|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 6:47 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| stilicho25 wrote: |
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes.html
getting corporations or rich people to pay any tax would be a start. |
Corporations have us by the balls on this one. Calls to reform the corporate tax code are perennial, but the Left gets itself in hackles on this, because all the experts advise reducing corporate tax rates. Corporations should only be taxed on dividends and transfers of assets in and out of the corporate form. Taxing them on their profit margin truly distorts incentives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TinyGuest wrote: |
| The break down for Planned Parenthood spending is actually more towards 3% for abortions and they spend over half of their budget on contraceptives and STD testing/treatment. |
Oh please. Planned Parenthood alone performs around 1/3 of the total abortions in the country. This is quite well known. Insofar as abortion is an industry, Planned Parenthood is it.
And obviously it's much simpler for a woman to run to the clinic to get birth control pills (a "service"), than to get an abortion (another "service") - the instance ratio could easily be 50:1 or more (in other words, saying abortions make up only 3% of "services" is very misleading).
| Quote: |
| Why shouldn't these things be paid for by tax money? They're not cheap. |
Frankly, because you don't have the right to dip your hand into my pocket to pay for your abortion... or for your birth control pills, testing etc. etc. It's your responsibility to pay for yourself (hopefully you have family/friends to help you out if need be).
| Quote: |
| Even with insurance, but especially without it. It's getting away from being a cheap place to go for effective procedures due to funding being cut too because of this propaganda. |
That PP brochure you posted full of pictures of smiling, happy people and a few excel chart pie graphs (kids stuff) was the only propaganda I've seen here... The massive budget discrepancy is not accounted for.
Anyway, the fact that they're collecting big bucks from the tax payer, and charging you individually just shows what a racket it is. They should receive zero funding (subsidies) and be forced to compete on the free market. This would drive the prices down and make the services more affordable. Late term abortions (murder) should be kept illegal, however.
| Quote: |
| They're not "abortion mega-centers". For quite a few people, Planned Parenthood is the local clinic. Without tax money a lot of women wouldn't be able to afford getting such a basic need like a pap smear done. Without tax money a huge line would be drawn in class over women getting basic medical services and family planning. |
How about not paying taxes that go to PP, and instead paying the money out of pocket? If PP can't deliver at affordable prices, someone else will. This is the exact same argument used against Obamacare. The old "government breaks both your legs, hands you a crutch" adage comes to mind...
| Quote: |
| I'd also like to point out that no one is forcing them through the door; it's their choice to go. So why be outraged if they're taking advantage of an organization that's giving them things they want/need? Eugenics from what my googling-fu showed me, would be advocating that they be pressured into not breeding at all. PP isn't giving them any kind of pressure to not procreate, unless I suppose, it be due to danger for the potential mother in question. So, I'm wondering if you're taking in the historical context of eugenics when making this argument. |
They aren't "forcing" them because at the present time it's illegal to do so. But did I mention that forced sterilization was in fact at one time practiced in the US? It was people like Margaret Sanger and her blue-blooded financial backers who made it happen. Basically the only reason it stopped was because Hitler gave it such a bad name doing what he did over in Germany. That's why the eugenicists in the US had to re-package it as something "liberal" and "progressive"; tying it together with "woman's liberation" 
| Quote: |
| I also did some googling on Margaret Sanger, along with the taglines of being a eugenicist and forced sterilization. Yes, she believed in eugenics, much like other people during that time period. Yes, she advocated for sterilizing the feeble-minded and insane, much like everyone else in that time period. However, this needs to be taken into the historical context where this was considered a solution. Now, it's not. Anyone doing this will have an ACLU team fighting over who gets to headline the case. Just because it was founded by someone controversial now because she believed in what was considered medical fact then doesn't mean it should eclipse the fact she was essentially advocating for women's rights to contraceptives and choosing when to have a potential baby. |
Historical context?? Screw that. Margaret Sanger was a monster. The above is literally like saying Hitler (who incidentally was a fan of hers, and vice versa) was okay, because he shared the same ideas as other people during that time period, and believed what he did to be right... Even if some of the things she pushed for happened to be positive, the same can be said about a lot of evil people...
Here's a sample of her agenda from an essay she wrote in 1925 called �The Need of Birth Control in America�:
�Birth Control is not merely an individual problem; it is not merely a national question, it concerns the whole wide world, the ultimate destiny of the human race. In his last book, Mr. [H.G.] Wells speaks of the meaningless, aimless lives which cram this world of ours, hordes of people who are born, who live, yet who have done absolutely nothing to advance the race one iota. Their lives are hopeless repetitions. All that they have said has been said before; all that they have done has been done better before. Such human weeds clog up the path, drain up the energies and the resources of this little earth. We must clear the way for a better world; we must cultivate our garden.� (pg. 47-48 )
She was a truly wicked individual.
| Quote: |
I'd say abortions are increasing because of the economics of having a child. Also, that federal funding is then increasing because women want access to contraceptives to avoid having a child during this economy. Children, are really, really expensive. The cost of raising a kid to the age of 18 is mind-boggling. Even while a woman is pregnant the charges already start up with pre-natal vitamins, checkups, and other medical needs (also things Planned Parenthood can provide coincidently). This is before even getting it out of the womb. The delivery itself will cost several thousand dollars. The first year for a baby equals over a $1,000 dollars in supplies. With insurance it's expensive enough, without insurance it's really taking limited budgets and squeezing them down to the last drop. Googling will show you plenty of break downs.
I'd like to point out even with babies being oh-so expensive that it's also cheaper to just have them instead of adopting. There's the possibility that the child will never wind up in a family (going into foster case) if it's not a private adoption as it's so insanely expensive to adopt one infant. Yes, adoption does involve money, but the money goes to the agencies and the bills if insurance doesn't cover them. Whoever is giving birth basically just gets her bills paid, no pay check. |
This is of course mostly nonsense. As if Americans are yet so poor that they "can't afford" to have babies... Regardless, for women who do see their pregnancies through but don't want to be mothers, the demand for adoptions of so-called 'wet womb' babies far exceeds the supply (there is usually a long waiting list). There are usually even financial incentives provided to do so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TinyGuest
Joined: 09 Feb 2010
Location: Houston, TX for only one more year
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
At this rate, I'd suggest if you reply, to just create another thread visitorq. Anyways...
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
TinyGuest wrote:
The break down for Planned Parenthood spending is actually more towards 3% for abortions and they spend over half of their budget on contraceptives and STD testing/treatment.
|
Oh please. Planned Parenthood alone performs around 1/3 of the total abortions in the country. This is quite well known. Insofar as abortion is an industry, Planned Parenthood is it.
And obviously it's much simpler for a woman to run to the clinic to get birth control pills (a "service"), than to get an abortion (another "service") - the instance ratio could easily be 50:1 or more (in other words, saying abortions make up only 3% of "services" is very misleading).
|
Huh. Granted, not that surprised since it's not like mom&pop clinics are really popping up everywhere. Though if Planned Parenthood is "the industry", what does that make the other 2/3 members? Why should it even matter if they're just doing what those going in want done even?
I don't really see what you're saying about the 3% being misleading. Like you said, more people (because it's not just women going in for contraceptives and STD testing/treatment) are there for birth control than abortions. So, of course the number would be lower in comparison. That's because they're more concerned over trying to prevent the need of an abortion for a woman then just the abortion. It's not like they're secretly performing way more than handing out contraceptives or STD testing/treatment.
Also, what are you putting service in quotes? It's not like it's some special word or anything.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Why shouldn't these things be paid for by tax money? They're not cheap.
|
Frankly, because you don't have the right to dip your hand into my pocket to pay for your abortion... or for your birth control pills, testing etc. etc. It's your responsibility to pay for yourself (hopefully you have family/friends to help you out if need be).
|
Let it be stated again that federal funding doesn't pay for abortions. Google it.
No, I don't have the right to dip my hand in your pocket. That's the government's right. You also have a right to refuse if you're willing to accept the consequences. Yes, it's a person's responsibility to take care of themselves, however, not everyone can afford to. And really? How can the argument not be made for everything else federally funded? The same argument could be made for any foreign aide or just about any public service. Yes, people don't really like helping other people out unless it directly affects them, but that's not easy to always put off as "not their responsibility".
It's also hard to be responsible when one can't afford so much as a pap smear because it costs $200 without insurance. Or to get an STD test, which can range from $50 - $200 without insurance. Never mind the various costs of birth control that can also be expensive without insurance. Not everyone has family/friends to help them out, or are willing to help them out. There are already too many people who go without because they can't afford them, so why have the number rise? By not having tax money to elevate the costs, it makes people go without. This leads to more abortions, the spread of STDs, and more women undiagnosed for abnormal pap smears.
This also just widens the class line.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Quote:
Even with insurance, but especially without it. It's getting away from being a cheap place to go for effective procedures due to funding being cut too because of this propaganda.
|
That PP brochure you posted full of pictures of smiling, happy people and a few excel chart pie graphs (kids stuff) was the only propaganda I've seen here... The massive budget discrepancy is not accounted for.
Anyway, the fact that they're collecting big bucks from the tax payer, and charging you individually just shows what a racket it is. They should receive zero funding (subsidies) and be forced to compete on the free market. This would drive the prices down and make the services more affordable. Late term abortions (murder) should be kept illegal, however.
|
How are pictures of smiling children subverting facts? Looking through the actual report (link: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10533r.pdf ) it says right away on page 3 "...expenditures in this report may understate the actual amount of federal funds the selected organizations and their affiliates spent."
It also "...does not contain expenditures of federal funds from agencies other than HHS." (page 22)
While I'm no expert, I don't see a smoking gun in this report.
The kaiserhealthnews.org also notes that the majority of funding for Planned Parenthood comes from Medicaid. Link: http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/February/18/planned-parenthood-title-10.aspx
That would mean it's not showing up in the report.
It's not a racket. If they were forced onto the open market with zero funding from the government prices would be driven up. It would cause a huge divide in the class line because the services would not get more affordable. They would become less. Look at all the other practices out there. I don't see them lowering prices any time soon.
Why do you keep bringing up late term abortions when that's not what this debate is about? I've not mentioned late term abortions once. The only thing I've been stressing is that Planned Parenthood is way more than an "abortion mega-center" and helps people get access to affordable family planning and sexual health care.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
They're not "abortion mega-centers". For quite a few people, Planned Parenthood is the local clinic. Without tax money a lot of women wouldn't be able to afford getting such a basic need like a pap smear done. Without tax money a huge line would be drawn in class over women getting basic medical services and family planning.
|
How about not paying taxes that go to PP, and instead paying the money out of pocket? If PP can't deliver at affordable prices, someone else will. This is the exact same argument used against Obamacare. The old "government breaks both your legs, hands you a crutch" adage comes to mind...
|
Because many people can't afford to pay out of pocket when they have no insurance. And no. No one else will. Instead people who can't afford it will just go without, which will lead to more problems than solutions. No one is just going to "step in" to lower prices. That happens when there's a competitive need that companies would try to fill. No one finds this a competitive need. This is not about gaining a customer base, otherwise why aren't there clinics trying to compete with Planned Parenthood prices?
Why are you bringing in Obamacare when this is about Planned Parenthood funding currently?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Quote:
I'd also like to point out that no one is forcing them through the door; it's their choice to go. So why be outraged if they're taking advantage of an organization that's giving them things they want/need? Eugenics from what my googling-fu showed me, would be advocating that they be pressured into not breeding at all. PP isn't giving them any kind of pressure to not procreate, unless I suppose, it be due to danger for the potential mother in question. So, I'm wondering if you're taking in the historical context of eugenics when making this argument.
|
They aren't "forcing" them because at the present time it's illegal to do so. But did I mention that forced sterilization was in fact at one time practiced in the US? It was people like Margaret Sanger and her blue-blooded financial backers who made it happen. Basically the only reason it stopped was because Hitler gave it such a bad name doing what he did over in Germany. That's why the eugenicists in the US had to re-package it as something "liberal" and "progressive"; tying it together with "woman's liberation"
|
Yes, and so were a lot of other unethical practices done in the US. Such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, The Monster Study, Little Albert, the studies done at Willowbrook State School by Krugman and McCollum, and plenty of others.
You're taking what I said out of context as I was pointing out in modern times that no one is forcing them through the door.
Just because someone did something terrible doesn't mean that what came out of it shouldn't be looked at objectively. Hitler certainly committed atrocities, but I also am able to recognize that the camp brought out several advances to medical knowledge that helped get us, medically, where we are today.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
I also did some googling on Margaret Sanger, along with the taglines of being a eugenicist and forced sterilization. Yes, she believed in eugenics, much like other people during that time period. Yes, she advocated for sterilizing the feeble-minded and insane, much like everyone else in that time period. However, this needs to be taken into the historical context where this was considered a solution. Now, it's not. Anyone doing this will have an ACLU team fighting over who gets to headline the case. Just because it was founded by someone controversial now because she believed in what was considered medical fact then doesn't mean it should eclipse the fact she was essentially advocating for women's rights to contraceptives and choosing when to have a potential baby.
|
Historical context?? Screw that. Margaret Sanger was a monster. The above is literally like saying Hitler (who incidentally was a fan of hers, and vice versa) was okay, because he shared the same ideas as other people during that time period, and believed what he did to be right... Even if some of the things she pushed for happened to be positive, the same can be said about a lot of evil people...
Here's a sample of her agenda from an essay she wrote in 1925 called �The Need of Birth Control in America�:
SNIP (pg. 47-48 )
She was a truly wicked individual.
|
Historical context is needed. Otherwise things can't be looked at objectively. The same things held in esteem in the 1920s are obviously not held in that same regard in modern society, yet we need to be aware of the context surrounding decisions in regards to that time period.
I find calling them "fans" of each other hard to swallow as anything besides a huge exaggeration over the fact they were both concerned about eugenics. While they shared the same ideals, I also find differences. Hitler certainly wanted women to have lots of babies and rewarded them for it while Sanger was about women choosing if they wanted to give birth instead of encouraging them to try and take over as a "superior race". I also see a large difference in that Sanger denounced the use of euthanasia, even though others were prodding in that direction. Both in some way also advanced society through medicine, even though it was at terrible consequences. It would not have been accepted in modern context like it was during their times.
Interesting that you bring up Hitler, but not any of the other attempts made by, say, American Colonials to wipe out Native Americans or the English with their neighbors in history. Or the Romans. Hitler was the only one that actually got called out for it, but after he did it for a significant time period and decided to go beyond Germany. Or what about the camps going on in Russia at the same time?
I can agree she wasn't a saint that she could be classified as "wicked", but I also acknowledge how she affected society today in a positive fashion. I keep historical context in mind of what was accepted then.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
I'd say abortions are increasing because of the economics of having a child. Also, that federal funding is then increasing because women want access to contraceptives to avoid having a child during this economy. Children, are really, really expensive. The cost of raising a kid to the age of 18 is mind-boggling. Even while a woman is pregnant the charges already start up with pre-natal vitamins, checkups, and other medical needs (also things Planned Parenthood can provide coincidently). This is before even getting it out of the womb. The delivery itself will cost several thousand dollars. The first year for a baby equals over a $1,000 dollars in supplies. With insurance it's expensive enough, without insurance it's really taking limited budgets and squeezing them down to the last drop. Googling will show you plenty of break downs.
I'd like to point out even with babies being oh-so expensive that it's also cheaper to just have them instead of adopting. There's the possibility that the child will never wind up in a family (going into foster case) if it's not a private adoption as it's so insanely expensive to adopt one infant. Yes, adoption does involve money, but the money goes to the agencies and the bills if insurance doesn't cover them. Whoever is giving birth basically just gets her bills paid, no pay check.
|
This is of course mostly nonsense. As if Americans are yet so poor that they "can't afford" to have babies... Regardless, for women who do see their pregnancies through but don't want to be mothers, the demand for adoptions of so-called 'wet womb' babies far exceeds the supply (there is usually a long waiting list). There are usually even financial incentives provided to do so.
|
How is it nonsense that babies are expensive? Or that it's cheaper for couples to have babies instead of adopting them? I'm not saying that all Americans are so poor they can't afford to have babies. I'm putting it as reasoning on why the abortions are rising is to put off another very, costly addition in this current economic state. A baby is another mouth to feed, clothe, and provide for. Not everyone wants to have that extra expense right now.
If there was enough of a financial incentive, then I'm sure many more couples would consider it a more viable option. However, those financial incentives aren't going to cover all of the costs. Not everyone is willing to adopt a newborn that will also come with huge medical bills later down the road either. Newborns are also the most expensive. Another reason for the long waiting list is all the legalities. Plus, not every woman wants to go through nine months of pregnancy for a potential baby she's not going to keep. That could cause a major ruckus career-wise to say the least. It�s also still not the safest procedure in the world.
Last edited by TinyGuest on Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:09 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alljokingaside
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm in the middle of something, so I'll be as brief as possible.
First off, yes- Sanger was a racist bitch. There's your cake. how this translates in current times to eugenic, i'm not sure. yea, minorities are disproportionately represented in terms of abortion stats, but minorities are also disproportionately represented in disadvantaged areas, and the education there, including sex ed, among other things like insurance, ...well, sucks or is non-existent
Now, the fun part-
First- $2.3 billion Diller's referring to reflects the Planned Parenthood (PP)'s self-reported revenue from "gov't contracts and grants"
the reported $657.1 mil Diller's referring to reflects PP's expenditure of DIRECT federal money, by itself. now PP and it's affiliates reported expenditure of fed. money comes to something to $967.1 mil.
This is from the report.
http://www.gao.gov/htext/d10533r.html
Check it out if you want.
now, PP get's its gov't money from the fed gov't, from organizations affiliated who receive government money, from the state, etc.
All this is conveniently ignored, alluded to like mist in Diller's article.
Now on Diller- national director of STOPP, affiliate of Americans Life League. No bias there...(yes, this is sarcasm, just in case you couldn't figure it out)
Diller, in a later article ("Quietly racking up the abortion toll"), goes off on the 3% services figure, acknowledging them, but framing them as a smoke and mirrors: the example she uses: 97 condoms+3 abortions = 3% of abortions.
Now exactly what was her method to deduce this piece of ...? I mean, how did she determine this? the article doesn't say. she just claims authority and knowledge of their accounting practices. maybe she prayed really hard and it came in a vision. maybe she sees and hears things no one else does.
Consider- The US GAO had no qualms about the budget. Aside from her and her cronies, there's no mention of any scandal, any controversy with respect to PP's budgetary "quandary"
In short, her whole dilemma's manufactured and packaged, and poorly at that.
If federal cash goes into funding abortions, its through the state (via Medicaid) and only in cases of rape, incest, and medical necessity. And not all states. Title X explicitly prohibits abortion. If PP's violated this, they'd probably have charges brought up against them. By the fed. gov't and not against individual chapters. No such event occurred so I'll reasonably assume that ...yes, tax dollars don't go to abortions.
You might ask how she got published in a "reputable" paper. Let's look at the other articles in the editorial section (yes, the article is in the editorial section):
EDITORIAL: The left's drive toward $8 gas
EDITORIAL: President abandons marriage
EDITORIAL: Democrats: Cowards of the Country
EDITORIAL: Obamacare's race against the cures
EDITORIAL: Blind hatred of the ROTC ban
No slant there (again, yes- sarcasm)
If her report was SO groundbreaking as it aspires to be (I mean, check the tone and rhetoric), why hasn't it been cited by anyone other than frentic pro-life websites? do a google search. not one major newsource, conservative OR liberal, cites her.
and as for your comment on adoption, as an adoptee reading a someone's misguided projection on the ease of adoption, I'll just assume your unaware of the socio-economic and psychic costs, that every baby that is put up for adoption will be picked up and paid for by a loving family, that the kid won't likely end up in foster care, costing the State even more cash. Your opinion, your lily-white words, are your own. And though sadly I know it won't, I hope it stays that way.
(and no, this is not sarcasm.)
Last edited by alljokingaside on Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:21 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alljokingaside
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| oh, and about sanger again. if the founder's character plays any role on the company/institution's modern character, then you should hate volkswagon and scheme for its immediate annihilation. you know, since hitler started volkswagon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| alljokingaside wrote: |
| oh, and about sanger again. if the founder's character plays any role on the company/institution's modern character, then you should hate volkswagon and scheme for its immediate annihilation. you know, since hitler started volkswagon. |
To my knowledge, Volkswagon was not created with nefarious intentions. Regardless, it is now a private company with no residual ties to the Nazis (unlike in the US, where we have mainly the same powers that be now as we did back then), and does not receive money from the federal government (which btw is also full of eugenicists in the US, such as Obama's science czar who has openly written books about the drastic need for population reduction, including putting sterilants into the water supply if need be). Any company doing honest business, competing in the free market and providing valuable goods and services is a-ok in my books. If Volkswagon has any dirt on it (I have no idea), then that's a matter for another discussion.
Anyway, I just wanted to throw some facts out there - if they are agreed upon or not, that's fine either way. You posted a rather lengthy reply in the post before, as did another poster, who suggested I should start a new thread... Frankly, I can't really be bothered to get into a massive, lengthy debate on the matter, so I think I'll just let it rest here... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tax Gas
| The Economist wrote: |
| There are any number of good reasons to raise the petrol tax rate. The current rate no longer brings in enough money to cover current highway spending. Petrol taxes are an efficient way to raise revenue, and the government needs revenue; President Obama's deficit commission recommended an increase in the federal petrol tax rate. Burning oil produces carbon emissions, and dearer fuel would reduce America's sky-high per capita carbon footprint. But a higher tax rate would also diminish the possibility that a sudden rise in oil prices would throw the economy into recession. That would be a nice risk to minimise! And yes, higher tax rates would hit consumers just like rising oil prices. But those prices are rising anyway; better to capture the revenue and use it, all while improving behaviour. |
Tax $0.50/gallon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Tax Gas
| The Economist wrote: |
| There are any number of good reasons to raise the petrol tax rate. The current rate no longer brings in enough money to cover current highway spending. Petrol taxes are an efficient way to raise revenue, and the government needs revenue; President Obama's deficit commission recommended an increase in the federal petrol tax rate. Burning oil produces carbon emissions, and dearer fuel would reduce America's sky-high per capita carbon footprint. But a higher tax rate would also diminish the possibility that a sudden rise in oil prices would throw the economy into recession. That would be a nice risk to minimise! And yes, higher tax rates would hit consumers just like rising oil prices. But those prices are rising anyway; better to capture the revenue and use it, all while improving behaviour. |
Tax $0.50/gallon. |
It's too logical and pragmatic of an idea to become reality. That and the fact that the GOP won't increase any taxes whatsoever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Speaking of the GOP,
The House GOP's Plan Avert a Government Shutdown, Cut Spending, and Deflect Blame
| Quote: |
"We will put together a bill that cuts spending about $4 billion for two weeks when the deficit is $1.5 trillion this year," a source said. "And the question will be this: Will Senate Democrats cut any spending at all?"
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers, R-Ky., has already begun drafting the CR, though a final determination on the precise amount of spending cuts and which programs will be targeted has not been made, several House GOP sources said. Republicans plan to vote on the measure next Tuesday or Wednesday.
The CR would extend government financing for two weeks after Obama signed the bill and its cuts would be prorated to reflect the $100 billion in cuts approved in last week's CR. In other words, the $4 billion in savings would be roughly equal to the cuts the CR called for if carried out for just two weeks. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
One way to reduce spending:
Don't build a dumb fence to keep Mexicans out
| Quote: |
The barrier covers one-third of the US's entire southern frontier with Mexico. In parts it is a fence about 5 metres (17ft) high built of a strong steel mesh and painted the same rust colour as the surrounding earth. In some places it is topped by coils of barbed wire; in others it is a solid steel wall. The fence cuts through towns and divides the desert. Its length is patrolled by thousands of armed border, drug enforcement and FBI agents. In Arizona they are complemented by an armed vigilante militia, the Minutemen.
The remaining 1,300 miles of border will be protected by a "virtual fence" � a network of electronic sensors, cameras, towers and high-flying drones that can see for more than 300 miles � that's already in place along parts of the frontier, setting off border patrols in pursuit of figures seen scurrying across screens or picked up by the motion detectors. The whole project is costing more than $4bn (�2.6bn), with the border fence alone working out at about $5m a mile. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Louis VI
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
Location: In my Kingdom
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I have utter contempt for those who talk out of one side of their mouth about tax cuts and the other side about how there "needs" to be budget cuts because the gov't simply cannot afford to pay for all the services it used to. (I'm not talking about those who are openly right wing and assertive about the role of small government.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
