US moves further and further to a GOP Nanny State

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

I live in Missouri...

SOOOOOO tempting.... must resist...... MUST REEESIISSST!

OMG! Please, please, by all means, let it all out! Let this forum serve as an enema for your frustrations!

 

[GTKeeper]

I think Train is missing the point.

It is A LOT cheaper to pay for BC for low income families than to later pay for welfare when they do get pregnant on accident.

I see your point of chosing not to pay for BC with tax dollars, but at the same time it is the responsibility of the government to use our tax dollars in the most efficient manner possible. I believe this bill will curb short term spending, but increase long term spending based on the effects.

If you look at Africa for example, where a record number of people live in poverty, they have more babies every year than almost anywhere else. The difference between Africa and the U.S is that for every child that is born into welfare I HAVE TO pay for it out of my taxes, whereas in Africa there is no such funding like welfare.

At the same time people who do not want to have kids (people on BC) probably don't want them for a good reason. I don't want people like that having kids in the first place (by accident) because:
a) I have to pay for it
b) the kid will probably have a crappy life

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Forced sterilization for people making less than $40k per year.

That would be taxpayer paid birth control. Isn't that the liberal mantra?

I'm liberal. I'd rather pay for birth control pills at $240 a year ($20 a month), than pay $12000 a year for 18 years (conservative estimate) for one kid being born as a result of not paying for said birth control pills.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Forced sterilization for people making less than $40k per year.

That would be taxpayer paid birth control. Isn't that the liberal mantra?

I'm liberal. I'd rather pay for birth control pills at $240 a year ($20 a month), than pay $12000 a year for 18 years (conservative estimate) for one kid being born as a result of not paying for said birth control pills.

Aye, I don't get why it's so hard to understand. These people will be having sex regardless, so why not get them birth control so we don't have to support their kids?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Forced sterilization for people making less than $40k per year.

That would be taxpayer paid birth control. Isn't that the liberal mantra?

No actually, contrary to conservative BS, the Liberal mantra is about choice; it's the conservative one that likes to take choice away, or make essentialy social choices income-dependent by throwing walls up around them.

 

[dahunan]

The Bible doesn't condone birth control pills and neither do catholics..

This is Christian regulation.. not Fiscal Policy

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
I think Train is missing the point.

It is A LOT cheaper to pay for BC for low income families than to later pay for welfare when they do get pregnant on accident.

We shouldnt be paying for either, in cae you missed the last 5 decades, they show us that welfare only INCREASES the amount dependent on it

I see your point of chosing not to pay for BC with tax dollars, but at the same time it is the responsibility of the government to use our tax dollars in the most efficient manner possible. I believe this bill will curb short term spending, but increase long term spending based on the effects.

If you look at Africa for example, where a record number of people live in poverty, they have more babies every year than almost anywhere else. The difference between Africa and the U.S is that for every child that is born into welfare I HAVE TO pay for it out of my taxes, whereas in Africa there is no such funding like welfare.

Yet we send billions in Aid to Africa every year.

At the same time people who do not want to have kids (people on BC) probably don't want them for a good reason. I don't want people like that having kids in the first place (by accident) because:
a) I have to pay for it

no, you dont (or at least you shouldn't)

b) the kid will probably have a crappy life

Builds character.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Train
Yet we send billions in Aid to Africa every year.

Any halfway intelligent person will tell you that foreign aid as currently practiced, especially the 'development' aid/loans under the watchful eye of the IMF, is a complete waste and makes people worse off, not better. The best foreign aid would be to end destructive domestic agricultural subsidies all over the western world.

no, you dont (or at least you shouldn't)

But you do.

Builds character.

Not true at all; and given the average conservative attitude towards the poor, they know this.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Train
Yet we send billions in Aid to Africa every year.

Any halfway intelligent person will tell you that foreign aid as currently practiced, especially the 'development' aid/loans under the watchful eye of the IMF, is a complete waste and makes people worse off, not better. The best foreign aid would be to end destructive domestic agricultural subsidies all over the western world.

uhh, ya thats exactly my point

no, you dont (or at least you shouldn't)

But you do.

Unfortunately

Builds character.

Not true at all

Based on what? I could point to dozens of very successful people that grew up in the harshest of conditions. Look at how many immigrants come to this country from impoverished places, and become highly successful, yet those who grew up here on welfare, just stay on welfare.

and given the average conservative attitude towards the poor, they know this.

The attitude that people should work instead of live off of others money? Ya damn that crazy attitude.

 

[theeedude]

LOL, who relies on state funding for birth control to begin with? That's right, welfare moms. So what they've effectively done is take welfare moms off contraception.
I hope Missouri taxpayers have vaseline ready for the aftermath in the not too distant future. 😀 It's only fair they pay for the stupidity of the politicians they themselves elected 🙂

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: senseamp
LOL, who relies on state funding for birth control to begin with? That's right, welfare moms. So what they've effectively done is take welfare moms off contraception.
I hope Missouri taxpayers have vaseline ready for the aftermath in the not too distant future. 😀 It's only fair they pay for the stupidity of the politicians they themselves elected 🙂

There are many people on Medicaid or state version of medicaid that are not welfare moms. You see, minimum wage and jobs paying just barely above minimum wage (like most part-time jobs) also offer no benefits. These people (more and more single parents, esp. single women) have no health insurance and are eligible for Medicaid programs.

But, go ahead and stick with the ridiculous stereotyping.

 

[Kerouactivist]

The fundies are at it again in Missouri first praise jesus bill....
now this......
I think spending tax dollars on birth control for people who can't afford it is an efficient way of spending our money because it will cost the state more later....

also "prohibit state-funded programs from referring those women to other programs."
that part has religous fundie written all over it.....

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Condor
The lighting here in P&N is awfully dim with only the liberals turned on!

FFS go away already. Don't you have a diaper to fill?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: senseamp
LOL, who relies on state funding for birth control to begin with? That's right, welfare moms. So what they've effectively done is take welfare moms off contraception.
I hope Missouri taxpayers have vaseline ready for the aftermath in the not too distant future. 😀 It's only fair they pay for the stupidity of the politicians they themselves elected 🙂

There are many people on Medicaid or state version of medicaid that are not welfare moms. You see, minimum wage and jobs paying just barely above minimum wage (like most part-time jobs) also offer no benefits. These people (more and more single parents, esp. single women) have no health insurance and are eligible for Medicaid programs.

But, go ahead and stick with the ridiculous stereotyping.

Regardless if you call them welfare moms or not, the point is they rely on public assistance now, even without the additional child. So if they can't spare money for health insurance now, I think it's safe to say they don't have money to spare to raise another kid, so they will rely on more government assistance.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Train
Since when does freedom require other people to pay for something they dont agree with? IMO this is similar to those who complain when churches get perks from the govt.

the govt paying for peoples BC pills is more of a nanny state than not paying for them.

They arent banning BC pills, they just arent using tax dollars to pay for them. The girls still has the freedom to take them all she wants. Just not using tax dollars.

I'd rather pay for a few condoms than for another mother on welfare. The absolute truth is you're not about to stop sex.

Not so altruistic after all, are you? 😉

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp
LOL, who relies on state funding for birth control to begin with? That's right, welfare moms. So what they've effectively done is take welfare moms off contraception.
I hope Missouri taxpayers have vaseline ready for the aftermath in the not too distant future. 😀 It's only fair they pay for the stupidity of the politicians they themselves elected 🙂

End welfare. Problem solved.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: senseamp
LOL, who relies on state funding for birth control to begin with? That's right, welfare moms. So what they've effectively done is take welfare moms off contraception.
I hope Missouri taxpayers have vaseline ready for the aftermath in the not too distant future. 😀 It's only fair they pay for the stupidity of the politicians they themselves elected 🙂

There are many people on Medicaid or state version of medicaid that are not welfare moms. You see, minimum wage and jobs paying just barely above minimum wage (like most part-time jobs) also offer no benefits. These people (more and more single parents, esp. single women) have no health insurance and are eligible for Medicaid programs.

But, go ahead and stick with the ridiculous stereotyping.

Regardless if you call them welfare moms or not, the point is they rely on public assistance now, even without the additional child. So if they can't spare money for health insurance now, I think it's safe to say they don't have money to spare to raise another kid, so they will rely on more government assistance.

Hey...my bad...I read your post wrong and made the wrong assumption on your stance.

😱


But, do understand there are many people that are NOT welfare moms that rely upon Medicaid.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: bthorny
The fundies are at it again in Missouri first praise jesus bill....
now this......
I think spending tax dollars on birth control for people who can't afford it is an efficient way of spending our money because it will cost the state more later....

also "prohibit state-funded programs from referring those women to other programs."
that part has religous fundie written all over it.....

Don't you find it the least bit ironic that the people fighting that issue the most are also religious? Does that even register?

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: conjur
And it just keeps getting better:


Missouri to BAN providing birth control to low-income women
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/14109047.htm

JEFFERSON CITY ? The Missouri House voted Wednesday to ban state funding of contraceptives for low-income women and to prohibit state-funded programs from referring those women to other programs.

Critics jumped on the proposal, saying it would lead to more abortions and more unwanted children on welfare.

But the proposal?s sponsor, Republican Rep. Susan Phillips of Kansas City, said contraceptive services were an inappropriate use of tax dollars. ?If doctors want to give contraception privately or personally, they can,? Phillips said. ?But we don?t need to pay for contraception with taxpayer funds.?

The change was the most controversial amendment adopted during the second day of debate on next year?s state budget. The Republican majority also turned back several efforts to boost funding for health-care programs by trimming farm and agribusiness subsidies.

Phillips? amendment did not save the state money. Instead, it imposed restrictions on how state agencies could spend $9.23 million earmarked for public-health programs, mainly for people who are poor but make too much money to qualify for Medicaid.

The Budget Committee had approved expenditures on screenings for breast and cervical cancer, sexually transmitted diseases, infertility treatments and contraception.

Phillips? amendment eliminated infertility treatments and contraception, and substituted alternatives to abortion and prenatal care for the purpose of giving birth. It also prohibited spending on any treatment and referrals for any treatment not spelled out in the budget.

Rep. Bob Johnson, a Lee?s Summit Republican, offered an amendment that deleted infertility treatments, but reinstated contraceptives. Most of the money, he said, would go to county health departments serving women with no alternatives to obtain health care. ?If we don?t allow for contraception for low-income women, we will have more unplanned pregnancies and more pregnancies ended by abortion,? Johnson said. ?No one here wants more abortions.?

He drew support from Rep. Rob Schaaf, a St. Joseph Republican and a family doctor. Schaaf said contraceptives were a basic part of medical care and should be covered.

Johnson?s proposal was defeated 100-53, with nearly all Republicans and a handful of Democrats voting against the change.

The House then took up Phillips? amendment. Rep. Melba Curls, a Kansas City Democrat, asked how Republicans could vote to block access to contraceptives after last year?s dramatic cuts in Medicaid and other social services. ?Not all the low-income women who will get pregnant will have abortions,? Curls said. ?If you have the baby, you?re still low-income. And if you?re poor and you have a baby, who takes care of the baby? The state of Missouri. You?re setting up poor women once more not to have services.?

Rep. Kate Meiners, a Kansas City Democrat and an abortion opponent, said Phillips intended her amendment to be a statement against abortion. But Meiners said she feared it would have the opposite effect by creating more unplanned pregnancies.

But Phillips said she was comfortable with the change because the group Missouri Right to Life and the Missouri Catholic Conference supported it.

The House held a voice vote and the amendment appeared to fail. But supporters quickly called for a roll call to put each lawmaker on record supporting or opposing Missouri Right to Life. The amendment was approved 96-59.

The contraceptive services banned were an effort to jump-start a family-planning program that had been cut in 2003 because of the state?s severe budget crunch.

Rep. Rachel Storch, a St. Louis Democrat, pointed to a study that found the teenage birth rate in Missouri dropped 32 percent from 1991 to 2002. The drop was attributed to wider availability of contraceptives.

What's the point of freedom anymore? I mean, honestly, if the Republican Party wants to control peoples' lives so much, let's just give in to the nanny state. Let the GOP determine what people can do, when they can do it, how they can do it, and who they can do it with. Life will be....UTOPIA!

Freedom means that the taxpayer has to pay for birth control? No wonder you libs want more taxation. The Chinese pay for birth control at thye government level. Are you saying that we should do like that?

:thumbsup:

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp
LOL, who relies on state funding for birth control to begin with? That's right, welfare moms. So what they've effectively done is take welfare moms off contraception.
I hope Missouri taxpayers have vaseline ready for the aftermath in the not too distant future. 😀 It's only fair they pay for the stupidity of the politicians they themselves elected 🙂

End welfare. Problem solved.

You'd love that, wouldn't you?


What do you propose for a replacement?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp
LOL, who relies on state funding for birth control to begin with? That's right, welfare moms. So what they've effectively done is take welfare moms off contraception.
I hope Missouri taxpayers have vaseline ready for the aftermath in the not too distant future. 😀 It's only fair they pay for the stupidity of the politicians they themselves elected 🙂

End welfare. Problem solved.

You'd love that, wouldn't you?


What do you propose for a replacement?

Private charities, who did a better job before welfare than welfare does now.

edit: I think it's pretty well established that your love of government programs has everything to with your spite of people and your love of force and nothing at all to do with any altruistic desire to help the poor.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp
LOL, who relies on state funding for birth control to begin with? That's right, welfare moms. So what they've effectively done is take welfare moms off contraception.
I hope Missouri taxpayers have vaseline ready for the aftermath in the not too distant future. 😀 It's only fair they pay for the stupidity of the politicians they themselves elected 🙂

End welfare. Problem solved.

You'd love that, wouldn't you?


What do you propose for a replacement?

Private charities, who did a better job before welfare than welfare does now.

Yeah, I'd want to rely on a church if I ever lost my job. :roll:

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: senseamp
LOL, who relies on state funding for birth control to begin with? That's right, welfare moms. So what they've effectively done is take welfare moms off contraception.
I hope Missouri taxpayers have vaseline ready for the aftermath in the not too distant future. 😀 It's only fair they pay for the stupidity of the politicians they themselves elected 🙂

There are many people on Medicaid or state version of medicaid that are not welfare moms. You see, minimum wage and jobs paying just barely above minimum wage (like most part-time jobs) also offer no benefits. These people (more and more single parents, esp. single women) have no health insurance and are eligible for Medicaid programs.

But, go ahead and stick with the ridiculous stereotyping.

Regardless if you call them welfare moms or not, the point is they rely on public assistance now, even without the additional child. So if they can't spare money for health insurance now, I think it's safe to say they don't have money to spare to raise another kid, so they will rely on more government assistance.

Hey...my bad...I read your post wrong and made the wrong assumption on your stance.

😱


But, do understand there are many people that are NOT welfare moms that rely upon Medicaid.

Yeah, they're called Wal-mart employees!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp
LOL, who relies on state funding for birth control to begin with? That's right, welfare moms. So what they've effectively done is take welfare moms off contraception.
I hope Missouri taxpayers have vaseline ready for the aftermath in the not too distant future. 😀 It's only fair they pay for the stupidity of the politicians they themselves elected 🙂

End welfare. Problem solved.

You'd love that, wouldn't you?


What do you propose for a replacement?

Private charities, who did a better job before welfare than welfare does now.

Yeah, I'd want to rely on a church if I ever lost my job. :roll:

Goodwill is a church? United Way is a church? Masons are a church? Rotary clubs are churches? Lions clubs are churches? Kiwanis is a church? Red Cross is a church?

I could go on and on here... :roll::roll:

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp
LOL, who relies on state funding for birth control to begin with? That's right, welfare moms. So what they've effectively done is take welfare moms off contraception.
I hope Missouri taxpayers have vaseline ready for the aftermath in the not too distant future. 😀 It's only fair they pay for the stupidity of the politicians they themselves elected 🙂

End welfare. Problem solved.

You'd love that, wouldn't you?


What do you propose for a replacement?

Private charities, who did a better job before welfare than welfare does now.

You mean those private charities being fed billions of taxpayer dollars thru the faith-based charities subsidization program?

edit: I think it's pretty well established that your love of government programs has everything to with your spite of people and your love of force and nothing at all to do with any altruistic desire to help the poor.

I highlighted the problem behind that nonsensical, baseless spewing.