Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

PELOSI: Birth control will help economy


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
25 replies to this topic

#1 Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 207 posts

Posted 25 January 2009 - 11:15 PM

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.


Interesting theory.
She stopped too short however. The savings would be astronomical if birth control was mandatory for those on Welfare.

#2 L.A. Fanatic

L.A. Fanatic

    LOWER YOUR FONT!!!!!!!!

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 403 posts

Posted 25 January 2009 - 11:20 PM

seems like a pretty big reach to me

#3 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,446 posts

Posted 26 January 2009 - 07:48 AM

The savings would be astronomical if birth control was mandatory for those on Welfare.


What? And deprive us fair citizens from paying for someone else's fun?

#4 Zaximus

Zaximus

    I'm Brett Jensen

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,962 posts

Posted 26 January 2009 - 09:08 AM

It would be way to hard to enforce a rule like that, plus I just don't see us refusing to give a mom with 3 kids money so they can eat.

#5 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 26 January 2009 - 10:41 AM

seems like a pretty big reach to me

what part of condoms, pills and education being less expensive than clothing, feeding, teaching, and giving medical care to orphans for eighteen years, then likely locking them up for more time, seems like a stretch to you.

oh wait that's right you senselessly knee jerk

#6 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,390 posts

Posted 26 January 2009 - 10:50 AM

Interesting theory.
She stopped too short however. The savings would be astronomical if birth control was mandatory for those on Welfare.



very good point.

I would also like to add in drug tests for anyone getting unemployment, welfare, EBT, etc.....

#7 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 26 January 2009 - 10:52 AM

we should do it reagan style and just wait for a drug and disease epidemic to wipe em out.

#8 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,390 posts

Posted 26 January 2009 - 10:59 AM

we should do it reagan style and just wait for a drug and disease epidemic to wipe em out.


Are you saying that you agree with me on this one?

#9 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 26 January 2009 - 11:01 AM

and then what would you do? cut them off?

so then you have drug addicts without any money and no prospects for recovery?

then after they knock over a liquor store, they have to be put up by the state in prison for fifteen years?

just be honest that you don't want your money going to blacks you know you want to say it no one will judge you in this forum.

#10 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,390 posts

Posted 26 January 2009 - 11:06 AM

and then what would you do? cut them off?

so then you have drug addicts without any money and no prospects for recovery?

then after they knock over a liquor store, they have to be put up by the state in prison for fifteen years?

just be honest that you don't want your money going to blacks you know you want to say it no one will judge you in this forum.


I don't want money going to anyone that:

Can work and chooses not to.

Is consuming illegal drugs.

Who continues to have children while receiving gov. assistance.

Where in there is anything said about Blacks?

Oh yea, instead of sitting in prison, we could have some of these folks actually working.....just a thought.

#11 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 26 January 2009 - 11:10 AM

perhaps you should think about the causes of drug use, teenage pregnancy and poor job prospects and finding out ways to eliminate them at the source instead of counterproductive bandaids and yearning for some neo-colonialist british rajs in the ghettos and trailer parks

#12 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,390 posts

Posted 26 January 2009 - 11:19 AM

perhaps you should think about the causes of drug use, teenage pregnancy and poor job prospects and finding out ways to eliminate them at the source instead of counterproductive bandaids and yearning for some neo-colonialist british rajs in the ghettos and trailer parks


Are we talking of bandaids and welfare in the same thread?

#13 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 26 January 2009 - 11:27 AM

Are we talking of bandaids and welfare in the same thread?


welfare by itself as it stands now probably is, but used as a bridging tool along with the appropriate progressive education programs and massive investment into the infrastructure of impoverished communities, schools, along with microlending programs and sponsoring of community banks, blah blah blah i could go on forever, would be very useful.

#14 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,390 posts

Posted 26 January 2009 - 11:32 AM

welfare by itself as it stands now probably is, but used as a bridging tool along with the appropriate progressive education programs and massive investment into the infrastructure of impoverished communities, schools, along with microlending programs and sponsoring of community banks, blah blah blah i could go on forever, would be very useful.


thats all well and good, and I could possibly, and I say possibly be behind some of that. However,

I still don't want people that can work, use drugs, and have tons of children on welfare.....it's not that complicated.

#15 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • ALL-PRO
  • 40,289 posts

Posted 27 January 2009 - 12:31 AM

Pelosi is the left's version of W, honestly. She can be a complete idiot and often she makes you wonder how in the world she got to where she is. Difference being that since she's on the left, mainsream media doesn't hammer her for it as much as they did Bush.

My favorite recent comment, when asked how something could be called 'bipartisan' when it had no Republican support, she said "Well just because they didn't vote for it doesn't mean they didn't have the opportunity to" :lol:


Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com