You're conflating things again...

Post #303,709 by Another Scott 2/6/09 11:45:10 AM Reply	You're conflating things again... The Legislature directs the policies of the government. The Executive agencies write the rules and regulations that implements those policies. Your earlier complaints about eleventy-seven types of gasoline were a Regulatory issue, not a Legislative issue. You seem to be mixing them up again here.... *Have you read the bailout?* You mean the TARP? The proposal by Bush's Treasury department that was originally 3 pages and forbade oversight? That bailout? *Do you think there may be a reason why people vote against it?* Oh, I guess you mean the Economic Recovery Act. The thing they're debating now. It's not a "bailout", btw. There are lots of reasons why people might vote against it - politics among them. *We don't have the money to spend, yet we need to spend it.* You're aware that the Treasury and the Fed have dumped $Ts into the financial system in the last few months, right? Government makes money all the time. As do banks when they issue new credit cards. Since there has been sudden and severe disinflation / deflation, the government has had to step in to provide capital and liquidity to keep the economy from imploding. Fortunately, since we're not on the gold standard any more, it can do that. Do you think that we don't need to spend a lot of money to get the economy out of its deflationary spiral? *And we have Pelosi trying to tell people that giving away condoms SAVES MONEY.* How about some context... http://mediamatters....tems/200901270022 In fact, the family planning provision, as Democrats have pointed out, does not mandate either limits to family size or eugenics but, rather, as Talking Points Memo noted, would expand "the number of states that can use Medicaid money, with a federal match, to help low-income women prevent unwanted pregnancies." On the January 26 broadcast of MSNBC's Hardball, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) stated that rather than limiting people's family planning decisions, the provision actually would have "give[n] people choices that, in some instances, based on personal choice, will reduce health care costs in the future, that, of course, then reduces the burden on federal taxpayers." [...] Pelosi responded, in part, by stating: "Well, the family planning services reduce costs. It reduces costs. The states are in a terrible fiscal budget crisis now. ... One of those -- one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, is -- will reduce costs to the state and to the federal government, too." [...] Moreover, studies have shown that family planning services, particularly contraceptive use, do indeed save the government money. For example, a 2008 Guttmacher Institute study found that "[n]ationally, for every $1 spent on the family planning program, $4.02 is saved in averted Medicaid birth costs." The authors of the 2008 study calculated the savings from avoidance of unwanted pregnancies by "comparing the public-sector costs of providing contraceptive services with the public-sector maternity and infant care costs that would have been incurred." The study did not calculate savings that would have resulted from "averted abortions (or miscarriages)." Additionally, abortion was not included as a "contraceptive method" used by the study's "respondents who had received public-sector family planning care in the past year." From the report: [...] To hear the right wing noise machine, it's clear: Pelosi is a woman, and she's from California, and she's a Democrat, so she must be an idiot, right? The government can never do anything right anyway, right? Why do you buy into this crap, Beep? Finally, the Economic Recovery Act is about more than stimulus: H. R. 1 Making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes. Giving money to the States so that they don't have to make more draconian cuts in their budgets for Medicaid and the like is an explicit purpose of the bill. The demagoguery of the Republicans on this family planning provision made them take it out of the bill, so it's not even there any more! Stepping off my soapbox.... Cheers, Scott.
Post #303,726 by beepster 2/6/09 5:54:01 PM Reply	Am I. So if you think its good to give the states money to help with their budgets..why attach strings. And don't defend Pelosi. She is an idiot. Its captured in way too many soundbites. It has nothing to do with being a woman, or from California. And separating the legislation from its regulatory impact is just a tad non-sensical don't you think? There can't be one without the other. The legislature writes and passes the laws. Enforcement is executive. And the Recovery Act was supposed to include things that were immediate in their impact. (18 months) There's alot of stuff there that isn't. In Beltway terms thats called pork. Thats business as usual, not CHANGE. Weren't we promised change? He's done some good things so far...and he's hit or miss on some others. The no strings money given to wall street was a mistake. The first "stimulus" giveaway to you and I was a mistake. The bill that came out of the House would be a mistake. The Repos talking about getting us out of this with tax cuts as the majority is a mistake. The infrastructure development stuff is all good. We should have been doing that for a long time. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #303,731 by boxley 2/6/09 6:31:24 PM Reply	the stimulus to you and I was not a mistake the mistake is providing infrastructure spending with zero maintenance money, thats a HUGE hole for future local governments and yes pelosi by her attitudes and writing is indeed an idiot although a better quality idiot than denny
Post #303,735 by drook 2/6/09 7:54:06 PM Reply	Black or white, again ... strawman much? "So if you think its good to give the states money to help with their budgets..why attach strings." Sure. And if giving the states money is good, then giving them more money is better. And if giving them more money is better, then giving them even more than that must be better still, right? Until the proposal becomes so obviously bad that you can point out it never should have been tried to begin with. -- Drew
Post #303,738 by beepster 2/6/09 8:15:03 PM Reply	Excuse me? "Giving money to the States so that they don't have to make more draconian cuts in their budgets for Medicaid and the like is an explicit purpose of the bill. " Don't believe my detachment of strings is a strawman. Your "endless supply" might be, though. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #303,743 by drook 2/6/09 9:18:54 PM Reply	What did you mean by strings, then? "Giving money to the States so that they don't have to make more draconian cuts in their budgets for Medicaid and the like is an explicit purpose of the bill." And the explicit purpose of the TARP was to cover bad mortgages. But because there were no "strings" they instead used it to buy up other banks, and pay themselves huge bonuses. -- Drew
Post #303,746 by beepster 2/6/09 10:34:27 PM Reply	Your point? Which state is California interested in buying? I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #303,749 by drook 2/6/09 10:58:45 PM Reply	Thought it was obvious, but okay My point is without "strings" there's no reason to believe the money will be used for its "explicit purpose". -- Drew
Post #303,750 by beepster 2/6/09 11:14:29 PM Reply	Block grants happen all the time and go into state general funds. Maybe NY should buy CT. Almost everybody in CT works there already. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #307,667 by CRConrad 4/22/09 8:03:14 AM Reply	Year by year, you sound more and more like... ...some fucking echo of Rush Limbaugh. Were you guys required to hand in your brains the first time you voted for Shrub, or something?

Welcome to IWETHEY!