Dem leadership: Babies a burden on economy

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Did you know his radio speech at the end was like 60 pages long? It ended society!

And it wasn't even that good. Ayn Rand was the world's greatest moron. Besides Dano, that is.

 

[Damocles]

By saying and unquestionably implying that babies are a burden on the budget or society really, then there are some moral people who will feel a little worse in choosing to have kids because that is how kids are looked upon from lefties. It will play into their decision.
Did you ever read "Atlas Shrugged"?

Dano. How often have you heard a Conservative speaking of somehow limiting the number of children for a person on welfare?

 

[KingCondanomation]

Overpopulation is a burden on society, whether the state takes the burden or not.

It can only be a burden on society if government is involved where government shifts the burden from those who would normally pay for the results of their own actions to those who have nothing to do with them.
Holy fuck man, I mean are you this far removed from understanding even the basics of what the social welfare state is?

And we are not overpopulated anyway.

 

[KingCondanomation]

Dano. How often have you heard a Conservative speaking of somehow limiting the number of children for a person on welfare?

Every now and then I have heard it, can't say I remember any who actually went through with any government legislation that enforced that belief.
Let's compare apples to apples here. Pelosi is enacting real government action, not just talking about a problem.

 

[KingCondanomation]

Did you know his radio speech at the end was like 60 pages long? It ended society!

And it wasn't even that good. Ayn Rand was the world's greatest moron. Besides Dano, that is.

Last time we spoke, you had not yet read it. I still don't think you have. So who told the main female character about how people came to view children the deeper they went into Socialism?

 

[Damocles]

Every now and then I have heard it, can't say I remember any who actually went through with any government legislation that enforced that belief.
Let's compare apples to apples here. Pelosi is enacting real government action, not just talking about a problem.

It's because most realize that they couldn't actually limit it. That people have a choice on what happens to their bodies and any real limitation would require some form of forced birth control.

Now somebody suggests that some of these may be unwanted and better access to good contraception may prevent the extra burden on those families and/or society. It's a first step towards something that conservatives have spoken about for some time. First we disincentivize having extra children to increase your "paycheck" on welfare, and then give them access to something that may prevent the increased burden...

People need to remove the source and read what they are saying instead of just reacting because they feel so anti-Nancy. If the source was more faceless I don't know if you would object to it so strongly.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It can only be a burden on society if government is involved where government shifts the burden from those who would normally pay for the results of their own actions to those who have nothing to do with them.

And therefore they have to spend more money on raising children. Which means that one hundred thousand dollars or so (probably more, in your Orwellian view of how society should be run) will be spent on too many children, instead of being spent in ways that create more jobs and helps out our standard of living overall. You fail to understand that we're all connected. The state has a role in distributing contraception, because too many children negatively impacts us all no matter the state of the welfare system.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

 

[KingCondanomation]

If people are ready to have & support kids, and freely choose to do so & feel they are capable of providing for the child w/out help from the state...why would they "feel a little worse" about the decision?

But a lot of people feel they are ready to have and support kids even with the government providing only some of that support as is. IF they are aware of that support and aware that there are many who view their choice as being against society's interest or the greater good than there is a bit more guilt or uncomfortability or societal unease/pressure, whatever you want to call it in going through with that decision.

And let's not forget that government dependence is set to increase even more with that socialist Obama adding government as the new entity responsible for children's healthcare. I bet they'll find some way for that to be called a stimulus as well.

You know you've stepped too far out on this one, and your retreat is becoming increasingly illogical & emotional.
And yeah - I read that overblown, boring piece of right-wing hackery.

Not emotional at all and nor am I retreating. Pelosi views children as a drain on the budget and society. There is no escape from that, nor did she take it when she had the chance.

 

[KingCondanomation]

It's because most realize that they couldn't actually limit it. That people have a choice on what happens to their bodies and any real limitation would require some form of forced birth control.

Now somebody suggests that some of these may be unwanted and better access to good contraception may prevent the extra burden on those families and/or society. It's a first step towards something that conservatives have spoken about for some time. First we disincentivize having extra children to increase your "paycheck" on welfare, and then give them access to something that may prevent the increased burden...

People need to remove the source and read what they are saying instead of just reacting because they feel so anti-Nancy. If the source was more faceless I don't know if you would object to it so strongly.

Damo, I couldn't care less whether it's Nanci or some faceless Liberal.
You are attacking the symptom rather than the source of the problem and falling into the same trap Hayek warned of, of it being more desirable for the state to involve itself in social issues when controlling economic ones.


If we had no welfare, no Medicaid, no food stamps, no social welfare programs, what possible harm could someone else's child place on you? The honest answer is none and no Conservative or any other person would or should have any interest, control or say in deciding on their personal choice in regards to having that child that they themselves will bear SOLE responsibility in raising.

 

[Damocles]

Damo, I couldn't care less whether it's Nanci or some faceless Liberal.
You are attacking the symptom rather than the source of the problem and falling into the same trap Hayek warned of, of it being more desirable for the state to involve itself in social issues when controlling economic ones.


If we had no welfare, no Medicaid, no food stamps, no social welfare programs, what possible harm could someone else's child place on you? The honest answer is none and no Conservative or any other person would or should have any interest, control or say in deciding on their personal choice in regards to having that child that they themselves will bear SOLE responsibility in raising.

And if we lived in Candyland we could just eat the houses.

The fact is we don't live in the libertarian world of no welfare and hence the reality is somebody's unwanted pregnancy could indeed effect me.

Working under that realization I have heard many conservatives and many who also were liberals try to suggest some way to stop those on welfare from having more kids and increasing the burden therefore.

Since I live in reality, I work out what they are saying and if the result would be beneficial to us or negative. We don't live in an all or nothing world, and you aren't getting welfare removed by objecting to the idea that, "An ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure."

 

[Don Quixote]

nothing like taking something out of context or twisting the meaning

you are good example for retroactive birth control - i try to not get too personal, but you seem to be an exception...like an exceptional waste of space

children are a burden to those not ready or able to raise them

such a burden that there is a large baby selling and child slave international market


between my wife and i we have 4 children and 6 grandchildren...and thank gaia that none are a burden

 

[tinfoil]

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"...

LOL
Lorax is in a pretzel from so much posturing.

Give it up lorax. Nancy implied unwanted babies were too great of a burden for us to invest in so we should spend the money on fighting the global warming instead and we can use a little bit of the money to kill some unwanted fetuses.

Death party!!!

 

[Cancel7]

A world where a person talking about reducing unwanted pregnancies is vilified as someone who considers babies a burden.

It's inhabited by a handful (percentage wise) of morally depraved, emotionally rabid, and mentally imbecilic, societal outcasts.

It's a tiny world, and since so few live in it, it need not be addressed by normal people.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

nothing like taking something out of context or twisting the meaning

or as I like to say, you can tell the presence of a wingnut by the smell of burning straw! LOL

 

[KingCondanomation]

nothing like taking something out of context or twisting the meaning

It's not out of context at all, I posted all of it and Pelosi had a chance to correct the obvious implication of what she said and did not.

children are a burden to those not ready or able to raise them

Indeed they are, no one is disputing that, that children are a burden on the STATE is because of government policies that made it so.

such a burden that there is a large baby selling and child slave international market

Sorry I can recall no such society in America in the 1950's before Medicaid, food stamps, social welfare expansion, etc...
Now who is using strawmen?

between my wife and i we have 4 children and 6 grandchildren...and thank gaia that none are a burden

Yet by supporting politicians that increase government dependence such as Barack Obama who wants government to pay for all children's healthcare, you ARE making them a burden.

 

[KingCondanomation]

And if we lived in Candyland we could just eat the houses.

The fact is we don't live in the libertarian world of no welfare and hence the reality is somebody's unwanted pregnancy could indeed effect me.

Working under that realization I have heard many conservatives and many who also were liberals try to suggest some way to stop those on welfare from having more kids and increasing the burden therefore.

Since I live in reality, I work out what they are saying and if the result would be beneficial to us or negative. We don't live in an all or nothing world, and you aren't getting welfare removed by objecting to the idea that, "An ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure."

I don't begrudge you that Damo, I know it is a very popular opinion, one I once held. But I don't see the Libertarian vision as some fantasy world or unreachable, the fact is there are still people alive in America who can remember a time before government took responsibility for kids with welfare, social housing, Medicaid, food stamps.
You have chosen the easier way of fighting back at the welfare state, I certainly prefer that to the Liberal way but you might have noticed it's still getting expanded in other ways, while it makes it that much harder to cut when you regulate it with supporting yet more government like birth control funding.
Slowly government keeps taking over more and more and more parts of the economy and responsibilities of people, if you think you can comfort yourself by picking those, then go ahead but I think you're too moral for that.

 

[Onceler]

"Pelosi had a chance to correct the obvious implication of what she said and did not."

What? The implication that encouraging contraception is desirable, because it's much better for everyone to prevent UNWANTED pregnancies?

Ooooh! What a very controversial, death-mongering position that is. I can't imagine the horrible guilt people who actually want to & are ready to be parents must feel upon hearing that. Why, the human race might fizzle out because so many choose not to have babies out of the guilt.

I decided that I officially love this thread. I thought it would die a quick death like so many of your other lame arguments, but you actually had people chime in to try to defend it.

It's been a treat.

 

[Damocles]

I don't begrudge you that Damo, I know it is a very popular opinion, one I once held. But I don't see the Libertarian vision as some fantasy world or unreachable, the fact is there are still people alive in America who can remember a time before government took responsibility for kids with welfare, social housing, Medicaid, food stamps.
You have chosen the easier way of fighting back at the welfare state, I certainly prefer that to the Liberal way but you might have noticed it's still getting expanded in other ways, while it makes it that much harder to cut when you regulate it with supporting yet more government like birth control funding.
Slowly government keeps taking over more and more and more parts of the economy and responsibilities of people, if you think you can comfort yourself by picking those, then go ahead but I think you're too moral for that.

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.

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.

 

[KingCondanomation]

"Pelosi had a chance to correct the obvious implication of what she said and did not."

What? The implication that encouraging contraception is desirable, because it's much better for everyone to prevent UNWANTED pregnancies?

Ooooh! What a very controversial, death-mongering position that is. I can't imagine the horrible guilt people who actually want to & are ready to be parents must feel upon hearing that. Why, the human race might fizzle out because so many choose not to have babies out of the guilt.

I decided that I officially love this thread. I thought it would die a quick death like so many of your other lame arguments, but you actually had people chime in to try to defend it.

It's been a treat.

What a dunce. When Stephanopoulos realized the negative sounding implication of what she said with babies costing society more, he gave her a chance and asked her "So no apologies for that?"
Stephanopoulos is a Liberal Democrat for christ's sakes and even he got it.