The Wall Street Journal reports that lending at the big U.S. banks has declined even after these same institutions rolled up the TARP funds from the 2008 financial bailout. No worry, it seems, as the New York Times reports that bank nationalization may be the next step anyway. Market Watch says the U.S. economy was in a "free fall" in the 4th quarter, although USA Today offers a glimpse of recovery in its story, "Majority of Economists Expect a Slow Recovery This Year."
There's lots more, but the best story is the news that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the Democratic stimulus plan working through the Congress will include hundreds of millions in funding for "family planning services":
STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?Gateway Pundit says, oh, that's great, "Much like how a genocide would reduce costs."
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.
17 comments:
Contraception = genocide....
Hmm I think not.
Given the high rate of unplanned pregnancies in the U.S. this isn't a bad idea.
That is probably the most unbelievable statement I ever heard a prominent politician say. I am trying to think of any other similar incredible stupidies.
This is truly an example that a portion of our culture has hit an ethical bottom and still is digging lower. We are lost.
What is also stunning is that the MSM is trying to ignore Pelosi's statement and hoping no one will notice.
Only fools elect fools into office.
A Republican wouldn't get away with such idiotic statements.
As far as the banks are concerned, I think the "crisis" was mostly manufactured. How convenient that the banks are on their way to nationalization. I'm sure Castro and Chavez are proud.
I suspect most understand the statement as intended; NOT that fewer pregnant women & babies mean less need for money at the individual level, but that helping the states fund these things that they're already doing allows more state money to be used in other ways.
(I wasn't aware that contraception was seen as a "nihilist" evil. Abstinence and rhythm are useful, but tend to result in far more unplanned pregnancies by those who pledge to use them instead of (rather than together with) artificial methods.)
Our esteemed host wrote:
I'm looking over the papers this morning and it's literally all economics all the time.
The question is: did you find anything in any of the newspapers that indicated that any of the writers had the least bit of education in economics?
The lovely Speaker pelosi thinks it will save the government money if we can reduce the birth rate. One wonders: does Mrs Pelosi understand what happens to our economy, and specifically federal revenues and spending, if the population as a whole ages?
What would the effects on federal revenues and on economic growth in general be, in 2035, if the birth rate declined by just one percent this year?
I am willing to have my tax money go for condoms and whatever else it takes to severely curtail the birth of any more friggin liberals. Conservatives who do not wish pregnancy should use abstinence. There, you all set Nancy? You happy with that?!!
The Plan:
1) Back off and allow those men who want to marry men, marry men.
2) Allow those women who want to marry women, marry women
3) Allow those folks who want to abort their babies, to abort their babies
4) In three generations, there will be no democrats!!!
Disclaimer: for all you humorless or without a sense of sarcasm, this is a joke. It is perhaps possible, but still it's a joke.
Conservatives who do not wish pregnancy should use abstinence. There, you all set Nancy? You happy with that?!!
Maybe the question ought to be whether the married Cons here & throughout America would be happy with that suggestion.
I'm guessing the answer would be a pretty firm no, AA. In fact, I'd urge you to talk it over with your (future) wife before making any more such suggestions, because I'm willing to bet that there'd be some discord there, as well.
First off, as a conservative Christian, I have no problem with contraception that prevents the joining of the sperm and ova. Once they have joined a unique DNA pattern exits creating a unique human. To intentionally destroy that person for personal convenience is murder.
Trish: Your argument got a smile out of me.
Here is another thought....close the damn border! That HAS to save us some money.
Trish,
Impressive and well thought reply. I think your plan would hold a little more water than that of Pelosi. The "explanation" she gave was the lamest, most disingenuous argument I have heard in a long time. I think you sound just a tad more intelligent than she. Nice job.
PS. I got that it was a joke. Not bad for a stupid Republican.
I suspect most understand the statement as intended; NOT that fewer pregnant women & babies mean less need for money at the individual level, but that helping the states fund these things that they're already doing allows more state money to be used in other ways.
But isn't this exactly the problem -- the state spending money it doesn't have? Having the federal government cover their costs in any area only exacerbates the problem. What we really need is to cut back on all the spending.
But isn't this exactly the problem -- the state spending money it doesn't have? Having the federal government cover their costs in any area only exacerbates the problem. What we really need is to cut back on all the spending.
Well, that's one of the differences between the two major parties. Neither wants to spend money it doesn't have, at any level, but Dems believe they have an obligation to help those in need by funding things like low-cost health care, education, and food banks. And, with the number of those in need growing larger, and the states having less money to meet more need, this is no time to stop helping to meet those needs. It's fine to expect individuals to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, but difficult to do if one doesn't have boots.
I'm all for cutting corporate welfare. These asses buying new jets and refurnishing their offices with our tax money certainly shows one area where spending cuts can be made. If America is going to spend more than we have, (which we apparently are, regardless of which party is in control) I'd much rather we help the folks at the bottom who actually need it, rather than these greedheads on the top. That trickle down thing is just a polite euphemism for piss all over, and those of us down below would rather the yellow rain just stop altogether.
What areas we allow the government to fund, and at what levels, is one of the defining differences between the parties. And to borrow a quip from the President, the Democrats won. For now anyway, we, the people want to direct more spending to help those most in need, directly.
Liberals want the government to do it because they are too selfish and cheap to do it themselves through direct involvement with those that need help.
We are the government, Dennis.
Neither wants to spend money it doesn't have, at any level, but Dems believe they have an obligation to help those in need by funding things like low-cost health care, education, and food banks.
This seems a somewhat disingenuous characterization. I'm certainly not convinced Democrats are any more (or less) concerned about those in need than are Republicans. I believe there are a (possibly) large section of constituents on both sides of the isle that have concern for those in need. The difference seems to be what each believes to be the best mechanism of help. Now, I also believe that a (possibly) large section of those in positions of power (i.e., Congress, President) are much more concerned about power than really helping.
But the issue of actually spending less than one takes in cannot be ignored simply because times are difficult. It just means more difficult decisions need to be made. It also should be an impetus for getting rid of waste in the government.
I'd much rather have a civil discussion on the pros and cons of specific proposals.
I'm all for cutting corporate welfare.
So am I. Let's get rid of the bailout.
I didn't mean for it to be a slight, DFS. I'm sure many on the right want to help those less fortunate, too. As you say (& as I meant) the difference between the parties is in "how" rather than "whether" to help them.
With you on the idea that power corrupts, too. I think almost all of our elected officials start out with the best of intent, but that doing things to help oneself get re-elected (if not worse, and even at the expense of those good intentions) can & too often does become a competeing goal.
I've waffled back & forth on these bailouts since they were first announced. I hate the idea of 'em, but I also want to believe that they will help prevent more workers losing their jobs. Seeing the misuse at the top (& the rationalizations, like the idea that the CEO who redid his office with some of the bailout put that cash back in circulation, & helped the designer, the furnature people, the movers, the painters...) make me wish we'd either not bothered, or tied their getting the money to their achieving visable, concrete results within a specified period of time, or something. Limits that would've prevented the abuses we've seen certainly were in order.
As much as it may serve some of the folks at the top of some of these corporations right for their mismanagement and so forth, I can't help but think what just letting 'em fail would do to all the people who work for them.
My point in mentioning it was to say that government handouts are government handouts. If one is a purist, it shouldn't much matter whether we give tax money to the individuals at the bottom to help them, or individuals at the top, so that they will continue to employ the ones below & help them that way. Largesse is largesse. Top or bottom, there's fraud & abuse by some of the recipients. Top or bottom, some do legitimately benefit, too.
Post a Comment