[ASAN] Tell Your Senator to Vote NO on Combating Autism Act

Post Reply New Topic

plus all the politicians from vermont are taking bong hits about now,if we called we would get the grateful dead music there office uses when they put you on hold

I have a candle fragrance called pot head and people wanted it in lotion so now it's a lotion. This fixation on the pot is well strange but in popular culture and including humor quite relevant. A symptom of a pot head is to see people smoking pot in places in their mind when they are not. This can reflect them being high in their minds while thinking of it and thus projecting it into others.

Are you smoking the pot?

no i dont smoke pot,i was just making fun of some of the politicians in vermont

The pot? You make it sound like a band.

And how great, you actually use supposition.

Anyways, enough of this verbal garbage.

Actually it has been true at times when others say others are smoking pot like so they are the ones actually smoking the pot. The individual smoking the pot imagines others are smoking pot when they do not. It is basic psychological projection. It is not a band or a music type. Popular culture at times uses pot as humor while other times or at the same time where applicable idolizes pot.

This legislation preserves the current situation, in which only 3% of autism research funding is going to improving services for individuals and families and less than 1% is going to adult needs:
http://iacc.hhs.gov/portfolio-analysis/ ... rch-funded

Giving us only 1%-3% of the autism research funding is very bad/negative/dangerous.

This line gives a hint as to what your real agenda is.

Your goal is to sabotage/stop funding for cure research into order to feed your "pride" ego.

I hope you fail.

Although I'm not overly familiar with the issue, it sounds like the idea is that they are not directly aiding those with autism. It's not that the research is bad, but that it is more important to help those who are already and still at a disadvantage, like through disability services, which are at risk of losing funding, while ASAN would go on unchanged, meaning it would offer no additional services to people with autism who need them. So, basically, the money would be better spent directly helping autistic people live with basic comforts than funding research right now, or the program should be changed so that the research and aid are more equal.

The original message did not sound anti-ASAN to me.

I can see the point. Research may be necessary, but it is not an immediate help, and for all the money it takes to fund it a lot of people who are in need at this moment could be helped. I'm not necessarily saying I agree (I am still very new to politics re: autism, and generally anything political isn't my favorite subject), but that's how I'm understanding it.

And what is your idea of a cure? Genetic Tampering, Abortions, etc.?

However I would like to see a link to the bill as it is written before I make my decision one way or the other, I tend to be rather cynical of nonprofits.

Thank you for the heads up on this KenG. Though I do not actively participate in much politics like this, I am on your side with this.

The "Combating Autism Act" has nothing has nothing to do with current social programs of medicaid or housing assistance and has no impact on them. It's part of the money that the government uses to fund research into health problems. What the advocacy organization is requesting, if I understand it correctly, is subsistence services for Autistic people; that's an issue that falls under the category of government funded social programs not research into health concerns.

The good news is that part of the research is to study the impact of living with autism in the adult community and to find the best ways to support their needs. The research is step one, additional subsistence support, if and when it comes, will be step two, provided by new social programs for Autistic people that at sometime in the future may or may not be passed, depending if there is enough political support for the issue. Let's hope there is for the sake of Autistic people that will need the support to live in the future.

The "Combating Autism Act" passed in 2006 under the Bush Administration is one of the few acts in congress to have received overwhelming bi-partisan support. The country is clearly behind it, if it is defeated this time, it would be because of budget concerns. My understanding is there is that there is a strong possibility the act will be passed, I don't see it as a reasonable approach to suggest congressmen should vote against the bill if we don't get a significant portion of the money for subsistence services, considering the Act is a health research act, not a social program to provide actual subsistence support for Autistic people at this time.

However, the goals in the act to research what support will be required in the future for Autistic people to live in the adult community are clearly not being met at this point. Also, in initial legislation the scientists were not allowed to make their own determinations on the direction of research into environmental areas. Now that research funded by Autism Speaks shows a likelyhood that environment may play a larger role than genetics, it's important that the flexibility for scientists to take the environmental route, is possible within the parameters of what the funding allows.

These are two goals we can back up with facts, that can be improved in the Act that may lead to the results we would like to see to make the lives of Autistic people better.

The information you presented on the Act does show valuable areas of research within the act that we should all be able to agree that help autistic people now. But, we can't expect the money to go to general subsistence services; it's not a subsistence services act. If it doesn't go to the study of research in autism, it is likely go to the study of another area of health concern that the government considers important or to reduce the deficit. The last place it is likely to go would be medicaid, and housing vouchers for the general public.

My opinion is that to suggest a no vote on the act, is counterproductive, in achieving the results we want to see in the Autistic Community. Stating reasonable realistic changes backed up by facts seems to be a more constructive way to reach the goals of change we would like to see.

While the money spent by the government into research may eventually lead to the reduction in debilitating symptoms of Autism, might seem better spent on services of those that have Autism today in social programs. The government and the general public sees the long term benefits of everyone involved if the research today leads to those reductions of debilitating symptoms that one day may allow many more Autistic people to reach their full potential in life.

Mouse studies, I think are nothing to be discarded as insignificant, they often are the starting place for the understanding of environmental impacts that harm human beings and eventually reduce the suffering for human beings. One day we may look back and see the starting point of autistic research done with mice, as what leads to the eventual reduction of the debilitating symptoms that some autistic people have.

Well that would mean the traditional Mental Wards or Mental Hosptials of the the early 1900s seem that were banned after Nixion was in office seems like budget cuts would want these places set back up again, make any person with Autism now at risk of being sent there if something like this happens.

Totally off subject and not even applicable.

I'm from England and every sector of our country has been hit by cuts including the disability services. It's not the fault of the government in power but the fault of the financial advisors that saw the recession coming a long time before it happened. It seems like a travesty for such needed services to be cut but it's a necessity. If America defaults on it's payments you will honestly be wishing you had all done what you can to lower the countries debt as fast as possible because if it does happen you are talking global reprocussions and an elongated period of financial uncertainty.

The senators would be crazy not to vote on cuts being made to any services no matter how it affects you all. It's a selfish act to stand in the way of progression. I'd much rather have the services at full capacity in 10 years than risk losing it altogether or not seeing the benefits of it at all due to cuts needing to be more drastic. It's about systematic theory with no empathetic views which we should all as asd suffers be massively aware of on a natural level.

We wouldn't be in the situation we are in if it were not for unecessary wars, and massive tax cut giveaways for future generations to pay for. It is time to cut spending but it is also time to tax at a sufficient rate to pay for what we intend to spend. Close to 50 percent of the country pays no federal income tax and the total average federal income tax generated is less than 10% per individual. Politicians do whatever it takes to remain in office, and that's normally all they do with little regard to the future of the country.

One side refuses to raise revenue and is willing to cut spending and social programs and one side is willing to cut spending and raise revenue, leaving social programs close to fully intact as they are. The country won't continue to stand as is, if the deficit is not reduced, but it also will not be able to continue to stand as is, if the required social programs and health programs for a developed country falter.

The sad thing is taxes are extremely low and they could be significantly raised, in a way that might inconvenience some, but wouldn't mean the end of their subsistence. Spending is also high, but it can be cut where needed, not where it impact the future health and basic subsistence of the disadvantaged and disabled citizens of the country

The country can easily afford it; England and some other countries can't. We have an easy solution but politics comes before country.

The saddest thing is the selfish political decision that put us in the situation we are in now.

We were moving in the right direction in the year 2000, and made the conscious decision to move in the opposite way, with little regard to the future. The attack on us in 2001 was used as justification for private agendas. Some might not share this opinion, but without the attack of 2001, we likely would not of invested trillions in an unecessary war; people always love a tax cut, regardless of the future impact to the country, no one will refuse one, and it's always great PR in a political effort to stay in power.

We still have time to correct the problem if we act now, but it's going to take cuts in spending and increases in tax rates along with some swallowing of pride. That's the only answer that will work in the long term, and if politicians and people in the country aren't willing to make that sacrifice, I agree, a great deal of the world will feel an effect from the decisions that are being made now.

You are quite right in what you say but wrong in the sense that Britain cannot afford it because we can. We are both in the same boat regarding the wars in the middle east and it costs our military about 1.4m per missile fired which doesn't seem to be a concern for some people. The only problem with America at the moment is the stubbornness surrounding taxes which you said. The current government is determined to not raise taxes as it was apart of their political agenda that gave them the public support.

America could very easily raise taxes without hitting the quality of life of the people and in turn cope with the deficit at a much more manageable level. It does seem to me to be stubbornness rather than systematic thinking to protect the future of the country but that is just my opinion on the matter which isn't relevant to Americas political woes.