GOP senator: Republicans should move on from defunding Planned Parenthood

[TomCADem]

Source: The Hill

Republicans should "move on" from insisting on defunding Planned Parenthood in a 2011 spending bill, a Republican senator said Friday.

With less than 24 hours to go until a shutdown, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) suggested that a rider to defund Planned Parenthood, a key sticking point in reaching an agreement, was expendable.

"I'd like to defund Planned Parenthood, but I understand that Republicans don't have complete control of the elected government," Toomey said on MSNBC. "I think what we should do is cut spending as much as we can, get the policy changes that we can, but move on, because there are other, bigger battles that we are fighting."

Toomey said it would be his preference to defund Planned Parenthood, but acknowledged that Democratic control of the Senate meant that such a measure, attached to the House-passed spending bill, made it unlikely to pass. To that end, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Thursday that it would be nearly "impossible" to prevent a shutdown unless the riders are dropped.


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/154807-gop-senator-republicans-should-move-on-from-defunding-planned-parenthood

---

Even Republicans are starting to admit that the shutdown is nothing more than an attempt to use the budget process as leverage to implement their right wing social agenda. Yet, the corporate media still insists on portraying a false equivalency suggesting that Democrats are being just as unreasonable in protecting reproductive rights.

[underpants]

1. "move on" so ironic. The Repubs are also going to "move on" past their base

Rush Limbaugh today was even talking about social issues - he usually avoids them ....for obvious reasons

[femmocrat]

2. Toomey....

:puke:

He is another Santorum. Interesting that he would "compromise his principles" on his defining issue.

[wisteria]

14. Toomey is the result of people fighting against Specter. I loath this man and wish he was not my

Senate representative. he don't give a damn about women or their health issues, he just knows now is not the time to push this. In other words, he is a POS.

[No Elephants]

17. Spectre switched Parties (for the second time) because Toomey was going to win the Rethug primary.

Spectre couldn't win the Democratic primary, either. Very obviously, Republicans didn't want Spectre and neither did Democrats who cared enough to vote in a primary. No one likes a self serving turncoat, let alone a two-time two-timer.


More likely, Sestak lost because his own Party had Lamonted him, Republicans did not bak him (unlike Lieberman) and Dem voters did not turn out in 2010. Or maybe it was just Toomey's year.

However, imagining an 80-year old Republicon who could not win either Party's primary would have beaten Toomey in an election is beyond wishful thinking.

[Angry Dragon]

3. Raise the damn taxes on the higher paid people in

this country

If they don't like that then let them move out as they threaten
Eliminate corporation loopholes, install regulations to protect
the people of this country.
If a corporation can not make money with honest regulations and
fair tax policy then they do not know how to run and manage
a corporation and do not deserve their pornographic pay.

I am sick and tired of all the bullshit ................

[SnakeEyes]

9. But what happens when they do leave...

then the lesser paid people have to start paying more.

And businesses can make money with a fair tax policy, they can do it with any tax policy. They just pass that cost on to their workers or consumers. We end up paying it.

[Angry Dragon]

11. Nothing would happen when they left

If they make money here it would get taxed, no matter where they lived

If you start breaking up the monopolies then you would have competition
Prices are going up any way.

[HankyDubs]

15. what happens when they do leave is

...the working schlub gets her country back.

"They just pass that cost on to their workers or consumers."

Caution--right wing talking point!

So when they get tax cuts, they pass those on to consumers too, right? RIGHT?

[SnakeEyes]

20. Why would you even ask that?

One's a liability and the other is a benefit. If a company did, it would be for reasons other than generosity.

As for your underhanded assertion that I'm passing along right wing talking points... I'm only speaking reality of business/econ. It's pretty much 101. Taxes are a cost of business. In order to make a profit you must overcome your costs. Changes to prices and employment/pay/benefits are the easiest way to overcome a shift in costs in order to maintain profit levels. This is especially true with public companies whose number one duty is to maximize profits for the shareholders.

[HankyDubs]

22. that is right wing talking points 101

"If a company did, it would be for reasons other than generosity."

I guess this is business/econ 102. What's the reason? Did you read that part of your textbook yet?

"This is especially true with public companies whose number one duty is to maximize profits for the shareholders."

So why is it that you want to be slavishly beholden to entities without conscience?

We don't need the parasitic ownership class. No really we don't. If they want to "go Galt," I'll open the door for them.

[SnakeEyes]

24. Nothing personal

But you are ignorant for believing that businesses just eat a tax increase and take a loss in profits.

[SnakeEyes]

25. As for

a company possibly passing along a tax break... are you saying if they ever did it would be generosity? Again I'm confused why you're questioning me on this part. As I already said, a tax increase is a liability so the company would find a way to make up for the drop in profit. A tax break is beneficial to the company so they'd be less likely to pass that on and instead turn that into profit or put it back into the business somewhere. If the consumer saw a benefit it wouldn't be just because the company was being generous.

[plumbob]

21. If they leave, we save trillions on welfare they receive. Begin with $800

billion a year for the military, run for their profit. Then take all of the money-making devices out - HMOs, insurance, and all of the other middle men who skim money for real things into their pockets. TSA - another vehicle for them to make money selling us hugely expensive scanners and the like for which there is no need.

And please do not pass on the old canard that we pay their taxes. Only as far as elasticity of price and demand will allow. After that, it comes out of their hide. If we really paid all their taxes for them, they'd know that and would agree to anything. Instead, they write up so many exemptions that they pay nothing, and we owe them billions, ala GE.

Corporations pay 9% of all the taxes in this country, down from 30% a short time ago. It should be 90%. Once we rid ourselves of these leeches who were born on third base, but who believe they hit a triple, the better off we'll be, much closer to the ideal of smaller enterprise that the actual founders had in mind, including no more involvement overseas in the affairs of those who have hated and killed each other for centuries. They've been throwing cheap reusable rocks at each other in a sustainable hatred.

Large US defense contractors made escalation possible, but only on your back and mine.

They're not really going anywhere, anyway. Ask those London bankers how they liked Spain for the whole week they were there - dialup Internet, intermittent electricity, very few dry cleaners. They took one short look and ran yelping back to London. I wish they would all move to Paraguay and not be allowed to come back - my advance apologies to natives of Paraguay, but someone needs to take one for the team here.

When they leave, I'll dance in the street.

[SnakeEyes]

26. How would the rich leaving save $800B

on the military?

[plumbob]

27. Surely you don't think poor people sell the armed forces all that fucking

godawful expensive shit, do you?

Let's face it - the military does not protect poor peoples' shit overseas - it protects United Fruit, DuPont, and all the rest of the rich cats' shit. They leave - we have no obligation to spend to protect their shit, no need to buy. Current military expenditures are well above $800 billion per year - be sure and count all the real costs, like disability, lost time, opportunity cost of millions of young people doing nothing productive, and so on. Even their own admitted dollar figure, which is minimized with all future liability placed elsewhere, is around $700 billion.

http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2012/fy2012_BudgetBriefing.pdf

[blue neen]

4. I'll tell you why Toomey thinks it's expendable--because his benefactor Richard Mellon Scaife

actually supports Planned Parenthood. Scaife wrote an editorial for his rag, the Tribune Review, supporting Planned Parenthood--I don't know why he had a sudden moment of lucidity, but it really did happen.

Toomey has received his marching orders from Scaife. It is as simple as that. Meanwhile, Poindexter Pat will go around acting like he's suddenly the voice of reason. Hypocrite.

Believe me, if Scaife hated the idea, then Toomey would, too.

[femmocrat]

23. You are so right! Scaife's grandmother knew and supported Margaret Sanger!

Here's a link:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/valleynewsdispatch/opinion/s_724838.html

[SharksBreath]

5. They might as well. They already robbed the store.

It's like robbing the store for everything you wanted but taking the bell off the door just because you like the way it sounds.

Which would be the one thing that gets you caught while your running away from the robbery.

[Blacksheep214]

6. Too many regulations based on religious beliefs.

It's time to tax the churches to see how deep some of those beliefs go!

Especially those pertaining to not being your brothers, (or sisters) keeper.

Get the hell out of our lives with your small government!

I do not believe and you will not and cannot make me! I WILL fight to keep my rights!

[SnakeEyes]

10. what regulations?

your entire post was kinda vague... just an FYI.

[No Elephants]

19. Given the thread topic, I'm guessing restrictions on reproductive rights.

873 posts since February 1, 2006--and that was one of them?

[Turbineguy]

7. Besides, they can hold up

the country for ransom in a few weeks on the debt ceiling.

[Hugabear]

8. Protecting reproductive rights is unreasonable?

Fuck that. Liberal media my ass.

[Canuckistanian]

12. Gee, and it seemed like a winning strategy for them

Dumbasses

[wisteria]

13. Sen. Toomey apparently doesn't understand that a majority of Americans don't want to defund Planned

Parenthood. I am still sickened thinking about how expendable women's health issues seem to be to some of our elected officials-Toomey included.

[tanyev]

16. Insuring that they can trot it out again whenever they need to rile up the base.

[No Elephants]

18. Rethugs got more out of this than they dreamed, both as to money and riders.

Spinning this as a victory for us is downright laughable but that doesn't seem to bother Duers.