"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."
Wait, so the way to help children in the midst of this "terrible fiscal budget crises" is to fund the people who want to help prevent their birth? Now that's change!
Even if this wasn't completly insane and we actually look at this statement on it's merits as James Taranto does...
"In the real world... while it is true that prosperity tends to be correlated with lower fertility, the latter is an effect rather than a cause. Today's unplanned pregnancy is tomorrow's consumer of baby products and next month's worker and taxpayer, so that subsidizing contraception, whatever its merits, is the opposite of an economic stimulus."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
http://vhemt.org/
ReplyDeleteOk, that's too probably too easy...
But really, how can you argue with this??? It's perfectly true. Less people = less government liabilities. QED. And if you don't get it, do your country a favor and kill yourself!!
Yes and then enough people kill themselves and the birth drops to 1.2 and you can't sustain yourself. Then the muslims come in and the country enforces sharia law. Or maybe it's the mexicans and they institute siesta law? Now that doesn't sound too bad actually.
ReplyDelete