The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Debates matter. Everyone from the two presidential candidates to an enraged, post-debate Chris Matthews, venting on MSNBC, was recently reminded of this important election year detail. The meeting in Denver between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney changed the course of the race, catapulting the GOP challenger into a lead in many national polls and placing Obama on the defensive in several battleground states.

Tonight's second presidential debate could be just as influential, making it equally important to get the facts straight as the candidates hustle for a victory on stage. The scope of discussion at the town hall-style event will increase, with questions from the audience on both foreign and domestic policies. Here's a cheat-sheet to help separate the fact from the spin.

Libya

Obama: Moderator Martha Raddatz didn't mince words in the vp debate when she asked Vice President Joe Biden why the late U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team did not receive increased security before Stevens, Glen Dougherty, Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods were killed by terrorists at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

"We weren't told they wanted more security there," Biden said.

Tonight, President Obama may need to revise that answer: With many aspects of the attack still unclear, questions are arising as to whether or not the State Department left its agents vulnerable in an atmosphere of increased security risks.

And as Politifact.com notes, during a House investigation into the attack just a day before Biden's remarks, the State Department's regional security officer for Libya went on record saying that he personally asked his superiors for increased security throughout the country.
Energy

Obama: The president likes to say he's "doubled" a lot of things, most notably the generation of renewable energy and, in the long term, fuel efficiency of cars and trucks—and is likely to do so again tonight. These boasts will sound great, but they're heavily exaggerated.

Since Obama took office, only a certain division of renewable energy, that of wind and solar power, has doubled; overall, the increase in capacity is under 30 percent. And while the EPA is indeed raising fuel standards for increased efficiency by 2025, FactCheck.org has noted that, contrary to the president's rhetoric, our cars will hardly take us "twice as far" by that point.

Romney: The GOP nominee has his own favorite talking points on energy, starting with his misleading claim that the president has "doubled" something else: gas prices. This statement is technically true, but should be qualified by the fact that prices were extraordinarily low when Obama took office.

Also hyped up is the nominee's talk about Keystone XL, the pipeline project to transport oil from Canada to plants in the Gulf Coast.

The Romney refrain is that Obama botched a crucial energy project by wholly trashing the plans to import more oil from our neighbor to the north. But what Obama did delay was the assembly of the northern part of the new pipeline that was set through Nebraska's Sandhills, and he did so with bipartisan support from the state's lawmakers. A new, more environmentally sensitive route is set to be approved in a few months, and the whole thing should be up by 2015.

Iran

Romney: The former governor of Massachusetts is known to downplay the observable effects of the Obama administration's sanctions on Iran. He repeats variations on the line that he delivered earlier this year: that Obama "could have gotten crippling sanctions against Iran," but did not.

Given that Obama has presided over biting sanctions on the Islamic Republic—sanctions that Iran's leaders identify as responsible for the battering of its currency and wider economic turmoil—this talking point seems to require some obvious clarification. When asked about it, Romney's campaign told Politifact that the GOP candidate was specifically referring to an instance in 2010 when the administration failed to pass a UN resolution sanctioning the Iranian Central Bank.

Setting aside the probability that the veto-prone UN giants Russia and China would've blocked that particular resolution if it were pushed by any U.S. administration, it looks as though Romney is hoping this maneuver will come off to undecided voters as a broader failing of Obama's Iran policy.

Obama: The Obama campaign, again through Biden, has pushed back on this Romney line, stating that the president is waging an unprecedented diplomatic and economic effort to squelch the Ayatollah's nuclear program. But the administration overreaches when it makes statements giving the impression that before Obama's presidency "there was no international pressure on Iran," to quote Biden.

Politifact.com notes a few serious international initiatives the Bush administration undertook to stifle the Iranians' nuclear program:
Resolution 1737, passed in 2006, which banned trade with Iran in all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology that could contribute to the country's development of nuclear-weapon delivery systems.

Resolution 1747, adopted in 2007, which banned the country's arms exports and restricted the travel of additional individuals engaged in Iran's nuclear activities.

Resolution 1803, approved in 2008, which froze the assets of people involved in the nuclear program.

Despite the current campaign of sanctions, the theocratic regime has not renounced its nuclear ambitions, nor have simultaneous negotiations begun to produce any diplomatic solution.

So while Romney will likely try to undermine the severity of the administration's sanctions, expect Obama to leave out the fact that, not only do sanctions predate his taking office, but they still haven't achieved their main purpose.

Immigration

Romney: When the hot-button issue of immigration comes up, be ready for the candidates to resort to political hit-and-runs. Romney is likely to toss out the charge that Obama "did nothing" to tackle immigration in his first three years. But while the Obama administration certainly hasn't reached a comprehensive plan, the president lobbied for the DREAM act—which would qualify undocumented youth for a conditional path to citizenship—while the Democrats controlled the House. The DREAM Act faced opposition once the Republicans gained control.

Romney might also complain that Obama's deferred-action plan—granting some children born to undocumented immigrants in the U.S. a reprieve from deportation—doesn't offer a clear, permanent solution for immigrants hoping to stay here. Yet in his own plan, only young illegal immigrants who join the military would be able to avoid deportation.

Obama: Meanwhile, Obama may claim that during the Republican primary season Romney endorsed Arizona's controversial SB1070 law—requiring police to determine detainees' immigration status, some argue through racial profiling—and that the challenger called the law a "model for the nation."

Ever since, Romney says he was actually talking about Arizona's e-verify law, which more modestly requires employers to check a job candidate's immigration status on an online database.

China

Obama: Each candidate is trying to out-bluster the other on "standing up to China." For his part, Obama often alleges that Romney is a "job exporter." Super PACs supportive of the president echo this line of attack, broadcasting that thousands of Chinese employees "owe their jobs" to Romney.

While it's true that a good deal of Romney's money is invested in China, many of the claims that give more weight to Obama's jabs—sure to be repeated tonight—rest on flimsy foundations. Take the charge that Global Tech, a company Bain acquired while Romney was CEO, began producing products in China that could have been made here at home.

Politifact notes that this is mostly misleading: It may be that America had sufficient labor and technology to produce the company's products, like coffee makers. But long before Romney started his work at Bain, a larger trend in the global market had decided such production would be located in China.

What's more, Obama tends to conflate the fact that many Chinese employees found jobs at companies that Romney had invested in with the more controversial idea that Romney "outsourced" American jobs as a matter of protocol.

Romney: Romney, through ads and in stump speeches, accuses the president of essentially allowing the Chinese to "cheat" trade agreements through currency manipulation, saying that Obama has had "seven opportunities to stop them" that he simply passed up. What exactly were these opportunities?

The Treasury Department issues assessments of trade partners twice a year and presents them to Congress; if it calls out any partner on an offense like currency manipulation, then negotiations go through the IMF. Romney's complaint is that "under president Obama, the United States Treasury Department has refused to label China as a currency manipulator seven times."

That's true, but what makes this charge hyperbolic is that it's never been clear that labeling China as a manipulator through the Treasury will stop them from cheating. As Politifact notes, it was tried in 1994 to no avail. Plus, the idea that the Obama administration has simply been appeasing China amid its economic mischief is false: sticking with Romney's magic number, the administration has filed seven trade complaints against China through the WTO,

Abortion

Obama: Perhaps the most reflective and personal moment of the vp debate last week came via the question on abortion. So it seems likely that Obama and Romney will be pressed to articulate their stances on this key issue.

On this issue, the president has pulled no punches in his advertising. In TV spots called "Dangerous," the Obama camp states that both the top and bottom of the Republican ticket backed "proposals that would outlaw abortions even in cases of rape or incest." Politifact verifies this is true for Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan. Yet the GOP nominee himself has historically waffled on this issue, which makes the truth-value of Obama's charge a bit harder to uncover. Romney has at several junctures voiced support for legislation that stipulates "life begins at conception," often a slogan of hardline pro-life advocates.

However, contrary to Obama's ad, and perhaps his remarks tonight, Romney has never in any concrete way backed a bill or initiative to outlaw abortion, whether outright or with exceptions for rape, incest or life of the mother.

Romney: Romney will have to fit his remarks into his latest, unexpected statement on abortion and his presidential agenda.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-obama-debate-truth-113025531--election.html

As we explained yesterday, the Obama and Romney campaigns have set some interesting ground rules for tonight's town hall debate. Most notably, neither camp wants the moderator to do a whole lot of moderating, specifically requesting that Candy Cowley doesn't ask any follow-up questions to a candidate who may choose to talk his way around a difficult question.

So then where will the follow-ups come from? By the looks of the memo signed by both campaigns, they won't come at all. The document not only bars Cowley from asking them, but also the audience members and even the other candidate on stage.

7 (c), IV: "The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invited the candidate comments during the 2 minute response period."
7 (d): "The audience members shall not ask follow-up questions or otherwise participate in the extended discussion, and the audience member's microphone shall be turned off after he or she completes asking the questions."
5 (e): "The candidates may not ask each other direct questions during any of the four debates."

Grossman said Tuesday that the point of the upcoming negotiations is to agree on an extension of the U.S. troop presence well past 2014, for the purposes of conducting counterterrorism operations and training and advising the Afghan security forces.[/color]

Advisors?

Hmmm, where have I heard that one before...

Gotta call them something besides troops.  With Al Qaeda on the rise again, we simply don't have enough CIA drones to kill all the roaches.

But you don't understand.  Al Qaeda ceased to exist after Bin Laden was exterminated.

This will complicate things.  Apparently being buried in the news is the fact that the State Dept is about to negotiate keeping troups in Afganistan past the 2014 deadline.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/16/state_department_official_negotiations_to_extend_us_troop_presence_in_afghanistan_s

"We are leaving in 2014, period, and in the process, we're going to be saving over the next 10 years another $800 billion," Biden said. "We've been in this war for over a decade. The primary objective is almost completed. Now all we're doing is putting the Kabul government in a position to be able to maintain their own security. It's their responsibility, not America's."

Marc Grossman, the State Department's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, explained today that's not the whole story.

Grossman said Tuesday that the point of the upcoming negotiations is to agree on an extension of the U.S. troop presence well past 2014, for the purposes of conducting counterterrorism operations and training and advising the Afghan security forces.

So that changes the narrative and opens another discussion for Romney on President Obama's foreign policy commitments.

Teatown, No one here cares how these two men choose to worship. 

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/16/1019121/debate-questions-taxes-deficit/
8 Important Economic Questions For The Presidential Debate That Have Nothing To Do With Taxes Or The Deficit
By Pat Garofalo and Travis Waldron on Oct 16, 2012 at 9:53 am
During both the first presidential debate and last week’s vice presidential debate, moderators said that they wanted to focus on “the economy,” an admirable sentiment considering the still slow recovery that is underway. However, “the economy” has, for the most part, meant discussing taxes and the budget deficit. Those are important issues, but they by no means account for all of the economic challenges that the nation faces.
For starters, neither candidate has been pushed on how they plan to bring unemployment down below its current 7.8 percent. Romney merely promises to create the number of jobs that economists say will come along regardless of who is president, while Obama hasn’t had to address record high long-term unemployment. Here are eight other significant issues that the candidates should be asked about during tonight’s debate:
1) Housing: While the housing market is slowly recovering, it still remains a drag on the economic recovery. President Obama should be asked to explain why his administration was so slow to change foreclosure prevention programs that were clearly not meeting their goals, and why he has not named a new director for the Federal Housing Finance Agency (since the current acting director is blocking policies that would help troubled homeowners). Romney, meanwhile, should be asked to flesh out a housing plan that has absolutely no details.
2) Poverty: More than 46 million Americans — 15 percent of our population — now live at or below the federal poverty level, and the United States has one of the highest child poverty rates in the developed world. So why does Romney support a budget that takes 62 percent of its spending cuts from programs that help the poor? How would Obama protect the poor from spending cuts in any “grand bargain” deficit deal he might sign?
3) Breaking up the big banks: The nation’s biggest banks are back to making pre-recession profits. In the last several months, high ranking economic officials, as well as several former Wall Street titans, have called for breaking up or capping the size of those banks. Do either of the candidates support such a step? Why or why not?
4) Mass transit: More Americans are using mass transit and driving less and less. But the U.S. mass transit system trails those of its peer nations, and fails to connect workers who need it most to their jobs. How would Romney square this increasing demand with his desire to cut funding for Amtrak? Does President Obama have any plans to push transit development beyond the infrastructure investments included in his never-passed American Jobs Act?
5) Income inequality: The level of inequality in the United States now rivals countries like Pakistan and the Ivory Coast. This inequality crushes economic mobility for America’s shrinking middle class and its growing number of working poor. Romney said that a focus on income inequality was “about envy” and said it should only be talked about in a quiet room. Does he view income inequality as a serious issue threatening the future of America’s economy, and if so, how do his policies address it? How would Obama bolster the lower- and middle classes and reduce the growth of inequality aside from increasing some tax rates on the richest Americans?
6) The Farm bill: The last farm bill expired, leaving several programs that support farmers and public health efforts out to dry. But the expiration also provides an opportunity for Congress to reevaluate wasteful agriculture subsidies. Where do the candidates stand on a path forward for the farm bill?
7) Student loans: Total student loan debt is expected to hit $1 trillion in 2012, and a record number of Americans are now in debt thanks to such loans. College costs have sextupled since 1985, and student debt is hurting young adults’ ability to buy houses, get jobs, and transition into full members of the American economy. Even worse, the student debt crisis is starting to resemble the housing crisis. The Affordable Care Act, which Romney opposed, contained significant student loan reforms that reduce costs by removing banks from the federal student loan process. Would he include that in his proposed repeal of Obamacare? What would Obama do to further address the growth in both debt and the cost of college, and how would he ensure that more Americans can afford a college education?
8) Equal pay: Even as more women are becoming top earners in their households, women in the United States make just 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, and the gap is worse for women of color. The average woman loses more than $430,000 over her lifetime because she makes less than men for doing the same work. The Romney campaign refused to say if he supported the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, though it later clarified that he “support pay equity.”  Would he support the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would take substantial steps to close the pay gap? For President Obama, more than three years since the passage of the Lily Ledbetter Act, the pay gap is mostly unchanged. How would he proceed to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work?

Ask why it is our policy to pay banks to do nothing by lending leaving the fed funds rate at 0%. We are allowing banks to pad their balance sheets on our dime on the pretense that the government is inducing them to lend more.

On a more serious note:5 Facts You Should Commit To Memory Before Watching Tonight’s Debate
By Annie-Rose Strasser on Oct 16, 2012 at 10:36 am
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/10/16/1018931/second-presidential-debate/

How do you square the middle class losing $4000 per year on average since Obama took office?  He was supposed to have already lifted up the middle class.

He's been just great for the Dow though!

That's kind of interesting and begs analysis.

He has helped Wall Street.
He has helped the Monster Banks.
He has aided the super rich, and anyone willing to donate to his campaign.
He has aided big oil.

The group he has hurt the most is African-Americans with 14.4% unemployment.
He has devastated the poor.
He has vastly increased government dependence.
He has damaged the middle class.
He has increased the cost of medical care.
He has increased the cost of purchasing a used vehicle (Also hurting the poor. Cash for clunkers decimated the low cost used car inventory).
He has increased the cost of fuel by over 100%.
He continues to increase the price of all energy.
He has increased the Debt by $5 trillion dollars to be put on the backs of future tax payers.
He has destroyed the hopes of a pioneering solar industry in this country by funding failure instead of rewarding success, and in the process soured the prospect of future investment.

I think when he was elected, many casual voters supported him because he was going to teach the fat cats a lesson.  I'm not sure what that lesson was?

Let's see some of his accomplishments, shall we (although since this is a 'left leaning' publication, I'm sure many of you will smear it, even if citations are noted in it..and they are):

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

Ask why it is our policy to pay banks to do nothing by lending leaving the fed funds rate at 0%. We are allowing banks to pad their balance sheets on our dime on the pretense that the government is inducing them to lend more.

Because the Fed is required by law to care about unemployment as well as inflation. Since fiscal policy on that has been blocked by Congress, the only thing the Fed can do is continue monetary easing.

Impressions thus far at :55 in to the debate: Both are pretty sharp tonight.  Obama came ready to spar.  Both are short on specificity at times.

I think Crowley is doing a very credible job as moderator.

Ask me again in another hour  ;)

Impressions thus far at :55 in to the debate: Both are pretty sharp tonight.  Obama came ready to spar.  Both are short on specificity at times.

I think Crowley is doing a very credible job as moderator.

Ask me again in another hour  ;)

I was about to agree with you, but at 9:06 they started talking over each other on immigration and where each others pension is investing funds.  

Keri Latka seems like a journalist in his presentation.  He's asking who decided regarding embassy security in Libya.  Obama pivoted into an attack on Romney for making political hay out of the incident.  (I think Hillary took responsibility earlier today.  Is that true?)

At 9:26, the wine is taking hold, so any specifics are lost on me ;)

I'm truly disappointed these are our two choices.  However, for reasons that are lost on many of you, I do see better leadership qualities in Romney, and what others are exaggerating as being "huge" flip flops, I see as an indication of an ability to compromise.

Outside of those institutions that can borrow from the discount window, whose employment has quantitative easing helped?

the Fed's only responsibility is monetary policy, ie protecting the value of our currency. The Federal Reserve is not some tool of the federal government to effect social changes or something.

Outside of those institutions that can borrow from the discount window, whose employment has quantitative easing helped? the Fed's only responsibility is monetary policy, ie protecting the value of our currency. The Federal Reserve is not some tool of the federal government to effect social changes or something.

At 9:26, the wine is taking hold, so any specifics are lost on me ;)

I'm truly disappointed these are our two choices.  However, for reasons that are lost on many of you, I do see better leadership qualities in Romney, and what others are exaggerating as being "huge" flip flops, I see as an indication of an ability to compromise.

Tomorrow morning we'll see the columns from various pundits - on both ends of the political spectrum - telling us what we're supposed to believe about tonight's debate.  But I'm under the impression that if we asked either of these guys for the correct time, we'd get a 3 minute lecture on 'getting Americans working again, getting tough on China, and the other guy's failures.'  At the end, we still wouldn't know what time it was.

Mrs. C and I agree, this was a dog and pony show, there's really no clear winner, and no significant new information was revealed.  I think both candidates got a chance to clarify positions on issues. I suspect Obama could see an uptick in the polls between now and the next debate simply because he didn't look cata tonic like he'd been laid this time.

At 9:26, the wine is taking hold, so any specifics are lost on me ;)

I'm truly disappointed these are our two choices.  However, for reasons that are lost on many of you, I do see better leadership qualities in Romney, and what others are exaggerating as being "huge" flip flops, I see as an indication of an ability to compromise.

Baloney. Mitt was pitiful. You want that? Libya scene will be what this debate will be known for. Sure, both sides spin.... I'm waiting for you to attack Candy.

(http://www.rogallery.com/_RG-Images/Ali/Ali-Photo.jpg)

Explain in detail how he was less pitiful than Obama.  I'm dying to hear your in depth analysis.

I don't think anyone will be thinking Bengazi when they go into the voting booth unless it energizes voters who see a request for more security for someone in diplomatic detail going unheeded because the president was too busy campaigning.

I agree, on the surface, it seems really petty, yet this president has shown time and again (and the stats back me up) he's far more interested in campaigning and fund raising than any of his predecessors.  This sort of put an exclamation point on it.

No reason to attack Candy, she's the best moderator of the three debates so far.  She might have pissed off hard core conservatives on this issue, but overall, I thought she did great.

Well, I used to be a big fan of Billy Graham.  Even when I disagreed with him, I felt he was an honorable man who held to his convictions regardless.

Today, his long running feelings about Mormonism being a cult have disappeared from his web site.

Now, this may or may not be due to Billy's influence - I don't know who is running the show today (probably his son) - but that is called sellout.

A search on the term "Mormon" on the BGAE website returns six hits. One is the article mentioned above, by Thom S. Ranier. Then, there are another three articles that discuss cults, but these three pages don't contain the word "Mormon", nor are the words "Mormon", "Mormons", or "Mormonism" in the page metadata.

What does this mean? Well, in order for the website search engine to return these three pages, that discuss cults, in response to a search for the term "Mormon", the people who coded the website would have to had programmed the result into the search engine: in other words, told the search algorithm to associate the word "Mormon" with "cult".

This is more insidious even than it sounds - the first search result for the search on "Mormon" is a page with the heading,

"This couple keeps coming to our house and inviting us to come to their assembly hall to study the Bible. I'd like to know something about the Bible, but a friend of mine says this group is a cult. What exactly is a cult? They seem like nice people."
In the first two paragraphs, Billy Graham himself (the page is from Graham's My Answer column) explains,
"A cult is a group that claims that it, and it alone, has the truth about God and offers the only way to salvation. Members reject what Christians have believed for almost 2,000 years, and substitute instead their own beliefs for the clear teachings of the Bible.
Often, they add to the Bible by claiming that the books their founder wrote or "discovered" are from God, and have equal authority to the Bible. In reality, however, those books deny what the Bible says about God or Jesus, or about the way of salvation."

Nowhere does Graham suggest that said "cult" might be any particular belief, such as Mormonism, but that's unnecessary. It is well known that the Church of Mormon recognizes the new books of the Bible discovered in the early 19th Century by founder Joseph Smith - it's even been the subject of a recent Broadway play smash hit.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/16/1144973/-Billy-Graham-Prays-With-Romney-But-Mormonism-Still-a-Cult-Indicates-Graham-s-Website

this is pretty funny.

https://www.facebook.com/romneybindersfullofwomen

What's funnier is that it already has over 163000 likes on it...LOL.

EDIT:  The likes at this point are racking up at a rate of about 50 a second.  This is classic.

Edited again:  SNL will have a field day with this remark, I'm predicting...

After two debates (Romney clearly won the first one and Obama clearly won the second one) I've come to the conclusion that Mitt Romney really is a bully and he does not like people, especially moderators.

Is he a big ol meany?

Well bless your heart!

Makes sense that you support him since you Romney and Ryan all prefer "the market" and money to people.

They support those things no more than the current administration.

Oh really. I guess the term "self-deport" is humanitarian. My mistake.

Makes sense that you support him since you Romney and Ryan all prefer "the market" and money to people.

You are correct, individual freedom overrides government control for me. 

 

Individual corporations you mean?

Amazing how hostile Democrats tend to be to the very institutions that provide the jobs they so desperately are trying to create to millions of their constituents.

Who's a democrat and who's hostile?  

Obama and Obama.

You left something out.  The word "Free." 

You are correct, individual freedom overrides government control for me.  That's just the way I'm wired.


 

Free to you means freedom from taxes and regulations.
Free to me means don't legislate my morality with your own and don't use discrimination to limit freedom to others.

Likewise, people should be free to have their own morals without you assuming they want to push those on you.

That's the thing.  They do push them on others.

That's the thing.  They do push them on others.

By "they" you mean whom?

Here's a question on freedom. Abortion being legal as it is, if for some fluke reason all the providers vanished. Is it the government's responsiblity to make this service available? I only ask because apparently stopping the funding to planned parenthood riles people up for some reason, as if that would stop abortions from occurring.

Taxing churches wouldn't make Jesus go away either but that would cause a motherscratcher of a ruckus.

Here's a question on freedom. Abortion being legal as it is, if for some fluke reason all the providers vanished. Is it the government's responsiblity to make this service available? I only ask because apparently stopping the funding to planned parenthood riles people up for some reason, as if that would stop abortions from occurring.

Planned Parenthood actually does more than just provide abortions. It provides cancer screenings, HIV screenings, counseling and contraceptives. There are reasons that people, and not just women, get riled up when Mr. Romney threatens its demise to appease the hands that feed.

You know planned parenthood doesn't actually do most of those things, in particular the cancer screenings. They are contracted out to service providers that have the capabilities to do them.

Judging from its unexpected jump into the most-read list, this graph showing the breakdown of care provided by Planned Parenthood’s health centers is proving useful to people. So here it is again, lifted from April. Note the light blue slice, which suggests that cancer screenings account for approximately one-sixth of Planned Parenthood’s activities.

With Planned Parenthood being either the major obstacle to a budget deal or one of the major obstacles to a budget deal, it’s worth taking a minute explaining what they do — and what they don’t do.
As you can see in the chart atop this post, abortion services account for about 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s activities. That’s less than cancer screening and prevention (16 percent), STD testing for both men and women (35 percent), and contraception (also 35 percent). About 80 percent of Planned Parenthood’s users are over age 20, and 75 percent have incomes below 150 percent of the poverty line. Planned Parenthood itself estimates it prevents more than 620,000 unintended pregnancies each year, and 220,000 abortions. It’s also worth noting that federal law already forbids Planned Parenthood from using the funds it receives from the government for abortions.

So though the fight over Planned Parenthood might be about abortion, Planned Parenthood itself isn’t about abortion. It’s primarily about contraception and reproductive health. And if Planned Parenthood loses funding, what will mainly happen is that cancer screenings and contraception and STD testing will become less available to poorer people. Folks with more money, of course, have many other ways to receive all these services, and tend to get them elsewhere already.

The fight also isn’t about cutting spending. The services Planned Parenthood provides save the federal government a lot of money. It’s somewhat cold to put it in these terms, but taxpayers end up bearing a lot of the expense for unintended pregnancies among people without the means to care for their children. The same goes for preventable cancers and sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV/AIDS. You can find a lot more information about Planned Parenthood and its services here.

Update: More on the methodology behind the chart, which unbundles services from customers. Note that Planned Parenthood served about three million women last year, and of that number, 329,000 received abortions.

What Planned Parenthood actually does, in one chart

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/plannedparenthood.jpg?uuid=QJyyvGIBEeCV6ZMHpLzxXw)

That's what they spent, they don't actually provide the service inside the doors to the buildings that they operate. Hence my continued push to figure out why they are necessary.

"The truth is, Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms," she wrote. "Planned Parenthood refers women to mammography providers, serving as the middlewoman, if you will."

"The truth is, Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms," she wrote. "Planned Parenthood refers women to mammography providers, serving as the middlewoman, if you will."

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/sep/25/karen-handel/karen-handel-seeks-set-record-straight-komen-plann/

Where do you think these women go to get the help?

Where would you like the women to go who need these services?

An OB-GYN

An OB-GYN

You think health care is provided by emergency rooms?

You know planned parenthood doesn't actually do most of those things, in particular the cancer screenings. They are contracted out to service providers that have the capabilities to do them.

http://liveaction.org/blog/planned-parenthood-ceos-false-mammogram-claim/
http://liveactionnews.org/investigative/fact-check/fact-checkers-confirm-planned-parenthood-does-not-provide-mammograms/

But what's your answer to the question?

Do I think it should be the government's responsibility to fund such things?

I think that such things are necessary. I can see where people think that Planned Parenthood is nothing more than an abortion factory and that funding through the government is evil. From what I've experienced and heard though, that's just not true. I think based on the services that PP provide, they, like other non-profits, deserve federal funding.

You think health care is provided by emergency rooms?

if for some fluke reason all the providers vanished

It's not a fluke that they're disappearing. They're disappearing in many states because states are passing laws specifically designed to make it impossible for them to continue in operation.

Which laws would those be?

(http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q55/71conan/TN/BIDENMEME.jpg)

Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true your a pal and a confidant.

And if you threw a party
Invited everyone you ever knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say thank you for being a friend.

Laws that make it illegal to use the same facilities that providers have been using safely for many years. Because they're "dangerous" with their hallways all of six inches narrower than the new legal requirement. Or laws that require that doctors at clinics have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital when the hospitals have already refused on no real grounds other than that they don't like doctors who perform abortions.

http://www.economist.com/node/21562215

Aren't regulations a b*tch!

Or lack of for those people confined to wheelchairs. That six inches makes a big difference.

The ends don't always justify the means.

Wow.  Not surprising, however.

I suspect he'll change his tune when someone in his family is confined to a wheelchair. Until only a couple of years before my mom died, she couldn't get a driver's license renewal because none of the revenue offices in Arkansas were wheelchair-accessible. So yes, a big thank you to the Feds for the ADA.

As opposed to arbitrary regulations whose specific purpose is to prevent people from getting constitutionally protected medical care.

I'm not anti wheelchair for goodness sake. I am saying that sometimes regulations that so many clammor for sometimes have unintended consequences. For example, making it harder for poorly funded abortion clinics to stay open.

The problem in that case is that they are unintended consequences, they are intended consequences.

Sorry, I meant to write "they are not unintended consequences, they are intended consequences."

Most likely. So we should just throw ADA out the window if it means keeping abortion clinics open?

ADA is irrelevant. It is not what is shutting down abortion clinics. State laws that are intended to force the closure of abortion clinics are.

Name one that specifically targets abortion clinics, save all other medical providers.

I knew it. Romney is a doosh.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xUK16teG-s&feature=player_embedded#![/youtube]

I have recently seen news articles discussing the ones in Mississippi and Virginia, so I suggest you start there.

In this case, the State Legislature approved a requirement that all physicians who perform abortions in the state must be OB-GYNs with privileges to admit patients to a local hospital.

Considering some of the stories I have heard, regardless of whether the intent was to stop abortions, this is not an outrageous regulation.

In principle, I agree that it's not an outrageous regulation. However, if it were about patient safety, it would apply to all outpatient surgical centers and would not apply in case of medical, rather than surgical, abortion. It doesn't help that, at least in Jackson, the local hospitals have an unwritten policy of not allowing doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges there. (According to someone I know who lives there, anyway)

All I'm saying is that the industry is not and SHOULD not be immune from criticism regardless of what benefits they provide to society.

(http://images.politico.com/global/2012/10/121018_obama_romney_al_smith_ap_6051.jpg)

Every caption I think of is horribly skewed by recent news articles.

I'm guessing the laughs are faked.

Obama, for example, made fun of his own much-criticized performance in the first presidential debate:

"Turns out millions of Americans focused in on the second debate who didn't focus on the first debate," he said, "I happen to be one of them."

Among Romney's one-liners was a shot at the news media:

"I've already seen early reports from tonight's dinner. Headline: 'Obama embraced by Catholics. Romney dines with rich people.' "

The president also said, "Earlier today I went shopping at some stores in Midtown. I understand Governor Romney went shopping for some stores in Midtown."

Romney said, "Of course, we're down to the final months of the president's term. As President Obama surveys the Waldorf banquet room with everybody in white tie and finery you have to wonder what he's thinking: 'So little time, so much to redistribute.'"

For his part, Obama noted that "Mitt" is actually Romney's middle name and added: "I wish I could use my middle name." It's Hussein.