Will Republicans shut down the Government over Planned Parenthood?

[theHawk]

I'm all for desubsidizing oil and agriculture.

And the others listed?

I am for defunding it all for the time being. Maybe after we eleminate the 14 trillion debt, and we start getting budget surplusses again, we can "debate" about spending it on such novelties.

 

[Modbert]

Yeah, I knew it would confuse you.

No surprise.

No, I do NOT want to cut the defense budget because your messiah just decided to strain it even more. And no, I do not want to cut the defense budget because we actually receive much revenue from it, which is sort of a good thing whenever we are broke. And, yes, I do want to cut PP and other non-revenue generating expenses.

Yup, that's way too confusing to you. Like I said, it's all about money, stupid.

Not sure how President Obama could be my messiah when I don't even currently plan on voting for him in 2012. You not wanting to cut the defense budget is a clear sign that you are not ready for a serious discussion about the budget. If you want to get rid of waste in Medicare, which I am all for. Then you also have to be open to the idea of getting rid of waste in the Defense Budget.

The Pentagon is ready for cuts, Secretary Gates has called for cuts. However, the GOP plans on increasing the Pentagon budget by $6 billion.

I said it before and I'll say it again. Those who want to discuss the budget and getting rid of things like PP but don't want to even have defense in the discussion cannot be taken seriously.

I also assume you have a link as to how much revenue we receive from the defense budget vs how much we spend in expenses.

 

[Modbert]

I am for defunding it all for the time being. Maybe after we eleminate the 14 trillion debt, and we start getting budget surplusses again, we can "debate" about spending it on such novelties.

Well, I certainly give you credit for being consistent theHawk.

I would also like your thoughts on an answer that was given to Maggie when she said it earlier.

Great plan when unemployment is 9%.

 

[Si modo]

Yeah, I knew it would confuse you.

No surprise.

No, I do NOT want to cut the defense budget because your messiah just decided to strain it even more. And no, I do not want to cut the defense budget because we actually receive much revenue from it, which is sort of a good thing whenever we are broke. And, yes, I do want to cut PP and other non-revenue generating expenses.

Yup, that's way too confusing to you. Like I said, it's all about money, stupid.

Not sure how President Obama could be my messiah when I don't even currently plan on voting for him in 2012. You not wanting to cut the defense budget is a clear sign that you are not ready for a serious discussion about the budget. If you want to get rid of waste in Medicare, which I am all for. Then you also have to be open to the idea of getting rid of waste in the Defense Budget.

The Pentagon is ready for cuts, Secretary Gates has called for cuts. However, the GOP plans on increasing the Pentagon budget by $6 billion.

I said it before and I'll say it again. Those who want to discuss the budget and getting rid of things like PP but don't want to even have defense in the discussion cannot be taken seriously.

I also assume you have a link as to how much revenue we receive from the defense budget vs how much we spend in expenses.

Oh, making choices on cuts based on revenues-lost by cutting is nonsense to you.

But, you can try to change the goal post by bringing up cutting waste. I'm all for it. I'm not all for losing MORE money from cuts. I know, too complicated for you.

Or, would you like to try to tell me what the gist of this thread is? That I am a bible-thumping rightie who wants to cut PP's budget because I am some pro-life raddie?

It's about the money, stupid.

 

[theHawk]

Yeah, I knew it would confuse you.

No surprise.

No, I do NOT want to cut the defense budget because your messiah just decided to strain it even more. And no, I do not want to cut the defense budget because we actually receive much revenue from it, which is sort of a good thing whenever we are broke. And, yes, I do want to cut PP and other non-revenue generating expenses.

Yup, that's way too confusing to you. Like I said, it's all about money, stupid.

Not sure how President Obama could be my messiah when I don't even currently plan on voting for him in 2012. You not wanting to cut the defense budget is a clear sign that you are not ready for a serious discussion about the budget. If you want to get rid of waste in Medicare, which I am all for. Then you also have to be open to the idea of getting rid of waste in the Defense Budget.

The Pentagon is ready for cuts, Secretary Gates has called for cuts. However, the GOP plans on increasing the Pentagon budget by $6 billion.

I said it before and I'll say it again. Those who want to discuss the budget and getting rid of things like PP but don't want to even have defense in the discussion cannot be taken seriously.

I also assume you have a link as to how much revenue we receive from the defense budget vs how much we spend in expenses.

You do realize that we have to fund for a THIRD war now right?

 

[theHawk]

I am for defunding it all for the time being. Maybe after we eleminate the 14 trillion debt, and we start getting budget surplusses again, we can "debate" about spending it on such novelties.

Well, I certainly give you credit for being consistent theHawk.

I would also like your thoughts on an answer that was given to Maggie when she said it earlier.

Great plan when unemployment is 9%.

No idea who maggie is.

 

[Modbert]

Oh, making choices on cuts based on revenues-lost by cutting is nonsense to you.

But, you can try to change the goal post by bringing up cutting waste. I'm all for it. I'm not all for losing MORE money from cuts. I know, too complicated for you.

Or, would you like to try to tell me what the gist of this thread is? That I am a bible-thumping rightie who wants to cut PP's budget because I am some pro-life raddie?

It's about the money, stupid.

Nice try pulling out some strawmen in that post of yours. Pretty sure I have not used the word bible once in this thread except in this post right here.

This isn't about the money. You not wanting to cut the defense budget has made that clear enough to me. When you're ready to have a serious adult discussion about the budget, you can let me know.

As for now, I'll be departing from the thread. Have fun Si Modo.

 

[Si modo]

Oh, making choices on cuts based on revenues-lost by cutting is nonsense to you.

But, you can try to change the goal post by bringing up cutting waste. I'm all for it. I'm not all for losing MORE money from cuts. I know, too complicated for you.

Or, would you like to try to tell me what the gist of this thread is? That I am a bible-thumping rightie who wants to cut PP's budget because I am some pro-life raddie?

It's about the money, stupid.

Nice try pulling out some strawmen in that post of yours. Pretty sure I have not used the word bible once in this thread except in this post right here.
....

I also see that your reading comprehension skills have not improved, either. I said it was the gist of the thread, not thatt you said it. Good gawd.

.... This isn't about the money. You not wanting to cut the defense budget has made that clear enough to me.
....

I doubt it is clear to you at all. I don't cut things that produce revenue, and lots of revenue at that, like the defense budget, ESPECIALLY when we are involved in a third war. I DO cut expenses that generate no revenue or revenue so miniscule that I can hardly measure it.

.... When you're ready to have a serious adult discussion about the budget, you can let me know.

Just because you can't comprehend something, kid, does not mean it's not presented in adult terms

 

[Modbert]

You do realize that we have to fund for a THIRD war now right?

However, before I depart from the thread I do owe you one final response theHawk.

You do realize that our entire defense budget is not simply allocated to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Or do you believe for example we need bases in over 150 countries?

I'll leave you with that to think about. Have a nice day.

 

[Avorysuds]

Another shit thread of the day by RW... Dems are holding up this *****, a 2 year old can see that.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Yeah, I knew it would confuse you.

No surprise.

No, I do NOT want to cut the defense budget because your messiah just decided to strain it even more. And no, I do not want to cut the defense budget because we actually receive much revenue from it, which is sort of a good thing whenever we are broke. And, yes, I do want to cut PP and other non-revenue generating expenses.

Yup, that's way too confusing to you. Like I said, it's all about money, stupid.

Not sure how President Obama could be my messiah when I don't even currently plan on voting for him in 2012. You not wanting to cut the defense budget is a clear sign that you are not ready for a serious discussion about the budget. If you want to get rid of waste in Medicare, which I am all for. Then you also have to be open to the idea of getting rid of waste in the Defense Budget.

The Pentagon is ready for cuts, Secretary Gates has called for cuts. However, the GOP plans on increasing the Pentagon budget by $6 billion.

I said it before and I'll say it again. Those who want to discuss the budget and getting rid of things like PP but don't want to even have defense in the discussion cannot be taken seriously.

I also assume you have a link as to how much revenue we receive from the defense budget vs how much we spend in expenses.

You do realize that we have to fund for a THIRD war now right?

On Shep Smith's show (Fox) the other night he referred to it as the 'not-war' for the entire segment. tff

 

[theHawk]

You do realize that we have to fund for a THIRD war now right?

However, before I depart from the thread I do owe you one final response theHawk.

You do realize that our entire defense budget is not simply allocated to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Or do you believe for example we need bases in over 150 countries?

I'll leave you with that to think about. Have a nice day.

Yes, I do realize that.

What I believe in has nothing to do with how many bases we have all over the world. I do not know of all their missions. Do YOU know all of their missions, and whether or not we need them?

 

[Chris]

Visibly enraged, Sens. Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer and seven other Democratic women Senators said they have drawn a line in the sand over funding for poor women's health -- not just Planned Parenthood but 4,500 women's health clinics -- in the budget showdown with Republicans. They said spending numbers are resolved and that the whole fight has come down a standoff over women's health.

Feinstein spoke in language she seldom uses: "The numbers are agreed to," she said. "This is nothing more than an opportunity for the right wing in the House to sock it to women."

GOP dares Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer to close Yosemite over women's health : SFGate: Politics Blog

 

[Chris]

The Democratic women said the federal government is banned from funding abortion and has been for years under the Hyde Amendment. They said the money in dispute actually goes to cancer screenings, birth control, sexually transmitted disease treatments and the like. (Planned Parenthood opponents argue that money is fungible, so tax dollars for other services free up private money to use on abortion.)

Boxer said the GOP demand has widened far beyond Planned Parenthood, however, including the Good Samaritan Family Resource Center in San Francisco. She said Republicans are targeting Title IX funding first enacted by President Richard Nixon to provide wide-ranging health services to uninsured women and that Planned Parenthood accounts for just a quarter of the money. She said rather than save money, the abortion "rider" would wind up costing the government an extra $1.2 billion, because the private clinics are much more cost-effective than government-run Medicaid.

Sen. Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat and party leader close to the negotiations, said bluntly that if "you take this off the table, the government will remain open." She said Democrats will not budge.

GOP dares Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer to close Yosemite over women's health : SFGate: Politics Blog

 

[WillowTree]

Visibly enraged, Sens. Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer and seven other Democratic women Senators said they have drawn a line in the sand over funding for poor women's health -- not just Planned Parenthood but 4,500 women's health clinics -- in the budget showdown with Republicans. They said spending numbers are resolved and that the whole fight has come down a standoff over women's health.

Feinstein spoke in language she seldom uses: "The numbers are agreed to," she said. "This is nothing more than an opportunity for the right wing in the House to sock it to women."

GOP dares Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer to close Yosemite over women's health : SFGate: Politics Blog

Why do they lie? Didn't they just cram a health care plan down the throats of America in a ass kissing partisan manner that is supposed to provide health care for the poor.. why do the bitches keep on lying? doyathink?

 

[Immanuel]

That would be because the defense is actually funded entirely by the federal government. PP is a private organization that makes profit and is not a part of the government.

So how is it again that you justify spending tax dollars on a non-government organization during this debt crisis?

What? PP is a Non-Profit Organization. You do know what the words non-profit means, right?

Do you?

Immie

 

[Si modo]

That would be because the defense is actually funded entirely by the federal government. PP is a private organization that makes profit and is not a part of the government.

So how is it again that you justify spending tax dollars on a non-government organization during this debt crisis?

What? PP is a Non-Profit Organization. You do know what the words non-profit means, right?

Do you?

Immie

I think some don't think non-profits actually have budgets. At least, that's what it seems. And, other than our federal government, most who have budgets need to prioritize their expenses.

 

[Immanuel]

If the Dems had passed a proper budget when they were supposed to, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Just sayin'.

True, but then things could also be much much much worse if they had. Heck, we could be looking at a 50 trillion dollar annual deficit if we gave them their way.

Immie

 

[slukasiewski]

Please do so.
You idiots (Obama, etc.) don't do a damned thing when "up and running."

Get lost.

Seriously.


Go away.....

 

[percysunshine]

Having the federal government stop spending money they do not have is a bad thing?

Could have fooled me.