"What other ways do women have to prevent pregnancy?"

Just say "no"? ;0)

I heard an amazing fact; I think it was Wednesday,from a female attorney who was raped at one point in her life and now evidently specializes in representing rape victims. This was on a network TV interview and wasn't challenged so....

This attorney stated that in like 33 or 34 of the states the male rapist retains his full parental rights. So for ex the rape victim could potentially have to coordinate all manner of child-rearing details/ scheduling etc etc etc and you haven't seen etc until you've been around divorced or separated parents working out child rearing details........ with the perpetrator until the child reached adulthood?

If that's not mind-boggling I don't know what is. I guess those rights could be terminated by a court action but such termination is not automatic by any means and evidently the retention of those rights is the standard in those states....which obviously the attorney didn't read out the 33/or so states.

Imagine the having to coordinate visitation rights with your rapist.

This reminds me of another famous saying; I forget by whom: "If males had a uterus abortion would be a sacrament."

I think Jimmy Kimmel (late night comic) got it right. The American Presidential election will be a 2 billion dollar "Comedy Central" Roast of both Romney and Obama with all that money flying around.

I still think both sides should compromise in the near term for the Average Joe/Jane in the "here-and-now" especially since Treasury interest has been very cheap; if the American voter is comfortable privatizing SS, Medicare vouchers, blah, blah, .. vs. government healthcare, retirement pay-as-u-go, blah, blah ... then so be it.

(ed/br.)

Edited by hknewman on 08/25/2012 08:55:05 MDT.

@ jerry

"If we subsidized education like that today, we could create another boom that is hard to imagine what it would be today.

Where does the money come from? Make everyone pay their fair share."

I didn't want to qoute the entire thread but how would you feel if I kicked in your door, stole all your stuff, and passed it out to the less fortunate? Why people think that voting for someone, that will do just that, is any different, baffles me.

Gov't spending is always less efficient because of the middle man. This country has prospered in spite of the gov't, not because of it. For the people that want to toss out the constitution and move to a more socialist form, there are plenty of examples floating around to study.

Fred

Take the period after WWII - cooperation between government and private - amazing results

And people patriotically paid their taxes, maybe with a little grumbling. The wealthy paid a bigger percentage of their income.

We need to get back to that "American Exceptionalism" that we had between WWII and 1980.

Government spending is not always less efficient. Sometimes private spending is inefficient - take Enron or the big banks a few years ago or ...

@ jerry

"Government spending is not always less efficient. Sometimes private spending is inefficient - take Enron or the big banks a few years ago or ..."

The model of FED gov't redistribution is always less efficient because the collection and payout creates an additional expense. There is no way around it. Taxpayers PAY for it.

A traded company involved in accounting fraud? Yep, I feel sorry for the honest people that lost their shirts, and I wish only the worst for those responsible, but evil exist. Companies also fail for all the right reasons. Not everyone makes it, and not everyone should get a participation medal. I wish everyone was prosperous but it's just not human nature. When you invest in a company or buy their stock, it's a risk. A better analogy to federal redistribution would be for you to send me your paycheck, I'll cash it and send you 57% back with a note telling you how much good I did with your money.

This country was never designed to have the fed's decisions impacting us all as it does now. Creating false economies, propping up the ones too big to fail, and subsidizing the ones they hamstrung... it's insanity.

"Imagine the having to coordinate visitation rights with your rapist. "

Up to half of those rapists are also the father,uncle, grandfather or brother of the victim.

Requiring parental notification takes on a whole new meaning.

Fred

"Redistribution" is the focus group tested word that you guys use for "taxes"

I get it. You're using Phsycology/Propoganda/Orwellian techniques to get people to vote against their own best interests.

The cost of the collection and payout is an insignificant portion of the budget.

The federal government has always made decisions that affect us like they do now. Obviously there are more people now and there are different problems now. You just want to re-write history to support your extreme position.

Then you pick a word. I'm tired of being taxed, and seeing it pizzed off like it's not really hurting anything and our debt doesn't matter. Whatever you want to call it. I could give two cents about a focus group or what you care to call it, but pick an accurate word. And...If you can come up with an efficient government program, as stated, I'd be glad to hear about it.

We probably both want the same things, we just have different ways to get there. I don't have an agenda really, I've got questions. Why are we going down this road when it's already been tested? I continue to be amazed and confused.

"We probably both want the same things"

I think you're right

The right wingers that are in control of the Republicans and partly in control of Democrats just want to increase the wealth of themselves - super-wealthy and big corporation - redistribution of wealth

They want us to be polarized arguing about abortion or homosexuality or whatever while they pick our pockets

I think every dollar the government spends should be scrutinized - there is a lot of waste

Half the federal budget is spent on social security and medicare. We can discuss if that's too much

Quarter of the federal budget is military. We should quit making weapons we don't need, getting into indefinite wars that actually make our security worse but enrich contractors, having bases all over the world,...

The other quarter is spread across many smaller programs so it's harder to come up with meaningful cuts. It's easy just to emotionally talk about "lazy welfare mothers"...

"The right wingers that are in control of the Republicans and partly in control of Democrats just want to increase the wealth of themselves - super-wealthy and big corporation - redistribution of wealth"

Reading between the lines, it sounds like you consider wealth a bad thing. I enjoy seeing people prosper and succeed. I wish I made more myself. I don't have anything against people who have hit home runs or inherited a load. As long as they do it legally and ethically, I don’t care. It’s none of my business what they do with it. I’ve never really understood why someone who worked their tails off and succeeded owes more, than the guy that decided to take life easy.

Anyway, so we’re clear: My beef is with the size, power, and inefficiency of the federal government. Social experiments with taxpayer money, as each state sees fit is fine by me. Just don’t expect a conservative, fiscally responsible state to bail out a failure and let the voters vote with their feet, if need be.

Most people don't under stand the *magnitude* of wealth.

If you lived 100 years, and "earned" $0.10 every SECOND ($6/min, $360/hr) of your 100 year life, you would not be in the club of people with the wealth needed to influence States.

If you lived a thousand years, you still would not have the wealth of this club, but if you saved for generations, you could get there eventually.

Edited by redmonk on 08/27/2012 12:51:29 MDT.

Fred

Nothing's wrong with being wealthy - you are incorrectly reading between the lines

But when people buy off the government to change rules to make a few super wealthy and the vast majority poorer, that's wrong

For example, why do Romney, Obama, and Buffet pay 15% tax rate? Average person pays 30%, but it's more like 40% when you include the employer portion of social security.

Why do oil companies get special subsidies and tax breaks so they pay zero federal tax? Actually get money back.

Why did they abolish Glass Stegal so big banks could make big bucks? Which eventually brought down the economy.

etc.

When I was working I always saved 10% or 20% of my income so it bugs me when the government pays out too much to people that squandered their income. I can see why people make bad decisions with all the sophisticated marketing we're barraged with

Every government program should be scrutinized to make sure it's efficient and effective

But, the reality is that politics is inevitable - there will be ineffective programs that are more because a politician is getting something for his district

"And...If you can come up with an efficient government program, as stated, I'd be glad to hear about it."

Well, I think you only have to look at the vast majority of western countries that have universal health care to see that this is, at the very least, one area of government intervention where it can actually save the country as a whole a LOT of money, compared to the US.

Thanks for helping my point. If the Fed would have been limited to the size of its intended use, any influence on it, wouldn't provide much benefit. As it is, the effects typically hit us all and hit often.

Edited by BFThorp on 08/27/2012 16:02:26 MDT.

"For the people that want to toss out the constitution and move to a more socialist form, there are plenty of examples floating around to study."

+1 Maybe we could start with countries like Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark? They seem to be at least as free as we are and still manage to take pretty good care of their people. Some might even say they take better care of their people overall. What do you think, Fred?

"Up to half of those rapists are also the father,uncle, grandfather or brother of the victim."

For whom the Republicans don't want to make an exception to their proposed prohibition of abortion. Gotta luv them "Family Values".

"I'm tired of being taxed, and seeing it pizzed off like it's not really hurting anything and our debt doesn't matter."

Including the defense budget? Do $500 toilet seats pizz you off? $2,000,000,000 aircraft carriers when we've already got more of them than all other nations combined? Or a total "defense" budget bigger than the next 10 nations combined. I'm just curious about which areas of government spending pizz you off. Is it all government spending, or just entitlements and other programs that benefit the less fortunate?

Oh, I almost forgot our $3,000,000,000 in aid to Israel, an advanced, prosperous nation if ever there was one. Does that pizz you off?

Edited by ouzel on 08/27/2012 17:30:43 MDT.

A huge +1 Tom on all three of your posts. Well said

Tom -

Do you see any potential pitfalls in attempting to deploy programs that seem to work in countries of 5-10 million people to a country of 330+ million? How realistic is it really for us to emulate Sweden?

The Nordic countries have strict policies that would never fly with the Left here.

Plus, everyone knows that the money raised from $500 toilet seats is diverted to fund secret alien indoctrination centers.

Edited by davidlutz on 08/27/2012 17:48:09 MDT.