Dem leadership: Babies a burden on economy

KingCondanomation

KingCondanomation

New member
Isn't it amazing how leftwing Socialist/Liberal philosophy preaches that they want to help and love humanity, but when it comes down to it, they really only see people and children as deserving of life if it serves the greater good.
Just like the signature I created says, they demand material sacrifice in good times and the sacrifice of life in bad times.
So please we are in a downturn, try not to have any kids, they are not desirable right now. Government will now add state paid birth control to the "stimulus" package because doing so will reduce the cost of kids.

"Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi boldly defended a move to add birth control funding to the new economic "stimulus" package, claiming "contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

Pelosi, the mother of 5 children and 6 grandchildren, who once said, "Nothing in my life will ever, ever compare to being a mom," seemed to imply babies are somehow a burden on the treasury.

The revelation came during an exchange Sunday morning on ABC's THIS WEEK.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashpbc.htm

Ironically I wonder if they are even right, as there are many countries in Europe with low birth rates who are set to struggle even more mightily than we are to pay for social welfare programs for the aged.
 
I knew as soon as I saw the title & read the thread that Dem leaders didn't really say that babies were a burden on the economy.
 
She says... Less births will reduce the burden...

Onceler says... She didn't say that babies would increase the burden...
 
So, the 2 hacks jump on the thread, and neither has a problem with this line:

"they demand material sacrifice in good times and the sacrifice of life in bad times."

But both seem to think I was inaccurate in MY statement. To me, it's clear what Pelosi is saying. No one would support unwanted pregnancies, period - it's in everyone's interest to PREVENT them, but even moreso in a bad economy.

To stretch that into "Dems say babies are a burden" and want the "sacrifice of life"...how does it feel to belong to the idiot club, guys?
 
Come on guys, at least be honest about the topic.

What Pelosi was talking about was the burden on the state by the unwanted pregnancies. She was certainly not talking about Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Public having children.

And she is absolutely correct.

Now, if she had said she wanted to reduce the number of people on welfare, you would have lauded her intellect. But when she wants to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and thereby reduce the number of people on welfare both now and in the future, you twist it to make her sound like she is calling children in general a burden.
 
Yurt said:
you know onceler is not doing well when he jumps on the ad hominem band wagon :)
Click to expand...

Hey, we can't all take the high road & give out personal info, or make racist comments.

It's great how you couldn't address anything else I posted (because you realize now how stupid the original post was....)
 
Solitary said:
Come on guys, at least be honest about the topic.

What Pelosi was talking about was the burden on the state by the unwanted pregnancies. She was certainly not talking about Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Public having children.

And she is absolutely correct.

Now, if she had said she wanted to reduce the number of people on welfare, you would have lauded her intellect. But when she wants to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and thereby reduce the number of people on welfare both now and in the future, you twist it to make her sound like she is calling children in general a burden.
Click to expand...
Who is the funding for? She never said unwanted pregnancies or single mothers or anything of the sort. You are making assumptions and they are probably wrong given that welfare people and single mothers are core voters of the Democrat party.

She is saying they are a burden, when you have government paying for kids healthcare, education, after school programs, that is exactly what she is talking about when she says the states are in financial trouble.
You should read Hayek, when you restrict economic freedom and have the state in control with a financial incentive in those areas, then the state in turn has motive to restrict or control which social freedoms it deems it should to protect its financial interest in those areas.
Which is exactly what she is doing.
 
Solitary said:
Come on guys, at least be honest about the topic.

What Pelosi was talking about was the burden on the state by the unwanted pregnancies. She was certainly not talking about Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Public having children.

And she is absolutely correct.

Now, if she had said she wanted to reduce the number of people on welfare, you would have lauded her intellect. But when she wants to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and thereby reduce the number of people on welfare both now and in the future, you twist it to make her sound like she is calling children in general a burden.
Click to expand...
I should have added that I laud her effort, but it is clear that these babies would indeed be a burden if their prevention is relief.
 
"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?
 
Onceler said:
Hey, we can't all take the high road & give out personal info, or make racist comments.

It's great how you couldn't address anything else I posted (because you realize now how stupid the original post was....)
Click to expand...

i did not give out anyone's personal information and your implying so is a lie.

your ad hominems are silly and are not worth addressing.
 
Onceler said:
I knew as soon as I saw the title & read the thread that Dem leaders didn't really say that babies were a burden on the economy.
Click to expand...

She said less births would reduce costs, that is a very clear implication on her part that babies are a burden on the economy.

Oh and just in case you think she might have made a mistake, the questioneer gave her a chance with the "no apologies" part and she had nothing more to say. That is what she believes.
 
Onceler said:
That's so intellectually dishonest, and you know it. Or at least I hope you do.
Click to expand...
Intellectually dishonest is pretending that more prevented babies = less burden doesn't mean that it would be more of a burden if they were indeed not prevented.

I think it is a good idea to prevent pregnancies, especially for those who cannot afford them and thus would increase the burden on society. In fact I think she's got a good idea.

Oops I said "increase the burden" and clearly she "didn't mean that"...

:rolleyes:
 
Onceler said:
That's so intellectually dishonest, and you know it. Or at least I hope you do.
Click to expand...

it is clear you do not know what intellectual dishonesty is...she said:

contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government
Click to expand...

thus, reducing births WILL REDUCE COSTS to the government...clearly meaning that by not reducing births, the births will be a burden.

Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now
Click to expand...
 
Just to sum up, Pelosi is pretty clear that she supports contraception, which prevents the sperm & egg from ever even meeting. Dano parlays that into "babies," which apparently, Pelosi is asserting "are a burden," and goes on to say that Dems DEMAND the "sacrifice of life."

And Damo seems to have no problem w/ that.

Okay. I think my work is done here.
 
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.
 
Onceler said:
"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?
Click to expand...
And single mothers or welfare?

Did anyone on the left ever think that the strongest way to prevent unwanted pregnancies is to stop having the state fund and pay for the results of unwanted pregnancies?
If there was no social welfare, housing, food stamps, Medicaid, etc..., people would be far more careful as they once were because the vast cost of raising a child would be on their shoulders and not on the rest of society.
Instead we just increase the social welfare state yet again, with yet more government dependence and even cuter they can get away with calling it a "stimulus".
Fucking bullshit.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Isn't it amazing how leftwing Socialist/Liberal philosophy preaches that they want to help and love humanity, but when it comes down to it, they really only see people and children as deserving of life if it serves the greater good.
Just like the signature I created says, they demand material sacrifice in good times and the sacrifice of life in bad times.
So please we are in a downturn, try not to have any kids, they are not desirable right now. Government will now add state paid birth control to the "stimulus" package because doing so will reduce the cost of kids.

"Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi boldly defended a move to add birth control funding to the new economic "stimulus" package, claiming "contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

Pelosi, the mother of 5 children and 6 grandchildren, who once said, "Nothing in my life will ever, ever compare to being a mom," seemed to imply babies are somehow a burden on the treasury.

The revelation came during an exchange Sunday morning on ABC's THIS WEEK.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashpbc.htm

Ironically I wonder if they are even right, as there are many countries in Europe with low birth rates who are set to struggle even more mightily than we are to pay for social welfare programs for the aged.
Click to expand...

Fucking idiot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top