Ping.
Bill and Hill’s gene pool is really bad.
That’s a sick, sick girl.
Too bad her mother didn’t contribute.
“The answer to anyone who talks about the surplus population is to ask him whether he is the surplus population; or if he is not, how he knows he is not.” —G.K. Chesterton
I wonder if Chelsea thinks she is surplus population? If she was put down it might increase America’s GPD! It is certain our IQ would go up a bit.
The recipients of that money usually do not pay taxes on that money.
So, it is a poor tax that gives nasty doctors a chance to buy new cars and new houses.
Faulty logic. What about the GDP from those aborted. The country would be much larger producing and consuming more goods.
Truly, hers is a dizzying intellect.
(And, of course, illegals coming here in violation of our laws certainly add to the economy, right Chels?)
What she’s really suggesting is that it’s kept the black population down to manageable levels.
John Maynard Keynes is weeping for joy in his grave./s
And so what would the economic effect have been if, instead of being murdered, those lives had come to fruition?
At the risk of invoking Godwin’s law, how much is that $3.5 trillion in reichsmarks?
Ghoulish
By the same logic, limiting immigration would also add trillions to the economy.
They can’t have it both ways.
Millions of lives never led added to the economy? How? In what world? Families never formed, houses never built, cars never sold. Clothes never worn. Food never eaten. Explain that to me.
Legalized abortion has decreased the pool of 18 years olds by at least 2 million per year each and every year since 1991—the year when the “aborted generation” slain in 1973 would have turned 18.
What has this done?
• Put the looming Social Security crisis on steroids. Fewer paying in. Much fewer.
• Forced a scaling back of US Troop commitments globally (some like Europe and Japan long overdue)
• Caused the higher education system to lobby successfully for more license-mandated “continuing education” to offset fer adolescent students.
The problem with this argument, obviously, is that it is entirely unresponsive to the debate over abortion, which is not economic in nature, but moral. If unborn children are not living human beings — and if, therefore, it doesn’t matter if they are aborted — then obviously one will be in favor of abortion, especially if it leads to salutary economic news. If, by contrast, unborn children are living human beings — and if, therefore, aborting them is tantamount to murder — then the utilitarian argument is flatly irrelevant. Saying “but look at the effects of killing unborn children on GDP!” to a person who believes that unborn children are living human beings is futile. In no moral universe are they going to make that trade.
And nor, for that matter, would the person making the case. Presumably Chelsea Clinton believes it is wrong to murder human beings ex utero. If so, she knows how she’d react to someone saying, “Whether you fundamentally care about murder or not, you should be able to connect with the fact that killing one in ten Los Angelenos will ease the traffic and reduce the Medicaid rolls.” And if Clinton doesn’t know that — if, in other words, she holds the hyper-utilitarian view that abortion is murder but it’s worth it for an additional three-and-a-half trillion dollars — well, then she’s a monster.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/chelsea-clinton-makes-a-terrible-argument-for-abortion/
That bimbo couldn’t count profits at a lemonade stand, let alone perform any calculation requiring a real college degree (e.g., NOT one which she has.)
Typical Clinton, money, before people.