Dem leadership: Babies a burden on economy

Dungheap said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's a new funding (for the federal gov), not just an extension of existing funding.
Many states are NOT in financial trouble because they have cut spending, why should we have to bail out more of the Liberal and/or Democrat run ones?
Is there any stipulation on this funding, will it only go to destitute people or can anyone now get government to pay for the birth control they themselves formally paid for?

John Boehner didn't highlight this, it's making the rounds because what Pelosi said was newsworthy.
 
Dungheap said:
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.
Click to expand...

While I think this program should be funded, it is not something that should be a part of an large economic stimulus package. It should stand on its own merit. I understand that most of the states are broke, but this is not a critical budget issue. If you were to compile a list of top ten things any particular state needed funding for, this would not make any list. The economic stimulus should be spent in ways that stimulate the economy in the most efficient manner possible. Buying condoms and teaching about their use simply is not what the economic stimulus package is designed for.
 
Onceler said:
"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.
Click to expand...
That doesn't really have anything to do with what I said, I asked you why those places that ALREADY have contracetive gov funding have very STD rates and unwanted pregnancies?

But I'll address your point anyway, sounds like good news to me, what is so terrible about cuts to government or colleges so that people would actually have to pay for things that they want?
 
KingCondanomation said:
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.
Click to expand...

again Dano.... as I stated, I am not talking about YOUR personal spending habits. I am talking about the spending habits of the COUNTRY as a whole. On average, people do not save much, if anything. Thus, if they are spending what they make regardless of whether or not they have kids, then adding a kid will for the most part simply divert money from one sector of the economy to another.

So don't try to project your personal savings habits onto the country as a whole.
 
Superfreak said:
While I think this program should be funded, it is not something that should be a part of an large economic stimulus package. It should stand on its own merit. I understand that most of the states are broke, but this is not a critical budget issue. If you were to compile a list of top ten things any particular state needed funding for, this would not make any list. The economic stimulus should be spent in ways that stimulate the economy in the most efficient manner possible. Buying condoms and teaching about their use simply is not what the economic stimulus package is designed for.
Click to expand...


You are confusing separate things, just as Boehner wants you to do. There is more than one component to the stimulus bill. One component is the spending on infrastructure and other similar projects to jumpstart the economy. Another is tax cuts. Still another is aid to state and local government to plug the holes in their budgets. This spending falls into the latter category.

Boehner wants to conflate one and three so he can secure more of number two.
 
Dungheap said:
Have you ever taken a look at the per capita rates in Alaska? Do that and then get back to me.
Click to expand...

Done, let's use teen pregnancy rates as those are probably the best data you can get on what society would call unwanted pregnancies.
"The birth rate for Alaska females aged 15-17 was 19.2 per 1,000. The rate for those ages 18 and 19 was 92.7 per 1,000. The comparable national averages were 22 and 73."

In other words, their teen pregnancy rates for actual non-adult teenagers is lower than the national average, while when they turn 18 and are adults the rate is higher.
What does that say? It is a fact (and I've stated this before) that in more Conservative societies people wed younger and have kids younger, many do so as soon as they legally can and those are not unwanted pregnancies and they have both parents with support coming from the parents.

Now AFTER I posted facts, let me ADD anecdotal evidence. I've lived in the country, in suburbs, inner city and small towns. In the inner city you see a lot of teen moms pushing around kids, you see next to none in the other places.
 
Hasn't Obama also said, many times, that he wanted to help unemployed people in the stimilus package?

I am wondering if anyone here believes that people who lose their jobs keep their health insurance? You better take a look at a COBRA payment.

Women who are losing their jobs and their medical benefits, will be less likely to be able to afford their monthly birth control. This is very obvious.
 
Dungheap said:
You are confusing separate things, just as Boehner wants you to do. There is more than one component to the stimulus bill. One component is the spending on infrastructure and other similar projects to jumpstart the economy. Another is tax cuts. Still another is aid to state and local government to plug the holes in their budgets. This spending falls into the latter category.

Boehner wants to conflate one and three so he can secure more of number two.
Click to expand...

No, I am not confusing the components. I understand fully that part of the stimulus is designated for state and local use. But THIS (funding for the contraceptions etc...) does not belong in an economic stimulus package. IF the states and local governments DECIDE this is a critical area and THEY spend the federal stimulus money on it, then fine. But it most certainly should NOT be designated that the states do so.
 
Superfreak said:
again Dano.... as I stated, I am not talking about YOUR personal spending habits. I am talking about the spending habits of the COUNTRY as a whole. On average, people do not save much, if anything. Thus, if they are spending what they make regardless of whether or not they have kids, then adding a kid will for the most part simply divert money from one sector of the economy to another.

So don't try to project your personal savings habits onto the country as a whole.
Click to expand...

Ok, I can concede that sadly yes we don't save much, but there are still some who do. All I'm saying is a baby puts definitive need to spend right away whereas no baby does not, thus it is slightly more of a stimulus to the economy to have a child. I don't think it's so low as to be negligible, perhaps you are right and with savings rates as low as they are it could be, but savings rates were quite high in the early 80's, perhaps the recession will make them higher again and this point becomes a little stronger.
 
Superfreak said:
No, I am not confusing the components. I understand fully that part of the stimulus is designated for state and local use. But THIS (funding for the contraceptions etc...) does not belong in an economic stimulus package. IF the states and local governments DECIDE this is a critical area and THEY spend the federal stimulus money on it, then fine. But it most certainly should NOT be designated that the states do so.
Click to expand...


ENOUGH with the CAPS. IT'S fucking ANNOYING.

And the states have requested it. It isn't in there for shits and giggles.
 
Here's a great article about how responsible those conservative areas are w/ their teen pregnancies:

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/523692.html

"State statistics show that Mat-Su teens in 2006 -- the latest year for which such data is available -- gave birth at a rate of almost 31 for every 1,000 girls between 15 and 19. Statewide, the rate was almost 41 births per 1,000 teenage girls.

Providers see in pregnant teens a range of risky behaviors: girls couch-surfing from house to house, dieting to delay the onset of a baby bump, and still smoking, drinking or doing drugs.

Alaska's rate of 18- and 19-year-old unwed teenage mothers remains higher than the national rate -- 77.5 per 1,000 teens here compared to 73 per 1,000 teens nationally."
 
Darla said:
Hasn't Obama also said, many times, that he wanted to help unemployed people in the stimilus package?

I am wondering if anyone here believes that people who lose their jobs keep their health insurance? You better take a look at a COBRA payment.

Women who are losing their jobs and their medical benefits, will be less likely to be able to afford their monthly birth control. This is very obvious.
Click to expand...
Oh no, they'll have to use condoms which are cheaper instead. Come on, it's not like those women are thinking "We'll I don't have as much money as I used to so it's time to sacrifice the birth control and get pregnant with a child so I can start living better again".

This is sort of like saying, you're gonna drive around with a flat tire because the cost of replacing it is something you are less likely to be able to afford. It would cost you far more in the long run, just as a child would.
 
Onceler said:
Here's a great article about how responsible those conservative areas are w/ their teen pregnancies:

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/523692.html

"State statistics show that Mat-Su teens in 2006 -- the latest year for which such data is available -- gave birth at a rate of almost 31 for every 1,000 girls between 15 and 19. Statewide, the rate was almost 41 births per 1,000 teenage girls.

Providers see in pregnant teens a range of risky behaviors: girls couch-surfing from house to house, dieting to delay the onset of a baby bump, and still smoking, drinking or doing drugs.

Alaska's rate of 18- and 19-year-old unwed teenage mothers remains higher than the national rate -- 77.5 per 1,000 teens here compared to 73 per 1,000 teens nationally."
Click to expand...

Already addressed that:
In other words, their teen pregnancy rates for actual non-adult teenagers is lower than the national average, while when they turn 18 and are adults the rate is higher.
What does that say? It is a fact (and I've stated this before) that in more Conservative societies people wed younger and have kids younger, many do so as soon as they legally can and those are not unwanted pregnancies and they have both parents with support coming from the parents.
 
you missed this part:

"Alaska's rate of 18- and 19-year-old unwed teenage mothers remains higher than the national rate -- 77.5 per 1,000 teens here compared to 73 per 1,000 teens nationally"
 
You know in our grandparents (more Conservative) generation, many high school sweethearts would marry at 18 and start a family. That obviously does not happen as much now, but it still does happen and it does moreso in more Conservative areas.

Liberals would have us imagine these adults as little teens who are carrying around unwanted babies and are completely non-independent. It's bullshit.
 
Onceler said:
you missed this part:

"Alaska's rate of 18- and 19-year-old unwed teenage mothers remains higher than the national rate -- 77.5 per 1,000 teens here compared to 73 per 1,000 teens nationally"
Click to expand...

Um no, I SPECIFICALLY addressed those adults who are 18 and 19 and gave reason for WHY those rates are higher while the younger ones are not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top