Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

An easier way to reduce Government Spending . . .

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • An easier way to reduce Government Spending . . .

    Many Conservative want smaller government. Many conservative don't want their money to pay for birth control or abortions.

    If they took the time to make a rational decision they would realize that allowing women access to birth control would lead to a reduction in government spending . . .

    Just a thought.

  • #2
    Sorry NAE, you missed the part of conservatism that also includes personal responsibility of the citizen.

    Besides, killing babies to save money? Really? How about we make abortion illegal and just start killing everybody on their 67th birthday instead. We could probably include anybody who isn't a fully functional tax paying member of society by say their 30th birthday also. Wouldn't that do a better job of reducing the budget imbalance and give us all back the money we pay into social safety net programs?
    Last edited by dcsimmons; 11-06-2013, 05:14 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Allowing women access to birth control would be allowing them to take personal responsibility. A depo shot cost $30 and is needed 4 times a year to prevent pregnancy. If a woman takes if for all 25 of her child bearing years that's, $3,000, less than 1% of the cost per child if she is not allowed access to it.

      As for your dislike of abortion, you would rather have the child suffer for 15, 20, or 30 years before they kill themselves? Unwanted children do not live happy lives. Given a choice between being aborted and being born and I can guarantee you they would have chosen to be aborted. I know because I have two cousins and one in-law whose mothers did not want them but could not persuade overly religious parents to allow them to get an abortion. All three of the attempted suicide, 2 of them were successful. We expect the remaining one to try again.

      Preventing abortions is not about expecting people to take personal responsibility. Sometimes getting an abortion is the most responsible thing a person unready to parent can do. Expecting people to have children they don't want is about gaining some form of sadistic joy by watching others suffer. When something is suffering, sometimes the most merciful thing you can do is allow death to permanently end the suffering.

      The same is true for the elderly. Sometimes the most merciful thing you can do is allow them to die. My 89 year old grandfather no long has any form of quality of life, but no one will allow him to die. Since his 80th birthday he has had: hip replacement surgery, surgery for esophageal cancer, open heart surgery, hospitalized for phenomena, and most recently a triple by-pass. He's on oxygen and a feeding tube. He is not happy; he wants to die; but the "miracle" of modern medicine just won't let him die. Imagine how much money would have been saved and how much suffering would have been avoided if he had been allowed to die of cancer years ago?

      Comment


      • qwazse
        qwazse commented
        Editing a comment
        "... child suffer for 15, 20, or 30 years before they kill themselves ..."
        The vast preponderance of childhoods (even from unwanted pregnancy) will not result in suicide at any point in the person's life.

        How 'bout a compromise? We raise 'em (single mom, adoption, foster), educate them best we can under the circumstances, and pay for one bullet. Then 20 years from now, hire you to loan them your gun so they can make an informed decision that those anti-abortionists prevented society from making for them. Let them load the chamber, aim and pull the trigger. Bet most times, you'll find yourself in their sites. (Flack jacket is on your dime, not the taxpayers.)

      • Brewmeister
        Brewmeister commented
        Editing a comment
        NeverAnIntelligentThought, You are a complete idiot when it comes to understanding the conservative philosophy.

    • #4
      I have a Masters in Public health and have worked in the field for over 30 years. Show me a woman who does not currently have "access" to birth control. Most local health departments will provide it free, or on a sliding scale based on income. Planned Parenthood will also help out. It's more a matter of willingness or sheer stupidity. My own niece recently became pregnant, unplanned and out of wedlock. Her excuse? She recently moved to another state and had not taken the time to find a new doctor that she "likes". Apparently she refuses to see a male doctor. So, she decided to have unprotected sex with her boyfriend anyway "just this once"...and this is a woman with a college degree. No amount of legislation or improved "access" will cure stupidity.

      Comment


      • #5
        Most of the money taxpayers spend is nothing more than stealing away money from private businesses. If they simply quit that process, it would solve a lot of governmental financial problems. You want water in your house, hire a well digger and put one in. Otherwise buy water from a business provider. That doesn't have to be the government. You want sewer? Put in a septic system or buy the sewer services from a company that provides it, that doesn't have to be the government. You want electricity? Oh, the only option is private businesses, I wonder why the government hasn't got their fingers in on that? TV, phone, Internet? Why does it work for some companies that the government doesn't get in and unconstitutionally compete with? Insurance? Why is the government in the insurance business? Local governments did well with education and there were plenty of private schools out there, just let the consumer pick who teaches their children and have the government get out of the way.

        There is no reason the government needs to be in 90% of the citizen's free-choice business.

        The Founding Fathers insisted on a small federal government for a reason. Today we're seeing the wisdom of their thinking.

        You are a single male? Why are you buying contraceptives and pregnancy insurance? Why should they?

        As far as food stamps are concerned, with all the crap we have to support with wasteful governmental bureaucracy, give it all to private business and it would leave a ton of money for these people to buy food.

        I'm sure there would be some creative entrepreneur out there that could come up with a food insurance program. I pay $X/month while I'm working and if I lose my job, they write a check. Kinda like car insurance, I pay $X/month while I have it and if I wreck it, they write a check. Duh!

        We don't need about 90% of the government let alone a government that is wasting our money faster than we can make it.

        Private industry needs to be efficient to make money, the government doesn't and it shows.

        Stosh

        Comment


        • #6
          NAE,
          Arguments about pain and suffering aside, you're right.

          "Old school liberalism" would dictate that society is better served by spending the half million to preserve the life from an unwanted pregnancy.
          Fiscal conservatism would argue that there would be less immediate economic burden and less intrusion on commerce if transactions between a woman and her doctor went unregulated.

          Comment


          • NeverAnEagle
            NeverAnEagle commented
            Editing a comment
            I've seen so much suffering.

            My sister-in-law was the most recent one to commit suicide and I truly believe that her mother should have been allowed to abort her.
            Tara's parents were high school sweethearts and got married right out of high school because it was the only way her grandparents would let her parents live together while in college. Tara's mother got pregnant with her the summer before she started college in the fall. Her Father gave her mother an ultimatum . . . have an abortion or he was seeking a divorce. He didn't want to have to drop out of school to support a family. The Parish Priest convinced Tara's mother not to have the abortion on the basis that her father really wouldn't go through with the divorce. He was wrong.

            Tara's father pledged at a Fraternity that September and was accepted. Tara's mother never went to college, she got a job and started to support herself. When the divorce papers came she refused to sign them and ended up paying for her husbands college education even though he didn't live with her, had nothing do with Tara and only showed up when he wanted more money. She kept paying because the Priest kept says "He's just feeling his oats; he'll settle down after he graduates."

            After he graduated he sent divorce papers again. He needed the divorce to go through because he was going to marry another woman. This time Tara's mother signed the papers. They she showed up at his wedding and handed Tara to the Bride and said, "It's your turn to raise her." Then her mother disappeared and even Tara's grandparent didn't know where she was.

            Tara's father hadn't told his new bride about Tara or that he had been married before; it came as a complete shock. Tara was repeatedly beaten by her step mother and after about a year, her father got divorced and Tara was sent to live with her grandparents. They kept her about a year, then shipped her to her mothers parents. She lived with them for about 2 years until they decided they wanted to retire and travel. Tara was shipped to her mother, who by now was living in another state; she lived with her mother and step-father for about a year before they put her on a train to go live with her father. After that she was ping-ponged between her parents every couple of months, only living with them long enough for them to save up enough money to send her back. That lasted until she was 12 years old.

            When Tara was 12 she met a stranger on the train who seemed kind and said she could live with him. When she was 15 she turned up in an Florida abortion clinic; she was working as a prostitute and had been since she was 12. The abortion clinic turned her over to child protective service, who located her parents. Neither parent, nor grandparents even realized she had been missing for 3 years because each thought the child was living with the other parent. Neither or her parents would allow her to live with them; She ended up back with her grandparents who were temporarily living at their summer home.

            Tara's grandparents wouldn't let her have an abortion either, insisting that like her mother, she had made her bed, now she needed to lie in it. When she was 16 she got emancipated and moved out. That's when she met my brother. Her grandparents sold the summer home and left the area because they didn't like living in a neighborhood where no one would talk to them because they all knew about Tara and how she was found.

            When Tara was 17 she and my brother got married. At 18, she had her second child and graduated high school. That summer Tara's father called and said he wanted to be reconciled with her and asked her to come visit. He also said that when she came she could not bring her child. She told him she was married and had two kids now and the whole family would visit. Her father said he wouldn't have her in the house if she brought any of them, so against my brother's wishes she went alone.

            Her father had a friend whose wife could not get pregnant. He had offered the man Tara as a surrogate. They got her drunk and kept her locked in a dingy apartment for 4 months until they were sure she was pregnant. When they let her out, she was told that if she went to the police she would never see her other kids again. Tara went home to my brother and together they went to the Police. Tara tried to live a normal life after that, but never managed. She and my brother divorced.

            When Tara's youngest was 4, Tara's mother came to visit. One morning she woke up and her mother and the youngest was gone. Tara's father had convinced his wife (Tara's mother) to kidnap the child for the couple that was still unable to conceive and paid her $1000 to do it. Tara attempted suicide, but wasn't successful, and ended up spending 9 months in the state's psychiatric ward.

            When the other couple heard about the suicide attempt and that she was in a mental hospital they filed to have Tara's parental rights revoked so that they could legally get custody of the child Tara had bore. Trail had to wait until Tara was discharged and even then it was a long drawn out process. Eventually, the Judge sided with the estranged couple--that child was awarded to them, my niece was awarded to my brother, her first child was awarded to the state because neither of Tara's parents or grandparents wanted the child.

            Tara committed suicide after learning of the verdict.

            There isn't one person who benefited from Tara being born. Those who truly cared for her know that she would have been far better off if she had been aborted and a lot of pain and suffering could have been avoided.

            My parents managed to be approved as foster parents to take Tara's first born--another child that nobody wants and who should have been aborted.

        • #7
          Is Viagra covered by Medicaid?

          OK, list for me the actual programs and agencies that we don't need that add up to 90% of the government.

          Comment


          • #8
            Imagine how much money we could save as a society if we simply euthanized handicapped folks, the elderly, the mentally infirm, and other unproductive members of society or groups of folks that aren't real popular with the party in power. Oh wait, that was tried once before, last century if I recall.
            Last edited by Brewmeister; 11-06-2013, 01:12 PM.

            Comment


            • jblake47
              jblake47 commented
              Editing a comment
              "Survival of the fittest...."

              Stosh

          • #9
            Originally posted by NeverAnEagle View Post
            Allowing women access to birth control would be allowing them to take personal responsibility. A depo shot cost $30 and is needed 4 times a year to prevent pregnancy. If a woman takes if for all 25 of her child bearing years that's, $3,000, less than 1% of the cost per child if she is not allowed access to it.
            Saying women don't have access to birth control is like saying they are required to have sex. Beyond the choice whether to take personal responsibility for having sex, there are plenty of options for obtaining birth control. A depo shot requires a simple prescription from a doctor. It's a personal choice driven by personal responsibility for personal actions. Any man who says no to condoms while with a woman is also a irresponsible ass for failing to take responsibility for his own decisions. The choice to have sex includes the possible outcome of becoming parents. If you don't want to be a parent, and you don't have the initiative to take precautions, keep your clothes on.

            Originally posted by NeverAnEagle View Post
            As for your dislike of abortion, you would rather have the child suffer for 15, 20, or 30 years before they kill themselves? Unwanted children do not live happy lives. Given a choice between being aborted and being born and I can guarantee you they would have chosen to be aborted. I know because I have two cousins and one in-law whose mothers did not want them but could not persuade overly religious parents to allow them to get an abortion. All three of the attempted suicide, 2 of them were successful. We expect the remaining one to try again.
            First, you can't guarantee anything about another human's choices. You might have inclinations but guarantee, nah. Next, in your example is once again a failure of personal responsibility by your cousin's mothers. If they chose to have sex and got pregnant then they had the personal responsibility to care for those children. The time for choice is before the sex act happens. Now, the real fallacy in your argument is in your suggestion that it was their poor mothering which lead to the suicide choices your cousins made. Mental health isn't that clean and easy. Doctors used to blame autism on poor mothering. They were wrong. And all of that goes out the window when one considers the option of adoption.

            Originally posted by NeverAnEagle View Post
            Preventing abortions is not about expecting people to take personal responsibility. Sometimes getting an abortion is the most responsible thing a person unready to parent can do. Expecting people to have children they don't want is about gaining some form of sadistic joy by watching others suffer. When something is suffering, sometimes the most merciful thing you can do is allow death to permanently end the suffering.
            Wrong on many accounts. The most responsible thing an unready parent can do is keep their clothes on. If you choose to have sex you acknowledge the possibility of becoming a parent. Anything else is irresponsible. Your argument also leads to discussions of infanticide, which is a fancy way to say murdering babies outside the womb. Maybe we should kill everybody diagnosed with cancer, regardless of age. Your argument would support that. Or do you just support killing children? What's the age limit? Or are people like dogs to be put down for humanitarian reasons?

            Originally posted by NeverAnEagle View Post
            The same is true for the elderly. Sometimes the most merciful thing you can do is allow them to die. My 89 year old grandfather no long has any form of quality of life, but no one will allow him to die. Since his 80th birthday he has had: hip replacement surgery, surgery for esophageal cancer, open heart surgery, hospitalized for phenomena, and most recently a triple by-pass. He's on oxygen and a feeding tube. He is not happy; he wants to die; but the "miracle" of modern medicine just won't let him die. Imagine how much money would have been saved and how much suffering would have been avoided if he had been allowed to die of cancer years ago?
            Well, wrong again. No person is forced to have any procedures that require the extension of ones life. If your grandfather has his faculties he could have said no at any time. There are legal documents to define end-of-life treatment that he could have filed with his physicians and surgeons. Is your family ignoring his requests or did he not avail himself of the available tools or did he just not take responsibility to say no?

            You see NAE, abortion is a tool of the eugenicists and statist to control populations who are unwilling to control themselves.

            Comment


            • Brewmeister
              Brewmeister commented
              Editing a comment
              Pack, it's not a matter of mere biology. Either you believe that there is something special about humanity and a God-defined definition of life worth preserving, where "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you," or you don't. It's really not a debatable point; it's a difference of belief.

              JoeBob, please see the above to realize it's not about controlling bedroom behavior. The behavior is a choice. The child--which it is a child at conception--has no choice, and its chance at life should not be denied to him/her.

              Sometimes we are faced with a choice where we must chose one life over another. Most often in the case of abortion that is not the case; abortion-on-demand it is simply a matter of convenience.

            • JoeBob
              JoeBob commented
              Editing a comment
              Hey Brew,

              "The child--which it is a child at conception--has no choice, and its chance at life should not be denied to him/her."
              I've heard that, but I remain unconvinced.
              And I actually think it's rather presumptuous of some people to assert that they know precisely when it is that God breathes a soul into a new person...

              Sperm ejaculated into fertile female; not quite a person, but it will be, baring intervention. But is that conception?
              Sperm approaches an egg; not a person yet?
              Sperm makes contact with an egg; person yet?
              Sperm begins penetration, now?
              Implantation?
              Cells begin to split?

              Tell me exactly when it's a person; and convince me that conception isn't just as arbitrary as the second trimester.

            • Brewmeister
              Brewmeister commented
              Editing a comment
              If you approach the subject of state-sanctioned murder of the unborn with an attempt to justify it, you will most certainly find a way to do so, whether through science or social engineering. Evil makes very appealing arguments.

          • #10
            Stosh, I'll try it again.

            List for me the actual programs and agencies that we don't need that add up to 90% of the government.

            Comment


            • Horizon
              Horizon commented
              Editing a comment
              Non essential got the parks closed, passport offices closed, research projects stopped, etc. Non-essential has a specific definition, and it does not mean not needed. My car is non-essential - I won't die without it. If you take it away, however, I WILL end up having issues when my groceries run out.

              If you want some help, you can start here with CATO (and even they don't cut 90%): http://www.downsizinggovernment.org

              The income tax was first passed to pay for the Civil War - so I don't know where you are getting the idea that we could join a war without taking on debt or taxing income.

            • jblake47
              jblake47 commented
              Editing a comment
              Non essential got the parks closed,

              Some states stepped in and offered to open them up, but Feds stopped them. It was a ploy to hurt the public, more of a publicity stunt. Why can't the states take care of their parks.

              passport offices closed

              There's a ton of passport businesses out there that could be contracted out to handle that.

              research projects stopped

              Private industry is doing this already.

              etc. Non-essential has a specific definition, and it does not mean not needed. My car is non-essential - I won't die without it. If you take it away, however, I WILL end up having issues when my groceries run out.

              There's food pantries out there in just about every community in the country and a lot of people scraping their after-tax income trying their best to help out.

              If you want some help, you can start here with CATO (and even they don't cut 90%): http://www.downsizinggovernment.org

              The income tax was first passed to pay for the Civil War - so I don't know where you are getting the idea that we could join a war without taking on debt or taxing income.

              I was using the 16th Amendment. Up until then it was an as needed tax, not permanent.

              Obviously the 3% tax rate of the Civil War era is a far cry from today's bloated bureaucracies perceived needs.

              Stosh
              Last edited by jblake47; 11-07-2013, 03:31 PM.

            • packsaddle
              packsaddle commented
              Editing a comment
              If you can't enumerate what constitutes the 90%, or the 50%, or the 25% (are you going to continue to invent numbers for this?), then why should anyone apply any credence to your claim? Evidently you can't even decide for yourself how much 'we' do not need. Moreover it is evident that for whatever number you produce, evidently from thin air, you can't offer any specific items and the savings they represent. Are you related to Rick Perry?

          • #11
            jblake47 commented #9.2

            Yesterday, 09:22 AM
            Editing a comment
            Goes directly to the question: "Why is the government involved in the personal choices of citizens?" We live in a free country where people can and should take responsibility for their own actions. If they make a poor choice, why as a taxpayer am I expected to pay for their consequences?

            Stosh


            Precisely my point . . . if someone gets pregnant and doesn't want the child why should I have to pay approximately $300,000 in tax money for their mistake?

            Comment


            • #12
              For those of you who are actually debating the merits of this topic: "What about Free Will?"

              If god gave you a free will, a will to make good decisions as well as bad ones, then isn't the issue of abortion a matter of free will?
              If you restrict access to abortion or access to birth control (yes there are groups out there trying to rid the world of birth control too) then aren't you attempting to take away someone's free will?

              Comment


              • Brewmeister
                Brewmeister commented
                Editing a comment
                We restrict my free will to murder you as well.

              • jblake47
                jblake47 commented
                Editing a comment
                Free Will allows people to be immoral. Civilization doesn't. Jails are full of people who don't understand civility. People who set up their own rules for civilization usually set up rules that are full of hypocrisy and agendas oriented around what individuals want even when it goes against what others see as immoral. The game has been played out since the beginning of time. One would think that after a few thousand years, humanity would have evolved into a rather just civilization. Evidence proves otherwise.

                Stosh

              • packsaddle
                packsaddle commented
                Editing a comment
                This sure provides an unexpected, new view of all those Free Will Baptist churches around here.

            • #13
              But isn't the Death Penalty also killing?
              Why is it OK to kill to kill when it's convenient to you, but not when it's convenient to someone else?

              What about assisted suicide?
              If this is OK, how come it's okay and not abortion?
              On the other hand if it's not OK, under the guise that someone should not be "playing god" then why is it OK to use medical advances to artificially prolong lives, but not OK to use medical advances to shorten them?

              What about war?
              War results in a lot of unnecessary deaths, how can you justify war when it results in death, but still claim that abortion should be prohibited?

              Comment


              • Sentinel947
                Sentinel947 commented
                Editing a comment
                "This is where the idea of personal choice comes in . . . We know ourselves better than anyone else could ever know us. After all, who would have a better understanding of the type of upbringing a child would have than it’s mother. Shouldn’t that mean that we get to choose what is best for ourselves and our offspring, even if that means choosing an abortion?"



                I couldn't support the abortion of a child for it's best interests anymore than selling a child into slavery would be in it's best interests. I guess, there are a few times where it hypothetically would be in the child and families best interests, but as a whole I don't see it that way. That's not to entirely equate abortion to slavery, moreso to make an analogy.



                "(Think of the high school Senior who is a cheer leader, prom queen, straight A student, has bulimia, and cuts. On the outside everything is fine; inside she’s a mess.) The question then becomes, would the child have chosen an abortion for themselves?"



                Maybe it's Catholicism, or it's my youthful naiveness, but I feel as if life is always worth fighting for. I feel like your scenario isn't the best one to prove your point on abortion because rather, it sounds like a suicide question. The teenager who seems to have it all and is hurting inside. If this girl in her scenario receives support from the people who care about her, my hope would be that she could improve her life.



                I'll be straight with you. I recently turned twenty years old, so more likely that not, you've got quite a bit more life experience you are drawing on then I have.



                To me it seems the differences between us is almost a case of my optimism of life versus your sympathy for people's suffering. Yes an underage mother might struggle to raise a child she was not ready to have so alleviating her suffering, and saving a child from the poor quality of life the child would have is worth the trade of the child's life. On my end, the killing of the child and the worth/unfilled potential of a child's life is worth it. My opinion my start from "Thou shalt not Kill" but it really grows out of my belief that there is goodness and value in everybody's life.



                Sentinel947
                Last edited by Sentinel947; 11-13-2013, 04:07 PM. Reason: Grammar Edit

              • NeverAnEagle
                NeverAnEagle commented
                Editing a comment
                “ I feel like your scenario isn't the best one to prove your point on abortion because rather, it sounds suicide question. The teenager who seems to have it all and is hurting inside. If this girl in her scenario receives support from the people who care about her, my hope would be that she could improve her life. “

                I guess I come from the opinion that if her parents wanted her aborted to begin with here aren't any people around who care about her.

                For a chap who recently turned 20 you are exceptionally well reasoned. I think you will go far.

              • Sentinel947
                Sentinel947 commented
                Editing a comment
                "I guess I come from the opinion that if her parents wanted her aborted to begin with here aren't any people around who care about her."

                Yea, it's pretty hard to argue against that one. Although I've seen a few parents that had no intentions of aborting, but for whatever reason, still hate their kids. Not sure what the solution is to that either.



                "For a chap who recently turned 20 you are exceptionally well reasoned. I think you will go far."

                Thank you.

                I think our discussion has somewhat reached a natural close, because I don't really have much else to say on the topic. It's been nice getting to have an extended conversation with a fairly new face here. I'm sure we'll have more discussions in the future.



                Sentinel947

            • #14
              "Many Conservative want smaller government. Many conservative don't want their money to pay for birth control or abortions. If they took the time to make a rational decision they would realize that allowing women access to birth control would lead to a reduction in government spending . . ."

              I see your point, but in reality our governments will always find ways to spend the peoples money with or without legalized abortion laws. As for me, I do not want my tax money to fund a practice that is equal to murder. Intesting to note - When a person kills a pregnant woman, he is charged with a double-homicide. When a woman chooses to kill her baby, no charges are filed. Abortion is legalized murder and if it goes unchecked, will lead to other forms of legislation that de-value human life. Just a thought.

              Comment


              • qwazse
                qwazse commented
                Editing a comment
                After a patient killed one and injured six of our colleagues, I've begun to take a more generous view.

                It would be nice if perpetrators put themselves as the first rather than last victim of their murderous scheme.

                And who's to say how many suicide completers were doing us that favor?

                It's doesn't always have to be about trying to numb the pain.

              • packsaddle
                packsaddle commented
                Editing a comment
                Qwazse, don't let this scare you but I've had the same thought.

              • qwazse
                qwazse commented
                Editing a comment
                No fear Pack. After all we are monkeys ... selectively bred by canines and felines for our unheard-of-in-nature throwing arms so that they could fend off the assaults of the stronger/faster/stealthier of their genuses.
            Working...
            X