• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama vows to veto short-term bill(edited)

VanceMack said:
Id like to meet the group of democrats you are talking about that are more prone to criticize dems than republicans.
Click to expand...
I never said that they were "more prone" to criticize dems. I said that "I think a lot of Democrats do criticize Pelosi, Reid, etc. for many reasons" - nothing about more or less.

I personally cant see how anyone can associate themselves with either party...the party's are not invested in the people they are invested in power. They do and say whatever is best to get themselves reelected and not what is good for the country.
Click to expand...
I understand that sentiment. I consider myself a Democrat obviously and I find myself frustrated with the party more than is probably healthy. Nonetheless, I appreciate its ideals (even if they are used only as talking points by some in the party) and some of the policies that actually get around to realizing them. I usually think about the ideals political parties the same way I think about the ideals that found the Constitution - just because we haven't fully realized them yet doesn't mean we can't in the future.

That said, I would personally like to throw every politician in Washington out and get a "do over" with people who will genuinely put the country first.
 
ptif219 said:
This shows that Obama and the democrats are playing politics and care nothing about the people of this country

Obama vows to veto short-term bill - Washington Times

The White House has vowed to veto the short-term spending bill House Republicans will vote on this afternoon, taking away the safety net that could have given both sides another week to avert a government shutdown.

Without a short-term extension, the options would be narrowed to either a broad successful deal or a shutdown as of midnight Friday.

“If presented with this bill, the president will veto it,” the White House said in an official statement of policy.
Click to expand...

Obama is playing the Clinton strategy. He wants a shutdown, regardless of his rhetoric. He figures if he plays the "adult" in this despute it'll win him 2012 like it did for Clinton. A short term spending bill won't help him **** up the Republicans.
 
American said:
Obama is playing the Clinton strategy. He wants a shutdown, regardless of his rhetoric. He figures if he plays the "adult" in this despute it'll win him 2012 like it did for Clinton. A short term spending bill won't help him **** up the Republicans.
Click to expand...

I dont think he wants a shutdown...

No one is going to come out of this looking good... Obama included.
 
American said:
Obama is playing the Clinton strategy. He wants a shutdown, regardless of his rhetoric. He figures if he plays the "adult" in this despute it'll win him 2012 like it did for Clinton. A short term spending bill won't help him **** up the Republicans.
Click to expand...

Is anyone else getting tired about these hack politicians from both sides using the term adult as if it applies to any of them.
 
ludahai said:
The Dems lost the moral high ground on this issue when they didn't pass a budget last fall in the first place...
Click to expand...

True enough.

At the same time when I see Republicans saying that cutting PP is "only about spending" I gotta laugh at their brazen lying.

I'm not here to comment on the MERITS of cutting PP (not that I can see any).

But Republicans lose alot of ground with voters over the PP mess... and they'll lose the high ground in the long run if they don't let it go.
 
From National Journal:

Numerous GOP and Democratic sources on and off Capitol Hill tell National Journal that the outline of the deal is as follows: up to $39 billion in cuts from the 2010 budget, $514 billion in spending for the defense budget covering the remainder of this fiscal year, a GOP agreement to abandon controversial policy riders dealing with Planned Parenthood and the EPA, and an agreement to pass a “bridge” continuing resolution late Friday night to keep the government operating while the deal is written in bill form.
Click to expand...

NationalJournal.com - Congressional Sources: White House Reviewing Terms of Spending Deal - Friday, April 8, 2011

My guess is that this possible arrangement is probably at the very limits of what can be agreed. Hopefully, this possible deal will be adopted by the House and Senate, with a short-term CR preceding it.
 
donsutherland1 said:
From National Journal:



NationalJournal.com - Congressional Sources: White House Reviewing Terms of Spending Deal - Friday, April 8, 2011

My guess is that this possible arrangement is probably at the very limits of what can be agreed. Hopefully, this possible deal will be adopted by the House and Senate, with a short-term CR preceding it.
Click to expand...

That does not sound bad actually. It's about time they actually decided to stop playing games and actually try and solve problems.
 
Jetboogieman said:
True enough.

At the same time when I see Republicans saying that cutting PP is "only about spending" I gotta laugh at their brazen lying.

I'm not here to comment on the MERITS of cutting PP (not that I can see any).

But Republicans lose alot of ground with voters over the PP mess... and they'll lose the high ground in the long run if they don't let it go.
Click to expand...
If what PP does has merit, they'll get all kinds of funding from outside sources. If not, they rot in hell like the lying bastards should. Promoting abortions when they should be counseling.
 
Redress said:
I did not bash Part D. The program itself is quite good. What I bashed was that it was not paid for and increased the debt and no effort was made to pay for it, but the same people who support Bush and Part D are the ones crying about the health care reform bills cost, where an attempt was made to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Actually I don't know anyone who supported it for the same reason as you. I was just stating that it did come in under budget. Quite rare for a government program. I just think people should come up with some better examples to bash Bush with. I mean on the one hand, it's bad..on the other hand, Bush accomplished something that few others have ever done :)
 
American said:
If what PP does has merit, they'll get all kinds of funding from outside sources. If not, they rot in hell like the lying bastards should. Promoting abortions when they should be counseling.
Click to expand...
Abortions are only 3% of the services provided. Not to mention its a non-funded service. Counceling of the decision is funded under family counceling.

In terms of the budget, REpiblicans need to stop making budget decisions based on social issues and Democrats need to be open to cutting more public funded programs.

I agree PP funding should be cut and moved privately. However it needs to be a planned migration and not a slitting of the throat, so to speak.
 
Deuce said:
Why wouldn't the GOP just ****in vote for universal health care during the reform process?
Click to expand...

Because it was a piece of **** and 1/6 of our economy. It must be repealed.
Just heard today more **** about that piece of crap.
6 pages of it now has 429 pages of regulations. We thought the thing was huge when it passed, what's it going to look like when they are done. maybe it'll surpass the size of our tax code.
 
American said:
If what PP does has merit, they'll get all kinds of funding from outside sources. If not, they rot in hell like the lying bastards should. Promoting abortions when they should be counseling.
Click to expand...

You do realize that Planned Parenthood helps save the government a crap ton of money that it would have to spend as the result of unintended pregnancies - welfare anyone?
 
Boo Radley said:
If you see contradiction, you are misreading. And no, we do not have access for all now. Many people lack adequate health care access.
Click to expand...

That is patently untrue, even person in the U.S. can get medical care.

Boo Radley said:
You do realize your insurance company limits care. they don't have death panels either if you're trying to go there. You not being able to pay limits your care. Same with a single payer system. no one is suggesting unlimited care.
Click to expand...

Yes I do and if I do not like how they limit my care, I can fire them or I can pay for it myself.
I cannot fire the single payer government.


Boo Radley said:
As we limit care here, right now before reform, why do we pay more? It costs less for more than a few reasons, but they limit care no more than we do right now, under our current system before reform. in fact, they limit it less than we do as more people have acess to adequate care.
Click to expand...

Well first of all, the numbers are not complete.
It should be higher for EU nations because of the lost productivity related to waiting for treatment but of course things like that are not calculated.

We pay more for time preference, choice and because we have a ridiculous coverage system of elderly people.
Not to mention the CON laws, carterlizing of doctors, among many other things.
 
Last edited:
Jetboogieman said:
True enough.

At the same time when I see Republicans saying that cutting PP is "only about spending" I gotta laugh at their brazen lying.

I'm not here to comment on the MERITS of cutting PP (not that I can see any).

But Republicans lose alot of ground with voters over the PP mess... and they'll lose the high ground in the long run if they don't let it go.
Click to expand...

Which voters do you think they lose ground with and who is suggesting its 'just' over funding? I dont think there has been any ambiguous language about the republicans intent...no federal funding for abortion. To many people, "Planned Parenting" simply means "So ya screwed up and got pregnant...huh...well...we can fix that for ya." And I cant imagine that comes as a shock to the democrats. They prolly shoulda passed the 2011 budget back when it was their job.
 
theplaydrive said:
You do realize that Planned Parenthood helps save the government a crap ton of money that it would have to spend as the result of unintended pregnancies - welfare anyone?
Click to expand...

Killing unwanted babies for fun and profit then???
 
Congress Strikes a Budget Deal, Averts Shutdown

Congressional leaders, with barely an hour to go before a federal government, announced late Friday night they had reached a deal to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year.

House Speaker John Boehner, speaking briefly to reporters after talks had concluded, said the plan was to pass one last short-term spending resolution Friday night to buy lawmakers the time needed to prepare and pass the final budget bill.
Click to expand...

I guess Obama will veto this, and the government will shut down???
 
VanceMack said:
Which voters do you think they lose ground with and who is suggesting its 'just' over funding? I dont think there has been any ambiguous language about the republicans intent...no federal funding for abortion. To many people, "Planned Parenting" simply means "So ya screwed up and got pregnant...huh...well...we can fix that for ya." And I cant imagine that comes as a shock to the democrats. They prolly shoulda passed the 2011 budget back when it was their job.
Click to expand...

It does come to a shock since abortions are less then 3% of PP's performed services annually and are one of the services individuals have to pay for out of their own pocket.

Do you use the same logic for the government? That they are just in the business for fighting wars in foreign nations?
 
Gibberish said:
It does come to a shock since abortions are less then 3% of PP's performed services annually and are one of the services individuals have to pay for out of their own pocket.

Do you use the same logic for the government? That they are just in the business for fighting wars in foreign nations?
Click to expand...

Ive worked with PP agencies. They are a blight. However as you have said...Im ALL FOR people that believe in the agencies to privately support and fund them. You should do that.

As for the fed...I believe we would be well served if we scaled back the fed to the intent of the constitution...yes. Let each individual state tax and provide services as they see fit, including state funding of PP agencies if that is what the states citizens desire.
 
Last edited:
Whovian said:
Congress Strikes a Budget Deal, Averts Shutdown



I guess Obama will veto this, and the government will shut down???
Click to expand...

Robe fair when Obama spoke Tuesday about this he specifically said he'd approve a short, few day long, extension just to give time to pass a budget deal that's agreed on in principle. He saidhe wouldn't support one that was just to give more time to debate and work one out. This instance falls under the type he said he WOULD extend
 
theplaydrive said:
You do realize that Planned Parenthood helps save the government a crap ton of money that it would have to spend as the result of unintended pregnancies - welfare anyone?
Click to expand...

It's pure speculation that defunding PP would have any affect on the number of unintended pregnancies. You are assuming they would go out of business. If they did, you are assuming women are too stupid to take advantage of medicaid without PP advising them to do so. You are assuming they don't know how to buy condoms or pick up a prescription at the corner drugstore.
Also if you think pro-life conservatives would rather a baby be aborted than run the risk that it would be on welfare, you're mistaken.
Besides, the PP defunding has been put on hold, so no worries. Obama decided to change his mind and sign the short term bill after all.
I've never seen a man so determined to protect a corrupt babykilling org like PP. Oh well, they did help him get elected and will campaign and donate to him again in 2012. It just kind of makes me sick to know he was willing to let our troops go without pay if PP wasn't taken out of the bill.
 
Gibberish said:
It does come to a shock since abortions are less then 3% of PP's performed services annually and are one of the services individuals have to pay for out of their own pocket.

Do you use the same logic for the government? That they are just in the business for fighting wars in foreign nations?
Click to expand...

That's PP misleading numbers. 11% of all PP clients get abortions. 3% is the abortions procedure itself, counted as only one service while the woman getting the abortion will recieve as many as 4 or 5 services, lab work, birth control etc.
Another woman may come in for BC and have an std test. that's 2 services. PP counts their services provided instead of clients served to make their numbers look better.
 
So with all this discussion over PP...

Republicans risked a shut down of the Federal government to satisfy their social conservative agenda.

It was quite funny throughout the day when they would interview republicans and ask "is this about abortion" talking point time "this is about cuttin spending"

And then when someone would challenge them on the PP spending, they would begin their talking points on PP abortions...

So what was it about then?
 
Jetboogieman said:
So with all this discussion over PP...

Republicans risked a shut down of the Federal government to satisfy their social conservative agenda.

It was quite funny throughout the day when they would interview republicans and ask "is this about abortion" talking point time "this is about cuttin spending"

And then when someone would challenge them on the PP spending, they would begin their talking points on PP abortions...

So what was it about then?
Click to expand...

These conservatives need to leave their frigging dogma out of my damn politics. You wanna do morals? Do it in a church where it belongs and don't try to do it on my dime.


Oh and someone may have already said it but if they are so damn concerned about the killed babies? Then they need to adopt a bunch of babies and children that have been given up by their mothers. Since they want these "babies" to be born? Let em pay for it out their own damn pockets-not mine.

Plus do they not understand that birthcontrol and abortion saves us all money? I mean hello:roll:
 
Last edited:
Barbbtx said:
That's PP misleading numbers. 11% of all PP clients get abortions. 3% is the abortions procedure itself, counted as only one service while the woman getting the abortion will recieve as many as 4 or 5 services, lab work, birth control etc.
Another woman may come in for BC and have an std test. that's 2 services. PP counts their services provided instead of clients served to make their numbers look better.
Click to expand...

They count services performed as it should be. If they perform 100 abortions it doesn't matter if it was on 2 women of 100 women. They performed 100 abortion services.

Why are you counting labwork and BC as an abortion procedure in your 11% number?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom