Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Most forms of birth control are available for free here (including condoms), meaning that you are free to act upon your own conscience, and not subject to the irrational prejudices of your employer, as far as pregnancy is concerned. This seems to be a sensible approach.

Alexzandvar wrote:The idea that a bunch of old religious men in a commite should be deciding what the other 52% of this nation does relating to birth control is absurd.

Not surprisingly, I totally agree.

Seaward wrote:Churches were never required to follow it.

Read my first post in this thread. I link to the statement by Kathleen Sebelius (sp?). It's quite clear from her statement that churches would be required to follow it.

biccat wrote:Presumably you will now agree that the original, January 20 announcement was a violation of religious freedom?

Yes, I did, and was happy when the amendment came through, and figured the issue was done and dusted with that.

Only to then see a variety of religious figures continue to carry on, in increasingly dramatic language about the desperate measures they're totally willing to take to fight the horrible, horrible oppression that isn't happening to them.

At which point it becomes clear that these people are far less interested in actual oppression, and just in playing make believe games where they pretend they're being brave and noble men fighting against oppression they like to pretend exists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:Is it a violation of my religious freedom to choose to use contraception, for my employer's religion to determine that mine will not be covered?

You would still be covered, it's just that insurer would wear the cost, and not be able to charge the company for it.

Seriously, the individual gets coverage, and the employer is not forced to pay. We all do the happy dance, and move on with our lives.

Unless, of course, you like pretending that you're oppressed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Easy E wrote:In order to stay relevant, you have to continually up the stakes.

Exactly. They're not saying dramatic things because dramatic things need to be said, but because they want people to pay attention to them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:Again, get out of the minority.

Huh?

Have we actually seen someone claim that the answer to gender imbalance is for women to stop being women? Black people should just stop being black?

Well, that's certainly a thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:I'm an ethnic minority. I find that race is virtually meaningless as a sole determinent of success.

You can find whatever you want, it doesn't change what is true.

Go look up average incomes per racial groups in the US. If race wasn't a factor, they'd all be the same, and yet black men make 2/3 of what white men do on average.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:I'm having difficulty with this: on the one hand, the President says that religiously affiliated universities and hospitals will not have to offer contraceptive coverage BUT on the other hand insurers must offer the coverage free of charge to their employees. The Bishops, meanwhile, seem to understand the compromise as forcing the institution to pay for the coverage if the employee and the insurer agree to the coverage. Can anyone who has been following this more closely speak to this apparent contradiction?

No, the religious bodies do not pay one cent. An insurer cannot charge the body for the provision of contraception to their employees. This law is presently in operation in several states, including California where Rick Warren, who I quoted in my OP, has his church. Rick Warren has not been charged one cent in premiums for contraception under healthcare plans.

But now he pretends he will be, when it moves from California law to Federal law. This is because Rick Warren is playing a roleplaying game of him vs the evil Feds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gorgon wrote:Biblical fundamentalism in general is actually a fairly recent phenomenon.

Well, the drive to place the bible first and foremost dates back to 1517, so it isn't that new, but the most recent form of biblical fundamentalism as seen in the US dates back, more or less, to the Scope Monkey trial. And then you look at individual elements of that fundamentalism that are treated as coming from an inerrant, absolute truth, such as life beginning at conception, and those ideas can be as young as the Happy Meal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phototoxin wrote:As another point the more we seem to use contraception the more 'unwanted' pregnancies and abortions there are which is a bit ironic.

That's not even slightly true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Easy E wrote:My understanding of the compromise, which is limited; was that Obama said that the religious organizations did not have to provide any funding for the contraceptives. Instead, the funding would come from the Insurance companies. therefore, no religious organization had to pay for the contraceptives, but coverage still had to be provided for by their insurance providers.

Is that a correct summary? What vital piece of information am I missing?

The only thing your missing is that people like to pretend they're oppressed, even when it's really obvious they're not being oppressed in the slightest.

To be fair, it wasn't until I saw the last of the quotes in my OP that I finally got my head around how ridiculous some people can be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grakmar wrote:He held all the cards. And, he folded. That's caving.

Nonsense. He reached a conclusion that ensured everyone has access to contraception, while making sure no religious employer would be forced to pay for something that is against their religion.

That isn't caving, that's solving an otherwise difficult position.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:I could be wrong but I think the problem is that all insurance coverage is paid for by all premiums. Under the "compromise," the insurer has to provide the coverage but the employer will not have to pay a higher premium tied specifically to that cost. But obviously the cost still exists and must still be covered by the premium. Therefore the premium goes up and the employer still pays for it, just not specifically. Is that right?

The issue you're missing is that contraception is a fairly trivial amount compared to other insurance costs. As such, it becomes a fairly trivial issue for the insurer to simply wear the cost, write it off against the overall profit made on that individual, or spread it across the cost of provision of contraception cover to all their other clients.

I'l repeat again, this isn't a new piece of law. It's been in place in several states for years. California has had it in place since 1999.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scrabb wrote:

sebster wrote:....Except that people on the religious right continue to freak the feth out that they're religious freedom to not have anything to do with contraception is being ignored, despite

It was quite the puzzler, until I came across this quote from Rick Warren.....

Is there something you wanted between "despite" and "It was quite the puzzler?

Yeah, cheers for the pick up. It should have read 'despite being granted a specific exemption for their religious beliefs' or something like that.

Good to see someone actually read my post


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:The vast majority of churches never make enough money to pay any taxes so I don't know why people criticize religious tax exemptions. My church back at Fort Bragg (not exactly a poor community) only made about 100-120 every Sunday per service. That's about 500 a week including all services. That double at Christmas and Easter.

The issue is the small number of megachurches that make serious bank. When you've got a Starbucks stand in the foyer you're not really on the same level as a local church bringing in $120 in Sunday morning tithe.

That said, I've never felt there's any sense in taxing overall income anyway, even for the big money churches, because the organisation is not-for-profit - all the money it makes is then spent on infrastructure, good works and the like, so that long term the overall profit will be zero anyway.

The only real 'profit' type element is what is paid to ministers, and that is taxed. So ultimately, I don't see the problem with tax as it is at present.

LordofHats wrote:
The vast majority of churches never make enough money to pay any taxes so I don't know why people criticize religious tax exemptions. My church back at Fort Bragg (not exactly a poor community) only made about 100-120 every Sunday per service. That's about 500 a week including all services. That double at Christmas and Easter.

Their tax exemption results from their 501(c)(3) status. Some have argued that many churches regularly violate the ban on taking part in a political campaign, but that regulation is rarely enforced, and many non-religious 501(c)(3)s exhibit similar behavior.

My point wasn't about their protection but that the vast majority of churches make so little money its not worth taxing them anyway. Mega churches make a lot, but they're an exception. Most churches are small and rarely exceed maybe 100 or 200 in size. You rarely see mega churches or large parishes outside large cities.

LordofHats wrote:My point wasn't about their protection but that the vast majority of churches make so little money its not worth taxing them anyway. Mega churches make a lot, but they're an exception. Most churches are small and rarely exceed maybe 100 or 200 in size. You rarely see mega churches or large parishes outside large cities.

That's like saying low-volume retail stores shouldn't be taxed because they get so little money. Not the way the world works. You tax the corporation (in this specific case, the Archdiocese of the Catholic church).

Also, going by the Bible, not necessarily what people actually do, a person is required to give 10% of their annual income to the church. So, even if you've only got 100 people, who lets say make an average of 30K a year, that church (according to Biblical law) would pull in 300K a year. Again, I can't speak for what they actually take in, nor what religions other than Catholicism require.

That's like saying low-volume retail stores shouldn't be taxed because they get so little money.

Any retail store that makes $500 a week isn't going to be in business very long, taxes or no taxes...

LordofHats wrote:My point wasn't about their protection but that the vast majority of churches make so little money its not worth taxing them anyway. Mega churches make a lot, but they're an exception. Most churches are small and rarely exceed maybe 100 or 200 in size. You rarely see mega churches or large parishes outside large cities.

I think my dad's church has like 60-70 regular attendees, but not entirely sure how much they get in terms of donations; definitely no more than 50,000 but that would still subject them to corporate taxes at a ~22% rate.

That wouldn't kill his church (They have a 500 grand endowment.) but it would kill most of them, if not right away, then slowly over time. Though, really, once a church owns is facilities, membership becomes more important than money.

LordofHats wrote:My point wasn't about their protection but that the vast majority of churches make so little money its not worth taxing them anyway. Mega churches make a lot, but they're an exception. Most churches are small and rarely exceed maybe 100 or 200 in size. You rarely see mega churches or large parishes outside large cities.

Most corporations never make a profit, while Walmart and the like are just exceptions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:I think my dad's church has like 60-70 regular attendees, but not entirely sure how much they get in terms of donations; definitely no more than 50,000 but that would still subject them to corporate taxes at a ~22% rate.

That wouldn't kill his church (They have a 500 grand endowment.) but it would kill most of them, if not right away, then slowly over time. Though, really, once a church owns is facilities, membership becomes more important than money.

At the end of the day, given a church operates on a not-for-profit basis, they should be spending everything they bring in anyway, because there's no investors to be distributing profit to.

So they'd have a tax bill of 22% on their $50k, but then they have claims for the pastor's salary and any other assistants, utilities, and then the rest would be services provided to members, and donations to the needy.

The place you'd get hit is with infrastructure investment, as you'd be taxed up front on the income, but only able to claim the deduction in subsequent years as depreciation. And a new cost for bookkeeping - suddenly Mavis working one day a fortnight with Quicken wouldn't really cut it.

The net effect would be almost no new tax revenue, while you'd jerk around a whole lot of smaller churches.

Contraception is normally a Catholic bugbear.

Why prods have any problems with it I have no idea. Perhaps this:

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Genesis 1:28

Ok, Land full, job done, time to stop.

This bit of counter-theology rests on the principle there can be too much of a good thing. As that principle is firm in the Bible there is a logical case against.

For example:

Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. Ephesians 5:18

Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses. 1 Timothy 5:23


It irks me how the vast majority of the 'relgious right' are actually sortable with a two minute look at the Bible.

Orlanth wrote:Catholic bugbear

Well now someone has to photoshop a Cardinals robes and hat onto a Bugbear picture.

sebster wrote:
At the end of the day, given a church operates on a not-for-profit basis, they should be spending everything they bring in anyway, because there's no investors to be distributing profit to.

So they'd have a tax bill of 22% on their $50k, but then they have claims for the pastor's salary and any other assistants, utilities, and then the rest would be services provided to members, and donations to the needy.

If your church is only bringing in 50k per anum, and doesn't have a large endowment, its likely only the pastor is paid, and not very much. Say, 30-40k with no benefits, and 70-80 hours per week when averaged out (hours vary widely from week to week). My old man has been doing this for 22 years, he's got reasonable seniority in the denomination, and he puts in 60-70 hours a week for ~70k at a church with a massive endowment given its size.

Also, services to members is basically the same as having a staff pastor.

sebster wrote:
The place you'd get hit is with infrastructure investment, as you'd be taxed up front on the income, but only able to claim the deduction in subsequent years as depreciation. And a new cost for bookkeeping - suddenly Mavis working one day a fortnight with Quicken wouldn't really cut it.

Usually ministers do most of the bookkeeping in small churches. Sometimes they have a paid secretary, or volunteer help from a parishioner or a college student , but even they tend to handle little more than sending emails, and scheduling.

sebster wrote:
The net effect would be almost no new tax revenue, while you'd jerk around a whole lot of smaller churches.

For sure, I'm not saying there's a material incentive to tax churches. Some ministers advocate taxing churches because they see it as bringing the Church closer to the common condition, but that's about the only example of an incentive.

The Christian persecution complex is alive and well.

Oh, persecute me! Oh, yes, right there! Persecute it! Crucify me!

Orlanth wrote:Contraception is normally a Catholic bugbear.

This started as a complaint by senior figures in the Catholic church. It was jumped upon by the greater religious right wing noise machine, because they really like playing the oppression game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:If your church is only bringing in 50k per anum, and doesn't have a large endowment, its likely only the pastor is paid, and not very much. Say, 30-40k with no benefits, and 70-80 hours per week when averaged out (hours vary widely from week to week). My old man has been doing this for 22 years, he's got reasonable seniority in the denomination, and he puts in 60-70 hours a week for ~70k at a church with a massive endowment given its size.

Also, services to members is basically the same as having a staff pastor.

Cheers for the info. I've always been kind of curious, but wary of asking people in churches that I know, because it'd be kind of rude. The one church I once helped fix up their accounts was Catholic, and the Father was paid outside of the church's funding.

Usually ministers do most of the bookkeeping in small churches. Sometimes they have a paid secretary, or volunteer help from a parishioner or a college student , but even they tend to handle little more than sending emails, and scheduling.

I was basically going off my one experience above, it was the treasurer, a volunteer who worked one day a fortnight.

For sure, I'm not saying there's a material incentive to tax churches. Some ministers advocate taxing churches because they see it as bringing the Church closer to the common condition, but that's about the only example of an incentive.

That's a pretty interesting argument. Also kind of weird.

sebster wrote:
I was basically going off my one experience above, it was the treasurer, a volunteer who worked one day a fortnight.

Yeah, my dad has had 5 different churches, and only one sprung for an accountant (~200 regular attendance), otherwise he's done the books (Granted, he has an MBA, so he has some basic knowledge.), or had me do them.

Looking at his friends, across multiple denominations, most of them either had a basic familiarity with accounting when they started, or acquired one on the fly (Rule 1 in NPOs: never trust volunteers.).

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:Presumably you will now agree that the original, January 20 announcement was a violation of religious freedom?

Yes, I did, and was happy when the amendment came through, and figured the issue was done and dusted with that.

However, as has been discussed upthread, the President's compromise was actually nothing of the sort.

Do you think that the cost to the insurer of "free" contraceptions will not be passed down to the church?

biccat wrote:

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:Presumably you will now agree that the original, January 20 announcement was a violation of religious freedom?

Yes, I did, and was happy when the amendment came through, and figured the issue was done and dusted with that.

However, as has been discussed upthread, the President's compromise was actually nothing of the sort.
s
Do you think that the cost to the insurer of "free" contraceptions will not be passed down to the church?

Also, what about church institution that self insure?

I personally don't give a gak about the contraception issue. I do care about government intrusion into religion in violation of the First Amendment, just as i have issues with religion intrusion into government. This is the one instance I must shout vive le France!

As it turns out, Frazzled, most American Catholics feel the same way. This isn't a theological issue at all. This entirely a political (and maybe legal) issue.

This was the absolutely stupidest move the President could make. One of the advantages to being an incumbent is that you get to pick your battlefields if not necessarily your battles. Now why on earth would you pick this as your battlefield? Who do you stand to win? People who will already vote for you no matter what. Who do you stand to lose? Not just Catholic democrats but also and more importantly the idealistic young people who elected you to begin with.

This issue is a sideshow that could overshadow the main event, which ought to be the economy. The last thing the President should do is make any part of this election cycle a referendum on health care reform. Even worse, the White House has blundered into the faux-revolutionary currents of popular sentiment. The trouble with this resurgent liberterianism is it's not just confirmed conservatives who find it appealing. Younger people, who often mistake cynicism for wisdom, also love the anti-authority sheen to this rhetoric. By stumbling into an Establishment Clause gak storm, the President has pushed these formerly apathetic or even sympathetic voters into agendas normally invisible to them. Most Catholics have no idea what the Bishops are saying on any given matter most of the time much less Protestants much less people for whom religion is a nonstarter. In this case, however, people from all of these groups suddenly find the Bishops' appeal convincing and relevant.

No one ever won a battle by underestimating their opponents, sebster. You can foolishly say conservatives are playing pretend but what they are really playing is politics. And they're doing great at it -- at least compared to Mr. Obama, at the moment.

Manchu wrote:
Who do you stand to win? People who will already vote for you no matter what. Who do you stand to lose? Not just Catholic democrats but also and more importantly the idealistic young people who elected you to begin with.

I'm willing to bet that most of the idealistic young people who got Obama elected (read: campaign staff, partisans, liberals, etc.) are not, by and large, hugely concerned with the Catholic position on birth control.

Hell, I know self-professed Catholics that don't care about the Catholic position on birth control.

Manchu wrote:
This issue is a sideshow that could overshadow the main event, which ought to be the economy.

As soon as health care reform passed it was going to be a central election issue, there is no avoiding it. The economy will also be a central issue, but if it continues to improve it won't define the campaign of any Republican candidate.

That being said, healthcare reform probably won't overshadow the economic issue, as its "fermented" long enough to become, basically, a formality. Any GOP candidate, that isn't Romney, will say the bill is an abomination because its expected, and Obama will defend it because its expected, and most people will have decided which expectation they hold well before the general begins.

This is going to be a very messy general election in which no one can run on a single issue., as the GOP primary has demonstrated.

dogma wrote:I'm willing to bet that most of the idealistic young people who got Obama elected (read: campaign staff, partisans, liberals, etc.) are not, by and large, hugely concerned with the Catholic position on birth control.

Hell, I know self-professed Catholics that don't care about the Catholic position on birth control.

And you know another one if you count me. That's kind of my point. It's not about Catholicism; it's not about birth control. From Obama's point of view, he'd like it to be about birth control and women's health and ultimately women's rights. But it's actually playing as a First Amendment issue in an environment of fundamentalists more concerned about the Constitution than the Bible.

dogma wrote:That being said, healthcare reform probably won't overshadow the economic issue, as its "fermented" long enough to become, basically, a formality.

Republicans would like nothing more than to frame this election as a referendum on health care and I agree that it's "fermented" long enough so that they'll have a hard time doing it -- unless of course the President allows them to do it, as with this debacle.

An intersting fact I learned, related to "mega-churches". Most use the tag non-denominational. On the face, you might think this means they do not profess to a specific faith, and that is brodaly true, but most lean towards an evangelical style.

What it also means is that there is no "outside" office or organization to place a check on the church. The church and its teachings/doctrines are just an extension of whatever the Pastor wants to believe at any particular time.

Is it relevant to the discussion here? Maybe, maybe not. I just thought it was interesting.

Manchu wrote:This was the absolutely stupidest move the President could make. One of the advantages to being an incumbent is that you get to pick your battlefields if not necessarily your battles. Now why on earth would you pick this as your battlefield? Who do you stand to win? People who will already vote for you no matter what. Who do you stand to lose? Not just Catholic democrats but also and more importantly the idealistic young people who elected you to begin with.

The President has been trying to pick a fight with the Republicans for at least the last 6 months or so. His speeches, policy proposals, budget, and even the latest Economic Report have been blatently political. He's trying to paint Republicans as the "do nothing" party, standing in the way of his brilliant leadership that would get us out of this economic mess if those darn Republicans would just pass his bills. He has had mixed results.

Manchu wrote:This issue is a sideshow that could overshadow the main event, which ought to be the economy. The last thing the President should do is make any part of this election cycle a referendum on health care reform.

I disagree. The last thing the President wants to do is make this election about the economy. Health insurance reform is a marginally winning issue because it's a Big Idea that is For The Poor. He also has the advantage that most of the act hasn't been implemented yet, which gives him cover to keep claiming that it will Fix Everything. In contrast, his record on the economy has been pretty poor and is highly visible. Unemployment is high, gas prices are high, recovery is still a long ways off, and his best argument - going after the rich - tends not to play well among his preferred demographic (educated middle class whites).

Obama's reelection was always going to be difficult - his political platform of radical change in Washington was doomed to failure. And now he's become entrenched in Washington, signaling to voters that his version of "change" actually meant "more of the same."

Actually, biccat, when I was trying to fathom why the President would choose a health care reg related to contraception as his battlefield, it did occur to me that the administration might not feel as confident about the economy as I'd hope. But no matter how nervous you are about unemployment rates or gas prices, throwing out a First Amendment debate right now is like covering yourself in bacon-flavored butter and jumping in the lion cage. Compared to the economy, this is a simple issue. You don't have to be a Tea Partier or a constitutional lawyer to say, "hey they can't do that." And a lot of folks who are otherwise sympathetic to Obama are saying just that.

Meanwhile, while health care reform is anything but "more of the same," it's been a lastingly fragile victory and is traditionally the bette noire of post-Regan Republicans (i.e., the etiology of the Tea Party). It's no coincidence that Newt Gingerich came back out of the wood work when he did. A lot of Americans who are the most worried about healthcare reform remember Newt as the St George to Hillary Clinton's dragon. And many if not most Americans have not felt any tangible benefit from the law anyway. If anything, the issue is even thornier than the economy -- at least the electorate is used to pretending that it understands the economy. By contrast, special interests and Republicans have been scaring the gak out of the American people regarding "socialized medicine" for the last twenty years.

Manchu wrote:But it's actually playing as a First Amendment issue in an environment of fundamentalists more concerned about the Constitution than the Bible.

I suppose my point is I doubt that this will tip the balance against Obama in the minds of anyone that currently favors him with respect to Republican X (For some reason that made me picture Romney as a less grateful Spartacus.). Sure, some Catholics might be swayed, but not that many.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but most people that support Obama aren't terribly concerned with the freedom of any person of any faith to "deny" (quotes to illustrate convenient lingo) someone birth control.

Manchu wrote:
Republicans would like nothing more than to frame this election as a referendum on health care and I agree that it's "fermented" long enough so that they'll have a hard time doing it -- unless of course the President allows them to do it, as with this debacle.

See, I'm not sure that they would. Its remote compared to the economy, and easily plays into the idea of obstructionism that the Democrats have cultivated for quite some time. It forces the GOP to hearken back to an issue that is, essentially, settled and make an argument that is similar to the one Obama used to sell it in the first place: "Healthcare is key to the economy!"

Were I a strategist advising a GOP candidate, I would tell him to make healthcare a rubber stamp issue (Basically, "I support the repeal of this bill!"), and center my campaign on economic issues until such time that they became fruitless (if they ever did). Basically, because this cycle is so unusual, and the general is likely to be so close, you want adaptability over commission.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
I disagree. The last thing the President wants to do is make this election about the economy.

No one wants to run on the economy. The GOP will because they have little choice, but it won't be an easy sell due to:

1) Partisanship.

2) Bush presiding over the initial recession, and bailout.

biccat wrote:
Obama's reelection was always going to be difficult - his political platform of radical change in Washington was doomed to failure. And now he's become entrenched in Washington, signaling to voters that his version of "change" actually meant "more of the same."

Eh, maybe. The disenchantment that followed from Obama's moderation in office is an important factor, but lots of committed liberals really hate the Tea Party and, by extension, the GOP.

Like I said before, its going to be a messy, and close, election.

dogma wrote:For some reason that made me picture Romney as a less grateful Spartacus.

I don't understand this analogy. Was there a grateful Spartacus? "Thanks for trying to kill me guys, sorry about the uprising."

dogma wrote:Were I a strategist advising a GOP candidate, I would tell him to make healthcare a rubber stamp issue (Basically, "I support the repeal of this bill!"), and center my campaign on economic issues until such time that they became fruitless (if they ever did). Basically, because this cycle is so unusual, and the general is likely to be so close, you want adaptability over commission.

If I were a strategist advising a GOP candidate I would tell him that the solution to the Obamacare 'problem' is twofold: repeal and replace (with something better). This appeases the base who want to repeal the law and takes away (somewhat) the President's argument that Republicans Hate Poor People.

Manchu wrote:Actually, biccat, when I was trying to fathom why the President would choose a health care reg related to contraception as his battlefield, it did occur to me that the administration might not feel as confident about the economy as I'd hope. But no matter how nervous you are about unemployment rates or gas prices, throwing out a First Amendment debate right now is like covering yourself in bacon-flavored butter and jumping in the lion cage.

I don't think the President thought that this is how the issue would turn out. I suspect he thought he had a winning issue on the "denying rights to women" argument that he would be able to use to bully the Republicans.

Manchu wrote:Compared to the economy, this is a simple issue. You don't have to be a Tea Partier or a constitutional lawyer to say, "hey they can't do that." And a lot of folks who are otherwise sympathetic to Obama are saying just that.

Well, I'm pretty sure they can do that. I don't think the mandate is unconstitutional, simply bad politics.

biccat wrote:
I don't understand this analogy. Was there a grateful Spartacus? "Thanks for trying to kill me guys, sorry about the uprising."

I was thinking of this scene...




...except replacing "Spartacus" with "GOP nominee".

biccat wrote:
If I were a strategist advising a GOP candidate I would tell him that the solution to the Obamacare 'problem' is twofold: repeal and replace (with something better). This appeases the base who want to repeal the law and takes away (somewhat) the President's argument that Republicans Hate Poor People.

The problem with that is you lock yourself into providing something better. Replacement is something you bring up if it turns into a significant issue down the line, having forced your policy consultants to slave over a hot computer doing research.

More properly, its a great "gotcha" moment in the making.

"My opponent has no plans to improve American healthcare!"

"Well, in fact..."

dogma wrote: Sure, some Catholics might be swayed, but not that many.

As I said, it's not Catholics he has to worry about. And no one besides the Catholic Bishops cares at all about birth control. But plenty of people, including those who might find Obama sympathetic, care about the First Amendment.]

dogma wrote:. . . and make an argument that is similar to the one Obama used to sell it in the first place: "Healthcare is key to the economy!"

I think that's what they're doing, broadly. They're saying this whole approach to government has kept things stagnant.

dogma wrote:No one wants to run on the economy.

You're talking to biccat but you're speaking to me.

Manchu wrote:As I said, it's not Catholics he has to worry about. And no one besides the Catholic Bishops cares at all about birth control. But plenty of people, including those who might find Obama sympathetic, care about the First Amendment.

In my experience people only care about the 1st in selective terms, but I don't have data to back that up.

biccat wrote:I don't think the President thought that this is how the issue would turn out. I suspect he thought he had a winning issue on the "denying rights to women" argument that he would be able to use to bully the Republicans.

You can't effectively bully Republicans like that. Conservatives have never accepted the argument that contraception/abortion is an issue of women's rights. Again, you don't have to be the President of the United States to see that this issue won't play like that. It was a blunder that I suspect had more to do with the administration's way of doing things internally than Obama's politics. I mean, sure I can believe he'd like churches to have to do this. But should he have seen that fight not playing directly into the hands of his enemies' rhetoric? These aren't new enemies. Republicans tried to paint him as an enemy of the Constitution in the wake of HCR. This is a far more compelling opportunity and -- lo and behold -- it even ties back to opposition of HCR! What sebster is dumping on as immaturity is a feeding frenzy conservatives would be stupid to ignore. Almost as stupid as the President, who himself chummed the waters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:In my experience people only care about the 1st in selective terms . . .

And that is exactly why this issue is so powerful. You don't need to be really committed to get fired up. That's political gold.

Manchu wrote:And that is exactly why this issue is so powerful. You don't need to be really committed to get fired up. That's political gold.

I understand the argument that you're making, but I just don't see this particular issue being compelling en masse. Certainly not more so than the furor over the individual mandate.