OK, so they're rational but only in an Ayn Rand kind of way - their choices are entirely about self-interest rather than the good of the country. From the perspective of what's good for the country, which is what elected officials *should* be worrying about, they're clearly irrational.
For the good of the country or for the good of their districts?
Both; perhaps with a bias towards the district, but not to the extent that it has far greater negative consequences for other districts or for the country as a whole. Besides, can you name a district that will benefit from the U.S. breaching the debt ceiling?
In any case, what's good for the district is different to what the people in the district think is good for the district. If the two were the same, there would be no point in having elected officials; why not just have direct democracy if the people are always right about every policy question?
Joe Lieberman sure as fuck never represented me. He represented corporate interests through and through, but pandered enough to Connecticut pseudo-liberals that he kept getting voted back in. He also torpedoed the public option out of the ACA.
I'm not sure you can underestimate the degree to which Congressmen represent their districts at this point. At least the PEOPLE in their districts.
He represented me and I voted for him every time he ran even though I was a registered Republican at the time.
CT is also a state with a very high percentage of registered independents. Ned Lamont won your parties primary and still lost in the general to Joe who ran as an independent. So clearly Lamont was too far to the left for CT.
EDIT: due to the high number of independents CT should have open primaries.
Lieberman was a Republican in all but name, so as a registered Republican it's no shock you voted for him. He was and is a snake. Lieberman switched after losing his own party's primary because he was never a Dem to begin with.
Congrats on joining the contingent of scared, racist old Nutmeggers who kept that bastard awash in insurance bribes.
Or the GOP could be really crafty and propose and end to the debt ceiling in exchange for a cap on budgets as a percent of GDP. It appears to me that their long term goal in the budget battle is to limit spending as a percentage of GDP so rather than use the debt ceiling as a club why not replace it with what they want?
As far as budget constraint rules go, the system Sweden has in place is pretty decent; see this article for a decent description. I do have some issues with it, though - I think 1% surplus as a goal is poor, because I see little reason for a government to "pay off" its debt. It's enough to keep it relatively stable, or decreasing, w.r.t GDP - hence, assuming a growth rate of around 2%, the goal should set a maximum of something like an average 1% deficit, which is enough for the debt to gradually grow smaller relative to what the nation has the ability to handle.
However, as stated in the article, that type of approach doesn't restrict spending, only deficits - the budget is just as balanced if spending and tax are at 50% of GDP as it is if they are at 20%. This does remove the bias towards lowering tax too far that you get if you only restrict spending rather than deficits, but it doesn't do what the Republicans want.
Consequently, if you wanted to keep government from being "too big", you would also need to have an extra limit on spending as well as on the deficit; this would again need to be cyclically aware.
All that being said, while I think such policies might be reasonable, I don't see a huge need for them. Perhaps if it would satisfy some Republicans it would be a good thing to implement, if only because it would result in a less broken government.
Remember, the Republicans are the party that believes government is inherently bad. Anything they can do to make it more dysfunctional benefits them in (their perceived) long run.
Remember, the Republicans are the party that believes the federal government is inherently bad. Anything they can do to make it more dysfunctional benefits them in (their perceived) long run.
Lieberman was a democrat and advanced many liberal issues. I'm not going to turn my party into the republican party with it's RHINO just because he was more of a hawk and kinda dumb on some issues :-p
OH! Government is GOOD if it restricts abortion rights, women's rights, contraceptive rights, or non-Christian rights.
Depends on which side of the fence you are on:
Democrat abortion: women's rights. Republican abortion: unborn's rights. (Mutually exclusive because both sides see it as a human Rights issue.)
Democrat contraception: free contraception! Republican contraception: pay for it yourself! (Neither side is saying you can't have or use contraception unless said contraception is seen as abortion then previous.)
The Christian thing? That is just weird. The same group that is scared shitless of a Muslim theocracy doesn't seem to mind a Christian one. Chaulk that one up to a form of xenophobia based on ignorance.
Abortion will remain at a stalemate until science figures out how to successfully transplant an embryo/fetus from one womb to another. Once that happens the whole "woman's right to choose" vs. "father's rights" issue will truly go head to head. At this point when a women gets pregnant the rights of the father are nonexistent until the baby is born. If the unborn could be transplanted to a surrogate womb how will the law handle this?
Will such a scietific breakthrough change the debate?
OH! Government is GOOD if it restricts abortion rights, women's rights, contraceptive rights, or non-Christian rights.
Depends on which side of the fence you are on:
Democrat abortion: women's rights. Republican abortion: unborn's rights. (Mutually exclusive because both sides see it as a human Rights issue.)
No human being has (nor should have) a right to the use of another's body.
Also, while I do think there is a significant amount of genuine (if misplaced) concern for unborn children, a significant portion of Republican opposition to abortion (and contraception) rights is about sex and their desire for people not to have it except in very limited circumstances.
Democrat contraception: free contraception! Republican contraception: pay for it yourself! (Neither side is saying you can't have or use contraception unless said contraception is seen as abortion then previous.)
Why should contraception be in a separate category from all other healthcare? Very many Christians, although they may not be willing to go so far as to support a ban on contraception, really don't want you to actually use it.
In any case, the economic and social benefits of women having the power to easily choose when they have children are easily sufficient justification for the government to require it to be covered by insurance.
Why should contraception be in a separate category from all other healthcare? Very many Christians, although they may not be willing to go so far as to support a ban on contraception, really don't want you to actually use it.
In any case, the economic and social benefits of women having the power to easily choose when they have children are easily sufficient justification for the government to require it to be covered by insurance.
If that is the case shouldn't the focus be on condoms not birth control pills? Condoms can prevent both pregnancy and the transfer of STDs. As a public health issue doesn't it make more sense to offer free condoms rather than BC pills?
Also condoms (and dental dams) work for both gay and straight couplings. BC pills only help straight couplings. Shouldn't the law be fair to all and not just selectively help one segment of the population?
Abortion will remain at a stalemate until science figures out how to successfully transplant an embryo/fetus from one womb to another. Once that happens the whole "woman's right to choose" vs. "father's rights" issue will truly go head to head. At this point when a women gets pregnant the rights of the father are nonexistent until the baby is born. If the unborn could be transplanted to a surrogate womb how will the law handle this?
Will such a scietific breakthrough change the debate?
How is this a major question?
Obviously as long as something is in the woman's body it should be her decision. However, once outside the mother, there is (once again) clearly no reason for the law to have any bias towards the mother over the father, or vice versa.
Why should contraception be in a separate category from all other healthcare? Very many Christians, although they may not be willing to go so far as to support a ban on contraception, really don't want you to actually use it.
In any case, the economic and social benefits of women having the power to easily choose when they have children are easily sufficient justification for the government to require it to be covered by insurance.
If that is the case shouldn't the focus be on condoms not birth control pills? Condoms can prevent both pregnancy and the transfer of STDs. As a public health issue doesn't it make more sense to offer free condoms rather than BC pills?
Also condoms (and dental dams) work for both gay and straight couplings. BC pills only help straight couplings. Shouldn't the law be fair to all and not just selectively help one segment of the population?
These arguments aren't arguments against providing BC pills to the public, they're arguments for providing condoms for the public.
However, BC pills are a much more major issue than condoms, and hence require more government intervention, simply because condoms are cheap and birth control pills are not. Basically, the argument is that the proportion of people who would use BC pills if they were covered covered but wouldn't use them at the moment is vastly greater than that of people who would use condoms if they were covered but wouldn't at the moment.
That being said, that doesn't mean the government shouldn't require condoms to be covered - this might well still be a good idea. The pill is, however, a much bigger issue.
How about you take this discussion to the "I'm a male and I don't understand female health issues" thread?
Pregnancy is a health issue that impacts both genders.
Abortion will remain at a stalemate until science figures out how to successfully transplant an embryo/fetus from one womb to another. Once that happens the whole "woman's right to choose" vs. "father's rights" issue will truly go head to head. At this point when a women gets pregnant the rights of the father are nonexistent until the baby is born. If the unborn could be transplanted to a surrogate womb how will the law handle this?
Will such a scietific breakthrough change the debate?
How is this a major question?
Obviously as long as something is in the woman's body it should be her decision. However, once outside the mother, there is clearly no reason for the law to have any bias towards the mother over the father, or vice versa.
It's a major question because once science makes it possible to to transfer the unborn to a new womb the dynamic of the debate changes. At that point if a woman states she no longer desires to carry the unborn to full term it becomes possible for some other entity to come forth and give the unborn a new womb to live in until it is ready to be born. So at that point does the debate continue to be about a woman's right to choose (and refuse the transplant) or does the left change its stance and accept the transplant option?
We already have 'testtube' babies so it's not outside the realm of possibility.
It's a major question because once science makes it possible to to transfer the unborn to a new womb the dynamic of the debate changes. At that point if a woman states she no longer desires to carry the unborn to full term it becomes possible for some other entity to come forth and give the unborn a new womb to live in until it is ready to be born. So at that point does the debate continue to be about a woman's right to choose (and refuse the transplant) or does the left change its stance and accept the transplant option?
I don't see the issue. As far as the woman's body is directly involved, it is and should be the woman's decision. As such, I don't think one can require the woman to take one procedure over another, given that it's her body.
However, if the fetus is set to still be alive after it leaves the mother's body, what happens to it after that can be decided in advance by whoever will be considered legally responsible for it at that point. Such a procedure could of course involve re-implantation. Also, if a woman chooses not to continue with a pregnancy without strong medical reasons then I expect that would be a good legal argument for her to lose custody over it.
I don't see why this discussion is such a big deal, but if there's more to be said it should probably be said in a different thread, as Luke said.
If that is the case shouldn't the focus be on condoms not birth control pills? Condoms can prevent both pregnancy and the transfer of STDs. As a public health issue doesn't it make more sense to offer free condoms rather than BC pills?
Also condoms (and dental dams) work for both gay and straight couplings. BC pills only help straight couplings. Shouldn't the law be fair to all and not just selectively help one segment of the population?
I realize this is all hypothetical because the science is not there yet (it is in animals to an extent).
What I am asking (in a round about fashion) is whether or not advances in science should have an impact on a woman's right to choose the fate of her unborn child regardless of the rights of the father?
If the transplant is possible and the father wants the child should the mother still be able to chose abortion over transplant?
There's too many hypotheticals to answer that question. Assuming that abortion and transplantation are absolutely equal in terms of cost to both parents, risks to the mother in terms of complications, legal entanglements on the part of any parties who don't wish to be involved... you still have the question over whether one parent has the right to force a birth of a human being containing someone else's genetic material.
Right now that question is seriously complicated by medicine and physical concerns and is very dependent upon the actual logistics and health issues around pregnancy or abortion.
This is no longer a minefield in more civilized nations.
You're talking about current state, and I agree. Steve is talking about a hypothetical future state where pregnancy is no longer physically linked to gender.
you still have the question over whether one parent has the right to force a birth of a human being containing someone else's genetic material.
According to the law the answer is yes. Implicit in the right of a woman to choose to abort is also the right to choose not to abort. So a woman can birth a baby and make the father financially liable even if he did not want to be a father and there is nothing he can do to force an abortion.
There are even cases of women taking a used condom and using the sperm inside to impregnate themselves.
Comments
In any case, what's good for the district is different to what the people in the district think is good for the district. If the two were the same, there would be no point in having elected officials; why not just have direct democracy if the people are always right about every policy question?
CT is also a state with a very high percentage of registered independents. Ned Lamont won your parties primary and still lost in the general to Joe who ran as an independent. So clearly Lamont was too far to the left for CT.
EDIT: due to the high number of independents CT should have open primaries.
Congrats on joining the contingent of scared, racist old Nutmeggers who kept that bastard awash in insurance bribes.
However, as stated in the article, that type of approach doesn't restrict spending, only deficits - the budget is just as balanced if spending and tax are at 50% of GDP as it is if they are at 20%. This does remove the bias towards lowering tax too far that you get if you only restrict spending rather than deficits, but it doesn't do what the Republicans want.
Consequently, if you wanted to keep government from being "too big", you would also need to have an extra limit on spending as well as on the deficit; this would again need to be cyclically aware.
All that being said, while I think such policies might be reasonable, I don't see a huge need for them. Perhaps if it would satisfy some Republicans it would be a good thing to implement, if only because it would result in a less broken government.
That you think he was a Republican says more about you than it does about him.
Democrat abortion: women's rights.
Republican abortion: unborn's rights.
(Mutually exclusive because both sides see it as a human Rights issue.)
Democrat contraception: free contraception!
Republican contraception: pay for it yourself!
(Neither side is saying you can't have or use contraception unless said contraception is seen as abortion then previous.)
The Christian thing? That is just weird. The same group that is scared shitless of a Muslim theocracy doesn't seem to mind a Christian one. Chaulk that one up to a form of xenophobia based on ignorance.
Will such a scietific breakthrough change the debate?
Also, while I do think there is a significant amount of genuine (if misplaced) concern for unborn children, a significant portion of Republican opposition to abortion (and contraception) rights is about sex and their desire for people not to have it except in very limited circumstances. Why should contraception be in a separate category from all other healthcare? Very many Christians, although they may not be willing to go so far as to support a ban on contraception, really don't want you to actually use it.
In any case, the economic and social benefits of women having the power to easily choose when they have children are easily sufficient justification for the government to require it to be covered by insurance.
Also condoms (and dental dams) work for both gay and straight couplings. BC pills only help straight couplings. Shouldn't the law be fair to all and not just selectively help one segment of the population?
Obviously as long as something is in the woman's body it should be her decision. However, once outside the mother, there is (once again) clearly no reason for the law to have any bias towards the mother over the father, or vice versa.
These arguments aren't arguments against providing BC pills to the public, they're arguments for providing condoms for the public.
However, BC pills are a much more major issue than condoms, and hence require more government intervention, simply because condoms are cheap and birth control pills are not. Basically, the argument is that the proportion of people who would use BC pills if they were covered covered but wouldn't use them at the moment is vastly greater than that of people who would use condoms if they were covered but wouldn't at the moment.
That being said, that doesn't mean the government shouldn't require condoms to be covered - this might well still be a good idea. The pill is, however, a much bigger issue.
It's a major question because once science makes it possible to to transfer the unborn to a new womb the dynamic of the debate changes. At that point if a woman states she no longer desires to carry the unborn to full term it becomes possible for some other entity to come forth and give the unborn a new womb to live in until it is ready to be born. So at that point does the debate continue to be about a woman's right to choose (and refuse the transplant) or does the left change its stance and accept the transplant option?
We already have 'testtube' babies so it's not outside the realm of possibility.
However, if the fetus is set to still be alive after it leaves the mother's body, what happens to it after that can be decided in advance by whoever will be considered legally responsible for it at that point. Such a procedure could of course involve re-implantation. Also, if a woman chooses not to continue with a pregnancy without strong medical reasons then I expect that would be a good legal argument for her to lose custody over it.
I don't see why this discussion is such a big deal, but if there's more to be said it should probably be said in a different thread, as Luke said.
What I am asking (in a round about fashion) is whether or not advances in science should have an impact on a woman's right to choose the fate of her unborn child regardless of the rights of the father?
If the transplant is possible and the father wants the child should the mother still be able to chose abortion over transplant?
Right now that question is seriously complicated by medicine and physical concerns and is very dependent upon the actual logistics and health issues around pregnancy or abortion.
This is a minefield of a debate.
There are even cases of women taking a used condom and using the sperm inside to impregnate themselves.