It's a partisan video made by a far left wing group. It's propaganda and both sides do it. It's always a little sad to be reminded of Bob's political leanings since it detracts from my enjoyment of his other wise good show, but he can post what ever he wants. This kind of add isn't going to convince anyone of anything deep down both sides know it's just a giant straw man and little else.
Amazing that a mostly libertarian political viewpoint could harm your enjoyment of bob's product. I may not agree with all of the libertarian viewpoints, but its hard to get worked up about a philosophy that pretty much amounts to “don't make laws about stuff you shouldn't make laws about.”
@Armand I agree. Abstinence is the only 100% way to prevent pregnancy. However, if kids are going to disobey anyway (Bristol Palin was solely educated about abstinence; oddly, she still encourages abstinence=only education) why not give them the ability to protect themselves? Furthermore, either you had a much worse teacher than I could think possible, or you might have misinterpreted what the intent of sex-ed was. Giving you a safety net in case you screw up isn't the same as encouraging you to screw up; automobile makers don't give you a seatbelt as an insult to your intelligence or judgement. Also, it's spelled per se. You're not quite using it in the correct context per se, but I see what you mean (it makes more sense before the thing that does what you want, not after.) Latin is tricky. For Christians in favor of abstinence: Wait. So the Virgin Mary didn't have sex with anyone, but got pregnant anyway? If God can just knock you up whenever he wants, doesn't that mean abstinence isn't always effective even when properly practiced? I mean, there are worse things than having an all-powerful, immortal wizard-baby, but still…
Also, the “I don't want my tax dollars paying for this” argument is really starting to get annoying. Even ignoring that (last time I checked) government funded abortions would cost each tax payer approximately .2 cents annually, having to begrudgingly allow your tax dollars to go to things you don't necessarily want them to go to is a tenant of democracy. People in the 1930s were probably infuriated that they had to fund FDR's new deal, just as I'm furious that my tax dollars will have to fund the Bush era tax cuts and the Iraq war. And I'm going to be paying WAY more than .002 dollars per year on those things annually. It's fine to not like that your tax dollars are funding something you disagree with, but to mention that as an argument in and of itself seems redundant to me. You could make that point about almost any other government policy you disagree with, only it would make much more sense because things like the Iraq War, Health Care, Tax Cuts, and the Stimulus Package are actually a significant drain on taxpayers.
Abstinence is 110% effective in cutting down on the unwanted pregnancy problem. This is true.
HOWEVER, it also adds to the “crazed, sexually-frustrated nutcase” problem.
Here's the thing: The sex-drive – because it's wired-in to the basic “make more of you” species-survival part of our biology – is THE most powerful tangible driving force of our psychology. Yes, more innately powerful than love, honor, morality etc because it's not a purely esoteric concept; it's real. It's chemical.
Whether we want to admit it to ourselves or not, historically it's undeniable: Sexual desire moves the human world, and needlessly suppressing that part of our biology by attaching imaginary moralistic gobbleygook to it is responsible for MASSIVE amounts of our societal AND personal/psychological problems.
Today, in the 21st Century, we have for the first time in human history – thanks to the medical MIRACLES of contraception and safe abortion – for all citizens of a free society to engage at their mutual whim in nearly consequence-free recreational sex. Imagine how much more productive and content so many people would be – how much less combative and on edge we'd be.
By WHAT twisted logic does a supposedly-rational modern civilization REJECT that kind of potential future in order to coddle the superstitions of only SOME of it's citizens?
Because the fact that you don't “respect” them (whatever that means) automatically invalidates everything they have to say? Thank you for confirming exactly what I just said.
Abstinence is 110% effective in cutting down on the unwanted pregnancy problem. This is true.
And if Abstinence-Only education was actually successful in promoting abstinence, that would matter.
But you probably already knew that, Bob, so I'm sorry if I misinterpreted.
Post anything about creationism/evolution, abortion, assisted suicide, religion, homosexuals, or children. It does not matter what side of any debate you take, if you post it on the internet, it will become a shit storm.
By the by, anyone in favor of small government, can't be against gay or abortion, as interfering in civil matters, such as those, is an act of big(ger) government.
So, your argument is that the rights of a fetus are irrelevant as long as it makes everyone else's lives better and only a few of people think it's important anyway?
You realize that's essentially the exact some argument someone would use to support something like slavery, right? Ya know… blacks aren't really humans, and it makes everyone else's lives better keeping them as slaves, and only a few crazy rednecks are against it.
Let's be frank about something here… “pro-life” is infact a pro-human-rights stance. We just have a broader definition of what a “human” is. And ya know what? I think human-rights should always assume a broader definition of “human”.
Regardless of the amount of money each individual taxpayer pays, here is an unavoidable reality: The Federal government is broke. Its over a trillion dollars in debt. So the LAST thing the U.S government should be doing is to give 75 million dollars a year to Planned Parenthood.
Completely stripping away any moral argument here, we simple don't have the money. It makes NO sense to continue to fork cash over to these organizations when the government is in the midst of a fiscal crisis. Cutting spending where its easiest (arbitrary funding of non governmental groups for no discernible reason) makes sense.
Nick,
As far as I'm concerned, Media Matters is a skewed, unreliable dispensary of information. If you insist on proving to me that the footage was indeed faked, perhaps you should find a secondary, more partial source to help validate that. Otherwise I will simply assume that Media Matters, like with most things, just pulled this out of their ass.
Tyra,
How, exactly? As of right now, its the pro-abortion lobby that has essentially enforced big government rule in order to insure that the practice stays legal, and taxpayer funded. Roe v. Wade is the pinnacle of federal overreach, essentially circumventing state rights and declaring, without vote, via judicial fiat that abortion will be legal in all 50 states.
If you want the government “out of the bedroom”, why don't you put your money where your mouth is? If you want government not to outlaw abortion, you should also not want government to ENDORSE abortion. Ending taxpayer funding IS “getting out of the bedroom”, in the purest, truest sense.
Your logic regarding the broke federal government is flawed, for the main reason that, while you claim to be “stripping away any moral argument,” you are making clear value judgements.
You say (in caps, no less), that .02 cents per person (which has been claimed numerously above) is the LAST things the US should be spending their money on. How, stripping away moral arguments, have you arrived at that conclusion? Couldn't you just as easily say “stripping away moral arguments, its the FIRST thing”?
You reinforce your lack of stripping-away-the-morality by your description of “arbitrary funding of non governmental groups for no discernible reason)…. Arbitrary? Isn't it perhaps the amount that was decided was necessary to make planned parenthood run appropriately. And as for no discernible reason, it seems to me that numerous folks in this comment thread seem to think there's a pretty damn good reason for it to be funded. So how, whether you agree or not, can you really claim that it is without reason or purpose?
Again, if you want the “Easiest” route to more money, that would be a tax raise on the rich, yes? That's the “easiest” – would happen rather quickly, would raise a crazy amount of money, and affects the smallest proportion of americans. So, what's that about cutting 75 million that's going to solve our fiscal crisis?
My point is that just because something is “spending” and “non-governmental,” certainly doesn't mean it's bad and doesn't deserve money. There are many people who would suggest military spending, foreign aid, and other non-domestic things should be cut BEFORE social policies. Nothing in your argument really shows that PP and similar organizations should be the ones to get axed (aside from the morality argument, which you yourself put aside).
You know who I also can't stand? DEMOCRATS. With their restrictions on gun ownership and all that nazi idiocy. How DARE they make it harder for murderers to access the means with which to carry out their crimes.
Additionally:
1. I'm pro-life as hell, and I still wouldn't vote for a Republican at gun point. American politics is worse than American morals. Sometimes. And American conservatism is a joke. Glenn Beck? Have yet to find a bigger douchebag.
2. @ Ayn Rand: I've never been so disgusted in my entire life. I hope, Madam, that you won't desecrate this world with your presence much lon… oh wait, she's already dead. Well, that's a stone off my heart.
3. Heck, am I an idiot, right? Conservative thinker, and I watch these liberal shows and blogs? Well, ain't I a hypocrite -.-
4. Free speech is awesome. Go on chanting for abortion all you please. Eventually, all will see where it leads.
I'm stripping away moral judgements in the sense that I'm not getting into an argument about whether or not abortion is immoral. The real argument here, the real issue this bill is addressing, is whether or not tax money should go to Planned Parenthood.
You fail to make the case as to WHY PP should get government subsidies? Isn't it PP's job to raise the money to keep PP operational? Why is that burden placed on the federal government? Additionally, if you are correct, and there are plenty of people who REALLY think PP should continue to exist, then PP will be fine…because there will be plenty of money through doners. Maybe PP could start charging for their services too. (Gasp! The horror)
Raising a tax on the rich, the definition of which grows broader every time someone decides to tax them, is not a solution to our fiscal crisis. It may be easy, but it would not raise revenue and it would effect ALL Americans. Why? Because raising taxes on the rich is Uroborus-the snake eating its own tail. Works like this:
You raise taxes on rich Rich have less money Rich invest less Business shrink from lower investment Jobs are lost because businesses shrink Taxpayer pool shrinks because of loss of jobs Tax revenue shrinks from lack of taxpayers
and then to recover from this loss of revenue…you
raise taxes on the rich rich have less money rich invest less….
Until eventually we find ourselves in economic stagnation, or worse, decay.
or, to put it shortly:
Higher taxes mean less productivity. Less productivity means less taxable income. This otherwise known as the Laffer Curve.
And of course, 75 million is hardly going to put a dent in our debt, however its money that doesn't need to be spent. This is called “tightening your belt”. When you don't have a lot of income in your own household, you focus on the most important bills: Mortgage, Utilities, Transportation. You don't go and buy a new plasma TV, or a fancy new car. Its not wise. In the same way, the Federal government needs to focus on the basics: Military, Roads, Courts, etc. Not shelling out funds to a private organization like Planned Parenthood, or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or NPR.
And of course there is plenty of wasteful spending in foreign aid to countries that hate us, and atrociously expensive military projects that the military doesn't even want. However, the majority of our expenses our domestic, not foreign. The two largest chunks of the U.S budget is Social Security and Medicare. That's gonna take ALOT of work to get under control.
But in the mean time, this bill, which thankfully passed in the house, will have to do.
@Arman Alternatively: Raise taxes on rich (incidentally, the group in question is only about 2% of total US population)
Executives need to consistently earn goodwill and think of new ideas to earn money
Goodwill kept by trying to benefit consumers/employees slightly more
Benefits result in mobility, further increasing competition within ranks to stay efficient and innovative … While I can't be sure that this is the effect higher taxation on the wealthy has had, I do now that the income tax for people who earn more than $1,000,000 annually during the Clinton years was 50% (I.E, one who earns$1,500,000 in a year would lose $250,000 to taxes) I also know that during the Clinton administration the economy was WAY better than any point in the past two decades:
Also, I don't respect the gif you linked to, so I'm going to arbitrarily dismiss it without really explaining why. As far as I'm concerned, it's a skewed, unreliable gif image. If you want to convince me it is real, you should reference a secondary or tertiary source, preferably one where the curve is an actual function instead of a Y=sqrt(X), Y=-sqrt(X) monstrosity like the one shown.
The argument for the government (partially) funding ANY medical effort is that said effort contributes to the common good. Planned Parenthood, overwhelmingly, fulfills this requirement.
If you want to argue that the government shouldn't be in the medicine business AT ALL, fine – that's a reasonable position. But so long as we're spending ONE cent on medical procedures, there's no logical or reason-based argument for denying funds to PP.
I'm not quite sure how raising taxes encourages more employee/consumer benefits. Raising taxes tends to increase the price of doing business.
When looking at the Clinton years, you have to take account a few important factors. First, you just came out of the Reagan years, which had some of the largest tax cuts of the time. Business was beginning to boom, and its not unreasonable to point out that the U.S economy essentially rode that wave through the nineties. Second, spending was not nearly as high as it is today (not by a long shot), thanks in part to a Republican congress and a more moderate Clinton administration.
In regards to the gif. What you are looking at is the Laffer Curve, a theoretical representation of taxation and revenue. There are dozens of historical precedents and plenty of empirical data that support it.
What it argues is that there is a certain range in taxation, the number varying from country to country, where you can maximize revenue. If you tax at 0%, obviously you get nothing. However, if you tax at 100%, you also get nothing because there is no incentive to be productive.
Its pretty solid stuff, and I'd encourage you to look into it if you have the time and don't already plan on taking economics.
—-
Bob,
I would disagree vehemently that Planned Parenthood, an organization founded by a racist, and eugenicist, contributes to the common good, especially given recent, and incriminating footage regarding their clinics.
I don't have much hope of convincing anybody who's concluded that this practice is beneficial. Either way, its irrelevant. The bill doesn't address wether abortion should be legal or illegal. Which is why, going back, the commercial you posted is purposefully misleading.
That said, I would argue that the government shouldn't be in the medicine business at all. Cutting PP off should only be the start. I would hope that Obamacare repeal is as successful, and I'm glad to be found reasonable.
However, arguing that the federal government should spend money it does NOT HAVE on a non-essential like Planned Parenthood, is unreasonable. It is like a child demanding an iPhone when he knows his parents are flat broke and in debt.
(Incidently, you know what Ayn Rand would have REALLY hated….Government subsidies for Planned Parenthood. Just sayin'.)
@Arman, Ayn Rand hated government subsidies for ANYTHING – she and others of her outlook generally wouldn't have distinguished between a government-funded abortionist and a government-funded dentist.
As to whether or not legalized abortion contributes to the common good… do you really want to do this dance? I mean, SPOILER WARNING: I'm gonna toss out the Freakonomics abortion-cuts-crimerates data, you'll respond with a link to some “unbiased” source “debunking” it, I'll raise the issue of overpopulation, you or someone else will call me a “eugenicist,” etc. For me, it's a simple calculation: Does legal/funded abortion make individual full-fledged human citizens more free to fulfill their pursuit of happiness? Yes it does. Does it directly HARM any individual full-fledged human citizens? No, it does not. Thusly, it is A Good. 1 + 1 = 2.
Credit where it's due for ideological consistency re: getting the government 100% out of the medicine business – though you do of course realize that regardless of whether or not it's the “right” position it'll never, ever happen, right?
See, this is why – even when in areas where I can honestly call myself a “libertarian,” I have to attach the addendum: “that acknowledges the real world.” Every government that has EVER existed in the history of the world has been involved in funding and/or regulating medical care to some degree, and you will NEVER completely seperate the two. As such, because we have a specifically non-religion-based system of laws, there is NO argument for not funding abortion in the same manner that any other necessary medical procedure is funded.
1. Although Reagan initially decreased taxes, about halfway through his term he collaborated with congress to raise them to fund TEFRA, Social Security, and the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, along with other programs. Even though TEFRA alone was, to quote Forbes, the “largest peacetime tax increase in American history,” nobody seems to remember this about Reagan. Still, these policies, combined with Clinton's tax-the-rich-and-cut-spending-instead-of-claiming-to-cut-spending-and-then-deciding-screw-it-I'll-just-wear-a-flight-suit policies, help explain the rapid financial growth of the 1990s. Conversely, the claim-to-reduce-spending-but-radically-increase-it-through-deregulation-and-tax-cuts-and-flight-suits policies of Bush Jr. led to the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression (incidentally, the strategy of the President leading up to the great depression was the deregulation-and-zoot-suit policy.) This suggests that Bush's policies of regressive taxation and deregulation were responsible for the crash, just as Clinton's progressive tax policies and sound financial policies were the cause of economic growth.
2. Reagan wasn't a stranger to massive spending either. The Deficit was 2.6% of the GDP when Reagan entered office and 6% when he left. Adjusted for inflation military spending alone was around half a trillion dollars, about 6% of all military spending during the entire Cold War. Again, nobody seems to remember this. Dick Cheney once told Treasury Secretary O'Neil that “Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.” I'm of the opinion that spending is less abominable if looked at as an investment. If I was faced with a large deficit, but knew that the spending that caused it gave us an improved education system, infrastructure, health care system, and military, I'd feel I had the tools to pay it off. A deficit based almost entirely on tax cuts for the wealthy and a war born out of stupidity and greed, not so much. I agree that we are spending too much though, which is one of the reasons I want to repeal the Bush Tax Cuts, especially for the top 2%. The projected deficit is currently 14 trillion dollars (unless I'm wrong), and eliminating the Bush Tax cuts would save 3.7 trillion dollars over ten years. That's a fifth of the Deficit right there (assuming other spending is cut accordingly).
3. I am aware of what your gif represents; I was mocking your previous word choice, like a child or bitter computer owner. I suppose you were too busy being a mature adult to notice it. I agree with the principle, but I think the main point of contention is how much taxation is too much. For my money, people overestimate just how many yachts the wealthy really need, especially considering that losing a large chunk of your yearly earnings as a billionaire is VERY different than losing them as one of us lowly thousand-aires. If you had 10 billion dollars but suddenly lost 4 billion, would you really be very likely to dramatically change your spending habits? Incidentally, PLEASE use a graph that expresses the Laffer Curve as a proper function; I googled it and found, like, five that are actual functions instead of mathematical pains in the ass.
4. If you're going to argue you aren't against planned parenthood ideologically, mentioning that the founder is a racist and eugenicist doesn't help your case. If I was to argue that I opposed Ayn Rand's philosophy from an economic standpoint as opposed to an ideological one, mentioning that I disliked her eerie admiration for 1920s serial killer William Hickman would not help my case. By the way, does the name Ayn O'Connor mean anything to you?
“Does it directly HARM any individual full-fledged human citizens?”
Yes, yes it does. Or, at least it would if every any any attempt to give fetuses more rights wasn't quashed by those trying to protect abortion at all costs. There is no reasonable or biological reason for fetuses not be considered persons (or, in your words, “human citizens”) and thus have all the same rights as the rest of us.
Smpoza certainly did enough to counter back on the necessary Reagan-Love-Fest, but I thought I'd add merely one point: There was a president between Reagan and Clinton. Bush Sr. Do you remember why Clinton got elected? Because the economy was in shambles! To say that Clinton's economy was good because of Reagan is saying that such policies took even TWELVE YEARS (1980-1992, or, say, 1984-1996) to take effect. We know Bush Sr. largely continued the Reagan stuff, and as said, the economy was in shambles.
@Narf, Let's extend the fetus-as-person-with-full-rights thing. I want to see how far it goes: 1 – Parents of said child have sex while child is in womb = childmolestation, lewd acts with child? 2 – Mother commits crime while pregnant = Contributing to delinquence of a minor? 3 – mother does anything “stupid” or unsafe = child negligence?
1 – I would assume the child wouldn't aware of it and wouldn't be effected in any way, so the child's not really being victimized as all. It would be like if an infant was sleeping in the same room.
2 – Again, the child isn't aware of what's going on and isn't directly effected at all. What's it considered if the mother commits crimes while an infant's at home?
@Narf How does the child being unaware of what's happening to it make it okay? To use a really, really extreme example, if I were to rape somebody while they were asleep and they never found out, would that make it okay? Considering that the act in question we're talking about is basically thrusting genitalia inches away from the child, even if it's unaware, wouldn't that be a little sketch legally?
@Narf Also, if fetuses are people, what's the deal with the census? When calculating population numbers, we usually count people who are already born, but isn't that missing a huge percentage of the population? And if we're recording them into the census, I guess we have to name them basically right after conception, right?
Also, what about social security numbers? Again, we usually wait until people are born to give those out, but if fetuses are people, they should be given one as soon as possible. What happens if a fetus has been given an SSN but surprise! it's twins! That would be really annoying, huh?
Also, what if a pregnant woman is arrested? Then they're jailing the child too, even though it didn't do anything. I don't really see a way around this, so if the fetus is a person I guess we'd have no choice but to violate its rights.
Also, what if during the very early stages of pregnancy (first few days or so) the mother accidentally falls or gets in an accident, and the fetal cells become dislodged and die? Would the mother be charged with child endangerment or manslaughter because she tripped? What if she didn't even know she was pregnant?
Well, if you rape someone while they're asleep they're absolutely going to be effected whether they're aware of it or not. Even without the psychological effects, rape tends to have a variety of physical effects ranging from vaginal damage, STDs, or even pregnancy. As for an infant in the womb… sketchy legal maybe. I'm honestly not very familiar with the law in that regard and what exactly it takes to be considered victimized.
As for census and Social Security… Obviously, some one can be a person with out being a citizen per se. Immigrants for example. Whether infants should be considered citizens at conception, at birth, or somewhere in between is something that would have to be sorted out when the unborn are given the rights they deserve. I, personally, don't really have much of an opinion on that, though.
Let me ask you this… if one of a pair on conjoined twins commits a crime, but the other is completely innocent, how would that be handled?
That depends on the conditions of the accident… it could be criminally negligent manslaughter if she were aware of being pregnant and was doing something particularly dangerous. But, if she was unaware or wasn't doing anything that should have been dangerous, then it's just an accident. The law allows for that.
@Narf Let's say we have a mother who's two weeks pregnant and aware of it. She decides to “live it up” before motherhood and goes bungie jumping, a fairly risky activity. For argument's sake, let's say the woman is an expert in bungie jumping and does all of this herself-no organization to complicate things legally (i.e who to sue). An accident occurs and the mother is okay, but the two-week-old embryo died.
Now take the exact same scenario, except the mother wasn't pregnant and instead takes her three year old daughter with her. An accident occurs, and her daughter dies. Should both women be charged with the same crime and receive the same punishment?
@Narf But should they be tried for the same thing and receive the same punishment? In essence, did both women commit the same crime? From an ethical standpoint, do you feel that there is no difference between what each of these two women did?
Oh god. This is what happens when I have work. So much to reply to and so little time :p
And no problem Smpoza, its a common mistake. I really didn't mind.
Bob,
Indeed, Ayn Rand didn't want subsidies. That was my point. Her views on abortion would not have mattered, she would have supported Republicans on this bill.
As for abortion harming full fledged human beings, well that's what the debate was always about. To a person like me, there's little moral distinction between a 6 month old fetus, and a six month old infant. I see a few differences between the two: Size, age, level of development, perhaps intelligence….But none of those reasons seem like legitimate rationales to kill a person. If I'm correct, and I think I am, then abortion is an unspeakable evil.
I'm not a believer in utopianism, Bob. Therefore I acknowledge that perfection is not attainable. So I'll take what I can get. Cutting PP gets me closer to a society in which government is smaller. Good enough for me.
And there certainly is an argument for defunding PP. It goes: There is no money. PP is a private organization and this is a non essential expenditure. Cut it.
Nothing religious about that. Your argument here is a bit bizarre:
Religious people dislike abortion Planned Parenthood does abortion Our government is not religious Therefore the taxpayer should fund Planned Parenthood?
—
Smpoza,
I apologize for my brevity. I acknowledge you probably deserve a longer reply but I'm strapped for time.
1. Reagan had a Democrat congress to contend with that did not want to cut spending. Its important to realize that the Congress has an even bigger effect on taxes and spending than the President. Clinton had a Republican congress. In addition, Clinton ended his Presidency with a small recession that the Bush tax cuts did pull us out of. Nobody seems to remember that.
This current fiscal crisis, was not the result of deregulation. It was the result of a mixed market economy and inappropriate government meddling in housing. Went something like this:
Community Reinvestment Act says, “You have a right to a home! Regardless if you can afford it! Just get a loan!”
Which meant banks were encouraged to give out loans they KNEW were bad. These bad loans got bought up by government run companies like Fannie Mae which would inevitably collapse because those loans couldn't be paid back. That's the simple version. Incidentally, Bush Jr. warned congress about this 17 times in 2008 alone.
2. You can run a small deficit without much consequence, especially when you're attempting to topple the Soviet Union. Its not ideal, and 6% was definitely a lot, but here is the thing. I grow tireless of being reminded of Reagan's 6% deficit or Bush's 3% deficit…when your guy's deficit is triple his predecessors. The problem isn't that the administration is running a deficit. Its that its running a huge ass deficit.
3. I recognized the thinly veiled mockery and chose not to indulge. Mockery and name calling is in the left's playbook.
4. But its worth mentioning if only for the irony of seeing Democrats adulate an organization who's original purpose was to prevent “minorities” and “immigrants” from adding to the gene pool.
The name doesn't ring a bell.
Mark,
Free economies fluctuate. You have highs and lows. The recession under Bush Sr. lasted 6 months.
Since we're discussing legal stuff.
When Scott Peterson murdered his pregnant wife, do you know what he was charged with? Double homicide. So to that extent the law recognizes that the murderer ended the life of two individuals.
@Arman This will probably be the last post I do for two reasons: 1. If I've learned anything from this it's that no matter how well we argue for our respective sides, NOBODY'S MIND WILL EVER CHANGE, and 2. I just got Bulletstorm, and I can already feel myself becoming a psychpathic, baby-raping nazi.
Now then: 1. There was indeed a small recession that began in 2000-2001; however, considering that (a the recession didn't really affect the US until 2002 to 2003 (and that was mostly due to the shock of 9/11) and (b as you said, Clinton had a Republican congress, it's a bit of a stretch to blame it all on Clinton. However, the Bush tax cuts did help us out of that recession-I’m not opposed to all tax cuts, just all tax cuts all the time no matter what the situation is. Also, the law you mentioned allowed banks to give out subprime mortgages, and in doing so overturned federal laws and regulations that prevented them from doing that. Basically, it “de” regulated that sector of the economy. That’s what deregulation is. Incidentally, all of the laws that overturned federal regulations and limits on the banking industry were passed during the first ¾ of Bush’s presidency, when he had a Republican-dominated congress. So I don’t think the Democrat’s 2 year majority in congress (which broke records in how little was accomplished; Republicans are literally filibustering EVERYTHING) is to blame. I guess I also have to give some credit to Bush Jr. for at least ADMITTING that there was a problem, although I don’t think he’d like to mention that he encouraged and signed into law the tools that brought about the problem. In fact, Bush believes his biggest mistake was failing to get Social Security privatized, meaning it would be tied to companies like Fannie May and Freddie Mac. It’s a darn shame so many people’s pensions weren’t tied to those two giants, huh?
2. I repeat my initial statement about spending; I'm less opposed to Obama's deficit because he's run it up on things like health care; that and a good chunk of it is stuff Bush Jr. added anyway. I consider Bush’s deficit worse because, while smaller, it’s spent on tax cuts for the absurdly wealthy and a pointless war in the middle east; on the whole, not very good investments.
3. I preferred to think of it as good-natured banter, especially as I haven't done anything as mean-spirited as, say, accusing the entire other side as being mean-spirited, petty, and worthless. If you want to play the “this guy’s being a dick so everyone of his views is also a dick” game, I'd remind you that as a right-leaning guy, YOU CAN'T WIN THAT FIGHT RIGHT NOW (link below explaining why)
4. While it helps your argument against planned parenthood morally, it exposes it as just that: a moral argument. If you want to argue that, fine, but don't claim you're doing it because you want to cut a tiny amount of money off of the federal deficit. Just come out and say “I don't like planned parenthood”. By the way, Ayn O'Connor was the name Ayn Rand used near the end of her life when she accepted social security checks-she was a heavy smoker, and didn't have the money to pay for medical treatments, so she begrudgingly used one of the social programs she so vehemently opposed. I don't think she really compromised herself though; she was still acting in her self-interest, which is the core of objectivism. That’s what honestly bamboozles me about people the most: social programs aren’t just creating a safety net for some stupid idiot you don’t even know; they’re creating one for YOU, too. There’s no way for any of us to know how idiotically stupid we could become in the future.
That's my take, anyway. Well, it's time to play a videogame and eat some puppies.
Well, I acknowledge that we can't do this forever. Either way, its been fun.
1. The Community Reinvestment act was a regulation. It prevented redlining, which necessitated sub prime mortgages. The CRA was passed in 1977, by Carter. Was later renewed by Clinton, and yes, Bush Jr. as well.
Either way, it was an example of mixed market stupidity. The Government encouraged bad loaning practices, and corporations were afraid to object because the CRA was a “civil rights law”.
2. So your argument as follows: “Its okay to drive us into financial ruin, because it gets me stuff I like”. War spending, is a drop in the ocean compared to amount of domestic spending this administration is engaged in. Its incomparable.
And I don't think the war was pointless. If Iraq becomes a functioning democracy, it would have been worth every penny. Also, enough with the “Tax cuts for rich” myth. Its a campaign slogan, and its not true. The rich shouldered more of the tax burden than the poor after the Bush Tax Cuts. Yes, the wealthy saved more actual dollars, but only because low income households already pay diddly in taxes. A 1% cut for a millionaire saves them more money than a 1% cut for a middle class worker. For a good illustration as to why, look up “Barstool Economics”.
3. I wasn't offended. I simply did not care. I don't mind a little harshness in political discourse. However, I do hold to the notion that in general the left is more likely to engage in ad hominem than the right. Its just my personal experience on the matter.
4. I don't like Planned Parenthood. That's not a secret. However, I also want to cut spending and I see no rational justification for continuing to fund a private organization while the government is broke. There is nothing disingenuous about that.
Can I just throw 1 little factoid in here: I'm dutch. In the Netherlands, abortion is completely legal. And everything is going just GREAT here!
The Netherlands also has one of the higher deathrates of newborns in whole of Europe, about 1%. This is because a lot of people live in small villages and don't get to the hospitals in time.
And still our population is growing steadily.
Stop being so worried that civilisation will crumble.
@Arman Back from Bulletstorm. IT'S AWESOME. I highly recommend it; it's violent, goofy, and a good kick in the ass that the FPS genre desperately needs right now. Anyhoo:
1. You're right! The community reinvestment act was passed in 1977 specifically to end racial discrimination by the banking system. However, in 1980 congress passed the Depository Institutions Deregulatory and Monetary Control Act, which eliminated interest rate caps and other regulation, which had previously made sub-prime mortgages unfeasible for banks and savings and loan institutions. Throughout the 80s, Reagan dramatically cut funding to low-income housing and drained the FHA (Federal Housing Administration) of more and more of its regulatory powers, which made sub-prime mortgages more profitable and less frowned upon. The deregulation continued through the Bush Years. This makes more sense than simply “this one law passed thirty years ago and left completely alone caused the current financial situation” theory, don't you think?
2. You're not quite getting what I said. I'm in favor of spending if it will make it easier to pay the debt off later; I think the remarkably fast switch from the multi-trillion dollar surplus of the 1990s the the multi-trillion dollar recession of now seems to show that tax cuts and wars don't do wonders for the treasury. Furthermore, is spreading democracy sufficient cause to invade a country now? Why not invade China? Or North Korea? Or Venezuela? Or Saudi Arabia? Or Nigeria? Also, how can you support limited government if you think we have the right to impose our form of government on other countries? Even if the rich still shouldered the majority of the tax burden, a) they shouldered more of it under Clinton, when the economy wasn't in the tubes, and b), THEY SHOULD. They make more money, so they pay more money. And don't start with the “taxation reduces productivity” argument; a multi-billionaire losing half his money to taxes still won't think twice about dropping a few million in investments, because he'd still have BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS and probably be eager to earn them back. In fact, the graph of the Laffer Curve you showed me puts the ideal tax rate at around 50%, just by eyeballing it. This was the rate, approximately, before the Bush tax cuts.
3. I don't really take issue with much of what you said here.
4. If you want to argue that Planned Parenthood is superfluous spending, fine. Then don't mention your ethical/moral views on the issue because it diverts focus from your argument. The fact that you would mention the planned parenthood's founder was a racist when it wasn't really relevant seems forced, which makes it seem as though you have more motives than simply financial ones.
MOVIEBOB CENTRAL 
It's a partisan video made by a far left wing group. It's propaganda and both sides do it. It's always a little sad to be reminded of Bob's political leanings since it detracts from my enjoyment of his other wise good show, but he can post what ever he wants. This kind of add isn't going to convince anyone of anything deep down both sides know it's just a giant straw man and little else.
LikeLike
@ Chris
Amazing that a mostly libertarian political viewpoint could harm your enjoyment of bob's product. I may not agree with all of the libertarian viewpoints, but its hard to get worked up about a philosophy that pretty much amounts to “don't make laws about stuff you shouldn't make laws about.”
LikeLike
@Armand
I agree. Abstinence is the only 100% way to prevent pregnancy. However, if kids are going to disobey anyway (Bristol Palin was solely educated about abstinence; oddly, she still encourages abstinence=only education) why not give them the ability to protect themselves? Furthermore, either you had a much worse teacher than I could think possible, or you might have misinterpreted what the intent of sex-ed was. Giving you a safety net in case you screw up isn't the same as encouraging you to screw up; automobile makers don't give you a seatbelt as an insult to your intelligence or judgement.
Also, it's spelled per se. You're not quite using it in the correct context per se, but I see what you mean (it makes more sense before the thing that does what you want, not after.) Latin is tricky.
For Christians in favor of abstinence:
Wait. So the Virgin Mary didn't have sex with anyone, but got pregnant anyway? If God can just knock you up whenever he wants, doesn't that mean abstinence isn't always effective even when properly practiced? I mean, there are worse things than having an all-powerful, immortal wizard-baby, but still…
LikeLike
Also, the “I don't want my tax dollars paying for this” argument is really starting to get annoying. Even ignoring that (last time I checked) government funded abortions would cost each tax payer approximately .2 cents annually, having to begrudgingly allow your tax dollars to go to things you don't necessarily want them to go to is a tenant of democracy. People in the 1930s were probably infuriated that they had to fund FDR's new deal, just as I'm furious that my tax dollars will have to fund the Bush era tax cuts and the Iraq war. And I'm going to be paying WAY more than .002 dollars per year on those things annually. It's fine to not like that your tax dollars are funding something you disagree with, but to mention that as an argument in and of itself seems redundant to me. You could make that point about almost any other government policy you disagree with, only it would make much more sense because things like the Iraq War, Health Care, Tax Cuts, and the Stimulus Package are actually a significant drain on taxpayers.
LikeLike
Abstinence is 110% effective in cutting down on the unwanted pregnancy problem. This is true.
HOWEVER, it also adds to the “crazed, sexually-frustrated nutcase” problem.
Here's the thing: The sex-drive – because it's wired-in to the basic “make more of you” species-survival part of our biology – is THE most powerful tangible driving force of our psychology. Yes, more innately powerful than love, honor, morality etc because it's not a purely esoteric concept; it's real. It's chemical.
Whether we want to admit it to ourselves or not, historically it's undeniable: Sexual desire moves the human world, and needlessly suppressing that part of our biology by attaching imaginary moralistic gobbleygook to it is responsible for MASSIVE amounts of our societal AND personal/psychological problems.
Today, in the 21st Century, we have for the first time in human history – thanks to the medical MIRACLES of contraception and safe abortion – for all citizens of a free society to engage at their mutual whim in nearly consequence-free recreational sex. Imagine how much more productive and content so many people would be – how much less combative and on edge we'd be.
By WHAT twisted logic does a supposedly-rational modern civilization REJECT that kind of potential future in order to coddle the superstitions of only SOME of it's citizens?
LikeLike
@Nick
I don't respect the source.
Because the fact that you don't “respect” them (whatever that means) automatically invalidates everything they have to say? Thank you for confirming exactly what I just said.
Abstinence is 110% effective in cutting down on the unwanted pregnancy problem. This is true.
And if Abstinence-Only education was actually successful in promoting abstinence, that would matter.
But you probably already knew that, Bob, so I'm sorry if I misinterpreted.
LikeLike
Most people say the sky is blue, but I don't respect them. Sky is obviously orange.
LikeLike
How to start a shit storm:
Post anything about creationism/evolution, abortion, assisted suicide, religion, homosexuals, or children. It does not matter what side of any debate you take, if you post it on the internet, it will become a shit storm.
By the by, anyone in favor of small government, can't be against gay or abortion, as interfering in civil matters, such as those, is an act of big(ger) government.
LikeLike
@ Bob
So, your argument is that the rights of a fetus are irrelevant as long as it makes everyone else's lives better and only a few of people think it's important anyway?
You realize that's essentially the exact some argument someone would use to support something like slavery, right? Ya know… blacks aren't really humans, and it makes everyone else's lives better keeping them as slaves, and only a few crazy rednecks are against it.
LikeLike
Let's be frank about something here… “pro-life” is infact a pro-human-rights stance. We just have a broader definition of what a “human” is. And ya know what? I think human-rights should always assume a broader definition of “human”.
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
Smpoza,
Regardless of the amount of money each individual taxpayer pays, here is an unavoidable reality: The Federal government is broke. Its over a trillion dollars in debt. So the LAST thing the U.S government should be doing is to give 75 million dollars a year to Planned Parenthood.
Completely stripping away any moral argument here, we simple don't have the money. It makes NO sense to continue to fork cash over to these organizations when the government is in the midst of a fiscal crisis. Cutting spending where its easiest (arbitrary funding of non governmental groups for no discernible reason) makes sense.
Nick,
As far as I'm concerned, Media Matters is a skewed, unreliable dispensary of information. If you insist on proving to me that the footage was indeed faked, perhaps you should find a secondary, more partial source to help validate that. Otherwise I will simply assume that Media Matters, like with most things, just pulled this out of their ass.
Tyra,
How, exactly? As of right now, its the pro-abortion lobby that has essentially enforced big government rule in order to insure that the practice stays legal, and taxpayer funded. Roe v. Wade is the pinnacle of federal overreach, essentially circumventing state rights and declaring, without vote, via judicial fiat that abortion will be legal in all 50 states.
If you want the government “out of the bedroom”, why don't you put your money where your mouth is? If you want government not to outlaw abortion, you should also not want government to ENDORSE abortion. Ending taxpayer funding IS “getting out of the bedroom”, in the purest, truest sense.
LikeLike
@Arman
Your logic regarding the broke federal government is flawed, for the main reason that, while you claim to be “stripping away any moral argument,” you are making clear value judgements.
You say (in caps, no less), that .02 cents per person (which has been claimed numerously above) is the LAST things the US should be spending their money on. How, stripping away moral arguments, have you arrived at that conclusion? Couldn't you just as easily say “stripping away moral arguments, its the FIRST thing”?
You reinforce your lack of stripping-away-the-morality by your description of “arbitrary funding of non governmental groups for no discernible reason)…. Arbitrary? Isn't it perhaps the amount that was decided was necessary to make planned parenthood run appropriately. And as for no discernible reason, it seems to me that numerous folks in this comment thread seem to think there's a pretty damn good reason for it to be funded. So how, whether you agree or not, can you really claim that it is without reason or purpose?
Again, if you want the “Easiest” route to more money, that would be a tax raise on the rich, yes? That's the “easiest” – would happen rather quickly, would raise a crazy amount of money, and affects the smallest proportion of americans. So, what's that about cutting 75 million that's going to solve our fiscal crisis?
My point is that just because something is “spending” and “non-governmental,” certainly doesn't mean it's bad and doesn't deserve money. There are many people who would suggest military spending, foreign aid, and other non-domestic things should be cut BEFORE social policies. Nothing in your argument really shows that PP and similar organizations should be the ones to get axed (aside from the morality argument, which you yourself put aside).
LikeLike
This commercial has touched my heart.
You know who I also can't stand? DEMOCRATS. With their restrictions on gun ownership and all that nazi idiocy. How DARE they make it harder for murderers to access the means with which to carry out their crimes.
Additionally:
1. I'm pro-life as hell, and I still wouldn't vote for a Republican at gun point. American politics is worse than American morals. Sometimes. And American conservatism is a joke. Glenn Beck? Have yet to find a bigger douchebag.
2. @ Ayn Rand: I've never been so disgusted in my entire life. I hope, Madam, that you won't desecrate this world with your presence much lon… oh wait, she's already dead. Well, that's a stone off my heart.
3. Heck, am I an idiot, right? Conservative thinker, and I watch these liberal shows and blogs? Well, ain't I a hypocrite -.-
4. Free speech is awesome. Go on chanting for abortion all you please. Eventually, all will see where it leads.
LikeLike
Mark,
I'm stripping away moral judgements in the sense that I'm not getting into an argument about whether or not abortion is immoral. The real argument here, the real issue this bill is addressing, is whether or not tax money should go to Planned Parenthood.
You fail to make the case as to WHY PP should get government subsidies? Isn't it PP's job to raise the money to keep PP operational? Why is that burden placed on the federal government? Additionally, if you are correct, and there are plenty of people who REALLY think PP should continue to exist, then PP will be fine…because there will be plenty of money through doners. Maybe PP could start charging for their services too. (Gasp! The horror)
Raising a tax on the rich, the definition of which grows broader every time someone decides to tax them, is not a solution to our fiscal crisis. It may be easy, but it would not raise revenue and it would effect ALL Americans. Why? Because raising taxes on the rich is Uroborus-the snake eating its own tail. Works like this:
You raise taxes on rich
Rich have less money
Rich invest less
Business shrink from lower investment
Jobs are lost because businesses shrink
Taxpayer pool shrinks because of loss of jobs
Tax revenue shrinks from lack of taxpayers
and then to recover from this loss of revenue…you
raise taxes on the rich
rich have less money
rich invest less….
Until eventually we find ourselves in economic stagnation, or worse, decay.
or, to put it shortly:
Higher taxes mean less productivity. Less productivity means less taxable income. This otherwise known as the Laffer Curve.
http://blog.acton.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/laffer-curve.gif
And of course, 75 million is hardly going to put a dent in our debt, however its money that doesn't need to be spent. This is called “tightening your belt”. When you don't have a lot of income in your own household, you focus on the most important bills: Mortgage, Utilities, Transportation. You don't go and buy a new plasma TV, or a fancy new car. Its not wise. In the same way, the Federal government needs to focus on the basics: Military, Roads, Courts, etc. Not shelling out funds to a private organization like Planned Parenthood, or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or NPR.
And of course there is plenty of wasteful spending in foreign aid to countries that hate us, and atrociously expensive military projects that the military doesn't even want. However, the majority of our expenses our domestic, not foreign. The two largest chunks of the U.S budget is Social Security and Medicare. That's gonna take ALOT of work to get under control.
But in the mean time, this bill, which thankfully passed in the house, will have to do.
LikeLike
@Arman
Alternatively:
Raise taxes on rich (incidentally, the group in question is only about 2% of total US population)
Executives need to consistently earn goodwill and think of new ideas to earn money
Goodwill kept by trying to benefit consumers/employees slightly more
Benefits result in mobility, further increasing competition within ranks to stay efficient and innovative
…
While I can't be sure that this is the effect higher taxation on the wealthy has had, I do now that the income tax for people who earn more than $1,000,000 annually during the Clinton years was 50% (I.E, one who earns$1,500,000 in a year would lose $250,000 to taxes) I also know that during the Clinton administration the economy was WAY better than any point in the past two decades:
http://www.academycomputerservice.com/economics/charts.htm
Also, I don't respect the gif you linked to, so I'm going to arbitrarily dismiss it without really explaining why. As far as I'm concerned, it's a skewed, unreliable gif image. If you want to convince me it is real, you should reference a secondary or tertiary source, preferably one where the curve is an actual function instead of a Y=sqrt(X), Y=-sqrt(X) monstrosity like the one shown.
LikeLike
The argument for the government (partially) funding ANY medical effort is that said effort contributes to the common good. Planned Parenthood, overwhelmingly, fulfills this requirement.
If you want to argue that the government shouldn't be in the medicine business AT ALL, fine – that's a reasonable position. But so long as we're spending ONE cent on medical procedures, there's no logical or reason-based argument for denying funds to PP.
LikeLike
Smpoza,
I'm not quite sure how raising taxes encourages more employee/consumer benefits. Raising taxes tends to increase the price of doing business.
When looking at the Clinton years, you have to take account a few important factors. First, you just came out of the Reagan years, which had some of the largest tax cuts of the time. Business was beginning to boom, and its not unreasonable to point out that the U.S economy essentially rode that wave through the nineties. Second, spending was not nearly as high as it is today (not by a long shot), thanks in part to a Republican congress and a more moderate Clinton administration.
In regards to the gif. What you are looking at is the Laffer Curve, a theoretical representation of taxation and revenue. There are dozens of historical precedents and plenty of empirical data that support it.
What it argues is that there is a certain range in taxation, the number varying from country to country, where you can maximize revenue. If you tax at 0%, obviously you get nothing. However, if you tax at 100%, you also get nothing because there is no incentive to be productive.
Its pretty solid stuff, and I'd encourage you to look into it if you have the time and don't already plan on taking economics.
—-
Bob,
I would disagree vehemently that Planned Parenthood, an organization founded by a racist, and eugenicist, contributes to the common good, especially given recent, and incriminating footage regarding their clinics.
I don't have much hope of convincing anybody who's concluded that this practice is beneficial. Either way, its irrelevant. The bill doesn't address wether abortion should be legal or illegal. Which is why, going back, the commercial you posted is purposefully misleading.
That said, I would argue that the government shouldn't be in the medicine business at all. Cutting PP off should only be the start. I would hope that Obamacare repeal is as successful, and I'm glad to be found reasonable.
However, arguing that the federal government should spend money it does NOT HAVE on a non-essential like Planned Parenthood, is unreasonable. It is like a child demanding an iPhone when he knows his parents are flat broke and in debt.
(Incidently, you know what Ayn Rand would have REALLY hated….Government subsidies for Planned Parenthood. Just sayin'.)
LikeLike
@Arman,
Ayn Rand hated government subsidies for ANYTHING – she and others of her outlook generally wouldn't have distinguished between a government-funded abortionist and a government-funded dentist.
As to whether or not legalized abortion contributes to the common good… do you really want to do this dance? I mean, SPOILER WARNING: I'm gonna toss out the Freakonomics abortion-cuts-crimerates data, you'll respond with a link to some “unbiased” source “debunking” it, I'll raise the issue of overpopulation, you or someone else will call me a “eugenicist,” etc. For me, it's a simple calculation: Does legal/funded abortion make individual full-fledged human citizens more free to fulfill their pursuit of happiness? Yes it does. Does it directly HARM any individual full-fledged human citizens? No, it does not. Thusly, it is A Good. 1 + 1 = 2.
Credit where it's due for ideological consistency re: getting the government 100% out of the medicine business – though you do of course realize that regardless of whether or not it's the “right” position it'll never, ever happen, right?
See, this is why – even when in areas where I can honestly call myself a “libertarian,” I have to attach the addendum: “that acknowledges the real world.” Every government that has EVER existed in the history of the world has been involved in funding and/or regulating medical care to some degree, and you will NEVER completely seperate the two. As such, because we have a specifically non-religion-based system of laws, there is NO argument for not funding abortion in the same manner that any other necessary medical procedure is funded.
LikeLike
@ Armand:
(This is going to be long and rambling. Sorry. If it gets annoying, follow this link. Always calms me down.)
http://www.zombo.com/
1. Although Reagan initially decreased taxes, about halfway through his term he collaborated with congress to raise them to fund TEFRA, Social Security, and the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, along with other programs. Even though TEFRA alone was, to quote Forbes, the “largest peacetime tax increase in American history,” nobody seems to remember this about Reagan. Still, these policies, combined with Clinton's tax-the-rich-and-cut-spending-instead-of-claiming-to-cut-spending-and-then-deciding-screw-it-I'll-just-wear-a-flight-suit policies, help explain the rapid financial growth of the 1990s. Conversely, the claim-to-reduce-spending-but-radically-increase-it-through-deregulation-and-tax-cuts-and-flight-suits policies of Bush Jr. led to the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression (incidentally, the strategy of the President leading up to the great depression was the deregulation-and-zoot-suit policy.) This suggests that Bush's policies of regressive taxation and deregulation were responsible for the crash, just as Clinton's progressive tax policies and sound financial policies were the cause of economic growth.
2. Reagan wasn't a stranger to massive spending either. The Deficit was 2.6% of the GDP when Reagan entered office and 6% when he left. Adjusted for inflation military spending alone was around half a trillion dollars, about 6% of all military spending during the entire Cold War. Again, nobody seems to remember this. Dick Cheney once told Treasury Secretary O'Neil that “Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.” I'm of the opinion that spending is less abominable if looked at as an investment. If I was faced with a large deficit, but knew that the spending that caused it gave us an improved education system, infrastructure, health care system, and military, I'd feel I had the tools to pay it off. A deficit based almost entirely on tax cuts for the wealthy and a war born out of stupidity and greed, not so much. I agree that we are spending too much though, which is one of the reasons I want to repeal the Bush Tax Cuts, especially for the top 2%. The projected deficit is currently 14 trillion dollars (unless I'm wrong), and eliminating the Bush Tax cuts would save 3.7 trillion dollars over ten years. That's a fifth of the Deficit right there (assuming other spending is cut accordingly).
3. I am aware of what your gif represents; I was mocking your previous word choice, like a child or bitter computer owner. I suppose you were too busy being a mature adult to notice it. I agree with the principle, but I think the main point of contention is how much taxation is too much. For my money, people overestimate just how many yachts the wealthy really need, especially considering that losing a large chunk of your yearly earnings as a billionaire is VERY different than losing them as one of us lowly thousand-aires. If you had 10 billion dollars but suddenly lost 4 billion, would you really be very likely to dramatically change your spending habits? Incidentally, PLEASE use a graph that expresses the Laffer Curve as a proper function; I googled it and found, like, five that are actual functions instead of mathematical pains in the ass.
4. If you're going to argue you aren't against planned parenthood ideologically, mentioning that the founder is a racist and eugenicist doesn't help your case. If I was to argue that I opposed Ayn Rand's philosophy from an economic standpoint as opposed to an ideological one, mentioning that I disliked her eerie admiration for 1920s serial killer William Hickman would not help my case. By the way, does the name Ayn O'Connor mean anything to you?
LikeLike
Whoops-that's O'Neill with two l's.
LikeLike
@ Bob
“Does it directly HARM any individual full-fledged human citizens?”
Yes, yes it does. Or, at least it would if every any any attempt to give fetuses more rights wasn't quashed by those trying to protect abortion at all costs. There is no reasonable or biological reason for fetuses not be considered persons (or, in your words, “human citizens”) and thus have all the same rights as the rest of us.
LikeLike
@Arman,
Smpoza certainly did enough to counter back on the necessary Reagan-Love-Fest, but I thought I'd add merely one point:
There was a president between Reagan and Clinton. Bush Sr. Do you remember why Clinton got elected? Because the economy was in shambles! To say that Clinton's economy was good because of Reagan is saying that such policies took even TWELVE YEARS (1980-1992, or, say, 1984-1996) to take effect. We know Bush Sr. largely continued the Reagan stuff, and as said, the economy was in shambles.
@Narf,
Let's extend the fetus-as-person-with-full-rights thing. I want to see how far it goes:
1 – Parents of said child have sex while child is in womb = childmolestation, lewd acts with child?
2 – Mother commits crime while pregnant = Contributing to delinquence of a minor?
3 – mother does anything “stupid” or unsafe = child negligence?
so let's hear it.
LikeLike
@Mark
Wait, if a fetus is a child, isn't it a dependent? Shouldn't they have to list the fetus on taxes and such?
LikeLike
@ Mark
1 – I would assume the child wouldn't aware of it and wouldn't be effected in any way, so the child's not really being victimized as all. It would be like if an infant was sleeping in the same room.
2 – Again, the child isn't aware of what's going on and isn't directly effected at all. What's it considered if the mother commits crimes while an infant's at home?
3 – Absolutely.
LikeLike
@Narf
How does the child being unaware of what's happening to it make it okay? To use a really, really extreme example, if I were to rape somebody while they were asleep and they never found out, would that make it okay? Considering that the act in question we're talking about is basically thrusting genitalia inches away from the child, even if it's unaware, wouldn't that be a little sketch legally?
LikeLike
@Narf
Also, if fetuses are people, what's the deal with the census? When calculating population numbers, we usually count people who are already born, but isn't that missing a huge percentage of the population? And if we're recording them into the census, I guess we have to name them basically right after conception, right?
Also, what about social security numbers? Again, we usually wait until people are born to give those out, but if fetuses are people, they should be given one as soon as possible. What happens if a fetus has been given an SSN but surprise! it's twins! That would be really annoying, huh?
Also, what if a pregnant woman is arrested? Then they're jailing the child too, even though it didn't do anything. I don't really see a way around this, so if the fetus is a person I guess we'd have no choice but to violate its rights.
Also, what if during the very early stages of pregnancy (first few days or so) the mother accidentally falls or gets in an accident, and the fetal cells become dislodged and die? Would the mother be charged with child endangerment or manslaughter because she tripped? What if she didn't even know she was pregnant?
LikeLike
Oh god, I just realized I called Arman Armand. Sorry, really early in the morning when I wrote that post.
LikeLike
@ Smpoza
Well, if you rape someone while they're asleep they're absolutely going to be effected whether they're aware of it or not. Even without the psychological effects, rape tends to have a variety of physical effects ranging from vaginal damage, STDs, or even pregnancy. As for an infant in the womb… sketchy legal maybe. I'm honestly not very familiar with the law in that regard and what exactly it takes to be considered victimized.
As for census and Social Security… Obviously, some one can be a person with out being a citizen per se. Immigrants for example. Whether infants should be considered citizens at conception, at birth, or somewhere in between is something that would have to be sorted out when the unborn are given the rights they deserve. I, personally, don't really have much of an opinion on that, though.
Let me ask you this… if one of a pair on conjoined twins commits a crime, but the other is completely innocent, how would that be handled?
That depends on the conditions of the accident… it could be criminally negligent manslaughter if she were aware of being pregnant and was doing something particularly dangerous. But, if she was unaware or wasn't doing anything that should have been dangerous, then it's just an accident. The law allows for that.
LikeLike
@Narf
Let's say we have a mother who's two weeks pregnant and aware of it. She decides to “live it up” before motherhood and goes bungie jumping, a fairly risky activity. For argument's sake, let's say the woman is an expert in bungie jumping and does all of this herself-no organization to complicate things legally (i.e who to sue). An accident occurs and the mother is okay, but the two-week-old embryo died.
Now take the exact same scenario, except the mother wasn't pregnant and instead takes her three year old daughter with her. An accident occurs, and her daughter dies. Should both women be charged with the same crime and receive the same punishment?
LikeLike
@ Smpoza
Yes, all other things being equal, I would consider both criminally negligent.
LikeLike
@Narf
But should they be tried for the same thing and receive the same punishment? In essence, did both women commit the same crime? From an ethical standpoint, do you feel that there is no difference between what each of these two women did?
LikeLike
@ Smpoza
Yes, I would feel there is no difference.
LikeLike
Oh god. This is what happens when I have work. So much to reply to and so little time :p
And no problem Smpoza, its a common mistake. I really didn't mind.
Bob,
Indeed, Ayn Rand didn't want subsidies. That was my point. Her views on abortion would not have mattered, she would have supported Republicans on this bill.
As for abortion harming full fledged human beings, well that's what the debate was always about. To a person like me, there's little moral distinction between a 6 month old fetus, and a six month old infant. I see a few differences between the two: Size, age, level of development, perhaps intelligence….But none of those reasons seem like legitimate rationales to kill a person. If I'm correct, and I think I am, then abortion is an unspeakable evil.
I'm not a believer in utopianism, Bob. Therefore I acknowledge that perfection is not attainable. So I'll take what I can get. Cutting PP gets me closer to a society in which government is smaller. Good enough for me.
And there certainly is an argument for defunding PP. It goes: There is no money. PP is a private organization and this is a non essential expenditure. Cut it.
Nothing religious about that. Your argument here is a bit bizarre:
Religious people dislike abortion
Planned Parenthood does abortion
Our government is not religious
Therefore the taxpayer should fund Planned Parenthood?
—
Smpoza,
I apologize for my brevity. I acknowledge you probably deserve a longer reply but I'm strapped for time.
1. Reagan had a Democrat congress to contend with that did not want to cut spending. Its important to realize that the Congress has an even bigger effect on taxes and spending than the President. Clinton had a Republican congress. In addition, Clinton ended his Presidency with a small recession that the Bush tax cuts did pull us out of. Nobody seems to remember that.
This current fiscal crisis, was not the result of deregulation. It was the result of a mixed market economy and inappropriate government meddling in housing. Went something like this:
Community Reinvestment Act says, “You have a right to a home! Regardless if you can afford it! Just get a loan!”
Which meant banks were encouraged to give out loans they KNEW were bad. These bad loans got bought up by government run companies like Fannie Mae which would inevitably collapse because those loans couldn't be paid back. That's the simple version. Incidentally, Bush Jr. warned congress about this 17 times in 2008 alone.
2. You can run a small deficit without much consequence, especially when you're attempting to topple the Soviet Union. Its not ideal, and 6% was definitely a lot, but here is the thing. I grow tireless of being reminded of Reagan's 6% deficit or Bush's 3% deficit…when your guy's deficit is triple his predecessors. The problem isn't that the administration is running a deficit. Its that its running a huge ass deficit.
http://www.academycomputerservice.com/economics/charts.htm
^Handy dandy Chart.
3. I recognized the thinly veiled mockery and chose not to indulge. Mockery and name calling is in the left's playbook.
4. But its worth mentioning if only for the irony of seeing Democrats adulate an organization who's original purpose was to prevent “minorities” and “immigrants” from adding to the gene pool.
The name doesn't ring a bell.
Mark,
Free economies fluctuate. You have highs and lows. The recession under Bush Sr. lasted 6 months.
Since we're discussing legal stuff.
When Scott Peterson murdered his pregnant wife, do you know what he was charged with? Double homicide. So to that extent the law recognizes that the murderer ended the life of two individuals.
LikeLike
@Arman
This will probably be the last post I do for two reasons:
1. If I've learned anything from this it's that no matter how well we argue for our respective sides, NOBODY'S MIND WILL EVER CHANGE, and
2. I just got Bulletstorm, and I can already feel myself becoming a psychpathic, baby-raping nazi.
Now then:
1. There was indeed a small recession that began in 2000-2001; however, considering that (a the recession didn't really affect the US until 2002 to 2003 (and that was mostly due to the shock of 9/11) and (b as you said, Clinton had a Republican congress, it's a bit of a stretch to blame it all on Clinton. However, the Bush tax cuts did help us out of that recession-I’m not opposed to all tax cuts, just all tax cuts all the time no matter what the situation is. Also, the law you mentioned allowed banks to give out subprime mortgages, and in doing so overturned federal laws and regulations that prevented them from doing that. Basically, it “de” regulated that sector of the economy. That’s what deregulation is. Incidentally, all of the laws that overturned federal regulations and limits on the banking industry were passed during the first ¾ of Bush’s presidency, when he had a Republican-dominated congress. So I don’t think the Democrat’s 2 year majority in congress (which broke records in how little was accomplished; Republicans are literally filibustering EVERYTHING) is to blame. I guess I also have to give some credit to Bush Jr. for at least ADMITTING that there was a problem, although I don’t think he’d like to mention that he encouraged and signed into law the tools that brought about the problem. In fact, Bush believes his biggest mistake was failing to get Social Security privatized, meaning it would be tied to companies like Fannie May and Freddie Mac. It’s a darn shame so many people’s pensions weren’t tied to those two giants, huh?
2. I repeat my initial statement about spending; I'm less opposed to Obama's deficit because he's run it up on things like health care; that and a good chunk of it is stuff Bush Jr. added anyway. I consider Bush’s deficit worse because, while smaller, it’s spent on tax cuts for the absurdly wealthy and a pointless war in the middle east; on the whole, not very good investments.
3. I preferred to think of it as good-natured banter, especially as I haven't done anything as mean-spirited as, say, accusing the entire other side as being mean-spirited, petty, and worthless. If you want to play the “this guy’s being a dick so everyone of his views is also a dick” game, I'd remind you that as a right-leaning guy, YOU CAN'T WIN THAT FIGHT RIGHT NOW (link below explaining why)
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/stupidquotes/a/glenn-beck-quotes.htm
4. While it helps your argument against planned parenthood morally, it exposes it as just that: a moral argument. If you want to argue that, fine, but don't claim you're doing it because you want to cut a tiny amount of money off of the federal deficit. Just come out and say “I don't like planned parenthood”. By the way, Ayn O'Connor was the name Ayn Rand used near the end of her life when she accepted social security checks-she was a heavy smoker, and didn't have the money to pay for medical treatments, so she begrudgingly used one of the social programs she so vehemently opposed. I don't think she really compromised herself though; she was still acting in her self-interest, which is the core of objectivism. That’s what honestly bamboozles me about people the most: social programs aren’t just creating a safety net for some stupid idiot you don’t even know; they’re creating one for YOU, too. There’s no way for any of us to know how idiotically stupid we could become in the future.
That's my take, anyway. Well, it's time to play a videogame and eat some puppies.
LikeLike
Smpoza,
Well, I acknowledge that we can't do this forever. Either way, its been fun.
1. The Community Reinvestment act was a regulation. It prevented redlining, which necessitated sub prime mortgages. The CRA was passed in 1977, by Carter. Was later renewed by Clinton, and yes, Bush Jr. as well.
Either way, it was an example of mixed market stupidity. The Government encouraged bad loaning practices, and corporations were afraid to object because the CRA was a “civil rights law”.
2. So your argument as follows: “Its okay to drive us into financial ruin, because it gets me stuff I like”. War spending, is a drop in the ocean compared to amount of domestic spending this administration is engaged in. Its incomparable.
And I don't think the war was pointless. If Iraq becomes a functioning democracy, it would have been worth every penny. Also, enough with the “Tax cuts for rich” myth. Its a campaign slogan, and its not true. The rich shouldered more of the tax burden than the poor after the Bush Tax Cuts. Yes, the wealthy saved more actual dollars, but only because low income households already pay diddly in taxes. A 1% cut for a millionaire saves them more money than a 1% cut for a middle class worker. For a good illustration as to why, look up “Barstool Economics”.
3. I wasn't offended. I simply did not care. I don't mind a little harshness in political discourse. However, I do hold to the notion that in general the left is more likely to engage in ad hominem than the right. Its just my personal experience on the matter.
4. I don't like Planned Parenthood. That's not a secret. However, I also want to cut spending and I see no rational justification for continuing to fund a private organization while the government is broke. There is nothing disingenuous about that.
LikeLike
Very thoughtful and well-considered arguments, Arman.
Now go move to Saudi Arabia if you want to treat women like that. I hear they have a fairly high suicide rate among women.
LikeLike
Can I just throw 1 little factoid in here: I'm dutch. In the Netherlands, abortion is completely legal. And everything is going just GREAT here!
The Netherlands also has one of the higher deathrates of newborns in whole of Europe, about 1%. This is because a lot of people live in small villages and don't get to the hospitals in time.
And still our population is growing steadily.
Stop being so worried that civilisation will crumble.
LikeLike
@Arman
Back from Bulletstorm. IT'S AWESOME. I highly recommend it; it's violent, goofy, and a good kick in the ass that the FPS genre desperately needs right now. Anyhoo:
1. You're right! The community reinvestment act was passed in 1977 specifically to end racial discrimination by the banking system. However, in 1980 congress passed the Depository Institutions Deregulatory and Monetary Control Act, which eliminated interest rate caps and other regulation, which had previously made sub-prime mortgages unfeasible for banks and savings and loan institutions. Throughout the 80s, Reagan dramatically cut funding to low-income housing and drained the FHA (Federal Housing Administration) of more and more of its regulatory powers, which made sub-prime mortgages more profitable and less frowned upon. The deregulation continued through the Bush Years. This makes more sense than simply “this one law passed thirty years ago and left completely alone caused the current financial situation” theory, don't you think?
2. You're not quite getting what I said. I'm in favor of spending if it will make it easier to pay the debt off later; I think the remarkably fast switch from the multi-trillion dollar surplus of the 1990s the the multi-trillion dollar recession of now seems to show that tax cuts and wars don't do wonders for the treasury. Furthermore, is spreading democracy sufficient cause to invade a country now? Why not invade China? Or North Korea? Or Venezuela? Or Saudi Arabia? Or Nigeria? Also, how can you support limited government if you think we have the right to impose our form of government on other countries?
Even if the rich still shouldered the majority of the tax burden, a) they shouldered more of it under Clinton, when the economy wasn't in the tubes, and b), THEY SHOULD. They make more money, so they pay more money. And don't start with the “taxation reduces productivity” argument; a multi-billionaire losing half his money to taxes still won't think twice about dropping a few million in investments, because he'd still have BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS and probably be eager to earn them back. In fact, the graph of the Laffer Curve you showed me puts the ideal tax rate at around 50%, just by eyeballing it. This was the rate, approximately, before the Bush tax cuts.
3. I don't really take issue with much of what you said here.
4. If you want to argue that Planned Parenthood is superfluous spending, fine. Then don't mention your ethical/moral views on the issue because it diverts focus from your argument. The fact that you would mention the planned parenthood's founder was a racist when it wasn't really relevant seems forced, which makes it seem as though you have more motives than simply financial ones.
LikeLike