swansont Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Jon Kyl's staff's spin for his "well over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does" statement — how does it rank on the lame scale for damage control? And why do we tolerate blatant lying from politicians? I suspect that this will not affect his popularity with his base one bit. Though I would not be bothered in the least if he is asked, in perpetuity, if his statement is meant to be factual every time he says something in public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 "the war is lost" (Reid), "we have to pass the bill, to see what's in it" (Polosi) and thousands of comments embellished to produce a political point are common practice in politics. Off your topic, I think: Why Kyl or the Republican party are so opposed to abortion is a little strange, since those that seek out free abortions are generally liberal minded, my cynical view. Wasn't there a NYC survey saying near 60% of black pregnancies, end in abortions. Personally, since the issue has been properly settle by law, since poor folks don't generally want added responsibilities and abortions are Medical Procedure, I see no reason why Government doesn't assist, though maybe it would be best to leave that to the States. On the issue, I often wonder what would be today, if those whatever millions that didn't make it to birth, would have meant to society and I'm not being cynical here. There are a whole lot of non Whites out there making a big differance and it's not all that bad.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Well, that's 90% of what John Kyl does, he lies like this to the American people. And this kind of thing should outrage everyone, but his base will never see this response because it won't be printed in publications they're reading. And even if they do read it, he's anchored the 90% figure in people's minds so that they will always believe the percentage of budget for PP abortions is somewhere between the 3% and the 90% figures. Differing perspectives, interpreting statistics, these are used a lot with spin tactics. This isn't spin though, it's outright lying, distorting the truth by a factor of 30. I hope every statement he makes for the rest of a short career is questioned for it's factual content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 13, 2011 Author Share Posted April 13, 2011 I was more interested in the damage control than the actual statement, and lies as opposed to just silly off-the-cuff remarks. But I hadn't really considered the source amnesia/big lie aspect of it — yes, there are some who will remember the 90% statistic as truth. One more reason to continually force him to confirm his statements are facts whenever he speaks in public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I was more interested in the damage control than the actual statement, and lies as opposed to just silly off-the-cuff remarks. As damage control, it's just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard from professional political communications people. To imply that your boss quoted a non-factual statistic is bad; to imply that it should be considered perfectly normal to say "well over 90%" when one really means "a small percentage" is just criminal. But I hadn't really considered the source amnesia/big lie aspect of it — yes, there are some who will remember the 90% statistic as truth. One more reason to continually force him to confirm his statements are facts whenever he speaks in public. In marketing it's called the "anchor". If I tell you that the refrigerator you like that's marked $2500 can be yours for just $800, you are now biased about the value of the fridge, and use the $2500 anchor to judge how good a deal it is for $800. Kyl's base may not believe the 90% to be factual if they bother to read any of the corrections, but they won't believe the true figure of 3% either. They will most likely believe a number somewhere in the middle, which will still be horribly off by more than a whole order of magnitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Jon Kyl 68, first entered Congress as a Representative of Arizona in 1987, then in 1995 as their Junior Senator. I hope every statement he makes for the rest of a short career is questioned for it's factual content. [/Quote] I hope this wasn't intended to demean his age, but no less than I feel VP Biden has made some very strange comments, they have both been consistent in their political career's... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Jon Kyl 68, first entered Congress as a Representative of Arizona in 1987, then in 1995 as their Junior Senator. I hope this wasn't intended to demean his age, but no less than I feel VP Biden has made some very strange comments, they have both been consistent in their political career's... Actually no, I was referring to the backlash of his staff admitting what they did about their boss. Of course, his staff would be the perfect scapegoat in this situation if he was looking to stay out from under the bus himself. And I think there's a big difference between making "strange comments" and misrepresenting Planned Parenthood's abortion objectives as "90% of what they do" when it's really 3%. If you misspelled 3 words out of every 100 you post here, would it just be "strange" if I claimed that you misspelled 9 out of 10, or would it be an outright lie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 13, 2011 Author Share Posted April 13, 2011 I hope this wasn't intended to demean his age, but no less than I feel VP Biden has made some very strange comments, they have both been consistent in their political career's... Again, I'm talking about lies rather than just strange comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 If this* comment is correct PP's 3%, is equal to 332,278 abortions and 90% of their funding comes from the Federal Government and that's not legal Hyde Amendment). The total US abortions should be about 1.2 M in 2010**, they have performed over 30% of them. I'm aware of many things they do, but I seriously doubt any of them represent these figures. Anyway Kyl's mixing of figures is extremely common by Politicians and I'd suggest the Media. If you like I could come up with three in Obama's opening 2012 campaign speech today, alone.... * http://commonsense-plubius.blogspot.com/2011/04/abort-planned-parenthood.html ** http://www.christianliferesources.com/?/library/view.php&articleid=1042 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 If this* comment is correct PP's 3%, is equal to 332,278 abortions and 90% of their funding comes from the Federal Government and that's not legal Hyde Amendment). Planned Parenthood does not use federal money to conduct abortions of any kind. They have already made this clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 If 90% of PP funding comes from the Feral Government, then 40M would come from donors and lets assume without restriction. Then if only donor money is used, each abortion would have $120 to work with. Since that's 1,510 per day spread out across the country, I neither believe this is possible or do I believe 3% could substantiated. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 13, 2011 Author Share Posted April 13, 2011 If 90% of PP funding comes from the Feral Government, then 40M would come from donors and lets assume without restriction. Then if only donor money is used, each abortion would have $120 to work with. Since that's 1,510 per day spread out across the country, I neither believe this is possible or do I believe 3% could substantiated. The solution to the conundrum is simple: 90% does not come from the federal government. It's a third of their funding. A bit more than a third comes from charging for services and most of the rest from contributions. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PP_AR_011011_vF.pdf (page 28) It's interesting that about a third of their expenditures are for overhead or otherwise non-medical costs. Depending on the specifics, it might be possible to say that no federal money is used for any medical services at all. Anyway Kyl's mixing of figures is extremely common by Politicians and I'd suggest the Media. If you like I could come up with three in Obama's opening 2012 campaign speech today, alone.... Errors at this level? And spun in this way? Please, give examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 swansont; I used the links provided earlier and this issue is not worth the time to verify each comment, but I'm sure 60 Minutes would be a good source, if you care to verify his comment. I'd bet those paid for services are in fact Medicaid.... CNS News also points out that 90 percent of Planned Parenthood’s $363.2 million came directly from the federal government–or from Medicaid, [/Quote] http://commonsense-p...parenthood.html Errors at this level? And spun in this way? Please, give examples. [/Quote] Alright, but up front this is from memory; In today's speech and Obama has been saying the same thing over and over, that Obamacare will SAVE a trillion dollars, rarely even mentioning "over a ten year period", while the CBO has been increasing the COST from 1T$ to somewhere around 1.4T$ the last I heard. What's worse, some economist are swearing the cost will create trillions in deficits long before ten years. I suppose he figures he can blame his speech writer or the prompter, but he knows darn well he is lying, "to embellish his point" on two counts. If you want more, I'll go over what one suggested deduction (home finance interest) he proposes will save money and how it will cause even less tax revenue, that any third grade math student should be able to figure out, but on another day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 swansont; I used the links provided earlier and this issue is not worth the time to verify each comment, but I'm sure 60 Minutes would be a good source, if you care to verify his comment. I'd bet those paid for services are in fact Medicaid.... CNS News also points out that 90 percent of Planned Parenthood’s $363.2 million came directly from the federal government–or from Medicaid, http://commonsense-p...parenthood.html $363.2 million is the total sum they received from the government, out of $997.3 million total income. 90% of that $363.2m came from Medicaid or the feds. It is not the case that 90% of all of their funding is federal. Alright, but up front this is from memory; In today's speech and Obama has been saying the same thing over and over, that Obamacare will SAVE a trillion dollars, rarely even mentioning "over a ten year period", while the CBO has been increasing the COST from 1T$ to somewhere around 1.4T$ the last I heard. What's worse, some economist are swearing the cost will create trillions in deficits long before ten years. I suppose he figures he can blame his speech writer or the prompter, but he knows darn well he is lying, "to embellish his point" on two counts. The Congressional Budget Office still estimates it will reduce the deficit. CBO estimated that those two laws, in combination, would produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period as a result of changes in direct spending and revenues. http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=835 CBO and JCT now estimate that, on balance, the direct (mandatory) spending and revenue effects of enacting H.R. 3590 as passed by the Senate would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $118 billion over the 2010–2019 period. (Direct spending—as distinguished from discretionary spending—is spending that stems from legislation other than appropriation acts.) In our earlier estimate, the budgetary impact was a net reduction in deficits of $132 billion. http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=488 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now