Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-02-24/friday-news-roundup-domestic
President Obama unveiled a proposal to cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 28%; Republican presidential candidates debated in Mesa, Arizona; and dozens of state attorneys general wrote to Google about concerns over its new privacy policies. Eleanor Clift of Newsweek, Ron Elving of NPR and Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post join Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
Eleanor Clift
contributing editor for Newsweek/The Daily Beast.
Ron Elving
Washington editor for NPR.
Jennifer Rubin
"Right Turn" blogger for the Washington Post.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Eleanor Clift was incorrect in stating "people on both sides of the issue weren’t fully aware of” the invasive nature of a transvaginal ultrasound. Sen. Barbaro Favola reported that the Senators knew exactly what the bill did before they passed it, because Sen. Ralph Northam, a physician, explained the details of the invasive procedure on the Senate floor. "He went through in elaborate detail the fact that this was a transvaginal procedure and made very clear to the Senate exactly what this bill required women to go through.” An amendment proposed by Del. David Englin on 2/13/12, requiring the patient’s written consent to this procedure was voted down 64-34. To state “they didn’t know” as an excuse, is condoning the lawmakers’, and Governor’s, disingenuousness. They knew.
THX1138 wrote: "Why don't you at least read the link and do a little checking on the subject matter before offering a knee jerk response to something you know nothing about."
FYI, I did read article you linked to. I guess its depiction of circumstances eluded my "level of knowledge", causing me not reach what you "expect they know what their talking about". Hence, my "knee jerk response".
Actually, what concerned my initial comments were related to comments such as, "Before the subsidizing through welfare of unwed mothers, in the black community in the 60's about 20% were unwed in 2012 it's 73%. We all hear on a regular basis the staggering statistics of despair. No republican can touch the issue without being called a racist or worse."
The article you accused me of not reading begins by stating, "Once largely limited to poor women and minorities, motherhood without marriage has settled deeply into middle America. The fastest growth in the last two decades has occurred among white women in their 20s who have some college education but no four-year degree,..."
Cont.
With your article in mind, I was just wondering where the issue of race and 'subsidizing through welfare' comes up ... as you say, "And that has what to do with out of wedlock births?"
To the point. Neither the social engineers, nor the exasperated social conservatives are going to solve the problems of society throwing money at them, or by demonizing those they abhor. (Hopefully, not having managed rental property won't disqualify me from this observation)
If I remember correctly, the initial 'conversation' actually centered on unwed mothers (and their children?) who, I believe, would not be well served by the elimination or diminishing of access to birth control (or education, or health care, or housing ...)
As for the article you referenced, it has lots of information to consider when thinking about single parent families. Paints an unhappy picture. Makes us angry. Illuminates what many find deplorable. Suggests what many of the issues are. Still, other than stomping of feet, throwing people 'out in the cold' ... I don't hear much in the way of solutions.
JE Sully, "Don't know where your info comes from"
First stop playing games, this from your first post says you didn't read the link. So you did know where my info comes from?
Glad you read the article. I brought up the "black" situation because of the complete devastation brought on by big government left wing inspired good intentions. There is no better example of how government makes worse anything it seeks to improve particularly when social engineering is involved. On the broader issue of sexual behavior that produces government dependent citizen's, is it not the policy mandate of the left to never question the morality of the decision to not think responsibly about the problems that come from out of wedlock births? Is it not the left who has removed the shame of not being married and having a child? Is it not the left who has removed the negative stigma of being government dependent? The blame for all of this clearly lays on the shoulders of politically liberal philosophies. The contraception issue is a minor distraction from the main issue but handing it out like government candy certainly sends the wrong message. The solution is simple, just stop rewarding bad behavior. Government needs to stop propping up women with tax payer money so they can make the choices as outlined in the article. Maybe then before they hop into the sack they might have second thoughts. Before all the subsidizing this was a much smaller problem. Women are in control of this issue because of the biology involved, men of course should be made legally responsible as well. This is where the aspirin between the knees idea is relevant, as I asked before, are we nothing more than sexual savages?
Did anyone else notice that a lot of the Koran burning protesters had smiles on their faces. The president did his usual bang up job handling the situation. What is it again, leading from the outhouse.
Uhg, no more Jennifer Reuben, please! I couldn't finish the podcaste.