In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Can anyone hook me up with a link so I can educate myself to understand the context of his tweeting?
I was going to post them myself after catching up on thread, but Nevuk beat me to it.
Just from the conservative Republican perspective since some of this is very intra-party. These days you do need to hear both sides.
Basically, Trump promised the wall, and the budget didn't include funding. Republicans have been big on defunding PP, and this budget fully funds it (freedom of conscience runs into problems when your tax dollars fund abortions for social conservatives). And for completeness, because everybody's gung-ho for repeal&replace, but it takes no steps to defund Obamacare.
So you have the two branches concerned with budgets, and some simple Republican priorities are ignored. So Trump goes out there and says September will be the "real" fight. Because his base is mad that Republicans got zilch, zero, nada with this budget. Maybe everybody's licking their wounds over AHCA and how badly that was designed and executed and they want time, or maybe this is another stalling tactic from a craven RINO core that won't fight for any legislative priorities whatsoever. We have been hearing for a long time how the NEXT budget, or NEXT debt ceiling vote, or ONCE we have the Senate, and filibuster proof majority, representatives will get some of this done.
Anytime you don't have votes for the fund-the-government bill, you risk shutdown (something around 30% shuts down iirc, rest is immune). Trump's saying in September he'll be willing to press for his administrations desires (a Trump supporter might add, press for what he was put into office to do) and right now sorry for the bad plan guys, we don't have the votes.
On May 02 2017 13:13 Reaper9 wrote: Capitalism is fine, but like any excess, it has to be tamped down. Communism is awful, but there are social programs that can work, that is not communism, but is called socialism in the states. (Helping out the lowest income would be following the teachings of Jesus, yes?) Given a lot of these old farts just want to grab as much money as they can, and they can't even use it all (hoarding), its small wonder when they want to deregulate everything, and then when everything collapses they just make a run for it.
And then the peasants get riled up and start killing each other while the rich are lounging somewhere else. Again, capitalism is nice, but not when people just go all in and hoard more money than they can count. While it is a survival mechanism to hoard resources for times of scarcity, tough shit making it work when it makes everyone else in the species miserable.
And again, I'm saying that capitalism is most likely the model we should follow for now, but there comes a time where we have to address the terrible income inequality.
Good luck getting Christians on board with socialist economic party. We just had that discussion in the UK thread, the whole free-membership Christian commune under Roman rule vs nonexistant/unBiblical Roman forcible taxation and universal social programs. But I think we're all familiar enough with the arguments for and against the welfare state on top of the semi-capitalist markets. We're probably also familiar enough with the reverse of what you said (capitalism and the invisible hand is the best mechanism, in the purely economic sense, against "peasants getting riled up and killing each other") to not bring that again to the fore.
On May 03 2017 00:57 KwarK wrote: Zero tax dollars fund abortion as you well know Danglars.
Tell me why Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider doing in excess of 320,000 abortions per year needs taxpayer money. You have enough of an economic understanding to know the fungibility argument. If it was spent on new community health centers and other organizations providing women's health services instead of Big Abortion, the situation would be improved. You don't indirectly support abortions, today you do. But if this was Exxon Mobil or mining enterprises (the more recognizably mixed-motive organizations) and the money could ONLY go for housing of displaced persons, people might better see the issue for people of conscience. But they're the only ones that can do it!! Yeah, right.
On May 03 2017 00:57 KwarK wrote: Zero tax dollars fund abortion as you well know Danglars.
If PP gets $1000 for computers, doesn't that make it easier for them to fund abortions?
They'll provide the abortions regardless.
I guess that's a fair point. In the absence of federal funding, number of abortions would remain steady.
They might well raise the same amount of money from abortion groups, pro-choice groups, and their own drives. The difference being those people know the primary service PP provides and aren't compelled to help out. "Hey they're still going to kill the same amount of babies" isn't very compelling for someone helping keep them solvent. Even consider how much flak was recently in the news on legislation forcing doctors to inform expectant mothers of their right to see a sonogram ... a reasonable person would conclude PP is biased towards one of the two choices in pro-choice arguments based on abortion law and income stream. Better off in community health centers/women's health clinics.
On May 03 2017 00:57 KwarK wrote: Zero tax dollars fund abortion as you well know Danglars.
Tell me why Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider doing in excess of 320,000 abortions per year needs taxpayer money. You have enough of an economic understanding to know the fungibility argument. If it was spent on new community health centers and other organizations providing women's health services instead of Big Abortion, the situation would be improved. You don't indirectly support abortions, today you do. But if this was Exxon Mobil or mining enterprises (the more recognizably mixed-motive organizations) and the money could ONLY go for housing of displaced persons, people might better see the issue for people of conscience. But they're the only ones that can do it!! Yeah, right.
I'm not only well aware of the fungibility argument, I made it earlier in this very topic to explain why the whole concept of allocating specific dollars is kinda nonsense. But the same could be said of anything. Taxpayer funded roads facilitate abortions. At the end of the day you can't provide women's health without reducing the barrier costs for abortions, even if you're not specifically funding the abortions, because abortions are a women's health issue.
The point remains that the budget in question assigns $0 for abortion services, it just also doesn't completely defund women's health. You're inaccurately describing the failure to defund women's health as Federal tax dollars going to abortion, despite the fact that the budget specifies that they can not and will not be spent on that. If you're mad about Planned Parenthood not being completely defunded then say that. Don't say things which are not only untrue but are also the exact opposite of the content of what you're describing.
House Tax Plan includes support for Universal Savings Accounts, already present in the UK and Canada.
For individuals, the House plan suggests creating Universal Savings Accounts (USAs), based on legislation introduced by Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA). The accounts would simplify and reduce taxes on personal savings, thus encouraging individuals to save more and build greater financial security. Both the United Kingdom and Canada have created USA-style accounts. The accounts are popular, and a large share of people in every age and income group use them. This bulletin discusses the taxation of savings, the British and Canadian reforms, and the opportunity to simplify the tax code and increase savings with USAs.
PP has numerous clinics in the poorest communities in America, where there are zero alternatives and no plans on creating alternatives. You can defund them and close them down. Mike Pence did it when he was governor and it was a disaster. Without access to healthcare, the state suffered an HIV outbreak centered around the poorest communities that only received services to PP. And now the state is paying out the nose to deal with it.
The invisible hand isn’t going to create health care clinics in the poorest communities in America. The poorest states in the US can’t do it. So it’s a federal system or nothing. And nothing means there is no medical support to deal with the rising heroin crisis in the US.
On May 03 2017 00:57 KwarK wrote: Zero tax dollars fund abortion as you well know Danglars.
Tell me why Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider doing in excess of 320,000 abortions per year needs taxpayer money. You have enough of an economic understanding to know the fungibility argument. If it was spent on new community health centers and other organizations providing women's health services instead of Big Abortion, the situation would be improved. You don't indirectly support abortions, today you do. But if this was Exxon Mobil or mining enterprises (the more recognizably mixed-motive organizations) and the money could ONLY go for housing of displaced persons, people might better see the issue for people of conscience. But they're the only ones that can do it!! Yeah, right.
On May 03 2017 00:57 KwarK wrote: Zero tax dollars fund abortion as you well know Danglars.
If PP gets $1000 for computers, doesn't that make it easier for them to fund abortions?
They'll provide the abortions regardless.
I guess that's a fair point. In the absence of federal funding, number of abortions would remain steady.
They might well raise the same amount of money from abortion groups, pro-choice groups, and their own drives. The difference being those people know the primary service PP provides and aren't compelled to help out. "Hey they're still going to kill the same amount of babies" isn't very compelling for someone helping keep them solvent. Even consider how much flak was recently in the news on legislation forcing doctors to inform expectant mothers of their right to see a sonogram ... a reasonable person would conclude PP is biased towards one of the two choices in pro-choice arguments based on abortion law and income stream. Better off in community health centers/women's health clinics.
The vast majority of taxpayer money paid to PP is for Medicaid reimbursements. If that funding is cut they would keep providing abortions, and just stop performing reimbursable procedures for Medicaid recipients.
Edit: and A LOT of those Medicaid payments go to family planning and contraceptives. I wonder what will happen to the abortion rate if those suddenly go away?
On May 03 2017 01:29 LegalLord wrote: Speaking of Mike Pence, has he been doing anything interesting lately? He's been notably invisible for a few weeks now.
I thought he was the one charged with getting the votes for trumpcare2.0?
On May 03 2017 01:29 LegalLord wrote: Speaking of Mike Pence, has he been doing anything interesting lately? He's been notably invisible for a few weeks now.
I thought he was the one charged with getting the votes for trumpcare2.0?
After the Bannon disaster, Pence is the point man for whipping votes.
On May 03 2017 00:57 KwarK wrote: Zero tax dollars fund abortion as you well know Danglars.
Tell me why Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider doing in excess of 320,000 abortions per year needs taxpayer money. You have enough of an economic understanding to know the fungibility argument. If it was spent on new community health centers and other organizations providing women's health services instead of Big Abortion, the situation would be improved. You don't indirectly support abortions, today you do. But if this was Exxon Mobil or mining enterprises (the more recognizably mixed-motive organizations) and the money could ONLY go for housing of displaced persons, people might better see the issue for people of conscience. But they're the only ones that can do it!! Yeah, right.
I'm not only well aware of the fungibility argument, I made it earlier in this very topic to explain why the whole concept of allocating specific dollars is kinda nonsense. But the same could be said of anything. Taxpayer funded roads facilitate abortions. At the end of the day you can't provide women's health without reducing the barrier costs for abortions, even if you're not specifically funding the abortions, because abortions are a women's health issue.
The point remains that the budget in question assigns $0 for abortion services, it just also doesn't completely defund women's health. You're inaccurately describing the failure to defund women's health as Federal tax dollars going to abortion, despite the fact that the budget specifies that they can not and will not be spent on that. If you're mad about Planned Parenthood not being completely defunded then say that. Don't say things which are not only untrue but are also the exact opposite of the content of what you're describing.
Somewhere around 40% of the nation considers it a very unique topic separate from broad women's health. The money's better spent on clinics that offer everything else, not the nation's largest abortion provider with a big lobbyist presence in Congress. It is better in keeping with freedom of conscience for Americans on the issue. The party platform of the party recently voted into power in both elected branches specifically calls for an end of taxpayer funding for abortions and groups that offer abortions.
I'll add that if states want to fund planned parenthood by name or abortion clinics in general, vote on it and get it done if you have majority support. Just don't neglect the huge division across the country that affects the federal level.
For individuals, the House plan suggests creating Universal Savings Accounts (USAs), based on legislation introduced by Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA). The accounts would simplify and reduce taxes on personal savings, thus encouraging individuals to save more and build greater financial security. Both the United Kingdom and Canada have created USA-style accounts. The accounts are popular, and a large share of people in every age and income group use them. This bulletin discusses the taxation of savings, the British and Canadian reforms, and the opportunity to simplify the tax code and increase savings with USAs.
Just looking at the chart on page 1, your version sucks ass. Also kind of laughing my ass off that they'd call it a "Universal Savings Account" just to get a USA acronym, even though it's anything but Universal.
On May 03 2017 00:57 KwarK wrote: Zero tax dollars fund abortion as you well know Danglars.
Tell me why Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider doing in excess of 320,000 abortions per year needs taxpayer money. You have enough of an economic understanding to know the fungibility argument. If it was spent on new community health centers and other organizations providing women's health services instead of Big Abortion, the situation would be improved. You don't indirectly support abortions, today you do. But if this was Exxon Mobil or mining enterprises (the more recognizably mixed-motive organizations) and the money could ONLY go for housing of displaced persons, people might better see the issue for people of conscience. But they're the only ones that can do it!! Yeah, right.
I'm not only well aware of the fungibility argument, I made it earlier in this very topic to explain why the whole concept of allocating specific dollars is kinda nonsense. But the same could be said of anything. Taxpayer funded roads facilitate abortions. At the end of the day you can't provide women's health without reducing the barrier costs for abortions, even if you're not specifically funding the abortions, because abortions are a women's health issue.
The point remains that the budget in question assigns $0 for abortion services, it just also doesn't completely defund women's health. You're inaccurately describing the failure to defund women's health as Federal tax dollars going to abortion, despite the fact that the budget specifies that they can not and will not be spent on that. If you're mad about Planned Parenthood not being completely defunded then say that. Don't say things which are not only untrue but are also the exact opposite of the content of what you're describing.
Somewhere around 40% of the nation considers it a very unique topic separate from broad women's health. The money's better spent on clinics that offer everything else, not the nation's largest abortion provider with a big lobbyist presence in Congress. It is better in keeping with freedom of conscience for Americans on the issue. The party platform of the party recently voted into power in both elected branches specifically calls for an end of taxpayer funding for abortions and groups that offer abortions.
I'll add that if states want to fund planned parenthood by name or abortion clinics in general, vote on it and get it done if you have majority support. Just don't neglect the huge division across the country that affects the federal level.
Wait, so if you don't consider separation of funding a legitimate argument, does that mean government funding of hospitals is also illegal?
On May 03 2017 00:57 KwarK wrote: Zero tax dollars fund abortion as you well know Danglars.
Tell me why Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider doing in excess of 320,000 abortions per year needs taxpayer money. You have enough of an economic understanding to know the fungibility argument. If it was spent on new community health centers and other organizations providing women's health services instead of Big Abortion, the situation would be improved. You don't indirectly support abortions, today you do. But if this was Exxon Mobil or mining enterprises (the more recognizably mixed-motive organizations) and the money could ONLY go for housing of displaced persons, people might better see the issue for people of conscience. But they're the only ones that can do it!! Yeah, right.
I'm not only well aware of the fungibility argument, I made it earlier in this very topic to explain why the whole concept of allocating specific dollars is kinda nonsense. But the same could be said of anything. Taxpayer funded roads facilitate abortions. At the end of the day you can't provide women's health without reducing the barrier costs for abortions, even if you're not specifically funding the abortions, because abortions are a women's health issue.
The point remains that the budget in question assigns $0 for abortion services, it just also doesn't completely defund women's health. You're inaccurately describing the failure to defund women's health as Federal tax dollars going to abortion, despite the fact that the budget specifies that they can not and will not be spent on that. If you're mad about Planned Parenthood not being completely defunded then say that. Don't say things which are not only untrue but are also the exact opposite of the content of what you're describing.
Somewhere around 40% of the nation considers it a very unique topic separate from broad women's health. The money's better spent on clinics that offer everything else, not the nation's largest abortion provider with a big lobbyist presence in Congress. It is better in keeping with freedom of conscience for Americans on the issue. The party platform of the party recently voted into power in both elected branches specifically calls for an end of taxpayer funding for abortions and groups that offer abortions.
I'll add that if states want to fund planned parenthood by name or abortion clinics in general, vote on it and get it done if you have majority support. Just don't neglect the huge division across the country that affects the federal level.
But what if that was framed as "Defund the largest and only health care provider for may of the poorest communities in America and replace them with nothing"? Because that is the current plan.
On May 03 2017 00:57 KwarK wrote: Zero tax dollars fund abortion as you well know Danglars.
Tell me why Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider doing in excess of 320,000 abortions per year needs taxpayer money. You have enough of an economic understanding to know the fungibility argument. If it was spent on new community health centers and other organizations providing women's health services instead of Big Abortion, the situation would be improved. You don't indirectly support abortions, today you do. But if this was Exxon Mobil or mining enterprises (the more recognizably mixed-motive organizations) and the money could ONLY go for housing of displaced persons, people might better see the issue for people of conscience. But they're the only ones that can do it!! Yeah, right.
On May 03 2017 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:
On May 03 2017 01:04 Gahlo wrote:
On May 03 2017 01:00 Mohdoo wrote:
On May 03 2017 00:57 KwarK wrote: Zero tax dollars fund abortion as you well know Danglars.
If PP gets $1000 for computers, doesn't that make it easier for them to fund abortions?
They'll provide the abortions regardless.
I guess that's a fair point. In the absence of federal funding, number of abortions would remain steady.
They might well raise the same amount of money from abortion groups, pro-choice groups, and their own drives. The difference being those people know the primary service PP provides and aren't compelled to help out. "Hey they're still going to kill the same amount of babies" isn't very compelling for someone helping keep them solvent. Even consider how much flak was recently in the news on legislation forcing doctors to inform expectant mothers of their right to see a sonogram ... a reasonable person would conclude PP is biased towards one of the two choices in pro-choice arguments based on abortion law and income stream. Better off in community health centers/women's health clinics.
The vast majority of taxpayer money paid to PP is for Medicaid reimbursements. If that funding is cut they would keep providing abortions, and just stop performing reimbursable procedures for Medicaid recipients.
Edit: and A LOT of those Medicaid payments go to family planning and contraceptives. I wonder what will happen to the abortion rate if those suddenly go away?
The argument isn't to do away with all money to the very accepted portions of family planning and women's health. If you were honest about the issue of availability, we work together to sunset funding for one divisive organization and coordinate the implementation for others. I suspect very little cooperation, because it's always been about abortions and not women's health. But prove me wrong, we may get the chance in September.
On May 03 2017 01:29 LegalLord wrote: Speaking of Mike Pence, has he been doing anything interesting lately? He's been notably invisible for a few weeks now.
He's probably been dealing with Capitol Hill politicians behind the scenes. But if this budget deal is the best that he can do, good god.
The house GOP is making one catastrophic error after another. They have everything that they need to push an agenda, yet they have succumbed to the worst kind of political cowardice. The question being asked on the right today is "why would anyone vote republican anymore?" This is precisely the kind of shit that got Trump nominated over the rest of the GOP field in the first place.
I'm ready for Trump to take the gloves off and take it to the GOP. It's understandable why he's been playing nice so far, but I think that the time for political nicety is about to end.
On May 03 2017 01:26 Danglars wrote: House Tax Plan includes support for Universal Savings Accounts, already present in the UK and Canada.
For individuals, the House plan suggests creating Universal Savings Accounts (USAs), based on legislation introduced by Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA). The accounts would simplify and reduce taxes on personal savings, thus encouraging individuals to save more and build greater financial security. Both the United Kingdom and Canada have created USA-style accounts. The accounts are popular, and a large share of people in every age and income group use them. This bulletin discusses the taxation of savings, the British and Canadian reforms, and the opportunity to simplify the tax code and increase savings with USAs.
Just looking at the chart on page 1, your version sucks ass. Also kind of laughing my ass off that they'd call it a "Universal Savings Account" just to get a USA acronym, even though it's anything but Universal.
Any comment besides "sucks ass?" I want to know if your argument sucks ass.
EPT
