At almost literally the last minute, congress passed another short term funding extension while agreeing in principle to a long term deal.
What do you think? Who are the winners and losers of the standoff? Are there any? How does this effect your opinion of the jobs being done by our elected officials? Sound off in the comments below.
The winners are defense contractors and the health care industry. The losers are the American people. The Democrats have again proved their lack of practicality by refusing to reduce spending even a token amount. The Republicans, and particulary the Tea Party, have proven that they don't really care about spending and fiscal health as much as the devisive issues of abortion and social crap in general.
ReplyDeleteRepublican, Democrat, Independant, Tea Party, Socialist, man, woman.
ReplyDeleteEvery single elected person in Washington D.C. is a piece of junk for this once great country. From the president right on down to the lowest jr. senator from a place that we have never heard of.
Matt the Hoople, what are you talking about? The Tea Party is against this deal, Michelle Bachman has already said she does not endorse the deal they struck. It was the Republicans, not the Tea Party that agreed to this deal.
ReplyDeleteWe wouldn't be in this position if the Democrats had actually done their constitutionally required job last year.
My consensus is that all politicians let their egos get in the way of governing. I am nothing but embarrassed when I see and hear all the name-calling in Congress and both parties are guilty. I'm proud to be an American but ashamed to be either a Democrat or a Republican.
ReplyDeleteBE: You actually expect people to believe that there is a difference between TP and Republicans? I heard no dissent from them against Boehner and his Planned Parenthood fiasco. The Tea Party's original fiscal stance was admirable, but they couldn't suppress their social crap agenda forever.
ReplyDeleteBE: I forgot to add that there are no Tea Party Democrats in Congress.
ReplyDeletePlanned parenthood has no business getting public money, neither does NPR. They should have stuck to their guns.
ReplyDeleteBE, Planned Parenthood is about more than just abortions. It provides birth control (so there aren't so many abortions), mammograms, cervical cancer screenings, STD tests and other lifesaving procedures. Nobody looks at the effect it would have to cut this program. If these services aren't offered and all of these woman pop out kids....how do you think they'll end up paying for it? Oh..right...welfare. So either way, we pay. It's not really a cost efficient cut.
ReplyDeleteBE The cut for planned parenthood, had it been successful, was 0.01% of the federal budget. If you are arguing that this would have been significant from a fiscal standpoint, we have nothing more to say.
ReplyDeleteNever try to reason with BE...... he/she never listens to anyone but his/her own voice of opinion.
ReplyDeleteKAT, planned parenthood doesn't perform mammograms, maybe you missed it in the news lately?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq0kBkUZbvQ&feature=player_embedded#at=46
Abortions constitute 90% of the services they provide to the public.
Matt, I am aware of the total amount of funding, it is the point that tax payer money should NOT be used to pay for abortions.
By law, planned parenthood cannot use public funding for abortions, they never have. But don't let that get in the way.
ReplyDeleteBE: Yes, they do perform mammograms.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/womens-health/breast-cancer-screenings-21189.htm
Also, it's not 90%. It's 37% at best. And that's a 'high' estimate.
I choose not to get my news from youtube. I actually go to reliable websites...not one where anyone can say anything they want and upload it from the comfort of their sofa.
Planned Parenthood cannot use public funding for abortions. However, if they have a budget of a million bucks and the government is fitting the bill for $500,000 of it for "non-abortion" things, then that just frees up more money to perform abortions. So while they may CLAIM the money isn't going towards abortion, there is no way around showing that it is helping to provide them. I mean, how about the United States spend a few billion in North Korea to provide for rebuilding infrastructure to allow for better living conditions? Oh, don't want to do that because Kim Jong Il will end up NOT having to spend those billions on his own people and can instead build up an arsenal of nuclear weapons? Well, gosh oh golly gee, go figure. It is pretty much the same thinking for both items mentioned in how funding by the U.S. Government for ONE thing obviously frees up someone to spend on ANOTHER thing that people aren't too keen on.
ReplyDelete