Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
I understand the theory that you are going with. However that means that the SKILLED positions deserve a hike with that theory.

I'm not sure what you mean here?

I'm not saying anything about what, when or how much minimum wages should be set. I'm just saying that states can mandate that process better than the Federal government. As regional markets (both skilled and unskilled) vary wildly across this country. The minimum wage in California should probably be higher than it is in North Dakota for instance. (Or North Dakota's should be lower, depending on whether you're a "half full" or "half empty" type of guy.)
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
The Conservative Case for a Guaranteed Basic Income - The Atlantic

A government-guaranteed basic income: The cheque is in the mail | The Economist

Its an important issue. Not sure $15 is applicable nationwide but in certain states I can see that as being necessary. Of course I would love for the impoverished population to be small but at $7.25/ hr no one can live off that now, plus have a car, pay rent, buy healthy food, raise proper kids etc. Those boot straps get awfully small for someone with a family having to work 79 hours a week at two separate jobs to earn $31000/ year.


I am much more in favor of a Basic Income guaranteed and doing away from with the welfare portions of the government both for people and corporations.
 

irishff1014

Well-known member
Messages
26,513
Reaction score
9,287
I'm not sure what you mean here?

I'm not saying anything about what, when or how much minimum wages should be set. I'm just saying that states can mandate that process better than the Federal government. As regional markets (both skilled and unskilled) vary wildly across this country. The minimum wage in California should probably be higher than it is in North Dakota for instance. (Or North Dakota's should be lower, depending on whether you're a "half full" or "half empty" type of guy.)

You hit the nail on the head with the skilled and unskilled market standards.

for example: Water Plant tech vs Fast Food worker

It wouldn't be fair for a Water plant tech that test the water, adjust chemicals, multiple certifications to be paid the same rate as someone who hits buttons on a cash register and it tells them how much change to give back, or at a grill and flip burgers.

So they would have to come up with categories to say What is skilled and what is not. I used this example because where i live a tech would just be an assistant to the Water plant operator but is still required to to do important tasks.
 

ARALOU

Well-known member
Messages
1,743
Reaction score
140
I guess I just come from a different era. When I didn't have money for diapers or other necessary items, I got a second job. Of course, now I would expect to get more money from my current employer. I mean, if you can make 15 an hour dropping fries in grease, then everyone else should be worth twice that, at least.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
Here's my thing with a national minimum wage. We live in one of the biggest and dynamically unique countries in the world. I think it's naive to believe that the minimum wage should be the same for a cattle prod in Idaho as it is for a single mother in the Bronx. Every region of the country is different in cost of living, economic activity and availabile public services.

Wages should be handled on a state level. Plain and simple.

I'm with you there, but like other policies, the federal government's authority is a useful tool for making states pick up the slack. If they set the minimum wage at $9/hr, states can still set theirs higher. They'd just be functioning as an extra layer of protection for workers.

$7.25 is just heinous in my opinion.

I also wonder if your hypothetical cattle worker would even be covered by minimum wage, aren't food production workers exempt?
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
You hit the nail on the head with the skilled and unskilled market standards.

for example: Water Plant tech vs Fast Food worker

It wouldn't be fair for a Water plant tech that test the water, adjust chemicals, multiple certifications to be paid the same rate as someone who hits buttons on a cash register and it tells them how much change to give back, or at a grill and flip burgers.

So they would have to come up with categories to say What is skilled and what is not. I used this example because where i live a tech would just be an assistant to the Water plant operator but is still required to to do important tasks.

I gotcha and agree. I would even add that "skilled work" is also something that is somewhat subjective too. The value of a coffee barista is a lot higher in NYC than Casper, WY for instance. But that barista also has a drastically different cost of living in each place. I, and it sounds like you agree, think that regional leaders are better experts regarding that value. They certainly understand their particular economic landscape better than a suit in DC does.
 

irishff1014

Well-known member
Messages
26,513
Reaction score
9,287
I'm with you there, but like other policies, the federal government's authority is a useful tool for making states pick up the slack. If they set the minimum wage at $9/hr, states can still set theirs higher. They'd just be functioning as an extra layer of protection for workers.

$7.25 is just heinous in my opinion.

I also wonder if your hypothetical cattle worker would even be covered by minimum wage, aren't food production workers exempt?

I agree with buster here too.
 

irishff1014

Well-known member
Messages
26,513
Reaction score
9,287
I gotcha and agree. I would even add that "skilled work" is also something that is somewhat subjective too. The value of a coffee barista is a lot higher in NYC than Casper, WY for instance. But that barista also has a drastically different cost of living in each place. I, and it sounds like you agree, think that regional leaders are better experts regarding that value. They certainly understand their particular economic landscape better than a suit in DC does.

I completely agree.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
I guess I just come from a different era.

Yeah, an era with a higher minimum wage.

minimum-wage-inflation-large.png


You might also come from an era when the US had high-paying manufacturing jobs, or someone could get a job at the Post Office and raise a family, buy cars, and pay for college expenses without your wife working. It's not like that anymore.

When I didn't have money for diapers or other necessary items, I got a second job.

Who says people aren't doing that? Why the rush to assume people are being kinda lazy?

I mean, if you can make 15 an hour dropping fries in grease, then everyone else should be worth twice that, at least.

More money in the hands of everyday folk means they spend it, which creates jobs. The burger boys are the worst example, because companies like McDonald's and Wendy's can afford the wage hikes.

I think I'm in favor of trying out demand-based economics instead of the current situation where the 1% hordes the wealth.


But you're right, maybe everyone else should be worth twice that. That would make sense, considering the middle class is the group seeing their wealth status evaporate.

sdt-2012-08-22-Middle-Class-01-11.png


I'm no conspiracy theorist, but it's almost like the middle class is taught to get upset about government's artificial help for the poor and to think that they're just lazy so they take the eye of the ball.
 
Last edited:

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
I'm with you there, but like other policies, the federal government's authority is a useful tool for making states pick up the slack. If they set the minimum wage at $9/hr, states can still set theirs higher. They'd just be functioning as an extra layer of protection for workers.

$7.25 is just heinous in my opinion.

I also wonder if your hypothetical cattle worker would even be covered by minimum wage, aren't food production workers exempt?

Good points, I'll address each paragraph:

My personal opinion (which might shock those that think of me as a raging liberal) is that the nature of capitalism works better without federally instituted "layers of protection". If the Feds want to stymie the invisible hand for the sake of overriding minimums, then I think they should set that amount at the minimum amount needed in the state owning the lowest cost of living. Which brings me to...

Do we really know that $7.25 is criminally low? Our minimum working ages allow high school aged kids to enter the work force. I think we can all agree that their cost of living is quite low. Also, $7.25 is the amount set as a minimum for the lowest value of work in this country. I don't necessarily believe that every level of employment deserves to equal the cost of living. Not to mention, there are no minimums on the the amount of hours an employee must work. So any "per hour" rate is arbitrary considering employers can simply try to get the same production with less hours of work.

Honestly I don't know if food production is covered. But that does pose the question as to why the Federal government would pick winners and losers in that sense. Why is the work of a cattle herder in Montana worth less than a Taco Bell employee in Chicago? Only the people of that region would understand that value, imo.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,995
There is some evidence right now (all of it short term and largely anecdotal) that the minimum wage hike in Seattle is having unintended, detrimental consequences. A lot of restaurants that were around for decades have closed their doors/moved. Hotel (and in general "service" industry) personnel have noted that their employers basically took the money out of their other benefits. Obviously, the cost of a lot of low-level goods and services (such as fast food) have gone up... but that was expected.

The weirdest thing though is that the wage hike has put poor people out of the "poor" income bracket so they no longer qualify for a lot of government assistance. Accordingly, they are actually asking to have their hours cut back to stay below the threshold required for things like government assisted housing.

I don't have enough information yet to have an informed opinion on what the minimum wage should be or how it should be applied. I am confident though that it should be a scaled minimum wage... there is no reason teenagers must make more than $7-$10 an hour. There is no reason 18-22 year olds working unskilled part time jobs without families need to be paid a large sum, either. I think that the minimum wage should be graduated by age classification at the very least if it's going to be increased.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
The weirdest thing though is that the wage hike has put poor people out of the "poor" income bracket so they no longer qualify for a lot of government assistance. Accordingly, they are actually asking to have their hours cut back to stay below the threshold required for things like government assisted housing.

That's a really interesting point and perhaps a reason why localized minimum wage decisions aren't always the best way to go about it.

I don't have enough information yet to have an informed opinion on what the minimum wage should be or how it should be applied. I am confident though that it should be a scaled minimum wage... there is no reason teenagers must make more than $7-$10 an hour. There is no reason 18-22 year olds working unskilled part time jobs without families need to be paid a large sum, either. I think that the minimum wage should be graduated by age classification at the very least if it's going to be increased.

I wouldn't mind a minor/adult cut off.

I have two important questions and one important context bit that need to be considered in the minimum wage discussion. The important context is that these people are already getting the $15/hr, you and I are just the ones supplementing it. They aren't living solely on $7.25/hr, but instead that minimum wage plus government aid. So the increase in wage would then lower their government aid, perhaps too much as pointed out earlier. On the flip side, a low minimum wage and ample government benefits is also a handout to these corporations. There's a reason McDonald's helps their employees sign up for government benefits. When the government will easily provide the aid, they don't have the pressure to increase wages.

I would be interested in knowing what percentage of minimum wage (or really, sub-$12/hr workers) work for the likes of McDonald's, Wendy's, Walmart, etc. One could begin to see how many of them work for highly profitable corporations and not small businesses. Maybe it's a tiny amount, maybe it's 40%...

Two important questions do you think getting more money into the hands of those "18-22 year olds working unskilled part time jobs" means they won't be saving it but in fact spending it which creates demands for products and thus stimulates the economy? If you believe that, then you'll likely believe an increased minimum wage does more good than harm. If you don't think that's the case and favor increasing the amount businesses keep so they can reinvest in their companies' growth, then you'll think it does more harm than good, no?

Secondly, how much of this is a "new normal" of employment in America? Out with the manufacturing jobs, in with the low-paying service sector jobs, no?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/01/n...increasingly-entering-fast-food-industry.html

Since 2000, the number of fast-food jobs in New York City has increased by more than 50 percent — 10 times as fast as in any other type of private job.

The classic image of the high-school student flipping Big Macs after class is sorely out of date. Because of lingering unemployment and a relative abundance of fast-food jobs, older workers are increasingly entering the industry. These days, according to the National Employment Law Project, the average age of fast-food workers is 29. Forty percent are 25 or older; 31 percent have at least attempted college; more than 26 percent are parents raising children. Union organizers say that one-third to one-half of them have more than one job — like Mr. Shoy, who is 58 and supports a wife and children.

The fast-food industry says that what is going on here is a structural anomaly: that its wages were not intended to sustain a permanent work force — especially adults supporting families — and that it is happening because of larger economic forces. “The minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage,” said Steve Caldeira, the president of the International Franchise Association, a trade group for restaurants and other franchised firms. “It was meant, from the start, for entry-level workers and for those with lower skills.”
 
Last edited:

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
The NYT's Ross Douthat just published an article titled "Looking Away From Abortion":

IN an essay in his 1976 collection, “Mortal Lessons,” the physician Richard Selzer describes a strange suburban scene. People go outside in the morning in his neighborhood, after the garbage trucks have passed, and find “a foreignness upon the pavement,” a softness underfoot.

Looking down, Selzer first thinks he sees oversize baby birds, then rubber baby dolls, until the realization comes that the street is littered with the tiny, naked, all-too-human bodies of aborted fetuses.

Later, the local hospital director speaks to Selzer, trying to impose order on the grisly scene. It was an accident, of course: The tiny corpses were accidentally “mixed up with the other debris” instead of being incinerated or interred. “It is not an everyday occurrence. Once in a lifetime, he says.”

And Selzer tries to nod along: “Now you see. It is orderly. It is sensible. The world is not mad. This is still a civilized society…

“But just this once, you know it isn’t. You saw, and you know.”

Resolute abortion rights supporters would dismiss that claim of knowledge. Death and viscera are never pretty, they would say, but something can be disgusting without being barbaric. Just because it’s awful to discover fetuses underfoot doesn’t mean the unborn have a right to life.

And it’s precisely this argument that’s been marshaled lately in response to a new reminder of the fleshly realities of abortion: The conversations, videotaped covertly by pro-life activists posing as fetal organ buyers, in which officials from Planned Parenthood cheerfully discuss the procedures for extracting those organs intact during an abortion and the prices they command.

It may be disturbing to hear those procedures described: “… we’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”

It may be unseemly to hear a Planned Parenthood official haggle over pricing for those organs: “Let me just figure out what others are getting, and if this is in the ballpark, then it’s fine, if it’s still low, then we can bump it up. I want a Lamborghini.”

But in the end, Planned Parenthood’s defenders insist, listening to an abortionist discuss manipulating the “calvarium” (that is, the dying fetus’s skull) so that it emerges research-ready from the womb is fundamentally no different than listening to a doctor discuss heart surgery or organ transplants. It’s unsettling, yes, but just because it’s gross doesn’t prove it’s wrong.

Which is true, but in this case not really true enough. Because real knowledge isn’t purely theoretical; it’s the fruit of experience, recognition, imagination, life itself.

And the problem these videos create for Planned Parenthood isn’t just a generalized queasiness at surgery and blood.

It’s a very specific disgust, informed by reason and experience — the reasoning that notes that it’s precisely a fetus’s humanity that makes its organs valuable, and the experience of recognizing one’s own children, on the ultrasound monitor and after, as something more than just “products of conception” or tissue for the knife.

That’s why Planned Parenthood’s apologists have fallen back on complaints about “deceptive editing” (though full videos were released in both cases), or else simply asked people to look away. And it’s why many of my colleagues in the press seem uncomfortable reporting on the actual content of the videos.

Because dwelling on that content gets you uncomfortably close to Selzer’s tipping point — that moment when you start pondering the possibility that an institution at the heart of respectable liberal society is dedicated to a practice that deserves to be called barbarism.

That’s a hard thing to accept. It’s part of why so many people hover in the conflicted borderlands of the pro-choice side. They don’t like abortion, they think its critics have a point … but to actively join our side would require passing too comprehensive a judgment on their coalition, their country, their friends, their very selves.

This reluctance is a human universal. It’s why white Southerners long preferred Lost Cause mythology to slaveholding realities. It’s why patriotic Americans rarely want to dwell too long on My Lai or Manzanar or Nagasaki. It’s why, like many conservatives, I was loath to engage with the reality of torture in Bush-era interrogation programs.

But the reluctance to look closely doesn’t change the truth of what there is to see. Those were dead human beings on Richard Selzer’s street 40 years ago, and these are dead human beings being discussed on video today: Human beings that the nice, idealistic medical personnel at Planned Parenthood have spent their careers crushing, evacuating, and carving up for parts.

The pro-life sting was sweeping; there are reportedly 10 videos to go. You can turn away. But there will be plenty of chances to look, to see, to know.
 

GowerND11

Well-known member
Messages
6,536
Reaction score
3,287
That's a really interesting point and perhaps a reason why localized minimum wage decisions aren't always the best way to go about it.



I wouldn't mind a minor/adult cut off.

What would be the ages for this cut off? I would think it would need to have multiple tiers such as a high school age, college age, and then adult (maybe even that split into 2).

I have two important questions and one important context bit that need to be considered in the minimum wage discussion. The important context is that these people are already getting the $15/hr, you and I are just the ones supplementing it. They aren't living solely on $7.25/hr, but instead that minimum wage plus government aid. So the increase in wage would then lower their government aid, perhaps too much as pointed out earlier. On the flip side, a low minimum wage and ample government benefits is also a handout to these corporations. There's a reason McDonald's helps their employees sign up for government benefits. When the government will easily provide the aid, they don't have the pressure to increase wages.

This would be part of the bigger picture that has been discussed here about closing loopholes for corporations getting government kickbacks and tax incentives, no? It's sickening to see these massive companies make 10s of BILLIONS of dollars in profit after all expenses, and come to find that they pay a pittance in tax. These companies could take a fraction of those profits and insure that their workforce is well taken care of.

I would be interested in knowing what percentage of minimum wage (or really, sub-$12/hr workers) work for the likes of McDonald's, Wendy's, Walmart, etc. One could begin to see how many of them work for highly profitable corporations and not small businesses. Maybe it's a tiny amount, maybe it's 40%...

Two important questions do you think getting more money into the hands of those "18-22 year olds working unskilled part time jobs" means they won't be saving it but in fact spending it which creates demands for products and thus stimulates the economy? If you believe that, then you'll likely believe an increased minimum wage does more good than harm. If you don't think that's the case and favor increasing the amount businesses keep so they can reinvest in their companies' growth, then you'll think it does more harm than good, no?

Secondly, how much of this is a "new normal" of employment in America? Out with the manufacturing jobs, in with the low-paying service sector jobs, no?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/01/n...increasingly-entering-fast-food-industry.html


To your first question, I believe, like a lot of examples in life, the answer lies somewhere in the middle. These young workers will stimulate the economy. The middle and lower classes are what buy the most, and invest the least. They need to spend, and therefore help the economy grow. At the same time companies need to invest. Capital is a precious commodity and many of us know that it takes a lot of it to get a company off the ground. If there is already a successful business with plenty to throw around, it's more likely they will be the ones to invest and create the products, jobs, etc in our economy.

In regards to your second question, I have a hope that this is somewhat cyclical and that manufacturing jobs will come back. I doubt, though, that they would come back in as high amounts as we previously had. With that being said, I have a hard time believing my own hopes when we all continue to support (through our pocketbooks) overseas manufacturing as we Americans love to pay the lowest possible price.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,120
What would be the ages for this cut off? I would think it would need to have multiple tiers such as a high school age, college age, and then adult (maybe even that split into 2).


In my view, a tiered system would cause businesses to hire younger workers at the expense of workers who fell into the "adult" tier. It is aready happening to some extent at businesses across the country. For example, my high school aged started working for a local grocery store chain a few months ago. He gets substantially more hours than a lot of the employees who have worked there for years because his pay rate is lower than theirs. If we create a structural system in which younger workers are paid at a lower rate, we will have a lot of younger people taking jobs from adults who need the money to help raise their families.


This would be part of the bigger picture that has been discussed here about closing loopholes for corporations getting government kickbacks and tax incentives, no? It's sickening to see these massive companies make 10s of BILLIONS of dollars in profit after all expenses, and come to find that they pay a pittance in tax. These companies could take a fraction of those profits and insure that their workforce is well taken care of.


Excellent point. I remember reading last year that the "corporate" welfare system is larger by 150% in terms of dollars than the social welfare system. Still, many regularly demonize individual recipients of government aid and don't give corporations who receive subsidies, tax breaks, etc., a second look.

Where Is The Outrage Over Corporate Welfare? - Forbes

To your first question, I believe, like a lot of examples in life, the answer lies somewhere in the middle. These young workers will stimulate the economy. The middle and lower classes are what buy the most, and invest the least. They need to spend, and therefore help the economy grow. At the same time companies need to invest. Capital is a precious commodity and many of us know that it takes a lot of it to get a company off the ground. If there is already a successful business with plenty to throw around, it's more likely they will be the ones to invest and create the products, jobs, etc in our economy.

In regards to your second question, I have a hope that this is somewhat cyclical and that manufacturing jobs will come back. I doubt, though, that they would come back in as high amounts as we previously had. With that being said, I have a hard time believing my own hopes when we all continue to support (through our pocketbooks) overseas manufacturing as we Americans love to pay the lowest possible price.

Sadly, I agree with this. People are always going to buy the cheapest products. This is the problem with most of the "free trade" agreements -- the one Obama is pushing for is not exempt from this. The competetive advantage of cheap labor cannot be overcome by some campaign to "buy American" when the price of goods produced by Americans tend to be twice as expensive.
 
Last edited:

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
Former lawmakers sit on tens of millions in campaign cash

Nearly 30 former lawmakers with open campaign accounts are registered lobbyists.

Among them is Cliff Stearns, 74, a former Republican House member from Florida who left office in January 2013.

Stearns has contributed funds from his campaign account to lawmakers with influence over issues he's being paid to lobby on, including foreign investment and energy.

He's given $1,000 to GOP Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey, who sits on the Foreign Affairs Committee, $500 to Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, who sits on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, and $1,000 to Republican Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon, who sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

"They're also good friends," Stearns said of the three lawmakers. He noted that the donations were small and not intended to be part of his lobbying work.

Stearns has $1.5 million in his campaign committee, ranking him No. 6 among former lawmakers with active accounts. He's used the money to pay for dues and meals at the National Republican Club of Capitol Hill, a GOP social club, saying the House Ethics Committee approved the expenses.

"I'm a registered lobbyist now, and so when I go down there, it's a chance to talk to other members," Stearns said. "Primarily what I'm doing — and I'm just doing, I guess, what others are doing — is just trying to preserve (the leftover campaign money) for perhaps whatever the future might bring."

To me this isn't a partisan issue, both sides should want to close loop holes like this.
 

IrishinSyria

In truth lies victory
Messages
6,043
Reaction score
1,920

TO appreciate the dumbing down of American politics, consider this: Conservative Republicans, indignant about abortion, are trying to destroy a government program that helps prevent 345,000 abortions a year.

Inevitably in politics there are good ideas and bad ideas. But occasionally there are also moronic ideas — such as the House Republican proposal to kill America’s main family planning program, Title X.

The upshot would be more pregnancies, more abortions, more AIDS, more sexually transmitted infections and more women dying of cervical and breast cancer. Ending the program would impoverish young mothers and impede the formation of stable two-parent families that conservatives rightly argue help overcome poverty...

Res ipsa loquitur
 

NDgradstudent

Banned
Messages
2,414
Reaction score
165
TO appreciate the dumbing down of American politics, consider this: Conservative Republicans, indignant about abortion, are trying to destroy a government program that helps prevent 345,000 abortions a year.

How do we know how many abortions Planned Parenthood "prevents"? This is nonsense. Neither increased use of nor funding for nor education about contraception are correlated with lower abortion rates in the states. The states with the lowest abortion rates are mainly red states that place legal injunctions and cultural sanctions on abortion. Greater welfare, health spending, sex education, etc., do not seem to be reducing the abortion rate in blue states. And why should they? Most liberals regard abortion as an acceptable form of back-up birth control and morally no different from a haircut.

We do know that PP 'doctors' perform abortions on 97% of their 'patients' who are pregnant. We know that they perform a quarter of all U.S. abortions, and that PP clinics that do not offer abortion are shut down, and that PP gives its clinics abortion quotas. And we know that 40% of their revenue comes from us, the taxpayers.

The upshot would be more pregnancies, more abortions, more AIDS

The Washington, D.C. city government literally hands out condoms on the streets. There are crude government ads for free condoms on public transportation. And the AIDS rate remains calamitous (exceeding parts of Africa). The government cannot so easily control a disease that spreads as the result of particular risky decisions people make.

In any case, there are plenty of other ways to get free or cheap birth control apart from PP.

more sexually transmitted infections and more women dying of cervical and breast cancer.

More women will die of breast cancer? How does that work? PP does not perform mammograms, although their surrogates have been lying about that too.

I love that Kristof attacks our "sex-crazed" Congress. Congress is not supposed to decide what it spends taxpayer money on?
 

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
How do we know how many abortions Planned Parenthood "prevents"? This is nonsense. Neither increased use of nor funding for nor education about contraception are correlated with lower abortion rates in the states. The states with the lowest abortion rates are mainly red states that place legal injunctions and cultural sanctions on abortion. Greater welfare, health spending, sex education, etc., do not seem to be reducing the abortion rate in blue states. And why should they? Most liberals regard abortion as an acceptable form of back-up birth control and morally no different from a haircut.

We do know that PP 'doctors' perform abortions on 97% of their 'patients' who are pregnant. We know that they perform a quarter of all U.S. abortions, and that PP clinics that do not offer abortion are shut down, and that PP gives its clinics abortion quotas. And we know that 40% of their revenue comes from us, the taxpayers.



The Washington, D.C. city government literally hands out condoms on the streets. There are crude government ads for free condoms on public transportation. And the AIDS rate remains calamitous (exceeding parts of Africa). The government cannot so easily control a disease that spreads as the result of particular risky decisions people make.

In any case, there are plenty of other ways to get free or cheap birth control apart from PP.



More women will die of breast cancer? How does that work? PP does not perform mammograms, although their surrogates have been lying about that too.

I love that Kristof attacks our "sex-crazed" Congress. Congress is not supposed to decide what it spends taxpayer money on?

So first off, where is the 97% coming from? Is it just looking at abortions vs. adoption referrals? I am pretty sure that that number is seriously flawed. As to 40% of their funding, who cares? It typically can't be used for abortions (though that varies by state) and mostly goes towards things like std testing, yearly exams, birth control, etc.

I take it you are not married. You do know that part of a women's yearly exam is a breast exam right? According to Planned Parenthood in 2012 they did 550,000 breast exams. So currently in the US about 12% of women will get breast cancer during their life (according to current statistics, obviously it could change in the future), lets say that planned parenthood only sees a rate of 1% during a given year, that is still 5000+ cases of breast cancer that they are catching this year.

ETA: Higher use of birth control leads to less pregnancies which leads to less abortions. MMS: Error

Teenage girls and women who were provided contraception at no cost and educated about reversible contraception and the benefits of LARC methods had rates of pregnancy, birth, and abortion that were much lower than the national rates for sexually experienced teens.
Shockingly it does seem to lower abortion rates.
 
Last edited:

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
Also to the "pro-life" people on here who are anti-abortion but want to cut spending on programs such as SNAP, school lunches for the poor, housing assistance, and other welfare programs. Here is a great quote by a Sister Joan Chittister, O.S.B.
"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

About 22% of our children live in poverty and about 2-3% of children are homeless. Being pro-life doesn't end when a child is born.
 

IrishJayhawk

Rock Chalk
Messages
7,181
Reaction score
464

IrishinSyria

In truth lies victory
Messages
6,043
Reaction score
1,920
The states with the lowest abortion rates are mainly red states[/URL] that place legal injunctions and cultural sanctions on abortion.

but....

the link you posted said:
Rate of Legal Abortions per 1,000 Women Aged 15-44 Years by State of Occurrence

Legal Abortions



as for why your omission of one word matters,

Rate of abortion is highest in countries where practice is banned - Health News - Health & Families - The Independent

Abortion rates are higher in countries where the procedure is illegal and nearly half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe, with the vast majority in developing countries, a new study concludes.

Experts could not say whether more liberal laws led to fewer procedures, but said good access to birth control in those countries resulted in fewer unwanted pregnancies.
 
Last edited:

NDgradstudent

Banned
Messages
2,414
Reaction score
165
Also to the "pro-life" people on here who are anti-abortion but want to cut spending on programs such as SNAP, school lunches for the poor, housing assistance, and other welfare programs.

Are you arguing that these policies reduce abortion (or the "need for" abortion)? If this was true, we would expect that red states have the highest abortion rates. But they don't.

I take it you are not married. You do know that part of a women's yearly exam is a breast exam right? According to Planned Parenthood in 2012 they did 550,000 breast exams. So currently in the US about 12% of women will get breast cancer during their life (according to current statistics, obviously it could change in the future), lets say that planned parenthood only sees a rate of 1% during a given year, that is still 5000+ cases of breast cancer that they are catching this year.

I do plead ignorance, but as I understand it most PPs don't have the technology to do mammograms. And, again, PP is not the only place to get these "screenings." Many other government-funded community health centers offer them, too, and there is no reason to think that the money cannot be better spent there.

as for why your omission of one word matters,

If you look at the figures for Poland (a modern non-African country that restricts abortion) you will see that the abortion rate is far lower than comparable countries. Of course illegal abortions still happen in spite of the law; ordinary homicide still happens, too, in spite of the law. So what? That is not an argument against having the law.

An exaggerated number that does not take into account (among other things) referrals that PP makes in their clinics that do not provide prenatal care.

If you look at PP's 2013-14 report, you see the following figures:
327,653 abortions
18,684 "prenatal services"
1,880 adoption referrals

So when a pregnant woman goes to PP for a service uniquely of interest to a pregnant woman 94% of the time she gets an abortion. I guess that 97% figure was a bit high (although from a different year, too).

And the fact that almost none of their clinics provide prenatal care does not vindicate them, as you suggest. PP's main provision of "care" is killing the baby and then selling its remains.
 
Top