Skip to main content

View Diary: Senate Democratic women on the war on women (192 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The truth is that if Planned Parenthood (16+ / 0-)

    wins out while old people lose significant Medicare support - or even just some - it only hurts Planned Parenthood in the end.  

    It becomes an "us vs. them" equation in people's minds which isn't good.

    •  us v. them (0+ / 0-)

      Thats a good point inclusiveheart.

      us v. them is getting old.  It only serves to polarize the left and right ..while people more in the middle move even further to the middle.

      If they are going to stop the government (I personally think they should) then the real debate will begin.

      IMHO ... planned parenthood will be the very least of your concerns.  This is a very very risky gamble for liberals.  Middle America has awakened to the debate.  Well ...we really don't care about the debate because we are gonna start axing everything..

      The independents are sick of deficit spending.  We don't give a rats ass what is cut as long as its cut.

      I think the politicians on both sides of the isle should think long and hard about what will happen.  You don't know anymore than I do about what will get cut.

      Are you willing to give up everything else to save planned parenthood and public radio?  I doubt it.  And yes, that's where we're at as a nation overspending our income by over 1trillion dollars and growing.

      •  Thanks for the absurd RW talking points. (9+ / 0-)

        Now I won't need to watch Faux News for a month at least.

        "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

        by tardis10 on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:09:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yeah ok (0+ / 0-)

          I dont get fox news sorry.  I don't buy cable television because I CAN'T AFFORD IT.  Personally I'd rather eat.  

          I don't know if people like you are just dumb, or are burying your head in the sand.  Its like money just grows on trees or something?

          Its common sense.  WE ARE BROKE.

          •  No. We're Not Broke. (10+ / 0-)

            We're in a recession.
            We've just spent billions bailing out banks.
            We've just extended tax cuts for the rich and added billions to our deficit and debt.
            We've not even considered a surcharge on income tax for those earning more than $1million a year even though it has support of 81% of Americans (Wall Street Journal/NBC survey)
            We're financing two wars started by "fiscally conservative Republicans" on credit, just like they planned.
            Our deficit is high, but not astromical compared to our GDP.
            The public, including indpendents contrary to what you allege, do not support cuts to Social Security, Medicare and the "bit entitlements" constantly barked about by Republicans and Tea Party Extremists.  

            I repeat.

            We are in a recession and the dollars we are going to be cutting ($32 Billion +) are going to put a lot of people out of their jobs.  

            When the Republicans said their first priority was going to be "Jobs",  I'm pretty sure the public that voted for them thought they meant "More Jobs" and "Better Jobs",  not "Fewer Jobs" and "Lower Wages".  

             

            We'd rather dream the American Dream than fight to live it or to give it to our kids. What a shame. What an awful, awful shame.

            by Into The Woods on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:31:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  im just trying to understand your point of view (0+ / 0-)

              these are good points ... regardless of recession ...we don't have any money ATM to buy or spend on anything.  

              Looking at the wikipedia:

              Using 2010 figures, the total debt (96.3% of GDP) ranked 12th highest against other nations.

              You couldn't buy a tire on credit with that kind of personal debt.

              That would mean ...if you brought home 100,000 dollars, 96,300 of it is paying for something you bought yesterday.  You obviously can't spend 96,300 dollars today.  You need a buffer of unchained income to help cushion the lean times (recession) and we don't have that now.  The only way to achieve that buffer is to drastically cut spending/sell off assets/ect.

              When you are conserving ... or are in survival mode you dont eat lobsters and caviar ...its more like ramen noodles and bologna.  Our country needs to eat some bologna for a while.

              Looking at the wikipedia:

              Thats just how I understand debt.  I have zero debt.  I am not bound by its chains.

              People like me are all for the good stuff ..even entitlements (when they can be paid for right now).  

              •  Don't be silly (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                tardis10

                You are ranking government debt against GDP. You are forgetting that America has huge assets that can be used to pay debts.

                For example, the US stock market has a total value of about $15 trillion. Of this, the richest 1% of Americans own about 42% or $6.3 trillion.

                Simply confiscating the wealth of the richest 1% of Americans would pay of half our debt! I'm just talking about stock, not bonds, cash, real estate, cars, and other assets. I am not saying that we should do this, but it is an interesting thought-experiment.

                So don't run around saying that, "America is broke". It makes you look like someone who doesn't understand real-world economics.

                Americans work hard and we have created vast wealth. But that wealth has been captured by the very rich. Perhaps we should ask them to pay more in taxes?

              •  Debt is not Deficit (BTW Links would be nice.) (0+ / 0-)

                First, we're a country.   We're not buying a used car.    That kind of homey analogy really doesn't work very well.

                Second, you're confusing debt with deficit.   (Many of us have way more debt than our annual earnings.  It's how we buy not only tires but houses.)  So  you can't use examples where you have to repay your entire debt using your annual earnings.  

                Third, what debt is used for other countries, publicly held or gross?  Apples to apples is hard to find.  

                Even the debt # you use is (as ManhattanMan correctly notes) gross, not net of financial assets and it includes the debt we owe to ourselves, which I agree must be counted because eventually it must be paid. (Those that count internal debt to prove how "broke" we are but ignore it when it comes to Social Security solvency are liars.)  

                The debt net of financial assets* is about $1 Trillion less.  The debt held by the public is another $4.5 Trillion less.  Debt held by the public is about 56% of GDP before subtracting that $1 Trillion.

                Fourth, if you're looking at cash flow (as per your scewed example) our deficit will be going down drastically assuming our economy continues to recover.  

                This takes place both because expense go down and revenues pick up. (The reason our current recessional deficit is so high is the reverse - income went down, expenses went up.)  

                The CBO baseline (before budget cuts) projects that compared to the 2010 deficit/GDP by 2013 the total deficit (before counting offseting interest) will be cut in half as a percentage of GDP.  By 2015 the deficit as a percentage of GDP is projected to be roughly 1/3 what it is today.

                We are stretched and will continue to be stretched for a couple years until the impact of a recovery flows through.  After that, the crisis is over (and that includes assumptions that interest rates on the debt will go up.)

                Someone told you we are broke.  It's easy to stop there and just buy into the talking point.  It supports all kinds of "disaster capitalism" proposals to drastically cut back and shift more income up the ladder - thus the fierce urgency of now in the Republican camp.

                We are not broke.  We are in a recession and a sizeable chunck of our current  deficit and debt comes from bailing out banks and buying their worthless toxic crap while cutting people off of their unemployment, throwing them out of their houses and denying them and their children health care.

                The deeper the cuts, the more they will stall our recovery.  To achieve the kind of cuts in deficit/GDP that a recovery could achieve we will have to cut so severely that it may well doom our recovery and send us into a self-reinforcing downward spiral.

                On the other hand if as you say, we are broke:

                If we are truly broke, we have no business fighting wars.  

                If we are truly broke, we have no business charging the very rich a lower effective tax rate than we have in decades, even though their share of our economy is at all time highs.  

                If we are truly broke, we have no business taking it out on those who are even more broke than our country is.

                And even though we are not broke, many of those things are still true, yet all Congress and it's Republican leaders talk about is gutting the "big entitlement programs".

                It's time we re-balanced the load.  

                We'd rather dream the American Dream than fight to live it or to give it to our kids. What a shame. What an awful, awful shame.

                by Into The Woods on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 06:18:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  How does a moron like this get TU status? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CherryTheTart, Into The Woods

              Only 38 comments?

              "He's the one, who likes all our pretty songs. And he likes to sing along. And he likes to shoot his gun. But he knows not what it means" - Kurt Cobain

              by Jeff Y on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 03:02:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  No we are not. What we have is (8+ / 0-)

            a failure to collect revenue. We need to raise taxes on incomes over 250K,tax capital gains as income,re-instate the estate tax, add a fractional transaction tax on Wall St.,cut DOD (especially contractors),actually collect corporate taxes and end the wars. We also need to return to the historic collection of FICA to apply to 90% of income. Doing so means that not only would SS be made whole in perpetuity but we could likely lower the tax rate. Or better idea,raise the benefit amounts. Couple these tweaks with a single payer HealthCare system and the USA would be a beacon to the rest of the world as well as a land of opportunity for its citizenry.

            Sorry your personal circumstances are so unfortunate.But educating yourself is still do-able.

            "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

            by tardis10 on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:32:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  im not poor (0+ / 0-)

              I just refuse to pay 100 dollars amonth for some shit cable service with 7HD channels lol.  BoxeeBox has most of what i like to watch ...cable news is not something i chose to watch.... its too biased ...all the cable news organizations are biased...ALL

              I pay my fair share of taxes ... I make a good living ...

              I said this in a previous post ...even if you took all the Billionaires money collectively(lets say they paid 99% of their income/wealth to taxes) it wouldn't even make a dent in 1trillion.  1 trillion would take 1000 billionaires to pay off.  I don't think there are that many billionaires in the world...or 1million millionaires ..keep in mind thats taking everything they have

              drop it to 50% and it becomes 2000 billionaires or 2million millionaires ...

              do you see how raising the tax on the rich will not even make a dent?

              Im really trying to understand how this will work... please educate me.

              •  Proper tax policy will more than (0+ / 0-)

                make a dent. Taxing incomes above 250K,basically repealing those Bush tax cuts,will indeed pay down the debt & return capital to circulation.(well over the trillion mark) The other tax tweaks I mentioned will go further still. Right now,we have a level of capital flight to the top we haven't seen in 100 years. Never good in any society. In the past,we crafted tax policy to dis-incentivize this from happening. For example, make it more advantageous for a business owner to re-invest in his business(or someone else's) not just hoard his cash. We had reasonable tariff and trade protections as well. Collecting revenue was understood to be part of growing a healthy economy. The fact is that hasn't changed. It never can. Basic econ,note the second chart here.

                http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/...

                If you are at all sincere at looking at economic policy from a more broad viewpoint,I'd recommend you read
                The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better by Pickett & Wilkinson Not a book by economists,some might find that a virtue. I do.

                If you insist on reading economists,perhaps Krugman,Dean Baker,Jamie Galbraith or Ha-Joon Chang (one of my faves) would interest you. Of course,you can always get all scholarly and read A Modern Guide to Macroeconomics: An Introduction to Competing Schools of Thought by Brian Snowdon.

                Reading aside,the fact is that the USA has the resources to provide for all its citizens.We are not broke.The question is whether we allow the continued pillaging of our labor and our resources for a favored few.

                "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

                by tardis10 on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 04:24:16 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  You need to learn more math. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                tardis10

                The US stock market has a total value of about $15 trillion. Of this, the richest 1% of Americans own about 42% or $6.3 trillion.

                Simply confiscating the wealth of the richest 1% of Americans would pay of half our debt! I'm just talking about stock, not bonds, cash, real estate, cars, and other assets. I am not saying that we should do this, but it is an interesting thought-experiment.

          •  Ask yourself this - if we're so (8+ / 0-)

            broke, why is it Republicans just spent another 780 billion dollars on tax cuts for the very rich?
            You're entitled to your own opinions, middleman.  But we all need to be very careful about how we form those opinions.  We're all getting flooded every day with messages that are partly true, partly not true, and many times flat-out false.
            Ask yourself WHY they want you misinformed.  What does it benefit them if you believe this or that?
            Somebody's lying.  Big time.  And as always, the way to find out who it is is to follow the money.  Who's profiting from the confusion?  Who profits if these worries of yours influence your vote?  Who's stealing from all of us?

            •  im starting to understand your views (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sherlyle

              They are cutting taxes on corporations/business owners as a last ditch effort to keep jobs on our soil.  Its actually a hidden tariff against imports/competition abroad.

              Fundamental difference Rep/Dem ... reps basically feel that collecting some tax from everyone that is working is better than a few people when no one is working.

              Dems feel that rich people should pay more tax (which they should) but disagree with reps on how much is fair.

              Rich people already pay the majority of tax is the debate ... how much is enough in other words.  What would make you happy?  How much should they pay?  How much should you pay?  What is fair?  Thats the debate on tax.

              Then ... you get to a point where rich people leave because they feel they are being unfairly taxed... I guess thats their right...although unpatriotic.

              BO is correct in trying to close the "off-shore" loopholes.  This should be done first ..and when we are assured there are no more tax loopholes ..then raise taxes.  Otherwise ... the rich will continue to use the loopholes at an even greater extent making the tax hike moot.

          •  Congratulations: you odn't need cable (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tardis10

            You can channel rightwing fallacies without hardware.

            If we've got to give up something, how about an aircraft carrier?

      •  You sound exactly like middleman 1-76. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Into The Woods

        War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.

        by Beelzebud on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 02:10:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  sweet (0+ / 0-)

          well then there are at least 2 people on here that have common sense.

          I don't know the person...but its obvious there are 2 independents on here if you are able to recall someone else with similar views.  At least you are reading what we are saying .... probably flame them too, but thats ok...at least you take the time to read our views.  A good sign of a mature thinking person.

      •  You'll give a rats ass what's cut. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mchestnutjr, CherryTheTart

        You just lack imagination to understand that, but when it becomes your reality, you'll be giving a rats ass.

        And I am definitely willing to give everything up to save Planned Parenthood, but I am not willing to give up access to Planned Parenthood - and other clinics' - services, either  There a lot to choose from between "everything" and Planned Parenthood.

        And, not for nothing, a lot more money to cut in other places if all you're worried about is dollar amounts.

        Billions recommended by Secretary Gates from the Pentagon's budget vs. a measly $330 million for women's health services.

    •  Dean & Pelosi were right (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CherryTheTart

      Reid & Obama should have front - loaded the PPACA to begin covering the uninsured this year or next.

      If we had universal health care in the US, Planned Parenthood wouldn't need much funding.

    •  Lose Weight by Trimming Your Fingernails (0+ / 0-)

      Planned Parenthood $360 Million

      vs

      Social Security: $700 + Billion (But takes in about $90 Billion more than that.)
      Medicare:  $ 500+  Billion.
      Medicaid: $270+Billion (much of which goes to fund nursing home care for the elderly.)

      So assuming the $360 Million is for the remaining 6 months of the Federal Fiscal Year, that would make the annual budget about $720 Million for Planned Parenthood. (Assuming the $360 Million/6mo are  correct.)

      So for Planned Parenthood Federal Funding, we're talking about roughtly 1/1000 of just Medicare.  

      Or somthing like 1/5000 of the annual Federal Budget.  

      Saying we need to sacrifice Planned Parenthood to keep Medicare (or Social Security or Medicaid or avoid taxing the rich a little more) is like telling someone the way to lose weight is to clip their fingernails.

      The two are not connected and attempting to connect them in an attempt to play the "generational war" card is so transparent that even Republicans have mainly stayed away from it.

      So should we.

      http://www.dailykos.com/...
      http://www.cbo.gov/...

      We'd rather dream the American Dream than fight to live it or to give it to our kids. What a shame. What an awful, awful shame.

      by Into The Woods on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 03:15:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You totally did not understand my point. (0+ / 0-)

        First of all, you think that logic can be applied to Medicare cuts being pitted against Planned Parenthood.

        Second, what I was trying to say is that the conversation across the airwaves today has been about Planned Parenthood while we know that the GOP is trying to cut things like Medicare and likely will get their way.

        So, down the road, when people look back at this debate after having experienced the effects of the cuts on their lives, they are going to say, "All I heard about was Planned Parenthood, but there's way more to this austerity campaign than I ever knew and why didn't they tell me?  Why did they defend Planned Parenthood when they knew that my Medicare (or whatever they care about) was at risk."

        That's a scenario that is very possible and it isn't logical, nor is it productive.  Although, perhaps it is reasonable for people to think that they should have been told that Planned Parenthood is only one among a HUGE list of other cuts that were agreed to that were going to HURT people.

        •  Any Medicare Cuts in this Bill? (0+ / 0-)

          Care to point them out?  

          We'd rather dream the American Dream than fight to live it or to give it to our kids. What a shame. What an awful, awful shame.

          by Into The Woods on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 05:29:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  They were going to cut funding grants (0+ / 0-)

            to states for a wide variety of health services including Medicare and Medicaid, last I heard.  In any case, Medicare was just an example of "something" in which a certain portion of the population might notice cuts and say, but I thought this was about Planned Parenthood.

            It was just a way to show how the us vs. them phenom grows and how such intense focus on one thing in such a hugely impacting bill could easily backfire for Democrats and Planned Parenthood.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site