Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: shempy

Given that the current choice is between about $250 for an abortion and hundreds of thousands in various welfare payments and other taxpayer subsidies, um, yes, this is a fiscally conservative position. Have you really thought through what it costs the taxpayers to support the child (often brain-damaged in utero and very premature due to substance abuse) of a non-working, unemployable mother? Public housing, public schooling (including the entitlement to very expensive special ed services), food stamps, Medicaid, and all too often multiple rounds of incarceration and substance rehab programs starting when the child reaches its teens. A fair estimate of the average cost would be $500,000 per child.


106 posted on 04/04/2007 1:30:31 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]


To: GovernmentShrinker

That’s a sick attitude.


124 posted on 04/04/2007 1:36:59 PM PDT by Petronski (FRED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Is that the choice? Really? Either kill 1.5 million babies a year or pay $300 billion in welfare payments?

You know, an even more fiscally conservative idea would be to bring back slavery for all low level government positions. Think of the money we would save by paying them just room and board!

Here is another fiscally conservative idea: how about "aborting" our seniors when they hit 70 years of age? I am thinking we could do that for a cost of about $250 each. Good deal, huh?

139 posted on 04/04/2007 1:40:41 PM PDT by shempy (EABOF in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]

To: GovernmentShrinker; Petronski

Don’t forget that ‘fewer people’ makes for less ‘global warming’ too!!! /BHPS (biggest humanly possible SARCASM)


144 posted on 04/04/2007 1:42:56 PM PDT by stockstrader ("Where government advances--and it advances relentlessly--freedom is imperiled"-Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]

To: GovernmentShrinker

Can you imagine the government actually offering complete sterilizations to those who come in for abortions? At $250 a pop, another $50-75 could initially save $175-200+ a head.

Think of how much money we’d save doing that; career welfare recipients relying on “government” ought understand and expect “government” to make their burden as easy as possible to bear.

Hey, if they want ME to pay to kill their kid, they won’t mind me paying to stop them ever requesting this procedure again.

Life has consequences.


186 posted on 04/04/2007 1:55:33 PM PDT by azhenfud (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]

To: GovernmentShrinker

“Given that the current choice is between about $250 for an abortion and hundreds of thousands in various welfare payments and other taxpayer subsidies, um, yes, this is a fiscally conservative position. Have you really thought through what it costs the taxpayers to support the child (often brain-damaged in utero and very premature due to substance abuse) of a non-working, unemployable mother? Public housing, public schooling (including the entitlement to very expensive special ed services), food stamps, Medicaid, and all too often multiple rounds of incarceration and substance rehab programs starting when the child reaches its teens. A fair estimate of the average cost would be $500,000 per child.”

We could also save billions by eliminating Medicare and Medicaid. When elderly people get sick, just let ‘em die.

Sorry, but fiscal conservatism must have a grouding in morality, IMO.


187 posted on 04/04/2007 1:55:39 PM PDT by dashing doofus (Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson