Government Shutdown, 2011 Edition

[bernardos70]

So let me get this straight: The government will shutdown because two groups of idiots, who could only be more detached from the people who'll be affected by this if they lived Zimbabwe, can't agree on how to handle an how to fund an institution by the name of Planned Parenthood?

I try to keep this as partisan free as possible. With that in mind, and to try and figure out what Planned Parenthood does, and their position on abortions, which seems to be at the heart of the argument, see here: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/hea...rtion-4260.asp

There are two kinds of abortion in the U.S. — in-clinic abortion and the abortion pill.

Abortions are very common. In fact, more than 1 out of 3 women in the U.S. have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old.

If you are pregnant, you have options. If you are trying to decide if abortion is the right choice for you, you probably have many things to think about. Learning the facts about abortion may help you in making your decision. You may also want to learn more about parenting and adoption.

If you are under 18, your state may require one or both of your parents to give permission for your abortion or be told of your decision prior to the abortion. However, in most states you can ask a judge to excuse you from these requirements. Learn more about parental consent for abortion.

Only you can decide what is best for you. But we are here to help. A staff member at your local Planned Parenthood health center can discuss abortion and all of your options with you and help you find the services you need.

I wish I could find where I read this statistic before, but apparently being counseled by Planned Parenthood, despite having in their description that they'll "help you find the services you need," causes less women to have abortions, not more. Alas, I cannot find it at the moment.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...1-live-updates

[Underdog]

"1 out of 3 women in the U.S. have an abortion by the time they are 45"

What??? I think maybe 1 out of 100 females that I know has had an abortion, and I'm certainly not rolling with the religious crowd...

That's a massively inflated number if I've ever seen one - just like how 1 out of 5 people in the 80s had AIDS, yet I've never known anyone in my life who has... Do people actually buy this sh!t?


Oh, and if they're shutting down the government, could they also pull all the traffic cops off the roads? Those guys are easily more useless than Congress...

[bernardos70]

Me neither, that does look inflated to me. Then again, are all of them over 45?

Also, I found what I was looking for:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...Pa2C_blog.html

Planned Parenthood itself estimates it prevents more than 620,000 unintended pregnancies each year, and 220,000 abortions. It’s also worth noting that federal law already forbids Planned Parenthood from using the funds it receives from the government for abortions.

So once again, this is shutting down government? I love spin city, so I'd like someone to take a crack at this one.

[DirkFTW]

I am murky about legislative procedure, but I don't think the Senate has passed anything yet, right? (I don't really follow the news, so I probably missed a bunch of stuff.) In my mind, if there was a Senate budget that mirrored the House budget but minus the PP stuff, then the shutdown would be contingent on this issue.

Nevertheless assuming this is what is holding everything up, PP operates on about $1 billion, of which government grants only provide about a third. PP will still have funding. The government is broke over-spending by about $1.3 trillion per year, and battle-lines have been drawn over less than 0.03% of that... which is preventing a 1% reduction in spending. Anyone else feel like they're watching a really bad soap opera? If this were a family spending $13,000 too much every year, they'd be getting a thermo-nuclear divorce over a venti Starbucks. And even if they agreed on that one cup of coffee, they'd still be $12,870 in the hole.

And maybe neither here nor there, but 11.4 million for total services is almost 4x as many patients that PP sees. NPR reports PP has around 3 million patients. The number of in-clinic abortions alone is closer to 10% of its patient base. The pie chart seems to me like saying "I only speed 3% of the day so I'm not a speeder" (which happens to be my entire 45-minute commute every single day).

[bernardos70]

But how does that affect the Government budget when none of the money reserved for abortions comes from it? By law, no money from the government can be used for abortions, which once again, are at the center of this debate.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Underdog

What??? I think maybe 1 out of 100 females that I know has had an abortion, and I'm certainly not rolling with the religious crowd...

You may well be right about the statistic being overstated. But...do you really think you know for certain how many of your female friends have had abortions?

[alexamenos]

But how does that affect the Government budget when none of the money reserved for abortions comes from it.

Money is a fungible thing. Saying that these dollars go to service X and those dollars go to service Y is kind of meaningless thing when all of the dollars are coming out of the same bank account.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You may well be right about the statistic being overstated. But...do you really think you know for certain how many of your female friends have had abortions?

No, but I bet I know more women who have lost WANTED pregnancies to miscarriage than women who have never mentioned their abortions...

The numbers are ridiculously skewed - if 1/3 of the women in this country got abortions by 45, then our population would be shrinking... rapidly.

[DirkFTW]

Good news! The family approved purchasing one venti coffee and have nixed purchasing a PS3.

[alexamenos]

A close look at the government shutdown-dodging agreement to cut federal spending by $38 billion reveals that lawmakers significantly eased the fiscal pain by pruning money left over from previous years, using accounting sleight of hand and going after programs President Barack Obama had targeted anyway.

link

So not only was the *budget cut* thing amazingly insignificant, it's even more insignificant than it appears on the surface...it's like it's insignificant-squared.

It's like we're in a car going a hundred miles an hour towards a cliff and we slow it down to 99 mph....only we don't really slow it down to 99 mph, we just recalibrate the speedometer to make it appear that we've slowed down to 99 mph. <--that's some serious freaking leadership right there.

[DirkFTW]

Uncle Sam looks younger.

[bernardos70]

Neither side of the aisle impresses me. It'll impress me when Paul Ryan or any Republican or Democrat goes "we are going to cut defense by half."

That'll be bold. Also, it won't happen. Even though, that, along with proper enforcement of tax laws (which bring in 10 dollars for every dollar spent in "enforcement" so to speak), would put the biggest dent in the deficit.

[Fidel]

Originally Posted by Underdog

No, but I bet I know more women who have lost WANTED pregnancies to miscarriage than women who have never mentioned their abortions...

The numbers are ridiculously skewed - if 1/3 of the women in this country got abortions by 45, then our population would be shrinking... rapidly.

Unfortunately the number is reasonable. At least statistically. In the US 21 in 1000 woman have an abortion each year. Of course there´ll be lots of women who do have more than one in their lifetime, but still 1/3 by the age of 45 seems to be very reasonable. In the "civilsed" world Russia has the highest numbers at 47 out of 1000. France has 18 and UK 19 in 1000. Lowest numbers are Germany with 7 in 1000 and Switzerland with 6.5.

And no I don´t have a source. So you have to take my word on it. For stuff like this i despise internet sources. I wrote a paper about poverty and abortion a couple years ago, and those are the numbers I remember. They probably are a little outdated, I´d guess out of a paper or studie from 2000-2005.

Edit: I did a quick search, and Wikipedia has nearly the same numbers for 2003.

[92bDad]

So Republicans caved. They were voted in on campaign promises of cutting the budget and they caved. Same S*** different day.

Democrats/Republicans all appear to be wearing the same stripes...saying what we want to hear and then doing what they want to do.

We need to find a way to DE-Fund the government, period. I don't care what party they claim to be associated with...stop stealing money from the American people, especially if all you do is waste it away...heck, I do a good enough job of wasting my money, I certainly don't need an overpaid politician to do it for me!!!

[bernardos70]

They caved in on something that is ultimately, for all intents and purposes, and given the dimensions of the problem, that wasn't doing much to cut the budget, but was doing a lot to push a fake "pro-life" agenda. In fact, it looks like the organization they were funding saves money in the long run, but that's another thread entirely.

One of the biggest ways to put a dent in the debt was to let the ineffective Bush-era tax cuts, but that didn't happen, and I hold both parties responsible for that.

Next up, the biggest item on the list is defense budget. Give that a big cut and voilá, you're in business. But when is that happening? If you answered "not in our lifetimes" you're probably right. Once again, both parties are to blame.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by bernardos70

They caved in on something that is ultimately, for all intents and purposes, and given the dimensions of the problem, that wasn't doing much to cut the budget, but was doing a lot to push a fake "pro-life" agenda.

I don't know, 52 million dead people since 1972 is a lot of missing would-be-taxpayers and missing demand.

EDIT: I should clarify that PP contributes to only a part of that number.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

I don't know, 52 million dead people since 1972 is a lot of missing would-be-taxpayers and missing demand.

Considering who's getting abortions, most of them would probably be drawing welfare rather than paying taxes...