The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I think the only constituency who would be viscerally opposed to your (sensible, IMHO) approach would be labor groups, who might not want a permanent competitor in the marketplace - they may prefer to hold out hope that foreigners could be kept out entirely. If they're smart, though, they'll realize that's a pipe dream and accept that regulated foreign labor will still not depress wages as much as illegal foreign labor.

Yah, big labor is an obvious opponent of any method of legalizing low cost Mexican labor. Given that those workers are here in spades already though, filling low wage jobs, I don't think they have a strong argument. Really, as a country we're pretty much incapable of dealing with any large complex issue in a reasonable, measured way. We're just dumb.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Planned Parenthood wants more abortions. Money.

That must be why they advertise abortion so prominently on their web site.

Oh wait, they don't. They do have an item in large print that reads "WHICH KIND OF BIRTH CONTROL IS RIGHT FOR YOU?" but I'm guessing that's just so they can sell you birth control pills that don't work or condoms with holes in them...

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I think the only constituency who would be viscerally opposed to your (sensible, IMHO) approach would be labor groups, who might not want a permanent competitor in the marketplace - they may prefer to hold out hope that foreigners could be kept out entirely. If they're smart, though, they'll realize that's a pipe dream and accept that regulated foreign labor will still not depress wages as much as illegal foreign labor.

Employers would just love to lose their cheap, sub-minimum wage labor source.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

That must be why they advertise abortion so prominently on their web site.

Oh wait, they don't. They do have an item in large print that reads "WHICH KIND OF BIRTH CONTROL IS RIGHT FOR YOU?" but I'm guessing that's just so they can sell you birth control pills that don't work or condoms with holes in them...

Amazing how people can't recognize the desire to financially profit when it doesn't match their partisan positions. Take away the profit motive for Planned Parenthood, and then the conversation changes. Or maybe you just think they are so saintly that they are immune to the profit motive?

 

[jerphisch]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

From which we've already recovered, yet the deficit keeps climbing. I wonder why?

So you tell someone they are wrong, revenue as a percent of GDP isn't low. I point out that you had the wrong chart, and now we switch topics?

From the same link I posted previously the avg. Federal Total Direct Revenue from 1950-2009 was 17.76%, 2010 was 14.89%, 2011 was 15.26% and 2012 is estimated at 15.82%. I wouldn't exactly say we have recovered. But please inform me more about the defecit, which has nothing to do with anything I've posted.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Amazing how people can't recognize the desire to financially profit when it doesn't match their partisan positions. Take away the profit motive for Planned Parenthood, and then the conversation changes. Or maybe you just think they are so saintly that they are immune to the profit motive?

Can you cite any reasonable source for this belief that Planned Parenthood is making so much money off abortions? I'd love to see it.
And no, the Heritage Foundation, Drudge Report, Newsbusters and Faux "News" do not count.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I think the only constituency who would be viscerally opposed to your (sensible, IMHO) approach would be labor groups, who might not want a permanent competitor in the marketplace - they may prefer to hold out hope that foreigners could be kept out entirely. If they're smart, though, they'll realize that's a pipe dream and accept that regulated foreign labor will still not depress wages as much as illegal foreign labor.

Actually it would be the business lobby that would oppose this most strongly. Labor groups are already competing with low wage illegal labor, so I'm not sure why they would oppose getting these people out of the shadows as presumably that would require them getting paid more hence reducing their appeal for the business hiring them as you somewhat allude to. However the hiring firm is the one who benefits the most from low wage illegals and thus would fight hardest to keep the status quo. These also tend to be more Republican leaning....

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Can you cite any reasonable source for this belief that Planned Parenthood is making so much money off abortions? I'd love to see it.
And no, the Heritage Foundation, Drudge Report, Newsbusters and Faux "News" do not count.

Ever read "Unplanned", which is the story of a long time director of a Texas clinic? She discusses at length the on-going pressure to do more abortions to improve the bottom line. Clinics that didn't do enough abortions got in trouble. I'm sure there are other sources out there if you look.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Actually it would be the business lobby that would oppose this most strongly. Labor groups are already competing with low wage illegal labor, so I'm not sure why they would oppose getting these people out of the shadows as presumably that would require them getting paid more hence reducing their appeal for the business hiring them as you somewhat allude to. However the hiring firm is the one who benefits the most from low wage illegals and thus would fight hardest to keep the status quo. These also tend to be more Republican leaning....

True, big business, or at least parts of it would be in opposition, as would labor. Those two in concert could be a significant hurdle to clear, though it could be done.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

So you tell someone they are wrong, revenue as a percent of GDP isn't low. I point out that you had the wrong chart, and now we switch topics?

From the same link I posted previously the avg. Federal Total Direct Revenue from 1950-2009 was 17.76%, 2010 was 14.89%, 2011 was 15.26% and 2012 is estimated at 15.82%. I wouldn't exactly say we have recovered. But please inform me more about the defecit, which has nothing to do with anything I've posted.

My bad. I did not realize that chart was a mix of actual and projected data - just looked at the value on the right hand side and assumed that was the most recent.

My only point in mentioning the deficit was to point out the obvious: it doesn't matter what % of the GDP we collect in taxes if we spend more than we bring in. I don't care what the % is - so long as it balances.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Actually it would be the business lobby that would oppose this most strongly. Labor groups are already competing with low wage illegal labor, so I'm not sure why they would oppose getting these people out of the shadows as presumably that would require them getting paid more hence reducing their appeal for the business hiring them as you somewhat allude to. However the hiring firm is the one who benefits the most from low wage illegals and thus would fight hardest to keep the status quo. These also tend to be more Republican leaning....

I'm not so sure, but maybe I have a different view of what constitutes "big business." The big companies I've worked with (aerospace) are so risk averse that they would much rather pay a higher, known cost for legal workers than deal with potentially unlimited liability for using illegal workers. With a legalized pool of foreign workers available, there would be a huge number of companies who could benefit from that - companies that would never even consider hiring an illegal. On balance, then, I see this as maybe a wash for business overall - the ones currently using illegals would suffer, but the ones who currently aren't could benefit.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Ever read "Unplanned", which is the story of a long time director of a Texas clinic? She discusses at length the on-going pressure to do more abortions to improve the bottom line. Clinics that didn't do enough abortions got in trouble. I'm sure there are other sources out there if you look.

No, I haven't read any books from Focus on the Family by 'doctors' who are "the chief research strategist for Live Action, a pro-life organization that is known for conducting sting operations against Planned Parenthood clinics."

And a quick Google search came up with this from Politifact.com which shows that claims that "Planned Parenthood had $300 million 'profit'" were false.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

True, big business, or at least parts of it would be in opposition, as would labor. Those two in concert could be a significant hurdle to clear, though it could be done.

And yet you only mentioned labor in your post on the subject...

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

No, I haven't read any books from Focus on the Family by 'doctors' who are "the chief research strategist for Live Action, a pro-life organization that is known for conducting sting operations against Planned Parenthood clinics."

And a quick Google search came up with this from Politifact.com which shows that claims that "Planned Parenthood had $300 million 'profit'" were false.

I think we should just outlaw it. Overturn Roe vs. Wade and be done. I'd vote for it. Quite frankly I'm sick of arguing about it and the entertainment value of the fallout would be worth it to me.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

And yet you only mentioned labor in your post on the subject...

Sorry my posts aren't all encompassing. Someone else mentioned labor specifically and I responded. Nitpicky (and erroneously so) much?

 

[busterman62]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

And a quick Google search came up with this from Politifact.com which shows that claims that "Planned Parenthood had $300 million 'profit'" were false.

Most of the argument for this being a falsehood is based on whether or not one can call an increase in net assets of an NPO a "profit." Net assets increased and did so again in 2011 to the tune of about $97M

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Most of the argument for this being a falsehood is based on whether or not one can call an increase in net assets of an NPO a "profit." Net assets increased and did so again in 2011 to the tune of about $97M

.

We said we'd examine both the dollar figure and the word "profits." We think the "more than $300 million" description is off base because of the $78 million in losses, but neither Planned Parenthood nor the SBA List is saying definitively what the investment gains or losses were for the four-year period. Still, there is some element of truth in that it's at least scores of millions of dollars.

In the second part of our ruling, we looked at whether "excess revenue over expenses" for a nonprofit is the same as "profit." Most of the experts we consulted say no. And the one who would call it profit agrees that it's not treated the same way as profit for a corporation. Companies distribute their profits to shareholders and owners, while nonprofits put their excess revenues back into the organization's work. We think the real sting in this claim comes from the word "profits," so we weighed that more heavily than the vague dollar figures in our ruling. We rate this claim Barely True.

Still, I have yet to see any source for the argument that PP makes significant amounts of money specifically from abortion. Since this is a non-profit health organization, they are not driven by a profit motive. If you could make lots of money providing abortions, one would assume there would be tons of private businesses started to get some of that massive amount of money...

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Don't think we have definitive proof that Planned Parenthood seeks out abortions. A book saying so...means as much as an ex employee of Bain saying that they know that Romney was out to destroy companies for profit.

And just because a company does receive some profit from a procedure...doesn't mean it goes out of its way to do the procedure whenever it can. The number of hospitals caught pushing unnecessary procedures is not tremendously high.

 

[busterman62]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

.


Still, I have yet to see any source for the argument that PP makes significant amounts of money specifically from abortion. Since this is a non-profit health organization, they are not driven by a profit motive. If you could make lots of money providing abortions, one would assume there would be tons of private businesses started to get some of that massive amount of money...

Not sure it's info anyone will ever be able get the complete facts on. If you ballpark PP's numbers of 330K procedures at $500 each you get $165M. Not chump change by most peoples estimation.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Amazing how people can't recognize the desire to financially profit when it doesn't match their partisan positions. Take away the profit motive for Planned Parenthood, and then the conversation changes. Or maybe you just think they are so saintly that they are immune to the profit motive?

So what you are saying is that every for-profit effort that offers any service wants an increase in the need for that service. Right?

Hint: I really, really don't think you should take this path, but boy do I want you to...