What do you consider your top 3 accomplishments in the Senate you’ve achieved for the people of Massachusetts?
This election may decide control of the U.S. Senate. Can you explain why you feel Mitch McConnell should be Senate majority leader?
What if any legislative priorities of a Republican-majority Senate would you support? What if any would you oppose?
Why do you think you, as a junior senator from Massachusetts, are the top recipient of campaign contributions from securities, investment, hedge fund and venture capital donors in the entire U.S. Senate?
Do you support the continued operation of the Consumer Financial Protection Board?
Why did you vote for an amendment that would allow employers to deny health insurance coverage for anything they morally oppose, including contraception?
Do you believe that the Catholic Church’s opposition to contraception should be supported by federal legislation?
Why did you oppose a bill strengthening equal pay for equal work? Do you feel women no longer face any discrimination in the workplace and are adequately protected by current laws? If there were specifics in the bill you opposed, what were they, and what would make such a bill acceptable for you to support?
Why did you vote against confirming Elana Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court? Especially after introducing her this way to the Senate Judiciary Committee:
“I had the pleasure of meeting Ms. Kagan last month and found her to be an impressive and pleasant individual. . . .
“As an attorney myself, I recognize an impressive legal resume when I see one. There is no doubt that Ms. Kagan has gone far since graduating from Harvard Law School, magna cum laude, in 1986.”
There’s been a bit of a flap over your claim that you met with “kings and queens” regularly while in the Senate. Putting royalty aside, you also said you met regularly with foreign leaders. Can you give us some examples of who, when and why?
One of your ads has your wife saying you were always there during the day for your children. Can you explain how that’s possible while you were also a state legislator?
You’ve been somewhat critical of Harvard University as being elitist, in terms of your opponent’s connection there. Is it elitist that Mitt Romney has two degrees from Harvard? Or is working at Harvard elitist but attending it not?
Do you consider it a good thing or a bad thing that Harvard University and associated medical institutions is one of the largest private employers in Massachusetts?
Discuss
105 Comments . Leave a comment below.1. Stopping Cap & Trade which would cost the avg. family $2,000 a year by 2020. Shaming Sen Reed to put my bill elininating insider trading by politicians. Voting to end don’t ask, don’t tell AFTER speaking with the military brass.
2. I promise the voters of MA with Sen. McConnell, that we will actually pass a budget, unlike Harry Reid.
3. Drive energy prices down and create jobs by building XL Pipeline, drill in ANWR, reform tax code, actually pass a budget in the Senate, lots of ideas. I voted against my party over 40% of the time, a true INDEPENDENT!!!
4. Of course, the economic engine of our economy supports me.
5. Nobody cares about this question.
6-7. Too much hatred toward religious folks. If your employer does not provide coverage for your immoral lifestyle, then either pay for it yourself or find or elect a POTUS who can create enuff jobs so you can work somewhere else and not look to government to sole everything.
8. This bill was a juicy bone thrown to trial lawyers, who would do to our struggling businesses, what they have done to good doctors across this country. I blocked scum like John Edwards from ruining our small businesses.
9. As one who has worn the uniform of our military for over two decades, meeting the brave heroes in Iraq and Afghanistan, I could not support a woman who refused to allow military recruiters into Harvard Univ. To me, it became personal and most people agree with me.
10. I have met so many foreign leaders, sometimes you just don’t recall their titles. At least I know we have just 50 states, unlike the Prez. who said we have 57.
11. It is called flex hours, and was lucky to be Abe to do both.
12. Mitt didn’t claim to be a minority to get into Harvard. By the way, Harvard needs to start paying taxes, seeing Dan from Waltham informed me they have $32 billion in their endowment fund. Time to cough some up.
2. It’s not just passing a budget that matters, but what’s in it. Would you support the Ryan budget?
3. Can you explain the statistically significant difference in the percent of times you voted against your party before and after Prof. Warren declared her candidacy?
4. Why you so much more than anyone else in the Senate? And, are hedge funds really the engine of our economy?
5. Um, I care. So do thousands of other consumers who have filed complaints against their financial institutions.
6. So any employer gets to decide the morality of employees’ lifestyles? If the owner of the company is a Christian Scientist, do you believe its OK he can refuse to cover blood transfusions during surgery because he’s morally opposed?
8. Didn’t answer the full question. Would you support any legislation to strengthen equal paynformequal work, or do you believe the situation is fine the way it is?
9. Did you not know that about Elana Kagan before you said those nice things about her? If that’s the case, don’t you think you should have done the slightest bit of research before talking about what an impressive individual she is?
10. You,don’t need to remember all of them. Just give us a few examples of the foreign leaders you met with and the important issues you discussed. Surely you can remember at least a few of these important sessions?
11. So legislative votes are all held at the convenience of your personal schedule?
Didn’t answer the question at all about Harvard. You were ridiculing your opponent’s ties to Harvard long before the issue of ancestry became public. Nor did you answer whether you think it’s good or bad for Mass. that Harvard is one of the state’s largest employers.
Your opponent has categorized you as a “Mitt Romney Republican.” Is that accurate?
I don’t see most of them convincing many independents.
We can only hope that Scotto takes Dan’s advice.
Do you think Harvard”s endowment fund should be exempt from capital gains? I know when they earn 20% in a given year, it’s just a few billion, but at 5.3% for,the state and say 15% for Obama, that would be nice, no? I bet Scott takes my advise make Warren defend this tax loophole for her former employer. We can have occupy Wall Street and Occupy Private Universities.
I still can’t believe BMG is not on a crusade to get these private institutions to pay their fair share. I will keep trying……
Does Scott seriously think this is a tax loophole that needs to go away or does it not extend beyond trying to get Warren to defend something that appears hypocritical?
…If we taxed Harvards endowment (or any college…) as capital gains then we would have to then remove the charitable tax deductions for the people who endowed it in the first place: the Gates, the Buffets, the Rockefellers, etc… The ‘endowments’ are specific gifts to specific institutions often for very specific purposes and any ‘gains’ capital or otherwise, are often very restricted in use.
If we did that then we would have to tax private schools and hospital endowments in the same manner… and art museums and a whole host of other institutions.
And then these things would disappear completely from the face of the earth as the rich people would not get their reward, in the form of tax deductions, and would therefore stop endowing such things.
So. Yes. I do think that Harvards endowment fund should be exempt from capital gains.
Why don’t you just get on here and say corporations/institutions are people, my friends. Say it…..say it!!!!!!
Can’t tax the pigs at Harvard Univ. b/c Buffet and Gates won’t get the tax donation deduction. YET, these same men, tell us how they want to pay more in taxes. But petr says they won’t donate a dollar if the cant write it off. Utterly amazing, ain’t it my friends? Mind boggling. If u ask this unenrolled voter from the Watch City.
Mitt, i mean Petr, guess what?
Too bad for Gates, Buffet, or Mitt with their billion or multi-million dollar donations. If the don’t want to give from the heart, the can go bleep themselves. And if you want to get on this board, defending institutions who invest monies in the market, reap a hefty return, and pay ZILCH in capital gains tax, let alone no property taxes, then you need to go to redmassgroup. Talk about defending the top 1% of society!!!!!!!!
Look everyone. People like me pay into medicare all my life, and now they are about to move the goal post, and turn it into a voucher system. That is not the deal I signed up for when I first started contributing toward it, but this is inevitable unless we go after some of these sacred cows that petr so eloquently defended. Don’t be fooled, these institutions will do just fine, just have them pay a little. And limit the charitable deductions to $250K. We need to start collecting revenue from those that have it, either individually, or at the corporate level (I know petr, they are people too).
and then moved the goal posts? What did your medicare benefits look like when you “signed up”? How much am I paying today for your benefits to be paid next Tuesday? The goal posts on everything we do change by the month, year… so get used to it.
Being an unenrolled voter, Scott would hit the sweet spot with most of these answers. I was just trying to be funny by saying “immoral lifestyle”, don’t mean to offend anyone. But you get the gist, those questions are like swatting a fly at a BBQ.
But seriously, just the Rep base expects a budget to be passed out of the Senate???? Puhleeze say it ain’t so.
…if the GOP didn’t threaten filibuster just as a matter of reflex.
You say no one cares about question 5, which by my count was the one about the CFPB; I highly doubt that’s the case.
Wall Street has not been the economic engine for the past few years, more like economic poison.
As I recall he did NOT vote to end DADT. I recall this one because it was a rare occasion that I called his office to register my opinion. I was told he would vote to end it and I even got clarification that he would cast the necessary procedural votes to make it happen. Then he voted against repeal so I called the next day to ask what changed and I was given some excuse about a caveat he didn’t like, but which the staffer I spoke with didn’t mention might be a concern just the previous day.
So the possible legal ramifications of equal pay are more concerning than the idea that it’s the right thing to do? Gail Huff is not going to get him out of that one no matter how many ads she does for him.
Obama said 57 states once and as it was in the context of winning primaries and caucuses he was probably counting non-state territories, but may have slightly miscounted even then. Though the Senator should be able to tell the difference between a King and a Prime Minister the diarist DID say leave that part aside. It is still reasonable to ask with whom the Senator has been meeting and how has that advanced the interests of the United States.
EW didn’t claim to be a minority until well after her own career was secure. Enough with the neo-birtherism on this issue!
You think C&T is expensive – try the environmental costs of NOT doing it!
You must have been on vacation when Sen. Brown voted for repeal of DADT. Surprised it takes me to point this out.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46578.html
An, yep, keep,the wolves at bay so,they don’t crush the fragile economy.
I like warm weather, so I guess I’m pro global warming.
Scott Brown voted repeatedly to block the repeal, such as on on May 25, again in September, and yet again in early December.
When it was clear the measure would be repealed, in spite of his best efforts to block it (the repeal had more than enough votes to pass according to your own cite), he then voted in favor.
Scott Brown is about as “independent” as you.
Chris said Scott Brown did NOT vote to end DADT. Is that what he wrote or not? I simply informed him of his error. Now you come in with this gobbledygook about prior votes. First, he was collecting info from those in command in the war zones, and in DEcember, Brown wanted a clean bill, which he finally got, due to his great leadership.
Now for the last time, do not respond to my comments. You are a hall monitor, looking to have me expelled from this site. Don’t read what I write and don’t get involved in my conversations the the other peepe, who have a sense of humor.
HAHAHAHAHAHA omg that is the funniest line on BMG in weeks. Thanks for the yuks! Sense of humor indeed.
Brown took heat for helping pass Dodd/Frank from his base. By all means, when has Warren displayed similar courage? Any issue at all, I would like to hear it.
Seems to me many (not you Bob) want a robot of a senator, instead of a thinker. Well to quote Warren, “Good for YOUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Other parts of his base were pleased.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/22/AR2010062205273.html
You can find examples of Elizabeth Warren showing similar courage if you look.
http://swampland.time.com/2011/07/14/grilling-elizabeth-warren/
You’re killing me today, Dan, seriously. Haven’t laughed this hard in ages.
You’re really asking where Elizabeth Warren has shown leadership? How about, “in getting the consumer finance agency passed into law, despite overwhelming opposition from wealthy and extremely well-connected special interests, near-universal opposition from the GOP, lukewarm support even from the leadership of her own party, and the fact that she did not even hold elected office at the time”? Yes, Scotto voted for the bill, finally, after wrangling some big breaks for banks. Bravo. The agency never would have been in the bill at all had it not been for her.
But I will answer your questions. Patricks link just says how the Rep’s were mean to Warren.
My question is where did or does Warren stand up to her base and disagree with them. How different will she be than the run-of-the-mill liberal Democrats like Chick Schumer? Scott brown is like no Republican Senator, he is his own person, which is a good thing, IMO
Also, if you tax banks, they will pass the cost along to consumers in higher fees and rates.
so I don’t recall him demanding that they start paying more taxes than they already do (FYI – not everything the University touches is tax exempt).
And why? Just for the sake of standing up? Brown’s vote on Dodd-Frank wasn’t any great act of courage or a vote of principle or even an example of bipartisanship. The part of the base that actually pulls the strings did so. He was paid handsomely for his vote. That’s all there is to it.
About Harvard, do you also agree in that if you tax the endowment it will just be passed onto students in higher tuition and fees? I’m not against treating the endowment the same as other investments. I’m not even against treating investment income the same as labor income. It all seems like a loophole to me.
Are you asking me if I care about these rich kids paying more to go attend Harvard. ARE YOU KIDDING ME!
It is a loophole and when they make billions in one year for their endowment, pay your fair share Harvard!!!!! They are PIGS!!!!!!!!!!!!
and !!! !!! !
I agree that Harvard and other nonprofits should pay their fair share of property taxes to the communities in which they reside. We’ve discussed this at length before (possibly before you joined BMG).
Does Warren agree with us. David?
On Iran, for one thing, if by “base” you mean the leftmost wing of the Democratic party. Example, example, example.
She is against her base and wants to have another war over there?
I answered your question. Now you go out and learn something about it, and then get back to me.
Defranco was a dove.
When it comes to war.
Not if you do it right. We discussed this the last time I was on Emily Rooney, toward the end of the segment.
TV too, nice!
Corporate welfare to members of the senate is the engine of our economy?
The US consumes 20% of global oil and produces only 2%. No amount of domestic drilling will solve that. Besides, we can’t even get TranCanada to agree to sell XL pipline oil directly to the US No, they can make so much more money on the global market.
But hey that’s the free market for ya.
Let us stop living energy poor and get at our oil and enjoy the short time we have on this planet.
Gutting Dodd-Frank, voting to end DADT because there was no way not to, voting to give those poor oil companies $24B in taxpayer money ( for their endowment of course), voting to allow employers to decide who gets coverage and claiming to do it in the name of “religious liberty.”
I could go on.
Brown could part the Red Sea, and you would squawk there were too many barnacles to step on as you make your way to the Promise Land.
it ain’t working
Flex hours?
Hm. We used to call that “no show.”
Dan, you sound a tad jealous of someone else’s wealth there, pal. Not very i-n-d-e-p-e-n-d-e-n-t of you.
Because I want to go after Harvard, I’m jealous of wealth. Keep out of the sun, ok?
the next time tax increases on the wealthiest 1% comes up in congress.
Im okay with increasing the marginal rates on the rich, but not until everyone else is paying their fair share, like Haaaarvard Univ.
-
Yeah, but I bet Brown never held hands with Crown Prince Abdullah – so there.
Scott Brown will NEVER bow to a foreign leader…..EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tell Obama to stand up straight and look them in the eye and use a firm handshake.
heh-heh
He is lost for words…..down goes Demintfan….Down goes Demintfan.
Hey, just playing with ya. But to quote a famous move, “Don’t mess with a bull, or you’ll get the horns”….
How do you know he hasn’t?
A more interesting question for Brown would be if he supports the lobbying effort to take the terrorist organization MEK off the State Dept list.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/romney-and-the-mek-2/
to the King of Kentucky
holding hands is so much more presidential.
Over 30 years in the Guard; never served in a combat zone. Who does he know?
I hope u r proud of yourself.
you sanctimonious hypocrite
I doubt they ever get near combat.
please
eom
Petraeus to the point of embarrassing himself by blubbering on about “his troops this and his troops that.”
The juicy bone t trial layers came when Brown voted for the Blunt Amendment and then defended his vote by saying that anyone denied health coverage because of an employer’s moral objection could just – sue! Yeah, sue. What a guy.
.
Not the Ryan Budget
Your trollish behavior was one thing, but now you think you can order other folks to stop reading and replying to what you write? Wow. Just wow.
Didn’t we vote you off the island a few weeks ago? How can we miss you if you don’t go away?
Needed 6 yes votes, got 5 plus a hanging chad, guy never said yes.
But that person did get me in trouble so it’s how I feel.
,
As I wrote elsewhere, I’ll comment where and when I like.
.
Now who is on vacation, KalamazooDan? You are awful squeeky today buddy, afraid Brown won’t make it, eh?
If it takes robotics, then yes, I’ll take one that represents the people of Massachusetts instead of a robotic boy toy who represents his own interests first, followed closely by his party’s interests and Wall Street.
Oh, and sooner or later congress will pass a viable, realistic budget, which means it won’t be the Ryan budget.
That is your standard? Wow…….
Its a tad better than passing the suicidal budget that the republicans propose. In fact we could pass a budget tomorrow if house republicans started working for the people again. Otherwise, its sooner or later.
Do Brown and Warren even differ on foreign policy?
Although I suspect a majority of voters will be deciding largely on domestic issues, it’s important to hear what the candidates have to say on foreign policy as well.
It seems the strategy of not responding to trolls is about as successful as responding to them, with this difference: if we don’t respond to trolls on your blog then it becomes their blog.
Plug pullin’ time.
If you or Bob wish I was not here offering rock solid ideas and opinions, then you can deactivate me. Seems to be lots of crying (hello Demintfan) by a few when their own arguments do not hold water or I lay a little smackdown.
You r correct, I will likely vote for Brown based on what I have learned today. If both want war with Iran, best to have someone who has served in the military, I would think. But I’m not closed-minded like some.
You are as delusional as Brown. Your rock solid deas and opinions are trite and threadbare and can be found on the internet crazyplace.
BTW: The vote was 6, not 5 and your inability to count may also have something to do with not being able to pass a budget.
You and others just hate diversity of opinions that are moderate, with a sprinkle of liberalism and conservatism. And if you happen to be funny, well then, foget-about-it….
Go back, I asked for Yes votes to get rid of me and only 5 said yes. One guy wrote a paragraph but did not say Yes, so it was a hanging chad.
Ok, last post for a bit. I hope to write a column soon for this site. It will be my 10 questions for Elizabeth Warren.
Thanks you guys.
Tell us, have you had secret meetings with kings and queens and one-eyed jacks too?
This is the closest I could find, words included.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zehPyQFfHCY
All I here is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMEe7JqBgvg
It’s been done. It went nowhere.
..
There’s some billy goats waiting for you.
Senator Brown, your returns indicate that you spent $1,401 for “TV makeup and grooming”, and you took a deduction. That’s a lot o money, and this question is about your grooming. Can you tell us, for $1,401, did you get a haircut, and were you able to get your nails done also?
As you can see from DanFromWaltham’s answers there is a collision in views of society and government. So the formulated answers to any past issues will be regurgitated back and, unfortunately, in response, many times we do the same. So what is missing is a discussion of the function of society and government and how do they relate.
This is my take. Society is suppose to furnish our necessities for survival and our desires for a better life. It should function with the most freedoms possible and in particular freedom from harm. Freedoms can be summed up as the ability to make choices, not to do whatever you want, but ones you can take responsibility for. However without fellow citizens no one can carry out these desired choices by themselves and there must be strong recognition of a Social Contract. We depend on each other for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Governments are formed because of human imperfection. We have significant problems with disagreement management and sometimes do awful things to each other. There are also certain human survival needs that require collective solutions and are too expensive for any individual responsibility. Hence some rules of the road agreed upon and passed into law by hopefully reasonably representative bodies become essential for a properly running country.
Now governments, at times, do even more terrible things with even more terrible consequences. Slavery, women’s and gay discrimination, school prayer, access to abortion, starting wars, paying attention to those who can not survive on their own are examples of problems that were not being solved by society but unfortunately had been encoded into law as acceptable. All of these problems were then addressed by social movements and created recognition for legislative change and action. Issues to be resolved by our very nature will always remain with us and haunt us. Our culture continues to evolve and a change in direction now and then becomes necessary. Presently corporations and certain individuals have too much social and political power. They extract too much of the medium of exchange without proper reinvestment to increase the wealth of the nation. They unduly influence legislators and elections.
On the other hand there is not enough recognition that government is part of the answer to ensure health care for all giving each individual a full opportunity to exist. Government also needs to step up further to make this a safer world. More government work needs to be done so citizens with equal talent and experience have as much chance as possible for equal employment opportunity. Financial institutions should not be allowed to speculate with other people’s money and worse actually get richer for it. Proper government responsibilities should not be turned into privatized profit centers that serve their owners more than the people of the United States. Government must work better to solve the problem of properly educating our population. Government must extend legal rights to some of our citizens in such areas as committed relationships or privacy. You can fill in your favorite blanks.
So Scott Brown should in debate tell us what his views of government and society are and what legislation he favors to accomplish it. If it falls in with what I just expressed, he should get my vote. So far though not even his surrogates hint at what he truly believes or why. So far he is all over the map. I understand his family loves him and respects him but he’s running for Senator not father or husband of the year. What he has done so far in his day job runs counter to ensuring a healthy civilization by his votes for restricting freedoms and unleveling the economic playing field. My conclusion is he must have some sort of tribal mentality and if you are not in the tribe, too bad, you’re on your own. His job is to prove this is wrong and he stands for all citizens of the Commonwealth. So until then my vote goes to Elizabeth Warren who most closely aligns with what I see as a prosperous inclusive nation, that serves us all including, by the way, my fellow Republicans.
Government exists to do those things the people cannot do for themselves. Civilization requires government. Taxes are the price we pay for civilization.
I suspect more undecided voters will care about government cuts diminishing hours at the local library or beach than will want to watch a discussion of the theory of government.
I agree that I’d like Scott Brown to have to state his theory of government — Elizabeth Warren has been pretty clear about hers, while Scott Brown’s chief campaign messages have been that he’s a great husband & Dad and, previously, that he drives a truck.
However, don’t discount the stuff in the weeds. Some people need the dots connected that government services are actually required for the private sector to flourish; having a society where you’ve got a small percent of wealthy people and most people economically struggling isn’t just a moral issue, but it means that markets dry up for business; and government actually provides useful and necessary services for people that the private sector just can’t (or can’t do well for everyone).
Many of our politicians have no idea what it means to be statesmen. Brown probably doesn’t have a tangible theory of government, in part because I think his “theory” is that individual striving means doing whatever you can get away with to get ahead. Law or any sense of a social contract are impediments to individual liberty. It is a Darwinian view that seems so alien to those that recognize the value of government and community. It is also an argument that has gone on since at least the opening of the Civil War; centered around a misguided and vaguely perceived understanding of “states rights.”
Sadly, in Brown’s case, his notion of society is tangled up with unbridled competition as defined by athletic contests and cynical belief that the “system” is there to be scammed. He sees nothing wrong with multiple, contradictory messages (as does Romney) because its all part of the Great Contest. The one and only goal of sporting events is winning, not so with democratic government.
Last Thursday, Joan Vennochi wrote about what a lousy job Obama has done in succinctly marketing the value of PPACA. One passage that stuck with me is this:
“The court said corporations have the same First Amendment rights as people. What if this court also rules that a $2 trillion
health care market that operates in all 50 states isn’t interstate commerce?”
Is this a case of the snake swallowing its own tail? These are competing theories of law and society embodied within one institution. Claiming constitutional rights for corporations now opens the door to depriving corporate individuals and people of access to the marketplace. What seems to be a reasonable attempt to regulate commercial activity across state lines is now seen as state oppression by forcing people to pay-in and denying corporations the ability to chose their customers.
If the court strikes down the mandate then what is next; the Civil Rights Act, successfully argued as a matter of interstate commerce? How about national building codes or safety regulations?
How we got here is equally as depressing: the continued diminishment of the public square only fosters these polarizing and uninformed notions. There is no debate anymore because winning at any cost is so much more profitable to some than operating within the traditional american political context of individual rights and national identity. It has became all-in for one or the other.
Nice read while eating my breakfast. So good, I gave my dogs some of my bacon. Someone who does not spew venom.
Bringing it full circle now, you wrote about freedoms and those that one is responsible for. Yet, I read many on this board who want forced insurance policies for contraception. Would this not fall under ones responsibility category? To answer a question you raised about blood transfusions as a moral objection (red herring), I would ask what employer would have this clause and how long would they stay in business? Who would work for them? Market forces, in this case, would clear out that type of thinking very quickly.
About equal employment opportunity. You know what I think of? Affirmative Action? Why discriminate at all, even against white people? As far as college admissions, instead of asking for ethnicity, just use the applicants zip code. Those who live in the less affluent towns and cities would get the leg up over the wealthier ones. Same desired results and less ill will. Why should a minority in Lexington or Concord have preference over a anybody, let alone a poor white kid from let’s say Waltham, or Haverhill? My nephew and nieces are Hispanic, yet they live in a very wealthy community. They get preference over my kids wether at school admissions or employment? F that man. On a lighter note, should Holder be harassing Marylou’s coffee stores because they hire young, attractive ladies. Gee, do I want to go to a D&D drive thru and have a hairy arm with tattoos hand me a coffee or go to Marylou’s???? You know the answer, just listen to my theme song I posted.
Overall, good ideas. For a moment, I thought you were quoting Ronald Reagan.
The government isn’t paying for the insurance. Georgetown University isn’t paying for the insurance. The Church isn’t subsidizing the insurance. The insurance is totally paid for by the students.
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf
What exactly is it then if those things are true that the Church is being forced to do?
One of the examples mentioned a mother concerned wether or not she will have grand kids. When govt is that involved, turn out the lights, the party’s over.
Why can’t Fluke buy a separate policy to fit her needs? Sorry having sex costs so much, perhaps she needs to find a guy who has more control, shall we say and quit crying about it. Her argument about forgoing quality education at Georgetown does not hold water. She knew the rules going in, no sympathy on my part. She is a big girl, figure it out
I don’t understand your problem with the example you cited. It involved contraception used for non-contraceptive purposes. I’m not an expert in Catholic ethics, but I am aware of things like double effect. It really seems to be that people are going out if their way to frame things in as disingenuous way as possible. If we were to deal with the facts as presented then the argument falls apart against a religious employer providing an insurance policy that includes things the employer finds objectionable.
I also find the casual dismissal of Fluke and all these women as whores who can’t control their desires to be quite off base. Another example from the testimony was that of a married woman who simply did not want to get pregnant while in law school. Is that not perfectly understandable?
She started off by talking about the financial burden of students and poor working women and the cost of contaception running $3,000 per year. She must threw in some toys in her estimate, but I digress. Fluke is no different than 99% of the population, it don’t matter what she does. Just don’t ask everyone to subsidize her optional, personal choices.
Then she sites examples of medical situations. Again, if Georgetown gives the women a hard time for these few examples, then take it up the Board of Trusties or the Pope. Or just find another university. If enuff people are on her side, enrollment will drop and Georgetown will either change it’s policies or go under, either option is fine with me.
So Georgetown should hire only practicing Catholics and enroll only practicing Catholics, right? And then it would be a …seminary. Would that also be a better justification for their tax exempt status?
Because, you know, when they hire and enroll non-practicing Catholics they know the rules going in, right?
Imagine if your boss were a teetotaler and he found out that after every payday you hit the bar. So the next payday he withholds your paycheck because to provide it would be unethical. Would anyone argue that he had a right to do so? Or that it was incumbent on the employee not to work there?
If an employer has a problem with how certain employees may act then the simple solution is not to hire them (or in the case of students, not accept them). To place the burden on the employees or to wily-nilly withhold benefits is absurd.
between religious institutions and all other employer/ employee relationships. I’m imagining my employer at the widget plant to be a practicing Catholic with a high level of moral indignation about how I conduct my life. Should I have not accepted the position when he told me about his beliefs at the interview? If I tell him I disagree with his moral convictions as they apply to me does he have the right not to hire me?
Yes him to death, get the job, and expect your health insurance not to cover contraception. No employer would be dumb enuff in your hypothetical interview. U r silly.
But if the alcohol is abused and repuational harm can be done to the company, the boss has every right to warn/ fire the person.
The troll fails to answer the questions posed
I am sick of these universities and their tax exempt. Get rid of it for Georgetown as well.
;
As Americans in a modern age we globally recognize the oppression of Afro-Americans, Women, the inability of affording health insurance leading to harm and death, bad foreign policy leading to armed conflict to name a few. Socially we do discriminate based on one human phenotype or another to our own detriment and the freeby market has done little to correct it. Especially on the subject of health care the freeby market has made it worse. Our health care costs are heading to 20% of DGP. This is why with public support some of the things you decry came into existence and why they will need some government intervention. I, like you, hope the day will come when such laws will be unnecessary. That day has not come.
So make no adjustments at all????? U kidding me? You think I should support ideas that screw my own blood b/c the world ain’t perfect?
So in your happy little world, Obama’s kids, who attend privat schools, should get more points, than a white kid from Apalacha? You honestly believe what you just wrote. LORD HAVE MERCY!!
May I ask you a question? Do you have a trust fund or something? Or are you still in school with no clue what the r eat world is like? It has to be one or the other.
Now I have to see if I can get my dogs to cough up that bacon from this morning.
Friends, this is my post for the day, don’t be sad, I will be back.
My like story isn’t relevant but I can tell you like everything else you have written is wrong on every count you mentioned. I was lucky enough to be a teenager when Sputnik was launched and interest in science and math became supreme. State and private scholarships were available and with a part time job made my way to graduate school. We have lost our way in learning lessons that better people’s lives. In my time education was supported because of competition with the Russians, making it a short term deal we are paying dearly for. During my college years in a class of almost 2000 there was only a handful of minority students. Today at my alma mater this has completely reversed itself. In addition in graduate school only 2 women were in attendance in a class of 110. Today woman are in the majority in that school. So change does and needs to happen. You make yourself unhappy because you think someone is taking something from you. You I think we are better off and have seen these wonderful transitions with my own eyes with a combination of individual effort, government help, and a more tolerant society. So even though you get a bit cranky about changes you have to admit some social progress has benefitted us all. Do you really want to go back to the 1950s. I don’t.
Hello McFly, anyone home??????
There you go everyone. This guy DOES BELIEVE that minorities who come from wealthy families, deserve preferential treatment over poor whites when it comes to college admittance. Guess what? Obama himself has said his kids should not get preferential treatment, but you insist they should b/c you are simply stuck in the 50′s mindset.
Now go back, read what I wrote. My idea is to help poorer communities who likely don’t attend private schools or a high ranking public school, usually in wealthy areas. But oh no, you need to know their race to make you feel better. You remind me of Justice Breyer. He said he would like to see more diversity on the Supreme Court. How about this, if Romney wins and promises to appoint Miguel Estrada, will Breyer give up his seat, for diversity sake?
…comes down to the premise that it is of, by, and for the people. Ultimately it IS the people, who through elected representatives decided how much or little we act together through our government. There are certain basic rights the government can not infringe upon. They are finite and enumerated and much legislation passes that basic test. Personally I’m a loose constructionist so I go with the idea that if the Constitution does not forbid it, it is fair game, especially if it serves to further any of the half dozen reasons cited for ordaining and establishing the Constitution in the first place.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Sat 25 May 9:01 AM