Democrat Disgraceful Ploy
 

Harry Reed comes out as if this is a budget fight based on his wife's :eek: ability to get an abortion :eek: or his daughters or his grand-daughters.

Someone poke him and tell him all is still legal, just I (and all taxpayers) will no longer pay for them!

I guess you missed the part where the GOP is trying to tie anti-abortion riders to the budget bill.

Yes, it is exactly that, Dell. The GOP have tied all these ridiculous culture war riders on the budget bill. The government of the United States is going to shut down, with hundreds of thousands on furlough, not getting paid, because the idiot GOP doesn't want to fund mammograms and pap smears for women.

Secondly, as a taxpayer, you have NEVER paid for one abortion. Not. One.

They are not trying to put any anti-abortion law thru. It's all in the funding. And as a taxpayer I guarantee I and everyone else in Cook county IL has paid for an abortion unless the hospitals are hiding babies. Stop the Huffington crap, please.

You are clueless about the numerous riders the GOP have put on the budget bills, what has come and gone, and what is left.

And no, your federal tax dollars have never paid for an abortion. Not. One.

Sorry - no "Huffington crap" here. Just WSJ, USA Today, major news outlets. Try it, rather than reading only RedState. You might learn something.

who pays for abortions at Cook County Hospital aka Stroger Hospital. (It's located in Chicago IL) ??????

actually the clinic across the street and east?

Oh! Now you want FACTS!? What happened to your just assuming that the federal government illegally pays for them with your tax dollar?

And yes, Dell, I happen to know Cook Country Hospital :D

[quote=Riot;767314]I guess you missed the part where the GOP is trying to tie anti-abortion riders to the budget bill.

Yes, it is exactly that, Dell. The GOP have tied all these ridiculous culture war riders on the budget bill. The government of the United States is going to shut down, with hundreds of thousands on furlough, not getting paid, because the idiot GOP doesn't want to fund mammograms and pap smears for women.

Secondly, as a taxpayer, you have NEVER paid for one abortion. Not. One.[/QUOTE]

i googled that.. there are limitations on federal funding for abortions, but there are instances where it is allowed (rape, incest, life of the mother). in fact, there has been state and federal money spent on abortion over the years. a drop in the bucket budget wise, but it's not true that it's never happened.


http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-fre...nding-abortion

Federal, State, County whatever. Taxpayers are funding abortions whether it be right or wrong it's happening. Maybe Soros can open a string of clinics as that would be his right!

Sorry - I was referring to the Republican budget rider defunding federal dollars for Planned Parenthood in the name of "preventing abortion" - which is a nonsensical falsehood, as no federal funds go to abortion at Planned Parenthood.

Yes, Medicaid can cover some medical abortions, so yes, federal Medicaid dollars can indeed rarely go to some abortions, that is correct, and a good point.

But no, no federal tax dollars go to elective abortions at Planned Parenthood and similar clinics, and no, they do not go to "routine" elective abortions at all. The statement "I'm tired of funding them" doesn't hold up.

Was not talking about state tax dollars, just federal dollars.

Well no, we are not talking "federal, state, county, whatever", we are talking specifically about today, about the GOP holding up approving a budget, and shutting down our government, because they want a rider to defund Planned Parenthood to prevent federal dollars going to abortion there.

That is completely bogus, as federal dollars do NOT fund abortion at Planned Parenthood, that is illegal.

Dell, you laughed at Harry Reid, and called it a "disgraceful Democratic ploy", yet he's precisely correct. That is exactly what the budget fight is about tonight, right now. The Republicans are inserting yet another one of their culture war riders into an emergency government funding bill.

Can't Soros and Hollywood hold a fundraiser and cover the shortfall of condoms and BC pills?

BTW the GOP isn't asking for citizens to be armed if they can't afford to do so on their own.

Planned Parenthood now has 800 health centers in the United States. The most controversial services are their in-clinic abortions and emergency contraception services. But the organization also offers breast exams, cervical cancer screening and vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases.

Just sayin

absolutely sickening!!!!!!


Rep. Louise Slaughter, a New York Democrat, compared Republican efforts to revoke taxpayer funding for the Planned Parenthood abortion business to actions taken by the Nazi regime in Germany during World War II.



http://www.lifenews.com/2011/04/08/d...to-kill-women/

Yes, they provide abortion services. Abortion counts for a monstrous 3% of all the services they provide in a calendar year.

While federal money is not going to pay for those abortions, the GOP rallying cry is "funds are fungible! They will wind up paying for abortion one way or another!"

Let's just say that were happening. I'll be a fun guy and just concede that for the sake of this argument, even if I don't believe it. If the GOP were really, truly concerned about that, then the genuine proposal to make would be to cut Planned Parenthood's funding by 3%, that way, if the money were fungible as claimed, that 3% would no longer exist, and Planned Parenthood would naturally have to take the hit for any financial shortfalls that came about from the abortion services they provide.

But that'd be a honest proposal, a word that I know is damn near impossible for any rank and file GOP'er to find themselves capable of dealing in when it comes to talking about vaginas and anything that happens in, near, or around them. So, yes, let's just throw all women's reproductive healthcare under the bus (particularly affecting poor women and women of color), so that we can try to win an ideological fight over abortion.

Willing to sacrifice women's health to score points? Yep, sounds pretty in line for the GOP.

Duh.

Yes, Dell. But do your tax dollars go to pay for the abortion part? No. They don't. That's illegal.

Just sayin'

Duh.

The GOP cutting funding for Planned Parenthood means women don't get examined for cervical cancer, don't get mammograms, don't get contraceptives. Smart guys, that GOP!

I thought everyone (women included) will be forced to get health insurance under Obamacare? Surely with all the regulations Barry has attatched Paps smears and mammograms will be included no? Not sure there will even be a need for Planned Parenthood in the near future.

BTW Why do Dems feel PBS needs to be fed funded? If it can't stand on its own it needs to go.

Also wish the Tea Party would wake up and realize in this modern age of online billing and email there is little need for a Post Office and the money saved by shutting that down would be huge! Not to mention the reduction in emissions coming from all of their vehicles and the vacant property that could be sold or leased out.

$75 Billion yearly budget
218,000 vehicles
36,400 Post Offices some of them huge buildings. Not to metion sorting and distribution centers.
596,000 employees and their future pensions and benis.

Huge money!

So those 600,000 people that would now be jobless and collecting unemployment doesn't bother you? Oh yeah..it would would make the unemployment % so that's a good thing because the righties could bitch about that again;)

i'd rather pay the unemployment benefits to unnecessary govt workers than keep them on the payroll. not a good argument for keeping agencies bloated, or for failing to cut military spending because senators and reps are all for cutting until its the base in their state/district. we all recognize that things have to cut-now it's time to take a deep breath and begin the amputations. we can't afford sacred cows, we can't afford to keep doing what we're doing.

The Center for Responsive Politics reports that the Planned Parenthood political action committee donated $286,986 to federal candidates in the 2010 election cycle, 99% of it to Democrats.

No wonder the DEM's want to keep them funded :$::$::$:

Yes, it is huge money, and virtually none of it comes from the Federal Gov't: the Post Office is required, by law, to be self-funding for general operations and capital improvements. So you don't need to worry, Del; you don't pay for the mail, other than for a few programs for the needy, as in, the blind. And it's required by law to charge the same rate no matter where the mail goes, whether down the block or to Alaska.

In fact, if the PO were allowed to actually run like a private business, it could cut unprofitable routes and stop delivering on Saturdays, not to mention charge more to send mail to less populated areas, like, say, Arkansas. So it could run five days a week and provide most of its cheaper service to big cities, while cutting out rural routes and charging more for areas that aren't near a big city. But it's not allowed to. While it doesn't get federal funds, other than for things like providing service to the blind and some overseas mail to citizens, it's required to get Congress' approval for any raise in rates or cuts.

As someone who has had to use the mail service in other nations, I really don't get the hatred for the Post Office here- it's cheaper than mail service is overseas and it's much, much more reliable. It is actually something we do better here than anywhere else.

Wow. You really don't have any real idea about how any of this works in real life? It's all just talking points and sentences and phrases you've heard, rolling around in your head?

You clearly don't understand what the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act does, or Planned Parenthood. There's no excuse for the continued deliberate ignorance on the PPACA.

:zz::zz: The Post Office doesn't use tax dollars from the budget.

from a google search...

The USPS does get some taxpayer support. Around $96 million is budgeted annually by Congress for the "Postal Service Fund." These funds are used to compensate USPS for postage-free mailing for all legally blind persons and for mail-in election ballots sent from US citizens living overseas. A portion of the funds also pays USPS for providing address information to state and local child support enforcement agencies.

Under federal law, only the Postal Service can handle or charge postage for handling letters. Despite this virtual monopoly worth some $45 billion a year, the law does not require that the Postal Service make a profit -- only break even. Still, the US Postal Service has averaged a profit of over $1 billion per year in each of the last five years. Yet, Postal Service officials argue that they must continue to raise postage at regular intervals in order make up for the increased use of email.


dell, no doubt you mean well....but the postal service isn't why this country is broke.

Who will inherit their debt? You know "The cash-strapped U.S. Postal Service announced Tuesday that it will incur about $238 billion in losses in the next 10 years if Congress doesn't permit it to revamp its outdated business model." 3/2/10."

We're already one year into the 10 and $238 BILLION is REAL money!

There is little need for the PO and less need for a $238 billon dollar bill for sticking our heads in the sand.

as far as the USPO making money? lol

"USPS has already begun taking the axe to its budget. The agency made $6 billion in cuts last year, reducing its workforce by about 40,000 employees and chopping overtime hours, transportation costs and other expenses. Congress passed legislation allowing the organization to cut retiree health benefit payments by $4 billion.

Despite those measures, the agency still expects a net loss of $7.8 billion in fiscal 2010."

and quoting CNN feels sweet!

http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/02/news/economy/usps/

BTW I started this thread based on the statements of Harry Reid regarding his wife, daughters and grand-daughters and am wondering why he doesn't just provide them with health insurance instead of having them rely on Planned Parenthood clinics for care? I take it his wife is covered under his Senate policy so someone should poke him and let him know. Pitiful for the wife of the leader of the US Senate to be chauffered to a Planned Parenthood appointment for a breast exam. :rolleyes:

The Postal Service itself disagrees.

USPS is trying to curb steep losses. It posted a $3.8 billion loss in its 2009 fiscal year, the latest in a multiyear string of whopping losses. Mail volume was down 12.7% for the year, a trend the agency expects to continue over the next decade as more consumers opt for online bill payments and message delivery.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/02/news/economy/usps/

You call it PPACA I call it Obamacare. Either way it's unconstitutional and penalizes some to reward others. Some highlights:

Guaranteed issue and community rating will be implemented nationally so that insurers must offer the same premium to all applicants of the same age, sex, and geographical location regardless of pre-existing conditions.

Medicaid eligibility is expanded to include all individuals and families with incomes up to 133% of the poverty level.

Health insurance exchanges will commence operation in each state, offering a marketplace where individuals and small businesses can compare policies and premiums, and buy insurance (with a government subsidy if eligible).

Firms employing 50 or more people but not offering health insurance will pay a "shared responsibility payment" if the government has had to subsidize an employee's health care

Non exempt persons not securing minimum essential health insurance coverage are also fined under the shared responsibility rules. This requirement to maintain insurance or pay a fine is often referred to as the individual mandate, though being insured is not actually mandated by law. :zz:

Low income persons and families above the Medicaid level and up to 400% of the poverty level will receive subsidies on a sliding scale if they choose to purchase insurance via an exchange (persons at 150% of the poverty level would be subsidized such that their premium cost would be of 2% of income or $50 a month for a family of 4). $600/yr for a family policy. Guess who picks up the tab?

Very small businesses will be able to get subsidies if they purchase insurance through an exchange.

Additional support is provided for medical research and the National Institutes of Health.

The law will introduce minimum standards for health insurance policies and remove all annual and lifetime coverage caps.

The law mandates that some health care insurance benefits will be "essential" coverage for which there will be no co-pays.

To a fiscal conservative this is a NIGHTMARE! How in the heck will anything in this save money? When a healthy person goes in and is forced to pay the same amount as an unhealthy individual it's not hard to figure out they are splitting the cost. In much the same way a male teen pays more in auto insurance than a middle aged woman an unhealthy person should pay more than a healthy one. IMO. and after all it is no fault of the male teen driver but in many cases health issues can be blamed directly on the actions of the unhealthy patient

Sure. Okay.

It's not designed to save money. It's designed to control you and keep you in your place. This is why the (self-proclaimed) elites wrote it and exempted themselves. They even had to "pass it so you can see what's in it."

And, surprise surprise -- all the "elites" in this case were Democrats.

Well, no, actually alot of the PPACA contains Republican ideas that have been presented previously in Congress over the past 20 years .... you know, like it's a virtual duplicate of what Governor Romney has successfully in place in his state?

Mostly the PPACA is a big giveaway to private insurance companies (you might note how their stocks all rose upon it's passage)

If we want to put away the fear away for a while, and dabble in reality, you could check out the CBO scoring on it regarding saving money. But considering your next sentence, ...

No, it is not "designed to control you and keep you in your place". Geeshus, that's seriously paranoid.

I think 1 year in the last 10 the post office made money.