Two trillion $ relief

[little2add]

Please read: The Most Scandalous Provision of the $1.9T Biden Boondoggle, article published by the national review

 

On 3/7/2021 at 10:34 PM, ReasonableFaith said:

The positions taken in the linked article are largely those expected from a fundamentalist group.

NATIONAL REVIEW (evil fundamentalists group)

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/03/the-most-scandalous-provision-of-the-1-9t-biden-boondoggle/ 
 

[ReasonableFaith]

42 minutes ago, little2add said:

Please read: The Most Scandalous Provision of the $1.9T Biden Boondoggle, article published by the national review

The referenced provision is more scandalous than the claim of ‘$50 million dollars for the direct funding of abortions?’

 

43 minutes ago, little2add said:

NATIONAL REVIEW (evil fundamentalists group)

National Review is a conservative publication, not a fundamentalist group. Why are fundamentalist groups being labeled as evil?

[Anomaly]

16 hours ago, ReasonableFaith said:

This seems to be the type of material/speech/discourse popular on the social medias. 

In your experience have you felt the use of this type of material, particularly outside of nearly any context, has produced meritorious results in public discourse? Eg...have you posited a claim or position rebutted or challenged by a fellow interlocutor and used this type of material to a productive end?  Have you experienced making a rebuttal with such material resulting in the fellow interlocutor accepting or making a deeper consideration of your claim or position. Or is the use of this material to some other end?

As a note, I have long argued those desiring to make a strong and convincing pro-life argument should point directly to the intrauterine biological realities during pregnancy as well as the mechanical realities of induced abortive procedures. This could include photographic support. 
 

I don’t believe making inaccurate claims is a useful way to further the pro-life cause. The cause is better served through coherent, informed, well articulated, and accurate argumentation. If one’s intent is to merely hand wave and gain cuddos from ‘the choir’ perhaps none of this is necessary. 

If you think you’ll get much rational discussion on PM, you’re about 12 years late.  Rational is just not how it’s done on the interwebs anymore.  Pick a side and be passional, not rational.

Edited March 10, 2021 by Anomaly

[dUSt]

I'm rational, and I have rights.

[chrysostom]

7 hours ago, ReasonableFaith said:

National Review is a conservative publication, not a fundamentalist group. Why are fundamentalist groups being labeled as evil?

It was said with irony.

[Peace]

Yeah OK this is sacrilege but isn't the Hyde Amendment overblown? We live in a country where abortion is legal  almost on demand.  A person can easily get one in every state almost every city. As long as that situation persists your hard-earned dollars are eventually going to make their way into the hands of an abortion doctor, whether you like it or not. Not as directly as the government spending your tax dollars, but it won't take very long to trace the money you spent at XYZ store or whatever to where it ends up in the abortion doctor's hands. So what is the Hyde Amendment really accomplishing other than allowing people to feel good about themselves because their cooperation was slightly less "direct"? Is the Hyde Amendment practically going to reduce the number of abortions performed in the USA (which is the real goal)?

Look. If you wanna nix the Hyde Amendment go for it. It's a good thing. But let's not pretend like its more than a drop in the bucket in the overall scheme of things. We have to change the entire culture so that it becomes a culture of LIFE. How do we do that? Why is so much time spent quibbling over this or that amendment, or about this or that Supreme Court opinion, instead of that question? Cause the bottom line is that you are never gonna force an end to abortion via politics or law, if the society at large wants it.

So endeth my rant.

Edited March 11, 2021 by Peace

[ReasonableFaith]

49 minutes ago, Peace said:

So what is the Hyde Amendment really accomplishing other than allowing people to feel good about themselves because their cooperation was slightly less "direct"?

It may be worth noting the Hyde Amendment does allow for the direct funding of induced abortive procedures in some circumstances. 
 

51 minutes ago, Peace said:

Is the Hyde Amendment practically going to reduce the number of abortions performed in the USA (which is the real goal)?

I’m not sure anyone knows the answer. With similar, but more intermittent policies, such as the Mexico City Policy some research groups claim yes and others no. 
 

A reduction in the number of induced abortive procedures is the goal for much of the Pro-Life movement. For some the goal is a reduction in the number of induced abortive procedures in an environment with the least possible amount of contraception. This is an important distinction when one considers the ‘gag orders’ previously included in Title X funding (USA) or The Mexico City Policy (Internationally). 

[little2add]

6 hours ago, ReasonableFaith said:

gag orders’ previously included in Title X funding (USA) or The Mexico City Policy (Internationally). 

What, you talking about Willis?

[little2add]

On 3/10/2021 at 12:44 PM, ReasonableFaith said:

The referenced provision is more scandalous than the claim of ‘$50 million dollars for the direct funding of abortions?’

that’s not all that’s in the plan that is tied directly to tax-payer abortion.  another  $61B is appropriated for the expansion of Medicaid & the Affordable Care Act, in addition to the $50M Planned Parenthood is getting.  

The list of egregious pork spending in this COVID relief bill is embarrassing. There is $200 million for museums and libraries — even though they were shut down for an entire year; $270 million for the NEA, the National Endowment for the Arts. There is $128 billion for K-12 public education — except 95% of this money will not be spent until between 2022 and 2028, not in 2021.

There may be $600 billion in this bill that can reasonably be tied to COVID relief including funding for more vaccines ($75B), PPP ($473B), aid to ailing restaurants ($26B), assistance to airlines ($15B) and $7.2B for PPP for small businesses that have been wrecked by gubernatorial executive shut down orders for the past year.

The remainder of the $1.3 trillion is pure partisan politics. Democrats are paying off the constituencies that elect them and who helped defeat President Trump.

pay back is a bee-och, The shame is that it’s all borrowed money.  

Edited March 12, 2021 by little2add

[ReasonableFaith]

2 hours ago, little2add said:

that’s not all that’s in the plan that is tied directly to tax-payer abortion.  another  $61B is appropriated for the expansion of Medicaid & the Affordable Care Act, in addition to the $50M Planned Parenthood is getting.

This is all a bit confusing. Is the claim $50 million in Title X funding equals $50 million in direct funding of induced abortive procedures still valid?  If so, is this more or less scandalous than the provision, ‘the most scandalous provision,’ for government employee paid leaves? (Or have other, newly discovered provisions now become ‘the most scandalous provision?). On the surface it seems far less scandalous, but, perhaps, persuasive arguments are being made this is not the case. 

I don’t argue any of the spending described in the above post.

Some readers may find it helpful if a source was provided in posts containing large blocks of text cut and pasted from other sources, particularly if the text is posted sans parentheses. 
 

2 hours ago, little2add said:

pay back is a bee-och, The shame is that it’s all borrowed money.  

Yes. Most government spending in the USA is borrowed or in someway forcibly coerced from the citizenry. 

[little2add]

7 hours ago, ReasonableFaith said:

$50 million

If I understand it correctly,  50 million he’s going directly to “Planned Parenthood”

Also, Eligibility for “title x” funding is now expanded without restrictions and can be used for funding of abortions   

 

The American Rescue Plan Act breaks with 47 years of congressional precedent by appropriating over $700 million of global health funds not subject to the Hyde amendment

 

All four bipartisan COVID-19 relief packages (previously ) passed in the 116th Congress included the Hyde amendment.

The American Rescue Plan Act is the largest break from this precedent in 45 years.

The American Rescue Plan Act would appropriate more than $400 billion with no Hyde protections. Therefore, these funds would be eligible to subsidize elective abortions.

Edited March 12, 2021 by little2add

[hakutaku]

8 hours ago, little2add said:

If I understand it correctly,  50 million he’s going directly to “Planned Parenthood”

The Hyde amendment has never prohibited the government from buying non-abortion services organizations that happen to also provide abortions.  It prohibits the government from giving money to them in exchange for actual abortions.

Edited March 12, 2021 by hakutaku

[hakutaku]

18 hours ago, little2add said:

The remainder of the $1.3 trillion is pure partisan politics. Democrats are paying off the constituencies that elect them and who helped defeat President Trump.

I like how you identified "education, museums and libraries" as the organizations that helped defeat Trump.

[little2add]

20 hours ago, little2add said:

There may be $600 billion in this bill that can reasonably be tied to COVID relief

The rest (1.3 trillion dollars) is US grade “A” pork and nothing but pork.  

[little2add]

(pure political pork) PPP

2 hours ago, hakutaku said:

I like how you identified "education, museums and libraries" as the organizations that helped defeat Trump.

I can say you one thing sure that it  isn’t.   It isn’t Covid relief,  by any stretch of the imagination.