Republican fiscal irresponsibility-policy failure #23,982

[RandomGuy]

DISCUSSION
After Texas abruptly excluded Planned Parenthood affiliates from its fee-for-service family-planning program, the number of claims for LARC methods declined, as did the number of claims for contraceptive injections. Among women using injectable contraceptives, fewer women who received an injection in the quarter preceding the exclusion continued to receive an injection through the program than did those in an earlier cohort. In addition, there was a disproportionate increase in the rate of childbirth covered by Medicaid. Although data are lacking on intendedness of pregnancy, it is likely that many of these pregnancies were unintended, since the rates of childbirth among these women increased in the counties that were affected by the exclusion and decreased in the rest of the state.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1511902#t=articleBackground

So, the Republican controlled legislature cuts funding for one of the primary sources of birth-control for poor women. Let government spending right?

Wrong.

If you make birth control more expensive, it gets used less. Simple supply and demand.

Of course the obvious result of less birth control is: more births. The problem, and the policy failure is that these births are among women who generally will need government assistance, i.e. Medicaid, costing the Taxpayers far more in the long run.

Obvious, of course, unless you are a Republican lawmaker.

Kind of embarrassing for a party that thinks of itself as being fiscally responsible to pass laws that end up increasing government spending, because they are too dumb to realize what contraception is for, innit?

[boutons_deux]

"Kind of embarrassing for a party that thinks of itself as being fiscally responsible"

Repugs are beyond embarrassment, they have no shame.

Repugs being strong on low spending is of course total bullshit, as they cut funding for the needy, poor, disabled, education, health, while "tax spending" heavily for their campaign donors. If they ever balance a budget, it's on the backs of the poor to keep tax dollars flowing to 1%, BigCorp.

And yes, many predicted that cutting funding for, closing TX health clinics would increase unwanted pregnancies, undetected STDs, cancers, other diseases, abortions (80K to 100K/year), etc. So no surprise that it's all coming true, more or less. The Repugs' war on poor (black, brown) women is unrelenting, in the name of Jesus Christ Our Lord and Saviour.

[Wild Cobra]

Simple solution.

Someone needs government assistance to raise kids they couldn't afford to have when they coceived, make them get their tubes tied for the privilege of assistance That way, we don't have repeat offenders of this crime on society. Both the man and woman.

[DarrinS]

Kind of embarrassing that San Fransisco, the Mecca of blue cities, has the the worst income inequality, especially for a party that gives so much lip service to that issue.

[DarrinS]

Bernie will fix it, tho. :lmao

Because he's an "outsider", even though he's been living off taxpayer tit since Reagan was elected. :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

Hyper-partisan post #23,982. Good job.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Simple solution.

Someone needs government assistance to raise kids they couldn't afford to have when they coceived, make them get their tubes tied for the privilege of assistance That way, we don't have repeat offenders of this crime on society. Both the man and woman.

:lol crime

So WC's solution is eugenics. Anyone else?

[TeyshaBlue]

What does WC have against Eugene anyway? :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What does WC have against Eugene anyway? :lol

It wouldn't be so bad if he wouldn't use economic status and phrenology as the basis for it.

Man In the High Castle explores the topic in episode 6.

[boutons_deux]

Simple solution.

Someone needs government assistance to raise kids they couldn't afford to have when they coceived, make them get their tubes tied for the privilege of assistance That way, we don't have repeat offenders of this crime on society. Both the man and woman.

2/3 of the people on public assistance are white. Do you racists "make them" get sterilized also?

[baseline bum]

Simple solution.

Someone needs government assistance to raise kids they couldn't afford to have when they coceived, make them get their tubes tied for the privilege of assistance That way, we don't have repeat offenders of this crime on society. Both the man and woman.

That's cold you would sterilize your own mother.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol crime

So WC's solution is eugenics. Anyone else?

Only a stupid shit like you can see that as eugenics.

Please, walk me through the rationale that makes it eugenic.



Full Definition of eugenics

: a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eugenics

Maybe you don't understand that hereditary when speaking of eugenics is dealing with genetics. The definition also specifies "race or breed."

I guess I should just pity you for your stupidity.

[Wild Cobra]

That's cold you would sterilize your own mother.

Do you always make stupid assumptions? My parents were ale to provide for me and my two sisters at all of our births. It wasn't till my youngest sister was six that they got divorced, and money was tighter. My mother was a stay at home mom, and only took food stamps for only a month or two until she found employment.

I pity you for being so fucking stupid that you think using the safety net for it's intended purpose is wrong. Not any of your business, but when she started dating again, she paid to have her tubes tied.

[Wild Cobra]

What does WC have against Eugene anyway? :lol

Nothing.

Eugene is the home of the University of Oregon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Oregon

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Only a stupid shit like you can see that as eugenics.

Please, walk me through the rationale that makes it eugenic.



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eugenics

Maybe you don't understand that hereditary when speaking of eugenics is dealing with genetics. The definition also specifies "race or breed."

I guess I should just pity you for your stupidity.

That's one definition. Your dumbass doesn't get mutual exclusivity either. It's a good idiot test, honestly, as it distills how people reckon nuance and complexity.

Here's another:


Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/; from Greek εὐγενής eugenes "well-born" from εὖ eu, "good, well" and γένος genos, "race, stock, kin")[2][3] is a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of the human population.[4][5] It is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human genetic traits through the promotion of higher rates of sexual reproduction for people with desired traits (positive eugenics), or reduced rates of sexual reproduction and sterilization of people with less-desired or undesired traits (negative eugenics), or both.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Sterilizing the poor is what it is, dumbass. The notion predates modern genetics as well so insisting on it is entertaining but doesn't hold water. That is kinda the whole point, science disproving the traits that have been typically used in eugenics.

[Wild Cobra]

2/3 of the people on public assistance are white. Do you racists "make them" get sterilized also?

Do you really expect me to answer such a stupid question?

Absolutely.

I don't care what color someone is. I they are so irresponsible as to have children they can not provide for, society should have the right to make sure they are not a repeat offender.

[baseline bum]

Do you always make stupid assumptions? My parents were ale to provide for me and my two sisters at all of our births. It wasn't till my youngest sister was six that they got divorced, and money was tighter. My mother was a stay at home mom, and only took food stamps for only a month or two until she found employment.

I pity you for being so fucking stupid that you think using the safety net for it's intended purpose is wrong. Not any of your business, but when she started dating again, she paid to have her tubes tied.

lol welfare cobra

[clambake]

Do you always make stupid assumptions? My parents were ale to provide for me and my two sisters at all of our births. It wasn't till my youngest sister was six that they got divorced, and money was tighter. My mother was a stay at home mom, and only took food stamps for only a month or two until she found employment.

I pity you for being so fucking stupid that you think using the safety net for it's intended purpose is wrong. Not any of your business, but when she started dating again, she paid to have her tubes tied.
we paid to keep you alive.

show some respect, foodstamp.

[Wild Cobra]

lol welfare cobra


we paid to keep you alive.

show some respect, foodstamp.

You two need to get a room.

[Winehole23]

that WC thinks means-testing parenthood and forced sterilization of the poor are reasonable extensions of the power of the administrative state, tells you pretty much all you need to know about his political orientation ...

...whatever it is is, it's authoritarian to the max.

[boutons_deux]

that WC thinks means-testing parenthood and forced sterilization of the poor are reasonable extensions of the power of the administrative state, tells you pretty much all you need to know about his political orientation ...

...whatever it is is, it's authoritarian to the max.

I've noted that WC ALWAYS defends the institution, org, company, govt etc against the individual.

[101A]

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1511902#t=articleBackground


If you make birth control more expensive, it gets used less. Simple supply and demand...



I don't disagree with you, and I feel Planned Parenthood provides a very useful service (one my wife, in fact, took advantage of many years ago while in college).

However, I didn't realize the laws of economics apply when dealing with the government.

I mean, if we make labor more expensive, won't it get used less, or not?

Or, if we make income more expensive, won't it get produced less?

Or, if we make healthcare or education free, won't they be used at inordinate rates?

Nevermind, I'm sure there are significant differences I don't understand.

[RandomGuy]

I don't disagree with you, and I feel Planned Parenthood provides a very useful service (one my wife, in fact, took advantage of many years ago while in college).

However, I didn't realize the laws of economics apply when dealing with the government.

I mean, if we make labor more expensive, won't it get used less, or not?

Or, if we make income more expensive, won't it get produced less?

Or, if we make healthcare or education free, won't they be used at inordinate rates?

Nevermind, I'm sure there are significant differences I don't understand.

Not sure what you mean by "applies to government".

In this case the supply/demand is a good/service, i.e. birth control. The government is not doing the demanding, but is providing funds for the supply, in lieu of the personal funds of the women who are doing the demanding. It is a subsidy.

To the people doing the demanding, the good costs less, so they can afford to buy more of it, relative to their desire to consume the good/service.

supply and demand relative to labor is a LOT trickier, because labor is the primary good that is sold massively within an economy.

Short term, make labor more expensive, and a lot of small decisions on the part of individual businesses will be to use less of it (micro-economic level). Over time though, give people more money for the labor they provide, and they will spend it in the economy, increasing all sorts of demands for other goods/services. In the mid-long term it is a lot harder to quantify cause/effect.

Cities that have increased minimum wage have provided some good laboratories for this. The best data that I have seen is that raising the minimum wage really has no overall effect.

Many conservatives who don't really understand economics like to argue that there "will be fewer jobs", to which I reply so fucking what?

To the people effected, who very often have more than one job, if one of them suddenly paid enough for them to quit working 80+ hours a week, they could easily afford to lose the 2nd job. There is then no real overall effect other than to squeeze out the kinds of marginal jobs no one wants/needs anyway. No big loss, IMO. If they then choose to go out and get another job, they will have a lot more extra money to save/invest/spend that will go back out washing around the economy, further increasing demand.

Hope that helps.

[Wild Cobra]

that WC thinks means-testing parenthood and forced sterilization of the poor are reasonable extensions of the power of the administrative state, tells you pretty much all you need to know about his political orientation ...

...whatever it is is, it's authoritarian to the max.

Why do you twist the meaning of what I say? Are you incapablbe of understanding my intent, or do yo think it's funny to do what adolescent children do?

[Wild Cobra]

I've noted that WC ALWAYS defends the institution, org, company, govt etc against the individual.

No, I defend the truth against idiots like you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't disagree with you, and I feel Planned Parenthood provides a very useful service (one my wife, in fact, took advantage of many years ago while in college).

However, I didn't realize the laws of economics apply when dealing with the government.

I mean, if we make labor more expensive, won't it get used less, or not?

Or, if we make income more expensive, won't it get produced less?

Or, if we make healthcare or education free, won't they be used at inordinate rates?

Nevermind, I'm sure there are significant differences I don't understand.

Milton Friedman used to try and model dynamics like that on the macro level and ended up looking clueless coming out the wash. You are basically regurgitating 1996 Gramm, Clinton, and Gingrich with their Contract With American ideology/rhetoric.

I'm still waiting for a GOP type to acknowledge the tradeoff in health insurance premiums for businesses and individuals. If it's more than 6% or 2% respectively, you come out ahead at the end.

http://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/2d3a692/2147483647/resize/652x%3E/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F95%2F3d%2F59bafa4b47cc833dc2fd4 a74e090%2F141209-insurance1-editorial.33.10%20PM.png

On average, individuals are spending 20% of their income on health care and families more. Even with copays and the like they are going to come out way ahead.

By your logic we should cancel public schools, medicare, the VA, etc. An educated population helps the economy not hinder. Health care has an almost vertical demand slope because after all without your health your QoL is shit or youre dead. That has an economic impact as well.

Reductio ad absurdum for self-serving ideology -I'm guessing you're on medicare- lost its luster 20 years ago. Millenials sure ain't buying it.

[clambake]

No, I defend the truth against idiots like you.

here's some truth.

wc: "dad, we don't have any food"
dad: "i can't talk right now, my table is ready"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

that WC thinks means-testing parenthood and forced sterilization of the poor are reasonable extensions of the power of the administrative state, tells you pretty much all you need to know about his political orientation ...

...whatever it is is, it's authoritarian to the max.

I could see him following orders at an internment camp or forcibly sterilizing people.

[baseline bum]

Hey Cobra man, let's go shoot some Mexicans at the border

[101A]

I'm still waiting for a GOP type to acknowledge the tradeoff in health insurance premiums for businesses and individuals. If it's more than 6% or 2% respectively, you come out ahead at the end.



Look for another one. I've got too big a dog in that fight, as I own a business that employs 20 people that derives 70% of its revenue from the sale and administration of group health insurance plans. Ironically our services are in such demand because we take compliance with the various government regulations (COBRA, HIPAA, HITEC, & ACA) out of the hands of our clients - took several employees all of January, plus thousands of lines of code to generate the brand new 1095 forms - investment we made that ought to pay off in future years, unless, of course, the goal posts get moved again, or taken away altogether.

[101A]

Not sure what you mean by "applies to government".

In this case the supply/demand is a good/service, i.e. birth control. The government is not doing the demanding, but is providing funds for the supply, in lieu of the personal funds of the women who are doing the demanding. It is a subsidy.

I agree.


To the people doing the demanding, the good costs less, so they can afford to buy more of it, relative to their desire to consume the good/service.

supply and demand relative to labor is a LOT trickier, because labor is the primary good that is sold massively within an economy.

Short term, make labor more expensive, and a lot of small decisions on the part of individual businesses will be to use less of it (micro-economic level). Over time though, give people more money for the labor they provide, and they will spend it in the economy, increasing all sorts of demands for other goods/services. In the mid-long term it is a lot harder to quantify cause/effect.

You're not increasing the money supply, are you? You're simply coercing the transfer of money from one class of people to another, right? Do employers spend less than employees?


Cities that have increased minimum wage have provided some good laboratories for this. The best data that I have seen is that raising the minimum wage really has no overall effect.

NO effect? Why do it?


Many conservatives who don't really understand economics like to argue that there "will be fewer jobs", to which I reply so fucking what?

Fewer jobs mean less production. Less production means a smaller economy, less growth, smaller pie. Economic growth and production ought to be the ultimate goal of economic policy. The more there is to go around, the better off. Make the rules, make them fair, let the games begin. There needs to be safety nets in place, and we need to stop encouraging jobs that only make money and don't produce goods and services (capital gains shouldn't be different from any other "income") - I could go on - I have enough moderation in my views that I couldn't pass a Republican litmus test, but I've got enough sense in them, to fail the Democrat's as well.

[RandomGuy]

You're not increasing the money supply, are you? You're simply coercing the transfer of money from one class of people to another, right? Do employers spend less than employees?

No.
Not exactly. No one is forcing an employer to hire anyone, or pay for service they don't need. I am not being coerced to give someone money for the candybar I want.
On the aggregate, it appears to be a wash.

[RandomGuy]

NO effect? Why do it?

To improve quality of life for those effected.

Allowing parents working 80 hour work weeks to spend time with their kids probably has some beneficial effects that would be hard to quantify.

Allowing people the luxury of time may also allow for job training or even advancement of education.

Moral and economic reasons, in other words. I would do it simply for the moral reason, but there is some argument to be made that there is some wider societal benefit as well to having people with some free time to do things not related to simple sustainment of life.

[RandomGuy]

Fewer jobs mean less production.

False. Re: productivity

[RandomGuy]

Fewer jobs mean less production. Less production means a smaller economy, less growth, smaller pie. Economic growth and production ought to be the ultimate goal of economic policy. The more there is to go around, the better off. Make the rules, make them fair, let the games begin. There needs to be safety nets in place, and we need to stop encouraging jobs that only make money and don't produce goods and services (capital gains shouldn't be different from any other "income") - I could go on - I have enough moderation in my views that I couldn't pass a Republican litmus test, but I've got enough sense in them, to fail the Democrat's as well.

"Less production means a smaller economy"

"production" is not how economies are measured. Your argument does not follow.

Economies are measured by net income. If you improve net incomes then you improve the economy by definition.

Increasing minimum wage doesn't really appear to have have an effect on either.

But the onus is on me to prove that. I will troop out and find some studies, so you don't have to simply take my word for it.

Because I value intellectual honesty, I will also try to find a few confounding studies. It interests me, and I am more concerned about the truth than my ego.

"If you laid all economists out end to end, they would still not reach a conclusion." -some famous guy or other.

[101A]

"Less production means a smaller economy"

"production" is not how economies are measured. Your argument does not follow.

Economies are measured by net income. If you improve net incomes then you improve the economy by definition.

Increasing minimum wage doesn't really appear to have have an effect on either.

But the onus is on me to prove that. I will troop out and find some studies, so you don't have to simply take my word for it.

Because I value intellectual honesty, I will also try to find a few confounding studies. It interests me, and I am more concerned about the truth than my ego.

"If you laid all economists out end to end, they would still not reach a conclusion." -some famous guy or other.

Didn't mean to give you homework. Par for the board is speaking out your ass (except Winehole) - I appreciate the effort, however. I, also, am interested in truth. I understand that the size of an economy is the net total of incomes, but if there is more production - then the TOTAL of incomes will be greater, because the net value of the work is greater. Pay a guy to make 4 widgets the same as you pay him to make 5, and you will get 4, not 5 widgets. 5 > 4.

Again, I am not making an argument for slave wages, nor even for getting rid of the minimum wage, or even not raising it some. I am simply trying to delve into the economics of such choices, from a fundamentally pedestrian knowledge of economics. Capitalism, as bad of a rap as it has, has given us the best standard of living, world-wide, by several magnitudes of any other economic system. Since 1990 alone over a billion people have been pulled out of "extreme poverty."

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim.

With those kinds of results, we all ought to look with suspect eyes at people who demonize capitalism. What is their real agenda? It can't be to truly help the underprivileged, can it? Capitalism DOES that better than anything. It was the collapse of Soviet sponsored socialism that garnered in this wonderful period, after all. My cynical side suspects it is because they want to exploit the naivete of others (millennials) for personal gain and power.

[Winehole23]

Why do you twist the meaning of what I say? Are you incapablbe of understanding my intent, or do yo think it's funny to do what adolescent children do?you acceded to everything I just said in a previous thread.

I can repost it if you like.

[z0sa]

that WC thinks means-testing parenthood and forced sterilization of the poor are reasonable extensions of the power of the administrative state, tells you pretty much all you need to know about his political orientation ...

...whatever it is is, it's authoritarian to the max.

True that. It's honestly frightening.

[Winehole23]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189867

[Winehole23]

shooting immigrants at the border. I can link that too, but the search function works just as well....

[z0sa]

I got a kick out of your observation of his "faithful correspondence." Something I had not noticed til now.

[Winehole23]

was better. not such a faithful correspondent now.

former poster of the year. this forum, once upon a time, was more keyed to his improvised obfuscations according to his frequency of posting.

much less so now.

[Winehole23]

similar goes for Yonivore. has he got a new handle now?

[Winehole23]

gtown, I assume, has a new sock puppet if he hasn't croaked. hard to tell.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Look for another one. I've got too big a dog in that fight, as I own a business that employs 20 people that derives 70% of its revenue from the sale and administration of group health insurance plans. Ironically our services are in such demand because we take compliance with the various government regulations (COBRA, HIPAA, HITEC, & ACA) out of the hands of our clients - took several employees all of January, plus thousands of lines of code to generate the brand new 1095 forms - investment we made that ought to pay off in future years, unless, of course, the goal posts get moved again, or taken away altogether.

Thank you for admitting your obvious conflict of interest. Bernie's plan goes through and you're out of a ton of business.

You still don't address it directly. What percentage of your payroll is spent on health care?