|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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. |
On May 03 2017 01:15 Danglars wrote:
-snip-
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.
Pro choice people don't need to lobby for people having kids because a) the anti-abortion crowd does that already and b) nobody is running on the platform that all potential children should be aborted. That's as silly as calling an HVAC system "just a heater" when it's winter.
|
The Republicans ran on an issue that they knew the Democrats would never budget on and now they are going to act all shocked when a shut down looms over Planned Parenthood. I would be shocked by this, but this has been their platform for so long. Run on issues that we know the other side will die fighting for and blame them when they do as they promised.
|
On May 03 2017 01:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I gather he's writing an addendum to Art of the Deal that includes giving the other side everything they want as the opening round in sequential negotiations. If Trump doesn't get on top of this in a year or so, and bring on the right advisors for working with and against Congress, this is a catastrophe. The way I see it, some of these legislators are writing their own exit ticket and Trump needs only to punch it, rather than losing seats across the board in a smorgasbord of failed policy.
|
On May 03 2017 01:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 01:33 Mercy13 wrote:On May 03 2017 01:15 Danglars wrote: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.
Why should we send the money elsewhere just because it's divisive? PP does a very good job of serving low income communities, and I care far more about that than about how divisive they are. Do you think it would really be worth it to go through all the trouble and expense of building brand new medical clinics to replace PP, which in many cases would not be as effective as PP in serving their communities, all while not decreasing abortion rates?
There's all kinds of divisive shit the federal government does, should all of that be de-funded too?
|
On May 03 2017 01:46 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 01:15 Danglars wrote:
-snip-
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. Pro choice people don't need to lobby for people having kids because a) the anti-abortion crowd does that already and b) nobody is running on the platform that all potential children should be aborted. That's as silly as calling an HVAC system "just a heater" when it's winter. And its connection to the snipped arguments and relation to freedom of conscience and women's health would be? You make an excellent argument for soliciting private donations from pro-choice people and in states where the populace regards this as just another part of family planning.
|
On May 03 2017 01:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Because the Republicans are not one party. They are merely the illusion of one. And the 2 sides are to far apart in what they stand for to work together on issues like healthcare.
As for Trump taking the gloves off, and then what? What is he going to do that can convince the 'traitors'? Nothing. All he can do is primary them. And maybe he even manages to do that. And maybe he managed to get his stuff through then.
And what happens after?
A snap back so hard the country gets send spinning. Because surely it wasn't my healthcare getting cut. Surely my premiums weren't going up to skyrocket, Surely my government support wasn't going to get cut. It was going to be someone else but never me. And where is my new job I was promised? Oh wait, it never existed...
The Republican party is an opposition party. Their good at kicking at the foundations and complaining how bad things are and how much better they could do and the miracles they would work.
And the moment they get into power they are all left standing with their pants down because they have promised the impossible and now they have to make it reality.
Now that its on them they are shown for the populist idiots they are.
|
On May 03 2017 01:45 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 01:39 WolfintheSheep wrote: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. Cato 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.
Nevermind, I thought the chart on page 1 was the proposed USA plan. It's just your retirement investment plan or something.
|
On May 03 2017 01:53 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 01:43 Danglars wrote:On May 03 2017 01:33 Mercy13 wrote:On May 03 2017 01:15 Danglars wrote: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. Why should we send the money elsewhere just because it's divisive? PP does a very good job of serving low income communities, and I care far more about that than about how divisive they are. Do you think it would really be worth it to go through all the trouble and expense of building brand new medical clinics to replace PP, which in many cases would not be as effective as PP in serving their communities, all while not decreasing abortion rates? There's all kinds of divisive shit the federal government does, should all of that be de-funded too?
If you believe in freedom of conscience and the rights of people of the pro-life persuasion, it's worth it. Some rights actually end up being quite costly, particularly when a current of ignorance and regression has held sway for so many years. There would be very little cost if better thinking had prevailed decades ago, but returning to the right arrangement now necessitates more. I totally reject your assertion that PP is uniquely qualified to serve certain communities such that new clinics are doomed to fail because they're named differently. Do they have some kind of monopoly on good doctors, administrators, community outreach programs, and the like? Come on now, this all is sounding like I'm talking about comparisons of different banking establishments with the CEO of Goldman Sachs. I have limited time with this thread and some conversations just can't be resolved on the different bases of the conversant.
|
On May 03 2017 01:04 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +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.
hey i missed that conversation in the UK thread but im glad you brought it to my attention.
so when does Rome become Rome? if a church dominated a town would it stand in for Rome or would it's divine connection preserve the spirit of early christian communities in late antiquity? or is it about exercising the sublunary powers of civil law-making?
it seems to me like this "free association of men" (of course men) argument you've got here depends on a shadowy underbelly of christian obligations. and i mean that in the most mandatory sense possible. a christian "sharia" if you will.
|
On May 03 2017 02:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 01:45 Danglars wrote:On May 03 2017 01:39 WolfintheSheep wrote: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. Cato 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. Nevermind, I thought the chart on page 1 was the proposed USA plan. It's just your retirement investment plan or something.
There's also a 401k plan which caps at 18k in addition to the Roth/ traditional IRA of 5.5k.
Also, only the earnings in a Roth IRA are subject to the penalty (ie a regular old tax). The contributions you can pull out whenever because it's a post-tax contribution.
|
On May 03 2017 02:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 01:53 Mercy13 wrote:On May 03 2017 01:43 Danglars wrote:On May 03 2017 01:33 Mercy13 wrote:On May 03 2017 01:15 Danglars wrote: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. Why should we send the money elsewhere just because it's divisive? PP does a very good job of serving low income communities, and I care far more about that than about how divisive they are. Do you think it would really be worth it to go through all the trouble and expense of building brand new medical clinics to replace PP, which in many cases would not be as effective as PP in serving their communities, all while not decreasing abortion rates? There's all kinds of divisive shit the federal government does, should all of that be de-funded too? If you believe in freedom of conscience and the rights of people of the pro-life persuasion, it's worth it. Some rights actually end up being quite costly, particularly when a current of ignorance and regression has held sway for so many years. There would be very little cost if better thinking had prevailed decades ago, but returning to the right arrangement now necessitates more. I totally reject your assertion that PP is uniquely qualified to serve certain communities such that new clinics are doomed to fail because they're named differently. Do they have some kind of monopoly on good doctors, administrators, community outreach programs, and the like? Come on now, this all is sounding like I'm talking about comparisons of different banking establishments with the CEO of Goldman Sachs. I have limited time with this thread and some conversations just can't be resolved on the different bases of the conversant.
Nothing is stopping new clinics from opening in areas already served by Planned Parenthood. Maybe there's even a demand for "pro-life" medical providers, and they would have the added advantage of not constantly being punching bags for politicians trying to score easy points with evangelicals. It is entirely possible that such clinics would be competitive with PP, and they would be able to draw some of those Medicaid reimbursements away.It's not like the federal government has a line item in the budget for "Planned Parenthood Medicaid payments." It just reimburses clinics which provide certain Medicaid services, and in many cases those clinics happen to be PP.
Anyway, if what you mean by "freedom of conscience" is that a minority should be able to dictate where tax dollars are spent without regard to practical outcomes then no, I do not believe in freedom of conscience.
|
United States44204 Posts
On May 03 2017 02:20 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 02:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 03 2017 01:45 Danglars wrote:On May 03 2017 01:39 WolfintheSheep wrote: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. Cato 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. Nevermind, I thought the chart on page 1 was the proposed USA plan. It's just your retirement investment plan or something. There's also a 401k plan which caps at 18k in addition to the Roth/ traditional IRA of 5.5k. Also, only the earnings in a Roth IRA are subject to the penalty (ie a regular old tax). The contributions you can pull out whenever because it's a post-tax contribution.
Earnings in a Roth IRA are also post tax. That's the purpose of the Roth.
|
On May 03 2017 02:33 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 02:10 Danglars wrote:On May 03 2017 01:53 Mercy13 wrote:On May 03 2017 01:43 Danglars wrote:On May 03 2017 01:33 Mercy13 wrote:On May 03 2017 01:15 Danglars wrote: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. Why should we send the money elsewhere just because it's divisive? PP does a very good job of serving low income communities, and I care far more about that than about how divisive they are. Do you think it would really be worth it to go through all the trouble and expense of building brand new medical clinics to replace PP, which in many cases would not be as effective as PP in serving their communities, all while not decreasing abortion rates? There's all kinds of divisive shit the federal government does, should all of that be de-funded too? If you believe in freedom of conscience and the rights of people of the pro-life persuasion, it's worth it. Some rights actually end up being quite costly, particularly when a current of ignorance and regression has held sway for so many years. There would be very little cost if better thinking had prevailed decades ago, but returning to the right arrangement now necessitates more. I totally reject your assertion that PP is uniquely qualified to serve certain communities such that new clinics are doomed to fail because they're named differently. Do they have some kind of monopoly on good doctors, administrators, community outreach programs, and the like? Come on now, this all is sounding like I'm talking about comparisons of different banking establishments with the CEO of Goldman Sachs. I have limited time with this thread and some conversations just can't be resolved on the different bases of the conversant. Nothing is stopping new clinics from opening in areas already served by Planned Parenthood. Maybe there's even a demand for "pro-life" medical providers, and they would have the added advantage of not constantly being punching bags for politicians trying to score easy points with evangelicals. It is entirely possible that such clinics would be competitive with PP, and they would be able to draw some of those Medicaid reimbursements away.It's not like the federal government has a line item in the budget for "Planned Parenthood Medicaid payments." It just reimburses clinics which provide certain Medicaid services, and in many cases those clinics happen to be PP. Anyway, if what you mean by "freedom of conscience" is that a minority should be able to dictate where tax dollars are spent without regard to practical outcomes then no, I do not believe in freedom of conscience.
Aren't abortion rates at their lowest point in 40 some odd years anyway? Can't this at least in part be attributed to PP providing quality, affordable birth control and health services? The argument for defunding reeks of fluffy ideology more so than practicality. They could inadvertently end up increasing abortion rates if they follow through.
|
Lol holy shit hrc straight trying to delegitimize trump.
|
On May 03 2017 00:38 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2017 23:37 Artisreal wrote:On May 02 2017 22:51 Nevuk wrote:
Can anyone hook me up with a link so I can educate myself to understand the context of his tweeting? The Senate has a rule (or rather, a tradition) where you can basically talk/stall a bill to death called filibustering, where dissenters can literally go up and talk a bill to death. In order to stop this, the Senate needs to invoke cloture (an end of debate) which requires 60 votes. This gives the minority party a more outsized level of power as long as they stay over 40 Senators, and forces the majority party to compromise resulting in more centrist legislation. There are various ways to avoid a filibuster, like how the AHCA was being passed via budget reconciliation (which also has certain limitations). On the other hand, the filibuster is a rule of the Senate, meaning it's effectively a tradition vs. a statute/ Constitutional article/ amendment. A simple majority of 51 Senators could change the rules and kill the filibuster. However, this has not been done because the balance of power swings back and forth, and the majority party of today knows that even if they killed the filibuster to pass some stuff now, in the future they'd likely end up as the minority party and be irrevocably fucked. If anyone knows more about parliamentary procedure, please chime in.
the real problem being in the 70's or 80's, I forget which, when they chagned the rules for the filibuster.
Before that, you ddi in fact have to stand up and keep talking to stall a bill. You might have to stand there for 12-24 hours, no bathroom breaks, no sitting, keep talking. Then they changed it so you only had to declare a filibuster, you didn't have to actually do the hard work of showing oyu meant it. For awhile courtesy kept it from being abused, but over time that ended and people started overusing it; and its use kept growing more and more prominent.
in the Senate, there is/was no requirement for a filibuster to be on-topic, so you could do stupid stuff like read the phone book. personally I disliked that, as it seemed like a waste of time. I prefer requiring people to speak on topic. but that's largely an aside.
|
On May 03 2017 02:47 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 02:33 Mercy13 wrote:On May 03 2017 02:10 Danglars wrote:On May 03 2017 01:53 Mercy13 wrote:On May 03 2017 01:43 Danglars wrote:On May 03 2017 01:33 Mercy13 wrote:On May 03 2017 01:15 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Why should we send the money elsewhere just because it's divisive? PP does a very good job of serving low income communities, and I care far more about that than about how divisive they are. Do you think it would really be worth it to go through all the trouble and expense of building brand new medical clinics to replace PP, which in many cases would not be as effective as PP in serving their communities, all while not decreasing abortion rates? There's all kinds of divisive shit the federal government does, should all of that be de-funded too? If you believe in freedom of conscience and the rights of people of the pro-life persuasion, it's worth it. Some rights actually end up being quite costly, particularly when a current of ignorance and regression has held sway for so many years. There would be very little cost if better thinking had prevailed decades ago, but returning to the right arrangement now necessitates more. I totally reject your assertion that PP is uniquely qualified to serve certain communities such that new clinics are doomed to fail because they're named differently. Do they have some kind of monopoly on good doctors, administrators, community outreach programs, and the like? Come on now, this all is sounding like I'm talking about comparisons of different banking establishments with the CEO of Goldman Sachs. I have limited time with this thread and some conversations just can't be resolved on the different bases of the conversant. Nothing is stopping new clinics from opening in areas already served by Planned Parenthood. Maybe there's even a demand for "pro-life" medical providers, and they would have the added advantage of not constantly being punching bags for politicians trying to score easy points with evangelicals. It is entirely possible that such clinics would be competitive with PP, and they would be able to draw some of those Medicaid reimbursements away.It's not like the federal government has a line item in the budget for "Planned Parenthood Medicaid payments." It just reimburses clinics which provide certain Medicaid services, and in many cases those clinics happen to be PP. Anyway, if what you mean by "freedom of conscience" is that a minority should be able to dictate where tax dollars are spent without regard to practical outcomes then no, I do not believe in freedom of conscience. Aren't abortion rates at their lowest point in 40 some odd years anyway? Can't this at least in part be attributed to PP providing quality, affordable birth control and health services? The argument for defunding reeks of fluffy ideology more so than practicality. They could inadvertently end up increasing abortion rates if they follow through.
my googling is showing you are correct; abortion rates are at their lowest point in 40 years.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/17/509734620/u-s-abortion-rate-falls-to-lowest-level-since-roe-v-wade
|
On May 03 2017 02:47 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 02:33 Mercy13 wrote:On May 03 2017 02:10 Danglars wrote:On May 03 2017 01:53 Mercy13 wrote:On May 03 2017 01:43 Danglars wrote:On May 03 2017 01:33 Mercy13 wrote:On May 03 2017 01:15 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Why should we send the money elsewhere just because it's divisive? PP does a very good job of serving low income communities, and I care far more about that than about how divisive they are. Do you think it would really be worth it to go through all the trouble and expense of building brand new medical clinics to replace PP, which in many cases would not be as effective as PP in serving their communities, all while not decreasing abortion rates? There's all kinds of divisive shit the federal government does, should all of that be de-funded too? If you believe in freedom of conscience and the rights of people of the pro-life persuasion, it's worth it. Some rights actually end up being quite costly, particularly when a current of ignorance and regression has held sway for so many years. There would be very little cost if better thinking had prevailed decades ago, but returning to the right arrangement now necessitates more. I totally reject your assertion that PP is uniquely qualified to serve certain communities such that new clinics are doomed to fail because they're named differently. Do they have some kind of monopoly on good doctors, administrators, community outreach programs, and the like? Come on now, this all is sounding like I'm talking about comparisons of different banking establishments with the CEO of Goldman Sachs. I have limited time with this thread and some conversations just can't be resolved on the different bases of the conversant. Nothing is stopping new clinics from opening in areas already served by Planned Parenthood. Maybe there's even a demand for "pro-life" medical providers, and they would have the added advantage of not constantly being punching bags for politicians trying to score easy points with evangelicals. It is entirely possible that such clinics would be competitive with PP, and they would be able to draw some of those Medicaid reimbursements away.It's not like the federal government has a line item in the budget for "Planned Parenthood Medicaid payments." It just reimburses clinics which provide certain Medicaid services, and in many cases those clinics happen to be PP. Anyway, if what you mean by "freedom of conscience" is that a minority should be able to dictate where tax dollars are spent without regard to practical outcomes then no, I do not believe in freedom of conscience. Aren't abortion rates at their lowest point in 40 some odd years anyway? Can't this at least in part be attributed to PP providing quality, affordable birth control and health services? The argument for defunding reeks of fluffy ideology more so than practicality. They could inadvertently end up increasing abortion rates if they follow through.
Danglars doesn't seem to care about abortion rates. He cares more about peoples' tax dollars going to an organization that they find morally objectionable (correct me if I'm wrong Danglars).
So arguing about abortion rates isn't going to change his mind.
|
On May 03 2017 02:49 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 00:38 ticklishmusic wrote:On May 02 2017 23:37 Artisreal wrote:Can anyone hook me up with a link so I can educate myself to understand the context of his tweeting? The Senate has a rule (or rather, a tradition) where you can basically talk/stall a bill to death called filibustering, where dissenters can literally go up and talk a bill to death. In order to stop this, the Senate needs to invoke cloture (an end of debate) which requires 60 votes. This gives the minority party a more outsized level of power as long as they stay over 40 Senators, and forces the majority party to compromise resulting in more centrist legislation. There are various ways to avoid a filibuster, like how the AHCA was being passed via budget reconciliation (which also has certain limitations). On the other hand, the filibuster is a rule of the Senate, meaning it's effectively a tradition vs. a statute/ Constitutional article/ amendment. A simple majority of 51 Senators could change the rules and kill the filibuster. However, this has not been done because the balance of power swings back and forth, and the majority party of today knows that even if they killed the filibuster to pass some stuff now, in the future they'd likely end up as the minority party and be irrevocably fucked. If anyone knows more about parliamentary procedure, please chime in. the real problem being in the 70's or 80's, I forget which, when they chagned the rules for the filibuster. Before that, you ddi in fact have to stand up and keep talking to stall a bill. You might have to stand there for 12-24 hours, no bathroom breaks, no sitting, keep talking. Then they changed it so you only had to declare a filibuster, you didn't have to actually do the hard work of showing oyu meant it. For awhile courtesy kept it from being abused, but over time that ended and people started overusing it; and its use kept growing more and more prominent. in the Senate, there is/was no requirement for a filibuster to be on-topic, so you could do stupid stuff like read the phone book. personally I disliked that, as it seemed like a waste of time. I prefer requiring people to speak on topic. but that's largely an aside.
It was the 1975 when they attempted to streamline the Senate to allow for a two track system. Before that, the filibuster could stop the entire senate from doing anything. I would argue that the change in that rule caused the slow decline of the senate and partisan grid lock. Before that, you couldn’t ignore bills or use the filibuster to bury them and move on with other matters.
|
On May 03 2017 02:52 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 02:47 Tachion wrote:On May 03 2017 02:33 Mercy13 wrote:On May 03 2017 02:10 Danglars wrote:On May 03 2017 01:53 Mercy13 wrote:On May 03 2017 01:43 Danglars wrote:On May 03 2017 01:33 Mercy13 wrote:On May 03 2017 01:15 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Why should we send the money elsewhere just because it's divisive? PP does a very good job of serving low income communities, and I care far more about that than about how divisive they are. Do you think it would really be worth it to go through all the trouble and expense of building brand new medical clinics to replace PP, which in many cases would not be as effective as PP in serving their communities, all while not decreasing abortion rates? There's all kinds of divisive shit the federal government does, should all of that be de-funded too? If you believe in freedom of conscience and the rights of people of the pro-life persuasion, it's worth it. Some rights actually end up being quite costly, particularly when a current of ignorance and regression has held sway for so many years. There would be very little cost if better thinking had prevailed decades ago, but returning to the right arrangement now necessitates more. I totally reject your assertion that PP is uniquely qualified to serve certain communities such that new clinics are doomed to fail because they're named differently. Do they have some kind of monopoly on good doctors, administrators, community outreach programs, and the like? Come on now, this all is sounding like I'm talking about comparisons of different banking establishments with the CEO of Goldman Sachs. I have limited time with this thread and some conversations just can't be resolved on the different bases of the conversant. Nothing is stopping new clinics from opening in areas already served by Planned Parenthood. Maybe there's even a demand for "pro-life" medical providers, and they would have the added advantage of not constantly being punching bags for politicians trying to score easy points with evangelicals. It is entirely possible that such clinics would be competitive with PP, and they would be able to draw some of those Medicaid reimbursements away.It's not like the federal government has a line item in the budget for "Planned Parenthood Medicaid payments." It just reimburses clinics which provide certain Medicaid services, and in many cases those clinics happen to be PP. Anyway, if what you mean by "freedom of conscience" is that a minority should be able to dictate where tax dollars are spent without regard to practical outcomes then no, I do not believe in freedom of conscience. Aren't abortion rates at their lowest point in 40 some odd years anyway? Can't this at least in part be attributed to PP providing quality, affordable birth control and health services? The argument for defunding reeks of fluffy ideology more so than practicality. They could inadvertently end up increasing abortion rates if they follow through. Danglars doesn't seem to care about abortion rates. He cares more about peoples' tax dollars going to an organization that they find morally objectionable (correct me if I'm wrong Danglars). So arguing about abortion rates isn't going to change his mind.
That's a stupid assertion though. If you are against prison you don't get to choose where you tax dollar go to. If you are against public education you don't get to choose where your tax dollar go to. If you are against military intervention you don't get to choose where your tax dollar go to. How is it different as long as government accept it is a valid spending, as opposite to your personal opinion.
|
On May 03 2017 02:48 biology]major wrote:
Lol holy shit hrc straight trying to delegitimize trump.
I don't think she has to do much of anything to show how illegitimate he is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
