Support NeoGAF

[Chumly]

Do you think that gay marriage should be banned, social programs should be eliminated, public schools should be eliminated, abortion should be illegal, intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution, the deficit should be paid down on the backs of the middle class? What do you think about the Ryan plan?

Take a quick look through this list, and ask yourself if that would have been enacted with a Republican in the WH: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress#Enacted

Then ask yourself if Obama and Romney are two sides of the same coin.

To be fair to AlteredBeast the current republican party is an absolute monster that needs to be destroyed. I think there could be room for a reasonable republican party to do some good but I think were a long ways from that currently.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

I didn't think the whole two sides of the same coin thing was taken seriously by anyone from PoliGAF.... Maybe my sarcasm meter is off though.

 

[empty vessel]

To be fair to AlteredBeast the current republican party is an absolute monster that needs to be destroyed. I think there could be room for a reasonable republican party to do some good but I think were a long ways from that currently.

We already have that. It's called the Democratic party.

 

[ToxicAdam]

The whole UI argument just floors me. Does anyone actually believe that people aren't finding jobs because collecting benefits saps their motivation?

Absolutely. People will adjust and build a lifestyle around whatever income they are bringing in over a long period of time. They can do the math and ask themselves if they really want to bring home 400 dollars/wk when they are already bringing home 300 through UI. Especially if they feel the work is beneath them or out of their comfort zone.

Long-term unemployment has been shown to be linked to many long-term, negative health consequences.

Examining national longitudinal data, Mossakowski has found that people who were unemployed for long periods in their teens or early 20s are far more likely to develop a habit of heavy drinking (five or more drinks in one sitting) by the time they approach middle age. They are also more likely to develop depressive symptoms. Prior drinking behavior and psychological history do not explain these problems—they result from unemployment itself. And the problems are not limited to those who never find steady work; they show up quite strongly as well in people who are later working regularly.

Forty years ago, Glen Elder, a sociologist at the University of North Carolina and a pioneer in the field of “life course” studies, found a pronounced diffidence in elderly men (though not women) who had suffered hardship as 20- and 30-somethings during the Depression. Decades later, unlike peers who had been largely spared in the 1930s, these men came across, he told me, as “beaten and withdrawn—lacking ambition, direction, confidence in themselves.” Today in Japan, according to the Japan Productivity Center for Socio-Economic Development, workers who began their careers during the “lost decade” of the 1990s and are now in their 30s make up six out of every 10 cases of depression, stress, and work-related mental disabilities reported by employers.

A large and long-standing body of research shows that physical health tends to deteriorate during unemployment, most likely through a combination of fewer financial resources and a higher stress level. The most-recent research suggests that poor health is prevalent among the young, and endures for a lifetime. Till Von Wachter, an economist at Columbia University, and Daniel Sullivan, of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, recently looked at the mortality rates of men who had lost their jobs in Pennsylvania in the 1970s and ’80s. They found that particularly among men in their 40s or 50s, mortality rates rose markedly soon after a layoff. But regardless of age, all men were left with an elevated risk of dying in each year following their episode of unemployment, for the rest of their lives. And so, the younger the worker, the more pronounced the effect on his lifespan: the lives of workers who had lost their job at 30, Von Wachter and Sullivan found, were shorter than those who had lost their job at 50 or 55—and more than a year and a half shorter than those who’d never lost their job at all.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...ew-jobless-era-will-transform-america/7919/2/


I've also seen reports/studies that have shown that long-term UI actually adds about .5 percent to the unemployment number. These studies of course were done in other recessions that were mild compared to the one we are recovering from now. I can't find the link for this, though.


For the record, I don't have a problem with the constant extensions. I just think people should remember that this is a poor solution to a difficult problem.

 

[LilZippa]

Sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.

This seems to be the general problem with most people I see identifying themselves as a libertarian. It is like they ignore the core principles of defending civil liberties, which I see as very valuable. Most of the folks I have met are a one issue person and they like were libertarians stand on that one issue for them, but refuse to defend others civil liberties.

 

[spandexmonkey]

Long-term unemployment has been shown to be linked to many long-term, negative health consequences.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...ew-jobless-era-will-transform-america/7919/2/

So being unemployed is very detrimental to your health... so people want to stay on UI?

 

[Blergmeister]

Phasing out the duration of benefits as the unemployment rate gets closer to 6% makes a whole lot of sense.

Isn't that what this bill is doing? Boom baby!

Spoiler

Just kidding. My Aaron Strife optimism is hoping for mid-7s and that is in part due to the whole too many drop-outs of the job market thing.

 

[ToxicAdam]

So being unemployed is very detrimental to your health... so people want to stay on UI?

I'm not really following you here. People make choices about their life and not weigh (or have knowledge of) the long-term repurcussions all the time.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Sure is a good thing that we didn't just let them fail...

DETROIT (AP) -- General Motors earned its largest profit ever in 2011, two years after it nearly collapsed into financial ruin.

Strong sales in the U.S. and China helped the 103-year-old carmaker turn a profit of $7.6 billion, beating its old record of $6.7 billion in 1997 during the pickup truck and SUV boom.

[...]

But problems surfaced in its 2011 results. GM lost $747 million before taxes in Europe, and its South American operations lost $122 million. Sales growth slowed in the U.S. in the fourth quarter, even as more Americans bought cars and trucks.

Also, GM's fourth-quarter profit fell 8 percent and results missed Wall Street expectations.

[...]

Chief Financial Officer Dan Ammann said the company's restructuring in Europe cut pretax losses by more than $1 billion from 2010, but it didn't go far enough.

He hinted that GM will have to cut factories and jobs in the region, saying the whole auto industry has too many factories there.

"We clearly have work to do in Europe, we have work to do with the South American business," he said.

The 2011 profit of $4.58 per share was 62 percent higher than a year earlier. Full-year revenue rose 11 percent to $150 billion.

GM said 47,500 blue-collar workers in the U.S. will get $7,000 profit-sharing checks in March. The checks are based on North American performance and are a record for the company.

 

[ToxicAdam]

"That won't happen."

-- Mitt Romney, when asked by the Grand Rapids Press if he could lose in Michigan to Rick Santorum.

Uh-oh, Mitt just Konexed himself.

 

[GaimeGuy]

wow @ gm

 

[Tamanon]

That kid looks happy.

Actually there's all sorts of weird expressions going on in that picture.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Do you think that gay marriage should be banned, social programs should be eliminated, public schools should be eliminated, abortion should be illegal, intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution, the deficit should be paid down on the backs of the middle class? What do you think about the Ryan plan?

Take a quick look through this list, and ask yourself if that would have been enacted with a Republican in the WH: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress#Enacted

Then ask yourself if Obama and Romney are two sides of the same coin.

I do think abortion should be illegal in almost all cases. I don't think intelligent design needs to (or should) be taught in schools, the deficit should be paid down on everyone's backs, since we are all going to have to sacrifice to actually accomplish it (just like Obama says, "shared sacrifice"), social programs are simply not going to be eliminated.

I don't know if you remember how Romney actually governed, but he did it largely from the middle. During his tenure, raised taxes and fees where needed, closed tax loopholes, worked closely like Ted Kennedy to pass healthcare reform, extended ideas to grant large-scale scholarships to the top 25% of high school students, supported federal assault weapons bans, supports inflation-adjusted minimum wage gains and so on.

His rhetoric during this campaign is largely based around having to kowtow to the ridiculousness and extreme positions of the GOP primary voters. There is no way in hell the Ryan Plan would ever be implemented and is merely using it strategically to try and get elected, but he knows it is untenable as all get out.

So, yes, I think a Romney presidency and an Obama presidency would end up with largely the same results. You guys crack me up with the whole "Obama is center right" shtick while then alleging that Romney is going to be some sort of Theocrat if, by some amazing amount of luck, he gets elected.

 

[The Librarian]

Joe Kennedy is running for Barney Frank's old seat.

Unemployment claims down to four-year low.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I do think abortion should be illegal in almost all cases. I don't think intelligent design needs to (or should) be taught in schools, the deficit should be paid down on everyone's backs, since we are all going to have to sacrifice to actually accomplish it (just like Obama says, "shared sacrifice"), social programs are simply not going to be eliminated.

I don't know if you remember how Romney actually governed, but he did it largely from the middle. During his tenure, raised taxes and fees where needed, closed tax loopholes, worked closely like Ted Kennedy to pass healthcare reform, extended ideas to grant large-scale scholarships to the top 25% of high school students, supported federal assault weapons bans, supports inflation-adjusted minimum wage gains and so on.

His rhetoric during this campaign is largely based around having to kowtow to the ridiculousness and extreme positions of the GOP primary voters. There is no way in hell the Ryan Plan would ever be implemented and is merely using it strategically to try and get elected, but he knows it is untenable as all get out.

So, yes, I think a Romney presidency and an Obama presidency would end up with largely the same results. You guys crack me up with the whole "Obama is center right" shtick while then alleging that Romney is going to be some sort of Theocrat if, by some amazing amount of luck, he gets elected.

1) Ugh.
2) It depends entirely on Congress. Romney has shown the willingness to say absolutely anything to get the Right to like him, and if Republicans take control of the Senate, I have no doubt that Romney would not resist them on anything.

 

[AlteredBeast]

I am pro-life. What can I say? Still can't see how any reasonable person can father and raise a child, as I have, and then think abortions are okay. They are not. I think if the life of the mother is at stake, it is something that should be allowed, but in all other cases, I find it reprehensible.

Romney has shown an ability to bend over backwards in ways never thought possible as he changes and modifies his positions, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he was largely a center-right governor, as Obama is largely a center-right president.

 

[spandexmonkey]

I'm not really following you here. People make choices about their life and not weigh (or have knowledge of) the long-term repurcussions all the time.

How did you get that from the article? I know it points out at the beginning some young people calling it "funemployment" but after that it's pretty much about people constantly seeking work, never finding anything and the horrible effect it's having on them now leading into long term social ills.
The story of Errol in the article is what I see most often. 28, worked lots of places (factories, machine shops, resteraunts) and is currently unemployed. Every week looks for work, but doesn't find anything, so keeps working on his skills.

I asked him what he foresaw for his working life. “As far as my job position,” he said, “I really don’t know what I want to do yet. I’m not sure.” When he was little, he wanted to be a mechanic, and he did enjoy the machine trade. But now there was hardly any work to be had, and what there was paid about the same as Walmart. “I don’t think there’s any way that you can have a job that you can think you can retire off of,” he said. “I think everyone’s going to have to transfer to another job.” He said the only future he could really imagine for himself now was just moving from job to job, with no career to speak of. “That’s what I think,” he said. “I don’t want to.”

Is that the choice you're talking about? The choice of trying to establish a career versus taking a job with no long term prospects and low pay.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I am pro-life. What can I say? Still can't see how any reasonable person can father and raise a child, as I have, and then think abortions are okay. They are not. I think if the life of the mother is at stake, it is something that should be allowed, but in all other cases, I find it reprehensible.

Romney has shown an ability to bend over backwards in ways never thought possible as he changes and modifies his positions, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he was largely a center-right governor, as Obama is largely a center-right president.

Why should everyone have to live by what you find reprehensible?

And you're completely sidestepping my point: Romney was a center-right governor because he governed in Massachusetts with a Democratic/liberal legislature. He has no principles to speak of--I cannot think of a single issue on which he would push back a Republican controlled legislature for going too far.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

So, yes, I think a Romney presidency and an Obama presidency would end up with largely the same results.

No way. Paranormally wrong.

But I appreciate your honest response. At first when I started reading PoliGAF threads a few months ago, I couldn't tell when you were arguing from a sincere position or playing devil's advocate.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Why should everyone have to live by what you find reprehensible?

And you're completely sidestepping my point: Romney was a center-right governor because he governed in Massachusetts with a Democratic/liberal legislature. He has no principles to speak of--I cannot think of a single issue on which he would push back a Republican controlled legislature for going too far.

Because what I find reprehensible is the destruction of life? It is the same reason I am all for universal health care. Protect and care for life. I cannot even comprehend otherwise.

You have a point re: Romney, which is why I find a republican presidency with democrat-controlled congress the best scenario nearly all the time. Or a democrat in the White House with a republican congress...

 

[AlteredBeast]

No way. Paranormally wrong.

But I appreciate your honest response. At first when I started reading PoliGAF threads a few months ago, I couldn't tell when you were arguing from a sincere position or playing devil's advocate.

I do like playing devil's advocate quite a bit, and am doing as such right here in many ways, since I realize that Romney would do a lot more right-wing stuff if given the chance. But, like with Obama's presidency to the point, without the backing of both houses of congress, Romney would have done a lot of the same things. The only thing we have to go on is his time in Massachusetts, since candidates say crazy stuff to get elected all the time, even Obama, but his time in Mass. aligns with a lot of the same things Obama did.

Whether that is a condemnation of what I think about Obama, a commendation on what I think of Romney, or a hybrid of both positions, I don't know.

 

[dave is ok]

Because what I find reprehensible is the destruction of life? It is the same reason I am all for universal health care. Protect and care for life. I cannot even comprehend otherwise.

The destruction of life can also take place after the baby is born. What do think happens to unwanted kids who grow up in a house where no one cares about them?

 

[GhaleonEB]

Joe Kennedy is running for Barney Frank's old seat.

Unemployment claims down to four-year low.

Details:

The weeks are normal and there's nothing special skewing the data -- data that increasingly point to pivotal improvement underway in the nation's jobs market. Initial claims fell 13,000 in the February 11 week to 348,000 (prior week revised to 361,000). And for the 10th time in 11 weeks, the 4-week average is down, falling 1,750 to 365,250 (prior revised to 367,000). A month-to-month comparison shows an improvement of not quite 10,000 which points to rising gains for monthly payroll growth.

Continuing claims are also lower, down a very sizable 100,000 in data for the February 4 week to 3.426 million. The 4-week average is down 8,000 to 3.493 million. The unemployment rate for insured employees is down 1 tenth to 2.7 percent.

IIRC, this is the week that the monthly employment surveys are completed, which points to a good jobs report for February.

Housing starts are up 10% on a year over year basis.

Housing appears to be oscillating upward as starts rebounded 1.5 percent in January after a 1.9 dip the month before. January's 0.699 million unit pace topped expectations for 0.675 million and is up 9.9 percent on a year-ago basis. For the latest month, the rebound was led by the multifamily component.

By region, the gain in starts was led by an 18.3 percent boost in the South with the West rising 11.9 percent and the Northeast rebounding 7.9 percent. The Midwest saw a 40.7 percent drop.

 

[AlteredBeast]

The destruction of life can also take place after the baby is born. What do think happens to unwanted kids who grow up in a house where no one cares about them?

They go on to do great things? They turn into malcontents? Any of a billion possible scenarios? How about facilitating parenting classes, education and/or encouraging adoption services? Those kids were just better off being aborted, I guess...

What do you think happens to wanted kids who grow up in a house where no one cares about them?

 

[GhaleonEB]

I am pro-life. What can I say? Still can't see how any reasonable person can father and raise a child, as I have, and then think abortions are okay. They are not. I think if the life of the mother is at stake, it is something that should be allowed, but in all other cases, I find it reprehensible.

Romney has shown an ability to bend over backwards in ways never thought possible as he changes and modifies his positions, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he was largely a center-right governor, as Obama is largely a center-right president.

I have two kids. If my wife was pregnant with #3, and wanted an abortion, I'd be perfectly fine with that. We'd discuss it, but it's her body. I'm not going to dictate to my wife what she should do. Nor any other woman.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

They go on to do great things? They turn into malcontents? Any of a billion possible scenarios? How about facilitating and encouraging adoption services? Those kids were just better off being aborted, I guess...

What do you think happens to wanted kids who grow up in a house where no one cares about them?

I think you intend that statement to be inherently objectionable, but the problem with this type of discussion is that for some people, it isn't.

Because what I find reprehensible is the destruction of life? It is the same reason I am all for universal health care. Protect and care for life. I cannot even comprehend otherwise.

Same thing here. The fact that you can't comprehend otherwise shouldn't mean anything with respect to public policy. Here's an alternative view: respect for life need not entail maximizing the number of alive things.

I have two kids. If my wife was pregnant with #3, and wanted an abortion, I'd be perfectly fine with that. We'd discuss it, but it's her body. I'm not going to dictate to my wife what she should do. Nor any other woman.

(I'm just using you as a jumping off point here, and not actually saying anything about your finances/parenting.) For instance, I think it shows greater respect for life to abort a child that you're unprepared for rather than bringing it into a life of guaranteed scarcity and hardship.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

But, like with Obama's presidency to the point, without the backing of both houses of congress, Romney would have done a lot of the same things.

See, this is where you go off the rails for me. Did you look at the legislation enacted by the 111th? Do you really believe that kind of work would get done with a Republican in the WH? If you do, that is asinine.

 

[ToxicAdam]

How did you get that from the article?

That article is almost two years old. I only used it because it had a collection of studies that showed the potential long-term, negative health consequences people can face due to long bouts of unemployment.

Is that the choice you're talking about? The choice of trying to establish a career versus taking a job with no long term prospects and low pay.

Again, that article is almost two years old, so the anecdotals don't really have the relevance they once did. If you are unemployed for 24+ months waiting for 'the perfect job', the negatives of that choice are far outweighing whatever ones you may incur taking a different job that pays less or isn't in your desired career path.

 

[Measley]

GOP senators unveil new Medicare overhaul plan

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two Republican senators unveiled a Medicare rescue plan Thursday that features an accelerated transition to private health insurance for many seniors, a gradual increase in the eligibility age, and higher premiums for middle-class and upper-income retirees.

Sens. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Richard Burr of North Carolina say they're not out to win a political popularity contest. Instead, they want to engage fellow policymakers and the public in a "grown-up" conversation about the scope of changes needed to preserve Medicare in some form for future generations.

It would start the transition to a system dominated by private insurance plans in 2016 instead of waiting a decade, as Ryan has proposed. Private plans would compete with a government-sponsored program, a retooled version of today's Medicare. Seniors would get a fixed amount from the government which they could apply toward a private plan or the government plan modeled on Medicare. Benefits would not be spelled out, but all plans would have to meet a test of basic insurance value.

"We have created a competitive bid model much like Part D — the Medicare prescription benefit," said Burr. "Across the spectrum, some seniors would go for lower premiums and some for higher premiums and richer benefits."

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-senators-unveil-medicare-overhaul-plan-080330108.html

This election has to be fixed. There's no way the GOP is this stupid.

 

[RDreamer]

Because what I find reprehensible is the destruction of life? It is the same reason I am all for universal health care. Protect and care for life. I cannot even comprehend otherwise.

You have a point re: Romney, which is why I find a republican presidency with democrat-controlled congress the best scenario nearly all the time. Or a democrat in the White House with a republican congress...

Your view on abortion makes sense. I don't agree with it in the context of our country at this moment. But if we had a country with universal healthcare, free contraception for everyone, and good sex ed, then I think we'd be in a spot where likely very few abortions would even happen at all. In a situation with all of those things in place I'd find the act pretty reprehensible I suppose. Now, in the context of our country the way it is there are way too many variables to take into account to condemn the act in any way, I think.

I used to agree with the opposing parties occupying the white house and congress being a good thing. For the most part I agree with opposing view points coming together and coming up with solutions. That would be better than one party ramming things through. But, in the context of the country we have now I'm not sure it works that well. This republican party we have now is just too unwilling to budge on anything and keeps shuffling further and further right. If there were a more logical party with some internal consistency in place I'd definitely agree with this. But, sadly, there isn't.

 

[Ghost_Protocol]

The "Pro-Life" moniker is pointless. Everyone is pro-life. The difference between people who call themselves "Pro-life" and the people who call themselves "Pro-choice" is how they feel about how much control someone should have over what goes on in their own body. As harsh as it sounds, the question of abortion ends up boiling down to this, should someone have dominion over their own body or not?

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Libertarianism in young people is pretty easy to undo with a few simple arguments:

1. civil rights
2. screaming fire in a theater
3. private roads

If you're speaking with someone that can't/won't acknowledge the need for a federal government in any instance (esp. when the majority is wrong), or that there should be no limits at all to individual liberty (esp. in cases where it can harm or restricts the rights of another), or that the government has a special ability to do something for its people that no business would ever provide (roads)...and they won't acknowledge any of that, you're not talking with someone worth talking to.

Have you ever been able to "undo" a hardcore Libertarian with those arguments? I doubt it persuades them.
I think of myself as a libertarian at heart (for the most part), but there are different shades of libertarianism.
I think Reagan summed up my general position well--which is to keep government out of as many things as possible:

If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism... The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.

 

[spandexmonkey]

Again, that article is almost two years old, so the anecdotals don't really have the relevance they once did. If you are unemployed for 24+ months waiting for 'the perfect job', the negatives of that choice are far outweighing whatever ones you may incur taking a different job that pays less or isn't in your desired career path.

The original question was whether UI saps motivation, but even this old article shows it's about trying to find long term employment (not "the perfect job") versus taking the low pay, zero prospects job. The example of errol showed he was still motivated to seek work and build skills.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I used to agree with the opposing parties occupying the white house and congress being a good thing. For the most part I agree with opposing view points coming together and coming up with solutions. That would be better than one party ramming things through. But, in the context of the country we have now I'm not sure it works that well. This republican party we have now is just too unwilling to budge on anything and keeps shuffling further and further right. If there were a more logical party with some internal consistency in place I'd definitely agree with this. But, sadly, there isn't.

What's your justification for thinking this? Bipartisanship is a means, not an end. And I'm trying and failing to think of a single piece of widely beneficial legislation in the modern era that has been passed with "divided government."

 

[RustyNails]

Basis of conservatism is less government? Oh I know where that idea came from. The big bad Federal government invading the Confederate states of America!

 

[RDreamer]

What's your justification for thinking this? Bipartisanship is a means, not an end. And I'm trying and failing to think of a single piece of widely beneficial legislation in the modern era that has been passed with "divided government."

As I said, it would make more sense to me if both parties were good parties just with different ideas on how to accomplish things. This is why teamwork is better a lot of times than just one person leading everyone to their single vision. Different viewpoints can point out flaws in things that the one view may not have seen or taken into account. The whole thing falls apart though when the opposing viewpoint isn't just another way of doing things but rather "anything that isn't what you want to do." You can't get anything done like that, and that's why I disagree with the sentiment in this context. Perhaps I do disagree with it in all the modern era, actually. Maybe it is just the sentiment that I like, and maybe that sentiment will never really work in the context of politics, unfortunately.

 

[AlteredBeast]

I have two kids. If my wife was pregnant with #3, and wanted an abortion, I'd be perfectly fine with that. We'd discuss it, but it's her body. I'm not going to dictate to my wife what she should do. Nor any other woman.

I guess I am just glad that I married a woman who feels the same way I do, as I am sure you are, as well. By the same token, if my wife did get pregnant and wanted to abort it, I would in fact not be okay with it.

I think you intend that statement to be inherently objectionable, but the problem with this type of discussion is that for some people, it isn't.


Same thing here. The fact that you can't comprehend otherwise shouldn't mean anything with respect to public policy. Here's an alternative view: respect for life need not entail maximizing the number of alive things.

I agree that we should respect life and we need not "maximize the number of alive things" But, I think that a baby that is otherwise growing normally should not be aborted. Proper use of contraceptives, abstinence, and other safe sex practices should be the norm in pregnancy-prevention, but once an egg is implanted, to do things that willingly harm the fetus or induce abortion are bad.

But, obviously waters have been tread from which no opinion can be changed and we might as well move on. It would take some sort of life-altering epiphany for anyone to truly change their opinion.

 

[LosDaddie]

I have two kids. If my wife was pregnant with #3, and wanted an abortion, I'd be perfectly fine with that. We'd discuss it, but it's her body. I'm not going to dictate to my wife what she should do. Nor any other woman.

(I'm just using you as a jumping off point here, and not actually saying anything about your finances/parenting.) For instance, I think it shows greater respect for life to abort a child that you're unprepared for rather than bringing it into a life of guaranteed scarcity and hardship.

As a father of a 3yr old daughter, this where I'm at, too. I don't like abortion (i doubt anyone does), but after raising a kid for 3yrs now, I'm fully realizing how difficult it is. I wouldn't wish it on anyone who isn't ready.

But I think I might be alright with outlawing abortion if UHC was passed, sex education funding was increased, and very cheap/free contraceptives for everyone.

 

[spandexmonkey]

But I think I might be alright with outlawing abortion if UHC was passed, sex education funding was increased, and very cheap/free contraceptives for everyone.

And vast overhaul/funding for our current child services. The staff stories of missing, unaccounted for, or worse yet, currently abused children in foster care for the area I live in was painful.

 

[GaimeGuy]

As a father of a 3yr old daughter, this where I'm at, too. I don't like abortion (i doubt anyone does), but after raising a kid for 3yrs now, I'm fully realizing how difficult it is. I wouldn't wish it on anyone who isn't ready.

But I think I might be alright with outlawing abortion if UHC was passed, sex education funding was increased, and very cheap/free contraceptives for everyone.

The problem of abortion criminalization is one of privacy and enforceability, not accessibility to information (although access to information and resources helps prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place).

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Basis of conservatism is less government? Oh I know where that idea came from. The big bad Federal government invading the Confederate states of America!

Nope. That would be from the days of the revolution against our evil British overlords.

 

[Manmademan]

Basis of conservatism is less government? Oh I know where that idea came from. The big bad Federal government invading the Confederate states of America!

pretty much. "big government" is basically code phrase for "states rights", which itself is code phrasing for "let us violate civil rights in whichever way we choose without interference."

 

[GaimeGuy]

Nope. That would be from the days of the revolution against our evil British overlords.

Yeah the articles of confederation worked wonders for us.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Basis of conservatism is less government? Oh I know where that idea came from. The big bad Federal government invading the Confederate states of America!

So, this is just a variation of the slur that every Republican is a closet racist? smh

You don't think modern conservatism is more likely a reaction to the policies of Woodrow Wilson and FDR? Especially in this polarized country where there is political gain to be made for always contesting whatever the other party stands for or has enacted.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I guess I am just glad that I married a woman who feels the same way I do, as I am sure you are, as well. By the same token, if my wife did get pregnant and wanted to abort it, I would in fact not be okay with it.

I agree that we should respect life and we need not "maximize the number of alive things" But, I think that a baby that is otherwise growing normally should not be aborted. Proper use of contraceptives, abstinence, and other safe sex practices should be the norm in pregnancy-prevention, but once an egg is implanted, to do things that willingly harm the fetus or induce abortion are bad.

But, obviously waters have been tread from which no opinion can be changed and we might as well move on. It would take some sort of life-altering epiphany for anyone to truly change their opinion.

I'm not really trying to get you to change your opinion. Just to justify it, which I think is important if you think that people who don't share your views should have to live by your rules.

As a father of a 3yr old daughter, this where I'm at, too. I don't like abortion (i doubt anyone does), but after raising a kid for 3yrs now, I'm fully realizing how difficult it is. I wouldn't wish it on anyone who isn't ready.

But I think I might be alright with outlawing abortion if UHC was passed, sex education funding was increased, and very cheap/free contraceptives for everyone.

Contraception isn't infallible, even though when used correctly it comes pretty close. Nonetheless, the "punishment" is so wildly disproportionate to the mistake/accident/lapse of judgement/what have you that I don't think it would ever make sense to outlaw abortion.

You don't think modern conservatism is more likely a reaction to the policies of Woodrow Wilson and FDR? Especially in this polarized country where there is political gain to be made for always contesting whatever the other party stands for or has enacted.

What confuses me about conservatism is how one can have such violent "reactions" to policies that have been widely, deeply beneficial to virtually all of society.

 

[RustyNails]

Nope. That would be from the days of the revolution against our evil British overlords.

How so? Our beef with British was being taxed without representation. We didn't have a problem with being governed, as long as we were being represented in British parliament.

 

[Manmademan]

So, this is just a variation of the slur that every Republican is a closet racist? smh

You don't think modern conservatism is more likely a reaction to the policies of Woodrow Wilson and FDR? Especially in this polarized country where there is political gain to be made for always contesting whatever the other party stands for or has enacted.

no, I think modern conservatism is a reaction to Lyndon Johnson and the civil rights act of 1964, and the "southern strategy" that followed. If you don't think that's even partially true, you're not being honest with yourself.

edit: perhaps we should separate "fiscal" conservatives from "social" conservatives here, since the two aren't necessarily the same thing. The latter couldn't tell you the first thing about woodrow wilson or FDR.

 

[Blergmeister]

It is important to remember that it is not just the presidency up for election this year but all of Congress. A Romney presidency with the demographics of the 111th Congress is somthing that I could probably tolerate pretty well but that is not going to happen. The likely demographics of the 113th Congress with a Romney win is somthing I'm terrified of.

 

[Tamanon]

no, I think modern conservatism is a reaction to Lyndon Johnson and the civil rights act of 1964, and the "southern strategy" that followed. If you don't think that's even partially true, you're not being honest with yourself.

Modern conservatism and traditional conservatism are vastly different. Modern conservatism really has little to do with less government.

 

[AlteredBeast]

As a father of a 3yr old daughter, this where I'm at, too. I don't like abortion (i doubt anyone does), but after raising a kid for 3yrs now, I'm fully realizing how difficult it is. I wouldn't wish it on anyone who isn't ready.

But I think I might be alright with outlawing abortion if UHC was passed, sex education funding was increased, and very cheap/free contraceptives for everyone.

It really is a shame that GOP nutters are so out of it that they would block access/possibly outlaw contraceptive usage or purchase. That is some insanity if you ask me. I hope I live to see UHC, public option/single payer/etc passed in the next 10 years or so. Otherwise, America is going to fall further down the hole.