Pro-Choice, but for who?

The hypocrisy coming from feminists and pro-abortion fanatics is astonishing with regard to the Stupak amendment.  The Stupak amendment was passed on Saturday with bipartisan support – just in case the travesty bill known as HR3962 passed (which it sadly did).  Basically, it prohibits the use of public funds for abortion by women.  Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?

Not according to Planned Parenthood and NARAL.  Tonight on Joy Behar’s show, the ultra-liberal pro-choice host had on a few of these women along with Congresswoman Maxine Waters.  To say these women stretched the truth is a huge understatement. 

When people take advantage of a public option to anything, they succumb to big-government bureaucracy.  It’s always been that way, it always will be.  Who votes for these politicians who support big-government bureaucracy?  Why I do believe it’s the same liberals who are angry about the Stupak Amendment!?

What angered me about Behar’s show (not that I expect journalistic integrity out of her) is how uniformed she herself was as the fanatics proclaimed that women would still be denied abortion if they paid for their own policies.  She, of course, was appalled as the same fanatics continued to blame “anti-choice” members of the House. 

“Paying for their policies” doesn’t grant them that right if they are paying for their policies out of the exchange.  Why?  Because if a woman purchases an insurance policy out of the public option and pays $100 per month for a policy which she would have paid $300 per month for from Blue Cross Blue Shield, this means that two-thirds of her insurance policy is subsidized by the American taxpayer.

It’s the same concept with Section 8 or public housing.  Folks pay a small sum of money – say $150 per month – and the government covers the remaining $600-$800 per month.  In my county, such recipients are constantly put through the most rigorous procedures.  They have to send in pay stubs every month, they get their house inspected every two months, their kids’ clothes are inspected and beds are checked, personal questions about the dating lives of the recipients are asked, etc. etc. etc.  Every aspect of their lives from A to Z is violated.  There is no privacy when you sell out to big government and wear one of their numbers.

What about the “choice” anyway?  Any liberal who complains about this Stupak amendment is a total hypocrite.  What about the choice of taxpayers who have to pay for the bill (considering it passes the Senate)?  Do they have a “choice” of whether or not to pay for it?  Miraculously, Planned Parenthood or NARAL doesn’t seem to mind that, nor do liberal politicians, nor do the voting liberal base.

They selectively apply “choice” and “privacy” to matters that are only important to the radical left-wing.

Here’s a little newsflash for them (and feminists alike): this is only the beginning!  Every aspect of your life is going to be uncovered, there will be an answer to them for everything you do, and they WILL have the control over your life that they have always wanted.

And you know what?  You deserve it. 

You want your precious privacy?  Good!  You might have just taken your first step to being a conservative!

Advertisements

65 thoughts on “Pro-Choice, but for who?

  1. “What angered me about Behar’s show (not that I expect journalistic integrity out of her) is how uniformed she herself was as the fanatics proclaimed that women would still be denied abortion if they paid for their own policies. ”

    Then don’t get pregnant. No pregnancy means no need for an abortion. You want control over your bown body? No problem. Control it in a way that does not make babies you don’t want.

  2. “1st step towards conservatism = realizing that the gov’t is not your friend”

    Except in deciding whether or not a woman should have an abortion apparently…now go chance the subject to “morals” lol

    “Then don’t get pregnant. No pregnancy means no need for an abortion. You want control over your bown body? No problem. Control it in a way that does not make babies you don’t want.”

    Just because you right-wing losers can’t get laid doesn’t mean you have the right to impose your virginity on everybody else. So that’s the face of “small government” I guess..you’re not allowed to have sex without the “small” government intervening to prevent you from having an abortion LOL

    Man John, you’re almost as easy as Steve!

  3. “Except in deciding whether or not a woman should have an abortion apparently…now go chance the subject to “morals” lol”

    Tom, stop responding like a child. The argument is:

    Why is the “choice” and “privacy” of women who want to use federal funds to suck babies through test tubes a priority when the “choice” and “privacy” of millions of taxpayers to support this overhaul altogether is disregarded?

    Yeah, that’s what I thought.

    No, my little abortion-lover, you cannot be selective in liberal and freedom.

    This is exactly what you support and what these feminists support: Big government using others peoples’ money but miraculously you same morons argue for small government (only when this issue comes up).

    By taking this stance, you and your lady-friends (those hot 50-year olds at NARAL) damn your own cause for supporting a health care overhaul in the first place.

    “Just because you right-wing losers can’t get laid doesn’t mean you have the right to impose your virginity on everybody else.”

    And just because you could never be as intellectually honest as John when you debate doesn’t mean you have to act like a middle-schooler with insults.

    When your voice moves beyond the octave of Peter Brady, and find out what it takes to please someone sexually, maybe we’ll stop laughing when you make such proclamations.

    You know what they say about those who talk about it.

    The fact is, John’s argument was intellectually honest, and yours is childish…..you’re beyond easy.

  4. No Steve. The left never argues for small government.

    I’m so disappointed in your use of personal attacks Steve. I’ve never used any against you. Peter Brady? The irrelevance of that insult is just staggeringly childish. Anytime I attack YOU it’s just to point out your inability to argue.

    Hot 50-year-olds? Cuz nobody’s hotter than Ann Coulter right? lol

    Btw, for some reason I can’t get notified of follow-up comments anymore….it asks me to login but doesn’t recognize my username or password!

    RECTIFY THIS PLEASE

  5. “Paying for their policies” doesn’t grant them that right if they are paying for their policies out of the exchange”

    Then bitch at the insurance companies, not the politicians. The reason that liberals are upset (and rightly so) is this amendment IS anti choice. Let’s first remind ourselves that in order for this amendment to make hold any water, we’d have to just completely ignore the existence of the decades old Hyde amendment, which conservatives have already taken the liberty of doing. That amendment already bars federal dollars from being used to fund abortions. The Stupak amendment applies to INSURANCE bought on the exchange. He basically wants the government to tell the insurance companies which services they can and cannot provide, something that you accuse the Democrats of doing! Talk about hypocrisy. Your argument is that people that are being subsidized should not be able to use that money to get an abortion, and this can ONLY apply to private insurance since the Hyde amendment is already in place. Let’s look at it this way: if I am being subsidized by the government, in the form of grants, to obtain higher education, and I turn around and use that money to attend a catholic school, does that mean that the government is funding religious education? Of course not. If you apply that same logic, you come to the same conclusion.

  6. “I turn around and use that money to attend a catholic school, does that mean that the government is funding religious education?”

    Yes, actually.

  7. Since when is an elective procedure funded by insurance in the first place?

    An abortion is usually an elective procedure. Especially if you’re going to call it a “choice.” I actually agree with what John said – the choice came prior to conception.

  8. “Then bitch at the insurance companies, not the politicians. The reason that liberals are upset (and rightly so) is this amendment IS anti choice.”

    No, it is not “anti-choice.”

    Again, this entire proposed overhaul, Robert, is “anti-choice” to people who are stuck paying for it. So, what about their right? What about their privacy? Where is their “choice?”

    Just because a woman is using the prospective “exchange” and is paying her own money does NOT mean that taxpayer funds will not be supporting abortion. THAT is a fact.

    The whole point into going into the exchange is to get health insurance for a lower cost…..why is it a lower cost Robert? BECAUSE IT IS SUBSIDIZED!

    I don’t get it. You and your liberal feminist friends beg for this big government. Whenever you take from it, you MUST abide by their intrusions. It’s exactly what you asked for!

    If a woman gets a policy which is paid for in-part by the taxpayers, her body no longer belongs to her. It belongs to the same bureaucrats who claim possession of our money.

    You cannot be selective about freedom, choice, privacy, and liberty and you cannot have it both ways.

  9. “Yes, actually.”

    And are you surprised that conservatives don’t apply the same amount of fervor and indignation at that?

  10. “Just because a woman is using the prospective “exchange” and is paying her own money does NOT mean that taxpayer funds will not be supporting abortion. THAT is a fact.”

    Like I said, take it up with the insurance companies that cover it. The government does not own private insurance companies, and therefore, they have no control over what procedures they can and can’t perform.

    “The whole point into going into the exchange is to get health insurance for a lower cost…..why is it a lower cost Robert? BECAUSE IT IS SUBSIDIZED!”

    Nobody’s arguing that. What’s your point?

    “If a woman gets a policy which is paid for in-part by the taxpayers, her body no longer belongs to her. It belongs to the same bureaucrats who claim possession of our money.”

    Wow, I’m not sure I know anyone that has such a skewed view of things. Since when does accepting help from the government that was created to do just that obligate us to forfeit our rights? I mean, I know you’re all for it when it comes to spying on our communications without the proper legal authority, but come on…

    And as for that “our money” remark, if you don’t like paying taxes, then stop using the public roads, and the police and fire departments, and stop pretending that you love the military, and don’t use any of the legal infrastructure available to you. Deal?

    “You cannot be selective about freedom, choice, privacy, and liberty and you cannot have it both ways.”

    I would submit to you that it’s the conservatives that want it both ways. They’re the ones crying about a government takeover of health care and how it’s an affront to the free market, then you turn around and defend the proposition of the government telling private industry what it can and can’t do; and this is private industry that isn’t directly taking government money. How do you reconcile those two things?

  11. “Like I said, take it up with the insurance companies that cover it. The government does not own private insurance companies, and therefore, they have no control over what procedures they can and can’t perform.”

    If a woman has insurance through a private insurance company outside of the exchange, then this bill is not going to hurt her.

    “Wow, I’m not sure I know anyone that has such a skewed view of things. Since when does accepting help from the government that was created to do just that obligate us to forfeit our rights?”

    Did you read what I wrote above? Have you ever known any person who has had to accept government housing or a deal where the majority of their rent is subsidized? Do you know what they go through? One works for my Aunt’s health club – and every month she calls me to get copies of her paystubs so she can send those in. She gets inspected, she gets questions asked about her dating life, her kids’ clothes and beds are inspected, etc. Robert, it’s the way it is! If you are going to use a government agency for “help” you have to play by their rules. It’s the price. You can call me a fool but if you really think the topic of abortion is going to be the end here in terms of people feeling violated, you’re dead wrong. This is your big government…

    This has nothing to do with our personal opinions on abortion. It has to do with government oversight and while a large percent of Americans don’t want their tax dollars subsidizing it, the Government is not going to argue with them….after all, they are pissed as it is that the government is using their money to begin with.

    I didn’t use an “our money” remark. I never argued against taxes, Robert – so now you have to create a strawman to hide the fact that your big government solutions here are biting your activist-loving rhetoric in the ass. When taxes are lower on small businesses, more people have jobs, more people pay more taxes at the lower rates and thus, more wealth and opportunity is created which ultimately results in MORE tax revenue retained by the Treasury. Of course we need those things for defense, roads, and enriched social services for those in need. Again, don’t set up strawman arguments.

    As far as the military goes, I wasn’t the one whose first concern was to worry about 4 million Muslims in America and what Hasan’s actions were going to do to their precious reputations…mine was with our fallen soldiers and I do believe I was the one accused for going down the wrong road.

    Nice cheap shot though.

    Finally, if women pay for their own insurance policies without the use of public funds and while abortion remains legal in this country – let them do what they want. The Stupak amendment will not restrict those women. In fact, the legislation allows for the women who purchase insurance from the exchange to purchase their own supplemental insurance that would cover abortion if they so desired.

    If it could stop any woman from having an abortion – outside of the exchange, there would be no purpose for that stipulation.

  12. “No Steve. The left never argues for small government.”

    They do in the case of abortion only, which was my point. They don’t mind government intrusion in the lives of others, but you must stay away from the 13-year old having an abortion in California without her mother’s consent! That’s too private!

    “Hot 50-year-olds? Cuz nobody’s hotter than Ann Coulter right? lol”

    You apparently haven’t seen the leaders of NARAL.

  13. Nope. They never argue for small government. You’re just AMAZINGLY trying to pin YOUR hypocrisy onto your opponents.

    Let me make this clear:

    YOUR the side that argues for small government and applies it selectively. NOT the other side.

    “the 13-year old having an abortion in California without her mother’s consent! That’s too private!”

    LOL “Consent” was never an issue in CA. Allowing a parent to force teen motherhood on their child is something so laughable it couldn’t even get on the ballot. The issue was notification and despite how “conservative” CA is for opposing gay marriage, they voted down a parental notification requirement 3 times in a row! lol

    “parently haven’t seen the leaders of NARAL.”

    Your gradeschool remarks on people’s appearance just shows your anger. I never thought I’d get an adult to get so angry that he’d start representing himself with this kind of talk.

    Btw, the “notify me of follow-up comments via email” thing DOESN’T WORK ANYMORE

  14. “Allowing a parent to force teen motherhood on their child is something so laughable it couldn’t even get on the ballot.”

    This is hilarious to me. A teacher can be fired and sued for giving a kid a Tylenol, but if the teacher refers the kid for a pseudo-surgical procedure, the parents don’t have to know.

    Classy.

  15. “Just because you right-wing losers can’t get laid doesn’t mean you have the right to impose your virginity on everybody else. ”

    I have no problem getting laid. Then, now or ever.

    Women already have privacy and choice when it comes to their bodies. Who they make love to is none of my business. Why they do it is none of my business. That is their choice and their private matter.

    Now, when that love making results in an unwanted child, the game changes. A unborn human is involved and that unborn human has to bear the outcome of that choice. The unborn child doesn’t get to choose if it gets sucked into a bucket or not.

    Women have privacy and choice over their own bodies. What they want is privacy and choice over the body of someone else and to that I say no deal.

  16. “LOL “Consent” was never an issue in CA. Allowing a parent to force teen motherhood on their child is something so laughable it couldn’t even get on the ballot. The issue was notification and despite how “conservative” CA is for opposing gay marriage, they voted down a parental notification requirement 3 times in a row! lol”

    Yes the people of this state have done that three times in a row.

    As for the same sex marriage ban, 52% to 48% is hardly a landslide.

  17. “Just because you right-wing losers can’t get laid doesn’t mean you have the right to impose your virginity on everybody else. ”

    I love how Tom gets his panties in a bunch over personal attacks right after he posts very personal attacks like this. Charming.

  18. “Nope. They never argue for small government”

    Okay, so is it really your position that liberals want the government to control women’s lives and choices when it comes to abortion?

    Tom, I really have given up at trying to explain things to you. Please remove the blockage.

  19. “Your gradeschool remarks on people’s appearance just shows your anger.”

    Not as mature as remarking on someone’s sex life but I think I am doing just fine.

    You know what I think? I think you feel the anger when you say things so inferior and by alleging that I do the same thing makes you feel better.

  20. “Not as mature as remarking on someone’s sex life but I think I am doing just fine.”

    I was joking about the sex life thing. Jesus. But I did have a serious point.

    “Okay, so is it really your position that liberals want the government to control women’s lives and choices when it comes to abortion?”

    Once again Steve, you’re trying to pin YOUR hypocrisy on others and it’s not working because the left simply never said it was against “big government”. YOUR side is the hypocritical one on this issue. You could at least have the courage to accept it.

    “This is hilarious to me. A teacher can be fired and sued for giving a kid a Tylenol, but if the teacher refers the kid for a pseudo-surgical procedure, the parents don’t have to know.”

    Mel, the far-right argument comparing abortion to Tylenol deserves nothing but a wink and a smile. Not getting Tylenol doesn’t have a life-long consequence

  21. “Once again Steve, you’re trying to pin YOUR hypocrisy on others and it’s not working because the left simply never said it was against “big government”. YOUR side is the hypocritical one on this issue. You could at least have the courage to accept it.”

    I don’t think protecting the life of an unborn child constitutes big government. If a woman wants to do whatever to her body then go for it. When she carries a child she can’t endanger the life of that child. The child inside of her is not her body.

  22. “I was joking about the sex life thing. Jesus. But I did have a serious point.”

    Serious based on what? Now, I am curious. Are you talking about the liberal students at Columbia University that have to join a club called Conversio Virium to find a way to have sex? Do you know what someone has to look like to join a club to have sex? I’d like to hold a picture of that crowd up to the College Republicans and the Christian crowd.

    “Once again Steve, you’re trying to pin YOUR hypocrisy on others and it’s not working because the left simply never said it was against “big government”. YOUR side is the hypocritical one on this issue. You could at least have the courage to accept it”

    Is that even a coherent sentence? Tom, liberals want small government for abortion, even if it means using tax subsidized healthcare for the “private choice.”

    If you have cancer, it’s not a “choice.” If you have sex and decide to terminate, that’s TWO choices. The government will not pay for choices. It’s not only on abortion.

    But, if you must continue to peddle that lie to cover up YOUR hypocrisy, then go ahead and provide me one piece of proof or quote from one of the following top five conservatives to prove to me that conservatives argue for big government to take away a woman’s right to choose:

    1.) Ronald Reagan
    2.) Ann Coulter
    3.) Rush Limbaugh
    4.) Sarah Palin
    5.) GW Bush

    What avenue of federal government intrusion has any one of those people used to intervene in a woman’s reproductive decisions?
    “Mel, the far-right argument comparing abortion to Tylenol deserves nothing but a wink and a smile”

    Yet, a “wink and a smile” seem to be all we get out of you anymore. Your posts are REALLY a waste of time lately. I am sorry to be so frank with you, but unless you can post anything substantial to counter to the very good arguments made around here, I’d rather you not post anything at all.

    As much as I disagree with Robert, he offers perspective. I do believe you are capable of that perspective, Tom and I am not insulting your intelligence. But as a friend, I ask you to keep it mature.
    No conservative has argued that big government should do anything on abortion. In fact, conservatives argue to make it a states issue. Never have we advocated the government intrude on a woman’s right to choose anything.

  23. “I don’t think protecting the life of an unborn child constitutes big government. If a woman wants to do whatever to her body then go for it. When she carries a child she can’t endanger the life of that child. The child inside of her is not her body.”

    Classic right-wing partisan blindness. You believe it’s not big government because you DON’T WANT IT to be “big government”. Your argument has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. You simply believe yourself to be exempt because you feel you’re just “right”, and the others just “wrong”, and that therefore you somehow can’t be contradictory or hypocritical.

    That’s how a child thinks

  24. “Classic right-wing partisan blindness. You believe it’s not big government because you DON’T WANT IT to be “big government”.”

    Do you even know the definiton of “big government?”

    Roe V Wade – a federal law = BIG GOVERNMENT.

    Asking someone to pay for someone else’s abortion = BIG GOVERNMENT.

    When anybody becomes a recipient of big government money, they don’t own their privacy anymore. They are the ones who did this to themselves.

    We conservatives don’t want to nationalize healthcare. Therefore; the woman pays for her own health insurance and none of us have any say about what she does. THATS HOW WE WANT IT.

  25. “No conservative has argued that big government should do anything on abortion. In fact, conservatives argue to make it a states issue. Never have we advocated the government intrude on a woman’s right to choose.”

    First of all, if you think conservatives don’t want abortion to be decided federally then you should do a little bit of reading up on

    1.) Ronald Reagan
    2.) Ann Coulter
    3.) Rush Limbaugh
    4.) Sarah Palin
    5.) GW Bush

    Bush is the one who signed a partial-birth abortion ban and have you even READ any of Ann Coulter’s writings? Not only does she argue for a nation-wide ban in Godless, but she somehow argues it would be SHRINKING government.

    Also, whether it’s the states or the government has nothing to do with “big government”. If you said you opposed a big FEDERAL government then that may make a little teensy bit of sense regarding consistency.

    Once again, no liberal has ever called for small government. Only you guys

  26. “Asking someone to pay for someone else’s abortion = BIG GOVERNMENT.”

    We are in agreement there. But Roe was SMALL government because it PREVENTED government from acting. It essentially restricted government

  27. Tom, the Supreme Court argued and ruled on Partial Birth Abortion based on medical testimony that concluded that a baby fully formed might not come out terminated. Then, once the baby is out of the body you are left with an infant missing an arm. Bush supported it, as do I. But this is separate from opposing abortion altogether. There were other aspects to argue beyond “when does life begin?”

    And who the hell cares what Ann Coulter writes? I asked you what avenue of big government was used by her or when did you hear her say she supported big government solutions to banning abortion? In fact, I have heard her say she is not opposed to it for life purposes of the mother. If she is pro-life, what the hell do you care?

    And, if Ann Coulter – or the former director of Planned Parenthood who came out against abortion last week – or Sarah Palin – use their power to influence opinions in the public arena, there is nothing “big government” about that.

    If the nation shares an overall goal (which it does) that we’d all like to see FEWER abortions, so what?

    Roe was a massive government decision – like the Partial Birth ban – that clears the decks for all local states and jurisdictions to have power over their own land.

    Bottom line: you can never pin a conservative’s opposition to big government or anything they say on abortion as hypocritical to their positions on whether or not the Stupak amendment is “anti-choice.”

  28. “Tom, the Supreme Court argued and ruled on Partial Birth Abortion based on medical testimony that concluded that a baby fully formed might not come out terminated. Then, once the baby is out of the body you are left with an infant missing an arm. Bush supported it, as do I. But this is separate from opposing abortion altogether. There were other aspects to argue beyond “when does life begin?””

    See what you’re doing Steve? You’re changing the subject because you can’t win. Rather than just admitting that your “small government” blabbering is bologna, you insist like a child that it “doesn’t count” because you’re “right” in your stances on the issues. This isn’t about right vs wrong, it’s about truth vs lie steve, and the “small government” blabbering on your side is what’s called a lie.

    And I totatlly agree that NO public funds should be used on abortion

  29. “If a woman has insurance through a private insurance company outside of the exchange, then this bill is not going to hurt her.”

    Obviously, but this clearly only applies to insurance purchased on the exchange. But private insurance will also be sold on the exchange, and therefore it ONLY applies to them, since the Hyde amendment covers insurance purchased through the government.

    “If you are going to use a government agency for “help” you have to play by their rules. It’s the price.”

    Yes, and I have no problem with that. The problem comes with what usually irks you, and that is government telling a private company (that it is not giving federal dollars to) what they can and cannot provide in terms of procedures and services.

    “You can call me a fool but if you really think the topic of abortion is going to be the end here in terms of people feeling violated, you’re dead wrong.”

    I don’t think you’re a fool, and I am not arguing the practice of abortion; we both know where I stand on the issue. The only point I’m making is the ridiculous stipulations put forth by this useless amendment (Stupak).

    “I didn’t use an “our money” remark. I never argued against taxes, Robert – so now you have to create a strawman”

    Okay, then I apologize for mischaracterizing this comment:

    “If a woman gets a policy which is paid for in-part by the taxpayers, her body no longer belongs to her. It belongs to the same bureaucrats who claim possession of our money.”

    I naturally assumed that’s what you meant.

    “Again, don’t set up strawman arguments.”

    Okay, you can qualify what you meant at any time here.

    “As far as the military goes, I wasn’t the one whose first concern was to worry about 4 million Muslims in America and what Hasan’s actions were going to do to their precious reputations”

    Hm, neither was mine. What were you saying about strawmen?

    “mine was with our fallen soldiers and I do believe I was the one accused for going down the wrong road.”

    Because that’s not what you did. The first thing you did was to condemn an entire religion and start finger pointing before you had all the facts. We still won’t until this guy starts coughing up answers. You did rush to judgment, going so far as to label this a terrorist attack. It’s a little surprising to know that you think a member of the military is a terrorist. It’s kind of a fine line to walk, so be careful.

    “Nice cheap shot though.”

    It wasn’t a cheap shot. Nine out of ten people that bitch about taxes don’t bother to or care to know what that money is being used for. Take these incredibly ignorant teabaggers; they don’t see the irony in a) complaining about higher taxes when 95% of them are seeing a reduction in their taxes, and 2) the fact that they’re holding their little bitch-fests in public parks and on public streets, with protection from the local police departments. All paid for with what they indignantly claim is rightfully theirs.

    “Finally, if women pay for their own insurance policies without the use of public funds and while abortion remains legal in this country – let them do what they want. The Stupak amendment will not restrict those women.”

    Again, that’s not the issue. Let’s be perfectly clear, here; no one who receives government subsidies can obtain an abortion through government run insurance. But when someone takes their subsidy and uses it to purchase private insurance on the exchange, it’s out of the government’s hands. That’s why I provided the example of using grant money to attend a catholic college. The government is not subsidizing religious education, and if private insurance covers abortion, the government is not responsible for that. Unless and only if the private insurance industry starts taking bailout money, then the government has a legitimate reason to restrict what services they can provide. Until then, you should at least try to be consistent when it comes to rhetoric about government intrusion.

    “In fact, the legislation allows for the women who purchase insurance from the exchange to purchase their own supplemental insurance that would cover abortion if they so desired.”

    Yeah, because that’s not disgusting and degrading. I find it incredibly hypocritical of the right to attempt to deny women the right to full reproductive health, yet not one of them is being consistent by asking insurance to stop covering things like Viagra and vasectomies. Why is the right only concerned with telling women what they can and can’t do?

    “If it could stop any woman from having an abortion – outside of the exchange, there would be no purpose for that stipulation.”

    That stipulation, and therefore the entire amendment, was to placate conservative democrats, pure and simple. I’ve heard some on your side claim that it garnered 40 votes. Not the case if you hear majority whip James Clyburn tell it. It only got ten votes…

  30. “They do in the case of abortion only, which was my point. They don’t mind government intrusion in the lives of others, but you must stay away from the 13-year old having an abortion in California without her mother’s consent! That’s too private!”

    So, wouldn’t that make the inverse also true? That you hate government intrusion unless it’s to poke their nose into your bedroom or a woman’s womb?

    And also, what you refer to as government intrusion, usually coming in the form of stringent regulations on big business as a means of consumer protection, has never, ever, in the history of the country, affected an individual’s rights, whether it be privacy, or the big three (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness). YOURS does. That is the difference.

  31. I don’t know how many times I have to say this Steve. YOUR side is the ONLY one talking about small government and even if it weren’t, it would still be the one making it their flagship issue, thus making YOU the hypocrit

  32. “See what you’re doing Steve? You’re changing the subject because you can’t win.”

    Tom, I am not changing the subject. You lied and said that Bush signed a bill banning partial birth abortion. I am telling you that th ethird branch of government, from medical testimony alone, decided that because of the many aspects. That wasn’t an act of big government. It just so happens that most people were and are against partial birth abortion. It has nothing to do with a woman using tax dollars to support abortions.

    “And I totatlly agree that NO public funds should be used on abortion”

    Good, because when you take from the government, they are always going to poke their nose into your business….it’s a given. I am not the one asking for it, I am just stating the obvious. This isn’t a debate about my personal stance on abortion.

    “I don’t know how many times I have to say this Steve. YOUR side is the ONLY one talking about small government and even if it weren’t, it would still be the one making it their flagship issue, thus making YOU the hypocrit”

    It is not a “flagship issue” with me as much as it is with you. All someone has to do is say the word for you to spin off in 80 other different directions here. I personally do not like abortion and want fewer of them happening in America. Through liberty, people can use their powers of persuasion – by ways that does not involve spending other people’s money – to promote that message.

    You can call me every name in the book. But the fact is, I have proven you wrong over and over again here. Liberals want the government out of their life SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY on the topic of abortion. But they don’t mind it in the lives of those they have to take money from to pay for it. Again, you cannot selectively apply freedom, privacy, and choice to only women seeking abortions and not once were you able to prove one big-government solution offered up by Republicans to take abortion away. So saying “hypocrite” over and over again might make you sleep better, but it will never make it true.

  33. Robert, if private companies are selling on the exchange to compete – some way there will be kickbacks received for them being able to offer this coverage to begin with. I don’t care what they use their subsidy for, it’s still a subsidy. Can you explain where it is coming from?

    I am against big government sticking their nose in absolutely. But it’s pointless to argue it at that point, don’t you think? Their nose is already in all the way and I am telling you, everything would change big time with regard to EVERY aspect of care.

    “Nine out of ten people that bitch about taxes don’t bother to or care to know what that money is being used for. Take these incredibly ignorant teabaggers”

    They know – Ronald Reagan knew – Margaret Thatcher even knew….

    There is a fine line between being responsible and understanding that some tax must be paid. But then when people start to become wealthy, we start hearing about “the gap between the rich and the poor” and so on. If taxes are kept lower, more people can work and because more profits are earned and the economy booms, we get MORE tax revenue. Everybody understands that.

    Today, an IRS agent was speaking at a seminar I attended as I prepare for my 2010 filing season for my clients….she said the replacement for income tax (national sales tax or “fair” tax) gets introduced every year AND it gets more and more support…

    That means people pay based on what they buy – they control it with their own buying power.

    Thoughtful analysis has been done showing how much can be retained for roads, social services, defense, etc. The tea parties represent fairness in taxation. If anything, letting the government know that folks are watching and have an opinion is a good thing.

    These are just citizens speaking their minds, I honestly don’t know why you’d use a homosexual practice to reference them.

    “So, wouldn’t that make the inverse also true? That you hate government intrusion unless it’s to poke their nose into your bedroom or a woman’s womb”

    Where did I indicate that? I already asked Tom this question about any conservative. It was government in states that took parents’ rights AWAY from knowing about their daughters having abortions.

    The bottom line, “choice” is for everyone, not just abortionists.

    Of course this is all moot, the Senate’s version will not even include a public option and many in the Senate have already said (including Lieberman) that they would not vote for a public option. This Stupak Amendment really was a cooked up scheme to make Americans think Democrats really were fighting within their party so they could get this rammed through the House on Saturday. As you can see, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Maxine Waters, etc. are all saying they know the language would be fought against if it comes back.

    The truth is, Democrats are in even bigger trouble. Two months ago, you gave me the Gallup showing Congressional Democrats in the lead by 6 points for 2010. Last month, I came back showing you they tied.

    Now, today – check it out: http://www.gallup.com/fvideo.aspx?i=DoTezUU4O54RSfS2Cpdly5XenqK(.UTFKrtmFtM4VIPJimq1CR-p@6Ufz4qShV9B9s3RvCvehKLme5CC-m3NBZgaa

    Democrats are watching. Especially the ones in the Senate now.

  34. “It just so happens that most people were and are against partial birth abortion. It has nothing to do with a woman using tax dollars to support abortions.”

    I Don’t know how many times you’re going to change the subject Steve. So now it doesn’t count as “Big government” as long as it’s popular is that it? Why don’t you stop humiliating yourself and just admit your party’s ridiculousness in trying to have their “small government” message taken seriously, because all your doing is trying to force the idea that there are “Exceptions” such as when the majority agrees with you or when there’s a life at stake. The majority also agrees in raising the minimum wage, among other things. Does that make it an “exception” from being “big government” Steve?

    And once again, nice try in making the left look hypocritical for what your side is guilty of. You can keep saying all you want that they’re the ones who want a limited government “except” for abortion if it makes you sleep any better, but you’re just twisting the parties’ positions. Once again, YOUR side is the one that champions the cause of “small government” and applies it selectively. YOUR side is the one that contradicts itself. You can keep trying to convince everyone else(and yourself) that the reverse is true but you’ll be wasting your time.

    I’m disappointed in you Steve because I know you can do better than this pointless self-denial. You’ve made some good points occasionally now show me you can do so again why doncha?

    And fix the “follow-up” check box because it DOESN’T work!

  35. “Mel, the far-right argument comparing abortion to Tylenol deserves nothing but a wink and a smile. Not getting Tylenol doesn’t have a life-long consequence”

    Then KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS. It ain’t that hard. The best way to avoid pregnancy and STD’s is to stop sleeping around. And don’t give me the rape argument; I support a morning-after pill, but once that fetus forms a beating heart it is a life and I don’t want to contribute to that.

    The principle is the same here. A Tylenol isn’t as serious as an abortion, but I still haven’t figured out why parents have to be notified of everything BUT abortions. This is one of the many reasons why I will never, EVER live in California.

  36. “Bush is the one who signed a partial-birth abortion ban…”

    And this is a bad thing? Do you know what the partial-birth abortion procedure entails? It is the most inhuman thing I’ve ever heard of, ranking right up there with Josef Mengele. Yes, I know what I’m talking about, Tom–I understand the medical world more than the average citizen.

  37. “The principle is the same here. A Tylenol isn’t as serious as an abortion, but I still haven’t figured out why parents have to be notified of everything BUT abortions. This is one of the many reasons why I will never, EVER live in California.”

    That’s because you lack common sense. It’s specifically BECAUSE of abortion’s higher seriousness that the government shouldn’t get involved.

    Banning partial-birth abortion(especially at the federal level) is a contradiction of “small government”

  38. Tom, you are so delusional. Banning partial birth abortion is an act of protecting a fully developed child. It’s not a fetus anymore, it’s a fully formed baby who has rights…..

    Nobody is forced to have higher taxes or is at the mercy of the government as a result of this ruling upheld by the Supreme Court.

    Everyone else – accept you – seems to understand just fine the point that the only time liberals care about true freedom, liberty, choice, and privacy is in regard to an abortion procedure.

    They are big government hypocrites annoyed that the same big government is telling women they cannot buy abortions with tax subsidized health insurance. Miraculously on this one issue, they are small government.

    Now, if that does not penetrate, there is nothing I can do to make that part of your brain work. It is beyond my control.

    Everyone else though seemed to understand and comprehend just fine.

    Your argument has no basis and proclaiming that banning partial birth abortion is big government shows that you’re really just struggling for something to say at this point.

    Say, did you know it was illegal to shoot someone!? Say, that’s a “big government” decision, isn’t it?

    LOL

  39. “Tom, you are so delusional. Banning partial birth abortion is an act of protecting a fully developed child. It’s not a fetus anymore, it’s a fully formed baby who has rights…..

    Nobody is forced to have higher taxes or is at the mercy of the government as a result of this ruling upheld by the Supreme Court.”

    Once again Steve, you’re the only one struggling here. I have made my point clearly and everyone but you can understand. You’re making the argument that someone banning a procedure is not expanding government simply because it’s “right”. Well Steve, the issue of it being “right” is irrelevant. Your party champions “small government” and you make exceptions for intervention that you defend by arguing tht it’s “right”. Well Steve, we KNOW that you think it’s “right”, it’s called having an opinion. You’re just being a child really, saying that something you believe in could never make you self-contradictory because you BELIEVE in it. Well you know what Steve? I know a bunch of Democrats who could rant similarly about the righteousness of various forms of government intervention. They too, believe themselves to be “right” in their beliefs. Does that stop you from calling it “Big government”? No, and it shouldn’t.

    I don’t know why it’s so hard for you to understand that I’m not disagreeing with you on partial birth abortion, just don’t SAY you support small government.

    “Say, did you know it was illegal to shoot someone!? Say, that’s a “big government” decision, isn’t it?”

    Nice use of “LOL” at the end. Boy did you sure show me….

    Shooting someone isn’t a partisan issue like abortion.

    And you don’t get to define big government as relating only to taxes. You support a FEDERAL law telling doctors what they can and cannot do(something ELSE you claim to oppose! lol this is too easy) and you pout irrelevantly with background noise about how that’s an exception because, unlike your other beliefs, this one’s “right”.

    “They are big government hypocrites annoyed that the same big government is telling women they cannot buy abortions with tax subsidized health insurance. Miraculously on this one issue, they are small government.”

    Once again, Stevy boy, your analysis is upside down. You’re viewing your own party’s hypocrisy as Democratic hypocrisy. Pro-choicers never pretended small government to be their goal. That was YOUR party and for the last time, YOU’RE the hypocritical one for always bitching about evil big government and at the same time want to expand government AND “tell doctors what they can and cannot do”(sound familiar? It’ s also your rhetoric on the healthcare debate!).

    If you want this to go on I’d suggest you start understanding some basic rules of logic, such as understanding which side is hypocritical.

    Happy birthday

  40. “That’s because you lack common sense. It’s specifically BECAUSE of abortion’s higher seriousness that the government shouldn’t get involved.”

    Wow. I lack common sense? Your arguments have become so absolutely ridiculous that I’m not even sure how to respond.

    “Shooting someone isn’t a partisan issue like abortion.”

    Oh, okay…so because abortion is a so-called partisan issue and murdering a grown man isn’t, government shouldn’t tell a woman when or how she can get an abortion? I guess the government shouldn’t have intervened with the Texas woman who, in the late 90’s, took a shotgun to her abdomen to kill her unborn child. And I suppose the government has no right to say that certain abortive procedures are cruel and inhuman.

    But they can ban animal cruelty. They can tell farmers exactly how to raise their animals and how to slaughter them. They can charge a woman in Washington State with killing a bald eagle simply for having two feathers on a hand-made dreamcatcher and give her more time in prison than a convicted crack dealer. That’s okay, right?

    You’re a burrito short of a fiesta.

  41. Mel, I’m not sure how to word this so you can understand…

    BANNING ABORTION IS NOT SMALL GOVERNMENT. You’re free to hold that position all you want, just DON’T say you support small government.

    And as a measure of which one of us lacks common sense, you’re the one comparing Tylenol to an abortion….

  42. Mel, you don’t even seem to think when you argue. Your Tylenol argument is a perfect example. If you would just inject some common sense you would understand that you’re arguing against yourself. It’s BECAUSE abortion is so much more serious that the gov shouldn’t get involved. Involvement in this case is more dangerous because of the emotional complications due to strong opinions

  43. Robert – the RNC made a proper choice there. The bill got a “yes” vote from even the staunchest pro-choicers, so apparently they agree.

    Tom, regardless of the “right” involved with any abortion procedure, it is not a big government decision that bans a procedure of killing a fully formed and living human being…regardless if a gun or a suction machine is used.

    I’ll say it over and over again and you can answer it in 50 different ways, but you’ll never escape the sheer fact…..

    LIBERALS WANT SMALL GOVERNMENT IN REGARD TO PRIVACY AND CHOICE FOR A WOMAN WHO WANTS AN ABORTION.

    Yet they won’t offer the small government choice and privacy to the taxpayers who subsidize it.

    THAT is the ONLY hypocrisy in this discussion.

    As I said, saying something 50 times only gives your fingers a workout, but it will never make it true.

  44. “Tom, regardless of the “right” involved with any abortion procedure, it is not a big government decision that bans a procedure of killing a fully formed and living human being…regardless if a gun or a suction machine is used.”

    Steve, Steve, Steve. At this point you’re just refusing to understand. You just don’t get that your argument has nothing to do with whether or not you’re expanding government. If you take that position on P.B. abortion then fine, I’m not saying anything against that. Just quit saying you want a SMALL government because you’ve made it clear as a fact that you DON’T. Stop being a child and refusing to admit your hypocrisy just because of the blindness of your passion. We get it Steve, you think your opinion about this issue is “right” and that people who disagree are “wrong”. Congratulations, you’ve just discovered what’s called an “opinion”, but it has nothing to do with whether or not it expands government.

    Just ADMIT that your “small government” blabbering is just a bogus generalization of your views on select economic issues but that regarding “life”, you believe the government should be large and active.

    Why you can’t just admit that is beyond me. It wouldn’t be admitting that you’re wrong in your abortion position, which you may be right it, just that it wouldn’t be “small government”. Quit trying to make exceptions on the basis of being “right” and others being “wrong”. You’re about 37 now if I’m not mistaken. You’re far too old for this kind of immaturity.

    Once again, liberals….NEVER…. claimed to support small government. You’ve just got your backwards-glasses on. In case you haven’ t heard, “small government” is YOUR party’s motto, and you’re not only trying to deny your selectivity in applying it, but you’re actually making out OTHERS as being selective!

    Unbelievable!

  45. Everyone is entitled to his own beliefs, Tom. He is not, however, entitled to his own truth. Emotional aspects are a big part of why we still have age of consent laws today. Are you to say that’s wrong, too? That it’s “big government” to decide what constitutes murder or rape?

    Big government is defined by a government that meddles in everything. Literally. Putting caps on how big banks can get (or even calling them “too big to fail” in the first place), hiking taxes on small business owners because they make too much and we need to “spread the wealth around,” mandating that health insurance be bought or else you face hefty tax fines (and jail time if you can’t afford to pay those), the Fairness Doctrine, finding ways to do end-runs around Constitutional freedoms to be safe from double prosecution–THAT is big government.

    The government saying you can’t kill a completely innocent human being isn’t big government. It’s no different than the laws about animal cruelty that I just mentioned. I have no problem with those laws, but if you’re going to prosecute animal cruelty for a person who dumps 20-odd cats into a canal after poisoning them (that happened right here, in Phoenix, around the corner from where I used to live), then don’t try to claim that any ban on any type of abortion procedure is “big government.”

    And don’t start that PATRIOT Act crap, either.

  46. Mel, you’re being dishonest. Instead of just admitting that you don’t actually believe in small government, you’re trying to perform mental gymnastics. You remind me of Cartman from South Park. Cartman can never accept any wrongness of contradictions on his part and must always abuse logic for his own comfort. But you’re too old for that Mel, as am I. What you can’t understand is that I’m not even saying that you’re wrong in your abortions position, just that it’s not in line with your “small government” creed.

    Here’s what a liberal might argue so that you get some perspective….

    “Raising taxes and redistributing wealth isn’t big government. That’s just necessary for society. What IS big government is telling women what they can do with their bodies, banning drugs and meddling into sensitive matters such as teen pregnancy. Simply wanting the rich to pay their fair share and implementing some common sense oversight over the economy has nothing to do with big government because it’s not controlling your body.”

    Now do you understand Mel? That argument was equally absurd as a “Small government” defense from the left, although to repeat what I told Steve, the left has never argued for “small government”.

    Murder and rape are nonpartisan and have nothing to do with this. A liberal could just as well have defended his economic policies by comparing the free market to “rape and murder”, the latter being spoken of literally referring to unregulated health insurers.

    Your PASSION in your opinions does not exempt you from being contradictory in your rhetoric. Just admit that you don’t support small government and you may be able to be taken seriously but for now the only thing a reasonable person can do is laugh at your arguments for government intervention in people’s bodies and family decisions while championing the matter of “Small government”.

    Once again, it doesn’t mean you’re wrong in your issues, just that you’re wrong in your RHETORIC as a simple FACT. Maybe you can’t admit it because you’re not secure enough with your positions, but you should. Just say “Ok, fine. We don’t believe in small government, but liberals are stupid and loony!”

    Just ACCEPT that FACT that your rhetoric is a LIE. Once again, it doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not you’re right on the ISSUES so quit changing the subject to that!

  47. “Just quit saying you want a SMALL government because you’ve made it clear as a fact that you DON’T.”

    My position is small government….it just so happens that the majority understood this concept just as they understand any murder or killing. That’s not a big government intrusion….sorry, and your sad 100th attempt didn’t convince us either.

    You cannot ask for small government on overall abortion procedures when accepting a big government handout….that is/was my position and if liberals want us to take that position seriously, their first step wold be to convert to conservatism.

    “Mel, you’re being dishonest. Instead of just admitting that you don’t actually believe in small government, you’re trying to perform mental gymnastics.”

    Actually, if truth, logic, and common sense constitutes “mental gymnastics” then perhaps we can see the issue here. In more than one way, we have explained – with logic – that OVERTURNING a BIG GOVERNMENT law that says its okay to kill a fully formed baby is not big government in and of itself.

    The law which said it was okay to do that WAS the big government decision made. The same government though overturned it. The only people guilty of big government are the ones who supported the first law that made that nasty procedure legal.

    Not even a nice try, can’t you do better than this on my birthday for God Sake?

    “That’s just necessary for society.”

    Regarding your would-be liberal speak. No conservative is against taxation. Even Margaret Thatcher explained the importance of helping the poor, helping those in need. First, taxes are important for defense, taxes are important for infrastructure. The IDEA is that everyone pays the same rates all across the board. Lowering taxes and rates on higher income individuals increases their opportunity to employ others. Thus, when more Americans are paying into the system at lower rates, more money is retained by Uncle Sam. Couple that with more stringent screenings for applicants of any subsidized federal program, you have more retained by the Government for all of those things – INCLUDING the needy.

    Here’s the big government part (and I am so disappointed that I have to explain this): telling certain folks they must pay higher rates, juggling around retirement tax laws, taking away itemized deductions for people who earn more, taxing corporations who funnel the cost to us, and ENACTING LEGISLATION WHICH SPENDS MONEY THAT NONE OF US HAVE!

    The quickest ways to rob Small business owners and good Americans so that less work has to be done in an attempt to re-build.

    Thus, you intrude in their lives, take their money, shun their privacy, and laugh at their “choice.”

    THAT IS BIG GOVERNMENT.

    Saying it’s “necessary for society” is not a substantial answer to big government intrusion.

    Saying that overturning a previous “big government” law that shunned the choice and privacy of fully developed babies is a “big government” decision, too is not substantial either.

    You’ve lost. Now, just admit it and rant about something else.

  48. “aying that overturning a previous “big government” law that shunned the choice and privacy of fully developed babies is a “big government” decision, too is not substantial either.”

    What law are you talking about? I’m afraid we may not be on the same page….

    “My position is small government….it just so happens that the majority understood this concept just as they understand any murder or killing. That’s not a big government intrusion….sorry, and your sad 100th attempt didn’t convince us either.”

    Once again Steve, your talk of murder is changing the subject. Controlling people’s bodies is an expansion of government. You’re going to disagree? Fine. But it’ll be funny seeing your “logic” as it’s just going to be another merrygoround of irrelevant steam blowing.

    And I agree with you about liberals and taxes and how it’s big government, but you didn’t get the point that your argument is equally irrelevant.

    But I’m afraid I may not evne be understanding you here…what “big law” are you referring to exactly?

  49. “What law are you talking about? I’m afraid we may not be on the same page….”

    I’m talking about assuming partial-birth abortion being legal under the prescedant set by Roe V Wade. The law on the books allowed for it, it had to be explicity and officially stated that it was not included.

    One verdict that cancels out a big government assumption leaves us with “nothing”.

    A positive minus a negative = -0-

  50. No, because abortion is such a touchy issue, the next small government solution was to let it be resolved per jurisdiction. But overriding those jurisdiction by federal rule is big government. 🙂

  51. “Here’s the big government part (and I am so disappointed that I have to explain this): telling certain folks they must pay higher rates, juggling around retirement tax laws, taking away itemized deductions for people who earn more, taxing corporations who funnel the cost to us, and ENACTING LEGISLATION WHICH SPENDS MONEY THAT NONE OF US HAVE!”

    Here’s a subject I’m not afraid to dive right into. You clearly don’t like having a progressive taxation system. But if it’s demonstrably beneficial to society as a whole (which it has been), then what’s the problem with that? I’ve gone through this before, but history shows us that the higher marginal tax rates (this is the essence of a progressive tax system) are, the more healthy and sustainable economies we have. Just take a look at the period from the post-depression 1930’s right up until the 1980’s, when Ronald Reagan came in and starting slashing taxes on millionaires and billionaires (by raising taxes on the working poor, the largest redistribution of wealth in the history of the country, yet conservatives have yet to blast the Gipper for being a redistributer). That 50 year span was one of the most prosperous ever, making it the first time in the history of our nation we went 50 years without a crash or major bank failure; and working people’s wages increased enough to produce the strongest middle class this nation has ever seen. GDP was consistently at or above 4.6%. After Reagan, it dropped to under 3%.

    If you want a more stark contrast, look at the time leading up to the Republican Great Depression. Hoover cut the marginal tax rate from 73% to 24%. This led directly to the stock market bubble, boom, and then the crash. We saw the same thing occur with both of Regan’s tax cuts. Tax cuts only affect the rich.

  52. “Robert – the RNC made a proper choice there. The bill got a “yes” vote from even the staunchest pro-choicers, so apparently they agree.”

    You read that story after it had been updated. The original post was merely drawing attention to the fact that the RNC, for the last 18 years, has offered insurance that covers abortion. It was just humorously ironic. Apparently, they didn’t like attention being called to them offering something they’ve been supposedly opposed to as a platform, so they’ve decided to, after 18 long years, stop being so damned hypocritical.

  53. Robert, the problem with your assertion that Hoover’s tax cuts caused the Great Depression is that it’s way too simple–and gives Hoover too much power. The Great Depression didn’t just affect America. It was a global event that began with a small recession leading in short order to a stock market crash and subsequent 25-33% unemployment rates. Coupled with a massive drought in the summer of 1930, Americans thought the world was about to come to an end.

    To say that Hoover’s tax cut had an effect that aided the onset of the Depression is as shortsighted as blaming Bush for making conditions ripe for 9/11. It started barely nine months after he was sworn in.

    I might also point out that just because Hoover was a Republican doesn’t mean he was a true conservative. Know anything about Davis-Bacon? Hoover was very pro-labor. He struck a deal through Davis-Bacon that guaranteed industries wouldn’t lower wages and unions wouldn’t strike, but by the end of 1931 unemployment had reached 16% and got worse from there. Hoover also enacted Norris-LaGuardia, stopping the courts from issuing injunctions against striking labor unions. THEN, he gave us Smoot-Hawley, something Obama would do again if he could–it raised tariffs on all imported goods to protect American products. This only made things worse in the rest of the world.

    So, when you get down to it, some of Obama’s policies have been tried before. If they end up being passed again–including government-run healthcare–we’ll end up in the same predicament we were in before. Possibly worse.

    Not everything Hoover did was completely stupid. But FDR didn’t save us, a massive World War did. I firmly believe that if it hadn’t been for WWII and all of the drafts and sudden need for workers that also demanded women get jobs, too, I’m not sure we would have recovered.

    I also believe that if WWII happened today, our culture wouldn’t know what to do. That’s already been evidenced by what’s actually happening now. Not only would we not have the backbone to fight it, we’d never be able to provide the manufacturing power necessary for the war effort.

  54. I might also point out another little fact about Roosevelt…he targeted local and state elections to campaign for specific Democratic candidates, too.

    He failed miserably.

  55. “If they end up being passed again–including government-run healthcare–”

    I appreciate you calling it government run healthcare becuase in this nation we do not have health insurance. Health Insurance is not insurance. But, what is it?

    What we call heath insurance is really pre-paid health care. You pay your premiums and depending on the level of coverage you have pre paid for, you get covered. So if your arm aches from too much tennis, then your “insurance” will pay for your sore arm if you purchased insurance to cover that. From sore arms to massive heart attacks, it is all waiting to be pre-paid. We all know how expensive it is.

    Real insurance does not work that way. When you car needs gasoline, you pay for it. You don’t bill your auto insurance. That is not what auto insurance is for. When your bathroom needs a new lightbulb, you go out and buy one. You don’t bill your renters or homeowners insurance. That is not what those forms of insurance are for.

    Insurance is purchased to cover disasters. A sore arm from tennis is not a disaster. A massive heart attack is.

    So now the goverment wants to get into the system of pre-paid healthcare for all. From sore arms to strokes it is all supposed to be covered and it should not be. When your arm hurts, you pay for it.

    Until we get over this mentality that every Band Aid and tablet of aspirin is at no additional cost, the very rants about the health care system won’t change.

  56. “The Great Depression didn’t just affect America. It was a global event that began with a small recession leading in short order to a stock market crash and subsequent 25-33% unemployment rates.”

    That’s usually how a ripple effect works. It obviously started here. The same exact argument could be made with this recession too.

    “To say that Hoover’s tax cut had an effect that aided the onset of the Depression is as shortsighted as blaming Bush for making conditions ripe for 9/11. It started barely nine months after he was sworn in.”

    I don’t think anyone’s ever made that argument about 9/11. I know I certainly never have. And I didn’t mean to give the impression that it was solely the tax cuts that caused it. It was that, in concert with loose banking regulations. This recession started in eerily similar fashion.

    “I might also point out that just because Hoover was a Republican doesn’t mean he was a true conservative”

    That has absolutely no bearing on what happened. He doesn’t need to be a conservative to be at fault. And actually, I’d like to amend my answer to include the nuance that the definition of the word conservative has certainly changed over the decades. I can remember reading about “radical” amendments (14th- 18th) being ratified to the constitution by the progressives in Congress, and they were Republicans. After Reconstruction, for about ten to fifteen years, Republicans were considered radical progressives. Then they sort of died off and were replaced by moderates.

    “THEN, he gave us Smoot-Hawley, something Obama would do again if he could–it raised tariffs on all imported goods to protect American products. This only made things worse in the rest of the world.”

    Obama would NOT do something like that, and much to my chagrin. Smoot-Hawley (or, as Michelle Bachaman calls it, Hoot-Smalley) has, as of late, become a new whipping post for the right, but they of course fail to realize that even after its passage (which was signed well into the depression), trade was under 2% of GNP. And I am an ardent supporter of protectionist policies. If you look at every industrialized nation that is experiencing healthy economic growth, they’re all doing so with protectionist policies. China, Japan, South Korea, as well as several European nations are all protecting their economies. China’s government passed an economic stimulus at about the same time we did, and they were smart enough to stipulate that that money needed to stay in the country; it was their “Buy America” provision (China is also the biggest benefactor of our stimulus, because our buy America provision was shot down).

    What I’ve never been able to understand is how the right wing in this country has successfully demonized the word protectionism. Why is it such a terrible thing to protect our economy? Why is it so bad to keep profits in this country? After Reagan blew up our tariff system, our average tariff is hovering at around 2%. Two percent! That’s ridiculous. When we export our cars into Japan, they charge a 20% tariff. It’s not a coincidence that protectionist countries have the strongest economies. This is sadly a lesson that President Obama has yet to learn. He just went to Africa this year (with Tom Freidman’s book in tow) and pushed for “free” trade for the continent. That won’t work. I’ve said this many, many times, that if we as a nation don’t move back to a rational tariff policy, we’ll continue to have these economic problems.

    “So, when you get down to it, some of Obama’s policies have been tried before. If they end up being passed again–including government-run healthcare–we’ll end up in the same predicament we were in before. Possibly worse.”

    You’re right (not about health care), but about the scenario I explained above. “Free” trade has been tried before. It’s time for fair trade. Globalization has done nothing but make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

    “But FDR didn’t save us, a massive World War did”

    That is NOT true, not even a little. Do I need to post the numbers again? Because I can, complete with the 1938 recession, and its reasons.

    “I also believe that if WWII happened today, our culture wouldn’t know what to do. That’s already been evidenced by what’s actually happening now. Not only would we not have the backbone to fight it, we’d never be able to provide the manufacturing power necessary for the war effort.”

    This may be the first time I’ve agreed with you this emphatically (with the exception of the backbone part. Really, that sounds like a dig at out military). We really wouldn’t know what to do. Our production base has all but vanished thanks to the Republicans and Clinton. NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO have killed our economy. Who knew that funny looking guy with the big ears was right when he predicted a “giant sucking sound” would be produced by the passage of NAFTA?

    “I might also point out another little fact about Roosevelt…he targeted local and state elections to campaign for specific Democratic candidates, too.

    He failed miserably.”

    Ha, kind of like Sarah Palin. But, what does that have to do with anything?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s