So, are we all ready for a nice, new $1 trillion dollar stimulus package yet? I know I am - I'm already camped out at my mailbox waiting to recieve my stimulus check. Wait - What? Yes, I pay taxes... Yeah, I am employed - What? I don't get a stimulus check? Anyway, now that I'm finished pitching my tent, I'm gonna look through some of the things that your and my trillion dollars will buy: -Crap -Re-sod the White House Mall -More crap -$300m in "Family Planning" (a.k.a. contraception) Huh? How will spending $300m in contraceptive help us? Ah, Nancy, hey Nancy, would you mind explaining this to us? Why sure: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_PTqvyzwRg So... Nancy Pelosi thinks that spending $300,000,000 (as in three hundred million) on contraceptives is warranted and will "cut costs" for states... Can anyone else besides me find some errors in that proposal? Now, I don't like this new spending at all, but please, at least if it's gonna be reamed down our throats can we find some better way to spend this? I just can't wait to see what comes out of this bailout next... Thanks Obama, I really have been needing to get more action lately anyway - any chance of a stimulus package for the prostitute industry to go along with my new government-sponsored contraceptives? Sigh...
Absurd, even worse is Pelosi trying to defend it. The "stimulus' package is turning into nothing more than a liberal goody bag. The biggest pile of pork ever created by man, all financed by deficit spending!!! Hail, Obama!!!!!
Yeah, they are. So wouldn't it make more sense to HAVE babies. More money gets spent on having them than not.
You can't spend money you don't have. People that make use of this don't want to have children anyway. Should we encourage accidental parentage? What kind of values are those?
Alright, I'll grant you that, but I still think it is something that's best addressed in something else (even though the money in the end all comes from us anyway, so I guess it doesn't really matter in the end).
Of course birth control is good for the economy. It decreases the number of people which shrinks the number of consumers and tax payers over an extended period of time which, in effect, shrinks the whole economy. So much for economic growth... And people thought Bush was dumb...
I hate to disappoint you Limbaugh followers, but the truth is thus. The funding is for family planning services for those on welfare. Are you Republicans saying that you want more people on welfare? I personally believe that if you cannot afford to support kids emotionally, physically or economically you should not be bringing kids into this world.
Ideally better off people would have more children and poor people would have a disincentive to have many children. Since neither is the case, I fail to see how destroying the long term birth rate of the country is good for society. Good for you. That and about five bucks might get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
(Insert Title Here) Attending to family planning in this bill has at least two measurable effects on the economy. First, reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies is helpful to the society in both the short and long term. Secondly, family planning, despite Pelosi's specific response to Boehner's comments about contraception, is an investment toward the future. Better health for mothers and children alike will cost society less. It's like the old bit about giving a man a fish or teaching him to fish. In the long run, we need to teach people to fish. But asking them to rise up off their pallet and walk will have better results if one isn't hungry, as such. One does not learn to fish instantly. You don't plug into the network and wait ten minutes while the update downloads, installs, and optimizes. It's a longer process, and people sometimes need help sustaining themselves throughout the transition. • • • We have over a hundred thousand kids in the U.S. in need of homes. I fail to see how adding to that number is good for society. Hell are you at? It's $3.81 for two grande black coffees at a Starbuck's around here, and that includes the sales tax. Okay, okay, I'll include the winkie—Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!—just to make sure it's clear I'm making a joke.
Good post Tiassa. I find it funny that Republicans hate and complain about funding those depending on entitlements and then oppose funding for a law that would limit the number of those depending on such entitlements. Would they be happier if those people were starving in the streets or maybe they would be happier funding their existence in a jail some where after those folks have committed theft in order to feed their families?
One of the main reasons the US and Europe have so much immigration is to shore up the tax base for social welfare to support old people. Maybe that is preferable to raising our own children. Better for our society to slowly die into the night in favor of a heartier people to assume the reins.
