The Battle Over Women Voters
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-03-12/battle-over-women-voters
Women cast nearly ten million more votes than men in the last presidential race. Their traditional preference for Democrats helped put President Obama in the White House. but the female vote swung to the GOP in 2010, giving Republicans congrol of the House. Now there are signs of another shift. Recent polls show Republicans have been hurt by the current focus on contraception, abortion and women’s health issues. This week the President’s re-election campaign plans to launch an intensified effort to mobilize female voters. Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post, Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women and Phyllis Schlafly, founder and president of the eagle forum, join Diane to discuss the battle for and about women.
Guests
Terry O'Neill
president, National Organization for Women.
Phyllis Schlafly
founder and president, Eagle Forum
Karen Tumulty
national political reporter, The Washington Post.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Phyllis Schalfly is absurd! She was rude and self-centered. Her back-handed defense of Rush Limbaugh was disingenuous. For fifty years she has told us that a woman's place is at home, barefoot, and pregnant, yet Mrs. Schlafly has been working outside the home as a political activist and not procreating during her fecund years on an annual basis. She is a hypocrite.
I thought the last caller said it best when she asked if Mrs. Schlafly what century she was in.
Karen, as a fellow resident of the city, I can empathize. But I give Diane credit for always giving a mic for people we don't like. (Pat Buchanan just recently) But you will have noticed that the other panelists and the callers pretty much showed how foolish Phyllis is.
Actually, I'd like to hear Rush on a show like this or Fresh Air, to see how he can hold his own against people who oppose him. Alas, there isn't enough viagra in the world to buck Rush up for such an ordeal!
vageiger: Cool ... hang tight ... it will be later this evening.
vageiger, I am ecgberht's brother from another mother ... (which ID works seems to depend on which computer I'm on ... hmmm).
Well, I guess the first shot across the bow would be ... do you pay taxes on that "deferred wages and salaries"? If you don't, then, at least, according to the IRS, it's not really income is it? I'll tell you what, if you want to start paying taxes on that, I'll be happy to see that money go to providing free bc to every woman in the country.
Diane, I am a late commer to your show, I "discovered" NPR just a few years ago after I moved to St. Louis, I love it and listen every day. This is the first time I have commented. As someone else has said, as a St. Louisan I am embarrassed that people might think all of us think like Phyllis Schlafly. I really appreciated your questioning her "false victim stance" when she claimed to have been "attacked" by a caller. Thanks for what you do and keep it up.
Ms Darcy wrote:
." But what I don’t get is how the rights and privileges of institutions – now matter how honorable they may be – trump the rights and privileges of individual citizens as guaranteed under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Somehow I don’t think the framers had Catholic charities in mind with the First Amendment, but then, Obama, et al, apparently agree with you, not me, on this. "
Ms Darby:
What makes you think that the framers of the Constitution and the First Amendment did not have "Catholic Charities" or someother religious charity in mind when they wrote it.
Afterall they were around at that time and in England previously and the only ones feeding and taking care of the sick.
What the framers didnot want was a national religion which we do not have.
This program was absolutely ridiculous. I've been streaming the Diane Rehm show over Android (each episode is a day late due to NPR app's timing), and generally pick out a few episodes from each week which interest me, mostly first-hour shows.
Considering first-hour shows are usually more focused on political or news discussions, it's been alarming to find guests like Schlafly and Heritage Foundation personnel in almost every episode I stream. Schlafly especially - she's frankly a relic. She'd be a great guest if this were a time-capsule thought experiment where the goal is to take a rhetorical trip 50 years backwards, but is otherwise trash for a guest. She uses "feminist" as a pejorative, pushes lies outright then relies upon her 'established' status to dismiss those who call her on it, and promotes a narrative which paints independent women as uppity troublesome no-good usurpers of proper society (instead of, you know, simply independent women).
Falsehoods must be corrected immediately, especially when given a national audience like the one this show enjoys. If this caliber of discussion continues, I'll push my station to drop the show altogether.
Ms Darcy wrote:
." But what I don’t get is how the rights and privileges of institutions – now matter how honorable they may be – trump the rights and privileges of individual citizens as guaranteed under the Constitution and Bill of Rights."
Because those institutions were founded under that faith or belief from that individual "Church" or Order (Sisters of Charity whose founding purpose was to spread their teachings. A belief can be a crucifix at the entrance of a Catholic Hospital or a religous icon at a Women's Batteried Women Shelter. They serve anybody from anykind of creed or without a creed.
"johnandere wrote:
vageiger, I am ecgberht's brother from another mother ... (which ID works seems to depend on which computer I'm on ... hmmm).
Well, I guess the first shot across the bow would be ... do you pay taxes on that "deferred wages and salaries"? If you don't, then, at least, according to the IRS, it's not really income is it? I'll tell you what, if you want to start paying taxes on that, I'll be happy to see that money go to providing free bc to every woman in the country"
Another question I would like to ask vageiger, does he know what the Federal Government tax bite for getting a year end bonus? It is taxed at a much much higher rate than your regular wages.
Sven Svenssen wrote:
" it's been alarming to find guests like Schlafly and Heritage Foundation personnel in almost every episode I stream"
For you, I'm sure it is alarming, Sven! Falsehoods should be corrected, for sure. But realize that many people have a different view than you do. They have a right to speak it. That includes the Heritage Foundation, and a program that pretends to be balanced should present both sides. Your problem is, you only want to hear what you want to hear and Air America is dead.
The fundamental problem with the liberal progressive left is they go by the motto "you are entitled to my opinion" ... and you are living proof.
@johnandere, not replying to you again after this. Just explaining.
There is a great difference between a simple "he said, she said" balance of aired views (see: trashy American TV news) and the proper journalistic balance of a worthwhile program fit for broadcasting. You need context, clarification and corrections to have a worthwhile discussion about contentious topics. Without those, the program may as well be a transcript of any argument you could hear on the subway.
For instance, on practically-settled issues (evolution, climate change, validity of sex equality), it is insufficient to let two people with polar-opposite views deliver their statements and then simply "leave it there" (close the program) without sorting out falsehoods. I wouldn't turn to any journalistic outlet to hear an uninformed dolt lecture me about how man was created by God to ride his TriceraTaxi to the Bedrock Bar while dragging his wife by her hair. Likewise I don't turn to the DRshow to hear Schlafly or her ilk babble about how things were just super-duper before women's liberation without context, clarification and corrections. It was shameful that the guests and callers did a better job challenging Phyllis than the host of the program.
I support free speech absolutely, but do not believe it is the place of journalistic outlets to allow for disinformation to wash over public airwaves. There ought to at least be a warning and correction fired off for each falsehood, either real-time on the air or periodically in groups throughout the program. These disruptions could be minimized or avoided altogether if all panelists would be so good as to discuss the issues as members of a reality-based community ;)
Phyllis Schlafly and other Republicans are asking "why should we pay for someone else's contraception?" I have a question for them: why should we pay for someone else's pregnancy and childbirth?
If "we" have paid for the contraception I've purchased under employer-sponsored health insurance over the years, then "we" have also paid for numerous pregnancies and childbirths of my co-workers and their spouses.
johnandere wrote:
vageiger, I am ecgberht's brother from another mother ... (which ID works seems to depend on which computer I'm on ... hmmm).
Well, I guess the first shot across the bow would be ... do you pay taxes on that "deferred wages and salaries"? If you don't, then, at least, according to the IRS, it's not really income is it? I'll tell you what, if you want to start paying taxes on that, I'll be happy to see that money go to providing free bc to every woman in the country.
Not buying the brother from...bs. Trolling is trolling. but no problem. It is not whether the IRS taxes it as income it is if the employer records it as income paid to employees. If you have a 401k you defer income and do not pay taxes on it. Big deal. And no, you do not have pretend that no matter who pays taxes for what that you would behappy to see it go for bc for every woman. Women pay for their own birth control, not you.
meangreen wrote:
"johnandere wrote:
vageiger, I am ecgberht's brother from another mother ... (which ID works seems to depend on which computer I'm on ... hmmm).
Well, I guess the first shot across the bow would be ... do you pay taxes on that "deferred wages and salaries"? If you don't, then, at least, according to the IRS, it's not really income is it? I'll tell you what, if you want to start paying taxes on that, I'll be happy to see that money go to providing free bc to every woman in the country"
Another question I would like to ask vageiger, does he know what the Federal Government tax bite for getting a year end bonus? It is taxed at a much much higher rate than your regular wages.
And the tax bit for bonuses is relevant to deferred income paid as benefits...how? red herrings.... misdirection.... ask a relevant question.
Phyllis Schlafly comments on your show Monday made my blood pressure skyrocket! She made remarks about women only living off the government, "Dependent for their living expenses on handouts from the government." There are many women working and taking care of their families without Government help and a woman like Ms Schlafy is a misinformed woman. She may not want to use the services Planned Parenthood offers, but please don’t make it hard for women who need or want to use the services
Quite a ways back, aupairgirl (I think), commented about Phyllis Schlafly's lack of mental acuity due to age, and said Diane should have invited someone younger to represent this perspective.
Aupairgirl, I saw Schlafly in a debate on the Equal Rights Amendment in the early 1970's, and she hasn't changed a bit since then. For example, at the ERA debate, she made the absurd statements that if the ERA were passed, women wouldn't be able to force their husbands to pay for their mink coats any more and that sex-segregated restrooms would be outlawed. The problem is not age, it is that her mind spins like a top.
I'm a big fan of the level of discourse that your show brings, Diane. You're one of the best in the business.
I will say, though, that I had to turn it off as soon as I heard (to my surprise) that the reason single women vote for Obama is because they are unmarried harlots that need a man or big government in order to survive.
As a man, I fully support the recent efforts of Democratic, female Senators and Representatives that are putting bills out there that seek to reduce Viagra use and demean those who use it. Hopefully people will see the parallel here and realize that an unwanted pregnancy is just that: unwanted by the mother and by society. Everyone benefits when kids aren't born to parents that don't want them. Put a condom or a pill between their conception and perhaps when those people are ready for kids they will stop using it as the religious zealots command.
Sven,
First things first. You said "on practically-settled issues (evolution, climate change, validity of sex equality), "
Gravity is a settled issue. Evolution, man-made climate change, right-to-ife are not. (I don't know why you include "validity of sex equality", that is a political question, not a question of fact). There may be good evidence on either side for debate even today. In YOUR mind they are settled. But again, when you live by the motto, "you are entitled to my opinion", you think they should be settled for everybody, and if they're not settled for somebody, that somebody is just wrong. So, no, you DO NOT support free speech absolutely. I mean this with all respect. I think you just can't see there is another side to what you think about things.
I know you said you would not reply, but I hope you will reconsider on a slightly different twist to this subject. I have queried quite a number of liberal thinkers like yourself on this topic, but can never get a stright and definitive answer. It sounds like from your recent post, that the general statement "science trumps ideology" would apply to your system of thinking. Is that a fair statement? President Obama argued a couple of years ago about this very topic on the subject of teaching intelligent design in schools alongside evolution. So, would you agree that this is a fair statement? "Science trumps ideology".
vageiger , you addressed the question of another poster with regard to bonuses, but you did not address mine. Why? Is a question "irrelevant" because you cannot answer it?
I repeat, do you pay taxes on your "deferred wages and salaries"? Let me hep you. No, you don't. That's because they're not "deferred wages and salaries" at all. They're benefits provided by the employer. They don't count as income and you don't pay taxes on them. That criterion alone DEFINES "wages and salaries", deferred or otherwise, even TIPS - if it's income from working, it's taxed. Not every employer pays for benefits by the way - even WITH ACA. (Many companies have "exemptions"). Are their employees simply getting screwed out of their "deferred wages and salaries". Your argument is based on a false premise, the false premise that insurance benefits paid by an employer are "deferred wages and salaries" . That in formal logic is called "non sequitur", literally, "does not follow". Therefore, sorry, that's a Fail. And that's a deconstruction as well.
johnandere wrote:
vageiger , you addressed the question of another poster with regard to bonuses, but you did not address mine. Why? Is a question "irrelevant" because you cannot answer it?
Response: It was not relevant because the taxes paid on received income as bonuses has nothing to do with deferred wages and salary.
I repeat, do you pay taxes on your "deferred wages and salaries"? Let me hep you. No, you don't. That's because they're not "deferred wages and salaries" at all. They're benefits provided by the employer. They don't count as income and you don't pay taxes on them. That criterion alone DEFINES "wages and salaries", deferred or otherwise. Not every employer pays for benefits by the way - even WITH ACA. (Many companies have "exemptions"). Are their employees simply getting screwed out of their "deferred wages and salaries".
Response: you are comparing oranges with broccoli. What I pay taxes on and what my employer pays taxes on are different. I have seen what my employer considers my income, and includes more than I receive in my pay, it includes the benefits the EMPLOYER records as income paid to me and thus cost of doing business and tax deductible for the EMPLOYER. If the employer recorded the benefits as paid by them it would come out of retained earnings and thus off the books as a reduction in dividends paid to shareholders and thus reduce dividends and the price of the stock. It does not. EMPLOYERS make rational calculations as to whether offering benefits to employees helps their bottom line and tax liability (and maybe some care about employee retention, maybe some…..) The ACA mandates that employers above a certain level of employees must provide health insurance or pay a penalty. They do not like that. Hence, the attempt to push this kind of propaganda. I am sure you are glad you can help them.
johandere wrote:
Your argument is based on a false premise, the false premise that insurance benefits paid by an employer are "deferred wages and salaries" . That in formal logic is called "non sequitur", literally, "does not follow". Therefore, sorry, that's a Fail. And that's a deconstruction as well.
Response: it is not based on a false premise. Keep believing the your employer loves you so much that they give you benefits out of the goodness of their hearts and not as a benefit to them. Give them a hug for me!
I think the crux of this attempt lies here:
" I have seen what my employer considers my income, and includes more than I receive in my pay, it includes the benefits the EMPLOYER records as income paid to me and thus cost of doing business and tax deductible for the EMPLOYER"
You can believe that your employer considers it whatever you want. The benefits that are paid to you are called an "expense" as is your "wages and salaries" and it is "tax deductible" only insofar as it reduces his bottom line. Is it a cost of keeping you as an employee? Sure. Is it "wages and salaries"? No.
"EMPLOYERS make rational calculations as to whether offering benefits to employees helps their bottom line and tax liability (and maybe some care about employee retention, maybe some…..) ". Exactly and that's what "benefits" mean. It's the same as paid vacation and sick days, the employer giveth and the employer taketh away. Interesting that you raise the point about ACA requiring a penalty if the employer chooses not to insure. You further make my point. You are right that under ACA, unless they pay for your insurance they pay a penalty. Do they pay that penalty to you? No. They pay it to the government. So are they robbing you of that part of your "deferred wages and salaries" or is the government? Of course the answer is "neither", because insurance benefits are not "deferred wages and salaries". You are entitled to payment for services rendered, but not to insurance coverage. They are an employer expense, but they are a benefit.
johnandere wrote:
I think the crux of this attempt lies here:
" I have seen what my employer considers my income, and includes more than I receive in my pay, it includes the benefits the EMPLOYER records as income paid to me and thus cost of doing business and tax deductible for the EMPLOYER"
You can believe that your employer considers it whatever you want. The benefits that are paid to you are called an "expense" as is your "wages and salaries" and it is "tax deductible" only insofar as it reduces his bottom line. Is it a cost of keeping you as an employee? Sure. Is it "wages and salaries"? No.
Response: YES. If the EMPLOYER records it as such IT IS. Keep saying it itsn’t but it is.
The rest of your post is just stupid crap. Health care costs are the main reason for the rising deficit, the real solution was single payer. Obama did not have the guts to push for that. So the next way is employer provided benefits, with the tax benefits of doing so. To create large enough pools of insured to make the costs reasonable. I understand that you are incapable of understanding how the size of an insured pool has an effect on cost, and that you are going to continue to assert through some fantasy that you pay for other employees insurance, etc…. but you are knowingly engaging in a lie. Hope that keeps you going. I am through with your stupid. I libe in Florida, and we are governed by stupid, and a kleptocracy, as in Rick Scott. So I am done with being patient with your continued pretense that you do not understand. You do, and you know how employees are going to be ripped off by this continued line of propaganda.
The rest of your post is just stupid crap. Health care costs are the main reason for the rising deficit, the real solution was single payer. Obama did not have the guts to push for that. So the next way is employer provided benefits, with the tax benefits of doing so. To create large enough pools of insured to make the costs reasonable. I understand that you are incapable of understanding how the size of an insured pool has an effect on cost, and that you are going to continue to assert through some fantasy that you pay for other employees insurance, etc…. but you are knowingly engaging in a lie. Hope that keeps you going. I am through with your stupid. I libe in Florida, and we are governed by stupid, and a kleptocracy, as in Rick Scott. So I am done with being patient with your continued pretense that you do not understand. You do, and you know how employees are going to be ripped off by this continued line of propaganda. Hope you are well compensated for your dedication to the cause. As to your last comment, penalty paid to the government, the day you support the repeal of IMTALA. The law that requires emergency rooms to treat TEA PARTY assholes who insist on their refusal to have health insurance because they CHOOSE not to, then you will have a little crumb of credibility.
I'm no expert on constitutional history or the role of charities in Old England, but have you ever read the Mass. Constitution of 1780, on which the US Constitution was based? Not at all friendly to Catholics. Now I'm not one who thinks what the framers may or may not have had in mind should dictate present-day interpretation of the law; on the other hand, a little historical perspective never hurts. In the New England of early America, charities played a small role -- though many doctors and midwives no doubt gave services away out of necessity and kind-heartedness. But each town was responsible for its own poor, supported through local taxes. (The towns were constantly arguing among themselves as to which poor sick person belonged to which town.) As troubled as our healthcare and welfare system is today, thank goodness we've come a long way since those days, in part thanks to charitable institutions. Non-profits as well as individuals should be given incentives (yes, tax breaks and other perqs from the government) to encourage better healthcare. I'm just not convinced that institutions of any kind have inalienable rights which therefore would be protected under the US Constitution. I think the Bill of Rights is an individual protection plan.
vageiger,
I read through your entire post in spite of the insults because I am a patient person. But as soon as I read "the rest of your post is just stupid crap", I knew where we were headed. After that, you're pretty much just rambling. You simply DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER to the following:
Under ACA, unless the employer pays for your insurance they pay a penalty. Do they pay that penalty to you? No. They pay it to the government. So are they robbing you of that part of your "deferred wages and salaries" or is the government? Of course the answer is "neither", because insurance benefits are not "deferred wages and salaries".
If they were, and the employer chose to not buy you insurance, wouldn't they owe YOU the difference?! Yet they don't.
This has nothing to do with insurance pools, single-payer, or the Tea Party! which are a complete diversion. And my credibility or yours for that matter has absolutely nothing to do with which of us is actually RIGHT on the question of whether insurance benefits are "deferred wages and salaries", which argument has been sufficiently deconstructed. Because they are not such compensation, the employer has the complete right to decide what that benefit will consist of, not the employee, and certainly not the government especially when religious tenets are violated.
The tone of your vitriol tells me you're going to believe what you want to believe, vageiger. It's a shame and I can't imagine what it's like to walk around with that much anger. See ya.
So ecgberhdt show up. are you and the other guys part of some kind of tag team? A call, nay, reply center? anyway, go ahead and be insulted, play the eternal victim thing. Limbaugh is doing it to, which ia a reminder that the was the original context. Anyway, posing the question, if the employer pays the penalty, it means that benefits are not deferred wages and salaries. Totally a misdirection, red hering, etc... deliberate search for something, anything, that attempts to make your argument look true. It is not. I suggest you do some study on double entry bookeeping before the whole trying to use some sort of bogus argument. BanK of america has to pay penalties (same as the ACA would impose - a penalty) to the SEC. You think that comes from the employers? the CEOs? the Vice Presidents? The bankers who get the bonuses? No it does not it comes from retained earnings, from the share holders of BOA. No, just pointing out who will pay a penalty for ACA does not mean that benefits are not deferred wage or salaries, i. e. income. The CEOs of BOA are not going to defer their income to pay the sec penalties for the malfeasance of their employees, the shareholders are. This was a classic think tank, talking point, nothing more, so do not try to act so insulted. Do some real research. And yes, I got vitrolic, it is frustration. You are going to win and cortporations are going to claim that they pay for the benefits and can make all the decisions (read Retirement Heist for the same for retirement) hence the Blunt bill. Please cut the I am so insulted crap. You've won, everyone does the women's health thing or religious liberty thing, and the corporations slide right down the middle cliaming it is all theirs. If they are your real masters, you are in good hands.
vageiger,
I have explained about the IDs in this forum more than once here. Each works on some computers but not others - DR Show Webmaster doesn't even understand why. Sorry if that is too much for you to comprehend.
"So ecgberhdt show up. are you and the other guys part of some kind of tag team? A call, nay, reply center? "
vageiger, that's the logica fallacy of "ad hominem". Literally, "to the man". It emerges when one debate participant has run out of ideas and chooses instead to attack his opponent personally.
"anyway, go ahead and be insulted"
I don't know how else to interpret "the rest of your post is crap". Perhaps in your alternate universe you take that as a compliment?
"I suggest you do some study on double entry bookeeping before the whole trying to use some sort of bogus argument."
You assume a lot, vageiger. I haven't been a practicing accountant for a while, but I don't think I've forgotten everything.
I am not making a "bogus argument". In fact I'm asking a simple question.
If insurance benefits are "deferred wages and salaries", and the employer choses to not buy you insurance, wouldn't they owe YOU the difference?! Yet they don't. If they don't pay it to you, and they are truly "deferred wages and salaries", (whether it is booked as an expense or comes out of retained earnings (read: profits) is irrelevant), why don't you get the money? It's a simple quesiton, vageiger.
Hint: A sufficient answer is not "Go study double-entry bookkeeping". I want to hear YOUR explanation, vageiger, and it probably shouldn't include some blather about BOA bonuses. They are not at play here.
Also, I notice your last couple of posts are a bit rambling and very late at night, so I suspect you are writing them either very tired or a little drunk. Try really thinking this through and writing a cogent reply. Seriously, I would be anxious to read it.
"You've won, everyone does the women's health thing or religious liberty thing, and the corporations slide right down the middle cliaming it is all theirs. "
I wouldn't speak so soon about anybody "winning". The issue will be settled on November 6th. And, "earth to vageiger", the "Blunt bill" is dead.