obama is taking my $

[CRedskinsRule]

What bothers me most about this is that these are what Obama felt he must do with in the first days to appease his political wing:
Close Gitmo
Allow funding of international groups that support abortions (petty note-couldn't we get american funds straightened out before we worry whether we are giving out enough to the international community?)
Halt all of Bush's last minute regulations
Freeze pay of White House staff making over 100K (except his as he is not allowed - I wonder if he offered to keep getting a Senator's salary? [i know petty again])

Again I want Obama to succeed, but I really don't see how this holds to his quote to put petty political stuff aside for the good of the country.

[12thMan]

I think we're completely misunderstanding what's happening here. President Obama isn't funding abortion at all. I don't know how much clearer it can get than that.

This is foreign aid money that has gone to these same handful of countries for umpteen years and it represents approximately .01% of federal spending.

This has nothing to do with funding abortion, but everything to do with making adequate healthcare available for woman in foreign countries. In fact, there's a very specific clause, Hyde-Weldon clause, that prohibits federal funding to go directly toward abortion procedures. It's the law.

Sorry, but this isn't some liberal-socialist agenda like some on the right would have people believe. The President is simply repealing a clause that says international agencies or NGOs that are the recipeints of US funding can now offer healthcare services and counseling to women abroad.

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I think we're completely misunderstanding what's happening here. President Obama isn't funding abortion at all. I don't know how much clearer it can get than that.

This is foreign aid money that has gone to these same handful of countries for umpteen years and it represents approximately .01% of federal spending.

This has nothing to do with funding abortion, but everything to do with making adequate healthcare available for woman in foreign countries. In fact, there's a very specific clause, Hyde-Weldon clause, that prohibits federal funding to go directly toward abortion procedures. It's the law.

Sorry, but this isn't some liberal-socialist agenda like some on the right would have people believe. The President is simply repealing a clause that says international agencies or NGOs that are the recipeints of US funding can now offer healthcare services and counseling to women abroad.

Thank you for this. The author of this thread, most likely in ignorance, wrote a title suggesting this issue to be something that is not. The following discussion has been predictably inane. So thanks for setting the record straight.

Anyway 12th, I have to tell you, I really think this age of political divisiveness is coming to an end. You know the playbook, the one where you find divisive, largely symbolic issues to exploit – which have little to do with people’s actual lives – and use them to get the folks all fired up. It's that FOX News thing where you find some radical 60's professor or woman in a coma and have the spewing pundits wax vitriolic until everyone is worked up into a tizzy and foaming at the mouth.

When the economy was fundamentally sound and the nation was at peace perhaps we had the luxury of engaging in such nonsense. But at this stage in the game, I just don’t think it’s going to work anymore. People have too much on their mind (my conservative friends at The Warpath not withstanding of course, some of whom seem genuinely uninterested in letting an opportunity for outrage go to waste).

[saden1]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

Thank you for this. The author of this thread, most likely in ignorance, wrote a title suggesting this issue to be something that is not. The following discussion has been predictably inane. So thanks for setting the record straight.

Anyway 12th, I have to tell you, I really think this age of political divisiveness is coming to an end. You know the playbook, the one where you find divisive, largely symbolic issues to exploit – which have little to do with people’s actual lives – and use them to get the folks all fired up. It's that FOX News thing where you find some radical 60's professor or woman in a coma and have the spewing pundits wax vitriolic until everyone is worked up into a tizzy and foaming at the mouth.

When the economy was fundamentally sound and the nation was at peace perhaps we had the luxury of engaging in such nonsense. But at this stage in the game, I just don’t think it’s going to work anymore. People have too much on their mind (my conservative friends at The Warpath not withstanding of course, some of whom seem genuinely uninterested in letting an opportunity for outrage go to waste).

Faux outrage is here even with the current economic downturn and will always be here. Man is an animal, leading people to abandon objective moral standards involuntarily. This tragic flaw of man.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

Thank you for this. The author of this thread, most likely in ignorance, wrote a title suggesting this issue to be something that is not. The following discussion has been predictably inane. So thanks for setting the record straight.

Anyway 12th, I have to tell you, I really think this age of political divisiveness is coming to an end. You know the playbook, the one where you find divisive, largely symbolic issues to exploit – which have little to do with people’s actual lives – and use them to get the folks all fired up. It's that FOX News thing where you find some radical 60's professor or woman in a coma and have the spewing pundits wax vitriolic until everyone is worked up into a tizzy and foaming at the mouth.

When the economy was fundamentally sound and the nation was at peace perhaps we had the luxury of engaging in such nonsense. But at this stage in the game, I just don’t think it’s going to work anymore. People have too much on their mind (my conservative friends at The Warpath not withstanding of course, some of whom seem genuinely uninterested in letting an opportunity for outrage go to waste).

Well I guess that CNN is doing the same thing as you say Fox News and all the right wingers with the title of their article and this also shows that 12th has the wrong clause. So here is CNN Title and thred.
Obama reverses abortion-funding policy

Obama reverses abortion-funding policy - CNN.com

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I think we're completely misunderstanding what's happening here. President Obama isn't funding abortion at all. I don't know how much clearer it can get than that.

This is foreign aid money that has gone to these same handful of countries for umpteen years and it represents approximately .01% of federal spending.

This has nothing to do with funding abortion, but everything to do with making adequate healthcare available for woman in foreign countries. In fact, there's a very specific clause, Hyde-Weldon clause, that prohibits federal funding to go directly toward abortion procedures. It's the law.

Sorry, but this isn't some liberal-socialist agenda like some on the right would have people believe. The President is simply repealing a clause that says international agencies or NGOs that are the recipeints of US funding can now offer healthcare services and counseling to women abroad.

Good points sir. The whole topic of foreign aid is actually pretty interesting. When polled Americans typically say we already give enough or too much in the form of aid... turns out it's because most believe we already set aside something like 10% or more of the fed budget for aid. When pollsters ask the question differently, informing folks first that less than 1% is budgeted, most answer we should give more than we do.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Good points sir. The whole topic of foreign aid is actually pretty interesting. When polled Americans typically say we already give enough or too much in the form of aid... turns out it's because most believe we already set aside something like 10% or more of the fed budget for aid. When pollsters ask the question differently, informing folks first that less than 1% is budgeted, most answer we should give more than we do.

Yeah, that's the thing. We don't spend that much, in fact very little, in relative terms, on foreign aid. It's just that given the current economic crisis and the mood of the country, the notion that we're sending money anywhere (other than our own back yard) just rubs people the wrong way, and understandably so.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Yeah, that's the thing. We don't spend that much, in fact very little, in relative terms, on foreign aid. It's just that given the current economic crisis and the mood of the country, the notion that we're sending money anywhere (other than our own back yard) just rubs people the wrong way, and understandably so.

Totally, and besides we give a ton in the form of private donations. In fact i think when the private side is added in we're pretty similar (per capita wise) to the most "generous" countries like Sweden, Norway etc.

... my guess is the private side does a better job most of the time too. I think Worldvision is fantastic.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I think we're completely misunderstanding what's happening here. President Obama isn't funding abortion at all. I don't know how much clearer it can get than that. .

Coming just one day after the 36th anniversary of the tragic Roe v. Wade decision, this presidential directive forces taxpayers to subsidize abortions overseas _ something no American should be required by government to do," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio

this quote came directly from the article.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

Coming just one day after the 36th anniversary of the tragic Roe v. Wade decision, this presidential directive forces taxpayers to subsidize abortions overseas _ something no American should be required by government to do," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio

this quote came directly from the article.

Good one.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I think we're completely misunderstanding what's happening here. President Obama isn't funding abortion at all. I don't know how much clearer it can get than that.

This is foreign aid money that has gone to these same handful of countries for umpteen years and it represents approximately .01% of federal spending.

This has nothing to do with funding abortion, but everything to do with making adequate healthcare available for woman in foreign countries. In fact, there's a very specific clause, Hyde-Weldon clause, that prohibits federal funding to go directly toward abortion procedures. It's the law.

Sorry, but this isn't some liberal-socialist agenda like some on the right would have people believe. The President is simply repealing a clause that says international agencies or NGOs that are the recipeints of US funding can now offer healthcare services and counseling to women abroad.

Sorry but you have tho wrong clause because the Hyde/Weldon Clause was just past in 2005 and so how could Obama apeal the same clause as Clinton and Carter if it was just passed. Pleas try again.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Sorry but you have tho wrong clause because the Hyde/Weldon Clause was just past in 2005 and so how could Obama apeal the same clause as Clinton and Carter if it was just passed. Pleas try again.

I never said that Obama repealed Hyde-Weldon, but the "Global Gag Rule." Yes, Hyde came afterwards, but it's in there to serve more than one purpose. And I can assure you, the funds aren't supposed to fund abortion but rather offer counseling services and allow women to know the options available, among other things health related.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I never said that Obama repealed Hyde-Weldon, but the "Global Gag Rule." Yes, Hyde came afterwards, but it's in there to serve more than one purpose. And I can assure you, the funds aren't supposed to fund abortion but rather offer counseling services and allow women to know the options available, among other things health related.

Like I said at the beging of this thread that I really don't have a strong opinion for or against abortion. I am against funding this over seas and by striking down this ban we will be paying for abortions and from what I have read thats not even up for debate.

[djnemo65]

But this not a new expenditure. Obama’s executive order merely expands the ways in which already allocated tax money can be spent. Therefore he is not taking any more of Wolf's money than Bush was. The thread title is inaccurate.

[CRedskinsRule]

But again, we now have infighting over a very divisive issue. Why did this have to be done NOW, couldn't we focus first on the issues that can build a consensus, or work toward improving our country? And before you say there is time etc etc, consider for a minute if this was a republican president who came in and the first thing he/she did was to impose a ban on funding of international organizations who promote abortion. would you still be saying give the new president time? Lets not start with the divisive, lets work to get the economy and country working.