Dem leadership: Babies a burden on economy

[KingCondanomation]

Name one time the government "took responsibility for" something that it was ended. Show me one time, even under "conservative" leadership, that government actually shrank in size.
We won't hold our breath waiting for your example.

Calvin Coolidge shrank the government a lot, so it is possible. But you are mostly right that welfare programs have never really shrank as that is the hardest part of government to cut because of the dependence.

You are not going to "get rid of" welfare. It's time to face reality, to smell the coffee, etc. And if you aren't, giving them some birth control is hella betta than handing out more cash for another sprout. Again, an ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure. It is a "truism" because it is true.

I think you can get rid of welfare, we came close to it in the 90's and had we continued down the road of Conservative ideology of pushing for less and less government in the 90's under Gingrich and not Bush's weak Rove strategy of taking away Liberal issues by supporting them, then who knows?

Also, LOTS of people who use no welfare but ALREADY use birth control will now just use the government funding for that and depend on government for one more thing that they used to take responsibility on their own for.

"In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere." - Lincoln

 

[Damocles]

Calvin Coolidge shrank the government a lot, so it is possible. But you are mostly right that welfare programs have never really shrank as that is the hardest part of government to cut because of the dependence.


I think you can get rid of welfare, we came close to it in the 90's and had we continued down the road of Conservative ideology of pushing for less and less government in the 90's under Gingrich and not Bush's weak Rove strategy of taking away Liberal issues by supporting them, then who knows?

Also, LOTS of people who use no welfare but ALREADY use birth control will now just use the government funding for that and depend on government for one more thing that they used to take responsibility on their own for.

"In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere." - Lincoln

That's rubbish. You know that most people who already use it won't "qualify" for government aid.

The whole point is, people who can't do well for themselves ought to have some access to this so they don't add a dependent into that mess.

And it was not the goal of republicans then, nor is it the goal now to end welfare. It is part of the platform that welfare be there as a safety net. Ignoring what they actually say because you really, really, really want it to be this way is just inane, I know you are smarter than that.

Both parties support welfare, the approach is different. The 'teach a man to fish' approach includes such things as, "If you aren't ready, don't shoot a few more kids into this world."

There is one thing I know. Purchasing birth control for those people who can't take care of themselves and understand that adding a dependent is bad is far better than paying all their medical bills and buying their food for 18 years or more while the kid is dependent on them.

 

[Onceler]

Man, do I hope the GOP becomes the party of unprotected sex & unwanted pregnancies.

Would anyone care to try to make an argument that unwanted pregnancies - as things are right now, and not in Danoworld fantasyland - do not cost taxpayers money?

 

[Damocles]

Man, do I hope the GOP becomes the party of unprotected sex & unwanted pregnancies.

Would anyone care to try to make an argument that unwanted pregnancies - as things are right now, and not in Danoworld fantasyland - do not cost taxpayers money?

Well, according to your assertions earlier in the thread nobody said that except righties who wanted to imply something...

I'm glad you finally see reason.

 

[Onceler]

Well, according to your assertions earlier in the thread nobody said that except righties who wanted to imply something...

I'm glad you finally see reason.

We disagree on that it means to "see reason."

To me, it is fairly unreasonable to jump on a thread like this, completely skip over the rather blatant dishonesty in the 1st post as well as the thread title, and take issue with my pointing out that Dem leaders aren't really saying babies are a burden, at least in the terms that the poster had argued.

But then, I realize you have a soft spot for Dano.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"Who is the funding for? She never said unwanted pregnancies or single mothers or anything of the sort."

Um...DeMano? She said contraceptives.

You know what those are used for, right?

Making balloon animals?

 

[Onceler]

Making balloon animals?

I forgot...and smuggling drugs as well! That's why Stephanopolous asked "no apologies?"

Dem leaders want to smuggle drugs & kill babies, then make balloon animals for the dead babies!

Sick, sick liberals...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Damo, in the light of what she said in this interview, and how it was characterized by this post, I think it is hopelessly dishonest to say "Dem leaders say babies are a burden."

I stand by that, in the strongest possible way. I don't know how anyone of intelligence could read what she said - about contraception, which, again, is about PREVENTING unwanted pregancies - and think that even she is saying "babies are a burden." That's a very dishonest characterization.

Stick with it, though.

Let all stop for a moment and think about this. Of course babies are a burden. Anyone who cannot take care of themselves and provide economic benefit is a burden to the economy. To state the obvious, this is a fact of life and not a bad thing.

That said, clearly Pelosi was talking about unwanted pregnancies. I think we should do everything we can to limit abortions. You all know my position on the topic. To promote the use of contraception to all and fund distribution of contraception to the poor is a good way to help limit those unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortion. Economically it would also be a net positive.

 

[KingCondanomation]

Let's not all forget that Pelosi is trying to lump this into the "stimulus" bill.
Disregarding the fact that that is an incredibly dishonest way and frankly dangerous omen for increasing government spending, it's also not even true. Kids mean immediate spending to the economy (which seems to be the Dems goal), even kids born to any social status.

Let's not give the Dems a license to expand government on anything they want under the bullshit umbrella of stimulus. They should at least be honest and start with a seperate solitary bill on only this funding and let the debate begin. Can we all at least agree on that?

 

[uscitizen]

Oh, and just to add - people don't use contraception if they are PLANNING a pregnancy, which no one is talking about restricting.

The IQ of this board continues to nosedive.

The inevitable result of Damo attracting more cons.

 

[Damocles]

Let's not all forget that Pelosi is trying to lump this into the "stimulus" bill.
Disregarding the fact that that is an incredibly dishonest way and frankly dangerous omen for increasing government spending, it's also not even true. Kids mean immediate spending to the economy (which seems to be the Dems goal), even kids born to any social status.

Let's not give the Dems a license to expand government on anything they want under the bullshit umbrella of stimulus. They should at least be honest and start with a seperate solitary bill on only this funding and let the debate begin. Can we all at least agree on that?

Yes, I think there should be a one subject rule for legislation in DC. Too much gets passed without public knowledge because we keep allowing idiotic attachments that have nothing to do with the bill in question.

 

[Bonestorm]

Let's not all forget that Pelosi is trying to lump this into the "stimulus" bill.
Disregarding the fact that that is an incredibly dishonest way and frankly dangerous omen for increasing government spending, it's also not even true. Kids mean immediate spending to the economy (which seems to be the Dems goal), even kids born to any social status.

Let's not give the Dems a license to expand government on anything they want under the bullshit umbrella of stimulus. They should at least be honest and start with a seperate solitary bill on only this funding and let the debate begin. Can we all at least agree on that?

Negative. Elections have consequences, remember?

From the start the stimulus discussions have included aid to state and local governments. Just because you don't like the idea doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in the stimulus bill.

 

[Onceler]

"Kids mean immediate spending to the economy (which seems to be the Dems goal), even kids born to any social status."

So - just to confirm: we have you on record for wanting to increase the # of unwanted & unplanned pregnancies, as well as STD's, because it will boost the economy?

Cool; thanks for clarifying that. Now, your thread makes more sense.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Let's not all forget that Pelosi is trying to lump this into the "stimulus" bill.
Disregarding the fact that that is an incredibly dishonest way and frankly dangerous omen for increasing government spending, it's also not even true. Kids mean immediate spending to the economy (which seems to be the Dems goal), even kids born to any social status.

Let's not give the Dems a license to expand government on anything they want under the bullshit umbrella of stimulus. They should at least be honest and start with a seperate solitary bill on only this funding and let the debate begin. Can we all at least agree on that?

While I agree that any funding for this should stand on its own, I disagree with the assertation that kids mean immediate spending to the economy. Given the nature of US demographics and savings rates, the money a person earns is likely going to be spent regardless of whether kids are present. Having kids would most likely simply change WHERE the money is spent... not WHEN the money is spent.

 

[KingCondanomation]

"Kids mean immediate spending to the economy (which seems to be the Dems goal), even kids born to any social status."

So - just to confirm: we have you on record for wanting to increase the # of unwanted & unplanned pregnancies, as well as STD's, because it will boost the economy?

Cool; thanks for clarifying that. Now, your thread makes more sense.

I don't want to increase or decrease any amount of kids, I only want government out of it.
There are already free contraceptive programs galore in Liberal Democrat run inner cities - yet STDs and unwanted pregnancies are the highest in the nation. How do you explain that?

 

[Bonestorm]

While I agree that any funding for this should stand on its own, I disagree with the assertation that kids mean immediate spending to the economy. Given the nature of US demographics and savings rates, the money a person earns is likely going to be spent regardless of whether kids are present. Having kids would most likely simply change WHERE the money is spent... not WHEN the money is spent.

I still don't understand the whole idea that this money should stand on its own. it's simply aid to state and local governments who, if you haven't notices, are broker than broke at this point and constrained in many instances by balanced budget requirements. John Boehner just wants to highlight this particular funding (family planning and contraceptive services) because that's what he does and he wants to get the base to support his tax cuts for wealthy folks.

I for one, don't intend on playing Boehner's game and I wish Obama felt the same way.

 

[KingCondanomation]

While I agree that any funding for this should stand on its own, I disagree with the assertation that kids mean immediate spending to the economy. Given the nature of US demographics and savings rates, the money a person earns is likely going to be spent regardless of whether kids are present. Having kids would most likely simply change WHERE the money is spent... not WHEN the money is spent.

Well I disagree. As soon as my first child was coming along, I needed to buy a crib, clothing, baby bath, stroller, car seat, etc...
Most of that is not provided by government for any class and I obviously needed to buy it immediately, while this was using money wherein some of it normally would have went into savings.

 

[Bonestorm]

I don't want to increase or decrease any amount of kids, I only want government out of it.
There are already free contraceptive programs galore in Liberal Democrat run inner cities - yet STDs and unwanted pregnancies are the highest in the nation. How do you explain that?

Have you ever taken a look at the per capita rates in Alaska? Do that and then get back to me.

 

[Onceler]

It's estimated that over a third of pregnancies in the U.S. are unwanted or unplanned. The majority of those are among single, unmarried women, many of whom drop out of high school or college (that alone just screams "better for the economy!")

They're less likely to get pre-natal care, so their babies often are born with low birth weights & more health problems (and, without healthcare, guess who picks up the tab on those costs?)

Children born to single parents are statistically more likely to have lower test scores and drop out of high school.

All in all, spot on, Dano: sounds like a recipe for a white hot economy!

 

[Onceler]

I don't want to increase or decrease any amount of kids, I only want government out of it.
There are already free contraceptive programs galore in Liberal Democrat run inner cities - yet STDs and unwanted pregnancies are the highest in the nation. How do you explain that?

"Since January 1, 2008, the average cost of birth control for millions of women who receive health care at safety-net clinics and college health centers across the United States has gone up almost ten-fold. In just a matter of months, the average price of birth control on college campuses increased from $5 to nearly $50. As a result, many college health clinics have stopped providing birth control because they can no longer afford to do so."

http://crowley.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny07_crowley/PreventionThroughAffordableAccess.shtml

Stop just shooting from the hip.