The South Dakota Senate approved a bill that would outlaw nearly all abortions in the state.
It seems that the appointments of Roberts Jr. and Alito to the Court, has given Roger Hunt, a Republican who has sponsored the bill, hope that the "timing is now right." Hunt further points out that Stevens is 85 and his time is limited on the SCOTUS, which will further help in the efforts of the Pro-Lifers to get Roe v. Wade overturned with the appointment of another conservative.
The South Dakota legislation has agreed that "life begins at the time of conception," and therefore, wants to prohibit abortion except in cases where the pregnant woman's life was at risk (by-the-way, this will not include risks to health for the women). Felony charges could be charged against doctors, but not against those seeking abortions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/national/22cnd-dakota.html?ex=1298264400&en=0a8b2d741e683d33&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Well, it looks like Judith beat me to it. I logged on specifically to mention South Dakota's abortion ban.
For what it's worth, here's another article.
Note how they base their conclusions that "life begins at conception" on new scientific advances. Uh-huh.
As for whether the time is right for states to do this (and many others are gearing up to do the same thing), let's see....
It takes 4 justices to grant certiorari to a case. That much they have at the moment - Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito. And those guys will be there for sure by the time the case is finally makes it from the district courts to the appellate courts to filing the writ to the Supremes.
The question is, who will be the other five judges when the cert is granted?
At the moment, I think I can safely say that if the case were to go there tomorrow, Roe and its progeny would be safe. Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer and Kennedy would eek out another 5-4 victory. (In fact, it might even be interesting if Kennedy could revamp the rationale for abortion rights under his ground-breaking Lawrence v. Texas civil libertarian reasoning, but I'm dreaming.) And I suppose, we can't be sure exactly how Roberts will vote.
But over the years of litigation that will transpire before the case can get to the Supremes, well, Stevens may very well not survive. Ginsburg's health has never been the best either.
Yikes....ahh well....and I'll bet there'll be people out there actually surprised that this could happen.
Posted by Liveliest Crib at February 22, 2006 11:39 PMLiveliest Crib, NPR had mentioned it on Tuesday, but I had come in too late during the interview to get much of the details. Yes, there are millions of Americans out there who thought this was settled law, and no doubt are surprised. The Anti-Life people have been waiting for someone like Bush for decades, and he just may deliver them their goal within the next three years with another conservative judge.
What the Anti-Life Movement fails to understand is that it will not stop abortions. It will just go back underground as it was before Roe v. Wade.
When I was growing up in the 50's and 60's, everyone had a name or two of who did abortions in St. Louis. As I have stated before, there is a history of women terminating pregancies for centuries. If a women does not want a baby, no law is going to force her to do so. As far as I am concerned, this is about punishing women. Hear that Randal Terry.
Operation Rescue should be preventing the senseless and needless deaths of real living children. While this group bemoans and bewails the "murder" of tens of thousands of fetuses, millions of infants and young children die from easily preventable diseases and starvation.
Why doesn't Terry use Operation Rescues funds and fund-raising resources to funnel money from their affiliate cults into the World Health Organization? Better yet Terry, why don't you come out of the closet and fight for homosexual rights.
Posted by Judith at February 23, 2006 01:33 AM
The sickest thing about the SD law to me is that they believe in forcing rape and incest victims to carry pregnancies to term. I'm sorry, but that is horrific cruel and unusual punishment for the victim.
Also, if the medical exception is only if the woman's life is at stake, that means that despite the medical advances in early detection of birth defects that a woman will also be forced to carry to term severely deformed fetuses like Sun Hudson, the infant in Texas who was taken off life support despite the pleas of the mother because doctors determined he was going to die anyway. I just don't see who wins in this scenario. Sure, maybe another photo op of a bunch of old white men like when Bush signed the late term abortion ban, but other than that.....not so much.
Posted by ann at February 23, 2006 05:01 AMAnd now, for more retroactive White House papers that confirm the port deal with the UAE was legit.
Posted by bbtb at February 23, 2006 05:35 AMWhen I learn how to link again.
Posted by bbtb at February 23, 2006 05:37 AMHow can anybody get pregnant in South Dakota? Will you relax? BushCo won't allow Roe overturned. Too many AA babies would populate this country. Witness Katrina, wasn't that about anti-AA population control? Bush is a racist, that's why I purchased many, many Kanye West's CDs.
Posted by Mal Feasance at February 23, 2006 05:49 AMI just can't help but laugh at seeing the xenophobia that these fools have fanned for the past 4+ years coming back to bite them in the ass. They've spent years shouting about the Islamic menace and now they think it's just fine to let an Arab nation that does not recognize Israels' existance manage some of our major ports. All coming the week after the infamous "Saddam tapes" where he spoke about how easy it would be to load a nuke onto a container ship and sail it into an American port. And on the heals of cutting off the freely elected Palestinian government partly because Hamas refuses to recognize Israel. If you're a Democrat you really couldn't hope for more hypocrisy from this administration.
Posted by snark at February 23, 2006 06:10 AMRegardless of one's feelings about abortion, there are other "indirect consequences" that having unrestricted abortions has caused.
1. Australia has only about 3 more decades and it will become majority Muslim at the current birth/abortion rate.
2. The Blue/Red State electoral colleges shows Blue states declining in numbers which directly represent the loss of a base of voters that have been aborted since the decision in Roe v. Wade in 72. Babies aborted to liberal mothers outnumber babies aborted to conservative mothers at a disproporate rate. So aborted children born between 72 and 88 can't vote Democratic.
As muckdog and I have a common interest in Battlestar Galatica, I would state that they had this debate on its show last week. Whether to continue the rights of abortion, even after billions and billions have been killed and less than 50k remain. All of a sudden, a liberal president says abortions are now illegal. Strange and interesting storyline that mimicks the current political and personal issues surrounding the rights to abortion.
Just thought I'd throw that in there.
Posted by carpediem at February 23, 2006 07:06 AMcarpe, As much as I like Science Fiction, it's just that...Science Fiction.
I like to think we live in reality. Science Fiction is the escape.
Posted by bbtb at February 23, 2006 07:21 AMReferring to debate over foreign operations of U.S. ports, President Bush says "people don't need to worry about security."
We don't need to worry about port security...how about airport security? So, Mr. President, are you saying there is no longer a threat posed by the "terr'ists"? Another case of "Mission Accomplished"?
Posted by The Professor at February 23, 2006 07:22 AMSo aborted children born between 72 and 88 can't vote Democratic.
But I'm sure all those aborted babies have been voting Republican thanks to the efforts of the good people at Diebold.
Posted by snark at February 23, 2006 07:32 AMAs far as I am concerned, this is about punishing women.
Having been around at the time of Roe, we seem to forget the reason it was so necessary. I personally remember the number of women dying from back alley abortions, or worse yet, women attempting to terminate their own preganancy. How many young women died because they attempted to jam a coat hanger past their cervix to terminate the preganany? How many young women lacerated their own uterus? How many young women bled to death alone?
there are other "indirect consequences" that having unrestricted abortions has caused.
Exactly. Old white men who couldn't get their dicks straight if they had to can't tell women what to do.
Australia has only about 3 more decades and it will become majority Muslim at the current birth/abortion rate.
What kind of white spremacist nut job are you? I see...the anti-muslim kind. No doubt, you would be pleased if only WASPs couldn't get abortions. We need us some baby making machines to churn out more white babies! By god, we do! Drunk red-state cheerleaders who believe in abstinence!
Blue states declining in numbers which directly represent the loss of a base of voters that have been aborted since the decision in Roe v. Wade in 72. Babies aborted to liberal mothers outnumber babies aborted to conservative mothers at a disproporate rate.
What drugs do you take? I either want some so I can hallucinate too, or I think they should be banned.
Battlestar Galatica,
Lovely show shot with "seasickness cams." I guess if this is your reality, fine. Bur this makes Star Trek is just as real. You know, a society with higher ideals where money doesn't matter. That makes you the Ferengi. Misogyny and all. I've noticed you and muck like to state the rules of aquisition and keep women in their place.
Posted by phidipides at February 23, 2006 07:39 AMSpeaking of muck, how about Family Incomes Down.
Posted by bbtb at February 23, 2006 07:43 AMCarp,
"Babies aborted to liberal mothers outnumber babies aborted to conservative mothers at a disproporate rate."
First, a statistics argument...Is this rate abortions/mother or abortions/pregnancy? What are the rates you mention? Sample size? Distribution? Margin of error?
Second argument, a little more sarcastic...Shouldn't the "conservative" mothers only be getting pregnant within the confines of marriage? If so, then why are they why would they want/need an abortion? It seems the "conservative" mothers are all that "conservative"...they are having abortions, after all.
Posted by The Professor at February 23, 2006 07:49 AMBur this makes Star Trek is just as real.
Holy crap! Did this fly from my fingers? What I really meant to say was "Fuck the neo-cons." I'm glad I was able to make this point clear.
Posted by phidipides at February 23, 2006 07:50 AM1. Australia has only about 3 more decades and it will become majority Muslim at the current birth/abortion rate.
Why don't you just wear a sign that says, "Kick me, I fear brown swarthy people!"
2. The Blue/Red State electoral colleges shows Blue states declining in numbers which directly represent the loss of a base of voters that have been aborted since the decision in Roe v. Wade in 72. Babies aborted to liberal mothers outnumber babies aborted to conservative mothers at a disproporate rate. So aborted children born between 72 and 88 can't vote Democratic.
Source? (Not like this is unusual for our flying fish head . . ) So if you were to figure in the amount of contraceptive usage in successfully prevented pregnancies, would the Liberals outnumber the Conservatives by 5-to-1 or some other abstract and completely unverifiable number? My point is your numbers and assumptions are crap, and your conclusions are non-existant.
And now lastly - the real reason I deigned to shoot at our barrel dweller:
All of a sudden, a liberal president says abortions are now illegal. Strange and interesting storyline that mimicks the current political and personal issues surrounding the rights to abortion.
One, Battlestar Galactica is a fictional TV show. It's a good drama, and very good sci fi, but taking it seriously, even to include it into modern abortion debate, is seriously stupid. The show's apocolyptic storyline has very little relavence to American current affairs and history - That is unless you belive that Americans are surrounded on all sides by numerically, technologically, and phyiscally superior force determined to hunt us down into extinction.
Two, I would argue that Roslin is not necessarily liberal; she's been remarkably pragmatist because of the milieu. Crass labels of liberal and conservative fail in the wake of a storyline that includes the Armageddon.
Three, that was 10 minutes of a 40 minute plot. To pretend that abortion was at all seriously disussed is a joke. No other options other than the black-and-white, yes-or-no, keep or destroy were discussed. Adoption, orphans (Where is Boxy, anyone? Cause Sharon 1 is dead and Sharon 2 is in lockup . .), extended families, and all the other issues which connect to abortion or coercive pregancy weren't even in the minds of scriptwriter and producer . . and NO, series producer Ron Moore didn't even touch on it in the podcast.
You can be proud that you got answer out of me, Crappie. Revel in it, because it's all you're gonna get all day, and probably for the next month.
Posted by idiosynchronic at February 23, 2006 07:59 AMSpeaking of muck, how about Family Incomes Down.
You see, you just don't realize that this is good for America. This is a healthy positive skew! The money is where it should be, at the top! For every $1 of real wage increase, the wealthy get $18,600. in "wage" increases. There can't be any problem with that, can there?
I do love the article:
"the average family income at $70,700 in 2004. The median, or point where half the families earned more and half less, did rise slightly in 2004 after adjusting for inflation to $43,200"
Someone's making assloads of money, I have see them, and it ain't us.
Posted by phidipides at February 23, 2006 08:01 AMtesting this typepad account thingy
The senate armed services committee is meeting now on c-span live.
Posted by leftydem at February 23, 2006 08:02 AMwatching the GOPers in-fight with Bush over Portgate is very funny....I was interested in how Hardballing Tweedy tried his best last night to slant the episode into a partisan direction..even after two GOPers had just spent 20 minutes flatly blaming Bush. He managed to link some former Clinton people to UAE in an attempt to put a "Clinton did it to" slant on this mess. You know you have a problem when even BugMan DeLay publically rebukes Bush on something. In fact, the force and rapidity of the almost total GOP hierarchy to slam Bush on this issue is a little too pat for me. A bit, shall we say, rehearsed? Something is fishy here.
Posted by at February 23, 2006 08:13 AMAustralia's current population is about 20 million. That 20 million is over 90% white and most of them are at least nominally christian. There is a positive growth rate among Australia's current population.They allow about 100,000 immigrants a year. About half of those immigrants come from "white christian" european and most of the rest from asia.
Demographicaly, there is no way Australia is going to ethnically change as carpe says, it is mathematically impossible.
But then, right wingers have never been strong on numbers-look at the federal budget, or facts- look at the "non civil" war in Iraq
Posted by herbal tee at February 23, 2006 08:23 AMdon't get me started about tweety. he was saying what a "great country" Dubai is. Yup, teose slave tradin', jew-hatin, terrorist-financin', dissent-crushin monarchs are just what we're trying to promote in the middle east. idiot.
Posted by benjoya at February 23, 2006 08:31 AMThe Blue/Red State electoral colleges shows Blue states declining in numbers which directly represent the loss of a base of voters that have been aborted since the decision in Roe v. Wade in 72.
Coincidence doesn't prove causation. Besides, the majority of people in this country don't vote anyway, so it's minutia. And unless you have some hard and fast data predicting how unborn fetuses would have voted, well, that's just a big 'ol strawman.
Posted by ann at February 23, 2006 10:02 AMIgnore Carp. He's really outdone himself today in inventing specious and off-topic factoids to toss into the discussion to divert the attention away from the issues.
SKROLETHETROLES!!
Posted by pessimist at February 23, 2006 10:53 AMI usually do, but my love of Laura Roslin demanded I beat the crap out him. I beg forgiveness.
Posted by idiosynchronic at February 23, 2006 11:38 AMBleh, I've finaly caught the dreaded winter cold/flu. Home. Sniffling. I've gone a couple years without one.
Regarding "family wages" down... The yardstick used is from 2001-2004. Bzzzzt. The problem was that the 2001 wages still reflected the "bubble economy." You remember programmers making $250/hr and other wages rising from the late 90's job crunch through the 2001 recession? Yeah, factor those out of today's wages. I'm more interested in how wages are doing from 2003-current. I think that reflects the post-bubble reality. And from recent numbers, we see that wages are indeed growing. Oh, and the core CPI that came out yesterday was still around .2%. There isn't much inflation out there, so I wouldn't expect wages to be going gangbusters. If wages were going nuts, we'd see higher inflation. Which was one of the reason Greenspan was raising rates from 1999-2000.
Regarding abortion... It's true that abortion has had some interesting effects on the US. We have less crime because of abortion, as documented in the book Freakonomics. Low income folks tend to be the ones who commit the crimes, and abortion has been sort of a pre-emptive "death penalty." The US faces a social security and medicare crisis, and this could be due to millions of people who were aborted who are not in the workforce paying taxes. And as Carpe notes, this is probably having an effect on the Democrat voting numbers and the shift to the GOP the past decade.
I'm against abortion, but I'm not sure it's the government's role to pass laws banning it. I'd think the collective intelligence of the American people would realize that abortion is just the wrong thing to do. Abortion terminates a life. It is a death penalty for the baby.
Posted by muckdog at February 23, 2006 11:44 AMThe issue is not, and never has been about the "poor defenseless babies," otherwise, they'd take care of the babies already born. As we know, it's about denying women autonomy over their own bodies; punishing women for having the sex that they think is dirty but can't get enough of; and, as the racist piece of crap above helpfully reminds us, keeping the "Master Race" the masters. Everyone has (for now) the right to decide whether they want to abort or not. No one (for now) should have the right to tell someone else what to do with their bodies. Period.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 23, 2006 11:50 AMWe have less crime because of abortion...
So the GOP is essentially "pro-crime".
Posted by snark at February 23, 2006 11:54 AMThe US faces a social security and medicare crisis, and this could be due to millions of people who were aborted who are not in the workforce paying taxes.
No, it's because of the baby boom.
Posted by ann at February 23, 2006 12:16 PMSo the GOP is essentially "pro-crime".
snark - I thought that was obvious! Criminals run the country right now, and they are worshipped by the trolls that vomit their spew and pollute these threads every day.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 23, 2006 12:58 PMsnark - I thought that was obvious!
Absolutely. But it can't be repeated often enough.
Here's the question of the day around my office;
It's a two parter. If your significant other decided to undergo "sexual reassignment" surgery would you stay in the relationship? Or if you decided to under go that proceedure would your significant other stay with you?
Posted by snark at February 23, 2006 01:04 PMWell, if it's about women having the right to do whatever they want to their own body, shouldn't heroin be legal? Suicide? Prostitution? Etc.
Again, I'm not for any laws banning abortion. There are those things mentioned above, like rape or mother's life in jeopardy. I think these things are common sense. But lets call voluntary termination of a healthy and normal pregnancy what it really is: A legalized death penalty for babies.
As for the comment that the baby boomers are resposible for the social security crisis? Well, would they be if there were a large enough pool of workers coming behind them? The US has a zero-population growth rate. Our growth rate increase only because of immigration these days.
Japan has the same problem only they have strict immigration laws. So they have a negative population growth rate. I think Europe may be in a similar situation. Which is why those social programs are going to fail. No kids to pay the taxes which pay the bennies.
Posted by muckdog at February 23, 2006 01:13 PMiamcoyote is exactly right. I would add that it's not just about the woman's body it's also about women's rights. The same Christians that advocate killing democratically elected head of states are the same hypocrites that want to dictate what women should do to their bodies. It's no coincidence that the U.S. has never had a female president and the country suffers with incompetent thieves because of this bigotry. I wonder when the women that support these attacks against “women's rights” will wake up.
Posted by smooth at February 23, 2006 01:20 PM...shouldn't heroin be legal?
Public safety issues.
Suicide?
I'm all for throwing their corpses in jail.
Prostitution?
Public health issues.
Posted by snark at February 23, 2006 01:21 PMAs for the comment that the baby boomers are resposible for the social security crisis? Well, would they be if there were a large enough pool of workers coming behind them? The US has a zero-population growth rate. Our growth rate increase only because of immigration these days.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. We all heard this bs talking point when the GOP tried to blame the SS "crisis" on people who decide not to have babies. Specifically, women choosing not to have babies, of course, by having the audacity to have a career!
We do not need another baby boom in this country. We need to eliminate the cap on wages subject to social security taxes, probably raise the retirement age, bring state and local government workers into the SS system, and maybe raise the FICA tax as well.
Posted by ann at February 23, 2006 01:57 PMI'm more interested in how wages are doing from 2003-current.
Oh. Okay:
After adjusting for inflation, wages have not risen during the last three years. In fact, real hourly wages fell for most middle and low-income workers in 2005. -Center for American Progress
Posted by ann at February 23, 2006 02:06 PMWell Ann, I think if you raise those taxes, a lot of folks would retire and small businesses would close, so I'm not sure it'd have the effect you want.
Your inflation numbers probably include food and energy. People have a remarkable ability to cut back those expenses. They turn down the thermostat and drive less. It's the core rate that really matters.
(This is why energy prices haven't affected the core rate, despite all the noise about how energy prices were going to rise the prices of all goods. That opinion was wrong as can be..)
Posted by muckdog at February 23, 2006 02:16 PMWell, if it's about women having the right to do whatever they want to their own body, shouldn't heroin be legal? Suicide? Prostitution? Etc.
Yes, and as you know, not only women engage in those activities, but those are discussions for another day.
There are those things mentioned above, like rape or mother's life in jeopardy. I think these things are common sense. But lets call voluntary termination of a healthy and normal pregnancy what it really is: A legalized death penalty for babies.
Here is where your misogyny shows. Would you not agree that in the case of rape, as well as in the case of failed birth control or sheer stupidity, the "baby" is innocent? Then why is it okay to abort a fetus conceived in rape or incest, or to protect the life of the mother; but not okay if birth control fails or any other reason? (we'll ignore your childish attempt to appeal emotionally by using "death sentence" for a D & C of a mass of cells that might eventually become a viable human and "baby" for that mass of cells)
I'll tell you why - because if a woman has sex, and her birth control fails, you think she should pay the consequences, because it's her "fault" for having consensual sex. She's bad, she's dirty, she must pay. In the case of rape, or her life being in danger, it's not her "fault," is it? So basically, your position is that women should be punished for having sex by carrying a pregnancy to term and making the lifetime commitment that she may or may not have the means to do; and an innocent "baby" should be punished if the sex is not the fault of the woman.
Somehow, I don't think you give 2 shits about babies; your abhorrance of after school programs or any sort of children's funds has already told the tale.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 23, 2006 02:21 PMYour inflation numbers probably include food and energy. People have a remarkable ability to cut back those expenses. They turn down the thermostat and drive less. It's the core rate that really matters.
Oh. I see. We can only reference statistics that "prove" your point. Never mind, then, go back to your own blog and wallow in how well you agree with yourself.
Posted by ann at February 23, 2006 02:36 PMWell Ann, I think if you raise those taxes, a lot of folks would retire and small businesses would close, so I'm not sure it'd have the effect you want.
Ahem. You need to go back and read my entire post. It wasn't just about raising taxes. But we do need to do that. Any prudent person would tell you that.
Posted by ann at February 23, 2006 02:38 PMPeople have a remarkable ability to cut back those expenses. They turn down the thermostat and drive less.
Heh. Or they go to food banks:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than 25 million Americans turned to the nation's largest network of food banks, soup kitchens and shelters for meals last year, up 9 percent from 2001.
Those seeking food included 9 million children and nearly 3 million senior citizens, says a report from America's Second Harvest.
Ann, you cited two tax hikes in your post above. Eliminating the social security cap and raising the FICA tax. Why is it that every "solution" the liberals propose include taking other people's money? I know lots of folks who would probably just retire if those taxes are hiked.
Oh guess what? News is that state, local and federal pensions are $250 billion in the hole as of today (as I'm watching CNBC). Government actuaries must've been on break or called in sick when some of those benefit increases were passed, eh?
Coyote, I didn't say that I was in favor of a law banning abortions. I just said that the end result of an abortion is a dead baby.
Posted by muckdog at February 23, 2006 04:24 PMAnn, you need to quit comparing things to 2000-1. That was the end of a huge unsustainable bubble. Maybe you think that Al Gore would've found a way to keep the markets rising 25% a year or a way to make wages outpace inflation in an era of cheaper labor overseas. Not a chance.
Posted by muckdog at February 23, 2006 04:29 PMMuck, do some historical research.
Voodoo, piss-all over, trickle shit down economics fucked this economy.
Reagan came in and lowered taxes for the wealthy.
Big deficits and looming economic collapse ensued.
Reagan then gave the biggest tax hike in history - he doubled the SS tax. Doubled the tax on the middle class.
Middle class people paid for the rich to get tax cuts.
Now, it is even worse.
Piss-trickle-shit-all-over-the-middle-class economics do not work. Period.
Right now these "tax cuts" which are nothing more than deferred tax, because someone will have to pay - my kid, my grandkids, their grandkids - do not help the economy.
Middle class people spend money when they have money. Pay people a working wage and they will stimulate the economy. It is called common fucking sense.
The tax cuts now - 40% of them - go to the top 2% of wage earners. If you earn less than $50 grand a year, your great big tax benefit is about $12 dollars.
The "stats" that say that 50% of the people who benefit from capital gains and dividend tax cuts earn under $75 grand a year are meaningless because it does not take into consideration the amount of those capital gains. My mutual fund that earns $20 bucks a year or whatever piss ant amount is included in that stat.
Thank you Bu$hCo for the 2 cent benefit.
As for abortion, keep your fucking mouth shut until technology makes it possible for you to get a womb and carry a baby. You have no right to have any say in any woman's body. Neither do I, for anyone other than me - my body, my say.
Posted by Anjha at February 23, 2006 06:09 PMCoyote, I didn't say that I was in favor of a law banning abortions. I just said that the end result of an abortion is a dead baby.
mucky, I didn't say anything about your position on whether abortion should be legal or not. I was pointing out the hypocrisy in your willingness to kill a "baby" in one instance, while condemning it in another. After all, is the "dead baby" not an innocent in either case; why is the manner of its conception somehow a factor in whether it lives or dies? You're not being consistant.
In your favor, you agree that a person has a right to autonomy over their own body, but you characterize an already traumatic experience in the crudest manner possible in an attempt to sway opinion with emotional sabotage. How partisan and petty.
Lucky for you, the First Amendment says you're entitled to an opinion about a person who has the right to have a doctor safely slough away a mass of cells that have the potential of becoming a baby. Lucky for the rest of the world, your meagre opinion doesn't matter in the slightest when it comes to their difficult and personal decisions. I'm sure you'll agree, in a free society, that's a good thing.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 23, 2006 06:23 PMAs for the comment that the baby boomers are resposible for the social security crisis? Well, would they be if there were a large enough pool of workers coming behind them?
Yeah, the pool is really crappy, until you add in the baby boomers kids and grand kids. Then it's bigger than the pool supporting our parents. Amazing! The only way to get to your assessment is with zero income growth and zero population growth over the next 50 years. Ain't happenin, spunky.
If you earn less than $50 grand a year, your great big tax benefit is about $12 dollars.
I made almost $2000.00 more than last year. My taxes, state and local, were $1000.00 more than last year. Looking at the tax tables. My last years adjusted gross income would have been taxed $400.00 more at the Federal level than I paid last year. I assure you, if you are under $50,000. a year you took it in the ass...whether there was a reported tax increase or not. You might say I hit a bracket. I did not.
Posted by phidipides at February 23, 2006 06:54 PMHey gang!
Did you see the report that the Secret Service Agents said Cheney was Cheneyed-up when he shot his buddy? Too cool! I guess Secret Service Agents don't care for drunken gun play...as most real shooters don't.
From the report: our report that secret service agents said Vice President Dick Cheney was drunk when he gunned down friend and lawyer Harry Whittington in a hunting "accident" last week.
Why is it that every "solution" the liberals propose include taking other people's money?
It's not "taking other people's money" it's called paying your share. Why is it that you conservatives always want to cut taxes for the rich and corporations and make the middle class pay more when we all get the same traffic lights, police, firemen, etc.?
Posted by ann at February 23, 2006 07:22 PMAnn, you need to quit comparing things to 2000-1.
You need to quit trying to claim that wages aren't down and that the poor and middle class aren't hurting and that it isn't all due to the tech bubble. Wages are down, expenses are up and the middle class did not get a tax cut worth beans. People are going to food pantries because they cannot afford food. These are not former Silicone Valley techies. We've lost thousands of manufacturing jobs while adding Wal-Mart greeters and Taco Bell jobs.
Posted by ann at February 23, 2006 07:29 PMAnn, the rich already pay most of the taxes in this country. In CA, just a few hundred tax payers pay a huge bulk of the taxes, which is why the state revenues went south when the stock bubble collapsed. in 2000-2002.
Now you're saying "well, they have to pay more." And you don't even seem to understand the effect on the economy when taxes go up. Small businesses go under. Layoffs go up. Wages go down.
The reality is that this country spends too much fighting wars in foreign countries and on social programs. We should do neither.
As for the living wage comment, there is no such thing. Every hike in the lowest wage creates a "trickle up" in all the other wages. The lowest wage will always be struggling to make it.
Lets say we create a living wage law of $25 an hour. What happens to everyone who makes $6-25 an hour today? They get a raise. What happens to everyone who makes $25-50 an hour? They get a raise.
Suddenly, the core CPI jolts (prices jump) up as all this money tries to buy goods. Peanut butter, bread, housing, flowers, and everything else cost more. Movie tickets go to $25 per movie. Etc.
Suddenly, those who make $25 an hour (the new minimum wage) will be back where they started.
Posted by muckdog at February 23, 2006 07:33 PMWell, Ann, you're sounding like a protectionist.
Posted by muckdog at February 23, 2006 07:35 PMI know lots of folks who would probably just retire if those taxes are hiked.
Well, it sounds like you run around with a lot of very wealthy people. The rest of us can't retire when our taxes go up, we just go to food pantries.
Posted by ann at February 23, 2006 07:56 PMWell, if it's about women having the right to do whatever they want to their own body, shouldn't heroin be legal? Suicide? Prostitution? Etc.
Yes, heroin should be legal. Yes, suicide should be legal. Yes, prostitution should be legal Yes, etc. should be legal - the etc. being any act that does not violate the rights of non-consenting other people ought to be legal.
And no, it's not impossible to define those rights objectively. It's highly complex, but in essence its captured in the Declaration of Independence (life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, abolition of government that ceases to protect those rights), the Constitution (due process and fundamental freedoms) torts (freedom from bodily contact or injury) property (lawful ownership or use of) and contracts (consensual transfers of alienable rights).
Again, I'm not for any laws banning abortion. There are those things mentioned above, like rape or mother's life in jeopardy. I think these things are common sense. But lets call voluntary termination of a healthy and normal pregnancy what it really is: A legalized death penalty for babies.
Here's something I've never understood. Why is it that abortion opponents who believe that termination of a pregnancy is indeed the murder of a viable, sentient, human life, often recognize an exception for conceptions that result from rape or incest? Seriously, how exactly is the baby culpable for the manner in which it was conceived? Why wouldn't a baby conceived through incest or rape merit the same right to life as any other? Because it's not "healthy and normal?" What a ghastly thought.
For that matter, if a fetus is the moral and philosophical equivalent of a baby already born, why make an exception for the life of the mother? What? Self defense? I would think most mothers who faced some awful choice between their own death or the death of their children, they'd choose the former.
You know why so many people don't call it a "death penalty for babies?" Because people don't really have the courage of their convictions about this issue. Even so many people who are adamantly opposed to abortion - who call it "murder," - appear to be using hyperbole. If you believe that an abortion really and truly takes the life of an innocent, sentient human being, then carry that to its logical conclusion. You know what we do with people who murder people? We put them in jail for the rest of their lives. In some states, we execute them. Isn't that what should happen to the doctors and the mothers? They've committed murder, right?
Heck, when someone actually does advocate that extreme, at least I respect the consistency in their argument. But calling it a "death penalty for babies," and then saying, oh, but it shouldn't be illegal, because it's just common sense that we should murder babies conceived by rape strikes me as an overwhelming rationalization.
I think a lot of abortion opponents don't really believe that a zygote or a fetus is the moral and philosophical equivalent of a baby already born.
Need evidence for that hypothesis: click here, and watch this video.
Posted by Liveliest Crib at February 23, 2006 10:29 PM