You did notice that I squashed that whole stance a few pages ago. :roll:
No, the Republicans insist able people get off their ass and find a job within two years, or be thrown off welfare.
Democrats want to pay them welfare to their grave and fuel the problem by rewarding laziness.
That's one of many reasons why Republicans usually don't have to raise taxes, and the Democrats do.
Do you know how much even a single day on life support costs?
Who will absorb this expense, if not taxpayers?
Do you know how much even a single day on life support costs?
Who will absorb this expense, if not taxpayers?
:doh Geez you libreral monkeys...A flat tax or fair tax and reallocating could solve the problem. But, it's true that getting consensus would be hard--so...like so many liberals, the easy way is the way to go.:roll: Don't give people a "choice" (how ironic!) and TAKE MORE.
Neither the flat tax nor the so-called fair-tax would provide more revenues, both are at best revenue neutral and more likely would result in decreased revenues. Neither "solves the problem".
Here you are complaining about taxes necessary to pay for programs for unwanted babies. You want to bring unwanted babies into the world but not the taxes necessary to provide care for them.
It's the typical conservative position.
Increased taxes:doh
Increased taxes:doh
Borrow money and devalue the dollar. :doh
Increased taxes:doh
In the case of abortion, the woman was not going in to give birth. She was going in to have a procedure done upon herself to remove an unwanted pregnancy (as so many on the pro-choice side will attest to). Therefore, she has no social or legal right to anything concerning the live born individual that may result--any right she had to the welfare of a resulting child is forfeited by her (failed) abortion. The child becomes a ward of the hospital and they are responsible at that time.
As the pro-abortion choicers love to say, "biology is irrelevant." :roll: There may be a biological parentage, but if THAT'S the case, they are abusive parents (trying to kill their offspring) and their rights are removed. Signing the medical release for an abortion effectively signs away all parental rights.
B.O.R.N. A.L.I.V.E. What is unclear here?
Increased taxes:doh
So money is more important to you than these abortion-surviving fetuses?
For shame.
Can you show me a link to the law the covers this? I'd be interested to see it.
Oh, and it still wouldn't change my mind that Obama was signing off on infanticide, but it would be a very interesting piece of information.
What parental rights? What parenting? There is no kid.
Do you happen to have any links to a fetus surviving an abortion?
Credible links, I mean. Reverend Billy Bob's Outreach.com won't cut it.
So money is more important to you than these abortion-surviving fetuses?
For shame.
No one said anything at all about "borrowing" anything except you.:dohNo, we borrow the money to pay for it and when they turn 18 it will be their generation's problem.
No one said anything at all about "borrowing" anything except you.:doh
This is ridiculous.
1st--as people like to note, there are not that many that survive the abortion attempted upon them--most end up dead.
2nd--to address the issue of babies that are abandoned as a result of stricter abortion regulation, there ARE ways to figure out funding. Simply raising taxes isn't appropriate--the tax system is screwed up and inefficient as it is. I suggest thinking outside the box and reallocating tax monies.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Obama on the Born-Alive Act [Yuval Levin]
The clip mentioned below is pretty striking. If they’re going to argue this, the Obama folks will need to offer some facts and documents, because as it stands now the only way I can read the evidence uncovered by the National Right to Life Committee compared to the assertion made by Obama in that interview is that Obama is not telling the truth. He had a chance to vote on a bill that dealt with the larger Roe v. Wade issue in exactly—verbatim—the same way as the federal bill (which Obama now claims he would have supported), and he voted against it in committee and killed it. The NRLC’s evidence seems pretty clear. If Obama wants to argue it’s “a lie,” he’ll need to prove it.
The Corner on National Review Online
WARREN: That was a freebie. That was a gimme. That was a gimme, OK? Now, let’s deal with abortion; 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. As a pastor, I have to deal with this all of the time, all of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. Forty million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?
OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.
WARREN: Have you –
OBAMA: But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion, because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And so I think anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue, I think, is not paying attention. So that would be point number one.
OBAMA: But point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade, and I come to that conclusion not because I’m pro-abortion, but because, ultimately, I don’t think women make these decisions casually. I think they — they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors or their family members.
OBAMA:And so, for me, the goal right now should be — and this is where I think we can find common ground. And by the way, I’ve now inserted this into the Democratic party platform, is how do we reduce the number of abortions? The fact is that although we have had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down and that is something we have to address.
WARREN: Have you ever voted to limit or reduce abortions?
OBAMA: I am in favor, for example, of limits on late-term abortions, if there is an exception for the mother’s health. From the perspective of those who are pro-life, I think they would consider that inadequate, and I respect their views. One of the things that I’ve always said is that on this particular issue, if you believe that life begins at conception, then — and you are consistent in that belief, then I can’t argue with you on that, because that is a core issue of faith for you.
OBAMA: What I can do is say, are there ways that we can work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, so that we actually are reducing the sense that women are seeking out abortions. And as an example of that, one of the things that I’ve talked about is how do we provide the resources that allow women to make the choice to keep a child. You know, have we given them the health care that they need? Have we given them the support services that they need? Have we given them the options of adoption that are necessary? That can make a genuine difference.
WARREN: There’s a lot more I’d like to ask on that. We have 15 other questions here. [/SIZE]
Full Transcript: Saddleback Presidential Forum, Sen. Barack Obama, John McCain; Moderated by Rick Warren : Clips & Comment
"Have we given them?" "Have we given them?" "Have we given them?" This attitude is that the government knows what's best for us and is the Big Daddy. The nanny state. Haven't we learned the hazards of creating and expanding entitlement programs? :doh
Here's thinking outside the box for you -- don't force people to have babies they don't want and then there is no issue about raising taxes to pay for it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?