Daily Steaming Pile of Peloci
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Work that earns a real profit by producing something that actually does something that improves someone else's economic efficiency in some way.
Like Bernie Madoff?
-
Now you're assuming their forward thinking. She said it will cut costs. Meaning kids that would be concieved in the extremely near future won't be an economic burden in at least 9 months from now. 9 months (plus) from now is not stimulus.
John Carson wrote:
there is nothing wrong with using family planning expenditures as part of a stimulus package.
I wouldn't argue that there was anything wrong with it. It just has absolutely nothing to do with stimulus, at least not her described purpose.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
Now you're assuming their forward thinking. She said it will cut costs. Meaning kids that would be concieved in the extremely near future won't be an economic burden in at least 9 months from now. 9 months (plus) from now is not stimulus.
The recession will last for years so a 9 month delay is not a big issue. However, I believe that what Pelosi meant was that it would reduce costs by reducing the costs of family planning services, not by reducing the birth rate. I will grant you that she is not clear on this.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
The condom maker also gives money to its workers and its owners and suppliers. And the fact that money circulates is true of all economic activity.
ANd they spend that money on products of other firms, which goes to the government with goes to other people to buy condoms, which goes to the condom firm...
John Carson wrote:
To the extent that this makes any sense at all, you are saying that you want more investment expenditure rather than consumption expenditure. Both are needed and both are desirable.
If buy 'expenditure' you mean people doing something with their own money based upon their own best judgement rather than the government doing it, than I agree completely.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If buy 'expenditure' you mean people doing something with their own money based upon their own best judgement rather than the government doing it, than I agree completely.
In that case we disagree completely.
John Carson
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
One dead fetus versus one dead fetus, dead mother, shattered family.
How do you figure that? Millions of women carry pregnancies to term all the time. Oh wait, are we playing like the less than 1% of all abortions that actually are to save the mother are the majority?
Fisticuffs wrote:
So I'm confused as to why you would decry any movement to improve access and use of contraceptives
Where did I do that?
Fisticuffs wrote:
or suggest that Pelosi is somehow saying "I like contraception" is equivalent to "I like abortions."
Nope, contraception was specifically mentioned, but I got the impression that planned parenthood in general was on the table. Especially given the fact that the Mexico City Policy was repeal in the last day or two as well. Maybe contraception was the only thing. The point, however, was not about contraception or abortion... The point was what does any of that have to do with economic stimulus?
Fisticuffs wrote:
It's the exact opposite: increase contraceptive awareness and adherence and abortion rates magically fall.
Yes! Which the religious right has tried to push all along (well some, some still hold onto the idea that abstinence is feasible in this day and age). Which the Democrats have pushed some, but only very quietly so as (seemingly) not to disturb the tide of abortion in this country.
Fisticuffs wrote:
it's usually the religious right-wingers who are vehemently opposed to harm reduction strategies on absolutist moral principles
In my experience, most of those don't have a problem with contraception so much as they dislike it being presented in school. Again... Contraception is not the issue here. The issue is how in the hell it has anything to do with stimulus. The answer, of course, is it has nothing to do with stimulus. So what is she geting at? With such a vacuous argument, she seems to thing the American public is vastly retarded.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
How do you figure that? Millions of women carry pregnancies to term all the time. Oh wait, are we playing like the less than 1% of all abortions that actually are to save the mother are the majority?
His point was that if you make abortion illegal, then abortions will still happen. The difference is that they will be performed by medically unqualified people ("backyard abortionists") with a resultant high death rate for mothers.
BoneSoft wrote:
Yes! Which the religious right has tried to push all along (well some, some still hold onto the idea that abstinence is feasible in this day and age). Which the Democrats have pushed some, but only very quietly so as (seemingly) not to disturb the tide of abortion in this country.
No, the religious right is generally opposed to education about contraception and the ready availability of contraceptives. Most Democrats are in favour of both.
John Carson
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Seriously... Does anybody take this[^] seriously? Opinions on planned parenthood aside, is there anybody out there that really believes this has any business being in the "stimulus plan"?
What do you think people will spend their tax cuts on? The primary idea of a stimulus plan is to ensure that more stuff is purchased. This can come about by the government making the purchases directly or by the government inducing increased spending by the private sector. This is stimulatory because when firms are selling more stuff they employ more people and are more willing to invest. That is as true of condom sellers as it is of any other type of firm. There will no doubt be ideologically-based disagreements about what constitutes desirable government spending. However, in purely economic terms, there is nothing wrong with using family planning expenditures as part of a stimulus package.
John Carson
And hopefully things with a significant local labour content and this increases the trickle down effect. Buy a hard drive from abroad, little benefit. Public works tend to be labour intensive.
Visit http://www.notreadytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Seriously... Does anybody take this[^] seriously? Opinions on planned parenthood aside, is there anybody out there that really believes this has any business being in the "stimulus plan"?
What do you think people will spend their tax cuts on? The primary idea of a stimulus plan is to ensure that more stuff is purchased. This can come about by the government making the purchases directly or by the government inducing increased spending by the private sector. This is stimulatory because when firms are selling more stuff they employ more people and are more willing to invest. That is as true of condom sellers as it is of any other type of firm. There will no doubt be ideologically-based disagreements about what constitutes desirable government spending. However, in purely economic terms, there is nothing wrong with using family planning expenditures as part of a stimulus package.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
What do you think people will spend their tax cuts on?
Porn.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Seriously... Does anybody take this[^] seriously? Opinions on planned parenthood aside, is there anybody out there that really believes this has any business being in the "stimulus plan"?
What do you think people will spend their tax cuts on? The primary idea of a stimulus plan is to ensure that more stuff is purchased. This can come about by the government making the purchases directly or by the government inducing increased spending by the private sector. This is stimulatory because when firms are selling more stuff they employ more people and are more willing to invest. That is as true of condom sellers as it is of any other type of firm. There will no doubt be ideologically-based disagreements about what constitutes desirable government spending. However, in purely economic terms, there is nothing wrong with using family planning expenditures as part of a stimulus package.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
What do you think people will spend their tax cuts on?
Booze?
John Carson wrote:
This is stimulatory because when firms are selling more stuff they employ more people and are more willing to invest.
The economist "jump-to-conclusions-mat"? Firms don't automatically employ more people if they make more money. On the contrary, it would be only natural for them to try and save some more money, in order to get more profits than last year (while cutting the cost). A company doesn't put all it's extra profit in job-vacancies, it looks for the place where it can most effectively generate more profit.
John Carson wrote:
However, in purely economic terms, there is nothing wrong with using family planning expenditures as part of a stimulus package.
It will indeed cut the cost for education, daycare etc. Less kids means less schools, less teachers, less classrooms, less cost.. Meaning that schools can close, teachers go into wellfare and that we'll have a smaller well-educated workforce. Err.. wait a sec, something doesn't feel right here.. :sigh:
I are troll :)
-
John Carson wrote:
What do you think people will spend their tax cuts on?
Booze?
John Carson wrote:
This is stimulatory because when firms are selling more stuff they employ more people and are more willing to invest.
The economist "jump-to-conclusions-mat"? Firms don't automatically employ more people if they make more money. On the contrary, it would be only natural for them to try and save some more money, in order to get more profits than last year (while cutting the cost). A company doesn't put all it's extra profit in job-vacancies, it looks for the place where it can most effectively generate more profit.
John Carson wrote:
However, in purely economic terms, there is nothing wrong with using family planning expenditures as part of a stimulus package.
It will indeed cut the cost for education, daycare etc. Less kids means less schools, less teachers, less classrooms, less cost.. Meaning that schools can close, teachers go into wellfare and that we'll have a smaller well-educated workforce. Err.. wait a sec, something doesn't feel right here.. :sigh:
I are troll :)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
The economist "jump-to-conclusions-mat"? Firms don't automatically employ more people if they make more money.
I never claimed they did. I said they employ more people when they sell more stuff. Does increased demand automatically mean increased production? Not invariably. Firms could just increase prices. However, in the present economic conditions when demand shortfalls are leading to production cuts, it is a safe assumption that increased demand will lead to higher output (not for ever single firm perhaps, but on average).
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
It will indeed cut the cost for education, daycare etc. Less kids means less schools, less teachers, less classrooms, less cost.. Meaning that schools can close, teachers go into wellfare and that we'll have a smaller well-educated workforce. Err.. wait a sec, something doesn't feel right here..
You are missing the point. The stimulatory effect is not in reducing the birth rate (the effects of that are long term). I don't know the exact details of how family planning is currently funded, but I take it that it is funded by some mix of state and local governments and consumers. When the Federal government funds family planning, it takes pressure off the budgets of those governments and consumers who would otherwise have to fund family planning themselves. That is where the stimulus comes in. To understand the mechanism, assume that the family planning is going to take place regardless (so the birth rate is constant) and it is just a matter of who pays for it. It is well documented that one of the problems in the Great Depression was that the federal government was employing stimulatory policy but the state governments were doing the opposite. State revenues were falling due to the Depression and they didn't have the same opportunities of deficit financing as the federal government, so state governments cut spending and thereby made the Depression worse. This time around, one of the priorities has been to increase federal funding to the states so they don't have to make expenditure cuts.
John Carson
-
BoneSoft wrote:
How do you figure that? Millions of women carry pregnancies to term all the time. Oh wait, are we playing like the less than 1% of all abortions that actually are to save the mother are the majority?
His point was that if you make abortion illegal, then abortions will still happen. The difference is that they will be performed by medically unqualified people ("backyard abortionists") with a resultant high death rate for mothers.
BoneSoft wrote:
Yes! Which the religious right has tried to push all along (well some, some still hold onto the idea that abstinence is feasible in this day and age). Which the Democrats have pushed some, but only very quietly so as (seemingly) not to disturb the tide of abortion in this country.
No, the religious right is generally opposed to education about contraception and the ready availability of contraceptives. Most Democrats are in favour of both.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
His point was that if you make abortion illegal, then abortions will still happen. The difference is that they will be performed by medically unqualified people ("backyard abortionists") with a resultant high death rate for mothers
Alfred Kinsey estimated in the 1950s that around 85 percent of illegal abortions were performed by physicians, even if the physicians weren't all in good standing. Ellen Goodman, who is pro-choice said, "Over the decades, (She was referring to a study done in 1936) the numbers shrank to hundreds and then dozens because of penicillin, because doctors began performing abortions and because abortion became legal in critical states such as New York. By 1972, the year before the Roe v. Wade decision, the Centers for Disease Control reported that 39 women died from illegal or self-induced abortions." When talking about this subject, it is imperative that we deal with facts, not scare tactics.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
The economist "jump-to-conclusions-mat"? Firms don't automatically employ more people if they make more money.
I never claimed they did. I said they employ more people when they sell more stuff. Does increased demand automatically mean increased production? Not invariably. Firms could just increase prices. However, in the present economic conditions when demand shortfalls are leading to production cuts, it is a safe assumption that increased demand will lead to higher output (not for ever single firm perhaps, but on average).
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
It will indeed cut the cost for education, daycare etc. Less kids means less schools, less teachers, less classrooms, less cost.. Meaning that schools can close, teachers go into wellfare and that we'll have a smaller well-educated workforce. Err.. wait a sec, something doesn't feel right here..
You are missing the point. The stimulatory effect is not in reducing the birth rate (the effects of that are long term). I don't know the exact details of how family planning is currently funded, but I take it that it is funded by some mix of state and local governments and consumers. When the Federal government funds family planning, it takes pressure off the budgets of those governments and consumers who would otherwise have to fund family planning themselves. That is where the stimulus comes in. To understand the mechanism, assume that the family planning is going to take place regardless (so the birth rate is constant) and it is just a matter of who pays for it. It is well documented that one of the problems in the Great Depression was that the federal government was employing stimulatory policy but the state governments were doing the opposite. State revenues were falling due to the Depression and they didn't have the same opportunities of deficit financing as the federal government, so state governments cut spending and thereby made the Depression worse. This time around, one of the priorities has been to increase federal funding to the states so they don't have to make expenditure cuts.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
I said they employ more people when they sell more stuff.
That's the classic idea, and it's not a logical deduction. Coca-cola doesn't hire more people during summer. I have never heard a manager shout "hey, we sold more, let's hire more".
John Carson wrote:
You are missing the point.
I didn't, I was pointing out that it will backfire :)
I are troll :)
-
John Carson wrote:
His point was that if you make abortion illegal, then abortions will still happen. The difference is that they will be performed by medically unqualified people ("backyard abortionists") with a resultant high death rate for mothers
Alfred Kinsey estimated in the 1950s that around 85 percent of illegal abortions were performed by physicians, even if the physicians weren't all in good standing. Ellen Goodman, who is pro-choice said, "Over the decades, (She was referring to a study done in 1936) the numbers shrank to hundreds and then dozens because of penicillin, because doctors began performing abortions and because abortion became legal in critical states such as New York. By 1972, the year before the Roe v. Wade decision, the Centers for Disease Control reported that 39 women died from illegal or self-induced abortions." When talking about this subject, it is imperative that we deal with facts, not scare tactics.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
My obs/gyn text claims that the maternal mortality rate for induced abortions was about 39 PERCENT in 1972 (not 39 people) down to 6% in 1974 after Roe v. Wade, and about 1 in 100,000 now. I'm sure there's lots to argue about with respect to exact numbers (because it would be pretty hard to get exact numbers considering the lack of reporting), but it's clear that the mortality rate dropped dramatically after legalization and that the number of 20 week+ late-term abortions decreased (which is both medically and morally preferable). Most late-term abortions these days are due to severe genetic defects. [edit]Also remember that just because something is done by a physician doesn't mean that they're adequately trained in the procedure or outpatient management of the complications (especially for, say, severe hemorrhage, which usually requires a trauma team and some transfusions, which aren't readily available inside Mrs. Wilson's kitchen). However, I do agree that it is imperative we deal with the facts as well as we are able to distinguish them from the propaganda of either extreme.
- F
-
John Carson wrote:
I said they employ more people when they sell more stuff.
That's the classic idea, and it's not a logical deduction. Coca-cola doesn't hire more people during summer. I have never heard a manager shout "hey, we sold more, let's hire more".
John Carson wrote:
You are missing the point.
I didn't, I was pointing out that it will backfire :)
I are troll :)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
That's the classic idea, and it's not a logical deduction. Coca-cola doesn't hire more people during summer.
Assuming you are right and assuming Coca Cola do sell more in summer, then that must be because they vary inventory levels, producing more than they sell in winter so inventory increases and producing less than they sell in summer so inventory declines. Over the course of a year, the intention would be that production roughly equals sales. Nitpicking qualifications about inventories aside, if firms sell more, then they produce more to meet those sales. To produce more, you need either more workers or the same workers working longer hours or you need more machinery or better machinery or... In the short term, more workers and longer hours is the main way of increasing output and cutting workers and hours is the main way of reducing output --- and the latter is what we are seeing now.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
I have never heard a manager shout "hey, we sold more, let's hire more".
What you have heard is beside the point. Managers make such decisions all the time (and the reverse decision: "we sold less, let's lay people off").
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
I are troll
Yes, that is obvious.
John Carson
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
One dead fetus versus one dead fetus, dead mother, shattered family.
How do you figure that? Millions of women carry pregnancies to term all the time. Oh wait, are we playing like the less than 1% of all abortions that actually are to save the mother are the majority?
Fisticuffs wrote:
So I'm confused as to why you would decry any movement to improve access and use of contraceptives
Where did I do that?
Fisticuffs wrote:
or suggest that Pelosi is somehow saying "I like contraception" is equivalent to "I like abortions."
Nope, contraception was specifically mentioned, but I got the impression that planned parenthood in general was on the table. Especially given the fact that the Mexico City Policy was repeal in the last day or two as well. Maybe contraception was the only thing. The point, however, was not about contraception or abortion... The point was what does any of that have to do with economic stimulus?
Fisticuffs wrote:
It's the exact opposite: increase contraceptive awareness and adherence and abortion rates magically fall.
Yes! Which the religious right has tried to push all along (well some, some still hold onto the idea that abstinence is feasible in this day and age). Which the Democrats have pushed some, but only very quietly so as (seemingly) not to disturb the tide of abortion in this country.
Fisticuffs wrote:
it's usually the religious right-wingers who are vehemently opposed to harm reduction strategies on absolutist moral principles
In my experience, most of those don't have a problem with contraception so much as they dislike it being presented in school. Again... Contraception is not the issue here. The issue is how in the hell it has anything to do with stimulus. The answer, of course, is it has nothing to do with stimulus. So what is she geting at? With such a vacuous argument, she seems to thing the American public is vastly retarded.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
In my experience, most of those don't have a problem with contraception so much as they dislike it being presented in school.
And I would be willing to bet that the parents who don't want contraceptive-friendly sexual education taught in schools are in favor of a failed abstinence approach, possibly because they can't be objective about the extremely high odds of their own kids having extramarital sex. However, I do have to agree that there doesn't seem to be a strong logical leap from increased contraception to economic stimulus. I could float a few guesses, but that's all it would be. Nevertheless, since I'm in favor of increased contraception, I would be willing to let it slide. If I were American. Which I'm not! So feel free to ignore me, lots of other people do. :D
- F
-
My obs/gyn text claims that the maternal mortality rate for induced abortions was about 39 PERCENT in 1972 (not 39 people) down to 6% in 1974 after Roe v. Wade, and about 1 in 100,000 now. I'm sure there's lots to argue about with respect to exact numbers (because it would be pretty hard to get exact numbers considering the lack of reporting), but it's clear that the mortality rate dropped dramatically after legalization and that the number of 20 week+ late-term abortions decreased (which is both medically and morally preferable). Most late-term abortions these days are due to severe genetic defects. [edit]Also remember that just because something is done by a physician doesn't mean that they're adequately trained in the procedure or outpatient management of the complications (especially for, say, severe hemorrhage, which usually requires a trauma team and some transfusions, which aren't readily available inside Mrs. Wilson's kitchen). However, I do agree that it is imperative we deal with the facts as well as we are able to distinguish them from the propaganda of either extreme.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
My obs/gyn text claims that the maternal mortality rate for induced abortions was about 39 PERCENT in 1972
But Ellen Goodman doesn't 'claim' anything. She states facts. One of the thing that she points out that is ignored by most pro-abortion folks is that Abortion was not (repeat, not) illegal in the US prior to Roe V Wade. A number of states had legalized it. Yet somehow the bad old days are talked about as if this wasn't true.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Also remember that just because something is done by a physician doesn't mean that they're adequately trained in the procedure or outpatient management of the complications (especially for, say, severe hemorrhage, which usually requires a trauma team and some transfusions, which aren't readily available inside Mrs. Wilson's kitchen).
More scare stories? Most abortions these days are not performed in hospitals but in clinics on an outpatient basis. Your average planned parenthood drive-through does not have a trauma team standing by. In some of them the MD on duty is not an OB-Gyn, nor are the nurses. But, of course, Roe v Wade makes all the difference :confused:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
My obs/gyn text claims that the maternal mortality rate for induced abortions was about 39 PERCENT in 1972
But Ellen Goodman doesn't 'claim' anything. She states facts. One of the thing that she points out that is ignored by most pro-abortion folks is that Abortion was not (repeat, not) illegal in the US prior to Roe V Wade. A number of states had legalized it. Yet somehow the bad old days are talked about as if this wasn't true.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Also remember that just because something is done by a physician doesn't mean that they're adequately trained in the procedure or outpatient management of the complications (especially for, say, severe hemorrhage, which usually requires a trauma team and some transfusions, which aren't readily available inside Mrs. Wilson's kitchen).
More scare stories? Most abortions these days are not performed in hospitals but in clinics on an outpatient basis. Your average planned parenthood drive-through does not have a trauma team standing by. In some of them the MD on duty is not an OB-Gyn, nor are the nurses. But, of course, Roe v Wade makes all the difference :confused:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
But Ellen Goodman doesn't 'claim' anything. She states facts.
So Ellen Goodman performed each and every one of those illegal abortions in 1972, which is why she knows exactly how many were done? Christ almighty. :rolleyes:
Oakman wrote:
More scare stories? Most abortions these days are not performed in hospitals but in clinics on an outpatient basis.
Most abortions aren't late term, Jon. First trimester surgical and medical abortion techniques have a remarkably low complication rate and can be done in clinic. Pray tell, how would an MD get properly trained in good technique for abortions before it was legalized? Secret abortion conferences? It's not scare stories, it's what happens. Deal with it. If you don't vaccinate your kid for chicken pox, they can end up in the hospital with varicella pneumonia. People who get MRAed can end up with acute kidney failure. Infrequent severe complications are still severe complications that should be minimized. Training and normalization improves complication rates.
- F
-
John Carson wrote:
His point was that if you make abortion illegal, then abortions will still happen. The difference is that they will be performed by medically unqualified people ("backyard abortionists") with a resultant high death rate for mothers
Alfred Kinsey estimated in the 1950s that around 85 percent of illegal abortions were performed by physicians, even if the physicians weren't all in good standing. Ellen Goodman, who is pro-choice said, "Over the decades, (She was referring to a study done in 1936) the numbers shrank to hundreds and then dozens because of penicillin, because doctors began performing abortions and because abortion became legal in critical states such as New York. By 1972, the year before the Roe v. Wade decision, the Centers for Disease Control reported that 39 women died from illegal or self-induced abortions." When talking about this subject, it is imperative that we deal with facts, not scare tactics.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Alfred Kinsey estimated in the 1950s that around 85 percent of illegal abortions were performed by physicians, even if the physicians weren't all in good standing. Ellen Goodman, who is pro-choice said, "Over the decades, (She was referring to a study done in 1936) the numbers shrank to hundreds and then dozens because of penicillin, because doctors began performing abortions and because abortion became legal in critical states such as New York. By 1972, the year before the Roe v. Wade decision, the Centers for Disease Control reported that 39 women died from illegal or self-induced abortions."
Coincidentally, a couple of days again, I watched a documentary about the fight for abortion law reform in the Australian state of Victoria. You are correct that a large percentage of illegal abortions are typically performed by doctors. The number, however, varies from place to place and depends on a variety of circumstances. See here, for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/opinion/06fri3.html[^] When a society tacitly accepts abortion by rarely prosecuting it and some states (or nearby countries) actually legalise it, then plainly the problem of medically unqualified people performing abortion is less. However, such a situation doesn't represent much of a success for the anti-abortion movement either. If the anti-abortionists had their way, then legal abortions wouldn't be available in New York or any state, doctors would be at substantial risk of prosecution, and the reliance on unqualified people would be expected to be considerably higher than was the case in the US in 1972.
John Carson
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Now you're assuming their forward thinking. She said it will cut costs. Meaning kids that would be concieved in the extremely near future won't be an economic burden in at least 9 months from now. 9 months (plus) from now is not stimulus.
The recession will last for years so a 9 month delay is not a big issue. However, I believe that what Pelosi meant was that it would reduce costs by reducing the costs of family planning services, not by reducing the birth rate. I will grant you that she is not clear on this.
John Carson
You can stretch an argument for pretty much anything to claim it is stimulatory. My impression is that that is exactly what she's doing. Using another near trillion dollar fiasco to finance whatever her little black heart desires. My only point in this is that if stimulus was the actual objective, there are plenty of things that they could do that would have more effect, more immediate effect, that would make much more sense. As is, it appears their using this money to fund their own pet projects under the guise of stimulus. Maybe not, but that's how it looks from over here. I'm not even arguing that it's a bad idea. But it's not a great idea at this time, and dishonest to push it as stimulus.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
You can stretch an argument for pretty much anything to claim it is stimulatory. My impression is that that is exactly what she's doing. Using another near trillion dollar fiasco to finance whatever her little black heart desires. My only point in this is that if stimulus was the actual objective, there are plenty of things that they could do that would have more effect, more immediate effect, that would make much more sense. As is, it appears their using this money to fund their own pet projects under the guise of stimulus. Maybe not, but that's how it looks from over here. I'm not even arguing that it's a bad idea. But it's not a great idea at this time, and dishonest to push it as stimulus.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
You can stretch an argument for pretty much anything to claim it is stimulatory.
Indeed you can. Keynes famously suggested that you could stimulate the economy by paying people to dig holes in the ground and then paying them to fill them in again (not that he actually advocated doing this: there were better ways to spend the money).
BoneSoft wrote:
As is, it appears their using this money to fund their own pet projects under the guise of stimulus. Maybe not, but that's how it looks from over here. I'm not even arguing that it's a bad idea. But it's not a great idea at this time, and dishonest to push it as stimulus.
I have no doubt at all that people are funding their pet projects. But that doesn't mean it won't have a stimulus effect.
John Carson
-
You can stretch an argument for pretty much anything to claim it is stimulatory. My impression is that that is exactly what she's doing. Using another near trillion dollar fiasco to finance whatever her little black heart desires. My only point in this is that if stimulus was the actual objective, there are plenty of things that they could do that would have more effect, more immediate effect, that would make much more sense. As is, it appears their using this money to fund their own pet projects under the guise of stimulus. Maybe not, but that's how it looks from over here. I'm not even arguing that it's a bad idea. But it's not a great idea at this time, and dishonest to push it as stimulus.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
As is, it appears their using this money to fund their own pet projects under the guise of stimulus. Maybe not, but that's how it looks from over here. I'm not even arguing that it's a bad idea. But it's not a great idea at this time, and dishonest to push it as stimulus.
Ditto. The latest numbers I've heard suggest that less than 10% of the money will have an impact in 2009 and less than 25% (total, not in addition) will impact in the next 18 months.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
Alfred Kinsey estimated in the 1950s that around 85 percent of illegal abortions were performed by physicians, even if the physicians weren't all in good standing. Ellen Goodman, who is pro-choice said, "Over the decades, (She was referring to a study done in 1936) the numbers shrank to hundreds and then dozens because of penicillin, because doctors began performing abortions and because abortion became legal in critical states such as New York. By 1972, the year before the Roe v. Wade decision, the Centers for Disease Control reported that 39 women died from illegal or self-induced abortions."
Coincidentally, a couple of days again, I watched a documentary about the fight for abortion law reform in the Australian state of Victoria. You are correct that a large percentage of illegal abortions are typically performed by doctors. The number, however, varies from place to place and depends on a variety of circumstances. See here, for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/opinion/06fri3.html[^] When a society tacitly accepts abortion by rarely prosecuting it and some states (or nearby countries) actually legalise it, then plainly the problem of medically unqualified people performing abortion is less. However, such a situation doesn't represent much of a success for the anti-abortion movement either. If the anti-abortionists had their way, then legal abortions wouldn't be available in New York or any state, doctors would be at substantial risk of prosecution, and the reliance on unqualified people would be expected to be considerably higher than was the case in the US in 1972.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
If the anti-abortionists had their way, then legal abortions wouldn't be available in New York or any state, doctors would be at substantial risk of prosecution, and the reliance on unqualified people would be expected to be considerably higher than was the case in the US in 1972.
Possibly true. But that's a big "if." Overturning Roe v Wade wouldn't create that situation, but simply announce that the Constitutional right to privacy did not include abortion. Presumably the state laws on the books regarding abortion would become effective again. Creating a law that would outlaw abortion would be much harder, since it would require Senators and Congressmen to go on record with an issue that is a lose-lose proposition for them.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface