world

Last-minute deal reached to avoid U.S. government shutdown

39 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

39 Comments
Login to comment

Headline... Senator Schumer says he'll shut down the government if he can't murder babies!

Ok, thats obviously not how he phrased it. Yet, its completely accurate. He refuses any budget that doesn't provide funding to planned parenthood. IE the abortion group. A simple check on Schumers list of donors, reveals planned parenthood has given a significant amount of money to his campaign. Though of course I'm sure that has nothing to do with it...

Interesting though that the Senate still refuses to vote on a budget bill. Harry Reid won't even bring it to the floor.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The republicans claim to be all about numbers but they are using the government shutdown for social issues yet again. The majority of Americans support the right to abortion but the republicans have been hijacked by the far right loons. Hence the party of no is now the party of no government.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

57 percent of Americans say abortion should be legal, but 42 percent are opposed to it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The republicans claim to be all about numbers but they are using the government shutdown for social issues yet again. The majority of Americans support the right to abortion but the republicans have been hijacked by the far right loons. Hence the party of no is now the party of no government.

Sorry, but what you're saying is, that unless Dems get their way, unless Republicans agree to use taxpayer money to pay for abortions, and all these other social issues that Dems want, then they're going to shut down the government. Which part of WE ARE BROKE! do you not understand?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

57 percent of Americans say abortion should be legal, but 42 percent are opposed to it.

I bet if that question was, Should abortion be paid for by your tax dollars instead of out of your own pocket, the numbers would be very different.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The numbers on abortion support are not as simplistic as 57% pro-abortion and 42% anti-abortion. Add in partial birth abortion, and other factors and the numbers are less supportive. Even those who support abortion are reticent about aborting a child that has a heart beat and/or brain activity.

That said, this isn't just about abortion or cutting off the paychecks for service members. However, with the size of the annual deficit that the US government is under right now, these should be easy cuts to make. George Soros and the uber rich in Hollywood and Manhatten can easily support Planned Parenthood and all of the things they do. The military on the other hand is a core federal government function.

These cuts are small in the grand scheme of things, but are symbolic of the spending insanity that has become so ingrained in Congress. A financial catastrophe is staring the United States square in the eyes and the politicians can't get their stuff together. It's pathetic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"which side was to blame"

The Republicans, of course, lol.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They all praise themselves for cutting 38 BILLION dollars? Wow, what a great job they did. Lets see if they can actually do something significant in spending reductions next year!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Trying to deny funding to Planned Parenthood? This isn't about limiting spending. It's about different principles. It indicates a segment of the population adhering to medieval beliefs. It targets people, women actually, who can't defend themselves. Pretty low.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

IronDome...The Dems didn't couldn't even do their job PASSING a budget while they held a majority. You have no leg to stand on taking a stance against the republicans. At least the were able to get the votes...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They all praise themselves for cutting 38 BILLION dollars? Wow, what a great job they did. Lets see if they can actually do something significant in spending reductions next year!

A 1.4 trillion dollar deficit, and they managed to cut 38 billion... And Dems were screaming over them daring to cut that much. I really do wonder about the people in congress. Do they think we're that stupid? Really? The US cannot afford this deficit spending. They need to stop. And both Dems and Republicans need to buckle down and make the hard choices to force it. Even if it means shutting down the government. Unfortunately, it looks like neither has the balls to do the right thing.

Trying to deny funding to Planned Parenthood? This isn't about limiting spending. It's about different principles. It indicates a segment of the population adhering to medieval beliefs. It targets people, women actually, who can't defend themselves. Pretty low.

Yes, medieval beliefs about the role of government. See some people want taxpayers to pay to kill babies. A group that unlike women, actually can't defend themselves, nor do they have a voice. Somehow, insisting that planned parenthood get by on private donations, rather then public ones is anathema to these types of people, who think the government should have a hand and a role in anything and everything.

Based on what I'm reading above, it sounds like Republicans caved. If this is in fact the case, Boehner is going to have to work like hell to keep his job.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The political gossip is that Boehner will allow a short(less than a week) shutdown to appease the Tea Party(also shield himself from criticism) and then proceed with a compromise that could be approved now. You heard it here."

That was my comment a few days ago and while there wasn't a shutdown Boehner did push it to the limit for the same reasons: To show the far right how "tough" he was and also a bit of self-preservation politically with mainstream republicans who are willing to make deals.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, medieval beliefs about the role of government. See some people want taxpayers to pay to kill babies. A group that unlike women, actually can't defend themselves, nor do they have a voice.

Wow, you said it. 'want taxpayers to kill babies'. I suppose it is futile to list what the taxpayers are paying for as it is clear which side of the fence you are on. A fence that divides you and the anti abortion league from the rest of the civilized world. Surely you are not imagining you could save the budget by denying abortions. And by the way 'killing babies' would be barbaric. That's not what it is, but the expression may suit your purpose. Just my opinion and no offence intended.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

presto345,

Just my thoughts on taxpayer money funding abortions. First off, I am pro-choice but I am not happy or even like my position, I find abortion personally a horrible option that denies a potential human being no chance to enjoy that humanity and just instead ends up as just disgarded bio waste.

My decision to finally fall on the side of pro choice after years of hard soul searching and thought. Though as a male and my personal morals oppose the practice it is my opinion that the decision to have an abortion should be entirely left to woman's concious and the ultimate judge if is is right or wrong rests in the realm of whoever a woman in the quiet of her soul deems as the higher power in her life. It is between her and her God. I actually would fall under Bill Clintons view on abortion. It should be legal, safe and rare. I support defunding taxpayers dollars for abortion 100 percent. I don't want the procedure thought of as some free afterthought after sex. If having to pay out of pocket by the male who got her pregnant hurts his wallet....Oh, well might think twice next time before "playtime" and get birth control first. It would also go with my view of making rare, which it should be. I will also be very honest with you. It has been my life experience that most males that are the loudest on the subject for pro-choice do so not from some noble defense for womens rights, but for purely selfish reasons that they really won't say but it is true. They want that "get out of child support card" if they knock up a girl and have no intentions of marrying or love, just sex. No offense also, but my view is pretty common among conservatives and I don't consider my support for defunding tax funded abortions as medieval beliefs, more rooted in rational morality to balance within our human weaknesses and frailities.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is already U.S. law that federal money can't be used for abortions. The federal budget is used for other services in Planned Parenthood, services that make up most of its works, though one could argue the federal budget is subsidizing the whole program.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Guys, it is standing law that no Federal money may be used for abortions. Groups like Planned Parenthood that provide abortion along with other services for women such as cancer screening must have a clear firewall that segregates government money from abortion services. I know some will say that, nonetheless, Federal funding frees up other monies to be used for abortion. That may be so, but the fact is that Planned Parenthood follows the law: no Federal money for abortions.

Abortion is legal in America. You may disagree with it; if so, work to overturn its legality. Until you do, you must acquiesce to the law.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry, but what you're saying is, that unless Dems get their way, unless Republicans agree to use taxpayer money to pay for abortions

A lie. The Hyde Amendment prohibits federal money to fund abortions. Abortion services are a tiny fraction of what Planned Parenthood does. Their activites prevent far more abortions than otherwise would be the case were they not in existence.

Should abortion be paid for by your tax dollars instead of out of your own pocket,

The question would be a lie. The Hyde Amendment prohibits federal money to fund abortions. Abortion services are a tiny fraction of what Planned Parenthood does. Their activites prevent far more abortions than otherwise would be the case were they not in existence.

It is getting so that the term "conservative liar" is just like saying "tooth dentist."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A lie. The Hyde Amendment prohibits federal money to fund abortions.

Oh please Yabits,

The Hyde Amendment prohibits DIRECT funding for abortions, it allows Planned Parenthood to fudge the books to pay for INDIRECT funding of abortions. Knock ofF the spin and have a real discussion on the subject.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Hyde Amendment prohibits DIRECT funding for abortions, it allows Planned Parenthood to fudge the books

Planned Parenthood keeps their abortion programs completely separate, and accounted for separately, from their other programs. This is done so that "fudging" can not occur. So when you say they are "fudging the books," you are spinning like the proverbial "tooth dentist."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Knock ofF the spin and have a real discussion on the subject.

Are you denying that Planned Parenthood prevents FAR more abortions than they fund?

It appears to me that anyone who hates abortion should support anything that serves to lower the rate of unwanted pregnancies. And Planned Parenthood is second-to-no-other organization in its programs to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind, let's follow your proposal to a logical conclusion: medical establishments that accept government payment of any sort (Medicare, Medicaid, research dollars) would be unable to provide abortion services lest the "fudge the books." Republicans would no doubt push this interpretation to prohibit government-required insurance from covering abortions as well. This would leave stand-alone, cash-only abortion providers as a woman's only choice - and that simply is not feasible.

The Republican's tack is quite clear: they cannot prevail against pubic opinion, nor can they prevail with the courts, so their only alternative is to make abortion provision financially untenable. This is why the Democrats would not compromise regarding Planned Parenthood, and rightfully so. It is a slippery slope, and whatever sophistries you provide either indicate your ignorance or duplicity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"the biggest annual spending cut in history"

The government is still spending a bunch of money they don't have, lol.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind 5.54pm Best post you've ever made on JT.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The deal came together after six grueling weeks and an outbreak of budget brinksmanship over the past few days as the two sides sought to squeeze every drop of advantage in private talks.

Hahahaha, there is no "victory" here. This budget should have been passed LAST year.

The Democrats didn't want to pass ANY budget cuts and they were finally forced to address the ever gowing U.S. debt by the same taxpaying voters who kicked many of the free spending Democrats to the curb last November. It's pressure from the taxpaying voters that is driving these budget cuts.

Reid can claim any small victorys he wishes but the majority of the taxpaying voters understand that there is NO money and more cuts are needed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Are you denying that Planned Parenthood prevents FAR more abortions than they fund?

Best comment I've read in a long time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is already U.S. law that federal money can't be used for abortions. The federal budget is used for other services in Planned Parenthood, services that make up most of its works, though one could argue the federal budget is subsidizing the whole program.

My point precisely. If you give money to planned Parenthood, guess what, thats money they no longer need to raise from other sources, and those other sources are then tapped to pay for abortion. See, the thing is, for me, I don't really care about abortions. I think its horrible, and evil, but right now, as Yabits and others have pointed out, its legal. Thats fine, but I don't want to have to pay for it, nor subsidize those that perform it. Unfortunately, under the Dems social welfare policies, I do. And Boehner, caved, meaning we'll continue to subsidize planned parenthood, despite being completely broke. They were arguing about 38 billion cut, while the deficit for this month alone was far greater then that.

Did anyone else catch 'Dirty' Harry's remarks by the way? Yesterday he was ranting about how Republicans want to murder women, then he changes course and announces a 'historic' agreement. I do wonder, did he agree to meet Republicans halfway, and decide to only make women a little sick?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think its horrible, and evil, but right now, as Yabits and others have pointed out, its legal. Thats fine, but I don't want to have to pay for it, nor subsidize those that perform it.

You don't have to pay for it.

Planned Parenthood is set up, as many businesses are, to direct and use funds as their donors want them to use them. The only dollars that can get used to fund abortions are those given which either a) stipulate that they are to be used to fund them, or b) funds given with no stipulations attached whatsoever.

Dollars given to Planned Parenthood which come from sources which stipulate they are not to be used to fund abortions are kept in a separate account and are never crossed over to programs that provide abortions. Their books are open to the strictest auditing procedures.

This is a total and complete non-issue, and to think that some absolutely crazy Republicans wanted to shut down the entire government of the United States because of it. For shame.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Planned Parenthood is set up, as many businesses are, to direct and use funds as their donors want them to use them. The only dollars that can get used to fund abortions are those given which either a) stipulate that they are to be used to fund them, or b) funds given with no stipulations attached whatsoever.

Money is fungible. Meaning when it comes in, it goes where its needed. So money given to planned parenthood frees up dollars to be used elsewhere. So say PP is funding a clinic for low income women. The Federal dollars go to pay for that. PP then takes the money they otherwise would have used to pay for that clinic if the taxpayer dollars weren't there, and uses that money to pay for abortions. Don't kid yourself yabits, that is what happens. Spin it however you like. As long as you're giving money to organizations that pay for abortions, then taxpayers are funding those abortions, even if it is indirectly.

The fact that Dems were so desperate to continue this practice, and were willing to completely shut down the government if they didn't get their way, says a great deal about them and their policies. I'm very sad that Republicans caved and agreed to continue giving money to groups like this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'll say it again. If you give money to an organization that carrys out abortions, then money that would have otherwise been used to pay for other services, can then be shifted over to pay for abortions.

And I will say it again: If you've got an organization that is audited by the government to prevent that from happening, it is simply NOT going to happen. The way it works in organizations like Planned Parenthood is that there are accounts dedicated to abortion, non-abortion and general activities. If one gives a dollar to PP and doesn't specify how it is to be used, it goes into the general fund -- to be used where PP best sees fit.

dollars given which are specified for non-abortion activities can NEVER be transferred to the general or abortion accounts. This is ensured by auditing of the organization's books.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The shutdown would have closed national parks, tax-season help lines and other popular services, though the military would have stayed on duty and other essential efforts such as air traffic control would have continued in effect.

It's the MILITARY that needs serious funding CUTS!! Let the chopping begin. Quit feeding the (defence) ANIMALS! Chop chop!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How is terminating taxpayer funding for PP destroying the organization? Is PP an arm of the Federal government?

Terminating taxpayer funding for PP would not completely destroy the organization, although many conservatives would like to see it destroyed. But it would do is certainly destroy the lives of the thousands upon thousands of women who would not be able to receive the cancer-screening services that PP provides. Terminating taxpayer funding would greatly INCREASE the number of abortions through the cutting off of much of PP's educational and contraceptive services in preventing unwanted pregnancies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And I will say it again: If you've got an organization that is audited by the government to prevent that from happening, it is simply NOT going to happen.

You can say this all you want, but it does happen. Taxpayer money goes to pay for PP clinics. No, those clinics don't provide abortions, so no money is going to fund them directly. However PP money that otherwise would have had to be used to pay for these clinics, then doesn't need to with the federal tax dollars coming in. That money then gets spent elsewhere. On other services, including, yes Abortions. So while no taxpayer money is directly paying for abortions, by giving to these organizations, it is indirectly funding them. Saying otherwise is simply deceit.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just because Planned Parenthood has two sets of books doesn't mean that the Federal money that goes into the non-abortion ledger doesn't affect the flow of money within the organization. The Hyde Amendment is just a gimmick - it doesn't restrict what services PP provides to women whether it be abortions or cervical cancer screening. I think that the Federal money donated to PP comes to about a third or a quarter of their over one billion dollar annual budget. Like any business, they project spending for the coming year and allocate their funds accordingly. Fortunately for them, they get enough non-Federal money that they can apply money that they raise to cover all abortion expenses. This is still substantial since they are the nations largest abortion provider - it's their reason for being.

Like others here, I don't think the government should force a large number of American's to subsidize an organization that does something that they believe is terribly immoral. First of all, we can't afford it. Furthermore, if an unborn child has a heartbeat and/or brain function then aborting him or her is a pretty horrible thing to do. To me ending the life of a living child - born or unborn - is like treating the child as if it were property and not a living being. Fetuses aren't tadpoles - they are people. And don't give me this kept your hands off women's body stuff - presumably half of the babies aborted are males. Try keeping your hands off their body's instead!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just because Planned Parenthood has two sets of books doesn't mean that the Federal money that goes into the non-abortion ledger doesn't affect the flow of money within the organization.

Wow. You've just admitted that it does. The simple fact is that money can't be transfered from one account to the other without an auditor knowing about it.

Fortunately for them, they get enough non-Federal money that they can apply money that they raise to cover all abortion expenses.

LOL! How do you know that? Planned Parenthood is a non-profit and therefore could be supplying far more in the way of abortion services if funding was unrestricted and unlimited.

Like others here, I don't think the government should force a large number of American's to subsidize an organization that does something that they believe is terribly immoral.

The people who understand the situation know that we are funding a major contributor to the health and well-being of women.

Fetuses aren't tadpoles - they are people. And don't give me this kept your hands off women's body stuff - presumably half of the babies aborted are males.

The vast majority of fertilized ova -- for those who foolishly believe that a conceived egg is protected by the US Constitution -- are aborted either through failing to attach to the uterine wall, or are aborted after failing to attach properly. These "natural" abortions constitute over 70% of all fertilized ova. No fertilzed egg is guaranteed a right to attach by the Constitution.

It therefore seems utterly ludicrous to talk about morality in light of a process instituted by a "creator" that naturally aborts millions upon millions of fertile eggs. Fetuses are neither tadpoles nor human beings. Those who feel otherwise are "free" to force the women they are able to dominate personally to bend to their wishes, but they should never be given the power to force anyone who doesn't subscribe to their ludicrous beliefs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow. You've just admitted that it does. The simple fact is that money can't be transfered from one account to the other without an auditor knowing about it.

I believe he stated very clearly otherwise. You refuse to admit that if PP keeps 2 accounts, one for everything but abortions, the other for anything, that adding more money into the first account, means less needs to be used from the second account.

It therefore seems utterly ludicrous to talk about morality in light of a process instituted by a "creator" that naturally aborts millions upon millions of fertile eggs.

Whats even more ludicrous is your trying to equate these 'natural' abortions, with the medical procedure of abortion. It really does smack of desperation doing so. And thats apart from being completely off topic. We were already pushing the boundaries discussing abortion, but now you've gone completely off track.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You refuse to admit that if PP keeps 2 accounts, one for everything but abortions, the other for anything, that adding more money into the first account, means less needs to be used from the second account.

I would refuse to admit anything that is patently and obviously false and self-contradictory as the statement you've just made. No money from the "second account" -- the non-abortion account -- may be used for abortions. If the abortion account runs out of money, PP may not draw from the non-abortion account.

Whats even more ludicrous is your trying to equate these 'natural' abortions, with the medical procedure of abortion.

I believe knowing the statistics behind human reproduction, puts to better light the warped and evil attempts by conservatives -- who talk a good game about getting government off the backs of people -- to undue nearly 40 years of settled law in the cause of regulating women's bodies, and which speaks volumes about them.

Likewise, the failed attempt to defund the life-saving work that Planned Parenthood does. Conservatives talk a good game about respecting life, but many more abortions would result as a consequence of curtailing contraceptive programs, and many thousands of deaths to women would occur as a consequence of curtailing cancer-screening services.

But what are the deaths of thousands more women and the performing of many thousands more abortions when you've got more revenue you want to hand out to the wealthiest Americans? Those are, essentially, the true Republican values at work in the near-shutdown incident.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You refuse to admit that if PP keeps 2 accounts, one for everything but abortions, the other for anything, that adding more money into the first account, means less needs to be used from the second account.

One more point on this:

The more that Planned Parenthood is successful with the funds in their non-abortion account in preventing unwanted pregnancies, the less they would find it necessary to fund abortions. Fewer abortions that need to be performed in the first place should be a good thing for everyone. But to the Republicans in the House, this is not about saving lives or preventing abortions; it's about controlling peoples' lives.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The more that Planned Parenthood is successful with the funds in their non-abortion account in preventing unwanted pregnancies, the less they would find it necessary to fund abortions. Fewer abortions that need to be performed in the first place should be a good thing for everyone.

I would think having to pay for an abortion out of a persons private funds instead of being able to use subsidized funds would mean a heck of lot fewer abortions and accomplish that goal quite nicely myself.

Sure would make think twice before having unprotected sex if I knew that I might get hit with a 1500 dollar or so bill to pay for an abortion. Pretty sure many other males would think twice also and change their behavior. I also think it would lower STD's rates pretty dramatically also, since now instead of one night stands folks would actually be more involved with their partners prior to having sex now that they would know the real consequences to their pocketbook by an unwanted pregnancy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But to the Republicans in the House, this is not about saving lives or preventing abortions; it's about controlling peoples' lives.

Pure Hyperbole Yabits.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites