On August 23 2012 19:56 Souma wrote: I should have clarified. I didn't mean I preferred to have two parties as opposed to three or more, just meant I preferred to have parties period, as opposed to just one.
In any case, any additional emotional strain brought forth by having an ultrasound is not necessarily unnecessary, but rather a reassurance that potential life is not carelessly erased. No matter how much we toss around the rhetoric that during the first trimester the fetus is just a clump of cells, our conscience tells us otherwise. I am pro-choice, but I rather not see that choice abused. If this is really too much then I would at least like to see high school students educated in the matters of abortion and shown a clip of the procedure during sex education classes (sex ed classes are generally horrendously graphic and the perfect environment for it).
If we actually had proper sex education instead of scare tactics(what your proposing) and abstinence teaching there would be less unwanted pregnancies and abortions. I don't know what sexual education you had but California/Nevada Sex Ed was a joke. I know it varies from state to state, but what I saw was not graphic. Most "Graphic" thing I remember seeing was a baby being born and that's a natural part of life and not graphic at all. (basically vaginas aren't graphic)
Until we can teach kids all around this country about safe sex, different forms of birth control and ways to prevent STDs. that sex isn't bad, and give them options(one option can be abstinence, other options are safe sex, etc, instead of demonizing people for sexuality or sexual behavior that is completely normal).
Also, at what point of the pregnancy would you recommend showing an abortion from? 5 weeks, 10 weeks, 12 weeks? What if the girl remembers that video of a 12 week, when she's at six weeks, four years later, and now she's freaking out and doesn't think she has any options?
On August 23 2012 08:43 Falling wrote: Sometimes I really don't understand the roles of executive and legislative power in non-Parliamentary democracies.
What effect does the GOP approving the conservative platform on Romney's bid to become president? Does he have to adopt this platform? Is he involved in this? Or is this just a parallel set of promises from Congress/ Senate and has little to do with Romney.
Honestly, if it wasn't for the social conservatism stuff, I bet 70%+ of America would be Republican. Their economic platform is bounds ahead of the Democrat platform.
If by "bounds ahead" you mean beneficial to the rich and detrimental to the poor, the elderly and the middle class, more likely to increase the deficit, and less likely to improve the economy, then sure, it's bounds ahead.
By "bounds ahead", I mean that I actually study proposals and talk with important people about this stuff, and have come to the conclusion that while not everything in the Republicans goals are perfect, they actually HAVE goals and plans. Democrats do not.
Democrats almost always spout rhetoric and talking points on the economy. Do you even know how much the Buffet Rule would make the government? It's seriously a drop in the bucket for the deficit. You can argue until you're blue in the face that higher taxes on rich people will solve the problem: it won't. I'm a Republican that supports a progressive tax rate, but I'm in no way delusioned that this solves the problem like almost all Democrats are. The Democrats don't have a plan. They really don't. They are just pandering to the majority of poeple who are too dumb to know the difference. Million, Billion, Trillion, it's all fictional at that point to the average Joe.
It's absolutely criminal the accounting tactics that are used by Congressman and the CBO to spin their proposals.
For all the trashing that has gone onto the Ryan plan, can you name a single constructive criticism of it yet? No? Why not? The only criticism is that it cuts Medicare. Well no shit it cuts Medicare, how the f#@# else are you going to lower our spending? There is not a single alternative plan that anyone is willing to bet their political life on because there ISNT A SINGLE OTHER PLAN ANYONE THINKS WILL PASS IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION. Our President proposed a budget with a 1.4 TRILLION dollar deficit. Can you not see that absolute lunacy in that?
Why is there a need to cut spending when it's obvious the deficit cannot be lowered susbtantially in a mid-term time frame? We have the same problem in Germany; election terms are too short for a lowering of the deficit to be able to held high as a trophy after an election time, so politicians don't really bother with it and instead use it as an argument for one or the other thing while we lead wars we cannot afford and sell submarines to countries who are not able to pay them.
Do you think the deficit of the USA will in any time frame go down significantly? because honestly I'm struggling to believe that for Germany and you guys have a LOT higher deficit.
On August 23 2012 19:56 Souma wrote: I should have clarified. I didn't mean I preferred to have two parties as opposed to three or more, just meant I preferred to have parties period, as opposed to just one.
In any case, any additional emotional strain brought forth by having an ultrasound is not necessarily unnecessary, but rather a reassurance that potential life is not carelessly erased. No matter how much we toss around the rhetoric that during the first trimester the fetus is just a clump of cells, our conscience tells us otherwise. I am pro-choice, but I rather not see that choice abused. If this is really too much then I would at least like to see high school students educated in the matters of abortion and shown a clip of the procedure during sex education classes (sex ed classes are generally horrendously graphic and the perfect environment for it).
There should be education yes. Graphic demonstration seems unnecessary though. And a reassurance for who? The way I see it is that if the would-be mother doesn't care enough to properly educate herself about what she's doing when she's having an abortion she shouldn't have a child anyway. It's really that simple. I'm sure you'll find that it's more than enough traumatic as it is for the majority of women who have abortions.
On August 23 2012 19:56 Souma wrote: I should have clarified. I didn't mean I preferred to have two parties as opposed to three or more, just meant I preferred to have parties period, as opposed to just one.
In any case, any additional emotional strain brought forth by having an ultrasound is not necessarily unnecessary, but rather a reassurance that potential life is not carelessly erased. No matter how much we toss around the rhetoric that during the first trimester the fetus is just a clump of cells, our conscience tells us otherwise. I am pro-choice, but I rather not see that choice abused. If this is really too much then I would at least like to see high school students educated in the matters of abortion and shown a clip of the procedure during sex education classes (sex ed classes are generally horrendously graphic and the perfect environment for it).
If we actually had proper sex education instead of scare tactics(what your proposing) and abstinence teaching there would be less unwanted pregnancies and abortions. I don't know what sexual education you had but California/Nevada Sex Ed was a joke. I know it varies from state to state, but what I saw was not graphic. Most "Graphic" thing I remember seeing was a baby being born and that's a natural part of life and not graphic at all. (basically vaginas aren't graphic)
Until we can teach kids all around this country about safe sex, different forms of birth control and ways to prevent STDs. that sex isn't bad, and give them options(one option can be abstinence, other options are safe sex, etc, instead of demonizing people for sexuality or sexual behavior that is completely normal).
Also, at what point of the pregnancy would you recommend showing an abortion from? 5 weeks, 10 weeks, 12 weeks? What if the girl remembers that video of a 12 week, when she's at six weeks, four years later, and now she's freaking out and doesn't think she has any options?
I had sex ed here in California and it was absolutely graphic. Saw the physical symptoms of various STDs and a baby being born. They also taught us about condoms (even how to put them on) and other forms of birth control (how to use those too). All in all it was very detailed, but I guess I was one of the lucky ones.
Also, why do we have to choose one? Why not one from six weeks and one from twelve weeks? Or one from six weeks, one from nine weeks, and one from twelve weeks?
Why would she think she would not have any options? It's not like she suddenly can't have abortions. She can also discuss it with her doctor if need be.
The point I want to express here is that an abortion should not be taken lightly. If you decide to abort you better make damn sure the life you are taking is worth it.
I don't understand the argument that liberals generally bring to the table. They don't consider the fetus during the first trimester a "life" but they talk about how traumatic the experience is and how much more traumatic it would be if they were to actually see it through an ultrasound. If it's not "life" and just a clump of cells then why the hell would anyone feel guilty? I wish everyone would just admit that life starts at conception. That isn't to say that abortion should not be allowed, because condemning a girl to a life of physical, psychological, and monetary hardship (along with her kid) because she made a mistake (not even going to bring up extraordinary circumstances because that's a given) is the cruelest and most unusual of punishments and she has a right to self-defense.
But god, whenever I think of abortion being used for sexual selection a little part of me dies.
On August 23 2012 16:19 screamingpalm wrote: Romney relased some details on his energy policy, no surprises:
-Increased offshore drilling -Shifting powers to the states (can't wait to see what AZ will do with that lol- joking aside mountaintop removal in WV) -Sounds like more public land to be sold off (see: Tim DeChristopher ) -No plans for renewable sources (wind, solar, etc) -Subsidies for oil companies which don't need them, no funding for alternative fuels- sink or swim on their own
Your first point I really do not see a problem with that, Utilize the resources that are available, and frankly I'm not an environmentalist and really don't care about it =/.
Your second point about shifting powers to the states... You do realize that is how the government is supposed to operate right? The states are supposed to be able to govern on their own. The federal government is just supposed to make sure individual states don't secede from the union.
On August 23 2012 16:19 screamingpalm wrote: Romney relased some details on his energy policy, no surprises:
-Increased offshore drilling -Shifting powers to the states (can't wait to see what AZ will do with that lol- joking aside mountaintop removal in WV) -Sounds like more public land to be sold off (see: Tim DeChristopher ) -No plans for renewable sources (wind, solar, etc) -Subsidies for oil companies which don't need them, no funding for alternative fuels- sink or swim on their own
Your first point I really do not see a problem with that, Utilize the resources that are available, and frankly I'm not an environmentalist and really don't care about it =/.
Your second point about shifting powers to the states... You do realize that is how the government is supposed to operate right? The states are supposed to be able to govern on their own. The federal government is just supposed to make sure individual states don't secede from the union.
Unfortunately for you many people care about the environment (including me).
Why should we let individual states be idiots when the nation as a whole is so interdependent as an economy? What if a state suddenly decided to drill a hole where they shouldn't and there was an oil spill that spread to another state? What if the state's oil refineries suddenly caught on fire and they had to rely on the federal government to bail them out? Does the government just say, "We told you so," and let them be because they're powerless? Letting states have full autonomy is a ridiculous notion.
On August 23 2012 08:43 Falling wrote: Sometimes I really don't understand the roles of executive and legislative power in non-Parliamentary democracies.
What effect does the GOP approving the conservative platform on Romney's bid to become president? Does he have to adopt this platform? Is he involved in this? Or is this just a parallel set of promises from Congress/ Senate and has little to do with Romney.
Honestly, if it wasn't for the social conservatism stuff, I bet 70%+ of America would be Republican. Their economic platform is bounds ahead of the Democrat platform.
If by "bounds ahead" you mean beneficial to the rich and detrimental to the poor, the elderly and the middle class, more likely to increase the deficit, and less likely to improve the economy, then sure, it's bounds ahead.
By "bounds ahead", I mean that I actually study proposals and talk with important people about this stuff, and have come to the conclusion that while not everything in the Republicans goals are perfect, they actually HAVE goals and plans. Democrats do not.
Democrats almost always spout rhetoric and talking points on the economy. Do you even know how much the Buffet Rule would make the government? It's seriously a drop in the bucket for the deficit. You can argue until you're blue in the face that higher taxes on rich people will solve the problem: it won't. I'm a Republican that supports a progressive tax rate, but I'm in no way delusioned that this solves the problem like almost all Democrats are. The Democrats don't have a plan. They really don't. They are just pandering to the majority of poeple who are too dumb to know the difference. Million, Billion, Trillion, it's all fictional at that point to the average Joe.
It's absolutely criminal the accounting tactics that are used by Congressman and the CBO to spin their proposals.
For all the trashing that has gone onto the Ryan plan, can you name a single constructive criticism of it yet? No? Why not? The only criticism is that it cuts Medicare. Well no shit it cuts Medicare, how the f#@# else are you going to lower our spending? There is not a single alternative plan that anyone is willing to bet their political life on because there ISNT A SINGLE OTHER PLAN ANYONE THINKS WILL PASS IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION. Our President proposed a budget with a 1.4 TRILLION dollar deficit. Can you not see that absolute lunacy in that?
The Dems are just tearing down the Reps right now on the economy for a short term win, but in the long term we're all going to lose if Congress doesn't address the problem.
Also, just to touch on your "less beneficial to the middle class and the poor", you need to actually read the stuff that the Dems enacted and propose. It all includes flat taxes without regard for your income level. Believe it or not, Reps are actually nicer to the poor when it comes to taxes--they are just less likely to dole that tax money back out to those people. They are far less likely to balloon the deficit (I mean, the alternative of doing nothing is seriously the equivalent to driving a bus off a cliff).
You're right about two things:
It may not directly improve the economy in the short term. However, deficit spending has not been effective and there isn't another trick in the bag from anyone else right now. It's not going to hurt our economy, and their proposals have the added benefit of being good in the long term.
It helps the rich. So fucking what if it helps the rich? It helps the rest of us too, and that's all I give a damn about. Be jealous harder...
You do realize that the cuts are quite massive, and end up targetting low income individuals, right? And do you realize that the plan then goes on to give incredibly imbalanced tax cuts to the upper income brackets? It's not a serious deficit cutting plan, because the Republicans don't give a flying fuck about cutting deficits any more (or less) than Democrats. They use the excuse to stall spending bills and cockblock any meaningful legislation, because they know their goddamn do-nothing attitude isn't going to work unless they have some bullshit idea to get behind.
And yes, Democrats do have a plan, at least from Obama. You can bitch and moan about Democrats not putting it in bill form, but it is out there. You even said that he had a budget.
Also, according to your source, Dems proposed a bill that's part of the budget.
And I like your little bullshit line about flat taxes, since the only taxes they've talked about for the past year are ending Bush tax cuts and enacting the "Buffett Rule." Get your head out of your talk radio infested asshole and do try to keep up with fact based discussion. (I'm not even going to touch the bullshit about deficit spending with you).
I've acknowledged that the plan gives tax cuts to the rich, and that there are flaws in it.
However, a 1.4 Trillion dollar deficit "plan" is hardly a plan.... That's my whole point. The Dems are just playing political games right now and crying wolf. They've yet to offer a serious plan. We all know what their plan would be (raise taxes on everyone and try to not touch the spending much), but they don't have the guts to lay that out because they realize they'll be blasted at the polls.
As for flat taxes, they come in smaller ways. A simple example would be an ethanol subsidy (not one that has been passed recently, but it's a good example for explaining the concept). This subsidy raises the price of food for everyone. It's a flat raising of the price (as in it doesn't raise prices for the rich any more than for the poor). However, it's takes a disproportionate amount of the poor's income compared to the rich individuals who are able to more easily absorb that price increase. It's a hidden tax, a flat tax essentially.
On August 23 2012 08:43 Falling wrote: Sometimes I really don't understand the roles of executive and legislative power in non-Parliamentary democracies.
What effect does the GOP approving the conservative platform on Romney's bid to become president? Does he have to adopt this platform? Is he involved in this? Or is this just a parallel set of promises from Congress/ Senate and has little to do with Romney.
Honestly, if it wasn't for the social conservatism stuff, I bet 70%+ of America would be Republican. Their economic platform is bounds ahead of the Democrat platform.
If by "bounds ahead" you mean beneficial to the rich and detrimental to the poor, the elderly and the middle class, more likely to increase the deficit, and less likely to improve the economy, then sure, it's bounds ahead.
By "bounds ahead", I mean that I actually study proposals and talk with important people about this stuff, and have come to the conclusion that while not everything in the Republicans goals are perfect, they actually HAVE goals and plans. Democrats do not.
Democrats almost always spout rhetoric and talking points on the economy. Do you even know how much the Buffet Rule would make the government? It's seriously a drop in the bucket for the deficit. You can argue until you're blue in the face that higher taxes on rich people will solve the problem: it won't. I'm a Republican that supports a progressive tax rate, but I'm in no way delusioned that this solves the problem like almost all Democrats are. The Democrats don't have a plan. They really don't. They are just pandering to the majority of poeple who are too dumb to know the difference. Million, Billion, Trillion, it's all fictional at that point to the average Joe.
It's absolutely criminal the accounting tactics that are used by Congressman and the CBO to spin their proposals.
For all the trashing that has gone onto the Ryan plan, can you name a single constructive criticism of it yet? No? Why not? The only criticism is that it cuts Medicare. Well no shit it cuts Medicare, how the f#@# else are you going to lower our spending? There is not a single alternative plan that anyone is willing to bet their political life on because there ISNT A SINGLE OTHER PLAN ANYONE THINKS WILL PASS IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION. Our President proposed a budget with a 1.4 TRILLION dollar deficit. Can you not see that absolute lunacy in that?
The Dems are just tearing down the Reps right now on the economy for a short term win, but in the long term we're all going to lose if Congress doesn't address the problem.
Also, just to touch on your "less beneficial to the middle class and the poor", you need to actually read the stuff that the Dems enacted and propose. It all includes flat taxes without regard for your income level. Believe it or not, Reps are actually nicer to the poor when it comes to taxes--they are just less likely to dole that tax money back out to those people. They are far less likely to balloon the deficit (I mean, the alternative of doing nothing is seriously the equivalent to driving a bus off a cliff).
You're right about two things:
It may not directly improve the economy in the short term. However, deficit spending has not been effective and there isn't another trick in the bag from anyone else right now. It's not going to hurt our economy, and their proposals have the added benefit of being good in the long term.
It helps the rich. So fucking what if it helps the rich? It helps the rest of us too, and that's all I give a damn about. Be jealous harder...
You do realize that the cuts are quite massive, and end up targetting low income individuals, right? And do you realize that the plan then goes on to give incredibly imbalanced tax cuts to the upper income brackets? It's not a serious deficit cutting plan, because the Republicans don't give a flying fuck about cutting deficits any more (or less) than Democrats. They use the excuse to stall spending bills and cockblock any meaningful legislation, because they know their goddamn do-nothing attitude isn't going to work unless they have some bullshit idea to get behind.
And yes, Democrats do have a plan, at least from Obama. You can bitch and moan about Democrats not putting it in bill form, but it is out there. You even said that he had a budget.
Also, according to your source, Dems proposed a bill that's part of the budget.
And I like your little bullshit line about flat taxes, since the only taxes they've talked about for the past year are ending Bush tax cuts and enacting the "Buffett Rule." Get your head out of your talk radio infested asshole and do try to keep up with fact based discussion. (I'm not even going to touch the bullshit about deficit spending with you).
I've acknowledged that the plan gives tax cuts to the rich, and that there are flaws in it.
A 1.4 Trillion dollar deficit "plan" is hardly a plan.... That's my whole point. The Dems are just playing political games right now and crying wolf. They've yet to offer a serious plan. We all know what their plan would be (raise taxes on everyone and try to not touch the spending much), but they don't have the guts to lay that out because they realize they'll be blasted at the polls.
As for flat taxes, they come in smaller ways. A simple example would be an ethanol subsidy (not one that has been passed recently, but it's a good example). This subsidy raises the price of food for everyone. It's a flat raising of the price (as in it doesn't raise prices for the rich any more than for the poor). However, it's takes a disproportionate amount of the poor's income compared to the rich individuals who are able to more easily absorb that price increase. It's a hidden tax, a flat tax essentially.
The Ryan plan doesn't do anything to lower the deficit either. It cuts taxes on the rich and cuts programs designed to help the poor(which does nothing for the deficit because if GDP doesn't grow as fast as it needs to, and it won't under the Ryan plan, than the Debt to GDP ratio will grow more in favor of the debt and it doesn't matter if the actual debt number was reduced), and I believe it raises defense spending as well(if not, I know that's something Romney wants). It's flawed math and has already been confirmed as such by the CBO.
And lol@ the Democrats wanting to raise taxes on everyone. That's BS and has no facts behind it-the only people who's taxes the democrats want raised are the rich, who already abuse loopholes like crazy to avoid paying taxes as much as possible. And mentioning flat taxes is ridiculous because no one is actually arguing for them to be implemented right now(if I'm wrong, please correct me, but I haven't heard anyone mention flat taxes in any form).
You seem to think that Democrats think taxing the rich will solve all of our problems. No Democrat who isn't an idiot thinks that. But it sure as hell is something that needs to be done. More importantly though, the lock the Republicans have put on Congress has to be stopped-good bills, like the Jobs Act Obama tried to pass last year, get blocked all for the sake of making it look like Obama's been an incompetent president so they can get elected in 2012. And screwing over the American people just so you can get elected is not acceptable.
On August 23 2012 19:56 Souma wrote: I should have clarified. I didn't mean I preferred to have two parties as opposed to three or more, just meant I preferred to have parties period, as opposed to just one.
In any case, any additional emotional strain brought forth by having an ultrasound is not necessarily unnecessary, but rather a reassurance that potential life is not carelessly erased. No matter how much we toss around the rhetoric that during the first trimester the fetus is just a clump of cells, our conscience tells us otherwise. I am pro-choice, but I rather not see that choice abused. If this is really too much then I would at least like to see high school students educated in the matters of abortion and shown a clip of the procedure during sex education classes (sex ed classes are generally horrendously graphic and the perfect environment for it).
If we actually had proper sex education instead of scare tactics(what your proposing) and abstinence teaching there would be less unwanted pregnancies and abortions. I don't know what sexual education you had but California/Nevada Sex Ed was a joke. I know it varies from state to state, but what I saw was not graphic. Most "Graphic" thing I remember seeing was a baby being born and that's a natural part of life and not graphic at all. (basically vaginas aren't graphic)
Until we can teach kids all around this country about safe sex, different forms of birth control and ways to prevent STDs. that sex isn't bad, and give them options(one option can be abstinence, other options are safe sex, etc, instead of demonizing people for sexuality or sexual behavior that is completely normal).
Also, at what point of the pregnancy would you recommend showing an abortion from? 5 weeks, 10 weeks, 12 weeks? What if the girl remembers that video of a 12 week, when she's at six weeks, four years later, and now she's freaking out and doesn't think she has any options?
I had sex ed here in California and it was absolutely graphic. Saw the physical symptoms of various STDs and a baby being born. They also taught us about condoms (even how to put them on) and other forms of birth control (how to use those too). All in all it was very detailed, but I guess I was one of the lucky ones.
Also, why do we have to choose one? Why not one from six weeks and one from twelve weeks? Or one from six weeks, one from nine weeks, and one from twelve weeks?
Why would she think she would not have any options? It's not like she suddenly can't have abortions. She can also discuss it with her doctor if need be.
The point I want to express here is that an abortion should not be taken lightly. If you decide to abort you better make damn sure the life you are taking is worth it.
I don't understand the argument that liberals generally bring to the table. They don't consider the fetus during the first trimester a "life" but they talk about how traumatic the experience is and how much more traumatic it would be if they were to actually see it through an ultrasound. If it's not "life" and just a clump of cells then why the hell would anyone feel guilty? I wish everyone would just admit that life starts at conception. That isn't to say that abortion should not be allowed, because condemning a girl to a life of physical, psychological, and monetary hardship (along with her kid) because she made a mistake (not even going to bring up extraordinary circumstances because that's a given) is the cruelest and most unusual of punishments and she has a right to self-defense.
But god, whenever I think of abortion being used for sexual selection a little part of me dies.
No, Politicians should not be deciding what is medically mandatory and what isn't. This is up to the woman and her doctor and no one else. They've already showed that seeing an ultrasound has zero-to-marginal effect on whether a woman wants a abortion. So it's just a complete waste of money and time from everyone involved. Which is what we expect from Politicians making medical decisions for people.
You're also not understanding the purpose of why they want ultrasound legislation. They want to shame and frighten women who want abortions. They want women that are too freaked out by getting an ultrasound to avoid going getting the procedure so that they can get the abortion. That's the actual purpose. That is not something the law should be used for, and it's a blatant attack on women in general. Requiring unnecessary procedures for women's health is not ok for politicians to do.
Imagine if politicians required you to get a testicular ultrasound before you get a vasecotomy simply because some politicians disagree with your decision.
Edit: I find it really strange how people who are generally conservative and libertarian are willing to accept gross overstepping of government bounds when it comes to abortion. There's really nothing else like it. I mean people complain about Obamacare "getting between you and your doctor," but some legislation (like that in Arizona) actually does this in a way that could threaten women's lives.
I'm well aware of that problem. But it's a red herring in the debt discussion.
If you think Republicans give it shit about the debt, then you've been duped. The Republicans are the cause of the debt problem, they blew a surplus into a deficit, started 2 wars and pass the Bush tax cuts which is one of the most significant contributors to the deficit.
And Romney and Ryan now want to take the Bush tax cuts even further. In what world is that deficit reducing?
Continuing with my Ryan series, let’s look at what his budget (pdf) actually proposes (as opposed to vaguely promises) in its first decade.
First, there are a set of tax cuts for higher income brackets and corporations. The Tax Policy Center (pdf) estimates the cost of these tax cuts, relative to current policy, at $4.3 trillion.
Second, there are spending cuts. Of these, approximately $800 billion comes from converting Medicaid into a block grant that grows only with population and overall inflation – a big cut compared with projections that take into account rising health-care costs and an aging population (since the elderly and disabled account for most Medicaid expenses). Another $130 billion comes from doing something similar to food stamps. Then there are odds and ends – Pell grants, job training. Be generous and call all of this $1 trillion in specified cuts.
On top of this we should add the $700 billion in Medicare cuts that Ryan denounces in Obamacare but nonetheless incorporates into his own plan.
So if we look at the actual policy proposals, they look like this:
This is, then, a plan that would increase the deficit by around $2.6 trillion.
How, then, does Ryan get to call himself a fiscal hawk? By asserting that he will keep his tax cuts revenue-neutral by broadening the base in ways he refuses to specify, and that he will make further large cuts in spending, in ways he refuses to specify.
And this is what passes inside the Beltway for serious thinking and a serious commitment to deficit reduction.
On August 23 2012 19:56 Souma wrote: I should have clarified. I didn't mean I preferred to have two parties as opposed to three or more, just meant I preferred to have parties period, as opposed to just one.
In any case, any additional emotional strain brought forth by having an ultrasound is not necessarily unnecessary, but rather a reassurance that potential life is not carelessly erased. No matter how much we toss around the rhetoric that during the first trimester the fetus is just a clump of cells, our conscience tells us otherwise. I am pro-choice, but I rather not see that choice abused. If this is really too much then I would at least like to see high school students educated in the matters of abortion and shown a clip of the procedure during sex education classes (sex ed classes are generally horrendously graphic and the perfect environment for it).
If we actually had proper sex education instead of scare tactics(what your proposing) and abstinence teaching there would be less unwanted pregnancies and abortions. I don't know what sexual education you had but California/Nevada Sex Ed was a joke. I know it varies from state to state, but what I saw was not graphic. Most "Graphic" thing I remember seeing was a baby being born and that's a natural part of life and not graphic at all. (basically vaginas aren't graphic)
Until we can teach kids all around this country about safe sex, different forms of birth control and ways to prevent STDs. that sex isn't bad, and give them options(one option can be abstinence, other options are safe sex, etc, instead of demonizing people for sexuality or sexual behavior that is completely normal).
Also, at what point of the pregnancy would you recommend showing an abortion from? 5 weeks, 10 weeks, 12 weeks? What if the girl remembers that video of a 12 week, when she's at six weeks, four years later, and now she's freaking out and doesn't think she has any options?
I had sex ed here in California and it was absolutely graphic. Saw the physical symptoms of various STDs and a baby being born. They also taught us about condoms (even how to put them on) and other forms of birth control (how to use those too). All in all it was very detailed, but I guess I was one of the lucky ones.
Also, why do we have to choose one? Why not one from six weeks and one from twelve weeks? Or one from six weeks, one from nine weeks, and one from twelve weeks?
Why would she think she would not have any options? It's not like she suddenly can't have abortions. She can also discuss it with her doctor if need be.
The point I want to express here is that an abortion should not be taken lightly. If you decide to abort you better make damn sure the life you are taking is worth it.
I don't understand the argument that liberals generally bring to the table. They don't consider the fetus during the first trimester a "life" but they talk about how traumatic the experience is and how much more traumatic it would be if they were to actually see it through an ultrasound. If it's not "life" and just a clump of cells then why the hell would anyone feel guilty? I wish everyone would just admit that life starts at conception. That isn't to say that abortion should not be allowed, because condemning a girl to a life of physical, psychological, and monetary hardship (along with her kid) because she made a mistake (not even going to bring up extraordinary circumstances because that's a given) is the cruelest and most unusual of punishments and she has a right to self-defense.
But god, whenever I think of abortion being used for sexual selection a little part of me dies.
No, Politicians should not be deciding what is medically mandatory and what isn't. This is up to the woman and her doctor and no one else. They've already showed that seeing an ultrasound has zero-to-marginal effect on whether a woman wants a abortion. So it's just a complete waste of money and time from everyone involved. Which is what we expect from Politicians making medical decisions for people.
You're also not understanding the purpose of why they want ultrasound legislation. They want to shame and frighten women who want abortions. They want women that are too freaked out by getting an ultrasound to avoid going getting the procedure so that they can get the abortion. That's the actual purpose. That is not something the law should be used for, and it's a blatant attack on women in general. Requiring unnecessary procedures for women's health is not ok for politicians to do.
Imagine if politicians required men to get a testicular ultrasound before men get a vasecotomy simply because some politicians disagree with your decision.
the issue is also that its the way all the abortion laws etc are being legislated. Look at Todd Akin (commenting on how people can't get pregnant from rape/statutory rape etc). The medical nonsense people like this spout as canon is absolutely disgusting; its completely out of touch with reality, yet they decide not to learn the real underlying facts (or just ignore them, which is equally worse). People can argue pro life/pro choice as much as they want, and I'm all for a discussion on it, being a democracy and all, but ONLY as long as the facts being used are medically accurate and relevant.
While my personal opinion is that it's rather silly for women's health laws to be made without the presence of a single woman on the panel (see earlier this year), i could still find it acceptable as long as medically the information being relied on for the legislative process is correct.
I won't get into the whole ethics of requiring women to have an ultrasound etc, but there are two clear sides there. That gets more into the religion side of the issue, which is basically a pandoras box id rather not open during a civil discussion.
What does get me angry is that abortion is not used when it absolutely needs to be. I'm sure some of you have seen or heard about the woman in Honduras (16 years old) who was pregnant (intentionally) and was diagnosed with an aggressive leukemia. Doctors in Honduras denied her chemotherapy (only viable form of treatment in this case), painkillers and other palliative medication because of her pregnancy, for a total of 20 days. after the 3 week mark, her condition was so poor that they ultimately decided to try and see, but they had waited too long and she died, obviously along with her unborn child. Thathat is just disgusting, and I don't know how one could honestly legislate that things like that do not even qualify for an abortion
I'm well aware of that problem. But it's a red herring in the debt discussion.
If you think Republicans give it shit about the debt, then you've been duped. The Republicans are the cause of the debt problem, they blew a surplus into a deficit, started 2 wars and pass the Bush tax cuts which is one of the most significant contributors to the deficit.
And Romney and Ryan now want to take the Bush tax cuts even further. In what world is that deficit reducing?
Continuing with my Ryan series, let’s look at what his budget (pdf) actually proposes (as opposed to vaguely promises) in its first decade.
First, there are a set of tax cuts for higher income brackets and corporations. The Tax Policy Center (pdf) estimates the cost of these tax cuts, relative to current policy, at $4.3 trillion.
Second, there are spending cuts. Of these, approximately $800 billion comes from converting Medicaid into a block grant that grows only with population and overall inflation – a big cut compared with projections that take into account rising health-care costs and an aging population (since the elderly and disabled account for most Medicaid expenses). Another $130 billion comes from doing something similar to food stamps. Then there are odds and ends – Pell grants, job training. Be generous and call all of this $1 trillion in specified cuts.
On top of this we should add the $700 billion in Medicare cuts that Ryan denounces in Obamacare but nonetheless incorporates into his own plan.
So if we look at the actual policy proposals, they look like this:
This is, then, a plan that would increase the deficit by around $2.6 trillion.
How, then, does Ryan get to call himself a fiscal hawk? By asserting that he will keep his tax cuts revenue-neutral by broadening the base in ways he refuses to specify, and that he will make further large cuts in spending, in ways he refuses to specify.
And this is what passes inside the Beltway for serious thinking and a serious commitment to deficit reduction.
TARP, the 2008 Stimulus, and both wars received bilateral support. The first two I would even argue were Democrat ideas. Once again, the Democrats are just making things worse (notice how the graph goes down instead of up?). It's not ok to make the problem worse by pointing a finger and screaming "BUT HE STARTED IT!!!" Two wrongs don't make a right. Or did you miss that lesson in Kindergarten?
I don't have time to address the rest right now. Gotta run to work.
I'm well aware of that problem. But it's a red herring in the debt discussion.
If you think Republicans give it shit about the debt, then you've been duped. The Republicans are the cause of the debt problem, they blew a surplus into a deficit, started 2 wars and pass the Bush tax cuts which is one of the most significant contributors to the deficit.
And Romney and Ryan now want to take the Bush tax cuts even further. In what world is that deficit reducing?
Continuing with my Ryan series, let’s look at what his budget (pdf) actually proposes (as opposed to vaguely promises) in its first decade.
First, there are a set of tax cuts for higher income brackets and corporations. The Tax Policy Center (pdf) estimates the cost of these tax cuts, relative to current policy, at $4.3 trillion.
Second, there are spending cuts. Of these, approximately $800 billion comes from converting Medicaid into a block grant that grows only with population and overall inflation – a big cut compared with projections that take into account rising health-care costs and an aging population (since the elderly and disabled account for most Medicaid expenses). Another $130 billion comes from doing something similar to food stamps. Then there are odds and ends – Pell grants, job training. Be generous and call all of this $1 trillion in specified cuts.
On top of this we should add the $700 billion in Medicare cuts that Ryan denounces in Obamacare but nonetheless incorporates into his own plan.
So if we look at the actual policy proposals, they look like this:
This is, then, a plan that would increase the deficit by around $2.6 trillion.
How, then, does Ryan get to call himself a fiscal hawk? By asserting that he will keep his tax cuts revenue-neutral by broadening the base in ways he refuses to specify, and that he will make further large cuts in spending, in ways he refuses to specify.
And this is what passes inside the Beltway for serious thinking and a serious commitment to deficit reduction.
TARP, the 2008 Stimulus, and both wars received bilateral support. The first two I would even argue were Democrat ideas. Once again, the Democrats are just making things worse (notice how the graph goes down instead of up?). It's not ok to make the problem worse by pointing a finger and screaming "BUT HE STARTED IT!!!" Two wrongs don't make a right. Or did you miss that lesson in Kindergarten?
I don't have time to address the rest right now. Gotta run to work.
As you can see from the graph, TARP and the stimulus is peanuts compared to the Bush tax cuts and the 2 wars.
In fact, by today TARP has made a profit.
A lot of the increase in the deficit under Obama is due to falling tax revenues as a result of the GFC. Democrats are proposing to solve the problem by a jobs bill (stimulus), which will increase employment, GDP, improve the economy and hence increase tax revenue. They're also proposing cuts to spending and taxes on the rich. Romney is going to make it worse by blowing up the deficit with massive tax cuts in a plan that the TPC calls mathematically impossible.
I'm well aware of that problem. But it's a red herring in the debt discussion.
If you think Republicans give it shit about the debt, then you've been duped. The Republicans are the cause of the debt problem, they blew a surplus into a deficit, started 2 wars and pass the Bush tax cuts which is one of the most significant contributors to the deficit.
And Romney and Ryan now want to take the Bush tax cuts even further. In what world is that deficit reducing?
Continuing with my Ryan series, let’s look at what his budget (pdf) actually proposes (as opposed to vaguely promises) in its first decade.
First, there are a set of tax cuts for higher income brackets and corporations. The Tax Policy Center (pdf) estimates the cost of these tax cuts, relative to current policy, at $4.3 trillion.
Second, there are spending cuts. Of these, approximately $800 billion comes from converting Medicaid into a block grant that grows only with population and overall inflation – a big cut compared with projections that take into account rising health-care costs and an aging population (since the elderly and disabled account for most Medicaid expenses). Another $130 billion comes from doing something similar to food stamps. Then there are odds and ends – Pell grants, job training. Be generous and call all of this $1 trillion in specified cuts.
On top of this we should add the $700 billion in Medicare cuts that Ryan denounces in Obamacare but nonetheless incorporates into his own plan.
So if we look at the actual policy proposals, they look like this:
This is, then, a plan that would increase the deficit by around $2.6 trillion.
How, then, does Ryan get to call himself a fiscal hawk? By asserting that he will keep his tax cuts revenue-neutral by broadening the base in ways he refuses to specify, and that he will make further large cuts in spending, in ways he refuses to specify.
And this is what passes inside the Beltway for serious thinking and a serious commitment to deficit reduction.
TARP, the 2008 Stimulus, and both wars received bilateral support. The first two I would even argue were Democrat ideas. Once again, the Democrats are just making things worse (notice how the graph goes down instead of up?). It's not ok to make the problem worse by pointing a finger and screaming "BUT HE STARTED IT!!!" Two wrongs don't make a right. Or did you miss that lesson in Kindergarten?
I don't have time to address the rest right now. Gotta run to work.
I'm not sure how a person is supposed to scrutinize our national debt and not come off as a "Bush hater".
The uncomfortable fact is Bush W. and Reagan were the two worst presidents in recent history when it comes to ramping up national debt.
On August 23 2012 20:40 Souma wrote: I don't understand the argument that liberals generally bring to the table. They don't consider the fetus during the first trimester a "life" but they talk about how traumatic the experience is and how much more traumatic it would be if they were to actually see it through an ultrasound. If it's not "life" and just a clump of cells then why the hell would anyone feel guilty? I wish everyone would just admit that life starts at conception. That isn't to say that abortion should not be allowed, because condemning a girl to a life of physical, psychological, and monetary hardship (along with her kid) because she made a mistake (not even going to bring up extraordinary circumstances because that's a given) is the cruelest and most unusual of punishments and she has a right to self-defense.
But god, whenever I think of abortion being used for sexual selection a little part of me dies.
Medically a baby is just a clump of cells untill ~4weeks. it is just a clump of cells with a general shape as a human being or "life"* as you call it. When you watch it on an ultrasound you see something shaped like a human being, so medically the ultrasound contradicts the basic understanding of fetal developments if that is the argument. Or in other words: The ultrasound is giving a false impression of what you are dealing with at the early stages.
When you lack medical understanding of fetus development it is easy to say that life starts at a certain time, but as soon as you actually know the facts, it is much more of a medical question when abortions can happen. The philosofical debate between pro life and pro choice inevitably ends up misinterpreting the medical facts to protect their selfrightious rationalisations. Religion is another part of life where misinterpretations of texts are rampant and where abortion gets to be shown in a light with no connection to the actual words in the bible, qur'an, ramayana etc.
*Life is such a horrible term for anything with medical meaning. Infections in humans are also considered life and so is the - 10 times the number of human cells - organisms living in synergy in and on the healthy human body. I suspect that you are not against antibiotics because of the chance of killing that "life"?
On August 23 2012 08:43 Falling wrote: Sometimes I really don't understand the roles of executive and legislative power in non-Parliamentary democracies.
What effect does the GOP approving the conservative platform on Romney's bid to become president? Does he have to adopt this platform? Is he involved in this? Or is this just a parallel set of promises from Congress/ Senate and has little to do with Romney.
They have influence, but Romney isn't the head of his party yet. The platform is set by 100+ "insiders" who consist of mostly old people. They pass what they envision their party to be, but it by no means requires anyone to follow them. It's more like guidelines than actual rules. There are Republicans who disagree with all sorts of parts of the party platform, but they're still Republicans.
Honestly, if it wasn't for the social conservatism stuff, I bet 70%+ of America would be Republican. Their economic platform is bounds ahead of the Democrat platform.
I think it's much more likely that the exact opposite is true, and that if one were to create political parties out of a vacuum today, an economically left-wing but socially conservative and racist party would be the most popular. Just look at how powerful the Democrats were for most of the 20th century, and how most of their losses were due to supporting civil rights and the subsequent New Left alienating white organized labor.
This is depressingly accurate. I just read an analysis of some predictive factors that go into what policies voters support... ethnocentrism did a good job of accounting for why huge swaths people support some government programs (like SS/Medicare) that help the elderly and middle class but are staunchly opposed to anything that helps the young and the poor.
Just to be clear, belief in small government was another significant factor, and there are plenty of people who oppose these big government programs in general, not just the ones that end up helping a lot of black or Hispanic people.
Relatedly, Bryan Caplan has even suggested that another reason libertarians should support more immigration is that it ensures that these racist would-be economic progressives continue to oppose the welfare state.
On August 23 2012 08:36 Souma wrote: Oh also, can someone explain to me why an ultrasound should not be mandatory before an abortion?
It's not so much there being a mandatory ultrasound, it's their reasoning behind it.
They literally want you to do be forced to do it so you aren't as likely to abort the baby because you'd develop feelings.
Not any of the medical and safety reasons to do it.
I'm a pro-choice advocate, always have been and always will be, but I do not think we should dismiss such reasoning. Even if I am pro-choice I do not think abortions are necessarily a good thing, but they are just not my decision to make because I am not familiar with the woman and her situation. In that respect, isn't it pivotal for anyone who wants to have an abortion to know exactly what they are doing and who they are doing it to?
The good thing about our two-party system is that the parties keep each other humble. In regards to abortion, liberals need the conservative opposition to keep them reminded that abortion is much more than just destroying some cells. So while abortion is a woman's decision, it would be great if she fully weighed the pros and cons before having the procedure, and developing an emotional attachment can ensure that the decision is not made lightly but out of pure necessity. It would be a great tragedy if potential life was stifled because people began to develop a callous disposition towards what is regarded as a bunch of cells.
Probably one of the very few things (if not the only thing) you'll ever see me agree with social conservatives on.
I'm not sure, mandating a procedure seems like government infringing a bit too far. I could see something that requires a medical professional to offer an ultrasound, but to require it?
On August 23 2012 08:36 Souma wrote: Oh also, can someone explain to me why an ultrasound should not be mandatory before an abortion?
It's not so much there being a mandatory ultrasound, it's their reasoning behind it.
They literally want you to do be forced to do it so you aren't as likely to abort the baby because you'd develop feelings.
Not any of the medical and safety reasons to do it.
I'm a pro-choice advocate, always have been and always will be, but I do not think we should dismiss such reasoning. Even if I am pro-choice I do not think abortions are necessarily a good thing, but they are just not my decision to make because I am not familiar with the woman and her situation. In that respect, isn't it pivotal for anyone who wants to have an abortion to know exactly what they are doing and who they are doing it to?
The good thing about our two-party system is that the parties keep each other humble. In regards to abortion, liberals need the conservative opposition to keep them reminded that abortion is much more than just destroying some cells. So while abortion is a woman's decision, it would be great if she fully weighed the pros and cons before having the procedure, and developing an emotional attachment can ensure that the decision is not made lightly but out of pure necessity. It would be a great tragedy if potential life was stifled because people began to develop a callous disposition towards what is regarded as a bunch of cells.
Probably one of the very few things (if not the only thing) you'll ever see me agree with social conservatives on.
I'm not sure, mandating a procedure seems like government infringing a bit too far. I could see something that requires a medical professional to offer an ultrasound, but to require it?
yeah I definitely think having these things available is a great idea, and more resources is always better. But, for example, if a pregnancy needs to be terminated and it resulted from incest, rape, or is going to be born deformed, I feel like the ultrasound will do nothing but traumatize the mother. Forcing this sort of procedure on women does not seem like a good move-- offering it for free or whatever sounds fine though.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://images.newstatesman.com/obama-graph.jpg)
