Government Shutdown on the clock thread

[StrangeSox]

I had hoped we could all agree that a bunch of politicians getting an animal that's a nuisance to their farmer buddies pulled off the endangered species list as part of a budget bill was deplorable.

[Texsox]

Government policy changes were brought about after the ACLU filed suit against the BSA on first amendment grounds. Perhaps if the BSA dropped its discriminatory policies it wouldn't be an issue, but then my gay-atheist brother being an Eagle Scout wouldn't be so ironic.

 

None of that has anything to do with Balta's question regarding PP, though.

 

Religion, assembly, petition, press, and speech are the first Amendment rights. The Dale v. BSA case was not about any of those. The Dale case was if a private organization can set membership standards for their groups. There were farther reaching ramifications beyond the Boy Scouts. Could, for example, the Daughters of the American Revolution continue to bar men from becomming members. Could the Knight of Columbus continue to only allow Catholic men? The courts decided that yes, a private group could have their own membership rules. Interestingly about the same time a man sued a woman's only fitness center for not hiring him, that was allowed.

 

After the SCOTUS ruling, many organizations who did not agree with BSA's position rightfully pulled their support, including the US government. I happen to be a fan of both PP and the BSA but see where the government can make those decisions. Even if I do not agree.

 

BTW The Boy Scouts of America has programs which do not discriminate on any basis. Learning for Life for example is one that is sold to school districts. Venturing is open to men and women 14-20 years of age. Soccer and Scouting is open to boys and girls in elementary schools. There are more. But for the flagship program, which is almost 100% sponsored by Churches, a belief in a higher power, is required. It does not have to be a Christian God, even a native American belief in "spirits" works. So an atheist wishing to join a religious organization always seemed a little weird to me.

 

And I truly wish the ban on openly gay volunteers was lifted. There are very few members of the World Organization of Scouting Movements who have that ban. It's personally embarrassing to me.

[Jenksismyhero]

I had hoped we could all agree that a bunch of politicians getting an animal that's a nuisance to their farmer buddies pulled off the endangered species list as part of a budget bill was deplorable.

 

Right, but if we're just arguing economics then why's it so bad?

[StrangeSox]

Right, but if we're just arguing economics then why's it so bad?

 

I think Balta's point was that he gets to win the argument no matter what path you try to take.

[Balta1701]

Glad you've made the decision of "life" for everyone. I think an anti-abortion person would argue you have them backwards.

 

And I see both sides of the argument here. I just don't think it's as easy a decision as you are making it out to be. Couldn't I use the same economic argument on say, supporting the de-listing of the grey wolf? It's saving the country money. Why not let the government decide if the species is really endangered or not?

Actually, there's lots of reasons to think that the introduction of the grey wolves and their restoration into their normal environment has produced economic gains. The wolves have massively increased the health of the ecosystems out west. Over-grazing by wild herds is cut back, because the wolves keep those populations under control. The herds of elk, deer, bison, etc., are healthier because the Wolves take out the weak ones. Grasslands improve. Water quality improves.

[Texsox]

No, that's the simple question...which is better, saving money and lives or costing money and lives?

 

Because funding PP is the former, and ending funding for it is the latter.

 

Are you for building free health clubs for all Americans? Because which is better, saving money and lives or costing money and lives?

 

We could keep going on and on. PP is a very narrowly focused health care and education provider. Those services are available in other locations. Again, I happen to appreciate their work, but I'm not ready to believe the dire predictions you've posted.

[Balta1701]

Are you for building free health clubs for all Americans? Because which is better, saving money and lives or costing money and lives?

 

We could keep going on and on. PP is a very narrowly focused health care and education provider. Those services are available in other locations. Again, I happen to appreciate their work, but I'm not ready to believe the dire predictions you've posted.

Those services are NOT available in other locations to the poor.

[Texsox]

Those services are NOT available in other locations to the poor.

 

 

medicaid? Clinics?

[Balta1701]

medicaid? Clinics?

In other words, the government needs to pay for it.

[StrangeSox]

Religion, assembly, petition, press, and speech are the first Amendment rights. The Dale v. BSA case was not about any of those. The Dale case was if a private organization can set membership standards for their groups. There were farther reaching ramifications beyond the Boy Scouts. Could, for example, the Daughters of the American Revolution continue to bar men from becomming members. Could the Knight of Columbus continue to only allow Catholic men? The courts decided that yes, a private group could have their own membership rules. Interestingly about the same time a man sued a woman's only fitness center for not hiring him, that was allowed.

 

After the SCOTUS ruling, many organizations who did not agree with BSA's position rightfully pulled their support, including the US government. I happen to be a fan of both PP and the BSA but see where the government can make those decisions. Even if I do not agree.

 

The DoD and HUD changed their policy after the ACLU filed a suit in Illinois. I don't think it ever went to the SCOTUS.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2004/November/04_civ_751.htm

 

BTW The Boy Scouts of America has programs which do not discriminate on any basis. Learning for Life for example is one that is sold to school districts. Venturing is open to men and women 14-20 years of age. Soccer and Scouting is open to boys and girls in elementary schools. There are more. But for the flagship program, which is almost 100% sponsored by Churches, a belief in a higher power, is required. It does not have to be a Christian God, even a native American belief in "spirits" works. So an atheist wishing to join a religious organization always seemed a little weird to me.

 

It's a relatively recent policy change after the program was more or less hijacked by the Mormons in the 80's and 90's. While other scouting organizations do typically have a "duty to god" or more generalized "spirituality" clause, they're not nearly as hard-line as the BSA. There's no reason going camping and hiking and kayaking needs to have some sort of faith-based background, but there are other programs available that don't needlessly discriminate. A loss for the BSA, in my opinion. I'll note that this applies to national-level BSA stuff, and local troopmasters have generally been found not to care if a parent wants to sign up an atheist or agnostic or gay son, they just want to share the other aspects of scouting.

 

And I truly wish the ban on openly gay volunteers was lifted. There are very few members of the World Organization of Scouting Movements who have that ban. It's personally embarrassing to me.

 

I'm glad to hear that. I was a scout once, and I support what they do-outdoors, adventure, team work, etc. But I'd never sign a child of mine up for their programs until they clean house. I understand that you're heavily involved with scouting and I think it's great to have enthusiastic leaders like you.

Edited April 12, 2011 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Are you for building free health clubs for all Americans? Because which is better, saving money and lives or costing money and lives?

 

We could keep going on and on. PP is a very narrowly focused health care and education provider. Those services are available in other locations. Again, I happen to appreciate their work, but I'm not ready to believe the dire predictions you've posted.

 

 

Those services are NOT available in other locations to the poor.

 

I'd be in favor of more free health care clinics for the poor in this country, but you'd probably still need specialized clinics.

[Balta1701]

medicaid? Clinics?

Oh, and the budget agreement cut $600 million from low-income health care clinics.

[lostfan]

Huh?

 

So, you think people plan to get pregnant so they can have abortions?

He was just talking about the irony

[Balta1701]

He was just talking about the irony

And in this case, the irony doesn't work. Calling the name ironic only makes sense if you think people are getting pregnant and planning to have abortions afterwards. Otherwise, PP is still providing family planning services.

[Balta1701]

This is just f***ing funny to me. They are arguing about 30 billion in the context of a trillion and then these losers are beating their chests like they actually accomplished something. Talking about the budget there's 4 parts, revenue, entitlements, defense, and discretionary. They didn't touch three of those four and who knows if they ever will. Anyone who is unwilling to talk about ALL FOUR cannot and should not be taken seriously.

You'll love this.

House Speaker John A. Boehner will issue a warning Tuesday to President Obama a day before the president is set to deliver a major speech on the nation’s deficit: Raising taxes is “unacceptable and a nonstarter.”

 

Mr. Boehner plans to issue the warning in a statement Tuesday afternoon, according to a copy of the statement The Caucus obtained. In it, Mr. Boehner says Republicans are “open to hearing” proposals from Mr. Obama about dealing with Medicare and other entitlements that reduce the nation’s long-term debt.

 

But he says a proposal by the president that includes tax increases will be treated as evidence that the president is not serious about dealing with the country’s long-term fiscal health.

 

“We don’t have deficits because Americans are taxed too little, we have deficits because Washington spends too much,” Mr. Boehner says in the statement. “And, at a time when the American people face skyrocketing prices at the pump, energy tax hikes are a particularly bad idea.”

[Soxbadger]

Its sad that a very wealthy person like Boehner is going to have the say for the rest of America.

 

Taxes need to be raised,there is no way around it. When I look around I see a lot of infrastructure that needs to be rebuilt, I see a country that could (or is) fall(ing) behind China in terms of large public works projects.

 

Its time to pay for the freedom that we have. I dont care if he raises my taxes to 50% at this point, Id rather pay 50%and live in America, than 0% and live somewhere crappy.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Its sad that a very wealthy person like Boehner is going to have the say for the rest of America.

 

Taxes need to be raised,there is no way around it. When I look around I see a lot of infrastructure that needs to be rebuilt, I see a country that could (or is) fall(ing) behind China in terms of large public works projects.

 

Its time to pay for the freedom that we have. I dont care if he raises my taxes to 50% at this point, Id rather pay 50%and live in America, than 0% and live somewhere crappy.

 

There are no poor or middle class people in Congress.

[Texsox]

The DoD and HUD changed their policy after the ACLU filed a suit in Illinois. I don't think it ever went to the SCOTUS.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2004/November/04_civ_751.htm

 

 

 

It's a relatively recent policy change after the program was more or less hijacked by the Mormons in the 80's and 90's. While other scouting organizations do typically have a "duty to god" or more generalized "spirituality" clause, they're not nearly as hard-line as the BSA. There's no reason going camping and hiking and kayaking needs to have some sort of faith-based background, but there are other programs available that don't needlessly discriminate. A loss for the BSA, in my opinion. I'll note that this applies to national-level BSA stuff, and local troopmasters have generally been found not to care if a parent wants to sign up an atheist or agnostic or gay son, they just want to share the other aspects of scouting.

 

 

 

I'm glad to hear that. I was a scout once, and I support what they do-outdoors, adventure, team work, etc. But I'd never sign a child of mine up for their programs until they clean house. I understand that you're heavily involved with scouting and I think it's great to have enthusiastic leaders like you.

 

The BSA is not an outdoor club, that isn't how Baden Powell envisioned it, and it isn't why churches sponsor units. Take any activity that a church's ministry undertakes and you could say it doesn't need to be spiritual. If all the organization was concerned about was teaching outdoor skills they would do away with charter organizations like the Girl Scouts have done.

 

There are a lot of ways to instill values that will last a lifetime, sports would be an easy example. The Scouting program is just another avenue.

[lostfan]

You'll love this.

Of course it isn't. It's funny that he says basically the complete opposite of what's true. Yeah let's defund NPR because it's f***ing the budget so bad. That'll get us out of this hole. Oh but you want to talk about raising several hundred billion in revenue since the highest brackets have the lowest taxes they've had in decades? Money that otherwise sits in accounts or buys T-bonds? You're not taking this seriously.

[Soxbadger]

There are no poor or middle class people in Congress.

 

Potentially upper middle class, but thats the point, its a conflict of interest. Most people dont support things that hurt them monetarily.

[Texsox]

Buried in the compromise somewhere was something that will probably help my pocketbook, removing the "Texas Amendment" to the education funds. Basically in 2009 Texas took a couple billion earmarked for schools and basically used it to balance the state budget. They did not increase school spending by the amount of the funds the feds spent. They reduced state contributions by the amount of the federal monies. Congress retaliated, led by the Dems, and put in a provision that Texas could not receive the funds unless they agreed to add it to, not replace it with, state funding through 2013.

 

Besides the fact that Perry didn't like the feds adding strings, Texas does not allow committing to spending for more than two years. It's right there in the Texas Constitution. So Texas was going to be without those funds. Now the GOP comes riding in and gets that clause removed, a billion or so will be coming to Texas, a couple three million or more will flow into my district.

 

So thank you GOP. I feel like a hypocrite, I think it is wrong that the federal money wasn't in addition to, which was the entire goal of the stimulus money. But this helps the GOP in a couple ways. They can help a leading GOP Governor and presidential candidiate (crosses fingers), they can continue to dismiss the stimulus spending as not helping, and make me happy.

[BigSqwert]

Seriously?

 

This is so priceless I have to post it again. A Republican U.S. senator says he'll shut down the Senate because the budget deal in which Republicans demanded and got billions of dollars in spending cuts wipes out $50,000 -- that's right $50K -- for his home state.

 

The senator? Lindsey Graham (R-SC). The expenditure? An Army Corps of Engineers study on deepening the Port of Charleston.

[StrangeSox]

I thought this comment on that article was interesting, but I can't vouch for its accuracy:

This story is really about Jim DeMint who (with others' help) has so demonized federal appropriations called "earmarks" and "pork" (tho' by no means are they always that) that he can't politcally afford to back such a request even if opposing this one will thoroughly wreck the economy of his own state. And even if other Southern "no pork" senators with ports to protect swallowed hard and asked for earmarks, which they got. 1 in 5 SC jobs depends on the port. Graham is thrashing about & struggling mightily to overcome the obstacle that DeMint is. The $50,000 is simply a small downpayment on the project. The story is also about why SC voters would elect and support someone so destructive to their interests as DeMint.

[BigSqwert]

Holy s*** this is fantastic.

 

[Texsox]

So the state economy depends on the port, yet all those private businesses can't cough up $50,000? Which btw is the amount per person of our national debt.