# Babies bad for the economy...



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

> 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."
> ...


Can someone please stop this ride, I want out now.


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

It might strike you (or me) as wrong morally, but it does make some sense in terms of economics. The babies that might otherwise be born into solid middle class or wealthy families that can support said babies won't be affected by organizations handing out free condoms (or the pill, etc.). It would only have an impact on those portions of society that can't easily budget for a box of condoms - the young (teens & college age) and the poor. Statistically, children born into poverty or as a result of teen pregnancies tend to be a drain on society. I've heard the same argument made explaining the falling crime rate during the 90's attributed to Roe vs. Wade - less babied born to poor single mothers = less crime 20 years later.

Or we could avoid unwanted pregnancies by telling kids not to have sex. That will work, right???? 

:watching:


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

Well, couldn't the same be said about criminals sitting on death row across the country. They are a major burden, both in terms of the safety of others as well as supporting them for the rest of there lives in prison.

Here's a thought...

This government has more to worry about at the moment, but if they really want to ease the burden on states they can start by NOT funding abortions in other countries...thus sending that money directly to the states. Oh, that's right! Obama signed an executive order this week allowing it! So that's more WASTE leaving the shores of America.

Don't get me wrong, I could care less what a woman chooses to do in this country, they will have to deal with their decision themselves.... but I'll be damned if I'll support my tax money going to pay for some idiot in another country. Now, they want to spend...no waste more of our tax money here on BS programs that go nowhere. We've been down this road before... 

and what about the 30 million illegals currently residing here...? That's not a burden on our system...? Jesus Christ!!! The stupidity is overwhelming!

Also, are we now China? Where the government can now control the population? I thought we were "the land of the free". Yeah right! Control the population, disarm the law abiding citizens one ban at a time, raising taxes to pay for abortions in Norway... Nationalizing the Banking system... The Fairness Doctrine... Giving terrorist constitutional rights...

Sorry, But I see epic fail in the future.


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

js said:


> Sorry, But I see epic fail in the future.


But what about this?


> Always look on the bright side of life!


I think our new VP, Joe "Foot in Mouth" Biden was right on this one - that things are going to get a lot worse in the short term. I just hope what ever recovery we get will happen sooner rather than later.

As for spending in other countries, while I don't agree with it, spending money on birth control and abortion in other countries is a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the money we're giving away overseas. I wonder how much of the good will we've bought from foreign nations will stay with us when we're totally broke and the world starts to suckle from China's bosom?


----------



## tekhead1219 (May 16, 2008)

kev74 said:


> I think our new VP, Joe "Foot in Mouth" Biden was right on this one - that things are going to get a lot worse in the short term.


Remember, at best it's only 3 years 11 months and 24 more days to go.:smt022


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

tekhead1219 said:


> Remember, at best it's only 3 years 11 months and 24 more days to go.:smt022


But who's counting...

The depressing thing is that the Republicans' hands aren't any cleaner then the Dems in this mess. So, 4 more years... then what? :smt022


----------



## unpecador (May 9, 2008)

Damn babies!


----------



## kg333 (May 19, 2008)

kev74 said:


> Or we could avoid unwanted pregnancies by telling kids not to have sex. That will work, right????
> 
> :watching:


What a novel idea! No one's tried that one since the '60s. 

And besides, we'll need those babies to pay taxes in about 20 years when Social Security is getting ready to bite the dust. :mrgreen:

KG


----------



## gmaske (Jan 7, 2008)

I ain't gettin nothin outa this cause I been shootin blanks for the last 25 years. Were's my piece of this stimu-less package? Hmmmm! Maybe if I buy a new Ford Mr. O'Blunder will make my payments while he runs up the price of gas so I can't drive it.

:smt022 *I'm So Depressed!* :smt022


----------



## bprince04305 (Oct 14, 2008)

LOL at you guys. Only in america:smt1099


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

kg333 said:


> What a novel idea! No one's tried that one since the '60s.


Yeah. We didn't just have 8 years of Abstinence Only taught to our kids as birth control. And look how well it worked...


----------



## kg333 (May 19, 2008)

kev74 said:


> Yeah. We didn't just have 8 years of Abstinence Only taught to our kids as birth control. And look how well it worked...


Err, when was the last time you looked into a public school? They've been teaching kids how to use condoms and distributing them from the nurse's office, according to the recent high school grads I see running all over campus. I know there's been a lot of federal initiatives to encourage abstinence only education, but I have yet to hear of anyone who actually _had _one.

KG


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

kg333 said:


> Err, when was the last time you looked into a public school? They've been teaching kids how to use condoms and distributing them from the nurse's office, according to the recent high school grads I see running all over campus.


Abstinence Only was one of the Bush policies "under review" by Obama who is going to restore funding for birth control & abortion education as foreign aid. We drifted to this topic earlier in the thread. I'm sorry, I should have been more clear.

There are some school districts in the US that do use Abstinence Only as the only method of birth control taught in the schools. These are the same kinds of districts that are still trying to teach "Intelligent Design" as science.

My wife is a high school biology teacher, so I am a bit more up to date on these issues than I would otherwise be.



> I know there's been a lot of federal initiatives to encourage abstinence only education, but I have yet to hear of anyone who actually _had _one.


Now you've heard of one. I went to Catholic School. Abstinence Only was the only thing they covered relating to birth control.


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

of course here's the real question...

How in the hell is this going to create jobs now...? Answer... It's NOT!!! and with today's announcement of lower emissions standards and higher mileage standards for car makers, the auto industry is now toast as well! All while the auto industry is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy lets make the decision to make it harder to build cars and them sell them to Americans! People aren't buying cars now!!! So let's make them more expensive!

So let's recap... 

#1. Spending tax money on "Family Planning" is going to stimulate the economy and create jobs...

#2. Telling the auto industry to build cars that americans can't afford due to new federal restrictions will create jobs and stimulate the economy...

and #3... just for good measure... Let's put someone in in charge of the treasury department who is trouble with the IRS for not paying their taxes...

totally amazing... I must be the only one left in America with a fully functional brain.


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

#1 - This might make Trojan add a new production line = new jobs!

#2 - If they require the auto industry to build 2003 Hundai Elantras, I should be able to buy another one.

#3 - Um...er...ah... I can't even think of anything to make fun of on this one.:smt022


I've been trying to stay positive, but I think the financial mess we're in is going to last a lot longer previously expected. 

On the plus side though, the new Senator from NY (democrat) is gun-friendly, so while we might have changed into Bizarro world, at least we have one more good guy (girl) in congress.:smt023


----------



## kg333 (May 19, 2008)

kev74 said:


> Now you've heard of one. I went to Catholic School. Abstinence Only was the only thing they covered relating to birth control.


Considering that would be a private school run by a church whose teachings do not allow for contraception, I'm not surprised. I was referring to public schools which would be affected by federal funding, although I suppose that wasn't quite clear.

The sources I've seen have said that only about a third of schools under Bush used abstinence only education, versus about one half using comprehensive education. In addition, the only upward trend in teen pregnancy since 1991 was an increase of 0.1% from 2005 to 2006, and was considered small enough to possibly be only a blip in the data. It seems a tad difficult to blame unwanted pregnancies on abstinence only education when it's not the primary form of sex ed.

KG


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

kev74 said:


> #3 - Um...er...ah... I can't even think of anything to make fun of on this one.:smt022


oh yeah, Remember I will be the one who is going say "I told ya so" pretty soon...

This man should not be in charge of the nations wealth and more importantly... our tax money. This man can't even do his own taxes and is in trouble with the IRS... and he's going to help fix the economy?..!!! Barack Obama has the brain of a worm and this man, the new head of the Treasury Dept., will lead us straight into a depression.



> *Geithner sworn in as treasury secretary*
> 
> *Obama's nominee wins Senate confirmation despite tax problems*
> 
> ...


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

kg333 said:


> The sources I've seen have said that only about a third of schools under Bush used abstinence only education, versus about one half using comprehensive education. In addition, the only upward trend in teen pregnancy since 1991 was an increase of 0.1% from 2005 to 2006, and was considered small enough to possibly be only a blip in the data. It seems a tad difficult to blame unwanted pregnancies on abstinence only education when it's not the primary form of sex ed.
> 
> KG


It might not be the primary form of sex ed, but if one out of three schools "schools under Bush used abstinence only education", that's not an insignificant number.

But more to the point, Abstinence Only sex ed doesn't work.


----------



## MLB (Oct 4, 2006)

I doubt that it was incompetence that lead to him not paying his taxes. That's not an excuse either, mistakes are excusable. So much for "Change."

Regarding Bizarro world, a gun-friendly NY Senator is about as much proof as you will get for that.


----------



## dovehunter (Dec 18, 2007)

ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WORLD, IT'S THE REVERSE.


Company sends Japanese workers home early to make babies
Posted: 03:03 AM ET
From Kyung Lah
CNN 

TOKYO, Japan (CNN) — Even before one reaches the front door of Canon’s
headquarters in Tokyo, one can hear it: a virtual stampede of employees pouring
out of the building exactly at 5:30 p.m. 

In a country where 12-hour workdays are common, the electronics
manufacturer has taken to letting its employees leave early twice a week for a
rather unusual reason: to encourage employees to have more babies. 

“Canon has a very strong birth planning program,” says Canon spokesman Hiroshi Yoshinaga. “Sending workers home early to be with their families is a part of it.” 

Japan in the midst of an unprecedented recession, so corporations are being asked to work toward fixing another major problem: the country’s low
birthrate. 

At 1.34, the birthday is well below the 2.0 needed to maintain Japan’s
population, according to the country’s Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare


----------



## kg333 (May 19, 2008)

kev74 said:


> But more to the point, Abstinence Only sex ed doesn't work.


Yes, you've made your opinion quite clear from your last few posts, despite the fact I've showed you several pieces that are to the contrary, or inconclusive at best. I get the impression that you're one of those who rejects anything that might be "imposing moral values" under so-called "separation of church and state".

John Adams once said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
However, it's a free country, and you're certainly entitled to believe what you please. :smt023

KG


----------



## JeffWard (Aug 24, 2007)

kev74 said:


> It might strike you (or me) as wrong morally, but it does make some sense in terms of economics. The babies that might otherwise be born into solid middle class or wealthy families that can support said babies won't be affected by organizations handing out free condoms (or the pill, etc.). It would only have an impact on those portions of society that can't easily budget for a box of condoms - the young (teens & college age) and the poor. Statistically, children born into poverty or as a result of teen pregnancies tend to be a drain on society. I've heard the same argument made explaining the falling crime rate during the 90's attributed to Roe vs. Wade - less babied born to poor single mothers = less crime 20 years later.
> 
> Or we could avoid unwanted pregnancies by telling kids not to have sex. That will work, right????
> 
> :watching:


The humane society will neuter a dog for about $35... I think that's a cheap alternative...

But that's just me...

Damn I'm cold.


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

kg333 said:


> Yes, you've made your opinion quite clear from your last few posts, despite the fact I've showed you several pieces that are to the contrary, or inconclusive at best. I get the impression that you're one of those who rejects anything that might be "imposing moral values" under so-called "separation of church and state".


And you're one of those conservatives who thinks less government is good - unless its needed to regulate people with different opinions than yours?

Your several contrary pieces don't prove very much and contradict your own posts. Good job with the debating. I guess you win!:smt023



> Abstinence-Only Programs Are Dangerous, Ineffective, and Inaccurate.
> 
> The Society for Adolescent Medicine recently declared that "abstinence-only programs threaten fundamental human rights to health, information, and life."[8,11]
> 
> ...


Link



> Study Casts Doubt on Abstinence-Only Programs
> 
> A long-awaited national study has concluded that abstinence-only sex education, a cornerstone of the Bush administration's social agenda, does not keep teenagers from having sex. Neither does it increase or decrease the likelihood that if they do have sex, they will use a condom.
> 
> Authorized by Congress in 1997, the study followed 2000 children from elementary or middle school into high school. The children lived in four communities -- two urban, two rural. All of the children received the family life services available in their community, in addition, slightly more than half of them also received abstinence-only education.


Link



> In pushing an "abstinence only" agenda, however, the Bush Administration has consistently distorted the scientific evidence about what works in sex education. Administration officials have never acknowledged that abstinence-only programs have not been proven to reduce sexual activity, teen pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease.[3] Instead, HHS has changed performance measures for abstinence-only education to make the programs appear successful, censored information on effective sex education programs, and appointed to a key panel an abstinence-only proponent with dubious credentials.


Link


----------

