Nancy Pelosi is dumb...

[Chris Kilroy]

Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi on birth-control funding as part of the $825 billion stimulus package: "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."

Wow.

This is wrong on so many levels, one of which is looking at children born to the "wrong people" as economic burdens rather gifts. She sees them as a cost instead of blessed benefits.

And here I was always told that the Democrats were the "people's people!"

[B757300]

Don't forget that Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, a woman who advocated eugenics and for lack of a better term, "selective breeding."

Pelosi is just carrying on that tradition.

[screaming_emu]

hell, I'm a democrat and I think that people should have to get a breeding license. I'm not saying "don't let the poor breed" but rather there are some people who are absolutely horrible parents, rich or poor. Driving is a big responsibility so they make you take a class in it...growing a person isn't?

I'm thinking something along the lines of a "drivers ed" for parenting. If you don't take it you get the hell taxed out of you.

[Airbus_A320]

Unfortunately, many people that do have kids, and more of them, can't afford to take care of those kids on their own, and can barely take care of themselves. At that point, the more kids they have, the more burdensome they do become to society through the use of "free" tax payer funded welfare programs, not to mention the poor quality of life that those kids are being born into being poor with few, if any, opportunities.
However, planned parenthood, pills, condoms, etc, etc, have been around for ages and it doesn't seem to be doing anything because people just have sex and have kids and don't think about the implications. Providing more funding isn't going to do a damn thing when people don't use the services anyway. It's basically like the war on drugs, something pointless that has all kinds of $$$ thrown at it, and accomplishes absolutely nothing. As it is, I think this is more about everyone wanting their piece of the stimulus pie and politicians making sure they help every possible group that may have an influence on voters and/or provide them with more campaign money in the future than anything else. If you want to be concerned about something, be concerned about the fact that the government is giving away billions of $$$ when it is already trillions in debt, and how in the world they plan to pay that all off

[screaming_emu]

Unfortunately, many people that do have kids, and more of them, can't afford to take care of those kids on their own, and can barely take care of themselves.

That just made me think of the movie Idiocracy...friggin hillarious

[JSchraub]

I know that most people on here live in a "free" country and by that couples may have kids, in most countries unlimited kids. But ffs we can't just keep adding more and more people. I mean in this economy right now people have no business having octuplets if it can be helped... 14 kids really? Thats just one family and whatever maybe they can afford to have 14 kids. People are having more and more children because they are friggin idiots they know they can't afford a baby yet they dont spend $.75 for a condom or the x amount for birth control. Having a child is probably the most expensive thing a person can do after you account for having, taking care of, and providing for I mean depending on how you are, buying whatever the kid wants etc., it could almost be unlimited. Absolutely a "drivers ed" type course for parenting, I mean it kind of sucks that it might come to that because of the idiots on this planet but if that is what is needed then by all means...

[Bok269]

I think Pelosi has the right idea, but doesn't know how to articulate it without sounding elitist.

What she's getting at is that people who have sex for recreational purposes but end up procreating (especially those that are younger), are in no position to raise a child, both economically and in terms of where they are in their lives. A woman who gets pregnant at 19 will probably have to forgo higher education in order to care for her child. As a result, her earning potential is greatly reduced, and for a time she may not be earning anything due to being home with the baby. Thus, she will most likely end up depending on social services and not contributing to the economy. This puts a higher demand on the state while at the same time decreasing tax revenue. In addition, because of her lower earning potential, she will contribute less to taxes and the economy over her working life.

[JordanD]

[Crunk415balla]

ROFL Jordan!

Anyway, hey, if it wasn't for the pill I'd have a family by now.

[Bok269]

ROFL Jordan!

Anyway, hey, if it wasn't for the pill I'd have a family by now.

Would they all have the same first initial?

[Chris Kilroy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8hMJVXt09E

"For every month that we do not have an economic recovery package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs."

Wow, that's a lot....

[Airbus_A320]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8hMJVXt09E

"For every month that we do not have an economic recovery package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs."

Wow, that's a lot....

hah, great.

As it is, the problem is the fact that people don't want to spend money. The economy depends on spending, and we've had an excess of that in recent years, now everyone's been spooked, and is holding onto their money. So naturally, nobody is going to be doing as much business as they were doing when everyone was overspending. If people hadn't overspent themselves they way they did over the past few years (ie $500,000 house on a $30,000 salary, thousands of $ of credit card debt for stuff you really don't need, etc) we wouldn't have the problem we have now. The economy was relying on everything being overvalued and eventually something had to give. So now when people don't buy so much stuff, companies are naturally gonna do less business, layoff workers, and we have a recession. It's people's beliefs/feelings about the future that need to change, a stimulus may or may not do that. There is a good chance that companies/people that get money might just pocket it and run and not spend anything, and nothing will change. Eventually the economy will come back, these things go in cycles. As I said, I'm more concerned about how this government will pay off it's debt, when spending increases everyday, with bailouts and god knows what else, not about how it's going to bail people out who got themselves into trouble in the first place.

That being said, I do hope some infrastructure improvements do come out of this, as they've been talking about. Some highways/roads/bridges really do suck and need to be improved.

[AA 1818]

I think Pelosi has the right idea, but doesn't know how to articulate it without sounding elitist.

What she's getting at is that people who have sex for recreational purposes but end up procreating (especially those that are younger), are in no position to raise a child, both economically and in terms of where they are in their lives. A woman who gets pregnant at 19 will probably have to forgo higher education in order to care for her child. As a result, her earning potential is greatly reduced, and for a time she may not be earning anything due to being home with the baby. Thus, she will most likely end up depending on social services and not contributing to the economy. This puts a higher demand on the state while at the same time decreasing tax revenue. In addition, because of her lower earning potential, she will contribute less to taxes and the economy over her working life.

Best. Post. Ever!

[Crunk415balla]

Would they all have the same first initial?

Yup. Big Red.

[Spad13]

Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi on birth-control funding as part of the $825 billion stimulus package: "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."

Wow.

This is wrong on so many levels, one of which is looking at children born to the "wrong people" as economic burdens rather gifts. She sees them as a cost instead of blessed benefits.

Well, clearly madam speaker doesn't have Barack Hussein's gift of gab, but it's not like her basic point is all that outrageous. I mean, it's not like the world is exactly underpopulated.