Beck Mocks Those Who Depend On Planned Parenthood, Asking: "Hookers? Who Depends On Planned Parenthood?"
April 11, 2011 10:52 am ET
From the April 11 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Previously:
Huckabee Falsely Claims Planned Parenthood Is "Primarily An Abortion Provider"
Chris Wallace Acknowledges That Planned Parenthood Provides Cancer Screenings
O'Reilly: Planned Parenthood Is "Non-Vital," "Nobody's Life Is Affected" By It
Breitbart Is Wrong: Texas Planned Parenthood Clinics DO Offer Mammograms
I wonder how long it will be before you have to try to load a MediaMatters page about a hundred times to get there but FauxNews loads in an instant? It already seems to take much longer to upload a post.
Keep in mind that unlike the Billionaires at fox who can support failing shows (thats how microsoft did Xbox after all), and those shows will advance their interests. We have to work on actual fundraising, and actually following the law in these regards.
When you're cheering on the rich as they become richer, you find it surpisngly easy to have backers. When you point out how awful they are..well, obvious.
This is why, of course, citizens united was a horrific republican decision. Their partyline supreme court has been cheating the US since it elected the man who lost the 2000 election to the presidency.
We dont have anywhere near the amount of (now invisible) funding, and yet even with only a fraction of the resources (literally,) we are STILL almost always ahead of htem in favorability. They pump billions and billions into that godawful Fox News, and use it to whine about unions and not-for-profits:
Since they work for a corporate overlord, this comes as no surprise.
A final thought on "The Liberal Media" invention: Why dont the rightwingers recind their attacks on MSNBC?
Hmmmm, you may be on to something! I'm surprised someone hasn't brought this possibility up before!
Letting him finish out most of the remainder of his contract lets them pretend that dumping him had nothing to do with any of that.
My thinking is that they'll keep him on for a couple more months until all the frenzy dies down, and then he'll take longer and longer "vacations" until he just disappears off the air.
I do. I think about the issue a lot; when they say things like gay marraige rights would magically attack straight people, when they dont undersatnd you dont NEED a church to get married (They thik you do> I am not kidding, not using hyperbole, they will argue with you that you need a church. At length.)
I just imagine what awful horrible personal lives these people have...I doubt love and caring is much of it. Republicans like instant gratification, not the building happyness that comes from companionship.
Except on his radio show he does 20+ minute gold reseller ads
If the taxpayers are forced to fund PP, then by all means whoever disburses the dollars should be responsible to oversee the entire PP organization.
Don't want any oil wells in the Gulf blowing up so install more strict regulations.
Don't want PP to use tax dollars for abortions?
On site regulators will have to be installed.
I'm proud to say BecKKK is our nation's most prestigious Mocker Focker
If your house is on fire and a rapist tells you this, does that make the statement and less true?
If men arent allowed to attack women's freedom, then men cannot be truly free.
Screw the women - pun intended.
Simpleton.
When you come back down to earth, I'll pour us both a drink from my fifth.
Well, maybe Glenn...
But heck, you'd probably have to fire them.
Glenn, somewhere along the line, one of your friends wives or your relatives will admit to using PP...and you would call them _______.
Of course, you guys who whine loudest about the few pennies going to Planned Parenthood would whine even louder when those women have unwanted pregnancies and give birth to unwanted children who grow up to be unwanted criminals.
It's much more expensive to house criminals than to prevent pregnancies, don't you think?
Actually, maybe that is part of the plan. With the privatizing of prisons, it's become a huge, profitable industry in this country. Maybe some really do want to make more criminals to keep the demand for prisons high. Expensive, yes – but that's a plus if you're a corporation setting the price.
Sounds exciting.
/i]
That's right highliter, you tell Governor Mark Sanford how to be responsible. Right on, brother!
It shows how little you understand about the organization, and how it operates!
She actually wants to be on her own. She has insurance and pays a co-pay just like she would if she went to regular doctor. However, between the two jobs and school it is a bit easier to use PP than to take time off for a regular doctor's visit.
You are such a male chauvinist that you think I'm a man - what a bozo!
A woman gets pregnant, well, its her fault for not closing her legs. Men are not the one who have to suffer the decision to get an abortion or the procedure itself.
Cannot women use these same clinics? Why then do they need PP.
Nothing except you throw a fit if you think men get something women dont. No all male schools, clubs ect. But its fine to have all female institutions.
But either way, you act as if women have always been treated like men and sexism is dead. With this attitude i wouldn't be surprised if you also had a problem with the existancce of minority scholarships or the Negro leagues.
Nothing except you throw a fit if you think men get something women dont. No all male schools, clubs ect. But its fine to have all female institutions.
Or perhaps you would prefer a veterinarian? I'm beginning to think you are a jackass.
It's also not strictly women that benefit from the services that PP offers. Access to birth control is a service that benefits both the man and the woman in a sexual relationship.
Because of you.
4 years ago my eldest daughter, now 28, was only 2 months into her new job. She'd been having cramps & some bleeding for about 3 months, but her insurance had yet to kick in. She'd already used most of her savings paying for living expenses in between jobs, awaiting her new job to begin. Bottom line is that private gynecologists wanted $2500 for a full gyn exam & she didn't have that kind of cash. I told her to call her local PP, that it's sliding scale. (That PP is one of the over 60% of PP clinics that DONT DO Abortions-which are less than 3% of PP's total cost, NOT "one every 65 seconds"-or whatever ridiculous claim beck threw out. They are also audited at LEAST twice a year, some clinics even more, to assure that NO FEDERAL MONEY goes towards abortions).
The bottom line is that my daughter had her full exam at PP, ended up having to have a cervical scrape because the test came back abnormal. My daughter was diagnosed by the physician at Planned Parenthood with cervical CANCER. That SAME doctor also had a private practice & thankfully treated my doctor for about 1/4 of what she would have had to pay had the circumstances been different and that VITAL SERVICE at Planned Parenthood NOT been available. We owe her LIFE to Planned Parenthood, and I'm sure she's but one of MILLIONS!!
and NO, IN THAT City, the Capital of one of our Southern States, that service is NOT offered AT ANY OTHER free or sliding scale clinics!!!!!
If I thought you had one, I'd think you were a man.
Planned Parenthood, dipschidt.
As I said before you and your buddies know nothing about this program. What I was pointing out is that people pay who can pay. She can't afford - monetarily - to take the time off from work and possibly also lose her job. Employers are often very strict when it comes to part time employees. After all if someone is "part time" then they should have plenty of time for to do their personal business on their free time and it shouldn't interfere with the work.
You are such a Bozo and have absolutely no understanding of the struggles that other people go through on a day to day basis.
By the way, since you seem to be able to pay for your medical bills why don't go to a shrink who might give you some insight as to why you are such a cold bozo. It must have something to do with your sex drive . . . . or the lack there of.
Like most conservatards the subject of sex drives him to distraction. Mostly because he cant even dream of having any that doesnt involve cash or credit
Like most conservatards the subject of sex drives him to distraction. Mostly because he cant even dream of having any that doesnt involve cash or credit
And no one pays for sex more than Republicans.
Condoms reliability are only 97.7 percent of the time Glenn and then there’s all the violent rapes plus preteen sex, which are impregnating thousands of women.
Glenn, "here's your sign"
Where'd you copy and paste that from?
In a perfect world this would be an ideal solution toward reducing unwanted pregnancies, but since when has the world been perfect? Besides, if PP making BC readily available reduces the volume of unwanted pregnancies and/or abortions, I'd think the right would be all for it.
Why do I have to chip in for somebody's birth control? Do we really need federal funding for everything?
Are higher State Taxes magically less painful?
It's a shame the Democrats are the same thing.
Wow, so there is a statistic that shows that 47% (not 48%) of households make so little that they don't owe any federal income tax. So what?
Everyone who earns any income, up to $500k a year pays around 43% of their total income in taxes. That would be FICA, Medicaid, State, Local, Gas, Food, etc.
In 2005, the population of the U.S. was @288 million (Source)
That year, @186 million Americans files income tax returns. Of these, @130 million paid some level of income taxes. Thats roughly 45% of the total population. Around 56 million of those who filed didn't pay any income tax. (Source)
So, while it may be somewhat accurate to say that only half of all Americans are paying federal income taxes, you have to include children and teenagers (25% of the population) and senior citizens (12% of the population). Another 9% is between the ages of 18 and 24. If we assume half of these are full time students, there's another 4.5%. There's 41.5% right there. Doggone freeloadin' brats and geezers.
And as others have pointed out, there's payroll taxes, sales taxes, etc. etc.
I'm calling b.s. on this "only half pay taxes" talking point.
"Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability."
=
"you have to include children and teenagers (25% of the population) and senior citizens (12% of the population). Another 9% is between the ages of 18 and 24. If we assume half of these are full time students, there's another 4.5%. There's 41.5% right there."
I call the article misleading because it implies that 47% of all Americans who should or could be paying federal income taxes are not doing so, when the percentage is far lower than that.
Let me illustrate why:
We'll assume there are 300 million people in the US, and half of them pay federal income tax. That's 150 million. However, about 25% of the population is under age 18, so we need to remove them from the equation. The population is now down to 225 million, and the percentage of income tax payers goes from 50% to 67%. If we now remove those over age 65 (@12%), we're down to around 190 million and our percentage of taxpayers goes up to 79%. That leaves only 21% who are not paying income taxes. Make sense?
I stand by my original point. Unless you think infants and 90 year old nursing home residents should be paying income tax, the 47% figure is B.S.
I was just showing a source for the number commonly quoted by trolls.
The reporter who wrote this article either has an agenda (i.e. shift more of the tax burden to those least able to pay), or he's just really lazy. Shame on CBS for publishing this.
Yes, only the top say 55% of citizens pay any federal income tax.
What they are always loath to point out is that the top 10% of the wealthiest Americans control about 80% of the nation's wealth. Add the other 35%, and the richest control well over 90%.
You can't pay it if you don't make it!
But don't expect that from the teabaggers. All they see is half of America (the faux conservative half, naturally) busting their tails, while the other half (the liberal half) just kickin' back, doing nothing productive and enjoying life in Fat City on their dime. Sheesh.
And before you start in on the 'they are not babies,' 'not people,' 'not given rights as per the constitution,' 'not human' or whatever your favorite justification is I'll remind you that they became human (and IMO are always as such) the instant you projected a human life of poverty and crime on them. Apparently the few who would have made it out of the cycle are "acceptable casualties."
Wouldn't you?
Is that how Obama is selling his war to you?
I completely understand.
Don't want to justify Obama's war of choice? Call the OP a rube and project meme's about Wall Street on them. That'll show em who's boss.
Don't want to justify the largest budget in history at the tune of 3.7 trillion? Dismiss the OP by claiming they don't understand a thing. That'll show em.
I'd even be happy with a justification that these things do not have any relevance to the current thread. Nope... just ad hominem.
Then he said gee whiz we've won!!!
So here we are years later, trillion dollars in debt, and all of a sudden Obama is at fault?
You've got more wrong going on in that head of yours than just poor reading comprehension.
While not agreeing with what Obama has done in Afghnaistan you recall wrong about Obama saying he would bring all the troops home. Never new that was a Hillary position.
While not agreeing with what Obama has done in Afghnaistan you recall wrong about Obama saying he would bring all the troops home. Never new that was a Hillary position.
Candidate Obama promised to have troops out of Iraq within 16 months of taking office, which would have been May 2010. He then revised the estimate to August, then reassigned ~40k troops so that they were no longer 'combat' in prep for them leaving by the agreed upon date of Dec 31, 2011 as Bush had already struck a deal for...
That entire exchange belongs in some sort of Internet hall of fame.
Then, in some distant, future society, a modern-day Carl Sagan will display that exchange, and then will ensue a discussion of how humanity survived the Information Age, which he will argue was quite the misnomer.
I ask you again, Mag. How much of your personal taxes went to funding Planned Parenthood last year? A dollar? Maybe less?
You spent a fraction of a penny for every service that they performed last year.
That is a form of spending that I will gladly put my money into, all day.
my appologies for the typo.
Using your logic, how about you and all your friends and family each chip in 50 cents so I can go buy a super nice dinner for me and my wife. I need to eat in order to live. Therefore, you and your friends and family and everybody else should chip in to pay for my food. Providing nutritious food for people is much more necessary than providing some teenagers condoms, right?
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-planned-parenthood-20110410,0,1960373.story
And it is constitutional falling under the general welfare clause.
[url=http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/local-press-releases/new-study-shows-publicly-funded-family-planning-programs-prevent-abortions-save-taxpayer-money-25303.htm][/url]
Link
So yea lets tackle and blame the defenseless poor instead looking for the reasl cuase of this crisis.
You might have a point if we could cross state lines to purchase health insurance.
3. REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR - POLICIES ACROSS STATE LINES: "Interstate competition allowing people to buy insurance across state lines." [Sen. John Thune (R-SD), 9/8/2009]
HOUSE BILL - POLICIES ACROSS STATE LINES: Allows for the creation of State Health Insurance Compacts - permits states to enter into agreements to allow for the sale of insurance across state lines.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/10/29/top-10-reasons-why-republicans-should-support-the-house-health-bill/
This comes from the same dumbf()ucks touting states rights.
It wobbles the mind.
Let me know if you think of one.
What are the long term benefits to making birth control more widely available and affordable?
Less abortion.
Less children born out of wedlock.
Two benefits that even the most far-right zealot can appreciate.
Again I ask, do you want men to go bald and feel insecure about themselves? People say I hate women because I don't want to pay for their birth control so you must hate bald men for not being game to paying for their hair restoration.
It is not at all comparable to basic preventive health care for women's bodies. We're talking about annual checkups for parts that you don't have. Things can go wrong with these parts on a regular basis, for any woman of any background, and need medical care. Cancer is not balding. I am fine with helping pay for your prostate cancer screenings, even though I have no prostate. I am also fine with helping pay for birth control, as pregnancy and childbirth are in fact still very real health risks to women, especially women and girls whose bodies are not prepared for it. Prevention of pregnancy in teens is the prevention of potentially life-threatening health risks. Not so for helping bald guys, sorry.
Likewise if anybody wants birth control they can pay for it themselves. Not everything has to be provided by the federal government.
No you're not. You have to understand logic before you can use it.
The same goes for humor, and satire.
And who is the government to say I can afford the food that I want? I'll bet most of the women that go to PP can afford condoms and/or other birth control. Is there a federal limit of income for that or is it set by PP itself?
And providing birth control is most of what PP does.
Why do you want to turn into Africa?
A question, Mag, what kind of country do you want? The reason I ask is that you and the rest of the numbnuts libertarians I run into seem to believe that without a central government, all would be sweetness and light with everyone happily going along his/her independent way. Doesn't work like that. If you want to see what happens, just do a bit of reading on Somalia. The people there live in fear of their lives everyday. There is no one to call if someone steals their property or rapes their children or kills their husband. What little government they have is so weak that it's like having none at all.
So, is that what you want, Mag?
My "logic" dictates that reducing abortion and single motherhood pays far more benefits to society than a reducing baldness.
Maybe if Republicans weren't so puritanical and ashamed of sex, prostitution would be legal, and bald men could freely and shamelessly visit those prostitutes without worrying about committing a crime.
Look at that! We agree on something.
Great, now there's a fissure opening up beneath me.
Oh, and if thats a problem, and so you think providing funding for bald men would stop them visiting prostitutes, while also agreeing that PP should get funding, because men with hair will still visit prositutes who in turn need to g to PP for help,
I'd propose a simpler, more cost affective way,
Legalise prostitution, regualte it, meaning those prstitutes can be looked after more efectively, while also stifling the need for the demonisation of men who visit those prostitutes as it would be just as legal as say cigarettes, alchol.
That'd be a more cost effective way to help bald men who visit said prostitutes, not your crazy socialist, spend all my money thinking
I mean, I *KNOW* Republicans today are a rather confused, disillusioned, misinformed group; but Mags, REALLY??!!
Each year, every citizen gets a checklist of all the government programs, from local to federal, that our tax dollars fund.
You check off all the programs you want your tax dollars to fund, and at the end of the year, you get a statement showing which of your specific tax dollars went to which program you opted to fund.
If you don't fill out and send in your form, then you don't get to complain about how the government spends your tax dollars.
Of course, this means the creation of a new department or the gross expansion of an already existing one, which will increase government spending, but at least you won't have to worry about a few pennies of your yearly tax payment going to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Of course, if you opt out of funding the new a la carte department, you don't get to choose where your tax dollars go.
Sound fair?
I thought a woman was to be subservient to her husband?
Some choice.
See, this is what liberals do. We start talking about one thing and they bring up multiple other topics in some attempt to paint the conservative as hypocritical.
Having sex is a choice. We shouldn't be federally funding a choice.
I often wonder what they imagine the utopian endgame of of their policies to be. A filthy rich minority sealed off in their gated communities from a nearly government-less nation of widespread poverty and wage slaves? It's hard to envision it any other way.
I'd welcome the chance to be rich myself, but I wouldn't want to be rich in a nation full of poor people.
-Right-winger putting his pretzel logic through a workout
I think everyone would be in agreement that abortion, at the very least, needs to be more rare, not more frequent. If making birth control more widely available and affordable plays a direct role in reducing abortion rates, why would anyone oppose it? Maybe because they want more children on SCHIP? Or they want more children born to single mothers?
The abortion issue is just an easily conflated issue that stirs the emotions and is more likely to get people involved than just saying, "F**k the poor."
Those people choose to live in those areas, so if their towns are decimated by a natural disaster, f**k 'em.
That's kind of the same attitude, right?
Somehow I bet you'd pitch in to buy chastity belts to stop them poor people from having sex.
Liberals are too afraid of responsibility when it comes to dumb choices. If you make an obviously dumb choice then screw you. Don't come whining to me about it.
So have sex all you want. I don't care. Just don't think you should get public assistance because of a bad choice you made.
Such as the freedom to have more pregnant 16 year olds?
Why do we have to chip in to sustain oil depletion allowances, tobacco farming, and corn ethanol subsidies? Anyway, if you do not want to look at this issue from the perspective of, "There but for fortune go my daughter, my sister, etc.", then look at from the standpoint of cold economics.
Those costs have no doubt increased.
Link to report.
Whether or not you want to pay for contraception for others, it is in your economic best interests to do so. You probably are hurt less financially by the mere pittance of your tax dollars going to prevent unwanted pregnancies and early diagnosis of health issues in women, than if those opportunities did not exist. You would be paying more for prisons and increased costs related to treating the uninsured.
Again I ask. Condoms aren't expensive. If you want condoms, go buy some. If you can't afford condoms then you can't buy them. Tough luck.
Or perhaps you should just save for a box of condoms before having to rely on a federally funded organization so you can have sex.
Right? If providing birth control takes up about 35% of what PP does, can't these people just buy it themselves and/or save up for it themselves? We're talking about condoms for crying out loud.
Right? Think about it. PP isn't in it to make a profit. If you cut off federal funding, it shouldn't have any problem competing against for-profit clinics to remain providing the essential services it provides.
Your idea that sex should be solely for those that can afford it is ridiculous. I wish that people thought more carefully about the choices that they make, but they just often don't. You act as though the poor and young are the only ones making bad choices. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. You aren't' being particularly realistic or logical in your outlook. But I am not surprised.
(Of course, if you're one of the retarded few who thinks all abortions are performed the day before the child was going to come out, and that the main goal of PP is to be there with an industrial vacuum and a sledgehammer, there's probably no talking to you.)
(Oh, and before anyone gaffs me for using the word "retarded", I don't consider people with developmental issues retarded...I consider stupid people who won't learn despite having the facts presented to them to be so.)
Now, stand up and say the pledge.
It seems to me that you are showing a bit of a double standard, huh? It's only POOR people that you object to having sex.
nah
never mind.
You'd be in favor of this, right?
BTW, you're okay with paying for the irresponsible sexual activities of our troops. What if some of those folks are poor, too?
Thanks for your usual display of ignorance.
I'll help you out, Mag. Even though you're "ignoring" me, I know you still read what we type.
People argue that our troops are underpaid, and many of the lower-ranking enlisted people with families have to rely on food stamps and such to make ends meet.
This makes them poor. Since we don't have a draft, they choose to join the military, knowing they would be poor. Why are they getting food stamps, free medical care, and reproductive assistance from the government? They're poor! It was a choice!
This should help you frame your argument when you decide to go after the lower-ranking enlisted troops who rely on entitlement programs, since I know you don't discriminate.
Also, I'd say that it probably is a problem to the 6300 families who need those food stamps.
I wonder how that rate compares to the United States population as a whole.
--highliter's ashamed intern
"Military members and their families are using more food stamps than in previous years – redeeming them last year at nearly twice the civilian rate, according to Defense Commissary Agency figures.
The agency reports that more than $31 million worth of food stamps were used at commissaries nationwide in 2008 – an increase of about $6.2 million, or more than 25 percent – from the $24.8 million redeemed in 2007. That contrasts with a 13 percent overall increase in food stamp use by Americans for the same period, according to the Department of Agriculture, which administers the food stamp program.
The spike reverses a 5 percent decrease in food stamp redemptions by military families from 2006 to 2007."
http://www.military.com/news/article/more-troops-are-relying-on-food-stamps.html
31 million in food stamps used by our military personel in 2009. So please source your info.
As for promotions, those are dictated not only by working hard, but by time restraints. You don't just jump in and test for a Tech Sgt. promotion when you're an A1C. It can take years.
--highliter's intern, who really wishes he could find another job
And you know the stories of all the people who receive help, and all the sacrifices they've made?
I'm going to say no. I'm going to say that you have determined that poor people have made no sacrifices and therefore deserve nothing. I'm also assuming you're one of those people that automatically revere the troops for the simple fact they've enlisted, regardless of what they've done.
I knew a girl when I was serving who had an abortion after being raped by a man who lived on the same floor as her. We were all military, and we were all law enforcement officers.
When you can reconcile that, come back and let's have a grown up talk about individual circumstances.
Thanks for jumping into Mag's stupidity. I thought you had more sense than that.
Not even comparable.
All I'm doing is using the same broad definition of General Welfare that liberals use. I can make just about anything Constitutional using their definition.
Educate yourself, Mag. You look foolish.
The Patriot Act is just our tiny federal government trying to make sure we're all safe...but funding planned parenthood is the government over stepping it's boundaries.
Hypocrisy has become a foundation of the neoconservative worldview.
--MagCynic's intern
Didn't you hear Beck joking about not wearing a raincoat or whatever? That isn't a joke, you know, too many men refuse to take responsibility to buy condoms or outright refuse to wear them.
Gee, Economic Darwinism is easy, huh?
All of those things come directly from choices people make. Again I ask, why should we fund something that doesn't have to occur unless somebody chooses for it to occur?
That is not spending for the general welfare. That is spending for the welfare of a specific group of people.
And the point of running an efficient government is to not spend on unnecessary things. Providing a third of Planned Parenthood's funding isn't necessary. It's true, there are many, many other programs that need cut, but this is one of them.
Is it save to say that 99.9% of people in this country won't ever get raped? I think so.
What is sexual assault?
Please allow me to explain. Annually means per year. A year is a unit of time that describes how long it takes the planet to complete an entire revolution around this solar system's star, which we refer to as "the sun". This "year" is made up of 365 individual "days," which are periods that denote the amount of time it take the planet to complete one revolution around its own axis.
In one of these "years," 89,000 rapes are reported, and it is generally estimated that most sexual assaults are not reported (I've heard anywhere between 1 in 10 and 1 in 5 is actually reported.).
Here's the part that may be tripping you up: most women live more than a year, so it's not such a stretch to say that 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted at some point in their lives. Your estimate of .01%, on the other hand, is one of the most asinine things posted to this or any other website.
Hope this helps, though I doubt it.
I guess it's no big deal after all. In fact, we should even stop wasting money investigating and prosecuting those cases, since they constitute such a small percentage of the population.
You're a dick. Seriously.
Thanks, Mags.
Does it sound harsh? Yes. But it certainly isn't working judging from the rising costs in all these entitlement programs. And we're not even counting the fact that I've heard reports that there are many people who qualify for these programs that don't even use them.
When did Congress go from the protector of rights to the protector from hardships and failure?
Whereas with you, you've still got that neon glow-in-the-dark rubber you got from the Shell that you haven't used for three years (waiting for that 'special' time, we know) and you paid more for THAT FREAKING RUBBER THAT YOU WILL NEVER USE THAN YOU DID LAST YEAR TO FUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD WITH YOUR TAX DOLLARS!
We get it. You don't like women having options that make choosing to bed YOU lower on the list.
But it's ok, kid.
We all get turned down.
Get over it.
Go out and drink a beer , one that will cost you ONLY THREE TIMES AS MUCH AS YOU GAVE THROUGH TAXES TO FUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD!
Or do they not let you drink near Liberty University?
Why does the blame always lie with the female for you?
Do they HAVE to sleep with that super hot guy at the party? No. Which means they shouldn't come crying to the tax payer when things inevitably go wrong and they can't afford squat.
That doesn't absolve guys of guilt, but the final decision is still the women thinking, "Do I have sex with this totally, super cool guy that totally cares about me or do I take responsibility and not risk pregnancy or disease?"
You uptight sanctimonious self-righteous Beckhead. You know most unwanted pregnancies are a result of this scenario? Do tell. You do know that abortions are only 3% of what PP does? Wow and the ultimate responsibility rests with the women? Then why doesn't she have a right to access PP?
When you fantasize about real life situations, why do they all sound like Saved by the Bell after school special episodes?
How old are you?
So you don't want women to have abortions, but you don't want women to have afforable access to birth control so they don't get pregnant either?
Abstenance is a regressive concept and, to a larger extent, a naive one. It might look simple on paper, but it doesn't work well in theory.
Also, you pay taxes for a lot of services that you, in particular, may not use. That is the nature of the system. I really just don't understand what libertarians want. We pay to send soliders to kill people in foreign countries, but the thought of contributing to less than 1% of one girl getting birth control so she isn't a teenage mother really gets to you?
If you want birth control, go buy birth control. If you can't afford birth control then you can't buy birth control. It's really that simply.
And if you can't afford condoms then maybe - just maybe - you shouldn't be worrying about having sex with somebody.
You've got issues.
Moreover, I bet if you ever bothered to ask, I bet a large number of the women that you socialize with have had an abortion. Would you think less of them if they did? Would you think even less of them if they utilized Planned Parenthood? You seem happy to castigate others - saying that they just shouldn't have sex if they can't afford to have kids. It would be nice, but it just isn't realistic, Mags. And you know it.
About the personal choice vs collective responsibility debate: STD screenings are not only beneficial to the person receiving them (and by no stretch of the imagination can be construed as "rewards"), they protect society at large. You see, if you can educate and protect individuals who are at risk, you are also protecting their future partners and are helping curtail potential epidemics. That's why it's in everybody's interest to help those who would otherwise go undiagnosed and untreated. Using your brilliant logic, why could also claim that MMR vaccines should be a personal choice and that nobody should have to pay for someone else's shots. Let's see how much fun you'll have when a Rubella pandemic breaks out.
According the 2009 Planned Parenthood fact sheet, the number of services by category are as follows:
•35% STD testing/treatment
•35% contraception
•16% cancer screening/prevention
•10% other women's health services
•3% abortion services
•1% other
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_Planned_Parenthood_do_besides_abortions#ixzz1JEmSaz00
Why should MY tax money go to funding illegal wars and all kinds of other things that I don't use or support? It isn't an ala carte menu when it comes to where our tax dollars get spent. I always wonder why this is the ONE issue that gets treated to this special consideration.
Where does this "entitlement" mentality end? If we fund birth control why not fund other unnecessary items? Why not fund laser eye surgery? Why not fund that hair transplant surgery? Why not fund breast enhancement?
the rest? some kind of 'police action'.
My point is that if somebody wants birth control then they can go buy birth control with their own money. If they can't afford it then they can't buy it. If they want an STD test then they can pay for an STD test. If they can't afford one then they can save up for one or they simply can't have one.
And that's his choice.
I'd like to have the choice to vote out intellectual misfires like him from our society.
The treatment for endometriosis--to both control the symptoms and prevent the growths from spreading--is hormone therapy, AKA birth control.
Once I graduated from college, I could no longer remain on my parent's health insurance and had to get my own individual plan. My plan did not cover my BC, regardless of the fact that it was prescribed for medical purposes.
I was fresh out of college, did not know for sure what I was planning to do (I'm a teacher now) and trying to make ends meet on a very low income.
PP was there to help me get the medication I needed to treat my condition for a reasonable price.
Guess what Superchief? We don't get a vote on HOW our tax money is spent. If we did, we wouldn't get anything done. My tax money go towards LOTS of things I don't like, but guess what? It happens.
This whole notion of your tax money only going to things you want, and or like is stupid, ridiculous, and dangerous.
Why should our tax money go towards providing men with Viagra and other items? It does. Are you as equally outraged about that? If so; then good for you for being somewhat consistent.
This funding only applies to Planned Parenthood and those that choose to use them. It is not general spending; it is very specific spending.
Surely you see this?
Is that something Congress can do? In fact, let's just cut out the middle man, would you pay for my new tv for me?
In this country you pay for what you need and save for what you want. That principle is lost on the vast majority of liberals when it comes to federal spending.
I want some new gym equipment in my garage. Exercising will help me become more fit, healthier, and less of a burden on the overall health system. Shouldn't there be a federal program to provide exercise equipment to anyone who wants it? Wouldn't having this program make people healthier and lower the costs of our health care overall?
If STD's go untreated well that six degrees of separation just might catch up with you or perhaps a close relative or friend. Therefore it is in the best interest for the well being of ourselves and our society to control the spread of STD's.
That was a message that was addressed in my school health class some 35 - 40 years ago.
Since it was an issue in the good old days, I think it is best to say it is a problem now. If PP is helping control the situation well, I think it is vital that government keeps funding the organization.
Your really are a cold, shallow individual who lives in some sort of LA LA land.
Is that so wrong? Pay for your own damn things.
Is that so wrong? Pay for your own damn things.
Are you really that simple to make such an flawed comparison?
Ayn Rand loved a sociopath....she was inlove with his lack of emotions.
You live in a society that uses sex to sell everything under the sun. Every time you see an ad for something they show all the beautiful fun people who don't have a care in the world. Billions and Billions of dollars are spent using sex to sell you stuff.
And yet, you don't want some small token portion of your taxes going to educate and protect those less fortunate from disease and unplanned pregnancies.
Maggie, you aren't pathetic, there isn't even a word for you. (well, maybe sociopathic)
Why don't you pull John Galt and go live in your mountain retreat.
Violence is for people who don't generally know how to communicate. It is no accident that America has more violence and more incarcerated people per capita than any other western civilization. Guns are not what gives us freedom, laws do. Violence does not solve issues.
Let me know when you think of one.
We can agree the choice of abortion is a terrible choice. (folks this is not an argument on abortion, so please play along.)
Federally funded Condoms reduce unwanted pregnancies. therefore, Federally Funded condoms reduce abortions. I think most would agree that condoms are a better CHOICE than Abortion.
Having unprotected sex spreads A.I.D.S
Condoms are protected sex, and therefore reduce the spread of A.I.D.S.
Poor A.I.D.S. patients cost THOUSANDS in Medicare costs to taxpayers every year.
Reducing the spread of A.I.D.S. reduces Medicare costs.
Federally funded condoms reduce the rate of abortions and lower medicare costs for terminally ill patients.
Lowered abortion rates, and Medicare cost reductions provide for the "General Welfare", don't they?
Or to put it even more BLUNTLY, condoms will reduce the rate of syphilis among poor people.
If you had your way, poor people would not be provided condoms or health care.
unless they choose to do things the way you say they should, many will contract syphilis, and will not be able to afford treatment for it.
We then will have a bunch of crazy syphilis sufferers running around the poorest of neighborhoods. That is, until they die of course.
Since they have no money they can't CHOOSE to be buried, so we will just let the bodies pile up in a vacant lot. I mean, why should your money be used to bury poor people who CHOSE to go crazy from syphilis? Then along comes wonderful things like cholera, and god knows what else. Nope, no reduction of the "General Welfare" there either.
You just don't know what PP does, Mag. Just because you don't know doesn't mean you should take it away--why don't you educate yourself about it instead, independently from Beck et al.
If you want a test to see if you caught an STD from one of those random people you slept with, YOU go pay for it. If you can't afford it then tough luck. Don't ask me to pay for it.
You'll get a lot more respect for your position then, I'd assume. I'll also assume that it might not change your mind, but it'd probably make you less of a dick about it.
You act like having sex is something reserved for only some members of society while it's as natural as sneezing.
I read a lot of your other comments, so you don't need to re-hash the "Yeah, but I don't want to pay for their birth control" argument. You need to recognize that some of the things our taxes go towards, while they may not directly affect us, they can in indirect ways.
I'm sure public donations would come pouring in since it is in fact such a great organization, right?
The reality of your arguments is this: The poor are lazy, unemployed, sex addicted sucker fish. If the poor make bad "choices", too bad.
Don't know who you are but is anyone in your family on Mediare? Would you say Mediare is an entitlement? I hope everyone in your family is healthy right now. BUT, If a senior who is related to you needs the help I think you should step in and refuse the assistance. If your so concerned about a 5 cent condom so why should I have to pay to keep your grandmother alive?
Planned Parenthood has provided necessary medical services and support for millions of women and men and has received funding from the govertnment since the 70's. It also receives funding from local and state health agencies. Why? Because it is a good investment.
Averting unwanted pregnancy has saved our country a great deal of money. Their efforts in reducing STD's in unparallelled. Services are free to those under certain income brackets. However, they do charge for their services, so they have an income pool as well.
There are numerous things that I wish the government did not spend so much money on, but I don't get to choose what they are. The government spending $900 billion on our military is much more offensive to me than $400 million on health services.
I get to vote for my President, my Rep and my Senators (and all the locals). So do you. Vote for the folks who think like you do (If you can find any).
p.s. I am sorry that you are suffering from male pattern baldness. Shave it down and grow a gootee. It is hip nowadays.
The mock crying about abortion made my hands start to shake with rage. Men talking like they have any conceivable idea what abortion is like for a woman. Men can have casual/unprotected/whatever sex and trip away without any responsibility while all women who get pregnant have to be chastened.
Mrs. Beck must be so proud of her husband.
i think we had one on our catholic campus as a kid- keeping people from getting knocked up...pretty smart if you ask me.
you know, except for all the liberal girls (the ugly ones right?) would get knocked up for sport ONLY so they could have an abortion.
i think that's how it works right?
I don't think they have (or need) Planned Parenthood in Greenwich, Connecticut, where you live, Glenn. The closest are in Stamford and in White Plains.
These men are simply repulsive, beyond awful, in mocking women who need abortions.
You know the masses of people that make up America? You know the people that have become the "typical" american. The people that work 2 jobs to make poverty level wages and still can't make ends meet.
The people that built this country and made you and the Koch Brothers rich...
Those are the people that use Planned Parenthood, their numbers are growing daily thanks to movement conservative ideology.
That abortion/93sec. is BS.
Who agrees?
I know helping others is seen as "bad" by the right but this is really awsome to listen to. The conplete lack of comapssion is breathtaking.
You count on the police and the fire department to solve issues that arise. You count on teachers to educate your kids. But you think access to healthcare is something ony the rich should have?
Healthcare is protection, just like the protection the police offer from crime, the ignorance that teachers fight daily or the fire department that comes to fight a fire. Or the military that supposedly protects US interests.
Sadly,,,you are simply ignorant of what it means to live in a society. It is about balancing the individual and the community.
I guess you want to live in a vacuum.
It's people who live paycheck-to-paycheck and whose employers refuse to provide health insurance that NEED the womens' services provided by Planned Parenthood, i.e. screenings, testings, etc.
Defunding PP is just plain slimey, we all know this . .
I was hungry and had a need. I wanted a pizza. I thought to myself, should taxpayers pay for this want or should I pay for it myself?
After much pondering I decided it would be better for me to pay for the food myself. You all can thank me later.
Is that too harsh? You want condoms, you pay for condoms. Simple, right?
And don't make the mistake of thinking that Nancy Reagan's 'Just Say No' programs came at no expense to the taxpayer.
As part of this program, we could provide exercise equipment to anyone who wants some. Would that not be more beneficial to the nation's health than providing some sex education for teenagers?
Less Cancer screening for the poor = more money in Medical expenses.
and don't hit me with the Abortion issue, the Gov't dose not pay for that.
are you against women health ??
When will you understand, preventative care does not save money. Period.
Sure the Gov't dose not pay for that.
So you'd be OK with paying for the airplane, the fuel, the bomb casing, and the salary for the pilot, but not the actual explosive itself? After all, it's the explosive that actually does the killing... In this system the libs would never be able to say Americans are killing civilians in a war of choice.
I wonder. If libs got their holy grail of health care by instituting universal health insurance for all, what would be the reasoning for continuing PP support?
Nope (CBO @abc news)
Nope (New England Journal of Medicine)
It saves money for the individual. But when have libs cared about the individual, it's all about the collective and how much money poor babies cost the 52% of us who pay income taxes.
As to you're being upset that a mere 52% of us pay income taxes (I'd like to know where you got that number, BTW), what does it say about our nation when such a large number of people's incomes are are so low that they've been deemed nontaxable by the government?
47% of US households paid no federal income taxes in 2009 (AP @Yahoo! Finance) - eh, I was a little off. Or 43% of individuals (Tax Policy Center @cbs news) pay no federal income tax. A better question would be what happens when more than 50% don't pay income tax? A democracy falls apart when the people figure out they can vote themselves more money/benefits.
A democracy falls apart when people vote? I can't even begin to wrap my head around that concept.
"A democracy falls apart when the people figure out they can vote" - Typical of MMFA, take a quote out of context (or even part of a quote!). You're onto me, that is exactly what I meant.
But since you cannot even begin to wrap your head around this I'll elaborate. A democracy falls apart when [a majority of] the people figure out they can vote themselves more money/benefits [at the minority's expense]. Did that help?
261 members of Congress are millionaires and there are thousands of lobbyists spending millions to insure the interests of the wealthy. So you don't have to worry about the poor having too much pull in D.C. any time soon.
Yes, technically there are no national referendums, which means you have to think about the situation at a level deeper than the surface.
Again, I don't think you should worry, the interest of the elite few are safe and sound, so long as D.C. is awash with money and revolving doors.
I do find medical care costs to be problematic. My wife is a veternarian. She has just as much schooling as an MD and does many similar procedures as in human medicine. I know how much these things "should" cost. This is, in my opinion, a result of a few confounding reasons.
Liability is much lower for vets. This is partially because, good or bad, there are caps for damages one can sue for because for the most part animals are considered property and you can only sue for what the animal is worth.
Nearly no one has pet insurance. It is only prevalent in the horse industry, and even then it is based on a reimbursement system. So you still have to decide if procedure A is worth doing. All too often in human medicine unnecessary tests are run. If the results of a test are not going to change the treatment, there is no reason to do the test. This is not understood by most in the human medicine field.
When reimbursement for Medicare/Medicaid is less than the going rate, the lost revenue is made up by increasing cost on 'paying' customers.
I could continue, but these are the main thoughts I have about the projections you have placed on my comments. I am conservative in my own home. My wife who is a Democrat is also conservative in our home. I try to vote Libertarian because I feel it is the most consistent political ideology. Government should not choose winners and losers. I do tend to place economic freedom above social freedom but only because the truth is, without money, you generally cannot do what you want. This means I often vote R, but in the '10 election I voted for 4 different parties, yes, D being one of them.
"But when have libs cared about the individual,"
Also, thanks for the terse reply. It takes a lot to simply dismiss a set of thoughts with an apparent hypocrisy.
As an example: Mamography of all women over 40 is expensive and doesn't save any money compared to the small percentage where an issue is found and treated. However; targeted use of mamography can be a life saver when applied to the proper population.
And BTW, everyone pays taxes, including those who doen't earn enough to pay federal income tax.
Thank you for clarifying that everyone pays taxes on goods and services the government deems taxable. I'm glad you reminded me of that finer point...
Somehow that seems like something you would want. It's what I see as a meaningful use of my tax dollars.
Wouldn't you rather have one of those poor people use a condom? Or would you prefer to pay for the care of that child; welfare, food stamps, etc. down the road. Not pinpoint about the math but I betcha it would cost the taxpayers a bit more for that scenario than a condom.
The stupid, it burns!
My guess is you wouldn't.
So, you can thank me for paying for the infrastructure you're too cheap to pay for yourself.
WHAT THEN???
And the food you got, aren't you glad that it was reasonable to assume that what you were going to eat was safe?
How did you get there? Did you drive or walk on paved roads?
I assume you were making the same kind of inference.
Funny thing is, every single person who uses Planned Parenthood servces pay taxes just like everyone else.
So while making cuts you need to start at the bottom of the list and go up.
That would be like a family who decides to cut their $200 groceries before their $10 dollar netflix account.
Maybe that's just me though.
Sorry, I didn't expect you to read so deep into it.
How are liberals so good at pointing out flaws without actually pointing out the flaws? Practice?
How? Deeply.
You're the one who suggested that national defense is to groceries as healthcare is to Netflix. I'm not exactly sure why you're asking me to point out flaws when you've done nothing to support that ridiculous analogy.
Actually I said Planned Parenthood is to Netflix.
There are many other healthcare providers.
See planned parenthood is like netflix because it is cheap and virtually unlimited.
Now other healthcare is like buying DVDs. It is more expensive. So people do not rush to the hospital for every little symptom.
It was actually a pretty decent analogy if you think about it.
Let's return to your analogy as you framed it for a moment:
Now, I've stated that this is flawed and ridiculous, while you've insisted that it is "a pretty decent analogy if you think about it." This makes me wonder whether you actually have taken any time to think about it.
First of all, Netflix plans start at $7.99. Planned Parenthood received about $300 million dollars in federal grants and contracts, while the U.S. budget for 2010 allocated $663.7 billion dollars.
In your analogy, the amount spent on Netflix was nearly 4% of what was spent on groceries. In reality, what was spent on Planned Parenthood is actually 0.04% of what was spent on defense. Furthermore, as I pointed out, Planned Parenthood isn't an entertainment expense, but rather reproductive health services. Quantitatively and qualitatively, your analogy is deeply flawed.
But using your percentages of the budget and level of "importance" I guess it would be more like a family cutting the groceries before toothpaste.
Toothpaste is both a smaller percentage, and poses health risks such as gingivitis.
Thank you for helping me fix my analogy. I appreciate it.
My daughter depends on Planned Parenthood for her health screenings/birth control and so do many of her friends. These gals don't make enough money on their jobs to afford "real" health insurance.
This man makes me ill.
But during a 2008 scale collapse? Yes. Our nation cannot withstand a loss of 700,000 jobs per month for an extended period while clinging to hope that years-old tax cuts will finally result in an avalanche of private-sector job "creation."
Squirrly and the sunshine batman contributed to the we hate poor people, women, and condoms memes.
Something stupid, I presume. You really have to start providing
transcripts of these videos, because I literally CANNOT abide another
video....
All that was an excellent demonstration of Beckian Logic & Beckerhead debating skills.
Your beloved Spectacled Professor Pervy, Head of Beckerhead University would be so proud of you!
Now if only y'all could convince Congress to fund hair plugs for y'all I am sure that amongnst your demographic, the Professor Pervy & Donald Trump hairstyles would be a real hot sellers at the Men's Hair Club.
And if you can get Congress to fund a Clown Spectacle Program, y'all could also get spectacles just like Professor Pervy's!
And then you too can have as much sex as Professor Pervy is having and you would have one less half hour a month to post here at MMFA.
If that half hour of sexual activity of yours actually involves another human being or even a non-human animal, PP will be happy to provide you and a human partner with the condom and before and after sexual activity STD screenings.
But I do not think PP offers STD tests and treatment services to animals so you will have to take the poor creature to the nearest PETA clinc to receive help.
Now, I have a question---do you have any personal input to share with us about the comments that your Professor Pervy made on his radio show about Lawrence O'Donnell, his friend and Planned Parenthood ?