PDA

View Full Version : Book: “Red” State Children at Much Greater Risk than Youths In “Blue” States, Refl



stephanie
02-09-2007, 02:39 PM
:puke3: This is absolute Socialist propaganda...
The sad thing is, people are falling for it...



Data Shows Stark Difference in Outcomes for Children in “Red” and “Blue” States; $500 Billion “Invest in Kids” Program Urged to Reverse Legacy of Anti-Tax “Compassionate Conservatism”.

WASHINGTON, D.C.//January 24, 2007//Living in a “red” state appears to be more hazardous to the health of millions of American children, according to startling data contained in a major new book, “Homeland Insecurity… American Children at Risk” available free to parents, policymakers and other concerned Americans. The factors weighed in the “Homeland Insecurity” ranking includes such diverse indicators as inadequate prenatal care, lack of health care insurance coverage, early death, child abuse, hunger and teen incarceration.

http://everychildmatters.org/homelandinsecurity/Release.html



Based on a diverse range of 11 child-related statistical measures, nine of the 10 top states with the best outcomes for children today are “blue” states (Wisconsin, Iowa, New Jersey, Washington, Minnesota, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and #1-ranked New Hampshire, with Iowa being the sole “red” state in the group) and all 10 of the bottom states with the worst outcomes for children are “red” states (Wyoming, Georgia, Arkansas, Alabama, South Carolina, Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Louisiana and, in last place, Mississippi).

The political dividing lines used in the book are “red” states (those that voted Republican in the 2004 presidential election) versus “blue” states (those that voted Democratic). “Homeland Insecurity … American Children at Risk” outlines a $500 billion “Invest in Kids” agenda to reverse the harmful impact of conservative ideology on children caused by the failure to invest in documented children’s needs and by federal and state cuts in taxes and children’s programs beginning in the early 1980s and accelerating since 2001.

Michael R. Petit, author of “Homeland Insecurity… American Children at Risk,” and founder of Every Child Matters, said: “The bottom line here is that where a child lives can be a major factor in that youth’s ability to survive and thrive in America. The reason why this is the case is no mystery: ‘Blue’ states tend to tax themselves at significantly higher levels, which makes it possible to reach more children and families with beneficial health, social and education programs. ‘Red’ states overwhelmingly are home to decades-long adherence to anti-government and anti-tax ideology that often runs directly contrary to the needs of healthy children and stable families.”
Joel J. Alpert, MD, professor and chairman emeritus, Boston University School of Medicine, and past president, American Academy of Pediatrics, said: “It is unconscionable for policymakers and parents to allow two very different Americas to exist today for our children. Currently, millions of American children are without health insurance, millions are reported abused and neglected, millions are left unsupervised everyday after school, and millions have parents in a prison system that is crushing families. Many programs such as the State Child Heath Insurance Program and Head Start serve only a fraction of eligible children. We can and must erase the differences that exist today for children in ‘red’ and ‘blue’ states.

How serious is it for many children today in “red” states? The “red”/”blue” state dividing line is clear on issue after issue cited in “Homeland Insecurity”:

A child in the bottom 10 states is twice as likely to die by the age of 14 as are children in the top 10. All 10 of the bottom states of this measure are “red” states. All of the top 10 states are “blue” states.
Children in the bottom 10 states are 1.8 times as likely to be uninsured as children in the top 10. Nine of the 10 states in the bottom of this measure are “red” states. Eight of the top 10 states are “blue” states.
Children in the bottom 10 states are seven times more likely to die from abuse and neglect as are children in the top states. Nine of the 10 bottom states of this measure are “red” states. Eight of the top 10 states are “blue” states.
A child in a bottom-10 state is more than twice as likely to be living in poverty as a child in a top-10 states. All of the 10 states in the bottom are “red” states. Six of the top 10 states are “blue” states.
Women in the bottom 10 states are more than twice as likely to receive inadequate prenatal care as women in the top 10 states. Eight of 10 states in the bottom of this measure are “red” states. Seven of the top 10 states are “blue” states.
Juveniles in the bottom 10 states are almost two and a half times as likely to be incarcerated as juveniles in the top 10. Eight of the 10 bottom states of this measure are “red” states. Seven of the top 10 are “blue” states.
Children in the bottom 10 states are 74 percent more likely to die before their first birthday as are children in the top 10. Eight of the 10 states in the bottom of this measure are “red” states. Seven of the top 10 states are “blue” states.
In order to illustrate the huge gap between “red” and “blue” states, the new book points to the serious circumstances facing more than a million children today in one of the crucibles of “compassionate conservatism”: Texas. The Lone Star state has the highest percentage of uninsured children in the nation (24.6 percent v. 15.7 percent nationally), the fourth worst rate of immunizing two year-olds (75 percent v. 84 percent nationwide) and a teen birth rate that is 50 percent higher than the national average. There are more uninsured children in Texas (1.24 million) than there are in 26 other states combined, including such large-population states as Oregon, Minnesota, Louisiana, Colorado and Wisconsin. Texas also ranks #1 in both child abuse deaths and the percentage of households experiencing “food insecurity” (16.4 percent versus 11.4 percent nationwide).

jillian
02-09-2007, 02:44 PM
Steffie, Steffie, Steffie. You know I love ya babe, you're my fave angry rightie. Mwaaaaaaaaaaaah!!

But I can see where you'd hate the numbers, honest. But seems to me, that perhaps instead of complaining that it's a lib/con thing, one might ask what are the reasons for those disparities and what can be done to correct them.

I thought you guys are pro-life. Oh right, I forgot... that's pro-birth. After that, they're on their own. :2up:

stephanie
02-09-2007, 02:52 PM
Steffie, Steffie, Steffie. You know I love ya babe, you're my fave angry rightie. Waaaaaaaaaaaah!!

But I can see where you'd hate the numbers, honest. But seems to me, that perhaps instead of complaining that it's a lib/con thing, one might ask what are the reasons for those disparities and what can be done to correct them.

I thought you guys are pro-life. Oh right, I forgot... that's pro-birth. After that, they're on their own. :2up:

I prefer to take care of my own thank you...

I don't need to suck off the government tit...

As I said....The book is Socialist propaganda...

And I'm beginning to think, you would love living in a Socialist Country...:smoke:

jillian
02-09-2007, 02:57 PM
I prefer to take care of my own thank you...

I don't need to suck off the government tit...

As I said....The book is Socialist propaganda...

And I'm beginning to think, you would love living in a Socialist Country...:smoke:

Nope... I like money and I like earning it. Have since I was 15.

I understand that you prefer taking care of your own. But if you were doing a better job of it, the numbers wouldn't look the way they do.

stephanie
02-09-2007, 03:02 PM
Nope... I like money and I like earning it. Have since I was 15.

I understand that you prefer taking care of your own. But if you were doing a better job of it, the numbers wouldn't look the way they do.


Yeah, like I'm going to take this Socialist piece of crap numbers, as truth???

You do though, it seems....You'd make a good little socialist...:cow:

musicman
02-09-2007, 03:05 PM
I thought you guys are pro-life. Oh right, I forgot... that's pro-birth. After that, they're on their own. :2up:

Oh, I don't know, jillian - there's a lot to be said for giving a child a good start in life. And, not murdering him in the womb/birth canal - now, that's what I call a good start!

BTW - thanks for the welcome, in the other thread last week. Got caught up in a conversation, and didn't get a chance to wave, "howdy". Howdy!

Hobbit
02-09-2007, 03:09 PM
One thing they fail to mention is the local demographics. Georgia has crime problems...in Fulton County, a very blue area, and the same area with the most issues with poverty, health, and pretty much all the other statistics they cite. Here in Hall County, a Republican stronghold, teen crime is so low that they don't even enforce the curfew.

This is similar to studies I've seen showing how 'smart' blue states are. They test a whole bunch of factors, and only publish the ones that prove their point. For example, there's no advantage to IQ, college admission, or starting career pay to being in a blue state. Blue states, however, are notorious for never failing high school students, so the study chose to rely mainly on high school graduation rates.

musicman
02-09-2007, 03:16 PM
One thing they fail to mention is the local demographics. Georgia has crime problems...in Fulton County, a very blue area, and the same area with the most issues with poverty, health, and pretty much all the other statistics they cite. Here in Hall County, a Republican stronghold, teen crime is so low that they don't even enforce the curfew.

This is similar to studies I've seen showing how 'smart' blue states are. They test a whole bunch of factors, and only publish the ones that prove their point. For example, there's no advantage to IQ, college admission, or starting career pay to being in a blue state. Blue states, however, are notorious for never failing high school students, so the study chose to rely mainly on high school graduation rates.

Great points, Hobbit. The methodology stinks to high heaven. To this, I'd add that 8 of the 10 bottom states are part of what was once considered the "Solid South". Who's to say that 100 years of voting Democrat hasn't taken its toll?

jillian
02-09-2007, 03:17 PM
Oh, I don't know, jillian - there's a lot to be said for giving a child a good start in life. And, not murdering him in the womb/birth canal - now, that's what I call a good start!

BTW - thanks for the welcome, in the other thread last week. Got caught up in a conversation, and didn't get a chance to wave, "howdy". Howdy!

I'm not going to get into the abortion issue on this thread. I figure the topic here is interesting enough without rehashing something we all feel strongly about one way or another and which goes 'round and 'round!

I think, though, if we're going to bring children into the world, giving them a good start means, not handouts, but legups where they're necessary.

Not a problem that you didn't wave "howdy" before! Good to have you around!

jillian
02-09-2007, 03:19 PM
One thing they fail to mention is the local demographics. Georgia has crime problems...in Fulton County, a very blue area, and the same area with the most issues with poverty, health, and pretty much all the other statistics they cite. Here in Hall County, a Republican stronghold, teen crime is so low that they don't even enforce the curfew.

This is similar to studies I've seen showing how 'smart' blue states are. They test a whole bunch of factors, and only publish the ones that prove their point. For example, there's no advantage to IQ, college admission, or starting career pay to being in a blue state. Blue states, however, are notorious for never failing high school students, so the study chose to rely mainly on high school graduation rates.

I suppose you have stats to bear out your issues and aren't just obfuscating?

Truth? I think it's more a function of availablity of services in urban as opposed to more rural areas. And that would correllate to the red/blue vote, although wouldn't necessarily be affected BY that vote.

musicman
02-09-2007, 03:21 PM
I'm not going to get into the abortion issue on this thread. I figure the topic here is interesting enough without rehashing something we all feel strongly about one way or another and which goes 'round and 'round!

I think, though, if we're going to bring children into the world, giving them a good start means, not handouts, but legups where they're necessary.

Not a problem that you didn't wave "howdy" before! Good to have you around!

Thanks, jillian - it's good to be here! And, you broached the abortion topic with your indirect swipe; you shouldn't expect to be able to score your point and then declare the subject "off limits" - it's inseemly.

jillian
02-09-2007, 03:22 PM
Thanks, jillian - it's good to be here! And, you broached the abortion topic with your indirect swipe; you shouldn't expect to be able to score your point and then declare the subject "off limits" - it's inseemly.

I probably did take a swipe, but didn't want to derail the conversation.

musicman
02-09-2007, 03:27 PM
I probably did take a swipe, but didn't want to derail the conversation.

No - you wanted to jab your point home without cost, while retaining the ability to say, "Let's stay on topic, kids". Kind of like a sucker punch.

jillian
02-09-2007, 03:40 PM
No - you wanted to jab your point home without cost, while retaining the ability to say, "Let's stay on topic, kids". Kind of like a sucker punch.

Yah... that must be it... :smoke:

musicman
02-09-2007, 03:46 PM
Yah... that must be it... :smoke:

Not to worry, jillian - we caught in in time!

theHawk
02-09-2007, 04:00 PM
Steffie, Steffie, Steffie. You know I love ya babe, you're my fave angry rightie. Mwaaaaaaaaaaaah!!

But I can see where you'd hate the numbers, honest. But seems to me, that perhaps instead of complaining that it's a lib/con thing, one might ask what are the reasons for those disparities and what can be done to correct them.

I thought you guys are pro-life. Oh right, I forgot... that's pro-birth. After that, they're on their own. :2up:

Funny that you should bring that up. Because I wonder what the numbers would look like if the writer bothered to include abortion rates in "red states" vs "blue states". I wonder if those aborted children had been allowed to live in the last 17 years how it might change those numbers. But in the demented world of Liber-topia its better to kill a baby than bring him/her into the world because they would be born into poverty, much like the children of these "red states".
But I digress, the answer is simple: vote liberal in the next election so we can raise the quality of life of your children by promoting abortion-on-demand vigorously to the poor. There's nothing wrong with carrying out the systematic killing of innocent so long as if proves that the quality of life is improving right?!

Lets take a looksy!

Blue states abortion ratios(per 1000 live births):
Wisconsin 214
Iowa 150
New Jersey 286
Washington 317
Minnesota 214
Maine 186
Massachusetts 333
Connecticut 300
Vermont 274
And your "#1" New Hampshire (NH will not disclose how many abortions are done)
252 average, though we dont have NH stats.




and all 10 of the bottom states with the worst outcomes for children are “red” states
Wyoming 128
Georgia 239
Arkansas 146
Alabama 214
South Carolina 134
Texas 209
Oklahoma 144
New Mexico 201
Louisiana 168
Mississippi 85

166 average.


http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm
Makes one proud to vote blue doesn't it!


:puke3:

theHawk
02-09-2007, 04:07 PM
I understand that you prefer taking care of your own. But if you were doing a better job of it, the numbers wouldn't look the way they do.


Of course, thats what liberals care about, how everything appears for the next campaign. Never a moments thought to consider that killing a child before its born should probably be included in "children welfare statistics". :lame2:

jillian
02-09-2007, 04:11 PM
Funny that you should bring that up. Because I wonder what the numbers would look like if the writer bothered to include abortion rates in "red states" vs "blue states". I wonder if those aborted children had been allowed to live in the last 17 years how it might change those numbers. But in the demented world of Liber-topia its better to kill a baby than bring him/her into the world because they would be born into poverty, much like the children of these "red states".
But I digress, the answer is simple: vote liberal in the next election so we can raise the quality of life of your children by promoting abortion-on-demand vigorously to the poor. There's nothing wrong with carrying out the systematic killing of innocent so long as if proves that the quality of life is improving right?!

Lets take a looksy!

Blue states abortion ratios(per 1000 live births):
Wisconsin 214
Iowa 150
New Jersey 286
Washington 317
Minnesota 214
Maine 186
Massachusetts 333
Connecticut 300
Vermont 274
And your "#1" New Hampshire (NH will not disclose how many abortions are done)
252 average, though we dont have NH stats.



Wyoming 128
Georgia 239
Arkansas 146
Alabama 214
South Carolina 134
Texas 209
Oklahoma 144
New Mexico 201
Louisiana 168
Mississippi 85

166 average.


http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm
Makes one proud to vote blue doesn't it!


:puke3:

Why would you include abortion rates. It's irrelevant. A zygote isn't a baby, sweetie.... although I'm sure it's much easier than resolving the real issues. You get to make all these very loud, sympathetic claims whiile not caring that living children live in poverty, have no health insurance, are under-educated and have insufficient resources.

Good on ya!

theHawk
02-09-2007, 04:16 PM
Why would you include abortion rates. It's irrelevant. A zygote isn't a baby, sweetie.... although I'm sure it's much easier than resolving the real issues. You get to make all these very loud, sympathetic claims whiile not caring that living children live in poverty, have no health insurance, are under-educated and have insufficient resources.

Good on ya!

Don't know about you, but I'd rather be living "in poverty" than dead. If someone like you who is old enough to make that kind of decision, then go ahead and kill yourself if you'd rather not live in poverty. At least let humans grow to the point where they have that choice concerning their own life.

jillian
02-09-2007, 04:17 PM
Don't know about you, but I'd rather be living "in poverty" than dead. If someone like you who is old enough to make that kind of decision, then go ahead and kill yourself if you'd rather not live in poverty. At least let humans grow to the point where they have that choice concerning their own life.

Okie Dokie.... so don't have an abortion. Real simple.

*Edit* Seems like you're so concerned about protecting potential life that you don't care about existing lives.

theHawk
02-09-2007, 04:32 PM
Okie Dokie.... so don't have an abortion. Real simple.

*Edit* Seems like you're so concerned about protecting potential life that you don't care about existing lives.

What makes you say that?

Gaffer
02-09-2007, 06:24 PM
It's for the children. That makes it all ok and so right. Typical liberal mantra.