Pelosi: Free Condoms And Food Stamps Better For Economy Than Tax Cuts
STEPHANOPOULOS: We also heard from Congressman Boehner coming out of the meeting today that again a lot of that spending doesn’t even meet the same test you just talked about right now.
Boehner: We have to find a package that is the right size
STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family-planning services. How is that stimulus?
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. Food stamps, unemployment insurance, some of the initiatives you just mentioned. What the economists have told us from right to left: There is more bang for the buck, a term they use, by investing in food stamps and in unemployment insurance than in any tax cut.
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 investments.
To follow Pelosi’s reasoning, government spends a lot of money on entitlements for low-income children so obviously spending even more money on free condoms (and tax subsidized abortions, though she no doubt doesn’t want to advocate aborting low-income kids to save the government money on national television) will cause fewer children to be created which in turn will save the government money.
And that’s the “stimulus” I guess. But that supposes that money saved by the government at various levels on child health care will be passed on to the taxpayers thus making government less burdensome. Which gets back to tax relief helping the economy, doesn’t it? It’s the same premise, Pelosi is just going about it in a roundabout way.
But the thing is that the spending spree the Democrats are planning on under the guise of investing in “economic stimulus” isn’t actually going to save the government any money. You can’t save money by spending money, and even if the states do save some money the taxpayers aren’t going to see a dime of it anyway.
Meaning Pelosi’s rather tortured justifications are patently absurd.
Regardless, if we want to see fewer children born to parents who can’t afford them maybe we ought to stop subsidizing those births with health care and food stamps. Perhaps if the people having the children had to bear the full economic consequences of having them they might not be so reckless with their reproductive organs.
Who said that? Bush is to blame for the recession. Congress is to blame for the recession. That doesn’t negate my point. The recession is all Democrats now. They campaigned on fixing the problem. They asked for ownership, it is now theirs. Think of it this way, if you buy a bankrupt company and it still goes bankrupt it is your fault too.
I’m not sure how stimulative free condoms are but I agree that government spending is likely to be more stimulative than tax cuts in the present environment. If I thought that tax cuts would be spent rather than saved then I’d be less certain but there aren’t many folks looking for ways to spend money these days.
And for those who insist that government spending is counter productive by definition, I’ll throw you a bone by hoping that the stimulus is aimed at projects more likely to return a benefit in the long run…that probably excludes free condoms.
Who is going to fund SS and Medicare?
If they give out condoms how will they justify funding abortions and as far as food stamps go I thought we were an obese society?
Here I am to save the day….
OK, Little economic history.
When GWB was elected the first time, the market was in a slide. That continued until the TAX CUTS took effect and the market recovered. Therefore, according to your rules, the tanking of the market that went on for two years after Clinton ended, we should have properly called it the Clinton Recession.
Then who’s name is on the resurgence. The uptick. The boom we had up till October of 2007, up until the market was about 6000 points above where it is right now?
Can we call them the Boom Years under the Economic Leadership of GWB? Goose and Gander here.
AND what if we have an uptick in the market, say a couple thousand points in the next few months. Optimism returns.
Bush or Obama. And then if it again tanks, who owns that?
Just want to get the rules straight. It’s a lot like B Ball.
what good are tax cuts for people who don’t work?
Hell Sparkie, you do this in every thread you are in. I thought I would try it out. Sub par logic. I just said that since congress was an equal branch of the government then this recesssion is their too. I then said that since Obama was a member of congress he is to blame for the recession too. Finally I said that since he (as a congressman) and since he asked for the opportunity to fix the problem it is now his recession by reason that he helped cause it and he wants ownership for fixing it. How is that sub par? Because you want to blame Bush and only Bush? Looks like someone else is making up the rules and brandishing some tarts. Please point out were I am wrong. This will be a good one, first explain why the Democrat congress gets a pass on the recession. THEY control sending, both in amount and what programs receive funding. They also regulate the banking system. Please show me where Democrats tried to regulate Freddie May and Fannie Mac. I would love to see that. You can’t do that so I am again talking to a tree or maybe brandishing tarts and making up my own rules.
You’d think that between all the gays and abortions there’d less of these A$$HOLES than there appear to be….
Bwahaha, boob, it’s Obamas recession now. Shouldn’t be a problem for The One to solve. Isn’t that why you elected him, because he can solve problems in his sleep, leap tall buildings without breaking a sweat, etc. Krips, he has been in office for a month and you are already trying to make excuses for him. Four years down the road and you’ll still be calling this economic downturn Bushs recession.
Like b ball!!! HA (we won last night btw)
Did you enjoy the phenomenal economic uptick during the Clinton years?
Those years might have been the 1rst or 2nd longest period of economic growth our great country has ever seen.
Congress???
You two need to chat a bit. If congress is to blame…which party controlled congress at the end of Clinton’s second term which as GiA claims is responsible for the Dept. of Recessions.
If President Barack Hussein Obama is successful and somehow leads us out of the bush recession, he will get all the credit. If he fails to undo the bush recession, he will be labeled as the guy who couldn’t lead us out of the bush recession.
Still waiting for someone to tell me why this recession belongs to Bush alone.
That date is now. As a good Democrat once said, “The Buck Stops Here!”. In effect we hired him to fix the problem through “Hope and Change” taking blame or credit is the payoff. It all yours buddy! Welcome to leadership! You are now responsible for all that the economy does or does not do!
OLD PROVERB: Be careful what you wish for, you may get it!
You miss the point Bob, once again. Yes, Jeff Sessions is to blame for the recession. THEY ALL ARE! They, Congress are an equal branch. THEY ARE JUST AS RESPONSIBLE AS BUSH. They voted on the policies, they approved them and they get the blame too. Obama was in the government. Granted he didn’t do much but he was there. The military I was in (no need for scare quotes BOB I can prove it with a DD214) would blame you if you were a squad leader and then got promoted to platoon sgt of you own platoon because you were there and had a hand in the policies that caused you to fail. Guess what, as the guy’s running Congress for the past two yeard Democrats deserve as much blame for the recession as Bush. If you can’t see that nothing I say will help you.
Bob,
Obama was in office and his policies helped to bring about the recession. It is just as much his recession as it was Bush’s. Aside from that, Obama is the man. As the military told me in leadership school you are responsible for everything your unit does or does not do. FROM DAY ONE! I’ll cut him a bit of slack but it is his recession. After all, he asked us to hire him so he could fix it so he must have wanted the responsiblity.
Bad Link
Here’s the chart.
Clinton had already ruined the economy when GWB took over.
I don’t like to argue with a tree so this will be my last post.
In other words, a failure.
Yes they (the republican congress) is to blame for the Clinton resession too. You know they are an equal branch of the government that has to approve the Presidents policies too, right? Equal responsibility in the government=equal responsibility in the blame for the governments messes
Mr Bob,
Just when do we no longer have to call it the Bush Recession?
I mean, yes, we did call the recession that kicked in after Bush succeeded Clinton, the Clinton Recession. But, it wasn’t permanently called that. It was only till it didn’t make sense any more.
So FOR NOW, I’m OK with calling it the Bush recession. Kinda
When does Obama take ownership? Bush did in August. Look it up.
So, when? And if his policies fail (as they will since they are just Government Pork and Spend) when does the great depression that follows become his? IS it OK to start calling it the Obama Depression since is about to preside over the greatest downturn since the 30’s. He has defacto been calling the shots since mid November (one president at a time my foot).
All I want is a date when we are free to call it what it already really is,
The OBAMA DEPRESSION!
The conclusion of the article – about personal responsibility – I agree 100%. For decades America has had a very generous welfare safety net leeched off of by a hard core permanent underclass that feels it is constitutionally guaranteed the right to food stamps and other assistance at the expense of those of us who are suckers for working all our lives.
Cut food stamps and cut federal emergency funds to states so that states have to make tough decisions. Let people begin to feel a pinch and they’ll think before they act. They can learn to behave more responsibly with the right motivation.
This recession is mostly the rightful property of congress.
Starting with Clinton, right through Fanni Mae and Freddi Mac. The Republicans were stupid not to run a closer audit of the Democrats. So here we sit.
That cunny Pelosi deserves thorny barbed dick beasts to bone her from a-hole to eye socket in hell.
Pelosi says have abortions and wear condoms to save our economy…
Meanwhile, Japan is desperate for people to have children to save theirs…
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/26/canon.babies/index.html
Pelosi is an absolute ass with no understanding of the “real” world that most Americans live in.
Pelosi gives another confirmation that she has a loose screw and that of her party.
So, four, eight or longer it is the Bush recession?
No blame for Congress?
A recession can be called an Obama recession when a recession starts during the Obama presidency.
This bush recession will always be his recession, unless it turns into a depression and then it will be called the bush depression.
I don’t make the rules. I just educate conservative bloggers about them.
The irony here is that when the bush recession finally kicks in in full, there will be so many people out of work without health care, that a nationalized health care plan (of one kind or another) will be priority #1 on the gop agenda and will pass overwhelmingly.
Hey Bob, what about that wonderful economic performance under Carter!
Don’t forget to mention that. I guess you don’t like it cause he had a majority in house and senate, so its hard to come up with a scapegoat for his idiocy.
Clinton is a bit trickery to solo out because he shared power with the Republicans. And much of that fiscal policy was set by the Republicans, not by him.
I might actually agree with RBB on this one, but you’re just applying the same logic to Obama that he did to every Republican presidency.
What’s good for the goose…
Nutters sputter gleefully that bush inherited a Clinton recession even though the recession started 2 months after bush took office.
The bush recession started a year ago. President Obama inherited a bush recession and Gawd forbid bush screwed things up so badly that we sink into a depression.
We are fortunate that he is out of office.
After 180 days, you say?
Oh this won’t sit well with The 108.
GiA, Jeff Sessions was in office and his policies helped to bring about the recession. Is it just as much his recession as it is bush’s.
Did “the military” tell you that you were responsible for everything your unit did or did not do before day one?
Nah… after 180 days, it’s Obama’s recession….
“The Buck Stops Here.”
With a face like that, who needs a condom??
This gets my vote for the cover of “President Hussein Obamas’ Official Guide to Marriage and Family in the United States”
Uh Oh!! here come the charts…LOL!!
Greg in Alabama.
Your logic is… sub par. We are to believe that because the Dems won the election, the recession is now ‘theirs’ in any rhetorical manner you tarts can brandish? Heh. Are you making all the rules in this thread? Man its easy to sound bright when you make up bullshit rules to ply your bullshit logic. Try again, friend.