Nancy Pelosi Defends Condoms as Aid for Economy

[Central Scrutinizer]

[Hugh_Hoy]

Pelosi shouldn't have even tried to defend it. Contraception should stand on its own. If she really feels its necessary, say so. It has nothing do with stimulus but just say she thinks its important nonetheless and that its not the first add on to a bill that has a different intention.

 

I'd rather not see it but its how Washington works.

 

 

And here we were promised "change" 5555555

 

Social engineering at it's best. One of Pelosi's relatives must own stock in some rubber company. I'm sure that pumping millons of $ into such a program would do tons to stimulate the economony...not to mention that, in my experience, condoms do the exact opposite when it comes to "stimulation".

 

Pelosi is a bigger fool that I thought.

 

BTW, that little item has thankfully been pulled from the House version.

 

HH

 

[Old Hippie]

Actually, Contraception is a good thing. Limit the number of people to fill the work force, stop draining resources etc...

 

If it were up to me, we'd tax people for having kids. Maybe require a license, like we do for dog ownership. To many irresponsible parents out their.

[Flashermac]

I had a university prof who criticised the US system of tax deductions for children. He felt a full deducation should be allowed for two children. The third would get only half a deduction, and more than that get none. He said it's not the government's business to be encouraging parents to have large families.

 

 

[Old Hippie]

If it were up to me, there would be NO deduction for any kids, home ownership etc, we'd all pay the same % on our wages. The current system is unfair and pisses me off.

[Mekong]

OH,

 

I couldn't agree more, I am not sure how it works in the States but the system is grossly unfair in the UK. I never undertood why a single man pays more tax than a married man. Then their is the council tax whereby an annual fee is payable to the local authorities based on size value of ones property to cover the cost of local services such as Police, Fire, Ambulance, Street Lighting, Schools, Refuse Collection etc etc. Why did I as a single man have to pay the same amount as the family with 3 kids who lived next door when thet are using at least 5 times more of the services than me and got bet me started on MY MONEY being used to educate other peoples kids.

 

One of the mitigating factors behind my decision to turn my back on the UK all those years ago was the percieved injustice of the system at both local and state (federal in USA) goverment levels and from what I read and hear it has only got worse in the intervening years.

 

At least in Thailand I am in control of my own budget, I choose to pay for private health care, I choose to have private pension, since I dont have any children I have no education fees to pay, my brother and sister in laws have children and do pay pay for the niece and nephew, that was thair choice. When I was married to the ex she had a son from her previous marriage who I brought up as a step-son I did pay the education fees for him but that was my decision.

 

As a percentage of my income I am paying a lot less here than I would be paying if still back in the UK and the wife and I get far better value for money for it.

[Old Hippie]

It's pretty much the same in the USA. Property taxes vary by local. But yes, a guy who makes the same as me, or in some cases, MORE, but owns a home and has kids and or a non working wife, pays less than I do in taxes.

 

Here in California, property is taxed on the selling price, and a few local taxes thrown in annually. What really pisses me off is, all the games played with that! Not to mention, a child inheriting a property keeps the parents tax rate...what bullshit! In other words, you buy a home for $30,000 years ago, pay maybe $1200 or so a year in taxes, pass it on to your kid, he still pays $1200, even though the property is now worth $1.5 million. This can go on for generations...and the state wonders why it has no money.

[Hugh_Hoy]

Nah, that ain't why the state is broke. It's a combination of legislators promoting bullshit programs like condoms and family planning, an electorate that continues to indebt the state for every "feel-good" initiative put on the ballot, and supporting a large population of wetbacks who fill out schools and prisons and hospital beds. It boils down to fiscal mismanagement by the legislators for decades.

 

HH

[..]

HH, would you rather pay $0.50 for a condom now, or $12k for a bastard kid later?

 

I don't get your objection. Seems socially & fiscally responsible to me...oh...yeah...a Dem came up with it, so you feel it must be bad, eh?

 

Cheers,

SD

[mainsail]

and got bet me started on MY MONEY being used to educate other peoples kids.

 

I completely agree Mekong. In the states there is a movement by the conservatives for "vouchers". The concept is if they want to put their kids in a private school then they should get their public school tax money back to apply to the private school fees. I have never heard discussed even one time the fact that someone with no kids (me) is paying the same tax for public schools with no use of the system whatsoever! We should get our money back too! Actually I think everyone should pay for the public school system that is how it works and there is benefit to society to educate children ect. I just don't think one group should be demanding their money back just because they have another "use" for it.