View Full Version : About FACE

02-03-2012, 12:07 PM
Look! (http://news.yahoo.com/komen-drops-plan-cut-planned-parenthood-grants-163643930.html) We can change people's minds with pressure.

I don't buy your reasons, Komen, but thank you for doing the right thing.

Gilshalos Sedai
02-03-2012, 12:30 PM
Wait... why is planned parenthood even being investigated?

02-03-2012, 12:37 PM

eht slat meit
02-03-2012, 12:43 PM
Wait... why is planned parenthood even being investigated?

Extension of the previous investigation? There were some issues awhile back involving... can't quite remember what. A manager soliciting advice to a pimp for a prostitute? Or something else. There's been a couple of ugly pseudo-sting operations by action groups, and one actually resulted in legitimate issues being brought up, if I recall.

Gilshalos Sedai
02-03-2012, 12:53 PM

Holy hell in a handbasket.

02-03-2012, 01:26 PM
Holy hell in a handbasket.You did ask.

Gilshalos Sedai
02-03-2012, 01:29 PM
You did ask.

Yeah, I can imagine you can hear my eyes rolling all the way in Mississippi.

Yes, let's Congressionally investigate the non-profit that is the only healthcare poor women get with little evidence to warrant such investigation.

02-03-2012, 02:41 PM
Yeah, I can imagine you can hear my eyes rolling all the way in Mississippi.

Yes, let's Congressionally investigate the non-profit that is the only healthcare poor women get with little evidence to warrant such investigation.I mentioned in another thread that I'm reading Elizabeth Warren's book on what she calls 'the two-income trap'. It's a really fascinating book. She basically explains the whole mortgage crisis before it happens, except she doesn't get into the aspects that everyone has been talking about at all (securitization, ratings agencies, etc.). She talks about deregulation, starting with Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corps, which I had never heard of despite having read several books on the crisis already. (To be fair, I had to look in the footnotes to see that much, and I might have missed it in the others.) But her main point is how the entrance of mothers into the workforce created a really vicious competition for school districts, because it just so happened to occur at a time when the Civil Rights wound was still fresh, and white flight from urban public schools also became a severe problem. By the end of the 70s, you have the case I mentioned, which was apparently at least as important as Citizens United, but unlike CU it was unanimous. Reagan gets elected by preaching deregulation and 'small government', which sounds good to people who are angry about welfare queens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen). So, in the process of all this deregulation which allows you to prey on not only people with not-so-good credit but also people with good credit who could qualify for prime mortgages if they knew any better, you have these career women making it more difficult for families with stay-at-home mothers to compete. And this also happens at a time when a lot of black people are trying to get the hell out of the city too, and many of them have the means to do so. But they get stuck with mortgages that have hidden barbs, thanks to the race to the bottom and massive conflicts of interest. And the 'small government' philosophy just so happens to also contribute to the defunding of public education, which facilitates the lack of sophistication.

Anyway, her whole chapter on deregulation is framed by an experience she had with Hillary Clinton. When Hillary was First Lady, in 1998, she invited Warren to convince her to vote against a bill that would restrict bankruptcy protections, and so Warren argued it from the perspective of mothers trying to get child support from ex-husbands who needed bankruptcy relief in order to make child support his number one priority. Which I thought was sort of a strange argument, but I sensed there was a lot more to it and Warren was dumbing it down (for us, not for Hillary). Anyway, she tells how Hillary fought against it, and when it passed anyway, Bill vetoed it. (How could he tell her no at this point? :)) And then, Hillary gets elected to the Senate, and the bill gets revived in 2002, and guess what? Hillary votes for it, because she got $140,000 in campaign donations (which is a whole lot for a Senate campaign especially) from the folks in the financial industry who were lobbying for it.

At the end of the chapter, Warren comes back to the bill. The only Senator who received more from the banking industry than Hillary was also one of the supporters of the bill, Charles Schumer (D-NY). He ran on a pro-choice platform, which had attracted a number of women to vote for him. Pro-choice groups had sued some law-violating abortion clinic protestors, won, and then lost again when the protesters declared bankruptcy and refused to pay. So the women organized and demanded that Schumer put something in the bill to make it harder for these protesters, specifically, to discharge the judgments against them by declaring bankruptcy. And so he did (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:h.r.796:).

What's really hilarious about it is that, at this point, the uberconservative prolifers were obliged to withdraw their support, while the prochoicers all over the nation threatened to withdraw their support from any candidate who tried to take the provision out of the bill. Warren's summary: "Ultimately, two strange bedfellows—a small group of socially conservative Republicans and a handful of progressive Democrats—gathered enough momentum to defeat the bankruptcy bill against the best-financed lobbying campaign of the 107th Congress."

It eventually passed in 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_Abuse_Prevention_and_Consumer_Protectio n_Act), two years after Warren's book came out, and it doesn't seem to be all that different from the original. It's even called the 'bankruptcy reform and consumer protection act', and Warren made a mockery of that one in 2003 as well. It's kinda like the Clear Skies thing. The banking industry lobby, called the National Consumer Bankruptcy Coalition, had tried to convince people that the new laws would save each American $550. But that is based on a cost to the creditors that was 1) wildly inflated and 2) never intended to be returned to the consumer by way of less fees or lower interest rates. It was intended to be returned to the profit margin of the companies lobbying for the bill. And so it was passed, and it played a part in the 2007 blow-up of the subprime market.


Was it really a hijack? I did talk about abortion activists. :D

02-03-2012, 02:52 PM
One could argue that Hillary didnt flipflop but really just fought for her constituents (which, at that point included the NYC financial district where those companies were based)...one could argue.

I wouldn't but one could argue that way if they chose.

Gilshalos Sedai
02-03-2012, 02:54 PM
LOL, Sounds like an interesting book, if dry. I may have to find it. When I get to read for more than research purposes, that is.