Pelosi--fewer babies, reduce costs to government
Wait! Isn't she a Catholic with five children and a bunch of grands, with illegals working in her gardens and vineyards? She had hers, heated up the globe, so now you can't? Especially the brown and the black who already have the highest percentage of the costs from Planned Parenthood and its "family planning."San Fran Nan
She's the baby gran
who brings home the bacon
and fries it in a pan.
From her lips and her face,
Nanny Gran's in a race
with mother nature, father time,
so baby girls will have no place.
"Don't procreate!
It's much too late.
I've had my turn,
Your future's with the state.
When workers we don't grow
and the economy is slow
the planet then will cool
and greenward we will flow."
Posts
4 comments:
Along with the Geithner debacle, if this is any indication of the direction this administration is taking, the good Lord have mercy on us all. A tax evader as head of the Treasure Department? A Catholic mother of five radically pro-choice? What alternate universe have we been dropped into?
Of course fewere poor babies would help the economy. We need to encourage (or force) the poor not to have children. We also need to keep up the push for that Dr. Sanger started years ago. Eugenics is not all bad... is it?
I am amazed and disgusted. Now babies are 'costs'. Where do we go from here, a one child per couple policy, forved sterilization, forced abortion. Why not just kill the poor.
If people are not afraid already now would be a good time to become afraid.
This Malthusian idea isn't hers; she got her cost figures from the Congressional Budget Office. But as a woman and a Christian, I'm horrified that one of my own is going this direction.
"The entire intellectual underpinning of President Barack Obama's spending plan rests on the belief that certain types of government spending creates a "multiplier effect" which raises national income beyond the size of government's initial spending increase. So, for example, Mark Zandi has concocted a table which purports to show that for every one dollar the government spends building "Infrastructure" GDP will grow by $1.59. There is also an entry on Zandi's table for "General Aid to State Government" which Zandi knows for an absolute fact has a 1.36 spending multiplier. So if Obama's stimulus plan bails out California's spendthrift government, and Sacramento then spends that money buying condoms for Nancy Pelosi's constituents, Mark Zandi wants us to believe that this entire transaction will increase GDP by $1.36 for every $1 in condoms Sacramento buys. Does anybody really believe this?
Again, the family planning issue is just one example of how the left is using the cover of the stimulus to advance their long-term goals of increasing the size of the federal government. The stimulus plan increases Washington's control over spending on education, spending on health care, spending on the environment, and even spending on local law enforcement. As the Washington Post editorialized this weekend: "All of those ideas may have merit, but why do they belong in an emergency measure aimed to kick-start the economy?" "
Heritage Foundation, Morning Bell, Jan 27, 2009
Post a Comment