The APA's Recommendations
I have just read the APA's report, and also the Wall Street Journal's amazing interpretation of it: A New Therapy on Faith and Sexual Identity. The WSJ says, "... in a striking departure, the American Psychological Association said Wednesday that it is ethical -- and can be beneficial -- for counselors to help some clients reject gay or lesbian attractions." The article is a piece of work, full of misconstruals -- I expect we will hear a word from Wayne Besen before the day is over, addressing the way he was quoted there. I was going to tear into it but decided to take a different approach. It doesn't matter what the Wall Street Journal says, what matters is the APA's statement. Let me just copy and paste the resolution at the end of the APA's report. This is the resolution that the committee who did the research wants the APA membership to adopt (I have taken all the parenthetical citations out for readability -- the original is HERE).
Resolution
WHEREAS, The American Psychological Association expressly opposes prejudice (defined broadly) and discrimination based on age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, or socioeconomic status;
WHEREAS, The American Psychological Association takes a leadership role in opposing prejudice and discrimination, including prejudice based on or derived from religion or spirituality, and encourages commensurate consideration of religion and spirituality as diversity variables;
WHEREAS, Psychologists respect human diversity including age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, and socioeconomic status and psychologists strive to prevent bias from their own spiritual, religious, or non-religious beliefs from taking precedence over professional practice and standards or scientific findings in their work as psychologists;
WHEREAS, Psychologists are encouraged to recognize that it is outside the role and expertise of psychologists, as psychologists, to adjudicate religious or spiritual tenets, while also recognizing that psychologists can appropriately speak to the psychological implications of religious/spiritual beliefs or practices when relevant psychological findings about those implications exist;
WHEREAS, Those operating from religious/spiritual traditions are encouraged to recognize that it is outside their role and expertise to adjudicate empirical scientific issues in psychology, while also recognizing they can appropriately speak to theological implications of psychological science; [ Footnote: We use the term sexual minority to designate the entire group of individuals who experience significant erotic and romantic attractions to adult members of their own sex, including those who experience attractions to members of both their own and the other sex. This term is used because we recognize that not all sexual minority individuals adopt an LGB bisexual identity.]
WHEREAS, The American Psychological Association encourages collaborative activities in pursuit of shared prosocial goals between psychologists and religious communities when such collaboration can be done in a mutually respectful manner that is consistent with psychologists’ professional and scientific roles;
WHEREAS, Societal ignorance and prejudice about a same-sex sexual orientation places some sexual minorities at risk for seeking sexual orientation change due to personal, family, or religious conflicts, or lack of information;
WHEREAS, Some mental health professionals advocate treatments based on the premise that homosexuality is a mental disorder;
WHEREAS, Sexual minority children and youth are especially vulnerable populations with unique developmental tasks who lack adequate legal protection from involuntary or coercive treatment and whose parents and guardians need accurate information to make informed decisions regarding their development and well-being; and
WHEREAS, Research has shown that family rejection is a predictor of negative outcomes and that parental acceptance and school support are protective factors for sexual minority youth;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association affirms that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality regardless of sexual orientation identity;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association reaffirms its position that homosexuality per se is not a mental disorder and opposes portrayals of sexual minority youths and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association encourages mental health professionals to avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts by promoting or promising change in sexual orientation when providing assistance to individuals distressed by their own or others’ sexual orientation;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association concludes that the benefits reported by participants in sexual orientation change efforts can be gained through approaches that do not attempt to change sexual orientation;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association concludes that the emerging knowledge on affirmative multiculturally competent treatment provides a foundation for an appropriate evidence-based practice with children, adolescents and adults who are distressed by or seek to change their sexual orientation;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association advises parents, guardians, young people, and their families to avoid sexual orientation change efforts that portray homosexuality as a mental illness or developmental disorder and to seek psychotherapy, social support and educational services that provide accurate information on sexual orientation and sexuality, increase family and school support, and reduce rejection of sexual minority youth;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association encourages practitioners to consider the ethical concerns outlined in the 1997 APA Resolution on Appropriate Therapeutic Response to Sexual Orientation, in particular the following standards and principles: scientific bases for professional judgments, benefit and harm, justice, and respect for people’s rights and dignity;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association encourages practitioners to be aware that age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, disability, language, and socioeconomic status may interact with sexual stigma, and contribute to variations in sexual orientation identity development, expression, and experience;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association opposes the distortion and selective use of scientific data about homosexuality by individuals and organizations seeking to influence public policy and public opinion and will take a leadership role in responding to such distortions;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association supports the dissemination of accurate scientific and professional information about sexual orientation in order to counteract bias that is based in lack of knowledge about sexual orientation; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association encourages advocacy groups, elected officials, mental health professionals, policy makers, religious professionals and organizations, and other organizations to seek areas of collaboration that may promote the wellbeing of sexual minorities.
posted by JimK at 11:44 AM
40 Comments:
Looks like Mrs G will be fighting to put this new APA position into the MCPS curriculum.
The APA says there is no evidence of harm from going ex-gay:
"The men who seek help from evangelical counselor Warren Throckmorton often are deeply distressed.
They have prayed, read Scripture, even married, but they haven't been able to shake sexual attractions to other men -- impulses they believe to be immoral.
Dr. Throckmorton is a psychology professor at a Christian college in Pennsylvania and past president of the American Mental Health Counselors Association.
He specializes in working with clients conflicted about their sexual identity.
The first thing he tells them is this: Your attractions aren't a sign of mental illness or a punishment for insufficient faith.
He tells them that he cannot turn them straight.
But he also tells them they don't have to be gay.
For many years, Dr. Throckmorton felt he was breaking a professional taboo by telling his clients they could construct satisfying lives by, in effect, shunting their sexuality to the side, even if that meant living celibately.
That ran against the trend in counseling toward "gay affirming" therapy -- encouraging clients to embrace their sexuality.
But in a striking departure, the American Psychological Association said Wednesday that it is ethical -- and can be beneficial -- for counselors to help some clients reject gay or lesbian attractions."
"The APA is the largest association of psychologists world-wide, with 150,000 members.
The association plans to promote the new approach to sexuality with YouTube videos, speeches to schools and churches, and presentations to Christian counselors.
According to new APA guidelines, the therapist must make clear that homosexuality doesn't signal a mental or emotional disorder.
The counselor must advise clients that gay men and women can lead happy and healthy lives, and emphasize that there is no evidence therapy can change sexual orientation.
But if the client still believes that affirming his same-sex attractions would be sinful or destructive to his faith, psychologists can help him construct an identity that rejects the power of those attractions, the APA says.
That might require living celibately, learning to deflect sexual impulses or framing a life of struggle as an opportunity to grow closer to God.
"We're not trying to encourage people to become 'ex-gay,'" said Judith Glassgold, who chaired the APA's task force on the issue. "But we have to acknowledge that, for some people, religious identity is such an important part of their lives, it may transcend everything else."
The APA has long endorsed the right of clients to determine their own identities."
"But it also warned that "lesbians and gay men who feel they must conceal their sexual orientation report more frequent mental health concerns."
The new approach allowing therapists to help clients transcend their sexual orientation was developed by an APA task force of six academics and counselors, some active in gay-rights causes, and endorsed by the group's governing body.
Their original mandate was to respond to the growing visibility of sexual orientation "change therapists" who claim it is possible to alter arousal patterns.
The task force reviewed scientific literature on change therapy and found no evidence it worked.
But the task force also gained an appreciation for the pain some men and women feel in trying to reconcile their sexual attractions with their faith.
There are gay-affirming churches.
But the task force acknowledged that for those from conservative faiths, affirming a gay identity could feel very much like renouncing their religious identity.
"They're faced with a terrible dilemma," Dr. Glassgold said. The profession has to offer alternatives, she says, "so they don't pursue these ineffective therapies" promising change.
It isn't a step to be taken lightly, added Jack Drescher, a psychiatrist and member of the APA task force.
"We try to find a balance between what the patient says he wants, what we think is best for the patient, and what is reasonable and feasible," Dr. Drescher said.
The APA report mentions as one possible framework the approach taken by Dr. Throckmorton, who teaches at Grove City College and has a Ph.D. in community counseling.
He starts by helping clients prioritize their values.
Then he shows them stock video of a brain responding to sexual stimuli.
When the clients see how quickly the brain lights up, they often feel relieved, he said, because they realize that their attractions are deeply rooted.
Dr. Throckmorton says at that point, some clients choose to accept a gay identity.
Others, however, say they prefer to live in accordance with their faith.
In therapy that can last years, Dr. Throckmorton says he tries to help these clients accept that their attractions will not go away -- but need not define them.
Many clients, he said, learn to override sexual impulses, reminding themselves that what looks like an oasis will only "take me farther away from what I really want to be," as he puts it.
Other sexual identity counselors take a far different approach, teaching that homosexuality stems from an emotional deficit -- often caused by bad parenting or childhood abuse -- that can be repaired through therapy.
After reviewing 50 years of literature, the APA found no evidence that this type of "reparative therapy" is effective.
The studies that claim to show success tend to be small and deeply flawed, the APA said.
For instance, some rely on the therapist who has treated a patient to subjectively evaluate how well the therapy worked.
The belief that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice" has faded significantly.
But there is little consensus about how sexual orientation develops; the APA suggests it is a complex blend of genetic, hormonal and social influences.
Some gay-rights activists are skeptical of the APA's new stance, saying they fear for the mental health of men and women who seek to suppress their sexual identity.
"It's incredibly misguided," said Wayne Besen, who runs a group called Truth Wins Out, which fights conversion therapy.
He says trying to fight their same-sex attractions can cause immense suffering. "People have their lives destroyed," Mr. Besen said.
Dr. Glassgold, of the APA, said there has been little research about the long-term effects of rejecting a gay identity, but there is "no clear evidence of harm" and "some people seem to be content with that path."
Alan Chambers, author of a new memoir called "Leaving Homosexuality," counts himself among the contented.
Mr. Chambers, who runs the ministry Exodus International, which teaches people "freedom from homosexuality through Jesus Christ," says he still struggles at times with same-sex temptation.
But he finds strength and grace in resisting those impulses.
When critics say he is in denial, he agrees.
But it is healthy self-denial, he says, which he likens to a recovering alcoholic resisting a drink.
"There are a lot of us out there," Mr. Chambers said, "who simply want to live in congruence with our faith."
Golly Anon. Demonstrating your compulsive unattributed cutting and pasting with multiple postings again???
You should probably lay off the booze at lunch today.
Throckmorton has been on an interesting journey. Back in the 2004-05 era, he was fine with "blaming" homosexuality on parents in order to give his clients "an explanation", which might help them feel better.
To his credit, he has learned that sexual orientation has nothing to do with "bad parenting," and, it seems, he has learned that sexual orientation cannot be changed by conversion or reparative therapies.
What he now raises is the dilemma that some gay people face: Either stay true to their religious denomination's theology (and be celebate for life) or find another way to express their spirituality (and live full lives consistent with their sexuality). Throckmorton's theology is such that he likely would counsel the former in all circumstances.
It is understandable that many, like Wayne Besen, would condemn Throckmorton's approach. And I suspect that for most gay people who grow up in denominations that condemn homosexuality, the latter course will be far healthier; there are certainly enough Christian and Jewish denominations that are gay affirming that one need not give up a belief in God to be true to one's own sexual orientation.
In its best light, Throckmorton's approach could be that, well for some people, the theology with which they grew up is so important to them and they should be helped to live lives without sex. Maybe. Though I doubt it. The Catholic Church's experience with priests who so repress their sexuality that it gets twisted into pedophilia strongly suggests that Throckmorton's approach is misguided.
So, in my view, this really comes around to the nature of religious belief. Is there one true theology? An understanding of history and human behavior suggests that there is not, and, more significantly, insistence that everyone follow the same theology is dangerous to a society's well-being. While psychological torture of gay people to be celebate may not be as bad as the Spanish Inquisition, it has some parallels. If there is only one way -- a religious fundamentalist way -- to seek God, then Throckmorton's approach might make some sense. But if there are many ways, keeping gay people in the fold by convincing/helping them to be celebate is both misguided and cruel.
David, you say it very well. My gut reaction is that celibacy reinforced by a theological view that condemns one's inner feelings is corrosive to our spiritual existence.
Though one wonders about people who are genuine pedophiles, or with sexuality realized only through violence: what do they do?
For so long, I viewed all gay men as potential pedophiles and rapists, as I was taught by my religion. It can be hard to set aside and learn to value one's self.
As much as I disagree with Priya's view of Christianity, nevertheless I have come to see moralistic fundamentalism as intrinsically destructive of human spirituality and plurality.
I think the APA is wrong in encouraging its members in accepting such destructive self-concepts in their patients. I'm not sure if they've done that.
Dave and Robo
Are you sure that these guys couldn't learn to function as heterosexuals and even perform sexually with a female marriage who is aware of the situation from the outset and still find a way to channel the same gender attraction with just general male bonding activity?
Perhaps this could be achieved without compromising relgious beliefs.
Any possibility, guys?
btw, Anon-B, I made one post which turned into four because of the blogger limits. I thought was a significant enough document to warrant that treatment but if Jim or Mrs G want to delete it, that's fine.
looks like we've got another Jimmy Carter on our hands, which means Sarah Palin is the new Ronald Reagan
hey, Anon-B, boo!:
"A new Quinnipiac University poll shows that President Obama's approval rating among Americans has fallen seven points in the last month, from 57 percent to 50 percent, with just 45 percent of independent voters approving of the job he's doing.
Worse news comes for the president on the specifics of his agenda.
Just 39 percent approve of the way Obama is handling health care;
45 percent approve of how he is handling the economy;
64 percent say they are somewhat or very dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country today;
and an astonishing 93 percent say the economy is poor or not so good.
So why do the president's approval numbers matter when the 2012 elections are so far off?
Because the president's next test is actually in 2010, when the mid-term elections will serve as a referendum on his first two years.
Moderate Democrats will not go along with Obama's policies if he is unpopular with the independent voters in their districts.
And finally, 62 percent of people polled by Quinnipiac said that the president should not have waded into the Professor Gates/Cambridge police matter, and that he definitely should not have answered a question about it from reporter Lynn Sweet."
Looks like "yes, we can" will be Obama's "Mission Accomplished"
Anonymous,
My reading of the APA report is that their reading of the scientific literature indicates that such an outcome is, indeed, not achievable at a level of expectation that would make orientation-change possible.
The sample of gay men that I have spoken to about this (admittedly skewed and self-selecting, as is Sitzer's sample) indicates that almost universally such an outcome is a miserable failure emotionally and almost always leads to failure.
For myself, no, I don't think supressing same-gender attractions and replacing them with opposite-gender relationships works; almost all gay men of my generation and older tried that.
I also think that following a path directed by the thought that one is 'intrinsically disordered', as the Catholic church puts it, is spiritually corrosive, and leads one away from God.
It seems to me that the APA is recommending against that, and I agree.
rrjr
The vote was 125-4, by the way.
This discussion of Obama's poll numbers is very interesting. I suspect his numbers have dropped because he has not yet produced the results he promised last year.
If he is able to produce -- an improved system of providing health care and a turnaround in the economy, most notably -- the numbers will go sky-high. That, of course, is why Senator DeMint told his colleagues that it was essential for the GOP to stop any health care bill. It would be nice if Senator DeMint, et al, would simply admit what they probably believe -- that the existing system is the best we can do -- and let the debate unfold along those lines. But what they believe they need to do politically is to create distrust and chaos, in the hope that it will derail health care reform, and thus undercut the Obama Administration's credibility.
Also, given that Republican numbers have not increased during this period, and Obama has not yet delivered much in the way of, for example, gay rights and smart economic regulation, it may well be that the drop in Obama's numbers comes not just from the center, but also from the left.
The GOP hope is to demoralize those who supported Obama and the Democrats in 2008 and to hope that enough of them do not show up to the polls in 2010 to give the GOP a chance at an electoral comeback. That is a pretty sad strategy: To regain power by turning people off from the hope that democratic government can actually deliver. Of course, that is what happened in 1994.
"I suspect his numbers have dropped because he has not yet produced the results he promised last year."
I think people are put off by his type of leadership, or more accurately, lack of leadership.
When they say they don't agree with how he's handled health care reform, I think they mean the way he doesn't offer any ideas of his own but punts all decisions to Congress.
He did the same with the stimulus package and the results have been evident.
His jumping into the Cambridge/Gates matter, on the other hand, was extremely foolish, and squandered a great advantage he had before.
Americans had allowed themselves to believe that Obama had led them to a postracial, colorblind era.
Citizens were dismayed to find that Obama had polarizing views similar to Gates.
If he had more experience under his belt, it might be feasible to think he could recover but given the skills he has demonstrated so far, it seems highly unlikely.
more likely, it's the growing awareness that he was born in another country
people weren't aware of that before
ironically, Obama's also losing support among gays, who thought he supports the gay agenda when they voted for him
turned out when he said he doesn't believe in gay marriage, he meant it
I think people are put off by his type of leadership
Well as usual, you think and you're wrong. People were put off by Bush's "my way or the highway" dictator/leadership.
I think they mean the way he doesn't offer any ideas of his own
And again, you think and it's wrong. Obama has long called for a public option to force health insurance companies to compete rather than dictate premiums, for health insurance companies to cover you even if you have a pre-existing condition and to NOT cancel your policy if you come down with a catastrophic illness or get a new job, and that America is strong enough to insure the millions who do not currently have coverage -- all of those are ideas Obama has repeated almost daily.
I guess they don't tell you that at CitizenLink or FOX NEWS.
The GOP hope is to demoralize...
It's the GOP who **is** demoralized after their drubbings in 2006 and 2008. Now they have to resort to "mob rule" to try to wrest control from the democratically elected.
it's the growing awareness that he was born in another country
"Everybody says, 'Why is Barack Obama not just producing the birth certificate?' OK, first of all, he did, and you're never going to get a conspiracy theory to stop. I mean, we've got a moon rock sitting in the Smithsonian!...One of the reasons why he doesn't just come out is because it is so great for him, because it immediately marginalizes anyone who says that kind of stuff."
--Glenn Beck
well, we're allowed to see the moon rock
OK, so Glenn Beck thinks Obama is hiding his birth certificate to make his opponents look bad
Anon-B tries to say my opinion is not valid because its just whatI think
as opposed to what she "thinks", right?
hysterical
in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan and Bill Bradley tamed a wasteful, inefficient and complex tax system by getting rid of tax loopholes and lowering marginal tax rates
the result: a two-decade long economic boom
Obama needs to do something similarly simple:
reform malpractice law and tax employer paid health insurance
try it, Barry
I know you'll have to admit that John McCain was right but we'll forgive that faster than the disaster you're now creating
we like leadership
Barack Obama's political honeymoon is over.
It was steamy and nice while it lasted.
The 44th president was elected as a voice of reason transcending stale ideological debates and a symbol of unity in a nation long afflicted by bigotry.
He seemed, on brief public acquaintance, to be pragmatic, positive, steady, moderate and thoughtful.
In the months following his election, Obama expanded his support well beyond the coalition that had voted for him in November, attracting many seniors and white men -- working-class and college-educated -- who had supported John McCain.
But, as Ron Brownstein argued last week on NationalJournal.com, recent polls have revealed a president "back to something like square one in his political coalition."
Obama's core support remains strong.
His post-election gains, however, have largely dissipated.
According to Brownstein, the president "failed to convert many voters who gave him a second look after preferring John McCain last year."
Obama still dominates the political landscape, but he has not changed its contours.
Honeymoons always end.
But it is fair to ask: What did Obama use this initial period of unique standing and influence to achieve?
It will seem strange to history, and probably, eventually, to Obama himself, that the president's main expenditure of political capital and largest legislative achievement was a $787 billion stimulus package he did not design and that ended up complicating the rest of his policy agenda.
Such a pleasant honeymoon -- yet all we got was this lousy stimulus bill.
President Obama staked the initial reputation of his administration on the wisdom, restraint and economic innovation of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic congressional leadership.
It was a mistake.
The legislation they produced plugged the fiscal holes in state budgets and Medicaid, and it indulged eight years of pent-up Democratic spending demands on priorities from education to child care to Amtrak.
The package did little to promote investment, job creation or economic growth.
By one estimate, about 12 cents of every dollar spent was devoted to genuine economic stimulus.
While Obama himself remains popular, support for his largest legislative achievement now stands at 34 percent.
This massive expenditure became the political context for the health-care debate.
Because the national debt has increased by more than $1 trillion since Obama took office, the president was forced to make his case for health reform based on long-term cost savings.
An immediate increase in spending, he argued, would be more than offset by eventual reductions in federal health spending.
But this case collapsed in a series of Congressional Budget Office estimates stating that both House and Senate health approaches would expand deficits during the current 10-year budget window and beyond.
As it stands, Democratic plans create an expensive new health entitlement, make promises of cost savings that are insufficient or nebulous, raise taxes in economically destructive ways and cost more to the government in the long term.
Once again, Obama deferred to Democratic congressional leaders instead of producing a detailed plan of his own.
Once again, their failures have become his own.
All this has combined to raise serious public concerns about spending, deficits and debt -- the main ideological achievement of Obama's political honeymoon, but probably not one he intended.
The administration's primary economic spokesmen -- Tim Geithner and Larry Summers -- have hinted at the eventual need for broad tax increases to close the deficit.
But the tax hikes required for Democratic health reform have an opportunity cost; they can't be used in a future deficit-reduction deal.
And such a deal would certainly require the president to break his unequivocal pledge not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.
No amount of administration trial balloons or explanation -- "Golly, the Republicans messed things up even worse than we thought" -- will make this broken promise palatable.
So these are the main accomplishments of the Obama honeymoon: a widely criticized stimulus package, a health debate poorly begun and a growing, potentially consuming deficit problem.
The initial period of Obama's presidency has revealed an odd mixture of boldness and timidity.
A bold, even fiscally reckless, embrace of the priorities of the Democratic left.
A timid, and politically unwise, deference to the views and approaches of the Democratic congressional leadership.
Obama can, of course, recover, as other presidents have. But he did not take full advantage of his honeymoon -- and he will not get it back.
WASHINGTON -U.S. employers throttled back on layoffs in July, cutting just 247,000 jobs, the fewest in a year, and the unemployment rate dipped to 9.4 percent, its first decline in 15 months.
Americans outside the beltway are seething at the plans of the socialist Democrat Congress:
"(Aug. 7) -- Emotions boiled over at a town hall meeting on health care reform in Tampa, Fla., Thursday.
Local news reports say a larger-than-expected crowd of more than 1,000 converged on the Hillsborough County Children's Board building.
Shouting matches and scuffles broke out when organizers closed the doors of the packed auditorium.
Police moved in as some protesters chanted and banged on windows.
Freelance videographer Mark Bishop told WTSP-TV he got roughed up and his camera was damaged.
Randy Arthur of Oldsmar had his shirt ripped open and his chest scratched in a scuffle, according to the Tampa Tribune.
Inside the auditorium, Rep. Kathy Castor tried to speak but was repeatedly drowned out by yelling and chanting.
The Florida Democrat eventually left before the meeting ended, further angering the crowd.
The scene was similar in St. Louis Thursday night, when an overflow crowd showed up for a forum called by local Democrat Rep. Russ Carnahan.
Six people were arrested, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported.
Conservative activist Kenneth Gladney told the newspaper he suffered multiple injuries when he was attacked by some of those who were arrested.
It was the latest in a series of dramatic confrontations at public meetings across the country."
Obama tries to buy his way out of recession:
"WASHINGTON (Aug. 7) — Car shoppers caught up in the frenzy of the "cash-for-clunkers" program now have more time and a $2 billion reason to trade in their old gas guzzlers.
President Barack Obama signed into law Friday a measure tripling the budget of the $1 billion incentive program that has drawn big crowds to formerly deserted showrooms.
The Senate on Thursday passed the legislation extending the 2-week-old program into Labor Day and preventing it from running out of money."
Unfortunately, three of the top four autos being purchased under this program are Japanese cars.
Thanks for helping out the land of the Shogun, Barry.
Could we do something for America now?
there was a time when car companies gave rebates, not the taxpayers
lunatic fringers thought they were electing one of their own last November but, it turns out, Barry is a pro-family champion, standing up for traditional marriage:
"Fox News commentator and human lightning rod Bill O'Reilly is considered one of the most polarizing and partisan talk-festers on TV – or at least that's been his reputation until now.
All that may change on Sunday, when the combative conservative's Parade magazine piece carried in newspapers coast to coast hits front lawns and porches all over America.
Titled "What President Obama Can Teach America's Kids," O'Reilly prefaces his essay with an assertion that few reputable sociologists would quarrel with – that "the disruption of the American family" is adversely affecting millions of the nation's young people.
"Our modern age presents vast challenges to children, and they need to learn lessons quickly in order to prosper," O'Reilly adds. "And who better to teach them than the President of the United States?"
O'Reilly takes note of Obama's own "tough" childhood, one characterized by a nomadic single parent and bouts of loneliness.
He avers that Obama's ability to turn these constraints into a life of singular achievement provides a wonderful lesson for all of America's young people.
"His achievement presents five important lessons for all children," Reilly states.
The five traits identified by O'Reilly – traits embodied in Obama's life story – are the following:
Forgiveness
Respect
Persistence
Hard work
The idea that in America, anything is possible.
The last lesson is especially applicable.
Indeed, the list of examples proving that "anything is possible" in this country might include a certain essay published on Aug. 9, 2009.
That will go down as the date when Bill O'Reilly put down his boxing gloves, disarmed his critics, lauded a liberal Democratic president, and did Fox News proud in the process.
And it wasn't even Father's Day."
Americans outside the beltway are seething at the plans of the socialist Democrat Congress
They're not seething at any plans; they're seething at the lies about the plan spun by right wingers from TV, radio, and the GOP.
The Saint Petersburg Times reports
"...hundreds of vocal critics turned out, many of them saying they had been spurred on through the Tampa 912 activist group promoted by conservative radio and television personality Glenn Beck. Others had received e-mails from the Hillsborough Republican Party that urged people to speak out against the plan and offered talking points..."
Of course their real problem, as we've heard expressed by Crazy Eileen is "I want my country back!" What the Crazy Eileens of the world forget is that America voted last fall to leave "Bushleague America" behind. We didn't vote for Bush-light, we voted by a landslide for the changes President Obama promised to bring. Healthcare for all is *one* of the changes he promised to bring and he will deliver.
Our current healthcare works for some people and under the new plan Obama wants, nothing will change for them, except perhaps lower premiums from the new competition that's coming from the public option. For the rest of the country struggling without healthcare that works for them, new options are coming that will help them get good healthcare without relying on ERs. Pre-existing conditions will be banned, being denied coverage when you face a catastrophic illness or leave your job will also be banned, prescription drug prices will be negotiated downward, saving us all money in the end.
Let the angry white mobs scream all they want, it only proves they are sore losers who object to change and cling to the status quo like flotsam.
We don't need a single GOP vote on the Hill to enact Obama's promised healthcare changes or any of the rest.
And maybe that vote will be even easier with GOP Senator Mel Martinez resigning before his term is up to spend time with his family.
"They're not seething at any plans; they're seething at the lies about the plan spun by right wingers from TV, radio, and the GOP."
Nice that you have thoughts that comfort you in times of stress, Anon-B, but just because you "think" it, doesn't make it true.
Here's some facts:
"A new Quinnipiac University poll shows that President Obama's approval rating among Americans has fallen seven points in the last month, from 57 percent to 50 percent, with just 45 percent of independent voters approving of the job he's doing.
Worse news comes for the president on the specifics of his agenda.
Just 39 percent approve of the way Obama is handling health care;"
"Ramussen polling shows 74% of voters rate the quality of care they now receive as good or excellent.
And 50% fear that if Congress passes health-care reform, it will lead to a decline in the quality of that care.
Advocates of health-care reform on Capitol Hill are up against something bigger than voters’ reactions to a variety of specific proposals.
Our polling in February found that by a 2-1 margin, voters believe that no matter how bad things are Congress can always make matters worse.
That’s one reason 78% believe passage of the current congressional health-care proposals is likely to mean higher taxes for the middle class.
63% of voters agreed with the president earlier this year when he said, “We must make it a priority to give every single American quality affordable health care.”
Yet while they agree in theory, only 28% are currently willing to pay higher taxes to achieve that goal.
Those opposed to Mr. Obama’s reform appear to have momentum on their side.
Polling last weekend showed that 48% of voters rate the U.S. health-care system as good or excellent.
That’s up from 35% in May and up from 29% a year ago.
Only 19% now rate the system as poor, down from 37% a year ago.
It appears that the prospect of changing health care has made the existing system look better to a lot of people."
Looks like Anon-B's fantasies about Obama's support don't have momentum on their side.
Sarah Palin in 2012.
Boo!
btw, did you hear that Officer Crowley is going to run for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat?
Interesting news today:
Mrs. Sanford moved out of the Governor's mansion in South Carolina and plans to enroll her boys in another school far from the state capital.
One of our missile strikes reportedly killed Baitullah Mehsud in Pakistan (confirmation pending). He was a Taliban leader responsible for suicide attacks and had a $5 million bounty on his head.
Obama has signed into law a second helping of one of the most successful and popular stimulus packages of all time, Cash for Clunkers. The program helps people buy cars, manufacturers sell cars (Ford Motor Co. achieved its first year-over-year sales increase since November 2007), and even helps reduce damage to the environment. Woo hoo! Triple play!
Unfortunately, three of the top four autos being purchased under this program are Japanese cars.
Another half truth. Is that the best you can do, Anon?
The CSMonitor reports:
"...CARS vouchers in Week 1 helped consumers buy 184,304 new vehicles, more than half of which were foreign makes, mainly Toyota, Honda, Nissan, and Hyundai, according to the US Department of Transportation.
Of those foreign cars and trucks, more than half are made in the US. Best sellers include the Toyota Corolla, the Ford Focus, the Honda Civic, and Toyota’s Prius and Camry...
Regardless of brand, most of the cars being purchased under the Cash for Clunkers program were made right here in the USA by American workers earning paychecks.
The Alabama state government reports:
"...the new [Hyundai] engine plant [in Alabama] has been a stabilizing force for Hyundai's $1.4 billion factory, as some workers were shifted from an existing V-6 engine facility on site to make more of the in-demand four-cylinder models..."
How do you like that? Cash for Clunkers also means manufacturing jobs for Americans. That makes it a quadruple play!
The Wall Street Journal reports the decrease in job losses may "...suggest a turning point is at hand... and that the stock market has made impressive gains for four straight weeks, with the Dow industrials and S&P 500 gaining 15%, the Nasdaq rising 14% and the Russell surging 19%.
Looks like Obama's economic policies are having the desired effect, stemming the declines left by Bush/Cheney and offering hope that we've bottomed out and may now be climbing back out of the abyss.
Yes we can!
Nice that you have outlier polls that comfort you in times of stress, Anon.
Remember, no self medicating this weekend!
"We didn't vote for Bush-light,"
Well, that's what you got.
"we voted by a landslide for the changes President Obama promised to bring."
The bigest change he's brought is that we no longer have a President. The country is now run by Congress and his only role is to sign whatever bill they send him.
"Healthcare for all is *one* of the changes he promised to bring and he will deliver."
The current proposals actually won't achieve that.
You should read a little more.
He's broken his promise.
He didn't even give it that much of an effort.
"Our current healthcare works for some people"
Make that most people.
Certainly the overwhelming share of those that vote.
"and under the new plan Obama wants, nothing will change for them, except perhaps lower premiums from the new competition that's coming from the public option."
Most observers now think the final bill won't have a public option.
If it did, that would mean, in a couple of years, our health system would collapse just like Barney Frank's interference caused the mortgage industry to collapse by pressuring it to take foolhardy risks.
The biggest problem is that Democrats are beholden to trial lawyers and so they won't tackle the real cause of exploding health costs, which is the Russian roulette malpractice system where juries make large award based on emotional factors rather than facts.
That leaves John Edwards rich and the rest of us victimized.
btw, who would nominate a sleazeball like that to be VP?
He's the kind of guy who would sleep around while his wife is doing chemo.
It's just like the way Democrats block alternatives to public school assignment because they are beholden to teacher unions.
Real people suffer because of the interest groups that the Democrats are beholden to.
The American people are waking up to this.
Party's over.
"For the rest of the country struggling without healthcare that works for them, new options are coming that will help them get good healthcare without relying on ERs."
Please.
Just like those people get good schools for their kids because the government guarantees it.
Right?
"Pre-existing conditions will be banned, being denied coverage when you face a catastrophic illness or leave your job will also be banned,"
Easy to make a law. What to do when the insurance companies go bankrupt because the government hasn't tackled the real cost problem?
"prescription drug prices will be negotiated downward, saving us all money in the end."
Negotiated by who? You mean the government will impose price controls? That will be the end of medical progress in pharmacology.
The brightest will go where they can be compensated for their efforts.
"Let the angry white mobs scream all they want,"
Interesting how you pull out the race card when you feel like you're losing.
The rest of us are striving for a colorblind society.
Get out of the way if you can't lend a hand.
The times they are-a changin'!
"it only proves they are sore losers who object to change and cling to the status quo like flotsam."
What a moron.
"We don't need a single GOP vote on the Hill to enact Obama's promised healthcare changes or any of the rest."
We'll see about that. Liberals are already incensed about the changes that have been forced by Republicans by sheer sensible suasion.
Democrats have numbers but they also have fear.
They know their history and that they need to worry about how what they support now will look in 2010.
And they take people like you for granted.
Strange world, huh?
"And maybe that vote will be even easier with GOP Senator Mel Martinez resigning before his term is up to spend time with his family."
And when they can't win by inflaming racial tensions, Democrats also will always be happy to insert a personal attack into their arguments.
Democrats are scared that their brief party is over.
They have reason to be.
It is.
Palin..2010..
boo!
"Remember, no self medicating this weekend!"
Actually, I don't remembering agreeing to anything like that but I'm glad you realize that a drink or two or good for your health.
Lot of good deals on Malbecs from Argentina if you want to keep your heart in shape.
Go for it.
"Obama has signed into law a second helping of one of the most successful and popular stimulus packages of all time, Cash for Clunkers. The program helps people buy cars,"
Why cars? Why shouldn't we be, say, giving poor people money to buy computers? Why not help them buy clothes and food? Appliances? Wine? Pay for them to go to the movies? Newspapers?
All that would have been very successful and popular too.
People love it when you give them money.
Of course, when they start to think about it and realize you took tax money from some people who needed something other than a car and gave it to people who needed a car, they might start to wonder how fair that is.
We'll remind them in 2010.
"manufacturers sell cars (Ford Motor Co. achieved its first year-over-year sales increase since November 2007),"
Ford was actually doing fine anyway. They were the only domestic auto manufacturer that didn't need help.
Unfortunately, only half of the money went for cars manufactured domestically. A even smaller percentage of the profit when to domestic companies.
Surely we could have found a way to have all our dollars help Americans rather than a small percentage.
"and even helps reduce damage to the environment."
Anon-B, the clunker program requires us to junk hundreds of thousands of vehicles. The fluids from those cars alone is an environmental disaster. Between that and the enrgy used to demolish them and the manufacture of their replacement new cars, et al, the net to the environment is negative.
Additionally, there are disadvantaged people in this country for whom a used car would be a godsend and lunkhead Obama is requiring that perfectly good vehicles be destroyed.
Reminds of me of how we used to buy up food and store it rather than give it to those who are starving.
I guess this is what we can expect from a party who would nominate a guy for VP (John Edwards) who got rich driving up the health care costs of his fellow citizens.
"...hundreds of vocal critics turned out, many of them saying they had been spurred on through the Tampa 912 activist group promoted by conservative radio and television personality Glenn Beck. Others had received e-mails from the Hillsborough Republican Party that urged people to speak out against the plan and offered talking points..."
So you find validation in the fact that protesters show up to protest the health care plan when the Republican party asks them too?
That's odd. Don't Democrats encourage people to attend those town hall meetings too.
I guess you also feel vindicated that Bill O'Reilly has the highest rated cable news show.
Sounds like Republicans have some fired-up followers!
Sounds like Democrats don't!
PALIN IN 2012!
BOO!
Well, look who spent their Friday night posting repeated rambling messages!
Palin..2010..
Boo!
Why are you booing her, or did you mean **Booze?**
Why cars? Why shouldn't we be, say, giving poor people money to buy computers?
*Poor* people, Anon? Do you think Cash for Clunkers is a program for *poor* people? Tell us Anon, what's the income limit to participate? Here, I'll even give you a link to the govermnent's website about Cash for Clunkers,www.cars.gov, so you won't make more stupid mistake about it.
Thanks for making it clear that all your words about voucher programs for "inner city kids" were empty; you really don't like the government spending money to help *poor* people.
The reasons Cash for Clunker is a quadruple play were already documented.
1. It gets gas guzzlers off the street for good
2. It gets people driving more fuel efficient cars
3. It lifts the long depressed auto industry sales
4. It employs Americans to build the majority of the cars and parts sold, even those from some Japanese and Korean based companies with factories right here in the USA.
PALIN IN 2012!
BOO!
Why do you keep booing her? Is it because she twittered that lie about Obama death panels yesterday?
I say bring her on!
"*Poor* people, Anon? Do you think Cash for Clunkers is a program for *poor* people?"
I think a program where the government buys things for people should be for poor people.
I think we should not favor the auto industry just because the government owns a car company.
I think it would have been better to give the more than 180K perfectly good autos being thrown into junkyards to people who could use them.
Now, we're going to go for 360K more?
If you can't bear disbursing them to poor people, how about giving them to charities that could use them for their work alleviating the suffering caused by Democrat policies?
Don't worry. Sarah Palin will be all over the country in 2010, reminding voters how the Obama administration paid over 3 billion dollars to destroy over half a million cars that could have been put to better use.
He could have given those cars to disadvantaged parents who could have used them to drive their kids to safe and decent schools with their vouchers but Democrats say, no, we have to worry about the teacher unions and trial lawyers and Japanese auto execs first.
I'd like to help you son but you're too poor to contribute!
Sarah
Palin
2012
and beyond!
BOO!
Oh that's choice.
Now tell us how you feel about Obama's plan to provide healthcare for the poor.
Congrats to Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotoymayor!
Si se puede!
"Obama's plan to provide healthcare for the poor"
Right now, it looks like the plan will be to make a law, similar to car insurance, that everyone has to buy health insurance even if they are poor and would rather spend their money on, say, housing in a part of town that's safer for their families.
If they don't, there will be huge fines and penalties.
Sounds like a great deal for poor people.
Meanwhile, Obama's stimulus paln continues to fail.
The unemployment rate went down in July because 422K people gave up looking for work.
Meantime, the number of long-term unemployed rose by 587K...
way over half a million...
in one month.
Anon-B thinks its great
"We won't rest rest until every American that is looking for work can find a job," Obama said in the Rose Garden Friday as Michelle packed for the family trip to Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon, where they will look at photos of their trip to Paris and London and start planning for their trip to Martha's Vineyard later this month.
How can the guy work under those conditions?
January 16, 2009
George W. Bush is today making his final visit to Camp David as president.
He will likely miss the place: According to CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller, today's trip marks Mr. Bush's 149th visit to the presidential retreat. The planned three-day stay, during which the president is being joined by family and former and current aides, will bring his total time spent at Camp David to all or part of 487 days.
Yes, that's 487 days. And Camp David is not even where the president has spent the most time when not at the White House: Knoller reports that Mr. Bush has made 77 visits to his ranch in Crawford during his presidency, and spent all or part of 490 days there.
487 + 490 = 977 days Bush went on vacation in eight years.
Oh, it's fine for the President to go on vacation
Bush didn't make a self-righteous statement, howvever, how about how he wouldn't rest until unemployment is abolished.
Of course, he didn't need to.
Unemployment was low for most of his presidency.
Until the Dems took over Congress in January 2007.
Coincidence?
Sarah Palin 2012!
aaaah
Boo!!
No coincidence at all. The reason so many Republicans were swept out of office was that job losses and the sub-prime mortgage bubble burst both began after 6 years of total GOP control of government.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I'm not sure what that was, but it looked like spam to me.
JimK
Post a Comment
<< Home