Skip to main content

First, Republicans and their Democratic anti-choice accomplices got an Executive Order from the president, guaranteeing that, although already prohibited, the government really will not use taxpayer dollars to fund abortion.

But that wasn't enough.

So the Obama administration issued further restrictions on high-risk insurance pools, to assure Republicans yet again that the government really, really will not use taxpayer dollars to fund abortion.

But that wasn't enough.

Because now Republicans are again demanding that the Obama administration "act immediately" to ensure that the government really, really, really will not use taxpayer dollars to fund abortion.

None of this is necessary. It wasn't necessary when Bart Stupak held health care reform hostage last year. It isn't necessary now. The atrocious Hyde Amendment, which has been renewed every year for 30 years, already prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortion. But because the forced birth movement is never satisfied and will always seek further restrictions, and because Republicans love to make shit up, especially when it comes to what the health care law will and will not do, they continue to demand that the president cross his heart, hope to die, stick a needle in his eye that the government really, really, really, really will not use taxpayer dollars to fund abortion.

Just like the birthers who demand proof of the president's citizenship when they have already been given proof again and again and again, Republicans obviously will not be satisfied with executive orders and policy clarifications and additional restrictions that go beyond Hyde. They'll keep whining anyway, even while all of their demands are met.

So women who are already at risk -- that's why they're in the high-risk pools in the first place -- will continue to face increasing restrictions on access to what is supposed to be a legal medical procedure. And just as the Hyde Amendment kills women, so too will these restrictions.

But when it comes to Republicans and the forced birth movement, saving women's lives apparently has nothing to do with protecting life.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 07:02 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Of Course It Doesn't. (8+ / 0-)

    These are religious dogmas and they're older than the New Deal.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 07:06:54 PM PDT

    •  The Fetalists (0+ / 0-)

      are willing to kill to preserve "life. Because if they don't, who will? They are well-practiced in a reflexive idiocy working itself into a rabid lather.

      Better than McCain/Palin is not a ringing endorsement.

      by psnyder on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 08:37:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Know what? (10+ / 0-)

    Republicans are giving Obama nothing lately... 41 out of 41 GOoPers in the Senate are filibustering everything Obama wants.  My suggestion to Obama would be that if Republicans approach him to demand anything, Obama should demand that they perform an anatomically impossible sex act.

    Barack Obama in the Oval Office: There's a black man who knows his place.

    by Greasy Grant on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 07:07:02 PM PDT

  •  republicans won't be satisfied until (5+ / 0-)

    roe v. wade is overturned.  And surely that fight is coming soon.  Roberts has to be combing the cases out there to get a Roe v. Wade challenge to the court.

    Life is full of disappointments; yes, and I am full of life. -- John Gorka

    by bubbanomics on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 07:08:10 PM PDT

  •  We need a new term... (4+ / 0-)

    instead of the "Moral Majority," we should call them the "Immoral Minority"

  •  Give 'em an inch.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pandoras Box, m00finsan

    ...(you know the rest)

    Upper MI's own Bart Stupak certainly helped.

  •  In a just world, us voters would soon give the (4+ / 0-)

    Rethugs a mid-term time out in the corner to think for awhile about recent tantrums.

    " It's shocking what Republicans will do to avoid being the 2012 presidential nominee."

    by jwinIL14 on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 07:13:55 PM PDT

  •  "Die Quickly!" (4+ / 0-)

    without health care, or, they'll starve us to death with
    "No New Unemployment Benefits!"

    This is the Republican strategy: a DEATH spiral!

    18 to 29 year olds must understand that the future will be shaped by those who show up. THEY HAVE TO, HAVE TO, HAVE TO
    rOcK tHe VoTe!!

    And the unemployed: If only half of them vote the Democratic tickets in their districts,
    Democrats can win a filibuster-proof majority in both houses!

    TAX THE RICH! They have money! I'm a Democrat. That's why!

    by ezdidit on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 07:15:48 PM PDT

  •  Republicans don't even know when they win (8+ / 0-)

    I asked my conservative brother-in-law the other day what he hated so much about the health care reform package and he started describing the public option. They want repeal, but don't realize everything they want repealed was taken out before it got to the president's desk.

    Please check out my blog Rantings From Florida. Someone has to do it.

    by Southernlib on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 07:16:50 PM PDT

  •  Republicans always need just a few (4+ / 0-)

    million $$$$ more to finally end abortion.

    They couldn't end it when they  held all three branches of government?  Nope, needed more money.

  •  well heaven forbid they acknowledge... (4+ / 0-)

    ...concessions.  Because then they wouldn't be able to accuse Obama of not being bipartisan enough.

  •  Repubicans don't grt everything they want (0+ / 0-)
    1. They could not Privatize Social Security.
    1. They could not eliminate medicare
    1. They could not completely turn America into a slave state
    1. They can not lock up all people of color,they try though
    1. They can not fully discriminate people of color, they try though.
    1. They can not keep women barefoot and pregnant, they try though

    and so on.
    So no the republicans do not get every thing that they wanted.
    If they did Kaili joy, you would have not been on this site or other sites.

    For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction to the force. Newtons 3rd Law.

    by 2010ftc on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 07:20:51 PM PDT

  •  when will Dems/Obama stand up to the ReThugs? WTF (4+ / 0-)

    Somebody has to tell them,  the Reptiles, TO GO TO HELL

    80 % of success is just showing up; Obama doesn't want to be disruptive, but I voted for disruptive!

    by Churchill on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 07:21:38 PM PDT

  •  So let's see. You've got one party (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    susanthe, m00finsan, stunvegas, stormserge

    that gets everything it wants.
    And another party, that gives the other party everything it wants.
    Who is being stupid here?

    Less Rand Paul, More Les Paul.

    by jazzmaniac on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 07:23:30 PM PDT

  •  The republicans (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    m00finsan, jan4insight

    are running out of things to bitch about, so they are rehashing old settled arguments.  

    •  it's more than that (0+ / 0-)

      this is timed to play to their base, for the upcoming primaries and elections.

      The GOP has nothing to offer in the way of turning the economy around, and the Senate's votes to cut off unemployment actually hurt them. So, in an effort to distract - they'll rehash this abortion issue, because a lot of their base are so damned stupid they think taxpayers are paying for abortion. There will be some frenzy about teh gayz.

      That's why immigration is suddenly a big deal again. Immigration is code for "brown people."

      So, abortion, racism, and homophobia  will all do to inspire voters, when you're the party that drove the economy into the toilet to begin with. Even better, the wimpy Democrats are too afraid to fight back. Not one of 'em will stand up and say, "Hey, abortion is LEGAL in the USA." Or "We already have the Hyde Amendment - so this is just bullshit designed to stir up your base." If Nancy Pelosi hadn't been so eager to cave in to Stupak, maybe we wouldn't be looking at going through this all over again.

  •  I am a taxpayer (5+ / 0-)

    and I want my tax dollars to go to woman's  health care, be in basic or reproductive or preventative...

    if that means a pap...or a breast exam...or an abortion

    whatever they choose, whatever they need

    as long as women, especially poor women, get the care they need, I actually want my tax dollars to go to that.

    period.

    which is why this whole movement from the forced birth crowd, offends me to no end!

    "Toleration is the greatest gift of the mind; it requires the same effort of the brain that it takes to balance oneself on a bicycle." -Helen Keller

    by ridemybike on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 07:28:39 PM PDT

  •  Sarah Palin on FB just blasted POTUS for (4+ / 0-)

    appearing on The View !

    Can I say jealous ??

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

    Republicans secret dream = the impeachment of Bo the Dog LOL

    by LaurenMonica on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 07:29:17 PM PDT

  •  Is the prob GOP demanding or the WH appeasing (0+ / 0-)

    we blame the GOP for what the WH does to make them happy. That makes no sense. Exactly how many votes is he going to get from these guys if he gave them every damn thing they want? Zip. So why does he try? Why? Really. Is there a shrink in the house?

    2010: corporate owned Republicans versus corporate owned Democrats. Vote!

    by anonymous White House source on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 07:31:53 PM PDT

    •  annonymous, the White house do NOT make (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jan4insight

      legislative laws.  GOOD GOD!  Why are the so called liberals are willingly IGNORANT of CIVICS.

      Do I have to say it a thousand times over.

      1. The Legislative Branch- they make the legislative laws, votes on legislative laws, implement them. Legislative laws are stronger than Executive orders.
      1. The Executive Branch-It dose not have a vote in the legislative branch but it can give there opinion or persuasive arguments during the process. The executive branch can sign or veto a bill to help implement or to stop the action.  The executive Orders are not as strong as the legislative law because a different President can overturn executive orders.  In other words, executive orders are temporary. The Executive branch can appoint any judge they want to.

      3)The Judicial Branch- The Judges that are appointed by the executive branch could help overturn, good or bad, a legislative law and executive law. They also interpret laws as well

      you have 3 co-equal branches of Government
      so that one does not overpower the other.
      unfortunately, since the republicans are in there the balance of power is out of wack.  The senate has more power than the other branches of government because of abuse.

      For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction to the force. Newtons 3rd Law.

      by 2010ftc on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 07:50:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Aw, man, I want to be a repub when i grow up! (0+ / 0-)

    jk!

    "Our 'neoconservatives' are neither new nor conservative, but old as Babylon and evil as Hell" - Edward Abbey

    by stormserge on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 07:34:44 PM PDT

  •  And, so what is the ultimate utility of giving (5+ / 0-)

    the Republicans everything they want?

    Why does this lesson have to be learned, again and again and again and again, without apparent end?

    What is the next item on which Obama and the Democratic Congress will give the Republicans everything they ever wanted and then act surprised when the Republicans hold their breath and turn blue, and like 2 year old children, demand even more?

    It is the Democrats who are responsible for the Republicans.  They are responsible because the Republicans, like 2 year old children, have discovered that their intransigence and stubbornness and refusal to work in good faith, is amply rewarded.

    We are asked, as voters, to treat the Republicans as boogeymen, whilst the very people we are asked to re-elect treat them as honest dealers.  Why are the voters responsible, whilst the Congresspeople and President are not responsible, for the exact same even handedness and utter lack of moral compass?  Is morality now only for the little people?

    Why should I treat the Republicans as if they are the devil, while the President prances around as if they have good ideas.  Well, if President Obama says the Republicans have good ideas, why on earth should I fear if he loses the majority to them?

    For what it's worth, I think the Republicans are going to lead our country to ruin.  But you cannot be serious that voters are to treat the Republicans as anathema, where the people we elect treat with them and their corporatist puppet masters in dark corners.

    I think telegraphing again and again that Democrats do everything Republicans want, and Republicans still whine, is telling and a political/strategic and tactical mistake.  You are telegraphing the very reason some people are tired of reelecting and working for Democrats.

    But better the truth than the lie.  Thank you for telling the truth.

    "When in doubt, be ruthless" - Ferengi saying (-6.62, -6.26)

    by AndyS In Colorado on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 07:38:00 PM PDT

  •  They're used to getting what they want. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RickMassimo

    Look at the opposition...

    The Democrats can't help but to compromise on every fucking issue, and the end result is that it emboldens the Republicans to just keep pushing.

    The United States: A wholly owned subsidiary of British Petroleum.

    by Beelzebud on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 07:39:58 PM PDT

  •  Not sure if enough folks are familiar with (3+ / 0-)

    I'm a friend of the foetus
    by Carole Rose Livingston

    I know it as sung by Dave Lippman, but it doesn't seem to have made YouTube. Here are the lyrics anyway, borrowed from Carole's blog:
    http://carolelivingston.blogspot.com...

    Oh, I'm a friend of the foetus,
    A friend of incomparable worth.
    Yes, I'm a friend of the foetus,
    Right up to the moment of birth.

    I am no friend to the fathers and mothers,
    And I am no friend to the sisters and brothers.
    And I am no friend to the weak and distressed,
    And I am no friend to the poor and oppressed.

    But I'm a friend of the foetus, etc.

    Once it's a baby, I will not go near it,
    I will not feed it and I will not rear it.
    And when it is crying I won't even hear it,
    For I have no room in my heart for a human.

    But I'm a friend of the foetus, etc.

    I will not care for it, I won't be there for it,
    I will not weep for it, I won't lose sleep for it.
    I'll back away from it, I won't go grey from it,
    I won't even pray for it, and I won't pay for it.

    But I'm a friend of the foetus,
    A friend of incomparable worth.
    Yes, I'm a friend of the foetus,
    Right up to the moment of birth.
    When it needs friends (Wail),
    Right up to the moment of birth.

    When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

    by PhilJD on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 07:40:13 PM PDT

  •  Negotiating With Terrorists (0+ / 0-)

    You can't negotiate with terrorists and expect them to stop terrorizing for new demands. They're the definition of "bad faith".

    And I know that Obama knows that. Democrats know that. These people understand politics: they're at the top of that highly competitive career. They just don't suffer consequences when they let us and the country down.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 07:42:54 PM PDT

  •  My suggestion is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    susanthe, dendron gnostic

    really quite simple.  Let's make taxpayer money available to women who want abortions, even women who are sloppy about birth control and get pregnant.  Let's make it equal, relatively speaking:  $10,000 into a women's health services fund for every $1,000,000 that goes to defense contractors.  The entire Congress has to vote for this every budget cycle - you can't fund defense unless you fund women's reproductive health, and you can't cut women's reproductive health unless you cut defense spending.

    It's really simple.

    I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

    by I love OCD on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 07:45:09 PM PDT

    •  Yes, you have now passed through Phase One. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      I love OCD

      Most everything is (fairly) simple.  So how comes it is such a trainwreck, clusterfuck, banjo-string-in-the-eye in real life?

      You'll know you have reached the end of Phase Two when you learn to survive in that paradox.

      (Or see the Sunday Style section for answer.)

      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king; in the land of the braindead, the intelligent person is cast as the village idiot."

      by dendron gnostic on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 08:09:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The flip side: (0+ / 0-)

    Democrats get nothing they want and say “thank you.”

    (See the latest war supplemental.)

    Formerly known as Jyrinx.

    “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” -- Emma Goldman

    by Code Monkey on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 07:47:42 PM PDT

  •  Of course they demand more-- they're like (0+ / 0-)

    the really bad villain who promises that he'll let the hostage go if you give him what he wants--- and then he takes the money from you with one hand and shoots the hostage with the gun in his other hand.

    Happens every time.  We're supposedly the most powerful country in the world, and yet we're hostages to a gang of amoral goons in a really bad movie with a hackneyed script.

    Why the hell Obama and his administration have given the Republicans any credence is beyond me.  During the Bush years the congressional Dems were already mystifying me-- that is, making me scream and pull my hair out-- with their accommodations to the Republicans.  But why it's still going on when the Republicans have proven time and again that they WILL.  SHOOT.  THE.  HOSTAGE.  AND.  TAKE.  THE.  MONEY.  TOO, is beyond me.

  •  This is Republicans throwing a bone (0+ / 0-)

    to all the social conservatives for whom they in fact do nothing.  But this makes those folks think that Republicans are super-duper opposed to abortion, so of course they'll vote for them again and again.  Sigh. . .

    We learn from our gardens to deal with the most urgent question of the time: How much is enough? --Wendell Berry

    by deeproots on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 07:52:20 PM PDT

  •  Rec'd for callng attention to the ever-clawing (0+ / 0-)

    ever-snarling Undead Babies Society and their ghoulish sockpuppets, Republicans in Congress.

    The heartfelt lash of bitter frustration, re:

    So women who are already at risk -- that's why they're in the high-risk pools in the first place -- will continue to face increasing restrictions on access to what is supposed to be a legal medical procedure. And just as the Hyde Amendment kills women, so too will these restrictions.

    was moving, profound and bracing, for the high-impact finale where stuffy ol' Henry Hyde takes one square in the nuts.
    .
    ...................
    .
    ("I don't think you're allowed to kick a dead Senator in the privates, even on DKos.  Isn't that abuse of a corpse?")
    ("Sunuvabitch tryin' to get his dead hands around my womb or my daughter's, I say, fair game!  Dead or no!")

    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king; in the land of the braindead, the intelligent person is cast as the village idiot."

    by dendron gnostic on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 07:55:24 PM PDT

  •  Democrats are pussies! (0+ / 0-)

    They should laminate their puckering lips for kissing GOP ass so much.

  •  Gutless obama administration (0+ / 0-)
    What else is new?

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 08:04:19 PM PDT

  •  Obama (0+ / 0-)

    Please pull your head out, DO NOT give these ReichWing fuckers ANYTHING.

    EVER.

  •  I know there has to be some real good comical (0+ / 0-)

    comment to use here, but it's all just too sad.

    With Obama's Presidency, I feel the enduring pain of every teabagger, and believe me, I completely enjoy it.

    by pollbuster on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 09:01:43 PM PDT

  •  Ok, wingnuts- answer this: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DruidQueen, jan4insight

    My daughter is pregnant, and just found out that she's carrying twins. Her husband's job went to India (sent there by a red-blooded American company that got a fat bailout) and there's nothing available- he's been pounding the pavement and no bites.

    So since she's keeping the babies, dear Republicans, are you going to extend her husband's unemployment so they will have a roof over her head and food for her unborn babies? How about job stimulation (and incentives to keep the jobs HERE) to give him a better chance at finding something? And does what tiny pittance they're getting end when those babies exit their mother?

    I'm waiting...

    "It is our choices Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -Albus Dumbledore ~~~~~~~~~ http://slugcrossings.blogspot.com/

    by Lainie on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 09:20:26 PM PDT

    •  First off.. (0+ / 0-)

      .. congrats to your daughter and son-in-law  : )

      Now.. reflect on the theme of your post:

      "SINCE" a married couple is going to "KEEP" their babies ?

      Abortion to me, is a non-issue. If my wife (rest her soul) had gotten pregnant.. it'd been between US and our doctor and what's in our hearts to decide what to do. NO government entity should have a say, one way or the other. So, largley, I'm in the pro-choice camp, albeit leaning toward life, outside of rape/insest/health...

      Now.. back to this post..  It's all centered around looking to the government to "give" us things. A big, " whatcha gonna do for ME " theme. That's what's gotten us this deep in pooo..

      As for keeping jobs here ? Let's start with gutting a government that regulates the profitability out of being in business.. and taxes to the tune of $38,0000 per household ($3.8 trillion diveded by 100 million households).

      How can ANY of us (business or citizens) continue to thrive when the feds alone soak up more than 50% of the money earned by the citizens ? I'd dare say that an attitude that accepts that.. leads to an attitude that would suggest abortions by personal, economic comfort is acceptable...  

      •  You did not read for context. (0+ / 0-)

        What I was pointing out was the hypocrisy of the classic 'life' perspective- they care about keeping a pregnancy, but aren't interested in making that economically feasible, or of supporting that 'life' after it is born.

        I must say here that the people I've gotten grief from on my daughter's behalf have been those who claim to be 'choice' but who insist that that choice needed to be exercised and that my daughter should have had an abortion because her husband lost his job- that that was the 'responsible' thing to do. This is absolutely sick, and has to be the antithesis of the choice we've fought for for so long.

        Now, to the rest of your remarks:

        Now.. back to this post..  It's all centered around looking to the government to "give" us things. A big, " whatcha gonna do for ME " theme. That's what's gotten us this deep in pooo..

        As for keeping jobs here ? Let's start with gutting a government that regulates the profitability out of being in business.. and taxes to the tune of $38,0000 per household ($3.8 trillion diveded by 100 million households).

        How can ANY of us (business or citizens) continue to thrive when the feds alone soak up more than 50% of the money earned by the citizens ?

        Are you sure you're on the right blog? Your pro-business 'oh we're too taxed to run a business here' is complete bovine exhaust. We have some of the lowest business tax rates in the last century, thanks (or no thanks) to Bush II. Businesses aren't hurting. I came screaming out of my office a couple of days ago to tell my roommate when the numbers came out, that Exxon-Mobil's second quarter net profits nearly DOUBLED to $7.56 BILLION- yes, that's billion with a B- dollars.

        Business isn't hurting- at least the big businesses. Laura Flanders notes at HuffPo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...) that:

        According to a London consulting firm, wealthy investors (those with more than a million lying around) have more than $26 trillion they could be giving out in investments -- growing companies, growing payrolls, even potentially growing wages (?!) -- but they're not doing it.  On the corporate side, non-financial U.S. corporations are holding more than $1.8 trillion.  This is a 26 percent increase from the year before — the largest increase since 1952 according to the Wall Street Journal. The Great Recession's happening simultaneously with great hoarding.

        Big money won't do "the right thing" because as far as they're concerned, they're doing it already. Capitalism's working well for them: people are working harder, for less, producing more, with fewer workmates. No reason they'll shift and no sign of it either.

        And small businesses? Hey- it was the frakking Republicans who tanked the small business aid bill last week.

        None of us are looking for the govt to 'give' us things. We are looking for them to reinforce basic social responsibility (like keeping jobs here and paying your frakking taxes). My son-in-law isn't looking for a handout- he wants a job. And if he's working for an American company, his job should stay here. And an American company that accepts bailout money should use that money to keep jobs here- not to line the executive's' pockets and then send jobs overseas to keep costs down.

        "It is our choices Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -Albus Dumbledore ~~~~~~~~~ http://slugcrossings.blogspot.com/

        by Lainie on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 05:23:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We could trade well thought-out arguments.. (0+ / 0-)

          .. and be mostly accurate.. because these are complex issues, and customized contexts are easily presented.

          As for corporate tax-rates here and abroad.. if it were less expensive (all said and done) to run a business here...not only would the jobs not be leaving, but over-seas jobs would be coming here. Aside from the arguments about whether corps actuall pay, or just collect taxes.. it all boils down to the indiviudal citizens.. be they sole-proprietors; partnership-owners, or just plain old stock holders... every penny of profit eventually finds its way to a personal 1040, one way or the other... Which brings me back to my other point. The feds are projecting a 3.8 trillion (with a T) budget... that works out to $38,000 per household; when the average household income is less than $60,000.

          Do the math... that's 63% of all the money earned by all the citizens.. and that's ONLY for the feds. Add in state/county/local government costs, and you can see why companies take their manufacturing to other countries. The REAL cost of doing business here is insanely high. And with the recent explosion in the size/cost of government, and lord knows what is yet to come from the current administration... is it any wonder that companies that have loads of cash are choosing to sit on it ?

        •  Oh.. (0+ / 0-)

          ..as for.. "Job Bills".. or "Small Business Aid Bills" .. Borrowing money (essentially forcing citizens come up with more cash advances on their national-debt credit cards that now have about a balance of about $150,000 per household) isn't the answer. That's as goofy as asking an unemployed man to borrow money.. then lend it to a company, in return for a job. It's financial foolishness. The best thing the feds can do at this point, is to gut governemnt, and lower taxes proportionally.. and then grow our way out of this hole.

  •  Box to check on 1040: Fund abortions? (0+ / 0-)

    I wish I could authorize my taxes to fund abortions for women who cannot afford them.  But then there's a lot of things I wish my taxes would not fund like military spending.

    On second thought, that seems like a mighty great idea: allocate what you want your taxes to go towards.

  •  I know (0+ / 0-)

    I mentioned this before, but I think its a media problem.  I went to the local cafe today and of course Fox was on Tv.  While driving yesterday Rush was on the radio talking sececion with people.  Obama got the blame for the Sherrod deal.  One guy told me that Obama should be Impeached for running up deficit.  Another said that Obama wants to bring back death tax.  And on it goes.  The oh so familiar stuff thats on all the media, at least where I live.  We must get the fairness doctrin back, or our own stations.  I dont see any chance of retaining control of white house or congress, if people only get this kind of information.

  •  It's all a lie. (0+ / 0-)

    Our current "DEM" Party wants these restrictions on abortion. They're simply using a bipartisan cover. It appears there is absolutely nothing our "DEM" leaders won't completely capitualte to the GOP Party Plank to get put into law. Our "DEM" leaders WANT THIS. And it's time to put the "Weak Presidency" BS to rest. It's a tired old lie that only GOP Presidents can weild power and the force of narrative, and that DEM Presidents are always completely weak and ineffectual. The sliding of this country forever right is a 100% bipartisan effort. There is no Liberal/Progressive Party in this country. It's all a lie.

  •  And this is why appeasement NEVER works, (0+ / 0-)

    Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: Appeasement

    Foreign policy of pacifying an aggrieved nation through negotiation in order to prevent war. The prime example is Britain's policy toward Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Neville Chamberlain sought to accommodate Italy's invasion of Ethiopia in 1935 and took no action when Germany absorbed Austria in 1938. When Adolf Hitler prepared to annex ethnically German portions of Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain negotiated the notorious Munich Agreement.

    It didn't work then, and it sure as hell won't now. You cannot reason with fanatics. You can only stop them cold, or let them win. They won't have it any other way.

    Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. Denis Diderot

    by Asmodeus2012 on Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 04:05:34 AM PDT

  •  Please tell me you understand this: (0+ / 0-)
    This has absolutely nothing to do with the facts, or any form of reality.  This is all about perception and the use of fear to motivate the base.  So almost no Dem reaction will work, as that is not what their goal is.  They dont want further executive orders, they want voters out in November.
  •  A little over the top (0+ / 0-)

    If the additional restrictions are redundant, why do they bother you so much and how can they lead to "increasing restrictions."  If they really will further restrict public funding of abortions then, from a Republican perspective, it would make sense to pursue them, right?

    You're going to have a hard time convincing moderates and libertarians to allow public funding for abortion if you throw the "Hyde Amendment Kills Women" bombs.  I think a lot (certainly not all) of people who are uncomfortable with the pro-choice movement honestly believe that abortion murders far more innocent children in a year than the Hyde Amendment has ever killed.

    We should keep our arguments focused on freedom and choice.  With rhetoric like this, is it any wonder why Republicans are seeking multiple levels of restrictions?

    •  abortion. does. not. murder. innocent. children. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DruidQueen

      The argument is exactly about freedom and choice.

      arghh...

      there just is no point in saying more I am afraid.  

      •  Missing the point (0+ / 0-)

        First of all, I didn't say Abortion did murder children.  I said that many people (and most Republicans) are uncomfortable with abortion because they believe it ends the life of a child who has a constitutional right not life.  With modern technology, some of these aborted babies could live outside the womb.  And 99% of them would grow into real people.

        We can (and must) have a good debate about when life begins and how we value a woman's decision about her own body against the right of a baby (or pre-baby) to be born and live.  I don't know where that line is, but can we at least agree that it's a difficult choice to make?  This is where the middle is.  Honest independents are wrestling with the issue.  If you won't at least acknowledge that some (obviously not all) abortions draw uncomfortably close to murder, you will never win the argument with voters.  Minimizing the issue makes us not much better (or effective) than extreme Republicans on the other side.

        •  Roe v Wade drew the line you claim to want (0+ / 0-)

          So why are you so comfortable with the Fetus Fascists erasing it?

          As far as I am concerned, there is no debate. It is and should be the woman's own decision - and nobody else's business unless she wants to ask them for advice. That means you too.

          If it's
          Not your body
          Then it's
          Not your choice
          AND it's
          None of your damn business!

          by TheOtherMaven on Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 10:02:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Missing the point (0+ / 0-)

            Roe v Wade is not the end of the story.  Policy makers still have many choices to make.  Public funding, late term abortions and partial birth abortions are all issues that are still in play.  
            The 2nd Amendment gave us the right to bear arms, but you wouldn't argue that the story ends there, would you?  I can't yell fire in a movie theater or engage in certain political speech or make certain campaign donations, despite the 1st amendment.  We have laws that say a government can stop a woman from killing herself.  Should we let her do it?  It’s her body, right?

            I just think you missed my point.  A lot of voters, who obviously influence the choices noted above, are uncomfortable with saying a women gets to choose but the fetus has absolutely no rights.  Would you treat grandma that way at the end of her life?  If a baby was born yesterday, could I terminate it today?  Does that child have the same rights as a fetus that may actually be older, but still in the womb?  If a partial birth abortion removes the head of a fetus before terminating it, is that going too far?

            These are difficult questions that deserve an open debate because Roe v Wade did not answer all of the questions.

            •  You blew it with "partial birth abortion" (0+ / 0-)

              That's a wingnut talking point term intended to demonize the safest process for ending a late term pregnancy.

              I don't care who is "uncomfortable" with what. The ONLY person who has ANY right to make a decision on what to do about a pregnancy is the woman herself. And I am much more than "uncomfortable" with any proposal to abrogate that right - I am outraged.

              Get this through your head: the person who advocates limiting a woman's rights in favor of a fetus is advocating enslavement of women.

              If it's
              Not your body
              Then it's
              Not your choice
              AND it's
              None of your damn business!

              by TheOtherMaven on Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 12:54:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Teachable Moment (0+ / 0-)

                I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because you probably didn't read my initial post (or my subject line).  But Kudos to you for illustrating my point better than I ever could have explained it.

                Once again...I am trying to argue that if you can't engage reasonable people on concerns they have about abortion, you will lose the public debate every time.  I tried to pick the three top-of-mind hot-button issues (public funding, late term and partial-birth) that Republicans will use these because they play well with the majority and are a wedge issue with democrats.

                I actually agree with you that the Feds have no business telling women what do.  But if you react to me with name calling (wingnut), condescension (get this through your head) and extremism (ANY), you will do more harm than good in the debate.

                Regarding the term "partial birth abortion", it is used in the title of the bill and supporting case law, headlines an entry on Wikipedia and is more commonly used than "intact dilation and extraction."

                Regarding the wingnut accusation, I think most reasonable people would be at least "uncomfortable" with late term abortions and especially partial birth abortion.  It's a gruesome procedure and I pity any woman faced with those decisions.  It's an awful choice with no good outcome.

                Consider the following poll data from Gallup in May 2009 (the most recent I could find):

                http://www.gallup.com/...

                50% say Abortion is morally wrong vs 38% for morally acceptable.  Only 51% of democrats 39% of independents say abortion is morally acceptable.  53% think that abortion should be legal under "certain circumstances" while only 23% and 22% think it should be legal and illegal under ANY circumstances.  This doesn't mean we should ban it or even that the majority is right.  But it does support my contention that you will lose the argument if you can't treat people with respect who have legitimate concerns.  As a result, Gallup now shows 51% identifying themselves as "pro-life" vs only 42% identifying themselves as "pro-choice."

                •  That just means the wingnuts have WON (0+ / 0-)

                  Every time they get the general public to accept their framing and their terminology, THEY WIN. Every time that people (including Kossacks) use the wingnut terminology because "it's generally accepted", THE WINGNUTS WIN.

                  Right now, by using the wingnut term, you are helping the wingnuts win.

                  NEVER NEVER NEVER use the wingnuts' language. It's a lose-lose-lose across the board for everyone but the wingnuts.

                  If it's
                  Not your body
                  Then it's
                  Not your choice
                  AND it's
                  None of your damn business!

                  by TheOtherMaven on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 11:22:23 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site