Sunday, February 15, 2009

Hello to All That Welfare

The Democrats' stimulus bill is bringing back the welfare state. Just what many conservatives and a few liberals worried about.

Mickey Kaus:

... As Bill Clinton recognized, voters may well have been willing to let government spend, but they didn't trust old style liberals not to spend in actively destructive ways, like subsidizing an isolated underclass of non-working single mothers with a no-strings cash dole.

18 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Should we give welfare subsidies for people with Down Syndrome kids that should have aborted them instead and saved the taxpayers the burden of footing the bill for their poor decisions?

February 15, 2009 at 11:48 AM 
Anonymous e said...

Why don't we just murder other groups of people that are "inconvenient" to have around why we're at it... there Mr Anonymous?

That would really save a lot of money wouldn't it?

February 15, 2009 at 4:28 PM 
Anonymous Jonas said...

Yes because that makes great sense. Except for the fact that Sarah Palin already has taxpayer paid for healthcare. Thus there are no added taxes to any taxpayer in Alaska.

Better luck next time, it was almost a good try at demeaning someone who believes in life. Why do you need to be so hateful for her beliefs? Shouldn't you be accepting of them instead? Or was all that "change" stuff a bunch of nonsense?

February 15, 2009 at 7:42 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

e, it's not murder. Besides life beginning at birth, the drain on society of these unnecessary kids hurts the kids who are already here and need basic health care. There was an excuse years ago when they couldn't detect these defects. But, now there is no excuse to bring these kids into the world, unless the family can provide without getting tax welfare.

February 15, 2009 at 9:36 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Anonymous:

Are you suggesting that women who are going to deliver babies with down syndrome abort them? This new stimulus bill (which is not stimulating) creates a new health care bureaucracy that will ration health care for the better good. That means that older people will not get end of life care.

Is this where our nation is going?

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.cscottshields.com

February 16, 2009 at 6:09 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

We have met the face of liberal fascism and it is Anonymous.

February 16, 2009 at 8:07 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pro...
Absolutely they should abort them, unless they are rich enough to take care of them without taxpayer welfare. How about if we raise YOUR taxes to pay for these kids or just let the private sector handle it with donations?
Who says that the new health care is going to be rationed so the old don't get care? Obama said that going with electronic records would reduce costs and errors. Sounds like more people could get care if it's cheaper.

February 16, 2009 at 10:38 AM 
Blogger Franny Ward said...

Anonymous. I have worked around children with Down Syndrome as well as Autistic Children. To say that women should abort(kill)their children is plain wrong.

P.s. I am currently unemployed, and not looking for a hand out.

February 16, 2009 at 11:58 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Gil:

You are right on. I bet anonymous is Diano. Whoever it is probably will seek to end care for the elderly. Very scary stuff, but it is coming to this Country and Obama will deliver it.

If anonymous feels that way about the unborn who have birth defects can't the same argument be applied to people who feed at the government trough who contribute nothing to society. Welfare recipients by in large are a huge drain on society, as are many other groups.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.cscottshields.com

February 16, 2009 at 1:21 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

I think anonymous is taking an extreme angle just for the effect.

Electronic records is promising - but let's also remember - very open to hacking.

February 17, 2009 at 8:48 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Anon - That was really cold and uncalled for.

Gil - I dont think it was fair for you to brand Anons comment as liberal. It sounds more like something from the Nazi party. My liberal view is that we are our brothers keeper, and we should extend heart, hand and taxpayers money to these kids, and their parents.

February 17, 2009 at 2:03 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Carter - You said "I bet anonymous is Diano." That was a cheap shot. You have no proof that Diano had anything to do with that statement. I think you owe Diano an apology.

February 17, 2009 at 7:26 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, it's not uncalled for. The Republican party has lost its way. It's supposed to be about low taxes, small government, and personal responsibility. If people want to have these mentally retarded kids, then they should make sure they can afford to take care of them and not take tax dollars from my kids health and education. The Republican party completely caved to the religious anti-abortion crowd, and we are all paying the price.

February 17, 2009 at 10:40 PM 
Anonymous e said...

Life begins at conception. If this was not the case then there would be no need for an abortion because a baby would not be inside a woman. It would remain a sperm injected egg that the body would cleanse from itself. If life only began at birth then how could a baby be "still born" or what is the definition of a miscarriage? By your thinking a baby that is born premature and needs life support to live could be aborted after birth because it can not live on its own.

February 18, 2009 at 5:06 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Anon - To suggest that a parent should abort a child simply because the special needs of that child will excede their financial ability is simply wrong. Isn't the level of a society judged by the way it treats it's less fortunate? This isn't about pay backs. It's about compassion.

February 18, 2009 at 9:40 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

e, the soul doesn't enter until you draw your first breath when you are born. It's irresponsible and a sin to trap a soul in a defective mind and body, and to get taxpayers to foot the bill. It's not like we can cure them with an injection.

Bob, once these kids are born, we are stuck with them. We need to not get stuck by dealing with the problem before they are born. These kids eat up enough resources to raise 3 normal kids.

February 18, 2009 at 10:03 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

e, the soul doesn't enter until you draw your first breath when you are born.

haa haa haa - interpretation! Just like "the marajuana doesn't enter until you draw your first breath when you are ready to get toasted". Who knew religion and its basics are centered around the respitory system!

oh please please please be our old buddy making these comments! PLEASE!!!! This one's too good!

February 18, 2009 at 4:36 PM 
Anonymous e said...

Anonymous:

So if it's not up to God, or fate if you don't believe in God, to determine who lives and who dies in the womb, where do you draw the line?

In your opinion, it's OK to abort an unborn baby because it is cheaper and more convenient than raising the child.

How about old people? Can't all your same arguments be used for them?

How about career criminals? Would it be right to murder them instead of paying to house someone for a 20 year jail sentence?

How about people who have any terminal illness? Imagine the money that would be saved if you just put a bullet in their head after diagnosis.

February 19, 2009 at 12:10 AM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home