Numerous media figures equate Pelosi's defense of family planning provision in recovery package to China's "one-child policy," eugenics, Nazism
SUMMARY: Several media figures have likened House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's comments defending a provision in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which would expand Medicaid funding for family planning services, to China's "one-child policy," eugenics, social engineering, and Nazism. In fact, the family planning provision does not mandate either limits to family size or eugenics but, rather, would expand "the number of states that can use Medicaid money, with a federal match, to help low-income women prevent unwanted pregnancies."
Following Speaker of the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) January 25 remarks on ABC News' This Week, in which Pelosi defended a provision in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that would expand Medicaid funding for family planning services, numerous media figures have compared Pelosi's comments and the bill's provision to China's "one-child policy," eugenics, social engineering, and Nazism. In fact, the family planning provision, as Democrats have pointed out, does not mandate either limits to family size or eugenics but, rather, as Talking Points Memo noted, would expand "the number of states that can use Medicaid money, with a federal match, to help low-income women prevent unwanted pregnancies." On the January 26 broadcast of MSNBC's Hardball, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) stated that rather than limiting people's family planning decisions, the provision actually would have "give[n] people choices that, in some instances, based on personal choice, will reduce health care costs in the future, that, of course, then reduces the burden on federal taxpayers."
On This Week, host George Stephanopoulos asked Pelosi how spending "[h]undreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services" amounted to "stimulus." Pelosi responded, in part, by stating: "Well, the family planning services reduce costs. It reduces costs. The states are in a terrible fiscal budget crisis now. ... One of those -- one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, is -- will reduce costs to the state and to the federal government, too." Numerous media figures have since seized on Pelosi's response to attack her, as well as the provision and the overall recovery legislation. For instance:
- On the January 26 broadcast of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews of the family planning provision: "I don't know. It sounds a little like China." Matthews continued: "I think everybody should have family planning. I have -- everybody believes in birth control as a right. I'm for abortion as a right and all that. It's all right. But why should the federal government have a policy of reducing the number of births? I don't know why the federal government has an interest in that."
- Similarly, during the January 26 broadcast of CNN's The Situation Room, commentator Jack Cafferty said of Pelosi's comments: "What exactly did she mean? Are the millions of dollars for contraception supposed to stop people from having babies? That's starting to sound a little like Chairman Mao."
- During the January 26 broadcast of San Francisco radio station KSFO's The Lee Rodgers Show, guest host Brian Sussman played a clip from Pelosi's This Week appearance and said: "Family planning services, to Nancy Pelosi, equates with abortion. She's talking about an in-the-womb genocide here, and I know that there are people listening the sound of my voice who have come from places where there is genocide, or are related to people who saw widespread human population control in the form of crazed dictators, and I've got news for ya." Sussman subsequently played an audio clip, apparently from a Nazi rally, featuring chants of "Sieg Heil!" Later in the program, Sussman said in response to a caller who compared Pelosi's comments to China's one-child policy: "[Y]ou may have something here. You take this mentality and stretch it out a bit, and you can easily see a one-child policy in this country, or maybe it'll be something in the beginning where, OK, if you decide to have more than one child, then that second child isn't worthy of a tax credit. There are going to be mechanisms in place to limit the amount of children in this country. Abortion is just one of the answers, but for everyone else, I believe there's going to be a number attached if these people have their way."
- On the January 26 broadcast of his syndicated radio show, Neal Boortz, agreeing with a caller's earlier assertion, said of Pelosi's comments and the family planning stimulus provision: "It's eugenics all over again, folks, coming from the left this time."
- A January 27 Wall Street Journal editorial called Pelosi "Speaker Nancy Malthus," a reference to 18th century economist Thomas Robert Malthus, and warned: "Pelosi should abstain from social engineering." As the BBC noted, Malthus famously "argued that increases in population would eventually diminish the ability of the world to feed itself," an idea which, at the time, was "radically opposed to current thinking."
Moreover, studies have shown that family planning services, particularly contraceptive use, do indeed save the government money. For example, a 2008 Guttmacher Institute study found that "[n]ationally, for every $1 spent on the family planning program, $4.02 is saved in averted Medicaid birth costs." The authors of the 2008 study calculated the savings from avoidance of unwanted pregnancies by "comparing the public-sector costs of providing contraceptive services with the public-sector maternity and infant care costs that would have been incurred." The study did not calculate savings that would have resulted from "averted abortions (or miscarriages)." Additionally, abortion was not included as a "contraceptive method" used by the study's "respondents who had received public-sector family planning care in the past year." From the report:
Calculating savings. We calculated public-sector savings by comparing the public sector costs of providing contraceptive services with the public-sector maternity and infant care costs that would have been incurred had these unintended births not been prevented. We did not estimate public-sector savings that would result from averted abortions (or miscarriages). Because few abortions are covered by Medicaid and their costs are relatively low compared with the costs of a birth, the savings from averted abortions would be negligible relative to the savings from averted births.
[...]
Cost savings. In 2004, an estimated $1.4 billion was used to support provision of contraceptive care at publicly funded family planning clinics (Table 3, column 7). Factoring in only the public-sector costs for maternity care, delivery, and one year of infant-related care for those contraceptive clients who would be eligible for Medicaid maternity care in their state if they became pregnant, we estimate that a total of $5.7 billion in Medicaid expenditures would have been needed. Subtracting the family planning program costs from the estimated Medicaid maternity costs yields a total net public sector savings of $4.3 billion. Alternatively, comparing the family planning program costs to the total Medicaid costs averted yields an estimate of per-dollar public-sector savings: Nationally, for every $1 spent on the family planning program, $4.02 is saved in averted Medicaid birth costs. Again, overall net savings were greatest in states that served the most women. Public funding for family planning clinics saved California, Texas, and New York between $350 and $570 million each in 2004, and another eight states realized net savings of over $100 million. Even the smallest states that served relatively few women (Hawaii, North Dakota, and Vermont) realized net savings from family planning clinic investments of between $8 and $12 million. Net savings for the majority of states (30) ranged between $21 and $97 million.
From the January 25 edition of ABC News' This Week:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?
PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce costs. It reduces costs. The states are in a terrible fiscal budget crisis now. And part of it, what we do for children's health or 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, is -- will reduce costs to the state and to the federal government, too.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So, no apologies for that?
PELOSI: No apologies, no. We have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy. Food stamps, unemployment insurance, some of the initiatives you just mentioned -- what the economists have told us from right to left, there's more bang for the buck, is the term they use, by investing in food stamps and in unemployment insurance than in any tax cuts. Nonetheless, we are committed to the tax cuts because they do have a positive impact on the economy, even though not as big as the investment.
From the January 26 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
CAFFERTY: Now, over the weekend, lawmakers were out on their soapboxes. Democrats were selling the plan. Republicans were pointing out problems with the plan.
On ABC, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, defended hundreds of millions of dollars in the stimulus package earmarked for contraception. She said family planning reduces costs and explained that the stimulus plan includes assistance to states, and part of that includes children's health and education. That includes contraception, which Pelosi said will, quote, "reduce cost to the states and to the federal government," unquote.
What exactly did she mean? Are the millions of dollars for contraception supposed to stop people from having babies? That's starting to sound a little like Chairman Mao.
When asked if she had any apologies for what some saw as controversial remarks, Madam Speaker answered: "No apologies."
So here's the question: Is Nancy Pelosi right when she says adding birth control to the stimulus package will help the economy? You can go to CNN.com/caffertyfile and post a comment on my blog.
From the January 26 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
WEXLER: And I realize it's easy to find one item or this item, but even -- let's talk about that family planning. Family planning saves, if done correctly, an enormous sum of money down the road in the health-care system. But back to your original point. The -- most of the money goes to building roads, bridges, infrastructure projects, like my friend Mr. Gingrey says, as states will have designed them, as local governments as well will have designated them, also in terms of building schools. We desperately need to upgrade our education systems. We have enormous amount of resources devoted towards construction projects in public education, as we do in terms of alternative energy sources.
We are going to invest enormous sums of money in creating green jobs, which have the benefit of employment increases, as well as relieving our dependence on -- on foreign oil. This is exactly what the country needs, combined with $300 billion-plus of tax cuts which affect 95 percent, positively, of the American family base.
MATTHEWS: I don't know. It sounds a little like China. I -- Congressman Gingrey --
REP. PHIL GINGREY (R-GA): Japan.
MATTHEWS: -- I think everybody should have family planning. I have -- everybody believes in birth control as a right. I'm for abortion as a right and all that. It's all right. But why should the federal government have a policy of reducing the number of births? I don't know why the federal government has an interest in that. They have an interest in freedom and people making choices. But I just heard a case made by Congressman Wexler that it was in the national interest we have fewer kids. I don't understand that.
WEXLER: No, no, Chris, I did not say that.
GINGREY: Let me -- you asked me --
MATTHEWS: What did you mean by that? What did you mean by that?
[crosstalk]
MATTHEWS: Why is it an economic stimulus? Why are we talking about family planning as an economic stimulus program, is what I don't understand.
GINGREY: I don't -- I don't think we should be. I clearly don't think we should be. And I probably have already said enough about that one. My wife will be on me about my comments in regard to that. But --
MATTHEWS: No, I understand. Look, I'm for family planning. I'm for all this. I just don't think it's an economic stimulus plan.
GINGREY: No, of course not.
MATTHEWS: These freedoms -- these decisions should be family decisions, not federal decisions. What do you say, Congressman Wexler?
WEXLER: Of course --
MATTHEWS: Why is family planning an economic stimulus element?
WEXLER: Chris, you are right. Family planning is a personal choice.
MATTHEWS: Right.
WEXLER: And in order to make personal choices, people need to have both education and resources. And when they lack that education or know-how or resources, in effect, then, their choice is negated. And in terms from an economic analysis, to give people choices that, in some instances, based on personal choice, will reduce health-care costs in the future, that, of course, then reduces the burden on federal taxpayers. This is not a new concept. This is what we run the government on. If we can reduce Medicaid expenditures by giving people more knowledge and choice and resources, I think most people, regardless --
MATTHEWS: OK.
WEXLER: -- of their ideology, will say, that's a good economic decision.
GINGREY: Chris, I have heard Robert Wexler's explanation --
MATTHEWS: OK. We'll talk about --
GINGREY: -- and I have heard Nancy Pelosi's. And I still don't understand it. But I'll tell you, some of the money that's --
MATTHEWS: OK. I think we're getting -- I think we're at apples and oranges here. I think economic development and economic opportunity and freedom are two separate issues. But we'll talk about them later. This is the kind of philosophical argument we have on this show. Thank you, Robert Wexler.
From the January 26 edition of Cox Radio Syndication's The Neal Boortz Show:
CALLER: What I wanted to say about the Nancy Pelosi thing, is, though -- this has been done before. It was done in the early '30s in Germany. It's called eugenics.
BOORTZ: Ooh.
CALLER: It's called eugenics.
BOORTZ: Ooh. Ooh, let's see now, Nancy -- ooh. You know, I bet if -- I bet if the opponents, if they started talking about the Democrats -- the eugenic portion. Wow, you do have a point there, Laurie. You wicked, you wicked, wicked woman.
CALLER: [unintelligible] The most helpless, the children and the health care -- if you limit what the elderly and the sick can get --
BOORTZ: You do --
CALLER: -- and all you've got is a bunch of damn worker bees. Pardon the language.
BOORTZ: Well, that's hey, Laurie, eugenics. Write that down. You people out there Google it. E-U-G-E-N-I-C-S. See what she's talking about, OK?
[...]
BOORTZ: And we had a caller -- I think rightly -- bring up the specter of eugenics in connection with her comments.
JAMIE DUPREE (WSB-AM Washington correspondent): Wow.
BOORTZ: Well, think about it. Eugenics -- good grief. You know, just -- well, we need a more perfect society, and getting rid of some of these babies that are going to be a burden on the taxpayers might be a way to get there.
[...]
BOORTZ: I've been harping on this government so-called stimulus plan, and I -- the stories keep on pouring in. They keep on pouring in. We have Nancy Pelosi out there saying that contraception -- contraception is a way to stimulate the economy, and then a brilliant caller called up today and said, "You know what? That sounds like eugenics." Well, I never did explain what eugenics was, but eugenics is a program, folks, it is a program whereby you try to manage the birth rate and who gets to have babies. You try to manage that so as to create a better quality of citizen. And then Nancy Pelosi comes along and says, "Well, uh, this would be great economic stimulus for us because the states are having a tough time taking care of the cost of all these children we're having in this country." It's eugenics all over again, folks, coming from the left this time.
From the January 26 edition of KSFO's The Lee Rodgers Show:
SUSSMAN: Nancy Pelosi is our congresswoman from San Francisco, and here she is on Stephanopoulos' show this weekend. And Stephanopoulos is talking about the hundreds of millions of dollars in the economic stimulus package --
OFFICER VIC (co-host Tom Benner): Right.
SUSSMAN: -- that will be used to expand family planning services, and he says, how is that stimulus? Listen to her answer.
[begin audio clip]
PELOSI: The family planning services reduce costs. It reduces costs. The states are in a terrible fiscal budget crisis now. And part of it, what we do for children's health or 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, is -- will reduce costs to the state and to the federal government, too.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So, no apologies for that?
PELOSI: No apologies, no. We have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.
[end audio clip]
SUSSMAN: This is --
OFFICER VIC: "To deal with the consequences of the downturn of our economy." Meaning increased contraception, meaning population control.
SUSSMAN: Well, I wish it were just -- I wish it were just contraception like, you know, condoms. But she's talking about abortion. Abortion is the biggest chunk of money that family planning services like Planned Parenthood --
OFFICER VIC: Ah. Aha.
SUSSMAN: -- that's the biggest chunk of their budget. Family planning services, to Nancy Pelosi, equates with abortion. She's talking about an in-the-womb genocide here, and I know that there are people listening the sound of my voice who have come from places where there is genocide, or are related to people who saw widespread human population control in the form of crazed dictators, and I've got news for ya. If any of those people are thinking of slogans that were chanted during the 1930s, I wouldn't be surprised -- slogans like this -- play it, Shari.
AUDIO CLIP: Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!
SUSSMAN: This is absolutely sickening. I'm shocked to hear one of our nation's leaders standing before the cameras and basically revealing the plan here. I can't imagine in any other era someone coming on an ABC program, a nationally televised program, and talking about family planning services will reduce the cost of doing business in the United States for our government, because less people will be born.
[...]
CALLER: It sounds a little bit -- it does sound a bit like Nazi Germany or what the communist -- various communist regimes did in family planning, like Red China.
SUSSMAN: Yes.
CALLER: My concern becomes more kind of the Red China syndrome where, well, you can afford one baby in socialized medicine, or two, and any third or subsequent babies will not be covered by socialized medicine. And therefore, you'll either be forced to abort your child or to go to an unlicensed doctor or some underground thing, because, well, you know, children are expensive.
SUSSMAN: You know, Carl, you may have something here. You take this mentality and stretch it out a bit, and you can easily see a one-child policy in this country, or maybe it'll be something in the beginning where, OK, if you decide to have more than one child, then that second child isn't worthy of a tax credit. There are going to be mechanisms put in place to limit the amount of children in this country. Abortion is just one of the answer, but for everyone else, I believe there's going to be a number attached if these people were to have their way. Thanks, Carl, great point.
CALLER: You're welcome.
why do liberals think that low income women are stupid? Just because a woman may not make much money, doesn't mean she isn't smart enough to know how to avoid an unwanted pregnancy? typical liberal condescending and pandering. If I was a low income woman, I would say no thank you. my intellect is not measured by the size of my bank account. Keep your medicaid for something more worthwhile.
Why? Because they don't think low income women are stupid. That is just a strawman argument you created so you could express faux outrage against all things liberal.
No, we don't believe that lower income people are stupid (remember, contraception can go BOTH ways you know). If someone is not making much money, it is possible that their funds might go towards things like, you know, food. Clothing. Housing. Heat. Electricity. They might not have enough money to pay for contraception, nor have health care benefits that would cover it (IUD or pills for women).
Nobody is calling low income people stupid at all. And wouldn't this help them to get off of the "welfare" system that you guys love to chide us liberals for supporting all of the time? Stop having "welfare babies" and all, and we won't have to support those people any longer?
But going back to the article...
What Pelosi wanted to do was not eugenics, it is not like China's one child policy. This would not have been FORCED onto lower income people, but it would have been an option, one that may have had an impact on birth rates amongst lower income people and or the spread of STDs.
Luckily for you, low income women won't have to just say "no", since this won't be something that will be offered to them.
The simple fact is that Pelosi is targeting poor women in an attempt to limit the number of children they have. Where is her attempt to increase birth control awareness or education for middle and upper class women? Only poor women were the target here, and she came across as offense and condescending. The criticism was warranted and the provision was dropped for good reason.
So how soon before you guys go back to this talking point?
>>Cunningham: America's "so-called noble poor" don't use birth control so that "the mom can get more checks in the mail from the government"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200810280013
"Pelosi is targeting poor women in an attempt to limit the number of children they have" -- let's see, the motive was either that piece of sick sociological engineering, or ANYTHING ELSE.
I will not bother to glance at or think about anything else that you say. Your brain simply doesn't work.
Again with the right wing screed. Y'all need lots of babies to boost your "christian" numbers so you prey on poor women to fill your ranks when you do your yearly "christian soldiers" calculation. Y'all couldn't care less if they are poor, you just want to add them into your yearly count so you can say there are more christians in the world than any other religion. As soon as your team posts the numbers you forget the people you claimed got you there in the first place.
This has to do with expanding Medicaid funding. If there are any middle class or wealthy women on Medicaid, they can receive the service too.
Why do you think helping poor women avoid an unwanted pregnancy is condescending?
She talks about the state of the economy and saving money for the state and the feds by women having less children. So I ask again, why does she not offer money to educate.....as i said in my first post....educate middle and upper class women about birth control? She does not do that because as I said she is targeting poor women. It is disguisting.
Hey, poof!! If you know anything, ANYTHING, about women, who is usually more INFORMED (educated) and has easier (MONETARY) resources afforded to them about sex, birth, birth control, peer pressure to have sex, ways to terminate pregnancies, counseling, familial and societal support, etc.- the poor, middle class, or rich?
So then you agree she is targeting the poor. That was my point.
Uumm... my point is that middle and upper class women ALREADY have more education and finances to PLAN families. Your point is... what, again?
POV, if a middle or upper-class woman has a child, she won't need welfare funding, food stamps, etc., and thus the burden to society will be significantly lower. Upper and middle class women are also vastly more likely to have health insurance that will cover either the contraception in the first place, or the prenatal and delivery care (which is quite considerable), and again, the fiscal argument is not as great a concern.
More significantly, no one is really talking about making people "have less children" or other such nonsensical strawmen. We're talking about family PLANNING--that is, so that you can PLAN to have your children (only as many as you, as a responsible and loving parent, WANT) at the times that work for you: when you think that you can provide the child with a safe home, enough food to eat, enough time and emotional support that it needs throughout its development, stably employed parents to provide for the child's material comfort, making sure you and your partner are ready to have kids. When people have the freedom (and resources) to plan their pregnancies, they're vastly less likely to require public assistance in the short term or the long term (because the unplanned pregnancy and child-rearing has disrupted their economic plans, and kept them in poverty--when they can't pay as much in income taxes, btw), the child is more likely to succeed in school and later do well economically, not to mention relatives and siblings (who can also be held back economically, and are more likely to have unplanned pregnancies themselves), so this saves A LOT of money, and more importantly, people lead freer, more goal-attaining lives, and the children born (when parents CHOOSE them) have a much better shot at a happy and stable life.
There is nothing wrong with starting a program with those who are most in need, and who would suffer the most without it. In theory I support universal health insurance which would be required to offer birth control, but until that happens we have an obligation to offer a helping hand to those most in need.
Eloquently put, LeftSidePositive. As a resident of New Orleans which has a growing population of extremely poor people, I am reminded daily of the need for a program for family planning that can be easily understood and readily available to stem the tide of unwanted and unnecessary pregnancies. The harsh reality is that too many of our poor continue to have children for which there is NO intention of proper care, let alone food and education. Far too many infants and older children are being brought into the world with no chance of decent care by the parents. When the child becomes too inconvenient or bothersome, the horrible results are too painful to contemplate. Many of these children are not just ignored or mistreated, but maimed or even murdered. How could any humane person be opposed to family planning?
And in related news, Paris Hilton's application for a college grant was denied. It's outrageous, isn't it?
Well look at just who is being "helped". Planned Parenthood has 80% of their abortion clinics in low income areas. Now are we "helping" these low income women or is this a thinly disguised eugenics push?
Don't think it can happen here? Do a little google on Margaret Sanger. Then look at what the Chinese are doing/have done:
A Chinese forced abortions and steralisations
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/3285 It seemed appropiate to the discussion and an excellent reinforcement by the media figures and james. Thank you all.
And keep to the life plan...or else.
You are a work of art??? Your above post makes no sense at all????
Your post is stupid. No one is forcing low-income women [or men] to do anything.
So your scintillating intellect somehow manages to obtain free contraception for you?
Why, as the intelligent low-income woman you (hypothetically) are, would you not consider your reproductive health care worthwhile? Would you not also see the benefit of receiving that for free, so the rest of your money could be spent on housing, water, electricity, heat, food, transportation, saving up money to go to school (or pay off student loans)?
hmm? If my reproductive healthcare was worthwhile then I would refrain from sexual activity risking pregnancy if I knew I couldn't afford, or didn't want, children. I don't need the government to hold my hand through it, it's my responsibility.
and if you can't refrain from having unprotected sex, do it on your own dime. I shouldn't have to pay for it. I dont believe the government should reward reckless behavior through social programs. If people want to do it, that is their business, take responsibility for it and don't look to me to bail you out of your own bad choices.
Wouldn't family planning be largely about preventing reckless behavior and bad choices?
absolutely, plan your family well. the government need not be involved, you know, like religion.
No, there's certainly cause for government to be interested in that, as it has an effect on overpopulation, poverty levels and the state of the workforce.
How would you know what you'd do or not do if you were a low income woman?
No one can say what they do in any situation until they are in that situation.
This was in response to Jamesb
I'm amazed that the media can still amaze me.
This comparison is so inane that I just laughed at the first dingus to make it. But here are the other idiots latching onto the first idiot because they're actually too stupid to be as stupid as him.
You know those fractal images where you can see vast detail in a little corner of another detail? We are gazing inside stupid and looking at an inner field of stupid.
You know, the glorious thing is that most people hate these nattering nabobs and ignore the media in general. They have better things to do-- like live a life.
It's a ridiculous comparison. In fact it's no comparison at all because nothing even close to what these losers are suggesting was actually proposed. They are once again making-sh!t-up. I especially like the respect Boortz has for his audience like only he and this one really clued in caller have ever heard of eugenics.
Booortz's quote - "It's eugenics all over again, folks, coming from the left this time." is quite telling. He is basically admitting it's his side that has foisted "eugenics" on the general discourse.
Sorry but eugenics lies firmly in the "progressive" camp. Do a little research and you'll find that it was the American left that foisted this little gem on us. After Germany took the next step after taking it's lead from the US, then people saw the horrors that eugenics begat.
Granny P should have taken her own advice...
Eugenics, by coinkydink I'm reading about the american fascination with it. "In Reckless Hands", by Victoria F. Nourse. It ties in a little with racism, putting people into classifications of worthyness, and the solving of most social woes by sterilizing inferior people. With uniformed idiots determining worthyness. There's some interesting details on the New Deal and the Supreme Courts actions in the middle of it.
Yep the MSM is showing its typical use of words that have little contact with their accepted meanings or historys.
I guess they've suddenly decided that an unwanted pregnancy is a good thing? Is this the legacy of Simple Sarah?
Just when I thought the hypocrisy of the Right Wingers could not surprise me...
I don't remember who it was, but some Troglodyte Talker was complaining not long ago that rich white people weren't having enough babies. I guess that's why this program isn't aimed at middle class women... they already have access to whatever birth control they need or want.
The Troglodytes who are feigning outrage over this are most likely the same ones who vilify poor women for having too many babies.... I'm sure the phrase "breed like rabbits" has crossed their lips.
This is nonsense.
So if white males aren't in complete control over every aspect of the infrastructure, it will be "inferior" and covered with graffitti? That's interesting.
Some people will not be employed even if everyone gave it every effort possible, therefore there has to be some support system there. And people should have health care because a healthy workforce is good for the economy. The "choice" would be either to find a job with those benefits, pay for insurance out of pocket, or go broke if you get seriously ill. Good luck if you have a pre-existing condition as well.
It has nothing to do with viewing anyone as stupid.
I didn't say complete control. But let's face it, white males have dominated the construction industry because white males dominate the population. Since they have dominated the population, through no fault of their own, and have dominated the construction industry by sheer numbers alone, it follows that if you limit the number of workers who have made the greatest contribution to that industry,that industry will suffer. And this socialized medical issue belies common sense. The real truth is that forced socialized medicine means that healthy people pay the costs of unhealthy people, including those people who intentionally harm their health with alcohol, tobacco and drugs and overeating. Somebody has to pay for it and it will be the people who take care of themselves, in most cases. Sound fair to you? Not me.
I don't know what kind of construction jobs you're familiar with, but from all I've seen most workers don't need Master's degrees. I've worked manual labor, and never saw any inferior workmanship from black people, nor did I see any graffiti.
That's a nice blame-the-victim framework you have set up, but it's awfully simplistic. What about people who get cancer without any behavior such as smoking in their past? Are they just out of luck because some people don't take care of themselves as well as they should? It really doesn't sound that unfair to me, but then I don't have the view that people should suffer and die because I'd rather not contribute money to the common good. Maybe that's the difference between us.
Who's talking about master's degrees? Skilled labor is just that, skilled. Sounds like a condecending attitude toward skilled white males to justify your argument. As for health care, people are gonna get cancer no matter how well they take care of themselves and they often die no matter what kind of treatment they recieve, but socialized medicine is not the answer. Your phrase common good sounds familiar, brab. It's the two word phrase that shames accomplishment, free ideas and entreprneuralship. It's the two word phrase that stifles growth and rewards the lazy. Let's take your two word phrase one step further. I suggest brab lets two homeless people in his area live in his home because it promotes the common good. Then I want brab to ride his bike to work everyday because it protects the environment and promotes the common good. After work, brab will now volunteer 4 hours a night in community service because it promotes the common good. Let's not forget about contributing 40% of your pay to the government so that Nancy Reid can help spread the common good. Then, when you get sick, brab, you can wait in line behind David Crosby who's waiting for that liver you paid for because that promotes the common good. I can't wait for Utopia, brab. Can you?
Why is it condescending for me to suggest that people can learn skills if given the opportunity, but not condescending for you to suggest that they can't?
You seem to be arguing that since some people die no matter what, it doesn't make any difference how many people get no care at all. You were blowing off the need for health care because those that need it caused their own problems, now it's about people who are going to die no matter what. Obviously there's no answer for that, including the current system, so your point is hard to fathom.
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? Support for the less fortunate means that I have to house the homeless, bike to work, etc? Nobody's asking you to do that. There's nothing that "shames" accomplishment, either. I don't get the logic there. You won't try to make a better life for yourself because you might help others prevent illness they can't afford? That's twisted. It has occured to you that prevention is cheaper than disease, right? Not only does that help people have more money to spend on other goods, but it promotes work attendance which makes our industry run smoother and more efficiently. Clearly that's a worthy cause, not about "reward(ing) the lazy".
First paragraph: Limiting the # of already skilled workers by virtue of their skin color while favoring and training unskilled workers by virtue of their skin color is expensive and counterproductive in troubled economic times.
second paragraph: In response to your point that people do and will get cancer even when they take care of themselves and that has nothing to do with whether people get no health care. You're spouting the liberal strawman that some people, because of their financial condition, cannot get health care in this country and that is patently false and you know it!
third paragraph: You wanna start with your pious common good nonsense then live your life by it, don't suggest that socialism is anything other than what it is which is those that are willing to work hard and extend themselves must suffer because there are too many unwilling to do the same and yet are expecting the same reward as those that put forth. A system like that lasts only so long until those that do put forth begin to recognize the fact they are being taken advantage of by a corrupt system and will then rebel. Learn from history, brab, your way won't work. It never has and it never will.
Why is that counterproductive? The expense goes in the pockets of those doing the training, the work gets done, and you get a more skilled workforce.
How can people who are poor afford health care? I'm not sure you know what a "strawman" is, either.
Nobody's talking about socialism. I don't see it as "suffering" to help the society you're a part of. And there are plenty of countries that have nationalized health care which haven't seen any mass uprising because of it.
Poor people can afford health care the same way illegal aliens do. If you are in need of medical attention, you go to an emergency room and you are treated. If you have a cold, stay home and take care of it. I honostly believe you are talking about socialism when you use the phrase common good and if you are not, I apologize. As far as the first paragraph, if we have a skilled labor force that is predominately white males then it follows the skilled labor force is just that. If we have a training system that can produce, over time and at their(trainee's) expense, then I don't care what gender or color they are. When I went to college, I had to pay for it and I achieved a skill, but on my dime( with help for living expenses from my folks) so why should the government, with my tax dollars, be training people to become productive citizens? I knew dozens of students, in 1973, that could barely afford to eat while going to the same school I did and they survived and hopefully went on to achieve their dreams. I do believe in grants for the impoverished but I deplore scholarships that cater to athletes who don't finish school.
So the emergency room is "health care"? It's not free, you know. You don't pay, that bill hangs over your credit, while prevention (actual health care) would have been far less expensive.
Of course "common good" does not mean socialism. The fact that sprang to your mind should be a cause of alarm to you.
That last bit is interesting. What if your parents hadn't helped you with living expenses? You're proud of paying yourself, so clearly their assistance wasn't a matter of luxury. So what about people who don't have any assistance from parents? You believe in grants for the impoverished, but that money has to come from somewhere. It's fine for some people to get help because they need it but not others, depending on whether it's your money helping them? Otherwise I'm not seeing the distinction.
sigtekkkkkkkkkkkkk,
Many countries with universal health care are far healthier than the US. Not only that, but no one in those countries are paying for anyone's "overeating" because no other country is as fat as we are. The United States is the only 1st world country without it.
Yeah, it's called an educational system that doesn't fail our children. Those countries you refer to spend much of their money on educating people and making sure traditions that have kept them healthy don't go by the wayside like they have in this country, thank you very much liberalism.
Liberals don't want to teach health in school? Do you have anything to support this notion at all?
That's an easy one. Our present school system is dominated by liberals and look at the health of kids today. You've heard the storys of how schools are eliminating PE and any extracirricular activities because kids might get a boo-boo. No more dodge ball, too dangerous. No scoring in sports, low self esteem might resuly for the losing team. On and on with these liberal policies that promote inactivity that develops the mind and spirit. School cafeterias that offer nothing but garbage for lunch and a system that discourages brown bag lunches because those that can only bring healthy lunches are looked down on by those that eat at the cafeteria. Look at the obesity of the kids in school today, schools dominated and run by liberals and ask me again what proof I have for my sentiment. Schools today are run by liberals, brab, and there aint no two ways about it.
"Our present school system is dominated by liberals and look at the health of kids today."
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. That's fallacious, right off the bat.
I think the "no dodgeball" element is on the fringe to begin with, but even in those cases there are usually still other activities. Music programs have been eliminated in places for financial reasons, so I find the attribution of a "boo-boo" hard to swallow as a cause for eliminating physical education. "No scoring in sports" means the sports are still there, so I have no idea how that supports your argument.
Who is it who wants better funding for public schools? That would be liberals. That would help improve the quality of the food, insure that no programs have to be cut, etc.
....and healthy raises for unqualified teachers. The no scoring in sports means, to me, "even if I give it my best, the results won't be noticed, so why try?" I believe you can apply that same logic to a socialized work force. I can give it my best, but the guy next to me doesn't try as hard but still gets paid as much as me. So why try? As humans, healthy ones, we need some sort of reward for achievment and I believe the road we are headed down, with this administration, will take that reward away and achievment will evaporate,IMHO.
Nobody's talking about people getting paid the same amount whether you work harder or not. Your reward for achievement is a happy and comfortable life. The knowledge that you're helping others have a chance for happier and more comfortable lives should add to that, not detract from it.
"Liberal policy is to keep low income women and minorities on the dole because it is easier to control their behaviour."
So, are you one of Rush Limbaugh's mindless dittobots, or just a liar?
I'm neither. I've seen this policy in force for over 40 years, with my own two eyes, long before Mr. Limbaugh came on the scene. I think for myself. If that's what Rush is saying, I'll have to take your word for it. It's curious how an opinion different from yours or the mainstream liberal philosohpy is automatically labeled a lie and someone is a liar if they espouse it. Is that a kneejerk response from you?
actually, I'm not so convinced it's to control their behavior, as it is to control their vote. If you continue to pander to them, tell them their are victims and virtually helpless without their liberal government assistance, make them think they can't make it without liberals in charge, treat them as stupid, then that ensures they will vote accordingly. Liberal Democrats have been doing that for years. much like bible-thumping REpublicans who use religion the same way. It's not to hard to see.
I think it's safe to say that all politicians pander to one group or another in search of votes.
Using Sigroyd's logic, we could assert that Republicans want Evangelical Christians to remain ignorant, superstitious and uninformed so they'll continue to vote Republican.
By that logic, nobody can ever serve any group's interests without pandering to them. Obviously poor people have needs which can be addressed as a means of creating a more functional society.
Meanwhile, what help do religious people need? They have the right to believe what they want and worship how they want. Anything outside of that isn't appropriate for the government to deal with.
totally agree with that logic. the government is here to serve all our interests, not pander to this group or that group.
Do you honestly think that lying to us about liberal policies makes any sense at all? If not, why do you do it so consistently?
It's my opinion. When does someone's opinion automatically become a lie? If you think there is no truth to my opinion, then parse it out, otherwise your response is typical of someone who wants to shut someone else up.
You're not presenting it as opinion; you're presenting it as fact. When you say things like "Liberal policies do view low income women and minorities as stupid. Liberal policy is to keep low income women and minorities on the dole because it is easier to control their behavior," then you're spouting nonsense and anybody with even the slightest grasp of history knows it. Remember the civil rights movement? Conservatives fought against it. ERA? Conservatives were against it. Racism? Conservatives were -- and often still are -- in favor of it.
Your entire rant was full of statements that are not even close to being true. You hate public schools and ignore the fact that vouchers don't work. You rant about socialized medicine while ignoring the fact the the most efficient medical insurance in the U.S. is Medicare, which is adminstrated by the government, and I'm betting you would count that as "socialize medicine." You talk about us wanting to "nationalize the auto industry" and ignore the fact that they asked for a loan, like Chrysler got in the 1980's, and which they paid back. You're worried about things being unfair for white males--be careful, your bigotry is showing.
Your entire post was a perfect example of a right-wingnut talking points without examining your own claims. Now that I called you out on things that were flat-out wrong, you claim that it was all opinion. Crap.
She has the notion that in order to solve the crisis, we must contract even further. It's a common idea. And that the poster asked, What's next, euthansia? was not off the mark at all. They will look for ways to contract in all areas. The old are expensive. ("And they'd be so much better off if they were dead. . .no more pain . . . see how peaceful gramma looks?")
But there is another model, the expansion model, the original Ponzi scheme upon which civilizations are built: a rising population wave. And we ain't having one. We have killed fifty million US citizens in the last forty years, since Roe v Wade. This is a moral problem, to be sure. But otherwise astute scholars, deadened by the political climate, cannot seem to understand that it's an economic problem as well.
Imagine what the graph of the purchases of that missing fifty million would look like! Every year 1,300, 000 babies more, had they survived, would enter the consumption game. It starts with all the little swings and bouncers and formula and teethers and little socks and baby strollers and car seats. Then it's hotwheels, and then bicycles, and before you know it they're turning the key of their first Buick. But no!
And American business won't pay (and probably shouldn't pay, because the skill levels don't warrent it) the workers (who have aborted their children in the unholy deal Roe made possible) what they would have paid the offspring. In fact, as part of the recent bailout, auto workers, who had achieved almost a middle class income, got knocked back into the lower class, hourly pay in the single digits, mickey mouse health care.
And imagine the graph of their productivity as those lost babies matured! Imagine American-born doctors and chemists and programmers!
And we're actually doing the best in a bad field, compared to Europe and Asia. The US has been barely holding on, but holding on nevertheless, to producing two new babies for every two existing people. That's with the help of the Mexicans, who still have more than a couple of kids, until they learn the new way north of the border, that is.
That's just replacement, two for two, not the gentle growth the economy needs, but at that it is the highest in the western world. Greece has 1.3, Hong Kong has fewer than one child per every two people living there now, and the bright future economists once predicted for the region has disappeared. All those aborting and contracepting and leading- the- high -life Europeans have been selling to us, the US, since their own populations are reduced every single day. They live on exports. But we tanked--and look what happened to Europe and Asia. Face to face with the crime.
We ourselves can't consume any more, here in the US. Lord, we don't need to consume any more! We're eating as many hamburgers as we can, but it's just not enough! We just can't fit another car in the garage. We don't need another television! They're afraid to give us the stimulus money for fear we'll --gasp--save the sucker. We're so played out.
I wish it weren't true and that Barack could do both things, fix the economy and promise every girl in the world a free abortion when she oops makes that "mistake," but every time I hear a report that cries about "stagnant demand" and "the failure of the internal markets" I know they're talking about our failure to grow because we insist on killing our unborn. And I know he won't be able to do it. And we'll spend our last centavo chasing the impossible.
We must stop abortion to save the economy. Do the math and start writing letters. Don't be bothered by the idea that there will still be illegal abortions. Yes, there probably will. Better that than millions without a nestegg. But the girl who probably wouldn't do it unless her boyfriend insisted, would have a back-up: it's illegal, honey. And the rest would just have to grow up and face the natural consequences of sex. The survival of our society depends on it. We managed it all the centuries before, and population rebound pulled our buns out of the fire many times.
We're way under the carrying capacity of Earth. Overpopulation is not our problem. Underpopulation and subsequent underconsumption is.