Spinoff thread: Why free birth control and not other necessities

[kevinsmith]

Forgive the spinoff, I wanted to focus solely on this bit of the sexism thread discussion, AND....
the fucking virus warning shit is happening again and that thread barely works for me.


SO...a few members in there have said they would like to see free birth control for all. Why is that? Why not food? I mean, that's a necessity, certainly more so than condoms. Why should we have to pay for it? Shouldn't it just be provided?

Personally, I don't see how any of those things can really be free. First off, there are costs to creating these things. If it's free, how do you cover those costs? The government can pay for them, but that's not going to really be free either, since they get their money from somewhere being us. So instead of going out and buying a rubber, or an artichoke in my example, you pay taxes and in turn get the rubber/artichoke. Technically not free.

[BigMattTheHobo]

First, we do give free food to those who need it. Nobody should go hungry in America and I would gladly pay more in taxes to ensure that's the case.

Second, birth control is a completely different issue. We're talking about preventing unwanted life from coming into the world and racking up expenses (medical care, school, possible criminal justice system shit, etc). Food is a necessity to live. So yeah, food should be a higher priority than giving out BC, but fortunately we live in the best country on Earth that's capable of tackling multiple social issues at once.


And nobody is saying BC is free. We're (I am, at least) saying BC should be provided for free with the cost picked up by taxpayers in general. Because taxpayers in general will inevitably have to pick up the medical and school costs associated with a child being born into what is most likely a poor family with no insurance.

[chalupa]

First, we do give free food to those who need it. Nobody should go hungry in America and I would gladly pay more in taxes to ensure that's the case.

Second, birth control is a completely different issue. We're talking about preventing unwanted life from coming into the world and racking up expenses (medical care, school, possible criminal justice system shit, etc). Food is a necessity to live. So yeah, food should be a higher priority than giving out BC, but fortunately we live in the best country on Earth that's capable of tackling multiple social issues at once.


And nobody is saying BC is free. We're (I am, at least) saying BC should be provided for free with the cost picked up by taxpayers in general. Because taxpayers in general will inevitably have to pick up the medical and school costs associated with a child being born into what is most likely a poor family with no insurance.

The Hobo is basically making the argument I have been in those threads...since we are already paying, why not put the money where it would be the most effective?

I'm against paying at all, but since I go to jail if I don't pay taxes...let's minimize what I have to pay.

[kevinsmith]

First, we do give free food to those who need it. Nobody should go hungry in America and I would gladly pay more in taxes to ensure that's the case.

But not to everyone, and you're essentially saying (if I read it right) make it free for everyone.

Second, birth control is a completely different issue. We're talking about preventing unwanted life from coming into the world and racking up expenses (medical care, school, possible criminal justice system shit, etc). Food is a necessity to live. So yeah, food should be a higher priority than giving out BC, but fortunately we live in the best country on Earth that's capable of tackling multiple social issues at once.

Um...are you saying that after we accomplish free birth control for all, then we should move on to free food? I can't imagine you'd be gong that far...

And nobody is saying BC is free. We're (I am, at least) saying BC should be provided for free with the cost picked up by taxpayers in general. Because taxpayers in general will inevitably have to pick up the medical and school costs associated with a child being born into what is most likely a poor family with no insurance.

But it's not free, we're all paying taxes, so to fund that program they'll either have to raise more money, which would just come from us, or they'll cut something else. Granted cuts need to happen, but they never seem to happen from the right places.

The Hobo is basically making the argument I have been in those threads...since we are already paying, why not put the money where it would be the most effective?

I'm against paying at all, but since I go to jail if I don't pay taxes...let's minimize what I have to pay.

See what I said above.

I still maintain that if government stopped meddling in shit that it didn't need to and stopped wasting money, we'd all have more money in our pockets. Maybe so much money there'd be no room for a condom.

I'm a little concerned about the sense of entitlement people seem to have now days. There seems to be more and more people expect to be provided to them "free" of charge. That kind of mentality does not bode well. I'm reminded of something I've seen going around on the Internet lately. I first saw it locally since we live about three feet from a national park, but it's spread further.

‘Isn’t it ironic that the food stamp program, part of the Department of Agriculture, is pleased to be distributing the greatest amount of food stamps ever. Meanwhile, the Park Service, also part of the Department of Agriculture, asks us to please not feed the animals, because the animals may grow dependent and not learn to take care of themselves.”

I'm not saying get rid of those programs by any means...a safety net is necessary for those who fall upon hard times. But we've also seen the stories about generations on assistance, and for them that's just fine. Why expend effort when we have what we need provided for us. On a smaller scale, we've seen that principle in the work place. There's always someone who skates by on the minimum to get the same paycheck as the guy who busts ass.

We want more and more handed to us, and it just worries me.

[BigMattTheHobo]

But not to everyone, and you're essentially saying (if I read it right) make it free for everyone.

Food should only be free to those who can't pay for it and are unable to work for it. I have a problem with Laqueesha the block's ghetto queen collecting welfare when she's perfectly able to work on her own. But I also don't want her children to suffer because their mom is a fuck up.

I know what it's like to be hungry (inb4 LOL you're fat jokes) and I was eternally grateful for the help my mother used to receive to feed us. She made some shitty decisions leading to needing welfare, but I'm happy I didn't have to pay for those mistakes more than I already have.

Um...are you saying that after we accomplish free birth control for all, then we should move on to free food? I can't imagine you'd be gong that far...

Free birth control for all; free food to those who can't work for it

But it's not free, we're all paying taxes, so to fund that program they'll either have to raise more money, which would just come from us, or they'll cut something else. Granted cuts need to happen, but they never seem to happen from the right places.

Which is why I've said (probably in a diff thread; can't recall) that I'd gladly pay more taxes to ensure birth control is available to all. But that's just me. I don't make much money, but I'd be willing to pay a little more.

I'm a little concerned about the sense of entitlement people seem to have now days. There seems to be more and more people expect to be provided to them "free" of charge. That kind of mentality does not bode well. I'm reminded of something I've seen going around on the Internet lately. I first saw it locally since we live about three feet from a national park, but it's spread further.

I'd agree the attitude of entitlement is scary, but let's not let children suffer (or let those children be born in the first place), because of ideological objections. Let's be pragmatic.

‘Isn’t it ironic that the food stamp program, part of the Department of Agriculture, is pleased to be distributing the greatest amount of food stamps ever. Meanwhile, the Park Service, also part of the Department of Agriculture, asks us to please not feed the animals, because the animals may grow dependent and not learn to take care of themselves.”

Comparing humans to wild animals isn't a good approach. Those wild animals have done nothing to tarnish their species.

I'm not saying get rid of those programs by any means...a safety net is necessary for those who fall upon hard times. But we've also seen the stories about generations on assistance, and for them that's just fine. Why expend effort when we have what we need provided for us. On a smaller scale, we've seen that principle in the work place. There's always someone who skates by on the minimum to get the same paycheck as the guy who busts ass.

There's always room for more accountability and reform.

We want more and more handed to us, and it just worries me.

Some people want that. I just want there to be less poor, unwanted babies and less hungry people.

[chalupa]

spoongod, I bet you remember what the country was like before welfare, and how it was better than. Sometimes you'd go down to the Woolworth's and get soda pop for a nickel, and watch the girls in their bloomers while listening to the Victrola.

[kevinsmith]

Food should only be free to those who can't pay for it and are unable to work for it. I have a problem with Laqueesha the block's ghetto queen collecting welfare when she's perfectly able to work on her own. But I also don't want her children to suffer because their mom is a fuck up.

True. It's definitely a difficult situation.

Free birth control for all; free food to those who can't work for it

Free Tibet while you're at it. lol

Which is why I've said (probably in a diff thread; can't recall) that I'd gladly pay more taxes to ensure birth control is available to all. But that's just me. I don't make much money, but I'd be willing to pay a little more.

But my point is, there will always be something else. You know, access to information is paramount, and some would say a right. It helps educate us (on the newest and exciting type of porn. lol) So maybe Internet access should be free. We can afford a bit more for taxes on that. And you know what, we need clothing. Maybe clothing should be free...we should pay a bit more in taxes for that too.

While the examples may not be the best, I still maintain that the best solution is for the government to take LESS of our money. How much more money would you have each week if you got to keep even 50% more of the taxes taken from your check?

I'd agree the attitude of entitlement is scary, but let's not let children suffer (or let those children be born in the first place), because of ideological objections. Let's be pragmatic.

One could argue that pragmatism would be eliminating the welfare state despite some hardships placed on innocent people to achieve the desirous effect of minimizing welfare need. Not saying I advocate that, but pragmatism generally takes the ends justify the means approach over the have a heart approach.

Comparing humans to wild animals isn't a good approach. Those wild animals have done nothing to tarnish their species.

LOL!

There's always room for more accountability and reform.

Definitely room for that.

Some people want that. I just want there to be less poor, unwanted babies and less hungry people.

Good causes to be sure. But I worry that it's creating one more thing upon which we become dependent.

[BigMattTheHobo]

Sorry, but I don't like slippery slope arguments. "If we do this, then what's next?"

Let's deal with the issues at hand. When there are politicians including Internet access in social welfare programs, then we'll debate that.

pragmatism generally takes the ends justify the means

And the ends in this case is having less burdens on our education, health and criminal justice systems.

[droogsteve]

Forgive the spinoff, I wanted to focus solely on this bit of the sexism thread discussion

I will not forgive it, I will take this insult to my grave.


You've made a powerful enemy today, friend-o.

[kevinsmith]

Sorry, but I don't like slippery slope arguments. "If we do this, then what's next?"

Let's deal with the issues at hand. When there are politicians including Internet access in social welfare programs, then we'll debate that.



And the ends in this case is having less burdens on our education, health and criminal justice systems.

Funny...I think the immediate aversion to slippery slope arguments can be a cop out. Slippery slope arguments aren't always necessarily bullshit. I think in situations such as this one, where the argument isn't essentially that we're at the top of the slope, but already in the middle of it, those arguments have a place.

I will not forgive it, I will take this insult to my grave.


You've made a powerful enemy today, friend-o.

What are you going to do, not send that souvenir?

[BigMattTheHobo]

The slippery slope argument can be applied to slippery slope arguments. "When will these theoretical scenarios end?"

Anyway, slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies.

[kevinsmith]

The slippery slope argument can be applied to slippery slope arguments. "When will these theoretical scenarios end?"

Anyway, slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies.

Ooh, look who took a debate class in high school. Which Republican Debate will you be moderating?

The evidence is there, you've already admitted it as well. The sense of entitlement in this country is growing and it's unnerving. Our debt is growing as government spending grows. And while it may not be sound debate tactics A)We're not at a dais here so let's not pretend we're all formal up in this forum and B)Everyone knows that if you give a mouse a cookie, he'll want a glass of milk.

[Dr. Mundo]

do you have any evidence beyond anecdotes that a sense of entitlement is growing?

last i checked pensions, unemployment benefits, federal and state scholarships, social security, and lots of other social programs are being cut.

seems to be the opposite to me.

[kevinsmith]

do you have any evidence beyond anecdotes that a sense of entitlement is growing?

last i checked pensions, unemployment benefits, federal and state scholarships, social security, and lots of other social programs are being cut.

seems to be the opposite to me.

Study shows that 83% of Americans believe youth feel more entitled today than they did 10 years ago. and other info

I'd say another example is the amount of debt your average person has. It's a lot. Why? Because we DESERVE that new flatscreen tv. We DESERVE the latest and greatest cell phone. Dammit, I DESERVE a nicer car. There are a lot of people living beyond their means because they think they deserve it simply for being born.

The real story of this chart is the high level of debt. If we just focus on the last three years, we get a skewed sense of the data. But since the 2001 recession, consumers added $800 billion in consumer debt (i.e., doesn’t include mortgage debt), about a 44% increase in seven years. Total household debt (consumer and mortgage debt) grew from $7,659 trillion, or 75% of GDP ($10,205.6) in 2001 to $13,803 trillion, or 95% of GDP ($14,061.8) in 2007. (All numbers come from latest NIPA tables.)

This is a problem. Consumers will continue to shed debt, not just by walking away from mortgages on underwater homes, but by paying down their consumer debt. As David Stockman pointed out in his article today, 78 million Boomers are headed toward retirement and it is unlikely that they will take on more debt. Stockman raises the obvious question: where has the post-crash increase in spending been coming from? His answer: government transfer payments of about $500 million. I would add to that spending from upper tier of income earners, the ones who are driving “luxury” goods sales as noted in the sales reports, plus the draw down in savings by average consumers. Regardless, we know how the $500 million was paid for: federal deficit spending and consequent borrowing.

If the near and distant future is fiscal sanity by Boomers, then where is consumer spending coming from? Will it be from the younger generations who continue to pile up student loans? It depends, but not likely in the near term and they struggle with debt. How long can we assume that the government will continue to fund deficit spending at the expense of future generations? My guess is: not long. We are heading toward fiscal crisis unless the Republicans can tame federal spending. And unless savings continue to grow and household debt service is substantially reduced, we have a problem with long-term economic growth in America.

http://dailycapitalist.com/2011/03/2...-debt-problem/

Look at the ever increasing population of vapid reality programming where people display horrific behavior because they have overwhelming senses of entitlement. And this is behavior mimicked by far too many people.

By the way, don't go getting all snippy with me about examples when you can't even capitalize the first letter in your sentences.

[BigMattTheHobo]

Dude, you're so above pointing out grammar