22
   

The impending Government Shutdown

 
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2011 10:00 am
@CoastalRat,
NO government funding goes towards PP's abortion activities. There is a firewall between those activities and the organization's other activities.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2011 10:04 am
@CoastalRat,
CoastalRat wrote:

I'm thinking maybe if Planned Parenthood stopped using their other funding avenues to fund abortions and spent that money on family planning and such, then maybe they wouldn't need the taxpayer money they keep being given.

Heck, if all the fine liberals in our country want to do so, I'm sure they can give Planned Parenthood additional donations to make up for the elimination/decrease of their government money, couldn't they?


The 'money is fungible' argument can be used to make a lot of Republican positions and policies look pretty silly as well.

But I must say: I don't care if funding, direct funding even, goes to cover abortions, because I don't have a problem with abortions. And what more, I don't care if anyone else has a problem with them either, because - and I think this is a long-standing and important point - your moral preferences aren't really material to how the government spends money.

For example, I hate the fact that my money is used to fund foreign wars, in which tremendous amounts of innocent people get murdered. But you don't see me pushing for riders to defund the military, because my opinions on this matter aren't relevant to the operation of the country.

Cycloptichorn
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2011 10:06 am
@Advocate,
Let me explain this really slowly, so you can get it. Applying government funds to expenses other than abortion frees up other funds that now are no longer needed for non-abortion expenses to pay for abortions. If I have to pay the light bill and a cable bill, but my wife refuses to let me use her money to pay the cable bill, I can free up money for the cable bill by using her money to pay the light bill cause she doesn't mind that. Without her money, maybe I can't pay both the light bill and the cable bill, so I cut the more frivolous expense. Get it?
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2011 10:10 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
The 'money is fungible' argument can be used to make a lot of Republican positions and policies look pretty silly as well.


Agreed. But since we are talking PP here and not any other policy or position, I didn't feel the need to bring others up.

Quote:
But I must say: I don't care if funding, direct funding even, goes to cover abortions, because I don't have a problem with abortions.


Well, a large portion of the populace of our country does have a problem with abortions. You may disagree with that position, for whatever reason you like, but the position is no less valid than yours.

EDIT: Oops, forgot your last little comment about the military. Seems liberals have almost always been outspoken about cutting military spending. So why have a problem with conservatives arguing for cutting PP's funding? Argue against it all you wish. That's the American way, isn't it?

Have a good day Cy. It's back to work for me. Lunch is over.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2011 10:13 am
@CoastalRat,
CoastalRat wrote:


Heck, if all the fine liberals in our country want to do so, I'm sure they can give Planned Parenthood additional donations to make up for the elimination/decrease of their government money, couldn't they?

Why are you offering that other people can pay for it? Do you think we shouldn't have to pay for what you want?

I could cut my tax bill by 20% if I didn't have to pay for military expenditures. I'm sure you would be more than happy to donate more.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2011 10:17 am
@CoastalRat,
The abortion issue is only a part of it. PP also gets it because they service youth and sex workers, which conservatives decry. Perhaps conservatives will be appeased by giving up only abortion services, and considering that 33% of funding comes from the government and only 3% goes out in Abortion services maybe out of a desire to survive PP gives up that 3%.
CoastalRat
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2011 10:18 am
@parados,
Got no problem there Parados. I actually think we do spend too much on our military. I've always believed that a country's military should be there for defensive purposes. To defend our soil and our interests overseas. I think a good amount of military spending could be cut if we would simply mind our own business more than we do now.

I assume you have no problem spending your tax dollars to maintain a military to defend our interests, right?
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2011 10:35 am
@CoastalRat,
Quote:
. Seems liberals have almost always been outspoken about cutting military spending. So why have a problem with conservatives arguing for cutting PP's funding? Argue against it all you wish. That's the American way, isn't it?


The difference is that Dems don't attempt to shut the government down when they don't get their way. It's okay to have different opinions but at the end of the day you ought to be able to compromise and work together on them. That's why us anti-war types are outspoken, but don't claim that our opinion is worth throwing down the gauntlet and halting all operations over.

This is supposedly a budget bill, so why are ideological issues driving the argument on the Republican side? If they want to get rid of Planned parenthood - put forth a bill to do so and let people vote on it. By attaching it to a larger bill, as a 'rider,' it's basically a cowardly attempt to force the Dems to give them what they want without having a separate vote on it, which they know would fail.

All of this is nothing new in gov't, but it's what is leading to this shutdown, and the Republicans are going to be punished for it by the populace. Do you not see that as being the result?

Cycloptichorn
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2011 10:37 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
The difference is that Dems don't attempt to shut the government down when they don't get their way
If that were true the dems would pass the one week funding bill offered by the GOP. If the government shuts down today it is because the DEMS willed it so as well as the GOP.
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2011 10:40 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
The difference is that Dems don't attempt to shut the government down when they don't get their way


No, they just leave the state.

As far as republicans being punished for it, you may well be right. But sometimes you have to draw a line in the sand and make a stand regardless of the consequences. I don't believe PP funding or defunding is worth shutting down the government. So personally, I'll be blaming both parties for not being able to get something done.

(And yes, I know I said I was going back to work, but couldn't help one last look. Now I'm really going back to work.)
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2011 10:43 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
The difference is that Dems don't attempt to shut the government down when they don't get their way
If that were true the dems would pass the one week funding bill offered by the GOP. If the government shuts down today it is because the DEMS willed it so as well as the GOP.


This is stupid, Hawkeye. Are you really proposing that the Dems are beholden to pass whatever crazy budget cuts the Republicans in the House put forward - or it is THEY who are trying to 'shut the government down?'

The so-called '1 week' CR contains 500 BILLION dollars in cuts, on an annualized basis. It's foolish in the extreme in what it asks to cut, as well, and will seriously screw many marginal members of our society. But you don't really give a **** about the details, do ya - just in forwarding a message that the Dems are to blame, because that's your m.o. here on A2K.

**** that noise. The GOP doesn't get to hold everyone hostage to their will when they control 1/2 of 1/3rd of the government. So, a shutdown is going to occur, and they are going to get blamed for it; not the Dems.

And if you think I'm wrong, show me the legions of Dems who have been pushing this message:

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/teapartyshutdown.jpg

I can show you any numbers of Republicans, elected and not, who have been explicitly cheering for a shutdown since before last years' elections. So, yeah; you're full of ****.

Cycloptichorn
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2011 10:54 am
@CoastalRat,
CoastalRat wrote:



I assume you have no problem spending your tax dollars to maintain a military to defend our interests, right?

But my interests are different from yours.. so why don't you just pay more than I do?

(I really hate that argument but what the heck, it seems to work for conservatives.)
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2011 10:56 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
and they are going to get blamed for it; not the Dems
Polling done to date disputes your assertion. Both parties are seen to be playing politics with these funding bills, and while currently the GOP comes out looking a bit worse than the DEMS it is temporary and not enough to matter. Both parties are not doing the peoples work, that is the take away.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2011 11:12 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
and they are going to get blamed for it; not the Dems
Polling done to date disputes your assertion.


Untrue. But, you actually have to know a little about polling to know that.

Quote:
NUMBERS THAT SHOULD MAKE THE GOP NERVOUS.... Dave Weigel flags an interesting tidbit from the new NBC poll.

Quote:
An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Wednesday found that 40 percent of voters would blame Republicans if the government shut down, 20 percent would blame Obama, and 20 percent would blame congressional Democrats. Compare that with the poll that was conducted in October 1995, the last time the government shut down. Sixteen years ago, 43 percent of voters said a shutdown would be Republicans' fault, and 32 percent said it would be Bill Clinton's fault. And that was the high watermark for Republicans. They lost ground once the shutdown started.


Much of the recent talk has concluded that Republicans are in a better spot, at least politically, going into this shutdown as compared to the Gingrich/Dole shutdown(s) 16 years ago. But there's evidence to the contrary.

Indeed, most Americans probably haven't followed developments on the Hill especially closely up until now. When the mainstream learns that Democrats accepted the GOP's demands on spending cuts, and Republicans shut down the government anyway, the poll numbers for the GOP will likely get worse, just as they did in the '90s.

In the meantime, the budget talks appear to be breaking down again. More on this soon.
—Steve Benen 10:25 AM


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_04/028834.php

Quote:
Both parties are seen to be playing politics with these funding bills, and while currently the GOP comes out looking a bit worse than the DEMS it is temporary and not enough to matter. Both parties are not doing the peoples work, that is the take away.


No, it isn't. You're merely projecting - again - your opinion onto the country as a whole.

Care to bet on it, Hawk? You seem awful confident that the GOP is going to come out of this situation with something other than a loss, but you don't really have much to base it on.

I on the other hand remember the 90's quite well, and how poorly it went for the Republicans last time this happened. The parallels are stunning and the same result will come out, in large part b/c the president has a bully pulpit and is pretty popular, whereas Boehner does not and is pretty unpopular.

Cycloptichorn
engineer
 
  4  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2011 12:07 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

The abortion issue is only a part of it. PP also gets it because they service youth and sex workers, which conservatives decry. Perhaps conservatives will be appeased by giving up only abortion services, and considering that 33% of funding comes from the government and only 3% goes out in Abortion services maybe out of a desire to survive PP gives up that 3%.

We all benefit from government funding of PP because PP is limiting damage done to the government's budget from unplanned pregnancies. If youths are going to engage in sex (something I consider a given), then someone better be telling them how to avoid being parents unexpectedly. (Of course, this should be the adults in their lives, but that clearly doesn't happen all the time.) If there are going to be sex workers (again, something I consider a given), then we are well served by helping them remain healthy rather than allowing them to be a vector for disease. I don't see how you can decry welfare on one side and not be for addressing one of the major causes of welfare spending, unexpected pregnancy. The non-abortion side of PP should be something conservatives strongly support, not deride. It seems we get a lot of bang for the buck.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2011 12:11 pm
@engineer,
Quote:
The non-abortion side of PP should be something conservatives strongly support, not deride. It seems we get a lot of bang for the buck.
Conservatives were the original proponents of the war in Iraq, the war on drugs, and the American system of "lock them up and throw away the key".....economic feasibility is certainly not a high priority with them, which I am pretty sure you know damn well.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2011 12:14 pm
@hawkeye10,
Smile Ok, I conceed that one.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2011 12:14 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
the president has a bully pulpit and is pretty popular, whereas Boehner does not and is pretty unpopular.


wait, the president is bullying boehner? Shocked

is that why he cries so much Crying or Very sad


Razz
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2011 12:18 pm
I found this useful -- it breaks down both the Planned Parenthood thing and the environment thing:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/riders-caused-the-storm-anti-abortion-and-anti-environment-measures-threaten-government-shutdown.php

Planned Parenthood:

Quote:
The abortion rider that's received the most attention would prohibit the government from giving any money to Planned Parenthood.

That passed as an amendment on the House floor. However, written into the base bill is a provision that would eliminate Title X -- a program that provides funding for family planning clinics across the country -- altogether.

But there's one in there, too, which would prohibit the city of Washington, D.C., from using its own, non-federal funds to pay for abortions, beyond the accepted limits for the use of federal funds -- rape, incest, or life of the mother.

It also blocks funding for the U.S. Ambassador's Fund for Cultural Preservation, the UN Population Fund, and any foreign NGOs that use non-U.S. funds to provide abortions.


(Emphases in original.)
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2011 12:20 pm
@CoastalRat,
The government money going to PP is about equal to what we spend in Iraq in 45 minutes. The right should not be cherrypicking for elimination tiny expenditures for programs with which it doesn't agree.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/22/2020 at 11:30:58