Free birth control

[Conservative65]

Cons on here sound so dumb when they point out the obvious. Yes, obviously this program is paid for through taxes.

We know that. We're not the ones calling it free.

It's ANOTHER program where the one making the choice doesn't pay the price for the choice and someone not making it is. Typical socialist bullshit.

Ok what you're too thick to understand is, just because we call it free, it doesn't mean we are not aware it is still paid for with revenue. You think you sound intelligent when you say this but really it's just stupid to point out the obvious.

If you know it costs and still call it free, it makes you a dumbass.

Gee well it's still free to the women who use it huh?

Can't backstep now, boy. You already explained you know it isn't free.

 

[Conservative65]

So stop LYING its not free. Here's an idea keep your dick in your pants, your legs closed if you can't afford your own damn birth control. God its like being swarmed by blood sucking vampire bats having to pay for everyone's 'free' shit.

All great advice. But what do you do when the enivitable kicks you in the balls?

What do you mean by the inevitable?

Really?

It could be taken several ways. Care to explain. If you can't, that's OK.

You truly have proven yourself a deeply stupid man with that assinine comment/question of yours. It's that light at the end of the tunnel coming at ya at a 100 or more.

What you've prove is you're too stupid to answer a simple question. You were asked to explain what you meant and couldn't do it. You said it and can't explain it. Can't get dumber than that.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Leftist mantra:

My body
My choice
Other's money

 

[ogibillm]

hey if you could show me that giving out heroin would be a net gain for the community I'd be open to it

I would be for it too. At your expense.

you seem to be having a rough time with a simple concept.

the point of the op is a cheap and easy outlay now means years and years of savings.

that makes it the fiscally conservative choice.

You ignore other options. It's not an either/or. It's a neither/nor.

The fiscally conservative choice is to expect those who made the choice to pay for the choice. Anything that involves one person told to butt out of the choice being forced to pay for it when the one making it won't isn't conservative or fiscally responsible.

yep, thats the ideal, but it's not based in reality. society isn't going to start turning its back on kids and deadbeats aren't going to suddenly go the way of the do-do.

which leaves us with a choice of paying a little now or quite a lot later. which do you choose?

I choose to let them do without and so how quickly they learn. I don't have a problem with that since I don't owe anyone anything in life. If you think it's owed to them, pick up the part the government forces me to pay and prove you truly care.

so you don't want to have a reality based conversation. you want to pretend that your ideal will ever be a plausible option.

 

[Conservative65]

It definitely isn't give in. You got any kids? Lol

so you don't have the solution.

maybe until you do we can use an effective and inexpensive band-aid

That is a solution. Quit offsetting the costs of those that continue to have or have kids they can't afford. Is your solution to enable them to keep doing what they're doing by providing them with funding to make choices for which they take no personal responsibility?

while an interesting philosophical debate it's not the world we live in.

we don't turn our backs on kids that through no fault of their own were born to parents either unwilling or unable to care for them.

They have parents. It is their responsibility.

sure is. and ideally every parent would take responsibility and work hard to provide their kid with all they need.

but that's not reality. the reality is the state picks up a lot of the tab

The state doesn't pick it up. Responsible people that take care of their own kids are forced to pick it up because the irresponsible pieces of shit you enable to do so don't have to as long as another piece of shit like you allows them to continue being leeches.

 

[Conservative65]

I would be for it too. At your expense.

you seem to be having a rough time with a simple concept.

the point of the op is a cheap and easy outlay now means years and years of savings.

that makes it the fiscally conservative choice.

You ignore other options. It's not an either/or. It's a neither/nor.

The fiscally conservative choice is to expect those who made the choice to pay for the choice. Anything that involves one person told to butt out of the choice being forced to pay for it when the one making it won't isn't conservative or fiscally responsible.

yep, thats the ideal, but it's not based in reality. society isn't going to start turning its back on kids and deadbeats aren't going to suddenly go the way of the do-do.

which leaves us with a choice of paying a little now or quite a lot later. which do you choose?

I choose to let them do without and so how quickly they learn. I don't have a problem with that since I don't owe anyone anything in life. If you think it's owed to them, pick up the part the government forces me to pay and prove you truly care.

so you don't want to have a reality based conversation. you want to pretend that your ideal will ever be a plausible option.

I deal in reality. The reality is that if a person won't do for their own what they should be doing, they should do without.

 

[Billy000]

Cons on here sound so dumb when they point out the obvious. Yes, obviously this program is paid for through taxes.

We know that. We're not the ones calling it free.

It's ANOTHER program where the one making the choice doesn't pay the price for the choice and someone not making it is. Typical socialist bullshit.

Ok what you're too thick to understand is, just because we call it free, it doesn't mean we are not aware it is still paid for with revenue. You think you sound intelligent when you say this but really it's just stupid to point out the obvious.

If you know it costs and still call it free, it makes you a dumbass.

The same logic applies when you idiots say tax cuts are free.

I notice the lower income groups that actually pay income taxes didn't mind having their rates cut under Bush.

Tax cuts don't fall under that same concept. Tax cuts reduce the money the government has so it can't spend on things for which it has no authority.

Are you ******* kidding me? The amount of revenue lost to Bush's insane tax cuts is a chief reason our deficit became so high. I can't believe you people cannot wrap your minds around this concept. The less revenue the government has, the more it has to borrow.

 

[Billy000]

Cons on here sound so dumb when they point out the obvious. Yes, obviously this program is paid for through taxes.

We know that. We're not the ones calling it free.

It's ANOTHER program where the one making the choice doesn't pay the price for the choice and someone not making it is. Typical socialist bullshit.

Ok what you're too thick to understand is, just because we call it free, it doesn't mean we are not aware it is still paid for with revenue. You think you sound intelligent when you say this but really it's just stupid to point out the obvious.

If you know it costs and still call it free, it makes you a dumbass.

Gee well it's still free to the women who use it huh?

Can't backstep now, boy. You already explained you know it isn't free.

It's a shame how much you don't understand this subject.

 

[Conservative65]

We know that. We're not the ones calling it free.

It's ANOTHER program where the one making the choice doesn't pay the price for the choice and someone not making it is. Typical socialist bullshit.

Ok what you're too thick to understand is, just because we call it free, it doesn't mean we are not aware it is still paid for with revenue. You think you sound intelligent when you say this but really it's just stupid to point out the obvious.

If you know it costs and still call it free, it makes you a dumbass.

Gee well it's still free to the women who use it huh?

Can't backstep now, boy. You already explained you know it isn't free.

It's a shame how much you don't understand this subject.

I fully understand what you said. You said that just because you call it free doesn't really mean you think it's free. I bet you're the kind that looks at a skunk and calls it a cat.

 

[Conservative65]

We know that. We're not the ones calling it free.

It's ANOTHER program where the one making the choice doesn't pay the price for the choice and someone not making it is. Typical socialist bullshit.

Ok what you're too thick to understand is, just because we call it free, it doesn't mean we are not aware it is still paid for with revenue. You think you sound intelligent when you say this but really it's just stupid to point out the obvious.

If you know it costs and still call it free, it makes you a dumbass.

The same logic applies when you idiots say tax cuts are free.

I notice the lower income groups that actually pay income taxes didn't mind having their rates cut under Bush.

Tax cuts don't fall under that same concept. Tax cuts reduce the money the government has so it can't spend on things for which it has no authority.

Are you ******* kidding me? The amount of revenue lost to Bush's insane tax cuts is a chief reason our deficit became so high. I can't believe you people cannot wrap your minds around this concept. The less revenue the government has, the more it has to borrow.

That's the Liberal way of looking at things. The responsible way of doing it is not spending on things for which you shouldn't spend and don't spend more than you have. In your mind, the government shouldn't reduce wasteful spending just tax people more so they can waste more.

That government spending more than it has is why the debt is so high and why we have a deficit each year. Tell you what, if you think spending more than you have is a good idea, do it on a personal level and see how quickly you go bankrupt.

 

[pwjohn]

All great advice. But what do you do when the enivitable kicks you in the balls?

What do you mean by the inevitable?

Really?

It could be taken several ways. Care to explain. If you can't, that's OK.

You truly have proven yourself a deeply stupid man with that assinine comment/question of yours. It's that light at the end of the tunnel coming at ya at a 100 or more.

What you've prove is you're too stupid to answer a simple question. You were asked to explain what you meant and couldn't do it. You said it and can't explain it. Can't get dumber than that.

You're not making any sense at all. Wanna try that again ?

 

[Billy000]

Ok what you're too thick to understand is, just because we call it free, it doesn't mean we are not aware it is still paid for with revenue. You think you sound intelligent when you say this but really it's just stupid to point out the obvious.

If you know it costs and still call it free, it makes you a dumbass.

The same logic applies when you idiots say tax cuts are free.

I notice the lower income groups that actually pay income taxes didn't mind having their rates cut under Bush.

Tax cuts don't fall under that same concept. Tax cuts reduce the money the government has so it can't spend on things for which it has no authority.

Are you ******* kidding me? The amount of revenue lost to Bush's insane tax cuts is a chief reason our deficit became so high. I can't believe you people cannot wrap your minds around this concept. The less revenue the government has, the more it has to borrow.

That's the Liberal way of looking at things. The responsible way of doing it is not spending on things for which you shouldn't spend and don't spend more than you have. In your mind, the government shouldn't reduce wasteful spending just tax people more so they can waste more.

That government spending more than it has is why the debt is so high and why we have a deficit each year. Tell you what, if you think spending more than you have is a good idea, do it on a personal level and see how quickly you go bankrupt.

Good god dude. Yeah, the government is spending more than it has. That's because of TAX CUTS. CUTS IN REVENUE. I'm sure if I explained this to a 6 year old on the streets, he or she would understand the concept.

And im all for reducing spending waste. Our defense budget is insane. Clearly right now we don't have the revenue to pay for it.

 

[Conservative65]

What do you mean by the inevitable?

Really?

It could be taken several ways. Care to explain. If you can't, that's OK.

You truly have proven yourself a deeply stupid man with that assinine comment/question of yours. It's that light at the end of the tunnel coming at ya at a 100 or more.

What you've prove is you're too stupid to answer a simple question. You were asked to explain what you meant and couldn't do it. You said it and can't explain it. Can't get dumber than that.

You're not making any sense at all. Wanna try that again ?

That you won't explain it tells me you can't.

 

[Conservative65]

If you know it costs and still call it free, it makes you a dumbass.

The same logic applies when you idiots say tax cuts are free.

I notice the lower income groups that actually pay income taxes didn't mind having their rates cut under Bush.

Tax cuts don't fall under that same concept. Tax cuts reduce the money the government has so it can't spend on things for which it has no authority.

Are you ******* kidding me? The amount of revenue lost to Bush's insane tax cuts is a chief reason our deficit became so high. I can't believe you people cannot wrap your minds around this concept. The less revenue the government has, the more it has to borrow.

That's the Liberal way of looking at things. The responsible way of doing it is not spending on things for which you shouldn't spend and don't spend more than you have. In your mind, the government shouldn't reduce wasteful spending just tax people more so they can waste more.

That government spending more than it has is why the debt is so high and why we have a deficit each year. Tell you what, if you think spending more than you have is a good idea, do it on a personal level and see how quickly you go bankrupt.

Good god dude. Yeah, the government is spending more than it has. That's because of TAX CUTS. CUTS IN REVENUE. I'm sure if I explained this to a 6 year old on the streets, he or she would understand the concept.

And im all for reducing spending waste. Our defense budget is insane. Clearly right now we don't have the revenue to pay for it.

So the government wasn't spending more than it had before the Bush cuts?

The typical defense budget cut excuse. To support and maintain a military is a delegated power of Congress. That you don't like the amount doesn't change that. Tell you what. Stop spending on social welfare programs for which nothing is said in the Constitution. We don't have the revenue to pay for such things.

 

[Billy000]

The same logic applies when you idiots say tax cuts are free.

I notice the lower income groups that actually pay income taxes didn't mind having their rates cut under Bush.

Tax cuts don't fall under that same concept. Tax cuts reduce the money the government has so it can't spend on things for which it has no authority.

Are you ******* kidding me? The amount of revenue lost to Bush's insane tax cuts is a chief reason our deficit became so high. I can't believe you people cannot wrap your minds around this concept. The less revenue the government has, the more it has to borrow.

That's the Liberal way of looking at things. The responsible way of doing it is not spending on things for which you shouldn't spend and don't spend more than you have. In your mind, the government shouldn't reduce wasteful spending just tax people more so they can waste more.

That government spending more than it has is why the debt is so high and why we have a deficit each year. Tell you what, if you think spending more than you have is a good idea, do it on a personal level and see how quickly you go bankrupt.

Good god dude. Yeah, the government is spending more than it has. That's because of TAX CUTS. CUTS IN REVENUE. I'm sure if I explained this to a 6 year old on the streets, he or she would understand the concept.

And im all for reducing spending waste. Our defense budget is insane. Clearly right now we don't have the revenue to pay for it.

So the government wasn't spending more than it had before the Bush cuts?

The typical defense budget cut excuse. To support and maintain a military is a delegated power of Congress. That you don't like the amount doesn't change that. Tell you what. Stop spending on social welfare programs for which nothing is said in the Constitution. We don't have the revenue to pay for such things.

Yes actually. There has been no spending growth under Obama. He was spending at the same rate Bush was. Bush's tax cuts are what fucked up the debt in both administrations.

Our defense budget is more expensive than all of our allies combined. We have useless Warcraft being churned out because republicans are stupid. We have useless bases in Europe.

So your solution to the debt is to get rid of Medicaid and Medicare huh? We should just let the poor, disabled, and senior citizens just die from no healthcare huh? Brilliant.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Tell ya what...............if you don't want the taxpayers to pay for birth control, then let the health care plans that the people pay for THEMSELVES allow for birth control in their plans, no matter where the person is employed.

But on the other hand, I really think that giving someone birth control is a lot cheaper than an unwanted pregnancy that eventually becomes a ward of the state.

If you want to lower abortion rates because you don't like kids getting killed, then allow for birth control for anyone that wants it. It's cheaper to prevent them than to abort or birth them.

It would be cheaper on the taxpayer as well, because no matter how many times you holler about it, people are going to continue to have sex, protected or not.

 

[Conservative65]

I notice the lower income groups that actually pay income taxes didn't mind having their rates cut under Bush.

Tax cuts don't fall under that same concept. Tax cuts reduce the money the government has so it can't spend on things for which it has no authority.

Are you ******* kidding me? The amount of revenue lost to Bush's insane tax cuts is a chief reason our deficit became so high. I can't believe you people cannot wrap your minds around this concept. The less revenue the government has, the more it has to borrow.

That's the Liberal way of looking at things. The responsible way of doing it is not spending on things for which you shouldn't spend and don't spend more than you have. In your mind, the government shouldn't reduce wasteful spending just tax people more so they can waste more.

That government spending more than it has is why the debt is so high and why we have a deficit each year. Tell you what, if you think spending more than you have is a good idea, do it on a personal level and see how quickly you go bankrupt.

Good god dude. Yeah, the government is spending more than it has. That's because of TAX CUTS. CUTS IN REVENUE. I'm sure if I explained this to a 6 year old on the streets, he or she would understand the concept.

And im all for reducing spending waste. Our defense budget is insane. Clearly right now we don't have the revenue to pay for it.

So the government wasn't spending more than it had before the Bush cuts?

The typical defense budget cut excuse. To support and maintain a military is a delegated power of Congress. That you don't like the amount doesn't change that. Tell you what. Stop spending on social welfare programs for which nothing is said in the Constitution. We don't have the revenue to pay for such things.

Yes actually. There has been no spending growth under Obama. He was spending at the same rate Bush was. Bush's tax cuts are what fucked up the debt in both administrations.

Our defense budget is more expensive than all of our allies combined. We have useless Warcraft being churned out because republicans are stupid. We have useless bases in Europe.

So your solution to the debt is to get rid of Medicaid and Medicare huh? We should just let the poor, disabled, and senior citizens just die from no healthcare huh? Brilliant.

The debt under Obama is his, boy.

And you point about military spending is? Like I said, you argument centers around you not liking the amount. That falls under tough shit.

Medicare and Medicaid aren't the same thing. People on Medicare actually put something into the pot from which they draws. People on Medicaid don't.

If poor, etc. aren't getting what you think they need, that's on you. You think one person deserves healthcare forcibly funded by someone else. Prove to me you care by finding all the poor people you can and providing them with whatever you think they deserve. The only thing si you have to do it with your money not mine.

 

[TNHarley]

lefties are enablers and economically illiterate. At least the ones on this thread

 

[Billy000]

Are you ******* kidding me? The amount of revenue lost to Bush's insane tax cuts is a chief reason our deficit became so high. I can't believe you people cannot wrap your minds around this concept. The less revenue the government has, the more it has to borrow.

That's the Liberal way of looking at things. The responsible way of doing it is not spending on things for which you shouldn't spend and don't spend more than you have. In your mind, the government shouldn't reduce wasteful spending just tax people more so they can waste more.

That government spending more than it has is why the debt is so high and why we have a deficit each year. Tell you what, if you think spending more than you have is a good idea, do it on a personal level and see how quickly you go bankrupt.

Good god dude. Yeah, the government is spending more than it has. That's because of TAX CUTS. CUTS IN REVENUE. I'm sure if I explained this to a 6 year old on the streets, he or she would understand the concept.

And im all for reducing spending waste. Our defense budget is insane. Clearly right now we don't have the revenue to pay for it.

So the government wasn't spending more than it had before the Bush cuts?

The typical defense budget cut excuse. To support and maintain a military is a delegated power of Congress. That you don't like the amount doesn't change that. Tell you what. Stop spending on social welfare programs for which nothing is said in the Constitution. We don't have the revenue to pay for such things.

Yes actually. There has been no spending growth under Obama. He was spending at the same rate Bush was. Bush's tax cuts are what fucked up the debt in both administrations.

Our defense budget is more expensive than all of our allies combined. We have useless Warcraft being churned out because republicans are stupid. We have useless bases in Europe.

So your solution to the debt is to get rid of Medicaid and Medicare huh? We should just let the poor, disabled, and senior citizens just die from no healthcare huh? Brilliant.

The debt under Obama is his, boy.

And you point about military spending is? Like I said, you argument centers around you not liking the amount. That falls under tough shit.

Medicare and Medicaid aren't the same thing. People on Medicare actually put something into the pot from which they draws. People on Medicaid don't.

If poor, etc. aren't getting what you think they need, that's on you. You think one person deserves healthcare forcibly funded by someone else. Prove to me you care by finding all the poor people you can and providing them with whatever you think they deserve. The only thing si you have to do it with your money not mine.

We live in an economy where low wage jobs greatly outnumber higher paying jobs. That means our high poverty rate is inevitable. What else can we do but provide welfare healthcare?

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, when my wife gave birth to my 2 boys while I was in the Navy, I was an E-4 when both of them were born, and as such, didn't make much money (you'll never get rich by going into the military), and because of that I qualified for WIC.

Now, WIC is a welfare program that gives the mother vitamins, fresh fruit and veggies, healthy groceries, as well as provides for formula for the first 6 months after the child is born.

Now...................formula costed me around 10 bucks a can, and my boys went through 2 cans per day EACH. Making what an E-4 did back in the mid 80's wasn't enough money for me to buy the formula without having to get a second job, but being in the military kinda made it hard to get a civilian job, because most employers didn't want to deal with stuff like duty schedules and deployments, and commands as a general rule didn't like you to have a second job.

Was I being irresponsible for thinking that I could start a family while in the military? Was I being irresponsible for not making more money to pay for the formula all by myself?

Or..................was I being smart and taking advantage of a program designed to help people who were in the lower income bracket?

I think I was being smart, because not only did I feed my family, but I also managed to keep a roof over their heads and new clothes on their backs because of the help I received from the WIC program.