Birth control stimulates the economy?

[Patroklos]

You've been answered. Repeating the question will just lead to the same answer. Also it was funny watching you get pwnd by Ramo when you tried to bring up approval ratings.

No, I haven't, and I will repeat it until you do answer it because every time you don't you look like the insufferable hack tool you are. Case in point, your last two posts.

And Ramo did nothing but further point out how stupid your predictable pathetic redirect was. The popularity of Obama has NOTHING to do with a comment made by Pelosi. The popularity of Pelosi has NOTHING to do with the validity of her comment. The popularity of Pelosi is only relevant to your comment in relation to Obama.

Now that I have successful beat you over the head with the simple logic hammer a second time, let us continue to the question at hand.

Dems in Congress 41% approve of the job they're doing; Republicans in Congress only 21% approve of their job performance.

1.) And this is relevant to how retarded saying contraception will boost the economy again how? Hint: there is no value for popularity that will change how retarded the comment was.

2.) And this is relevant to your reaction to a Republican saying keeping poor people from multiplying is good for the economy how?

Congress does have low approval ratings but it seems that it's mostly Republicans who are having trouble.

Not really, it is a statistical wash. The vast majority of incumbents are still in power, and voters of all stripes continue to rate their own representative much higher than Congress as a whole.

The question is when nearly 80% of the population knows/believes the Republican approach is dead wrong why give in to them?

That’s nice Oerdin, but even if true it has no relevance to whether Pelosi's comment is retarded or not. In any light, from any perspective, it is still retarded. That’s why none of the Democratic congressmen have come to her aid, and why the Democratic President rebuked the comment outright.

Do you know what that means? IT IS NOT A DEMOCRATIC POSITION. It is the position of one democrat.

Do you know what that also means? CRITISISM OF THE POSITON IS NOT REPUBLICAN. It is a criticism shared by Republicans and Democrats alike, including the most powerful democrat who actual did get an election mandate.

They are still trying to force their failed ideology on everyone.

Obama is trying to force Republican ideology on everyone?

I say screw them and pass a good stimulus bill without them because Republicans are still insisting of continuing the same failed policies which created the crisis.

Dude, I think it is time for you go to into exile again. This stuff is just as rich as anything that prompted your last route.

So, let me get this straight; you agree that depressing the birth rate for poor people is a valid measure to fight the recession? You obviously have no desire to have it purged from the stimulus package.

Anyone else want to comment on Oerdin's belief that the Republican's not depressing the birth rate for the poor created this crisis?

How about Oerdin's contention that the Republican's "continuing the same failed policies" we are discussing in this thread, ie not spending trillions in handouts, caused this crisis? (that’s funny Oerdin, aren’t just about to criticize the Republicans because of their spending?)

Clinton's best budget was the 1993 budget..blah blah blah....various irrelevancies...not a mention of Pelosi...redirect...redirect...redirect...failure to avoid the question at hand.

What does Clinton have to do about how you would feel if a Republican stated depressing poor birth rates will save us from recession?

I never asked about the stimulus package. I never asked about popularity. I never asked about any of the other random irrelevancies you predicibly pulled out.

I asked HOW WOULD YOU REACT IF A REPUBLICAN MADE THE EXACT COMMENT PELOSI DID?

Now, feel free to mumble mindlessly while still failing to answer the question before retiring from the thread in a flurry of insults and cursing. As per normal.

[Ramo]

What does Clinton have to do about how you would feel if a Republican stated depressing poor birth rates will save us from recession?

Pelosi obviously said no such thing. In addition to reducing the burden on poor women and the states they live in, increased spending on birth control would boost the economy.

[Patroklos]

Pelosi obviously said no such thing. In addition to reducing the burden on poor women and the states they live in, increased spending on birth control would boost the economy.

She most definetly did.

"Well, the family planning services reduce cost."

Which she follows up immediately as qualifing that cost to the state, she never mentions individuals. How do family planning servies reduce costs to the state in any way except by helping low income people (where the program was targeted) not have babies?

Note she also says that family planing services reduce costs (other than family planning services), not that subsizing family planning services reduce the costs of said services themselves.

Having babies and the resulting burden on the health care system is EXACTLY what she was talking about. She clearly states it.

Its a stupid comment, everyone in her own party has said so publically in the most polite way possible, it is hilarious watching you guys trip over yourself to pretend otherwise.

[Ramo]

No, that was my argument.

Again, she didn't use any language about "saving us from the recession." She pointed out that increased availability of contraception among women who can't easily afford it would reduce costs to state governments. Which is important because state governments can't borrow very much, and would have to cut services and jobs to deal with such costs. It's not "stupid," it's obviously true.

[Kuciwalker]

Which she follows up immediately as qualifing that cost to the state, she never mentions individuals. How do family planning servies reduce costs to the state in any way except by helping low income people (where the program was targeted) not have babies?

How is that a bad way of reducing costs to the state?

[DinoDoc]

Who cares, Kuci? It isn't in the bill.

[Dinner]

Man, how DD has changed his tune. Once he was up in arms declaring it to be useless now he doesn't care. I'm thinking his not caring has more to do with his argument getting trashed then with it (rather stupidly) being taken out of the bill to please Republicans who made the exact same argument he made in the OP.

[DinoDoc]

Oerdin: You really are a god damned moron, you know that right? If you had ****ing read the first post you would have seen that fact that my complaint wasn't about the idiotic contention that birth control constitutes economic stimulus but rather the horrifying mix of wasteful pork and social policy that may or may not be worthwhile being shoved down the throats of the country under the guise of helping the economy. Shut the **** up and let people who might actually have an intelligent opinion speak. You are like parody of the left put foward by a conservative or libertarian comedian because I can't imagine someone so mind numbingly stupid and boring as you living for as long as you have.

[Ben Kenobi]

Anyone want to guess what Oerdin's reaction would have been in a Republican had stated that?

He would be saying that the state should get out of the bedrooms of the nation. I don't see how funding contraception applies to that notion. Clearly if you believe that you are mature enough to handle your own sex life, you don't need to be hitting others up for your contraception.

[Dinner]

BK sided with you. You lose!

DD, Kuci & Ramo both said why it is not wasteful pork and neither was that list you posted. In short you've been wrong about everything.

[Naked Gents Rut]

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November, and Democrats in Congress are certainly taking his advice to heart. The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic "stimulus," but now that Democrats have finally released the details we understand Rahm's point much better. This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.

We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.

In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make "dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy." Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities.

Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President's new budget director, told Congress a year ago, "even those [public works] that are 'on the shelf' generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html

What a piece of **** plan...

Also, increased spending on birth control is obviously Democratic pork and ineffective as an economic stimulus. Increased birth rate increases aggregate demand.

[Kuciwalker]

Out of that list the only things that seems objectionable are Amtrak and the NEA.

e.g. child care subsidies should both create jobs *and* increase the labor supply.

[Ramo]

That's a pretty retarded editorial, even by the WSJ's standards. My favorite part is this:

Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus.

Only tax cuts going to the rich could possibly be considered stimulus.

[MrFun]

I support family planning programs but I disagreed with including such funding for programs in an economic stimulus package.

[Patroklos]

DD, Kuci & Ramo both said why it is not wasteful pork and neither was that list you posted.

What list is this you are imagining I posted? Please Oerdin, you obviously can't keep your delusions staight yourself, don't expect us to do so for you.

In any case, feel free to quote me. You know that "" thing, the bane of your online existance...