Thread: Santorum blames 'abortion culture' for problems with SS

Originally Posted by TomBlaze

Not really. If anything abortion limits the amount of welfare recipients saving tax payer's money. Call it the anti-subsidy of welfare.

Yeah, but if you conceive a child you can't support once, and get rid of it, you are probably going to do it again, and again, and a host of other things that are unhealthy.

Originally Posted by TomBlaze

Abortion, whether you agree with it or not (for the record I am against it personally but legally, it is not my choice to make. Women are the landlords of their body and if they want to evict their tenant, it is their choice to make) is never going to go away. The only thing we can be sure of is if it is made illegal across the board, we will see a lot of young women dying due to botched back-alley abortions and a whole new underground black market catering to those needs.

Its like the drug war. It can't be won. Ever. The best way to mitigate it is to legalize and regulate it to take the criminal element out of it.

Whenever you make something illegal, no matter what it is, there is always going to be people who do it anyway. And we make it illegal anyway to minimize the damage.

You wouldn't legalize insider trading because, after all, people are still going to try, would you?

Originally Posted by Commodore

Yeah, but if you conceive a child you can't support once, and get rid of it, you are probably going to do it again, and again, and a host of other things that are unhealthy.

That's the choice they have to live with. It's not yours or mine to make. It does more to reduce poverty than anything else. Not to mention that kids to born to parent that do not want them anyway have a tendency to turn into criminals. Better to abort or give away for adoption.

Whenever you make something illegal, no matter what it is, there is always going to be people who do it anyway. And we make it illegal anyway to minimize the damage.
You wouldn't legalize insider trading because, after all, people are still going to try, would you?

For some things like murder and robbery, yes making it illegal can reduce damage. For drugs and abortion. No. This is because the foundation for these things is morals and it is not the job of the state to enforce morality because they are so different form one person to the next. Plenty of people do drugs for recreation and have perfectly productive lives. Same with abortion. Its a morality thing. A religious thing and neither of these things have a place in government.

Making abortion illegal would cost the tax payers billions in enforcement and it would start a witch hunt. The drug war costs upwards of 100 billion dollars per year with 50 billion going to the DEA alone for a war they cannot ever win BUT it is job security so we keep paying. You talk about cutting spending? There it is.

Originally Posted by TomBlaze

Not really. If anything abortion limits the amount of welfare recipients saving tax payer's money. Call it the anti-subsidy of welfare.

Why not just round up a bunch of poor people and toss them in an oven then? Same difference.

Abortion, whether you agree with it or not (for the record I am against it personally but legally, it is not my choice to make. Women are the landlords of their body and if they want to evict their tenant, it is their choice to make) is never going to go away. The only thing we can be sure of is if it is made illegal across the board, we will see a lot of young women dying due to botched back-alley abortions and a whole new underground black market catering to those needs.[/quote]

So by your rationale, if a landlord wants to evict their tenants, killing them is a perfectly acceptable way to make them go away.

Originally Posted by TomBlaze

Its like the drug war. It can't be won. Ever. The best way to mitigate it is to legalize and regulate it to take the criminal element out of it.

The best way to mitigate it is for people not to do it, and you think legalizing it won't cause an increase in use, and an increase in crimes related to people stealing to pay for their habits?

Originally Posted by tsquare

Translation = 'I saw the slippery slope I was about to fall down and don't want to play anymore.'

Good for you...

No, I just get tired of words being put in my mouth.

Discuss what I write, not what you wish I wrote. If you have to start your post with "so you're saying..." don't bother, because you NEVER get it right.


There was no slippery slope, because I wasn't implying exclusivity, only distribution.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Why not just round up a bunch of poor people and toss them in an oven then? Same difference.

Isn't that what the GOP wants to do now? Seems right in line with their message to me.

So by your rationale, if a landlord wants to evict their tenants, killing them is a perfectly acceptable way to make them go away.

No because those people are already alive and conscious and not in fetal stage. Let me rephrase what I said earlier. A woman is the goddess of her body and therefore she can chose who lives to go on and who doesn't in that world.

The best way to mitigate it is for people not to do it, and you think legalizing it won't cause an increase in use, and an increase in crimes related to people stealing to pay for their habits?

That is nothing more than assumptions. Distorted assumptions. Making it legal will actually make for harder for kids to get them. I read study on kids and alcohol and drugs and the primary reason why kids start smoking pot and doing other drugs is because they are EASIER to get than alcohol. It is not up to you or me to tell people what they can and cannot put into their bodies. Period. Most legal prescription medication is far more addictive and damaging than even heroin. Cigarettes are PROVEN to be more addictive than heroin yet it is legal because the good 'ol boys run that scam.

Crime rates DROPPED after the repeal of prohibition. Conversely, crime SPIKED almost immediately after it was made illegal.

I smoke pot. I have gainful employment. Pay my taxes and contributed to society and America with my stint in the Army (19D). I have no criminal record.

There are millions like me. Tens of millions even. The key is education and moderation.

Originally Posted by TomBlaze

Post 56. I placed a link.

Thanks!

It would be cheaper for the taxpayers to just sterilize the poor folks who could get pregnant then, or better just kill em before they could reproduce. Problem solved. They are such a drag on society anyways and if you won't work, you don't get to eat. Starve em to death. They are worthless humans and don't have a right to life, when we have to take care of them. No more free lunches.

I would opt for the mandatory sterilization as I have no stomach for killing. Oh say anyone of reproduction age today that was in the poverty class, do a mandatory sterilization. Both male and female. Perhaps then through selective genetics we could finally clean up the gene pool. And just reproduce winners.

Originally Posted by tsquare

Statistically, Santorum is correct.

In the years since Roe v Wade we have killed over 30 million children... many of whom would now be grown and working... and paying SS taxes. At least 70 billion additional in SS taxes per year.

Row v Wade did not kill any children.

Originally Posted by tsquare

Statistically, Santorum is correct.

In the years since Roe v Wade we have killed over 30 million children... many of whom would now be grown and working... and paying SS taxes. At least 70 billion additional in SS taxes per year.

Statistically 10 million of those kids would now be on welfare, 15 million of the total would not be voting and 14 million of them would be voting democratic. Ultimately this is why Republicans will never really push for actually outlawing abortion. Its an extremely unfavorable political long-term strategy for several reasons. 100 years from now republicans will still be tackling the issue of abortion if the party even exists.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

“Let us also be very clear,” Sanders said. “Social Security has never contributed one dime to the federal budget deficit or the national debt. In fact, Social Security currently has a $2.6 trillion surplus that is projected to grow to $4.2 trillion in 2023. It is absurd, therefore, to be discussing Social Security within the context of deficit reduction.”

Release: Defend Social Security Bill Proposed by Sanders - Newsroom: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont)

That statement is false. If you took the over $700 billion a year that gets collected by SS and paid that into our deficit we would be debt free in no time and be running such a huge surplus it would be insane. We are also pay about $200 billion a year on just our interest rates. Having our debt paid off our actually net us $900 billion extra a year. Imagine what we could accomplish with almost 1 trillion more dollars every year.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

A couple of different ways, but we'd need better statistics. But, based on some intuition we can make a number of guesses:

1) the fact that an abortion happened doesn't mean that all of those would now be adult people - a child born then may very well have offset a person now, or even more than one. Children are amazingly effective birth control.

2) children that would have been born would have been disproportionately poor, disproportionately minority, and disproportionately single-parent households. These are not individuals who are set up to pay into systems, but to benefit from them.

3) the job market would not have grown proportionately to the population.


Santorum's theory is erroneous at best.

His theory is fine in theory. Social Security is a ponzi scheme. Like all ponzi schemes, it depends upon new entrants into the scheme to keep it afloat. It therefore stands to reason that any reduction in rates of reproduction is going to weaken the house of cards. Systematic abortion, particularly in the staggering numbers seen since Roe v. Wade, would certainly play a role in that. However, since the putative entrants into the ponzi scheme are now dead and never had a chance to become productive members of society there is absolutely no way to definitively measure the impact their loss on our population has had. Your suggestion that the abortees would have been a net burden on society is wishful thinking IMO, but it's all speculative as I said because they never had a chance; thus, we'll never know.

Originally Posted by Fidei Defensor

His theory is fine in theory. Social Security is a ponzi scheme. Like all ponzi schemes, it depends upon new entrants into the scheme to keep it afloat. It therefore stands to reason that any reduction in rates of reproduction is going to weaken the house of cards. Systematic abortion, particularly in the staggering numbers seen since Roe v. Wade, would certainly play a role in that. However, since the putative entrants into the ponzi scheme are now dead and never had a chance to become productive members of society there is absolutely no way to definitely measure the impact their loss on our population has had.

But we can't say with any certainty that there is a real reduction in the number of supportive entrants. He's grasping at straws, at best.

Oops; I snuck an edit in there while you were responding.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

But we can't say with any certainty that there is a real reduction in the number of supportive entrants. He's grasping at straws, at best.

I don't think so. As I said, it's a perfectly rational theory. I think you're grasping at straws a bit to suggest that the abortees would have been a net burden on society. I will agree, however, that most likely would have become Democrats.

Originally Posted by Fidei Defensor

Oops; I snuck an edit in there while you were responding.



I don't think so. As I said, it's a perfectly rational theory. I think you're grasping at straws a bit to suggest that the abortees would have been a net burden on society. I will agree, however, that most likely would have become Democrats.

Ha!

I'm not saying that they would necessarily have been a net burden. Heck, we can't say for sure that there would have been a net population gain at all - that first kid may have prevented several others from being born.

We're all speculating at a system with many complicated factors, and crazy, irrational beings making goofy choices, so who knows.


And, trailer parks are full of Republicans...

:p