Palin Slashed Funding for Teen Moms

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

Palin Slashed Funding for Teen Moms

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/09/02/PH2008090202312.jpg

ST. PAUL -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee who revealed Monday that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, earlier this year used her line-item veto to slash funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live.

After the legislature passed a spending bill in April, Palin went through the measure reducing and eliminating funds for programs she opposed. Inking her initials on the legislation -- "SP" -- Palin reduced funding for Covenant House Alaska by more than 20 percent, cutting funds from $5 million to $3.9 million. Covenant House is a mix of programs and shelters for troubled youths, including Passage House, which is a transitional home for teenage mothers.

According to Passage House's web site, its purpose is to provide "young mothers a place to live with their babies for up to eighteen months while they gain the necessary skills and resources to change their lives" and help teen moms "become productive, successful, independent adults who create and provide a stable environment for themselves and their families."

Palin's own daughter, Bristol, is five months pregnant and has plans to wed.

"Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family," Palin said in a statement released by the McCain campaign. "We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi's privacy, as has always been the tradition of children of candidates."

Earlier today the Associated Press reported that Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, opposed funding to prevent teen pregnancies, a position that Palin also took as governor. "The explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support," she wrote in a 2006 questionnaire distributed among gubernatorial candidates.

Reporters asked McCain in November 2007 whether he supported grants for sex education in the United States, whether such programs should include directions for using contraceptives and whether he supports President Bush's policy of promoting abstinence.

"Ahhh, I think I support the president's policy," McCain said.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/02/palin_slashed_funding_to_help.html?hpid=artslot

[Trish]

Hey, maybe if she'd gotten more of those earmarks, Palin wouldn't have had to cut funding to anything!

[BoogyMan]

How dare she try to make sure the money she has covers ALL that needs doing in her state.

[Leslie]

I know the OP is about Palin's elitist postion that her daughter has her
support 'n shit on other kids, but here's what really gripes my ass:
"Ahhh, I think I support the president's policy," McCain said.

McCain has no constructive 'thought' about women or womens' health issues. He wants to
fool the American people that he "cares" by offerin' up Palin as though she cares about women.

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

If it were a priority, she would have kept the funding for it. Instead, she was trying to prop up a failed industry, costing the tax payers millions.

In 2007, the Alaska Creamery Board recommended closing Matanuska Maid Dairy, an unprofitable state-owned business. Palin objected, citing concern for dairy farmers and a recent infusion of $600,000 in state money. Palin subsequently replaced the entire membership of the Board of Agriculture and Conservation.[74] The new board reversed the decision to close the dairy. Later in 2007, the unprofitable business was put up for sale. No offers met the minimum bid of $3.35 million,[75][76] and the dairy was closed. In August 2008, the Anchorage plant was purchased for $1.5 million, the new minimum bid. The purchaser plans to convert it into heated storage units.[77]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

[xLIBREx]

Corporate and individual welfare should all be slashed. Looks like a good veto to me.

LOL, I love how people are outraged at someone not getting something for nothing. If you care so much, there is nothing stopping you from opening your own wallets and deciding how to best spend your own money if at all. Just keep your dirty little hands off my money.

There is a word for not owning the fruits of your labor and that word is slavery regardless what left-wing euphemism you try an put in its place.

[NIOSA]

Corporate and individual welfare should all be slashed. Looks like a good veto to me.

LOL, I love how people are outraged at someone not getting something for nothing. If you care so much, there is nothing stopping you from opening your own wallets and deciding how to best spend your own money if at all. Just keep your dirty little hands off my money.

There is a word for not owning the fruits of your labor and that word is slavery regardless what left-wing euphemism you try an put in its place.

:clapper:

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

If you're going to be pro-abstinence only education and anti-abortion, you should damn well support the mothers once they have the kids... Hell, Palin claims that she's going to support her own kid when she has her baby. But, I suppose charity starts and ends in the home...

[Leslie]

If you're going to be pro-abstinence only education and anti-abortion, you should damn well support the mothers once they have the kids... Hell, Palin claims that she's going to support her own kid when she has her baby. But, I suppose charity starts and ends in the home...

It's called conservative compassion, ya know the Christian thang to do.

And they do that after denying the poor kids a decent education.

[Waffletush]

I swear, the Deomcrats on this site must be running over to DailyKos every hour, pulling the latest from there, and posting it up here.

Never before has there been so much hate - pure unadulterated hate - posted by Democrats about a minority.

Imagine the posts if she we a black woman. Gasp!

[Waffletush]

It's called conservative compassion, ya know the Christian thang to do.

And they do that after denying the poor kids a decent education.

Ahh the religion racism card rears its head. I guess if she were Muslim she'd get a pass?

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

Never before has there been so much hate - pure unadulterated hate - posted by Democrats about a minority.

:dizzy:

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

Ahh the religion racism card rears its head. I guess if she were Muslim she'd get a pass?

:dizzy:

[Leslie]

Ahh the religion racism card rears its head. I guess if she were Muslim she'd get a pass?

Hell, you tell me. 343

[xLIBREx]

If you're going to be pro-abstinence only education and anti-abortion, you should damn well support the mothers once they have the kids...

Why is it the gov's responsibility to teach any of that and if the parents don't teach their own kids why is it my problem? You seem to not comprehend that whatever the gov gives to one person it first had to take from someone else.


Hell, Palin claims that she's going to support her own kid when she has her baby.

OMFG, a family taking care of its own and taking responsibility for their own actions without the government's help! The horror!

But, I suppose charity starts and ends in the home...

You mean without gov force you wouldn't give to charity on your own? I think that says all we need to know about you.

(you gotta love faulty socialist reasoning)

[piratemonkey]

Never before has there been so much hate - pure unadulterated hate - posted by Democrats about a minority.



Explain how posting her actions and positions constitute hate.

[xLIBREx]

Explain how posting her actions and positions constitute hate.

It's not hate, it's just sad desperation as the Dems fuck up what should have been a "gimme" post Bush. We are witnessing an epic fail here and it's showing.

http://www.demotivateus.com/posters/epic_fail_tattoo_demotivational-poster.jpg

[Invayne]

I swear, the Deomcrats on this site must be running over to DailyKos every hour, pulling the latest from there, and posting it up here.

Never before has there been so much hate - pure unadulterated hate - posted by Democrats about a minority.

Imagine the posts if she we a black woman. Gasp!

Well, a black woman is one thing, but a black CONSERVATIVE woman is definitely taboo...YUK!:sick:

[Waffletush]

OMFG, a family taking care of its own and taking responsibility for their own actions without the government's help! The horror!

In the immortal words of social commentator Chris Rock...

What do you want, a fucking cookie!?!? That's what you're supposed to do!

[Invayne]

Corporate and individual welfare should all be slashed. Looks like a good veto to me.

LOL, I love how people are outraged at someone not getting something for nothing. If you care so much, there is nothing stopping you from opening your own wallets and deciding how to best spend your own money if at all. Just keep your dirty little hands off my money.

There is a word for not owning the fruits of your labor and that word is slavery regardless what left-wing euphemism you try an put in its place.

Amen, hon!

Damn, what's it gonna take to get FFA over here?:dork:

[Invayne]

If you're going to be pro-abstinence only education and anti-abortion, you should damn well support the mothers once they have the kids... Hell, Palin claims that she's going to support her own kid when she has her baby. But, I suppose charity starts and ends in the home...

Hey, you got that right! Charity begins in the home. And that's exactly what she's going to do...and I'll bet she won't even use taxpayer money for it! MORE people should be like her.

[Invayne]

It's called conservative compassion, ya know the Christian thang to do.

And they do that after denying the poor kids a decent education.

Hell, they deny them a decent education just by sending them to public school.:nana:

[mj278]

If you're going to be pro-abstinence only education and anti-abortion, you should damn well support the mothers once they have the kids... Hell, Palin claims that she's going to support her own kid when she has her baby. But, I suppose charity starts and ends in the home...

Why is it up to the state to support them? What ever happened to personal responsibility? If you cannot afford to have children, then you shouldn't be having them. Sure, people make mistakes, and sometimes shit just happens, and people do need a helping hand at times, but this is not the role of government.

[lily]

Hey, you got that right! Charity begins in the home. And that's exactly what she's going to do...and I'll bet she won't even use taxpayer money for it! MORE people should be like her.

Well, making the money she would be making as governor or vp, I doubt Bristol would need the money from the fund. .........so of course she's not going to use taxpayers money......she's going to use her parents money.

I do have to say that she won't have to worry, like other teens in her prediciment, her parents are happy for her and they can afford to hire help to take care of both babies and Bristol can still go to highschool and then on to college.

...........others though can't and they won't have the support system for the few months they offer to help them.....but I guess that's all the luck of the draw.

[Invayne]

You mean without gov force you wouldn't give to charity on your own? I think that says all we need to know about you.

(you gotta love faulty socialist reasoning)

Yes, it says volumes....as long as it's somebody else's money, it's OK.:grrrr:

[Invayne]

In the immortal words of social commentator Chris Rock...

What do you want, a fucking cookie!?!? That's what you're supposed to do!

Derrrrr.....:clapper:

[Invayne]

Why is it up to the state to support them? What ever happened to personal responsibility? If you cannot afford to have children, then you shouldn't be having them. Sure, people make mistakes, and sometimes shit just happens, and people do need a helping hand at times, but this is not the role of government.

A voice of reason....personal responsibility is something that leftists know OR care anything about. The gov will always take care of their mistakes, after all. Personal responsibility is too hard to work on for some folks.:grrrr:

[xLIBREx]

Yes, it says volumes....as long as it's somebody else's money, it's OK.:grrrr:

http://allfinancialmatters.com/Graphics/welfare_motivator.jpg

[xLIBREx]

...........others though can't and they won't have the support system for the few months they offer to help them.....but I guess that's all the luck of the draw.

Curious, another Obama supporter in this thread who doesn't even mention the possibility of giving money without having a gun put to their heads. Very revealing.

[xLIBREx]

A voice of reason....personal responsibility is something that leftists know OR care anything about. The gov will always take care of their mistakes, after all. Personal responsibility is too hard to work on for some folks.:grrrr:

That's because politicians realize it's much easier to control those you have made dependent on you. The scumbags even do it under the guise of compassion when that couldn't be further from the truth. Even worse, our checker playing lefties eat it up because the idea of chess, and thinking many moves ahead, is a foreign concept to them.

[Grizz]

Why is it the gov's responsibility to teach any of that and if the parents don't teach their own kids why is it my problem? You seem to not comprehend that whatever the gov gives to one person it first had to take from someone else.

OMFG, a family taking care of its own and taking responsibility for their own actions without the government's help! The horror!

You mean without gov force you wouldn't give to charity on your own? I think that says all we need to know about you.

(you gotta love faulty socialist reasoning)

Why is it your problem? Because single teenaged mothers are a total drag on society - they contribute far less in tax revenues due to low lifetime income, consume far more in social services, and perpetuate a vicious cycle. Palin, and others like her, have been loudly opposed to decent sex ed in schools, preferring instead to promote the fundamentalist ignorance of 'abstinence only' education, and when the worst happens, engaging in finger pointing and cutting funding for programs to help those who've fallen and prevent others from going down that same path. If charities were able to deal with these problems, there would be no need for government intervention. But they aren't. It can be ignored only for so long.

[xLIBREx]

Why is it your problem? Because single teenaged mothers are a total drag on society - they contribute far less in tax revenues due to low lifetime income, consume far more in social services, and perpetuate a vicious cycle.

The vicious cycle is perpetuated by welfare. You are also insinuating that providing welfare will magically turn them into a societal asset which there is absolutely no evidence to support.

Palin, and others like her, have been loudly opposed to decent sex ed in schools, preferring instead to promote the fundamentalist ignorance of 'abstinence only' education, and when the worst happens, engaging in finger pointing and cutting funding for programs to help those who've fallen and prevent others from going down that same path.

And where are the parents in your gov run utopia? Do you mean to tell me you would leave the sex education of your children to the government? What you fail to realize is that it's that type of apathy and dependence that is the real problem because you simply accept as axiom it's gov's responsibility.

It simply blows my mind that people are so dependent on the gov in this thread that acting on their own, as individuals, is a completely foreign concept. This is America, not the Borg Collective.

If charities were able to deal with these problems, there would be no need for government intervention. But they aren't. It can be ignored only for so long.

What chance does a charity have to compete for your donations against an entity which can simply put a gun to your head and take the money via its monopoly on force?

So stop playing partisan checkers and try to graduate to chess. Or not, exactly as the politicians on both sides of the coin would like. The choice is yours.

[AnnEsthesia]

I swear, the Deomcrats on this site must be running over to DailyKos every hour, pulling the latest from there, and posting it up here.

Never before has there been so much hate - pure unadulterated hate - posted by Democrats about a minority.

Imagine the posts if she we a black woman. Gasp!

Bullshit. It has nothing to do with her being a woman, or is your disgust and hatred of Obama only because he is black?

[brien]

Perhaps ending the public funding for teenage mothers would discourage the irresponsible sexual behaviour of teens. Perhaps ending all public welfare for irresponsible adults is also a plan whose time has come. Perhaps the ones who are responsible for their own pregnancy should shoulder the burden of their financial repsonsibility? Perhaps the government could offer subsidized loans to unwed teenage mothers and hold the male responsible for his share of the cost of the pregnancy and funding of the family needs rather than forcing the taxpayers to fund this irresponsible behaviour and lifestyle.

The government funds subsidized education grants, so why can't it implement welfare payments that are tied to loans due and payable when the individual who requires the money has gone off the public dole? This would provide a great incentive to get off the welfare system more quickly and would end the generational dependence upon the government that some segments of the US society has come to expect and demand for themselves.

The current Wefare System, designed by the Democrats and President Johnson's Great Society, is a collossal failure. It has destroyed the nucleus of minority families. In the early 60's the percentage of intact black families was 70%, and today it is 30%, which proves the Social Welfare system is not only a failure, but it has been a destructive tool by which the government has condemned generations of black individuals to a life of poverty dependent upon the suppport and generosity(?) of the US government and its taxpayers.

The Social welfare system is an abject failure and needs to be ended yesterday.

[apdst]

teen mothers in need of a place to live.

They're grown up enough to spit out puppies, they're old enough to get out and get a job.

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

Perhaps ending the public funding for teenage mothers would discourage the irresponsible sexual behaviour of teens. Perhaps ending all public welfare for irresponsible adults is also a plan whose time has come. Perhaps the ones who are responsible for their own pregnancy should shoulder the burden of their financial repsonsibility? Perhaps the government could offer subsidized loans to unwed teenage mothers and hold the male responsible for his share of the cost of the pregnancy and funding of the family needs rather than forcing the taxpayers to fund this irresponsible behaviour and lifestyle.

Perhaps if I concentrate hard enough, I can fart diamonds. Perhaps Palin should withdraw support of her daughter and then she won't have a baby.

You wont admit you love me.
And so how am I ever to know?
You only tell me
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

A million times I ask you,
And then I ask you over again.
You only answer
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

If you cant make your mind up,
Well never get started.
And I dont wanna wind up
Being parted, broken-hearted.
So if you really love me,
Say yes.
But if you dont, dear, confess.
And please dont tell me
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

If you cant make your mind up,
Well never get started.
And I dont wanna wind up
Being parted, broken-hearted.
So if you really love me,
Say yes.
But if you dont, dear, confess.
And please dont tell me
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps,
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps,
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

[brien]

Quote:
teen mothers in need of a place to live.


And there is government subsidized housing in which they can temporarily live until they can pay back the government taxpayers back the loan that allows them to live there.

[brien]

Perhaps if I concentrate hard enough, I can fart diamonds. Perhaps Palin should withdraw support of her daughter and then she won't have a baby.

You wont admit you love me.
And so how am I ever to know?
You only tell me
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

A million times I ask you,
And then I ask you over again.
You only answer
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

If you cant make your mind up,
Well never get started.
And I dont wanna wind up
Being parted, broken-hearted.
So if you really love me,
Say yes.
But if you dont, dear, confess.
And please dont tell me
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

If you cant make your mind up,
Well never get started.
And I dont wanna wind up
Being parted, broken-hearted.
So if you really love me,
Say yes.
But if you dont, dear, confess.
And please dont tell me
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps,
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps,
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

More mindless drivel about revolting bodily functions and the writing of others. I have solutions and all you have are farts and rhetoric. Typical of your posts MOT.

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

More mindless drivel about revolting bodily functions and the writing of others. I have solutions and all you have are farts and rhetoric. Typical of your posts MOT.

You missed the point. I'm not surprised.

[apdst]

I didn't have sex-ed in school and I new hoe babies were born, what my tally-wacker was really for and how rubbers worked.

I have a hard time believing that a lack of sex ed is the problem. Rather than sex ed, how 'bout parental ed? Obviously, the problem lies with a lack of parenting skills vice sexual skills. Just a hunch, but I think there are plenty of teenagers that have sex all figured out.

[brien]

You missed the point. I'm not surprised.

You have no point to miss..I offer solutions to the tired old Democratic Welfare system and all you offer is rhetoric. Typical...that is the point.

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

You have no point to miss..I offer solutions to the tired old Democratic Welfare system and all you offer is rhetoric. Typical...that is the point.

Solutions? No.
Wishful thinking? Yes.

[brien]

Solutions? No.
Wishful thinking? Yes.

So according to you, no solutions ever start with wishful thinking. No wonder you show no creativity here and you follow the blind mantra lockstep with the Democrats. Keep up the good work there MOT. I yi yi

Meanwhile the programs you support have destroyed entire generations of minority families and continue to do so because you, and people like you, are satisfied with the same old Democratic solutions that really are "wishful thinking" ex post facto. Here are some examples of you and your Party's wishfiul thinking:

Wishful thinking is believing the current Social Welfare system actually helps people out of poverty.

Wishful thinking is believing increasing taxes and money paid to government schools improves the education of the American student.

Wishful thinking is believing that the government is the answer for everyone when it seeks to take care of people cradle to grave.

Wishful thinking is believing when people think the first solution to a problem is to turn to the government.

I could go on but it is useless to try and educate someone whose mind is so entrenched in government first, and people last.

The definition of stupidity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

You know what the most amazing thing to me is? That you actually think you're being original or creative in your wishful thinking...

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

Wishful thinking is the belief that abstinence only education works.

Wishful thinking is the belief that the reason why high school kids get pregant is because of public funding for pregnant teens.

Wishful thinking is the belief that everyone who goes on public assistance does so to take advantage of the system or that if public assistance is taken away, there won't be people who need it, still.

Wishful thinking is the belief that the children won't be hurt if poor pregnant teens don't have access to assistance.

Etc...

[xLIBREx]

I notice the socialists won't deal with my posts.

Instead they offer up the same old tired socialist rhetoric to problem solving; load up the money cannon and fire away.

When will people wake up and realize we have been headed down that road for 60 years to no avail? The definition of insanity comes to mind.

[xLIBREx]

Wishful thinking is the belief that abstinence only education works.

Then teach your kids something esle.

Wishful thinking is the belief that the reason why high school kids get pregant is because of public funding for pregnant teens.

No, wishful thinking is relying on the government to teach children morals.

Wishful thinking is the belief that everyone who goes on public assistance does so to take advantage of the system or that if public assistance is taken away, there won't be people who need it, still.

No, wishful thinking is the belief that someone else has a greater claim on someone's money than the person who earned it.

Wishful thinking is the belief that the children won't be hurt if poor pregnant teens don't have access to assistance.

Again, who is stopping you from opening your wallet and assisting them? What makes you think the government has the right to take fom one person and hurt them to help someone else?

Are you really unaware that government couldn't give 2 shits about helping anyone? They simply want to take your money then use your very own money to buy your vote and to earn favors from lobbyists.

(The naivete of your average voter never ceases to amaze and sicken me.)

[Invayne]

Perhaps ending the public funding for teenage mothers would discourage the irresponsible sexual behaviour of teens. Perhaps ending all public welfare for irresponsible adults is also a plan whose time has come.

Came and went.

Can you imagine if Palin wanted increased funding for teenage mothers? Leftists would be bitching and moaning that she only did it because her daughter's pregnant! LOL!! She's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't, as far as they're concerned.


Perhaps the ones who are responsible for their own pregnancy should shoulder the burden of their financial repsonsibility? Perhaps the government could offer subsidized loans to unwed teenage mothers and hold the male responsible for his share of the cost of the pregnancy and funding of the family needs rather than forcing the taxpayers to fund this irresponsible behaviour and lifestyle.

The government funds subsidized education grants, so why can't it implement welfare payments that are tied to loans due and payable when the individual who requires the money has gone off the public dole? This would provide a great incentive to get off the welfare system more quickly and would end the generational dependence upon the government that some segments of the US society has come to expect and demand for themselves.

That's how they do it in Germany. Welfare is a loan that must be paid back by the person that borrowed the money, and if they can't pay it back, someone in their family will have to pay it.

The current Wefare System, designed by the Democrats and President Johnson's Great Society, is a collossal failure. It has destroyed the nucleus of minority families. In the early 60's the percentage of intact black families was 70%, and today it is 30%, which proves the Social Welfare system is not only a failure, but it has been a destructive tool by which the government has condemned generations of black individuals to a life of poverty dependent upon the suppport and generosity(?) of the US government and its taxpayers.

The Social welfare system is an abject failure and needs to be ended yesterday.

BINGO!:thumbsup:

[Invayne]

Perhaps if I concentrate hard enough, I can fart diamonds. Perhaps Palin should withdraw support of her daughter and then she won't have a baby.

You wont admit you love me.
And so how am I ever to know?
You only tell me
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

A million times I ask you,
And then I ask you over again.
You only answer
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

If you cant make your mind up,
Well never get started.
And I dont wanna wind up
Being parted, broken-hearted.
So if you really love me,
Say yes.
But if you dont, dear, confess.
And please dont tell me
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

If you cant make your mind up,
Well never get started.
And I dont wanna wind up
Being parted, broken-hearted.
So if you really love me,
Say yes.
But if you dont, dear, confess.
And please dont tell me
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps,
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps,
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

WTF?????

[Invayne]

I didn't have sex-ed in school and I new hoe babies were born, what my tally-wacker was really for and how rubbers worked.

I have a hard time believing that a lack of sex ed is the problem. Rather than sex ed, how 'bout parental ed? Obviously, the problem lies with a lack of parenting skills vice sexual skills. Just a hunch, but I think there are plenty of teenagers that have sex all figured out.

The more "sex ed" they teach in school, the more teenagers get pregnant, it seems. Now they want to teach all about homosexuality. I guess they want all kids to be gay too.:unreal:

[Invayne]

(The naivete of your average voter never ceases to amaze and sicken me.)

I truly believe that some people should not be allowed to vote.

[xLIBREx]

I truly believe that some people should not be allowed to vote.

What did Churchill say; "the best argument against Democracy is a 5 minute conversation with your average voter." It's for that very reason our founding fathers set us up as a representative constitutional republic and not a democracy. Sadly though, the populist politicians have made an end-run around the Constitution and we have the mob-rule and lost rights we have today. Honestly, it's a miracle it's taken this long.

[theAdviserMe]

Well, as it is, there is no perfect politician in this imperfect world we are in. Running for public office would surely subject anyone to barrage of all questions and diggings. But she is courageous and beautiful enough for me. Sad I could not for her because she is under the old McCain.

[brien]

Wishful thinking is the belief that abstinence only education works.

Wishful thinking is the belief that the reason why high school kids get pregant is because of public funding for pregnant teens.

Wishful thinking is the belief that everyone who goes on public assistance does so to take advantage of the system or that if public assistance is taken away, there won't be people who need it, still.

Wishful thinking is the belief that the children won't be hurt if poor pregnant teens don't have access to assistance.

Etc...

Public education currently uses every form of prophylaxis to teach sex education. So your point about "abstinence only" is a straw dog because nowhere in the US is "abstinence only being taught in the government schools.

Teens get pregnant because they ignore the ramifications and responsiblities that come with fucking. Wishful thinking is they won't get pregnant when they have intercourse.

No one ever said people don't require public assistance. Wishful thinking is when those people think they can remain at the public trough for a lifetime without it resulting in a life shattering negative circumstance. People who require temporary "public assistance" may deserve a helping hand, but there is no reason in the world why they can't be expected to earn that aid, or pay it back to the taxpayers once they have moved off of public assistance.

Wishful thinking is believing that children aren't hurt by public assistance. I have already showed you that the Welfare System of the Democrats and LBJ's Great Society has destroyed generations of minority children's lives. But you keep wishing it will work after 40 years of abject FAILURE. Talk about denial and "wishful thinking". I yi yi

Wishful thinking is expecting the government will solve all of the problems that stem from the irresponsible behavior of people who look toward the government to solve all of their problems.

[Muser]

Well stated, brien. Oh, and

Wishful thinking is expecting the government will solve all of the problems that stem from the irresponsible behavior of people who look toward the government to solve all of their problems.

*There's* a sig line if I ever saw one! :clapper:

[Invayne]

Well stated, brien. Oh, and



*There's* a sig line if I ever saw one! :clapper:

Hell yeah, can I steal that?:clapper:

[mj278]

It appears this story is another example of the media not getting the facts straight.

Covenant House received $1.2 million in 2006 and $1.3 million in 2007. (http://www.anchorrising.com/barnacles/006281.html) This is in addition to the rest of the money they receive. (http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/007978.html) In light of this information, I would like to know how going from $1.3 million in 2007, to $3.9 million in 2008 is considered a cut in funding for teen moms. It clearly appears to be an increase to me.

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

Public education currently uses every form of prophylaxis to teach sex education. So your point about "abstinence only" is a straw dog because nowhere in the US is "abstinence only being taught in the government schools.

Yet, that is what both Palin and McCain advocate...

Teens get pregnant because they ignore the ramifications and responsiblities that come with fucking. Wishful thinking is they won't get pregnant when they have intercourse.

How dare you cut on Bristol Palin this way!

No one ever said people don't require public assistance. Wishful thinking is when those people think they can remain at the public trough for a lifetime without it resulting in a life shattering negative circumstance. People who require temporary "public assistance" may deserve a helping hand, but there is no reason in the world why they can't be expected to earn that aid, or pay it back to the taxpayers once they have moved off of public assistance.

And if they can't, who is harmed?

Wishful thinking is believing that children aren't hurt by public assistance. I have already showed you that the Welfare System of the Democrats and LBJ's Great Society has destroyed generations of minority children's lives. But you keep wishing it will work after 40 years of abject FAILURE. Talk about denial and "wishful thinking". I yi yi

You think that only minority children are on public assistance?
Again, how is giving absolutely no support going to make the situation better?

Wishful thinking is expecting the government will solve all of the problems that stem from the irresponsible behavior of people who look toward the government to solve all of their problems.

Wishful thinking is expecting all the problems to go away if the government stop trying to help.

[brien]

Yet, that is what both Palin and McCain advocate...

How dare you cut on Bristol Palin this way!

And if they can't, who is harmed?

You think that only minority children are on public assistance?
Again, how is giving absolutely no support going to make the situation better?



Wishful thinking is expecting all the problems to go away if the government stop trying to help.

I don't care which way my knife cuts because the Dems and the Repugs have ruined this country and are both to blame for the sorry state of our Republic.

The entire society, and those on the assistance, are harmed when people remain on public assistance all of their lives.

I never said only minority children are on public assistance. And I never said I wouldn't advocate support. Go back and read my suggestions. You are too busy calling them wishful thinking rather than comprehending what I write here.

Government is not the first line of help for anyone. It is people helping themselves first.

Wishful thinking is that the government is there to solve all of the problems for people rather them solving their own problems first. But socialist "government first" types will never accept this philosophy so I don't expect you to understand this at all. We disagree on fundamental philosophy in that I look to people to do for themselves first and you look toward the government to help people first. So be it.

Wishful thinking is working for the individualism, which made this country the greatest place to live and work on earth, won't disappear and give way to the mediocrity of Socialism where everyone looks to the governemnt to take care of them from the cradle to the grave. You will regret the day this becomes reality in the US.

[piratemonkey]

Perhaps ending the public funding for teenage mothers would discourage the irresponsible sexual behaviour of teens.

An absurd assertion.

Maybe if we stop letting Medicaid pay for heart surgeries people would stop getting cardiovascular disease.

:rolleyes:

[Osborn F. Enready]

Wealth redistribution through taxation is unconstitutional, regardless of the claims.

[piratemonkey]

I've challenged you before on this point... and you've ignored the challenges.

Why does the Constitution give the Legislative Branch the authority to write laws and tax, if, according to you, they aren't allowed to use those powers?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Pirate said:
I've challenged you before on this point... and you've ignored the challenges.

Why does the Constitution give the Legislative Branch the authority to write laws and tax, if, according to you, they aren't allowed to use those powers?

Go to the thread you challenged this, and you will find your answer:

http://democracyforums.com/showthread.php?t=17019

[brien]

Hell yeah, can I steal that?:clapper:

You don't have to steal it, you can have it..enjoy...bk

[brien]

An absurd assertion.

Maybe if we stop letting Medicaid pay for heart surgeries people would stop getting cardiovascular disease.

:rolleyes:

Your comparison is absurd. I never wrote it would STOP teen pregnancy. I wrote it would perhaps "DISCOURAGE irrepsonsible sexual behaviour of teens".

This is the direct quote:

Originally Posted by brien
"
Perhaps ending the public funding for teenage mothers would discourage the irresponsible sexual behaviour of teens."

************************************************** *********************

The only absurdities here are :
1) You can't read.
2) You can't comprehend what you read.
3) You can't compare this issue on a level playing field.
4) Your logic
5) You fail to consider solutions that place the repsonsibility for irresponsible behaviour back into the hands of those responsible for that behaviour.

However, I am not surprised, because this is parr for a partisan empty cotton headed rhetoric.

[xLIBREx]

I've challenged you before on this point... and you've ignored the challenges.

Why does the Constitution give the Legislative Branch the authority to write laws and tax, if, according to you, they aren't allowed to use those powers?

Article 1 Sect 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Hmmm, I don't see anything about a personal income tax being within their powers. In fact, the idea of a PIT is the antithesis of what our nation was founded on. The founding fathers wrote extensively on that very issue. I can offer you endless quotes in support of that assertion like:

From Thomas Jefferson

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.

But I don't even need to that. Like many liberals, you don't even realize the PIT is a modern invention and the Constitution had to be amended (the 16th) to allow it. The problem with the 16th is that it isn't really valid because it violate both the forced testimony (tax return) clause of the 5th and it violates the deprivation of property without just compensation clauses of both the 5th and 14th.

Of course the SCOTUS failed us on this one because growing government power overall also grew their power. When the 16th was ruled Constitutional in light of these obvious problems it essentially relegated the Constitution to a guideline and not law and our government has been growing out of control ever since.

I'll be here all week to give Constitutional lessons.

[brien]

Article 1 Sect 8



Hmmm, I don't see anything about a personal income tax being within their powers. In fact, the idea of a PIT is the antithesis of what our nation was founded on. The founding fathers wrote extensively on that very issue. I can offer you endless quotes in support of that assertion like:

From Thomas Jefferson



But I don't even need to that. Like many liberals, you don't even realize the PIT is a modern invention and the Constitution had to be amended (the 16th) to allow it. The problem with the 16th is that it isn't really valid because it violate both the forced testimony (tax return) clause of the 5th and it violates the deprivation of property without just compensation clauses of both the 5th and 14th.

Of course the SCOTUS failed us on this one because growing government power overall also grew their power. When the 16th was ruled Constitutional in light of these obvious problems it essentially relegated the Constitution to a guideline and not law and our government has been growing out of control ever since.

I'll be here all week to give Constitutional lessons.

Excellent post there Librex....but I doubt cottonheaded lockstep partisans will ever realize the validity of what you have written here. They merely cave in and capitulate to a government that has soaked into their brains via osmosis, ie they could never think for themselves so they look to the government for everything, including their thinking processes.

[xLIBREx]

Excellent post there Librex....but I doubt cottonheaded lockstep partisans will ever realize the validity of what you have written here. They merely cave in and capitulate to a government that has soaked into their brains via osmosis, ie they could never think for themselves so they look to the government for everything, including their thinking processes.

They are dependent for sure and they are so poorly educated (by the gov, go figure) about history they can't imagine things haven't always been this way.

But, our first revolution was won with only 10% colonial support and our next sea change should take about the same. Right now we have about 6%, so we really aren't that far off. If just 1/20 still has any ability to reason on their own, we need to show them the logic and fuck the rest.

The good news is that 1 individual fighting for his liberty is worth 20 dependent government teat sucklers. One way or another the teat sucklers will wake up one day and wonder WTF happened. The only question is will they be asking because they are free or because there is no more denying they are slaves?

[brien]

They are dependent for sure and they are so poorly educated (by the gov, go figure) about history they can't imagine things haven't always been this way.

But, our first revolution was won with only 10% colonial support and our next sea change should take about the same. Right now we have about 6%, so we really aren't that far off. If just 1/20 still has any ability to reason on their own, we need to show them the logic and fuck the rest.

The good news is that 1 individual fighting for his liberty is worth 20 dependent government teat sucklers. One way or another the teat sucklers will wake up one day and wonder WTF happened. The only question is will they be asking because they are free or because there is no more denying they are slaves?

Furthermore, they don't realize that it took over 48 years from the first impressment of the Colonials into the British Navy for the country to win its independence and set up a new government.

In 1741 a crowd in Boston beat up a sheriff and stoned a justice of the peace over this very issue. In 1742 another crowd in Boston attacked the commanding officer of the HMS Astrea and destroyed a barge belonging to the Royal Navy because of impressment. And in 1747 the people of Boston rose up in rebellion when some 50 British sailors defected from the HMS Lark and her commander, Charles Knowles, retaliated in a predawn sweep impressing that amount of colonials to replace the defectors on his ship. This was the true beginning of the American Fight for Independence.

Most of your run of the mill government schooled people think the fight began with the Boston Tea Party in 1773. They have no clue the fight really began a full 32 years before. I am reasonably certain most kids in government schools today couldn't even name the 13 original colonies. And the government schools are touted as some the best in the world. Pardon me while I go vomit.

[Invayne]

where everyone looks to the governemnt to take care of them from the cradle to the grave. You will regret the day this becomes reality in the US.

It already did, during Hurricane Katrina.:unreal:

[Invayne]

You don't have to steal it, you can have it..enjoy...bk

Thanks!

[I Like Beer]

Like many liberals, you don't even realize the PIT is a modern invention and the Constitution had to be amended (the 16th) to allow it. The problem with the 16th is that it isn't really valid because it violate both the forced testimony (tax return) clause of the 5th and it violates the deprivation of property without just compensation clauses of both the 5th and 14th.

I'm sorry, I'm a Canadian, and I'd like to understand.

It was my understanding the prior to 1894, income tax was allowed because it was considered an 'indirect' or excise tax. A court challenge in 1895 (Pollack), rendered income from certain sources (rent from property, interest, etc) unconstitutional because they were ruled to be direct taxes and therefore had to be apportioned which they were not.

The response was the 16th amendment.

The Sixteenth Amendment removes the requirement that income taxes be apportioned among the states according to population.

According to at least two court decisions I read.. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitut ion#The_Penn_Mutual_case)

In dealing with the scope of the taxing power the question has sometimes been framed in terms of whether something can be taxed as income under the Sixteenth Amendment. This is an inaccurate formulation [ . . . ] and has led to much loose thinking on the subject. The source of the taxing power is not the Sixteenth Amendment; it is Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution.

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brushaber_v._Union_Pacific_Railroad)

As construed by the Supreme Court in the Brushaber case, the power of Congress to tax income derives from Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, of the original Constitution rather than from the Sixteenth Amendment; the latter simply eliminated the requirement that an income tax, to the extent that it is a direct tax, must be apportioned among the states.
I'm confused. Please help. Os?

[Wndrtch]

Oh GAWD!

She cut some of the money, not the program. Grow up already folks. Uncle Sam can't take care of ALL your problems. You have to be a little responsible yourself.

[Invayne]

Article 1 Sect 8



Hmmm, I don't see anything about a personal income tax being within their powers. In fact, the idea of a PIT is the antithesis of what our nation was founded on. The founding fathers wrote extensively on that very issue. I can offer you endless quotes in support of that assertion like:

From Thomas Jefferson



But I don't even need to that. Like many liberals, you don't even realize the PIT is a modern invention and the Constitution had to be amended (the 16th) to allow it. The problem with the 16th is that it isn't really valid because it violate both the forced testimony (tax return) clause of the 5th and it violates the deprivation of property without just compensation clauses of both the 5th and 14th.

Of course the SCOTUS failed us on this one because growing government power overall also grew their power. When the 16th was ruled Constitutional in light of these obvious problems it essentially relegated the Constitution to a guideline and not law and our government has been growing out of control ever since.

I'll be here all week to give Constitutional lessons.

Plus it was never properly ratified to begin with...

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/ratification.asp

[Osborn F. Enready]

I Like Beer said:
I'm sorry, I'm a Canadian, and I'd like to understand.

It was my understanding the prior to 1894, income tax was allowed because it was considered an 'indirect' or excise tax.

Prior to 1862, there was no such thing as an income tax. In 1862 they passed the first income tax to fund war. Since 1862, the assault on individual income has been non-stop, and both the federal reserve, as well as the income tax were ruled unconstitutional CONSISTENTLY before BI-PARTISAN CONTROL WAS ESTABLISHED in all three branches of government... completing the requirement necessary to overtake government from within government itself, by the two parties which split from one. This was all but complete by 1913, and the New Deal and Emergency War Powers all but relegated the Constitution to mantle-piece for discussion.

I Like Beer said:
A court challenge in 1895 (Pollack), rendered income from certain sources (rent from property, interest, etc) unconstitutional because they were ruled to be direct taxes and therefore had to be apportioned which they were not.

The response was the 16th amendment.

Exactly... the response was to make legal the illegal actions they were attempting to get past the people, without their conscent, and the 16th is the way it was done.....

I Like Beer said:
The Sixteenth Amendment removes the requirement that income taxes be apportioned among the states according to population.

Indeed, but it confers NO NEW POWERS OF TAXATION.

I Like Beer said:
I'm confused. Please help. Os?

Well, if you are already confused, chances are this may clear it up, or make it worse. ;)

http://www.treasury.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

Above is the link to the official story....
Below is the argument....

Income taxation falls under the 16th Amendment of the Constitution. Arguments have been made that this amendment was never fully ratified.

Below is an excerpt from:

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/16thHistory.htm

"Strange as it may seem, the Sixteenth Amendment (which gave the American people the affliction of confiscatory income taxes) was never supposed to have passed. It was introduced by the Republicans as part of a political scheme to trick the Democrats, but it backfired.

Background

The Founding Fathers had rejected income taxes (or any other direct taxes) unless they were apportioned to each state according to population. Nevertheless, an income tax was levied during the Civil War and upheld by the Supreme Court on somewhat tenuous reasoning. When another income tax was enacted in 1893, the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional. In connection with the two Pollock cases reviewed in 1895, the Court declared that the act violated Article I, section 9 of the Constitution.

During the following decade, however, the complexion of the Court changed somewhat, and so did public sentiment. There was great social unrest and the idea of a tax to "soak the rich" began to take root among liberals in both major parties. Several times the Democrats introduced bills to provide a tax on higher incomes but each time the conservative branch of the Republican party killed it in the Senate. The Democrats used this as evidence that the Republicans were the "party of the rich" and should be thrown out of power, forcing President William Howard Taft to acknowledge in political speeches that income taxes might be all right "in principle", but it was well known among close associates that he was strongly opposed to such a tax.

The Bailey Bill

In April 1909, Senator Joseph W. Bailey, a conservative Democrat from Texas who was also opposed to income taxes, decided to further embarrass the Republicans by forcing them to openly oppose an income tax bill similar to those which had been introduced in the past. He introduced his bill expecting it to get the usual opposition. However, to his amazement, Teddy Roosevelt and a growing element of liberals in the Republican party came out in favor of the bill and it looked as though it was going to pass.

Not only was Bailey surprised, but Senator Nelson W. Aldrich of Rhode Island, the Republican floor leader, frantically met with Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts and President Taft to work out a strategy to demolish the Bailey tax bill. Their own party was split too widely to permit a direct confrontation, so the strategy was to pull a political end run. They announced that they favored an income tax but only if it were an amendment to the Constitution. Within their own circle, they discussed how it might get approval of the House and the Senate, but they were quite certain that it could be defeated in the more conservative states-three-fourths of which were required in order to ratify the amendment.

Thus, the Democrats were off guard when President Taft unexpectedly sent a message to Congress on June 16th, 1909, recommending the passage of a constitutional amendment to legalize federal income tax legislation.

The strategy threw the liberals into an uproar. At the very moment when their Bailey bill was about to pass, the Republicans were coming out for an amendment to the Constitution which would probably be defeated by the states.

Reaction to the Amendment

Congressman Cordell Hull (D-Tenn., and later Secretary of State under FDR) saw exactly what was happening. He took the floor to excoriate the Republican leaders. Said he:

"No person at all familiar with the present trend of national legislation will seriously insist that these same Republican leaders are over-anxious to see the country adopt an income tax...What powerful influence, what new light and deepseated motive suddenly moves these political veterans to 'about face' and pretend to warmly embrace this doctrine which they have heretofore uniformly denounced?" {1}

He went on to expose what he considered to be a political trick. He needn't have been so concerned. The slogan of "soak the rich" automatically aroused Pavlovian salivation among politicians both in Washington and the states. The Senate approved the Sixteenth Amendment with an astonishing unanimity of 77-0! The House approved it by a vote of 318-14.

When Republican Congressman Sereno E. Payne of New York, who had introduced the amendment in the House, saw that this end run was turning into a winning touchdown for the opposition, he was horrified. He went to the floor and openly denounced the bill he had sponsored. Said he:

"As to the general policy of an income tax, I am utterly opposed to it. I believe with Gladstone that it tends to make a nation of liars. I believe it is the most easily concealed of any tax that can be laid, the most difficult of enforcement, and the hardest to collect; that it is, in a word, a tax upon the income of honest men and an exemption, to a greater or lesser extent, of the income of rascals; and so I am opposed to any income tax in time of peace...I hope that if the Constitution is amended in this way the time will not come when the American people will ever want to enact an income tax except in time of war." {2}

The end run of the Republican leadership did indeed backfire. State after state ratified this "soak the rich" amendment until it went into full force and effect on February 12, 1913 (Ed.note: Mr. Bill Benson, in his book "The Law That Never Was" has since documented massive...and outcome changing...federal interference in the certification of the votes of the individual state legislatures. The votes for and against from Kentucky, for instance, were switched by then Secretary of State Philander Knox.)"

These are more very interesting links on the subject:

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/16th.htm

http://www.claremont.org/.../...aker_johnson.html

http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Update2005-01-29.htm



In essence, tax is only valid for the basic necessity of GOVERNMENT FUNCTION... not for the WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE which would clearly be wealth redistribution.... a direct violation of ones rights under the Constitution.

[brien]

Well done Os...thumbs up to you!

[Osborn F. Enready]

Thank you kindly Brien. ;)

[brien]

Thank you kindly Brien. ;)

Os, it is we, who should thank you, for taking the time to write what is the truth here. You do notice that no one here will dare disagree with you because they know you are correct that the Republic has fallen into such a sad state of affairs, it hardly resembles what was originallly framed by our great forefathers who are probably spinning in their graves so fast, there is nothnig left of their bones. If the Republicrats have their way, there won't be much left of our Constitution either!

[I Like Beer]

Prior to 1862, .

Thanks, Os. I'll talk to you in six years when I finally get through this.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I Like Beer said:
Thanks, Os. I'll talk to you in six years when I finally get through this.

LOL... don't feel bad friend...

I have been on this trail of unconstitutional legislation for about 8 years now, still find more paths of corruption every day.

The real issue to understand is the bi-partisan role being played here.... they are both systematicly infringing rights (albeit different rights) through selective interpretation, redefinition, and outright partisan power grabs and schemes to retain it, exclusively between them.

This whole two party thing is a charade, disguising the actual ultimatum being issued each election.

[xLIBREx]

LOL... don't feel bad friend...

I have been on this trail of unconstitutional legislation for about 8 years now, still find more paths of corruption every day.

The real issue to understand is the bi-partisan role being played here.... they are both systematicly infringing rights (albeit different rights) through selective interpretation, redefinition, and outright partisan power grabs and schemes to retain it, exclusively between them.

This whole two party thing is a charade, disguising the actual ultimatum being issued each election.

Exactly! Bipartisanship is basically divide and conquer. The left wants to steel your economic freedoms and your property rights. The right wants to steal your social freedoms and you right to your own body. What both sides are too stupid to realize is that the both are eroding the Constitution and basically setting the precedent for the other side to steal their rights. If we continue down this road we won't have any rights left and it will be game, set, and match in favor of our politicians.