Speaker Pelosi:"No Apologies" for Including Taxpayer Funding for Contraceptives, Other Non-Economic

republicanleader.house.gov ^

[Sub-Driver]

Speaker Pelosi: "No Apologies" for Including Taxpayer Funding for Contraceptives, Other Non-Economic Spending in Economic Bill Republicans Call for Bill Focused on Protecting and Creating Jobs

Washington, Jan 25 - Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), appearing this morning on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, said she has “no apologies” for including billions of dollars in spending unrelated to job creation – including taxpayer funding for contraceptives and the abortion industry – in congressional Democrats’ economic bill, which will reportedly be voted on by the House this week. The Speaker’s comments illustrate the degree to which congressional Democrats have taken President Obama's initial vision of a package focused on immediate job creation and fast-acting tax relief and turned it into just another bloated, unfocused, wasteful Washington spending bill. Here’s the exchange between Speaker Pelosi and Stephanopoulos:

STEPHANOPOULOS: We also heard from Congressman Boehner coming out of the meeting today that again a lot of that spending doesn’t even meet the same test you just talked about right now. … Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those -- one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. We have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy. Food stamps, unemployment insurance, some of the initiatives you just mentioned. What the economists have told us from right to left. There is more bang for the buck, a term they use, by investing in food stamps and in unemployment insurance than in any tax cut.

Regardless of where anyone stands on taxpayer funding for contraceptives and the abortion industry, there is no doubt that this once little-known provision in the congressional Democrats’ spending plan has NOTHING to do with fixing the economy and creating more American jobs. And the contraceptive funding is not an isolated case; the Democratic bill is actually loaded with spending that has no connection to supporting economic growth. On NBC’s Meet the Press today, House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) asked how such funding will help the economy:

“But spending $200 million to fix up the National Mall, $21 million for sod, over $200 million for contraceptives, how is this going to fix an ailing economy?”

Republicans want to work with President Obama on a bill that focuses on preserving and creating jobs and will make an immediate impact on America's struggling economy. But in the halls of the Democratic Congress, the economic recovery package is quickly becoming just another unfocused, runaway bill loaded with slow and wasteful Washington spending on every conceivable goal. The American people are right to ask: just what else is in this legislation?

[VRWC For Truth]

Rome will burn as it always does. These people are clueless.

[mojitojoe]

It is imperative that this bill gets passed. This is the way zer0 has to pay back the loan for the them purchasing the presidency for him. If it fails, he fails.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

How much is Acorn getting?

[cookcounty]

Popeye Pelosi is gonna bring Obama Oyl down....talk about a losse cannon!

[lilylangtree]

Leader of Hell’s Horde has no shame. Disgusting!

[muawiyah]

Yeah, right, it's offensive, but this is the way Nazis got their beginning. You know they didn't just start killing Jews on Day One ~ they had to take over the state, then take over society, and turn normally peaceful institutions into a state killing machine.

So, pardon me if I occasionally remind someone of how they started ~ and just because Nancy Pelosi hasn't started lining up people in front of ditches is no reason to not fear her 'cause in the end that's her botox driven, mind-numbed, knee-jerk, robot-like Leftwingtard ambition.

[superjc]

There is more bang for the buck, a term they use, by investing in food stamps and in unemployment insurance than in any tax cut

..... more POLITICAL bang for buck, “investing” in food stamps.... these people are SICK!

[wildbill]

I hope the condoms are ribbed so they will provide a stimulus.

[Cheetahcat]

What part of “Public Servant “ does this Imbecile NOT understand??

[HwyChile]

“What the economists have told us from right to left. There is more bang for the buck, a term they use, by investing in food stamps and in unemployment insurance than in any tax cut.”

That is a flat out lie and she should have been called on it. There are no economists on the right who say it is better to redistribute wealth in the form of food stamps and unemployment than tax cuts to stimulate the economy.

[pallis]

Sorry to offend you, and appear ignorant doing it, but indeed Pelosi is acting like a Nazi. I intend to call her that a lot, so perhaps you shouldn’t read my post. Being married to a Jewish wife, I respect your sentiments, but not enough to agree with you. I had two uncles killed by Nazis, a father and other uncles who fought Nazis, and I will use the term where I think it is appropriate, as in the case of Nazi Pelosi.

[randita]

The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs.

The reason these states are in trouble is because of out of control spending. Would Pelosi call it an "investment" to give money to a person who was heavily in debt and showed no ability to control their spending?

[reefdiver]

As She said, She’s just helping the children

[DeepThought42]

John Boehner said:

You know, I’m concerned about the size of the package. And I’m concerned about some of the spending that’s in there, how you can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives. How does that stimulate the economy?

Hey, if you don’t know, I’m not going to explain it to you. /lol

[markomalley]

CINO ping for your lists...

[SuperLuminal]

bttt

[Rome2000]

The Democrats and the Republicans are the problem.

DC politicians play a little game but in the end they all get their federal salaries, perks, and pensions for life and their number one goal is to stay in DC, the DISNEYLAND for politicians, where there is never a recession and the good times roll on no matter what is happening in the rest of the nation.

[Salvation]

Nancy, you are a CINO!

More from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

                From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (click on the book for the link.)    

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.