80% of mutual funds underperform the market averages, need I say more?
@21 Public attitudes toward global warming being what they are, the timing may be right to invest in Alaskan vacation property while it’s still reasonably priced.
@23 Very good. I hadn’t thought of that. Wonderful analogy; you’re spot-on.
# 27: Why go to Alaska? We could set up warm-water beach resorts right here in Washington state, complete with marlin fishing, etc.! Think palm trees, pina colladas, and movie stars!
@27,29
Wish I could join in on the joking around, but this seriously sucks. I’m pretty much stuck here until the end of summer, but once I’m free I’m headed to Death Valley or somewhere else really, really, hot for a couple of weeks.
20 Why don’t you become a rich Republican and
pay very little in taxes because of loopholes?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The sad thing is you could slap the Obama logo on at least five of the nine pictures and they would be equally effective as agit-prop. with the exception of a few outliers (Sanders, Kucinich, et al) there simply is not much difference between the two parties. Not enough to make any promises of ‘change’ realistic at any rate.