Speaker of the House says Birth Control will help the economy

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

This is going to be a fun couple of years…

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashpbc.htm

PELOSI SAYS BIRTH CONTROL WILL HELP ECONOMY
Sun Jan 25 2009 22:13:43 ET

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.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

Developing...

**sexiest_hero**

It was a weird way to put things but she meant well I think. Less kids on government programs mean less of a burden to the state. A lot of poorer people can't afford birth control, as can't very young adults.And ir's a lot better than this idea.

"Rep. John LaBruzzo, a Republican from Metarie wants to pay poor women $1,000 to get sterilized. Why? Because people receiving food and housing assistance "are reproducing at a faster rate than more affluent, better-educated residents." The New Orleans Times-Picayune has the story:

"What I'm really studying is any and all possibilities that we can reduce the number of people that are going from generational welfare to generational welfare," he said.

He said his program would be voluntary. It could involve tubal ligation, encouraging other forms of birth control or, to avoid charges of gender discrimination, vasectomies for men.

It also could include tax incentives for college-educated, higher-income people to have more children, he said.

**sebster**

It doesn't surprise me that the Democrats try to slip part of their own agenda through on a major spending bill. Maybe what's surprising is that there's only a few million spent in this way out of a trillion dollar bill. Mind you, it's likely there'll be more in there by the time the bill is finished.

What does surprise me is how badly Pelosi has argued for this bill. The point is for immediate stimulus of the economy, so trying to explain that this will prevent future drain on government coffers is all a little stretched and silly. She could have easily argued that that part of the bill would be putting people into jobs and stimulating the economy and that is also happened to be an important area that had been neglected by Bush. But she didn't, I suspect it's because she's quite bad at her job.

**PanamaG**

fething typical. Nothing hard left can slide in on it's own unless its lubed up by a big economic bill.

I think she just likes to murder babies.

**dienekes96**

Pelosi isn't a very canny politician. She doesn't have to work hard to win her seat from San Fran, and as leader either blamed things on the President or on other outside powers.

Now that she has control and no boogeyman, people will see her as what she is...not a particularly savvy politician and a poor leader for the House of Reps.

As for this news...whatever. Get used to it.

**avantgarde**

Holy **** George Stephanopoulos is still alive?

**dietrich**

I think the only question is whether the Dems loose Congress in 2 years or 4 years. I'm guessing in 4 years, but that Obama is re-elected.

Obama seems willing to stand up to the Dem leaders in Congress, and that's nothing but a good thing.

**Slipstream**

Can't see how the speaker of the house using birth
control will help the economy,but you never know....

**Ahtman**

PanamaG wrote:I think she just likes to murder babies.

Condoms = murder?

**Frazzled**

I think just the mental picture of the speaker of the House = murder of my sanity?

**malfred**

Ahtman wrote:
PanamaG wrote:I think she just likes to murder babies.

Condoms = murder?

I don't need a condom to murder.

**Frazzled**

malfred wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
PanamaG wrote:I think she just likes to murder babies.

Condoms = murder?

I don't need a condom to murder.

Must...resist...commentary...

**malfred**

Frazzled wrote:
malfred wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
PanamaG wrote:I think she just likes to murder babies.

Condoms = murder?

I don't need a condom to murder.

Must...resist...commentary...

C'mon Frazzled, you know you can't resist commenting my lack of a condom.

**warpcrafter**

PanamaG wrote:fething typical. Nothing hard left can slide in on it's own unless its lubed up by a big economic bill.

I think she just likes to murder babies.

Is it better for them to grow up too ignorant to do anything but join the army so they can go off and get murdered in one of our illegal wars for the glorification of our corrupt corporate overlords?

**Frazzled**

Well...put that way...yeah, it is.

**dienekes96**

warpcrafter wrote:Is it better for them to grow up too ignorant to do anything but join the army so they can go off and get murdered in one of our illegal wars for the glorification of our corrupt corporate overlords?

I'd love to know what a "legal" war is. Is it one the government of the aggressor nation voted on, in accordance with it's fundamental founding document? Does it require international assent? If so, from which countries and why?

Discussing the legality of war is like debating the virtues of organized crime.

**warpcrafter**

Granted, but for 99% of human history, people didn't bother even pretending that their wars were anything but a selfish land grab, then along comes the good ole USA and all of a sudden the powers that be feel like they have to make up some sort of moral justification for their aggression.

**dogma**

PanamaG wrote:fething typical. Nothing hard left can slide in on it's own unless its lubed up by a big economic bill.

I think she just likes to murder babies.

Since when do condoms kill children?

warpcrafter wrote:
Granted, but for 99% of human history, people didn't bother even pretending that their wars were anything but a selfish land grab, then along comes the good ole USA and all of a sudden the powers that be feel like they have to make up some sort of moral justification for their aggression

Wars have been built on lies, and deceit since pretty much the first time a common soldier could expect to go his entire life without actually meeting the person in charge. I'm not sure when that actually took place, but I guarantee you that it was pretty early in our collective, historical narrative. My guess would be either Ancient Egypt, or the first Persian Empire.

**Orkeosaurus**

warpcrafter wrote:Granted, but for 99% of human history, people didn't bother even pretending that their wars were anything but a selfish land grab, then along comes the good ole USA and all of a sudden the powers that be feel like they have to make up some sort of moral justification for their aggression.

Yeah, that sounds right.

In 2003, the United States was the first country to come up with a moral justification for war.

Nobody ever did this before.

Yup.

**malfred**

Speaking of Condoms:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1410#comic

**warpcrafter**

Orkeosaurus wrote:
warpcrafter wrote:Granted, but for 99% of human history, people didn't bother even pretending that their wars were anything but a selfish land grab, then along comes the good ole USA and all of a sudden the powers that be feel like they have to make up some sort of moral justification for their aggression.
Yeah, that sounds right.

In 2003, the United States was the first country to come up with a moral justification for war.

Nobody ever did this before.

Yup.

Okay, so maybe I forgot about the crusades, but are their any more examples?

**Typeline**

Condoms killing babies isn't funny, my brother died that way.

**Orkeosaurus**

Okay, so maybe I forgot about the crusades, but are their any more examples?

Everything conquered in the name of Islam?

Everything conquered in the name of the God-Emperors of China and Japan?

Everything conquered in the name of "civilizing" other races?

Everything conquered in the name of Communism?

Every war started for "vengeance" or "justice?"

Happens all the time. I'd say war is given justifications by it's engineers more often than not.

Some of them are even valid.

**sebster**

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Okay, so maybe I forgot about the crusades, but are their any more examples?

Everything conquered in the name of Islam?

Everything conquered in the name of the God-Emperors of China and Japan?

Everything conquered in the name of "civilizing" other races?

Everything conquered in the name of Communism?

Every war started for "vengeance" or "justice?"

Happens all the time. I'd say war is given justifications by it's engineers more often than not.

Some of them are even valid.

Also, Hitler. Lebensraum was all at once a literal land grab and morally justified by the Nazis, by means of their manifest destiny.

In fact, I’m struggling to think of an instance where an aggressor nation said ‘we’re doing this because we can and we don’t care if we have a morally defendable reason or not.’

**sexiest_hero**

The first gulf war

**sebster**

sexiest_hero wrote:The first gulf war

Saddam gave moral justification, claiming he was taking recompense for oil stolen from Iraqi fields. I’m going off of memory but I think the Kuwaitis really were stealing the oil, not that that justifies the invasion and subsequent atrocities.

**LunaHound**

IMO birth control wont help with the economy at all.

The gov just need to stop giving welfare / aids so easily.

So the people will know to be responsible for their own actions before briging another life into this world.

**malfred**

LunaHound wrote:

The gov just need to stop giving welfare / aids so easily.

The government gives us AIDS? And I work for public SCHOOLS?

Somebody get me a condom.

**Orkeosaurus**

No can do.

That would kill children.

**warpcrafter**

Orkeosaurus wrote:No can do.

That would kill children.

As the great one George Carlin once say: "F

K the children!"