Supposedly, the GOP won so many seats and state offices because they were going to do something about the economy; how abortion fits into that is stultifying.
Innumerable anti-choice bills are being presented in state houses across the country. South Dakota recently passed a law requiring women to wait 72 hours after consulting with a doctor and listen to a lecture from an "anti-choice" person or "Bible-thumper" before being permitted to receive the abortion.
What this all has to do with jobs is quite clear: absolutely nothing. Republicans have only one cure for the economy, slash taxes for the wealthy. They've done that and now they are fresh out of ideas.
Meanwhile, Republican House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) "has identified limiting women's access to abortion and contraception as a 'top priority'—this with the economy is [sic] in tatters and the world in turmoil."
What is most intriguing is the intense desire for military action among Republicans. Not content with a bifurcated war effort in the Middle East, Republicans are pooh-poohing Obama's "leadership" in dealing with Libya.
Of course this makes complete sense. How do you know, when performing an abortion, that the human is good or bad until after it has been born, instead of only aborting humans by a Tomahawk missile as collateral damage?
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 87
Many of them also want to ban comprehensive sex ed in schools, insisting on either no sex ed at all, or abstinence-only programs that have been proven not to work.
Many of them want to ban stem-cell research.
Many of them want to ban contraception.
Many of them have fought against vaccination for the human papilloma virus (HPV), despite it's effectiveness at greatly reducing the chances of developing cervical cancer, various other forms of cancer, genital warts, etc.
Many of them have fought against funding HIV/AIDS research, and would oppose the development and distribution of a cure because they think that the fear of contracting the virus and dying from it keeps people from engaging in "unacceptable sexual behavior".
From where I'm sitting, they seem to want more fear and suffering and death rather than less. WTF is that about?
Which raises the question: why? Perhaps this is where you think Wil's hatred came in? BEcausehe cant' fathom why except because they (r's) like suffering?
I'd agree with you Clark that it was about life, except for the small contradiction in two things: 1) war, R's are always for it. and 2) death penalty, they love killing people to save people. An interesting paradox that for all their apologists and defenders of the faith I still remain unconvinced.
Such as?
Just a Thought -
Dems are much more heterogenous than Rs, either way, though, it shows that the party's aren't homogenous monoliths.
(what did you mean-- "seel") As far as getting new ones, there was a recent article that this freshman House class is the richest class ever. The wealth disparity to me is so indicative of different values.
There is a good reason the poor flock to Democrats -- the Democrats pay them via programs. In many ways, the Democrat politicians (most of whom ARE wealthy) do not want an end to the poverty of these people -- it would mean they are no longer obligated to the Democrat Party.
Most poverty programs are just that: The maintain poverty. They provide enough assistance so the beneficiaries remain poor and do so for generations.
My Father in Law lives in Florida, in a very poor county. The welfare recipients there have jobs available to them: Sweeping up and bundling pine straw. They WILL NOT take these jobs because they pay little more than they can get for doing nothing but taking assistance from the government. Instead, illegal immigrants take the jobs for cash (so they avoid income taxes) and thus perpetuate a bad system.
I blame all of these: The employer who knowingly and willingly hires illegal immigrants should be prosecuted. The welfare bum who WILL NOT work and the illegal immigrant who takes pay in cash so as to avoid paying income tax are all criminals.
Which is one reason I would like to abolish the Income Tax in favor of a consumption tax. A consumption tax would mean the wealthy (who spend more) would pay more in taxes, but it also means those who earn money illegally would STILL pay taxes.
We have turned the IRS into a massive thing with its own courts, laws, procedures and threats. Worse, it has been used by Presidents such as Nixon and Clinton to bring pressure on individuals. (Elizabeth Gracen was "cautioned" that she might have massive tax audits if she revealed a sexual affair with Bill Clinton.)
This is all what happens when the government becomes too large and pervasive.
Dems are like cats when it comes to organizing? LOL, how many community organizers are Repubs or non liberals?
It took a government fiscal disaster on the scale we are now seeing before you saw any opposition groups to Dems march like we saw on occasions prior to November 2010. Dems/progressives/liberals/leftists et al will group up in a heartbeat and tend to vote en bloc far more than Repubs had until faced with this Administration.
While the GOP is busily not addressing the debt in favor of abortion, the Democrats are still trying to justify why tax money should be used for NPR and PBS, the National Endowment for the Arts, etc.
If an artist takes money from the government, they are little better than whores. If their art has a market, let it be sold. If no one wants to but it, perhaps it is not art.
Abortion should be safe and legal. I do not think the government should pay for it in the same sense I do not think the government should pay for an ingrown toenail.
The only slight advantage is we will not end up paying to raise yet another child that will end up on welfare.
My only objection to abortion is that it is the sloppiest means of birth control.
When a soldier takes money from the government, are they little better than whores, too?
Some of them want to get rid of those, too. And condoms. And sex ed. They really seem to want people who engage in sexual behaviors that they personally don't approve of to suffer and die. Nice, huh?
I disapprove of banning medical procedures which are lawful. However, as I pointed out, the problem here is NOT the discussion of if they should be allowed, but if tax money should pay for them.
In the case of both Abortion and the Arts, the amounts are trivial compared to the larger issue of the budget and both parties should get off their collective backsides and start making REAL cuts.
Where do you get from ANYWHERE that I am "buddies" with the GOP? I am NOT. Look at my profile -- I am NOT a "Conservative" or a "Liberal."
Actually, I am a TRUE Liberal, in that I wish to be Free -- the modern Liberal seems to want to be a slave of the State, I want as little of a State as is necessary to maintain the essentials and preserve the greatness. I am not a "Libertarian" as they do not feel that we have things that need protection such as National Parks and Wildlife.
But DO NOT group me with the GOP, or those who would ban sex education from schools, disallow legal abortions, etc.
In fact, they are doing it wrong. Given how little most Americans know of their own history based on public education, perhaps they should make sex ed compulsory in school. The children would hate it and lose all interest.
In California, we have 58 counties, but over 1000 school districts. The solutions would include consolidation of overhead in such areas.
We should eliminate the STAR exams -- they merely have created a system by which children are taught to do well on these tests.
What our children should learn is CRITICAL THINKING.
Banning abortions or worse, making abortion a crime, would mean any woman who had a miscarriage would have to, in order to prove it was not an abortion, undergo a "murder investigation" at the same time as she is undergoing the horror of losing a child. I cannot understand how anyone would want that to be the case, either.
The Right to be as stupid as you want (and let people know you are) is obvious when you see such morons as the KKK, the Nazis, the Marxists, the Socialists, etc. None of these people have actually lived under the kinds of controls they advocate.
I lived in the USSR, once called the "workers' paradise." There was a joke there:
One worker says to another: "We must live in the richest country of the whole world!"
His comrade replies: "The Soviet Union? You think the Soviet Union is the richest country in the world?"
"It must be! For over 50 years, everyone steals from the State, yet there is still something to steal FROM..."
When you have a Last in - First Out hiring/firing policy you ensure that doesn't happen. We are 2nd behind Luxembourg in education spending and are nowhere near 2nd in educational output.
If you add up the hours, teachers work less than 65% of that of a full-time employee in other fields. (Don't talk about work "after school" either, most professions do this as well.) Yet they earn reasonable pay and have better benefits than most workers.
Moreover THEY CHOSE this work. They are FREE TO LEAVE.
Children are NOT being taught critical thinking. Even TEACHERS complain of this. They are being taught to learn the proper responses to standardized exams, not to analyze the information so they can apply it to a different set of circumstances. (Do you not know what critical thinking is?)
Moreover, you have NO IDEA what the USSR was like unless, like me, you LIVED it.
Drivers for Party Bosses would have access to gasoline for the car. They would fill the tank, drain it into cans, sell the gas then refill the tank over and over.
The peasants on State Farms were allowed small plots of land, less than a total of 2% of the farmland, yet produced 50% of the food of the country on that land. It was the same as the farmland of the State, but the money from it was THEIRS.
Schools in the USSR were no more equal than those in the USA. The Party elite could send their children to good schools. Now and then an exceptional student was selected to attend one of these, but largely they were for the few.
But the USSR needed the West. For food (we could not grow enough because there was little incentive to do so), for prices (you cannot set prices in a socialist system in creates a circular logic) for non-military technologies, etc.
The world is filled with fools who think the Soviet Space Program was for peaceful exploration and science. The rockets were designed to serve as boosters for ICBMs. The manned spacecraft were a showpiece but also designed to provide means for giving a better means of looking down at the world.
I would be willing to see teachers paid more IF the pay was MERIT-BASED. Until you do that, you are only paying those same bad teachers more.
mike p. Mar 29, 2011, 12:08pm EDT
If you pay the right price, you get the right people...
When you have a Last in - First Out hiring/firing policy you ensure that doesn't happen. We are 2nd behind Luxembourg in education spending and are nowhere near 2nd in educational output.
EXACTLY CORRECT!
What we have is not a system that seeks the best available. For example, a PE teacher and an Art Teachers are paid on the same scale as a science teacher or math teacher. But the math and science teachers have more options available to them in most cases.
I have a friend who majored in History and is now teaching at the High School level. He teaches MATHEMATICS.
I worked with a US History Teacher at a High School where I do volunteer work and discovered I knew more US History than she did. She had NEVER taken a College-level US History class. Her major was "Sociology" but when the last cuts came she had more seniority than the US History teacher.
What sort of lunacy is this? It is the notion of seniority within a Union.
Which is why even FDR did not believe Unions should be used for Government workers.
Supposedly, the Union was to protect workers from the evil greed of the capitalist owners. Where is that evil greed in schools?
abortion is obviously a form of birth control--it controls whether a birth happens or not. But semantics aside, pregnancies can still happen after other contraceptive devices are used correctly.
art; art is important and a small portion should be sponsored by govt. I'm thinking immediately of buildings, memorials, statues, etc. ON the other hand, funds for expanding the arts and music are, to me, essential. I am flabbergasted by those who say "I took my kids out of school. I'm tired of them having music class, and art class, and anything other then reading riting and rithmetic."
Soldiers: I would argue yevgeni that today our soldiers are used far less to "defend" the mother country than to enforce US economic hegemony. I would also suggest that retired special forces then hire on as "private security firms" (which proabbly ought to be illegal, i don' tknow) in a form of mercenary whorism.
school: Inmate 702 right, mike p wrong, yevgeni, in the middle. Whereas mike always talks about money and per pupil spending and silly stuff like that, he misses the real issue: the bureaucratization of the school run like a factory from the late 19th c. combined with this back to basics moement that idolizes standardized testing (created by none other than the education corporations) that truly limit what Y. pointed out is critical thinking.
Critical thinking is not redundant--this term is used to denote higher level thinking: the difference between simple comprehension, to mid-level analysis, to higher synthesis or evaluation. Standardized testing w/ its focus on multiple choice and short answer off of short, decontextualized excerpts concentrates on simple comprehension and rote memorization that is easily graded. The higher "critical" thinking requires more indepth discussion of "ideas". Seminars, indepth research papers, oral exams, and portfolios of students' work are required, but they necessitate much more time in grading.
Private schools do not necessarily do this. Private schools fare no better overall than public schools. The issue isn't private or public, charter/voucher or publci, the issue is to transform or monolithic bureaucratic public schools (and keep them public).
I do believe more funding is necessary, but I, for the first time, will state that destroying the bureaucracy and back to basics and standardized testing is of primary importance before funding. Killing the job ratio of administrators to teachers (I believe near half of all public education jobs are held by non-teaching staff.) is a must.
NOIDEA of USSR unles LIVED: BS. BS. I'll give you an illustration. You can ask two people in America "what's wrong w/ it" and get two very different answers, from social welfare programs, social insurance programs, free market theory, defense and foreign policy, environment, and corporations' contributions.
If the illustration doesn't work, then I'll talk about the perspective issue. You get caught up in your daily experiences which may or may not be representative of the whole class or a small portion. You may have no bird-s eye aerial view. You are too close to be an observer. Perhaps. Or perhaps you are dead on. Hey, lots of people are resurrecting the cult of stalin and wish for the good ol days in soviet union territroeis today too. what makes their opinion wrong? That it clashes w/ yours? My point is this: you don't have to experience something or live through it to speak intelligently and accurately about it. If so, we'd have no history and barely any of the natural sciences like astronomy, geology, etc. or even physics.
Would art somehow not exist w/o govt? Is govt a better arbiter of art than the free market? Is the NEA consistent w/ the 10th Amendment?
Silly argument for more funding.
Private schools fare no better overall than public schools.
Anything to back that up?
I believe near half of all public education jobs are held by non-teaching staff.
And why is more funding necessary?
silly: the argument followed, thanks.
Private: here's one.
Funding. Funding of teachers is. funding of resources. Notfunding to perpetuate breaucracy. So, perhaps, its just a question of redistribution. Hey, isn't it always?
If someone wishes to be an "artist" but cannot live from the funds provided by their art, they need a day job.
How many actors were working in restaurants and such to pay the bills because they could not be supported by wages from infrequent acting jobs? Should we be compelled to support actors who cannot live by their own means?
Moreover, if an "artist" takes public monies, then they should produce that which their sponsor requests.
You take the Dane Geld, you get the Dane.
Would a dishonest employee tell you they are doing a terrible job in a review of their work with the prospect of a raise?
Remember, all studies can be designed so they get the results the person making them wants.
I once met a woman who had a degree in Psychology based on "Feminist Statistics." When I asked her how that varied from "Statistics" she told me that she would "remove data that was biased based on masculine values."
In other words, she drew her curve, then eliminated any data that did not fit it well enough.
She admitted that on one study she had to "discard" over 70% of the collected data as "invalid due to male bias."
She can call it what she wants, but what she has is manure.
"The effectiveness of private schools was similar to that of public schools in which students, teachers, and parents have positive attitudes toward academics, and where few problems exist."
This begs the question of whether private schools or government schools are better able to foster those positive attitudes and alleviate problems.
Ah, so approve of those who whore themselves to "safeguard the republic", and it's only other kinds of whores you have issues with. Thanks for clearing that up.
I find prostitutes who trade sex for money VOLUNTARILY (not by the force of a pimp or otherwise) to be a bit on the sad side, but I find those who employ them to be far more pathetic, because they pay for something that is a substitute for what they are probably seeking -- a human connection.
But why do you call soldiers whores? They enlist to do honest work that must be done. It is one of the few actual occupations essential to the maintenance of order and safety.
I do regard many of those elected to office as lowlifes, because they have voted themselves enormous privileges from the public treasury. For example, they get a pension for what is (in essences) a "contract position" with a 2- 4- or 6- year term. They get lavish services paid for at public expense.
I know of none of them that deserves as much as the lowliest enlisted member of the military because they do not seem to want to actually work on the problems of the country.
For example, during 2009, when the economy was in great danger, the deficit exploding and more, what was the big debate? A health insurance law.
Talk about missing the mark!
Inmate 702: No doubt my experiences in school in the USSR are very different than those my daughter had in school here.
We had far more discipline. A child in a Soviet school would never DARE say "Poshol nahuj!" to a teacher. Yet American students do this often. I have seen and heard it. (The term is about the same as F*** y**.)
Most of the teachers I deal with do not particularly like or agree with their union. However, they either must belong to it, or they consider the alternative to be far worse because they would be alienated by those who do belong as well as pressured to join.
Do you know how much the Teacher's Union in Wisconsin gets as dues from the teachers per year? Over $144,000,000 in dues each year. This is money NOT given to the teachers, but is used to pay high salaries to the Union Bosses. Since the teacher MUST belong to the Union, I have little respect for the Union Bosses, as they make their living off of taking money from the taxpayer and depriving the teachers of it.
So when you said "If an artist takes money from the government, they are little better than whores" you weren't expressing approval or disapproval? Then what was your point?
"But why do you call soldiers whores? They enlist to do honest work that must be done"
I'm simply pointing out that they too take money from the government. If taking money from the government in exchange for providing some service makes one "little better than whores" then I don't see why that wouldn't apply to soldiers just as much as it applies to artists or to anybody else who takes money from the government.
Unless maybe it all depends on whether or not you personally consider the service being provided to be "honest work that must be done" or not.
Of course that must apply to all the working artists from before the late 19th century. Before the Industrial Revolution the major markets for art were government, organized religion, and a very small group of wealthy people, most of whom were members of a hereditary aristocracy and were hard to distinguish from the government.
The starving artist stereotype originated with the Romantic movement of the early 19th century. For most of human history art was considered a skilled trade.
@Nippy Katz: Most artists before the 19th Century (and many thereafter) had patrons, including the Church. Why do you think so much of the music and art was of a religious form? They were delivering what their PATRONS wanted.
The problem today is that the artist wants to accept the money from the government, but not accept any limits on what they do with that money in terms of creation.
As I said, if you take the Dane's geld, you must take the Dane.
Dude, you're the one who went off about government-funded artists in a discussion about congressional Republicans making abortion "one of our highest legislative priorities".
Do you not know what semantics are?
Semantics is the study of meaning. If you have issues with people who try to discuss the MEANING of the things you write, that's your problem, bub.
If you MEAN to insult publically-funded artists by comparing them to whores, then I think that is relevant to the SUBSTANCE of your comments.
If you MEAN to insult some individuals for accepting money from the government and not other groups based on your personal views about the honesty and necessity of their work, then I think that is relevant to the SUBSTANCE of your comments as well.
"If it cannot support itself, why does it exist? If no one is willing to pay for it, why is it there?"
Why not the same standard for all services (including the military) funded by the government? If people want to "safeguard the republic" why shouldn't they support themselves while they do it? If no one is willing to pay for it (the U.S. military is funded through taxation, which you describe as "money taken by force"), then surely the republic shouldn't be defended at all, right?
However, there is a massive difference between that which is essentially a service to all that cannot be provided for in another means (police, fire, military, foreign relations, etc.) and that which is INDIVIDUAL services.
I have little time to teach you a course on the concepts of State. However, if you want to get a reading list, I will compile one.
Otherwise, you define ALL actions as State actions. Then you end up with socialism, something that inherently is so flawed it cannot work.
Please don't bother trying, since clearly you aren't the least bit qualified.
My background in studies had to include a knowledge of the theories and practice of Socialism (required in the Soviet Union, though terribly taught) but my function for the Soviet government meant I had to understand the US very thoroughly.
Which was ultimately bad for the USSR -- because I learned how much better the US system was than the Soviet system.
Now I see the US headed down many of the paths set by quasi-socialist countries of Europe. They are all nearly at the door of death. The US can be saved, I would like to see this.
Would you? Or do you prefer to be among the looters who believe that those who do nothing are entitled to the wealth of those who produce?
Youspout it like marilyn m spouts it--vague and meaningles.s You didn't live socialism, you didnt live captialism, you lived under aconvoluted autocracy enforced by the secret police. Hell, the soviet union wasn't even buyilt on cmmunism or leninism. stalin destoryed all the unions and scoialist groups after coming into power, then he killed everyone who had antyhing to do with the revolution. I don't see how that is the ineluctable progression of leninism or communism or socialism.
When you say that artists taking money from the government are "no better than whores" and then claim that the military is "self-supporting", it's clear to me that you're not qualified to teach me anything about the "concepts of State", regardless of any formal educational or professional qualifications you may (or may not) possess.
Whatever personal opinions you have about what services are and are not "essential" aren't much of a basis for teaching anybody anything other than your personal opinions.
Artists are not needed by the government. They provide no requisite services.
During World War II, would you have placed artists against Nazi tanks?
In the 1850s, Congress slashed the US Army from 50,000 to 15,000 (enlisted) and 1000 (commissioned officers). Within a decade came the Civil War. While about half of the Officers joined the Southern cause, fewer than a hundred enlisted did so.
After the Spanish-American war, the military was downsized, which left the country unprepared for WWI. After that war, it was only that the US delayed entry into WWII that allowed it to build up a military in time (nearly costing Britain its existence).
I do not say there is a causal relationship, but I do note that it was George Washington who said "In time of peace, prepare for war."
As I said, personal opinions you have about what services are and are not "essential" aren't much of a basis for teaching anybody anything other than your personal opinions.
Poland at one time had a legislature that was comprised of the nobles. They could not agree on the taxation to fund the Polish Army.
As a result, Poland was divided into parts and annexed by Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia.
Somehow, I doubt they would think having an army proved "unnecessary."
"Provide for the Common Defense" doesn't create a constitutional requirement for a permanent, professional military funded by federal tax dollars.
"Somehow, I doubt they would think having an army proved "
Your opinions about what "they" might think about how to tax the people of Poland to fund the Polish Army are still nothing more than your opinions.
If "they" thought an army was necessary, then maybe "they" should've voluntarily funded it. And served in it.
The US Army is not even that large. It is less than 0.57% of the population if you include Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard. Slightly larger if you include "active" reserves and National Guard.
Poland VANISHED from the map until after WWI. If you do not think that was bad, would you like to be ruled by China or Russia?
Seriously dude, you can keep repeating your personal opinion as often as you like, and it's not going to suddenly become anything more than that.
"The US Army is not even that large."
Then its relatively small size ought to make it easier to fund with voluntary donations, and/or staff with unpaid volunteers.
Costa Rica didn't vanish from the map when its constitution banned a standing military in 1949.
Liechtenstein has managed to get by without an army since 1868.
Remain what in Russian we call Fsyoe zaeebahnuh. It will not change the world.
No, I'm one of those people who understand the difference between opinions and facts. For example, I understand that it's a fact that the country of Liechtenstein exists, and that it has no standing military forces. I also understand that it's a fact that the country of Costa Rica exists, that it has no standing military forces, and that it's constitution states that "The Army as a permanent institution is abolished." I understand that these facts contradict your opinions about the necessity of permanent, taxpayer-funded military forces.
It's my opinion that you may be one of those people who states his opinions as if they were facts, and then insults those who choose not to accept them as such.
Would you prefer the title of Fool?
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
If the US was to have no standing Army, what was the President to be Commander in Chief of?
And you seem to believe that whatever opinion you personally hold about A is A.
"That because a small island could survive without a standing army a superpower cannot"
Neither Costa Rica nor Liechtenstein is a "small island", or an island of any size. Apparently not only are you not qualified to teach me a course on the concepts of State, you're also not qualified to teach me a course on geography.
"If the US was to have no standing Army, what was the President to be Commander in Chief of?"
Dude, quoting the Constitution of the United States isn't going to help your argument. It's completely irrelevant. Are you familiar with the expression "moving the goalposts"?
The Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to collect taxes to fund the military (but limits such funding to a maximum of two years at a time), but does not require that it do so. Nor does it require that any military forces funded by Congress be permanent forces.
That sounds like it means it doesn't necessarily need to be "standing". It can be created when needed. I don't know too much the history behind it, but I'm pretty certain G Washington and other FF fought over whether to have a standing army or not.
I'm pretty sure you're right, François. I think Thomas Jefferson in particular expressed a lot of opposition to the maintenance of a standing army, and tried unsuccessfully to include such a restriction in the Bill of Rights.
When I look at my household, I first allocate money to that which I NEED: Food, Shelter, Water, Sewage, Garbage, Power, etc.
Only after I cover that which I NEED do I allocate money for entertainment, hobbies, luxuries.
Yet for the Government, they seem to believe they should budget for both needs and luxuries, if they cannot afford them, they believe they have the RIGHT to seize the money from others by force. To make it "popular" enough with a mob to support them, they say they will not take from YOU, but from some nameless group, "the Rich."
This works well, in the same sense as during wars how Germans were not people, but "the Huns" or "the Nazis" or "the Nips." By making them inhuman, they lessen the value of those they are targeting.
Yet before they argue as to what they should NOT pay for, they should first decide what they MUST pay for and to what extent.
Right now, the US is paying to support one side in a Civil War. (Imagine how the US would have felt if Britain had protected the coastline of the Southern States in the American Civil War).
The debate over Abortion should not even be on their list yet -- they should be trying to figure out what we must have, first, before deciding what they do not want or need.
But politicians do not work that way.
BTW, the analogy between a household--something that cannot issue currency, cannot levy taxes, cannot issue bonds--to a government, which can, is non-analogous.
There are somethings that a govt should fund, which requires revenue from taxation. You already pointed out defense. Of course, that would be a drain on the people. Internal improvements, such as roads, canals, etc. that try to connect the entire continent and increase economic viability and opportunity are things that might be important. Also, education of the citizenry. Universal health (even to fix a toe--did you know that Hall of Fame, 9x all-pro 2 x defensive player of year jack lambert, count dracula in cleats himself was forced to retire due to "turf toe"?) The health of an organism is one facet of liberty and also of the pursuit of happiness. It also has future benefits in that helathy organisms will produce more while unhelathy ones will drain resources from the state.
Running a debt is not a bad thing inherently. But obviously i agrree that somethings hsouldnt be funded. Ofcousrse, who knows if you and i agree on which those things ought to be! E.g. i don't think we should b spending alf of what we do on military. i don't think we need 700+ bases world wide, 24 secret jails, practice renditions, have about 10 different "intelligence" agencies, and so on.
What a person cannot legally do is what the State does legally: Take money by force. This is what taxation is -- money taken by force.
However, the US is in too much debt -- we spend more than we take in, nearly twice as much. Soon, payment for the debt will EXCEED tax revenues.
So we MUST cut back. But whenever someone says "cut NPR" they haul out the Muppets and cry that the government is "killing Elmo and Big Bird.' (Honestly, don't they have enough episodes in the reruns?)
Oddly, at times, NPR and PBS claim that government funding is "only a small part" of their budget, until it is threatened. Then it becomes "an essential and vital part."
I run with as little debt as I can. I have only my home on any form of debt and that will done with as soon as I can.
But the US has run debt all through the past. (No, Clinton did NOT balance the budget. He merely moved much of the funding to "off budget" debt to make it look so. Bush just started adding so much more it couldn't be handled by "off-budget" debt.)
You are turning concepts and meaning into "one-dimensional" words with no substance. nothing that contributes to discourse.
You have successfully combined create to mean borrow. That is unacceptable. Even for a former soviet envoy to the un!
Here's another one: taxation = taking money by force. Thus taxation = theft. This is ludicrous.
the funding doesn't affect npr pbs per se, it is the budget for rural radio that is in dire need of it, which happens to purchase news from npr.
congrats on your lack of debt accumulation.
Tell me what happens if I do not pay taxes. They can imprison me. How is that not taking money by force?
I understand that taxation is necessary and I pay it, but there comes a point when taxation has exceeded that which is needed by the State to maintain safety and security, when it become redistribution of wealth which exceeds the mandate of the State.
When someone uses force or the threat of force to take what I have worked for, what I have EARNED, to give it to those who have NOT worked for it, not EARNED, it is much more like theft.
So by the use of your quotation marks, you are saying that Speaker Boehner actually stated he "has identified limiting women's access to abortion and contraception as a 'top priority'—this with the economy is [sic] in tatters and the world in turmoil." ? I'm no fan of the Speakers but that doesn't sound quite right. Granted, we have politicians stepping on their tongues all the time as Sen Chuck Schumer (D-NY) just did in front of reporters. He was explaining to some newly elected Dems why he uses the word 'extreme' in describing everything the Repubs do, it was (according to him) mandated by the DNC and it labels the opposition.
Still back to Boehner...it sounds more like an unsympathetic paraphrasing of what he may have actually said. However if you wouldn't mind giving me a source for such a quote coming from the Speaker, I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong. Politicians often confound me
Hope this one stays: "What's really driving the GOP's abortion war" by amanda marcotte
Here's a mother jones article
His quotes are "top priority" which was embedded in marcotte's writing of which I quoted entirely, thus top priority was put into single quotes as opposed to double quotes. The Bill No taxpayer funded abortions, god I love the names these guys come up with, is considered a "top priority".
No taxpayer funded abortions is easily defendable to many, if not most of the country. I support abortion as part of an individual's right to do what they will with their body just like recreational drug use, smoking or what have you but I don't think a taxpayer dime should go to funding any of those activities.
Religion is not something the State is good at either. I consider the clerics who want to take money from the State to be no better than the artists that want State funding. They want the money, but they still want to push their pre-existing notions.
I don't believe religious orders running hospitals should receive State funds unless they are willing to perform all functions those funds were to cover. If the funds include covering abortions -- they must be willing to perform abortions or stop taking the money.
I don't believe religious orders running hospitals should receive State funds
You sound like you're from a backwards country
You edited my comment. I said: don't believe religious orders running hospitals should receive State funds unless they are willing to perform all functions those funds were to cover.
If you undertake a contract, you should fulfill it. If you want financial support from the State, you should be willing to accept the obligations of that State.
What too many people want is for them to get Rights without responsibilities, to get benefits without duty.
I don't think it begs the question, you are asking something totally different (and one which still definitely pertains to the issue at hand). Schools don't foster parent involvemnet (the lion's share), socio-economci status does. Things that contribute to that are legion, here're a few: livable wage jobs (i.e., not walmart, or mcdonalds), family units intact, lack of abuse, financial health, helath insurance. These are rules (which can easily accept ontradictory anecdotes, because the larger percentage supports these factors as being importnat. And no i have no peer reviewed journal article for your satisfaction!).