Pelosi: Kids Are Expensive, So Let’s Get Rid of Them
Nancy Pelosi is a wretched, child-hating beast. Of course, I find that it would be quite fitting to use other words to describe her, but I will refrain from doing so.
According to Nancy ‘Kill the Kids’ Pelosi, children are expensive, and having to give money to people who want to kill them off for financial reasons is simply a consequence of dealing with the economic downturn.
No, I’m not making this stuff up. Watch the video for yourself.
I especially get ticked off at the lack of apologies. Typical liberal.
I wonder, Pelosi, if you would feel that it would stimulate the economy if someone were to shoot you in the face with a shotgun? We can call it a ‘retroactive abortion’, and it will definitely help soften the blow that you liberals are dealing to our economy. But that’s just a theory.
Perhaps we should give some government funding to pay for the castration of all socialist liberals. It would impact the economy positively, too!
Get real Nancy. We all knew that you had no morals. Now we know that you see children as a ‘cost’. Great. I’d love to know how your kids feel about that.
Isn’t it nice to know, Nancy, that you could afford your kids? But just think of the money you COULD have saved…
For me, this just confirms that Nancy Pelosi is a bigger threat than the terrorists. Or perhaps that Nancy Pelosi is, in fact, a terrorist. Perhaps not technically, no. But to me? I’d much rather deal with Hamas. Nancy Pelosi is just worthless to me.
If you enjoyed this post, please subscribe to our RSS feed or help keep this site running!
Tags: evil, nancy pelosi, terrorist
- About admin
18 Responses to “Pelosi: Kids Are Expensive, So Let’s Get Rid of Them”
Sponsors
Awards
February 4th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
[...] Verbal Thermite | Conservative Politics - Pelosi: Kids are expensive, so let’s get rid of them. [...]
March 10th, 2009 at 3:05 am
This is rediculous. I actually had to look up this interview because your 42 second clip was removed by youtube. (By the way, for future reference, if a clip is 42 seconds long, you probably are not getting the full story). And you weren’t. If you would go back and watch the interview, Pelosi was not even remotely saying “kids are expensive so lets get rid of them”. That is just stupid. In the interview she talks about how providing stimulus to the states to provide for family planning services ALONG with other things like food stamps or health care will save the state money, freeing up capital for them to use to further stimulate the economy. No where did it advocate more abortions or saying that killing “kids” is a great idea. Total fabricated propaganda in this post.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:21 am
Everybody knows that Pelosi is pro-abortion for the sake of reducing future ‘cost’ to the government. Why? She’s made that clear for a long time.
Even if your statement is totally true, how will funding birth control, abortion, food stamps, or health care with taxpayer money stimulate the economy at all?
March 10th, 2009 at 7:46 am
It will stimulate the economy by having the federal government fund those programs. Currently things like health and human services or health care like CHIP are funded by the state. When the federal government offers this stimulus to fund those things, the state has more money at it’s disposal, money that before would have had to fund those programs. That extra money can be tossed into things that stimulate the economy, such as construction projects or increasing/extending unemployment benefits. It’s a good idea and has nothing to do with anyone’s view on abortion. The article was misleading.
March 14th, 2009 at 8:28 am
I think the problem with trying to stimulate the economy in that way has a couple of problems. Not that the intentions aren’t good (regarding your analysis of it), but somewhat flawed.
First, construction projects are good, but they are short term. My step-dad runs a construction company. When the job is finished, that’s it. There’s no income after that final payment for those workers until something else comes up. That is a very short-term stimulus for the workers and the company providing the construction.
Second, it really isn’t the federal governments job to make sure that people are able to support themselves. Now, if there is a legitimate need (i.e., disabled without relatives to assist or some similar extenuating circumstances), I’m not against helping those people. What bugs me are the people that abuse the system…and there are plenty of them. I’m also not against providing (very) limited help to people who are struggling to make it. However, I feel that if a person can pull his/her own weight, they should. Extending unemployment benefits would help in our current economic condition (for the unemployed, providing they are actually trying to find work), but again that would be a short-term stimulus with a very limited scope.
A major tax cut would drastically reduce the strain of the economy for everyone.
If the federal government were to institute an income tax break for even a few months, the impact would be far more effective. I know that personally I would have a few hundred bucks more each week. Naturally, that money would be spent, which would pay the company a profit (after they pay the worker who sold me the item). That profit would be used advertise their product (which would spur competition from competitor x down the road, forcing them to reduce their prices in order to compete), thereby drawing in more customers, and the cycle continues. Also, the government would get their share. The more profit a company makes, the more Uncle Sam gets, thereby stimulating the economy further.
I think the point is that short term stimuli are good, but throwing billions into programs like planned parenthood are not very effective. Also, not to stray too far from the original article, Pelosi never specified directly where the costs were reduced, only that it prevents added costs on healthcare, etc. Knowing that she is totally pro-abortion, it doesn’t take a huge stretch of logic to come up with her chain of thought, hence the ‘misleading’ article. :D
March 14th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
First, construction projects are good, but they are short term. My step-dad runs a construction company. When the job is finished, that’s it. There’s no income after that final payment for those workers until something else comes up. That is a very short-term stimulus for the workers and the company providing the construction.
Maybe if you are building a house. Obama’s plan however will provide for LONG term projects, such as road and bridge construction, laying broadband lines throughout the rural United States, water and green energy projects, etc. This will provide steady jobs for millions of people for a long time. I mean look at how long the road construction has taken between College Station and Navasota. It’s been going on for like five years and still going strong.
Second, it really isn’t the federal governments job to make sure that people are able to support themselves. “Hmm what was that provide for the general welfare part of the Constitution?”
Now, if there is a legitimate need (i.e., disabled without relatives to assist or some similar extenuating circumstances), I’m not against helping those people. Good.
What bugs me are the people that abuse the system…and there are plenty of them. And they will exist no matter what plan is inacted. Support welfare, you will have welfare cheats. Oppose it and you will have an increase in theft. Tis life.
I’m also not against providing (very) limited help to people who are struggling to make it. I’m not, I think the government helping people is awesome. I work my butt off, pay my taxes out of every check, and I have no problem using government loans to get my education or a government card to get my baby her formula or doctors visits. If I’m a socialist because of it, oh wellJ
However, I feel that if a person can pull his/her own weight, they should. Yup me too. But you can’t pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you don’t first have boots.
Extending unemployment benefits would help in our current economic condition (for the unemployed, providing they are actually trying to find work), but again that would be a short-term stimulus with a very limited scope. This is true. But it will keep food on the table for that unemployed person’s kids. Rock on with the increases!
A major tax cut would drastically reduce the strain of the economy for everyone. Not true. It wouldn’t change anything for me really. I don’t pay income tax, I’m poor so a tax cut won’t effect me. The only thing that would effect me is a social security tax cut and that would hurt old people. A tax cut will help the rich. That’s it.
If the federal government were to institute an income tax break for even a few months, the impact would be far more effective. For the rich. Poor people get back money. They don’t pay income tax.
I know that personally I would have a few hundred bucks more each week. Naturally, that money would be spent, which would pay the company a profit (after they pay the worker who sold me the item). Maybe short term, but when you used up that disposable income there would be no net benefit.
That profit would be used advertise their product (which would spur competition from competitor x down the road, forcing them to reduce their prices in order to compete), thereby drawing in more customers, and the cycle continues. Also, the government would get their share. The more profit a company makes, the more Uncle Sam gets, thereby stimulating the economy further. That is a scary thought. It’s that idea right there that defines corporatism to it’s core.
I think the point is that short term stimuli are good, but throwing billions into programs like planned parenthood are not very effective. Also, not to stray too far from the original article, Pelosi never specified directly where the costs were reduced, only that it prevents added costs on healthcare, etc. Knowing that she is totally pro-abortion, it doesn’t take a huge stretch of logic to come up with her chain of thought, hence the ‘misleading’ article.
Her abortion stance has nothing to do with it. It is a small way to cut state costs. No different than giving the rich a tax cut, doesn’t help many but a small part of the collective.
March 14th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
“That is a scary thought. It’s that idea right there that defines corporatism to it’s core.”
No, that’s just business. That’s how the system works. It’s called a free market (with the addition of a federal corporate tax). That’s not ‘corporatism’ at all. It’s the way the system is SUPPOSED to work.
As for ’short-term’ projects, even a 5 year road project will end, and then those workers are laid off.
Tax cuts do benefit the rich. They also benefit the poor. If the rich guy has a booming business, he’s going to need to hire people to meet the demand…like the guy on unemployment. It’s not unfair to the poor if a rich guy uses legal means to gain a profit. Hey, what about all of the welfare folks who start their own businesses and end up being rich? The notion that the rich are bad because they are rich is misguided.
I don’t get it…why is it that many liberals keep saying that tax cuts only help the rich? Have they ever read an economics book? I have…I rather enjoy economics and business.
I’m thinking that the libs on capitol hill have no clue how the system works; they just ‘feel’ that it’s not fair, and they want to overhaul it.
It’s bad. They should read a book.
March 15th, 2009 at 8:28 am
First off the United States does not have a free market.
5 year road construction is not a “short term” project. Have you ever stayed on a job for 5 years? I haven’t. Most average people haven’t. It’s long term and it’s a great way to stimulate the economy.
Tax cuts do not benefit the poor. Don’t believe me? Go look at the Reagan years. I also find the whole “how about people on welfare who become millionaires?” argument to be laughable. What percentage of the population is that? 00000000000001% at best.
Yes I have read tons of economic books and I get my advice from people with economic degrees. Allowing for a vibrant middle class, which Obama is doing with this economic package, is the way to go.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:10 am
I know many people who have been with the same companies for 15, 20, or even 30 years. They aren’t construction workers, for the most part.
Actually, the percentage is higher. And I remember the Reagan years. My grandfather was a union member, so I heard all of the griping about ‘Reaganomics’. I’ve yet to hear how tax cuts make things harder on the poor - at least a reasonable argument.
Those small businesses that make $250,000 a year are considered middle class businesses. Not all of that goes into the pocket of the middle class owners of those businesses. But Obama thinks it’s unfair that they earn that much. The math doesn’t work out in Obama’s favor.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Ok well you did not address any of the issues I brought forth, but that is ok. First off, you did not address that fact that these major construction projects are not “short” term projects. Even republicans agree with me. Look at Rick Perry, he wanted the Trans Texas Corridor. Some people might say it was a conspiracy, but why did Perry say it was good? Because it was a long term project that would add jobs and stimulate the economy. Same goes with Huckabee. He wanted to build a huge highway and water system running up the East Coast. Exact same reason. Obama’s plan is right. You have not shown how these major extensive plans are “short term” projects. They aren’t. They are long term and provide many people with new jobs and more money to stimulate the economy and also allow for many news businesses to find new areas to operate.
No I’m fairly certain the percentage is not higher. Find me some stories of people who were on welfare and became millionaires. I tend to think you will have quite the time finding people because it RARELY happens. And yes Reagan’s economic policies sucked. Giving tax cuts to the rich and hoping it trickles down to the poor is stupid and has been throughly discounted.
Prove where Obama thinks it’s unfair that a middle class businessman can make 250k a year. I’d love to see that source.
March 15th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
The Trans-Texas Corridor had some good ideas, but nobody liked the fact that they would have to hand over their private property to the government and then deal with the noise/pollution/etc.
It’s long-term in the sense that it’s not a one-week gig. It’s not permanent, and yes, some of the effects might spur a local boost (i.e., freeways tend to draw the attention of fast food chains and gas stations). It’s still not the ‘permanent solution’ that Dems want. It’s not altogether horrible, and I don’t want you to think I’m totally against these projects. It’s just not what they are telling us that it is.
Of course, then you’d have to deal with people complaining about all of the inept kids that work at the new fast food place, all of the ‘foreigners’ working at the gas stations, taking ‘our’ jobs…it’s just an endless nightmare. Oh, and they may have jobs, but it’s not fair for the owners of these new franchises to get rich off of them. :D
Trickle down economics did work. You have to look places other than anti-conservative sites to hear the stories.
Hang on…I did make a mistake on that Obama point. He doesn’t think it’s unfair that they can earn that much…he just thinks it’s not fair to those who aren’t ‘able’ to have the chance. Most of those people just won’t take the chance. But then, I really can’t prove that…except I can name some names of personal examples. But that wouldn’t do any good. Don’t you think it would be detrimental to raise taxes on a middle class entrepreneur who just hits the 250k mark?
Here’s a few ‘rags to riches’ stories, as per your request for examples. Not all of them were on welfare, some were worse off. All of them pulled themselves up by the bootstraps. Heh, the ‘without boots’ thing is only a verbal counter to a non-literal phrase.
-Andrew Carnegie (Carnegie Steel)
-Chris Gardner (Gardner, Rich & Co.)
-Sheldon Adelson (Las Vegas Sands Casino)
-Steve Jobs (Apple, Inc.)
-Ralph Lauren (Polo Fashions)
-J.K. Rowling (Harry Potter Author)
-My step-dad. He’s not famous, but I’ve seen what he went through to get where he is today…which is WAY better than a lot of people we know.
Shall I continue with examples? Not everyone will become a billionaire entrepreneur, and most of them will not become as famouse as some of these people. That doesn’t mean it’s a tiny percentage. I bet most people don’t know the name of the person that founded 3M off the top of their heads. That doesn’t mean it is uncommon.
Dedication and hard work go a very long way.
March 15th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Yes I know that no one liked TTC bc of eminent domain, but the point was that Perry pushed it bc it was a long term project to create jobs.
Then you say it’s not permanent. Well no job is permanent. If you are thinking they are supposed to be creating 50 year jobs, you’re dreaming. But these jobs will keep people employed for years and open up more jobs in new markets. And this is EXACTLY the solution Dems want. That is why they are pushing a plan to build these things. Republicans for the most part oppose such projects.
I don’t get your statement about “foreigners” and “our” jobs. We are all foreigners.
No trickle down economics did not work. It killed job production. My economics book from microeco class tells me so.
No I think it’s fine to raise taxes on someone who makes 250k, he’s got the money to pay it.
Andrew Carnegie was not a welfare to millionaire example. A matter of fact both of his parents worked as did he and they made a decent living. He also got to be educated, something uncommon in the 1840’s. Bad example.
Steve Jobs? Seriously? To support a welfare to millionaire argument? Come on…………Jobs was born in San Francisco[1] and was adopted by Paul and Clara (née Hagopian) Jobs of Mountain View, Santa Clara County, California who named him Steven Paul. Paul and Clara also had a daughter, Patty. His biological parents, Joanne Carole Schieble and Abdulfattah Jandali[7] — a graduate student from Syria who became a political science professor[7] — later married and gave birth to Jobs’ sister, the novelist Mona Simpson.
Jobs attended Cupertino Junior High School and Homestead High School in Cupertino, California,[13] and frequented after-school lectures at the Hewlett-Packard Company in Palo Alto, California. He was soon hired there and worked with Steve Wozniak as a summer employee.[15] In 1972, Jobs graduated from high school and enrolled in Reed College in Portland, Oregon. Although he dropped out after only one semester,[16] he continued auditing classes at Reed, such as one in calligraphy. “If I had never dropped in on that single course in college, the Mac would have never had multiple typefaces or proportionally spaced fonts”, he said.[17]
In the autumn of 1974, Jobs returned to California and began attending meetings of the Homebrew Computer Club with Steve Wozniak. He took a job as a technician at Atari, a manufacturer of popular video games, with the primary intent of saving money for a spiritual retreat to India.
REALLY bad example
JK Rowling?
Rowling was born to Peter James Rowling and Anne Rowling (née Volant), on 31 July 1965 in Yate, Gloucestershire, England, 10 miles (16.1 km) northeast of Bristol.[12] Her sister Dianne (Di) was born at their home on 28 June 1967[13] when Rowling was 23 months old.[12] The family moved to the nearby village Winterbourne when Rowling was four. She attended St Michael’s Primary School,[14] a school founded almost 200 years ago by famed abolitionist William Wilberforce[15] and education reformer Hannah More. Her elderly headmaster at St. Michael’s, Alfred Dunn, was claimed as the inspiration for the Harry Potter character Albus Dumbledore.[16][17]
As a child, Rowling enjoyed writing fantasy stories, which she often read to her sister. “I can still remember me telling her a story in which she fell down a rabbit hole and was fed strawberries by the rabbit family inside it,” she recalls, “Certainly the first story I ever wrote down (when I was five or six) was about a rabbit called Rabbit. He got the measles and was visited by his friends, including a giant bee called Miss Bee.”[8]
At the age of nine, Rowling moved to the Gloucestershire village of Tutshill, close to Chepstow, Wales.[12] When she was a young teenager, her great aunt, who Rowling said “taught classics and approved of a thirst for knowledge, even of a questionable kind”, gave her a very old copy of Jessica Mitford’s autobiography, Hons and Rebels.[18] Mitford became Rowling’s heroine, and Rowling subsequently read all of her books.[19]
She attended secondary school at Wyedean School and College. Rowling has said of her adolescence, “Hermione is loosely based on me. She’s a caricature of me when I was eleven, which I’m not particularly proud of.”[20] Sean Harris, her best friend in the Upper Sixth owned a turquoise Ford Anglia, which she says inspired the one in her books. “Ron Weasley isn’t a living portrait of Sean, but he really is very Sean-ish.”[21] Of her musical tastes of the time, she said “My favourite group in the world is The Smiths. And when I was going through a punky phase, it was The Clash.”[22] Rowling read for a BA in French and Classics at the University of Exeter, which she says was a “bit of a shock” as she “was expecting to be amongst lots of similar people– thinking radical thoughts.” Once she made friends with “some like-minded people” she says she began to enjoy herself.[23] With a year of study in Paris, Rowling moved to London to work as a researcher and bilingual secretary for Amnesty International.[24]
Now yes at one point after this she was on welfare, but that doesn’t help your argument, as she merely did it to be able to stay at home with her child. At this point she had a bachelors degree and was clearly able to work. She just played the system.
These are not good examples of welfare to millionaires. The reason it’s so hard to find good examples is because there are so few of them……
March 15th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
“We are all foreigners.”
No, I’m not.
“No trickle down economics did not work. It killed job production. My economics book from microeco class tells me so.”
Who wrote that book? Who did he vote for? Allow me to use something that many liberals have said to me…*ahem*…you believe everything you read? Do you believe everything they teach in schools? The second part of that is mine. They teach evolution in schools, too. I don’t believe that. Why should I believe everything people tell me?
“No I think it’s fine to raise taxes on someone who makes 250k, he’s got the money to pay it.”
Yeah, but taxes come out before his profit, and also before he pays his workers. Less money for workers = fewer workers.
Jobs took his ambition and built a successful business from nothing more than his passion.
Rowling still went from welfare to riches, which was exactly what you were asking for examples of. The point? To prove that it could be done, and wasn’t just a myth.
You didn’t read my whole rags-to-riches response. You only addressed two individuals whom you felt were poor examples. You didn’t even touch on the others, nor did you address the millions of people who aren’t famous but are very successful…not exactly millionaires, but still making above the Obama ‘you need to pay more taxes’ margin.
It’s not totally uncommon. You just don’t hear about them because they aren’t multi-billionaires like the folks I mentioned.
March 22nd, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Yeah I pretty much believe what I’m taught in school. Especially economics. Microeconomics as formulated by Keynes has been widely accepted as correct so I’m on pretty good academic grounds with that one.
That is fine that Steve Jobs built a business from his passion but before you made the comment that there were many who went from welfare to millionaire status. You were wrong. You haven’t shown one yet. The only one you showed that was on welfare was Rowling and it wasn’t because she needed it, she already had a bachelors and had a good job but wanted time off and used the welfare to take care of her kid. I addressed three in my last post by the way, not two, Carnegy, Jobs and Rowling. I could do the rest if I had to but I figured I got the point across. They were bad examples. And yes it is totally uncommon. I have not heard of all these people you talk about that went from welfare to being “very successful” and certainly not millionaires.
March 22nd, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Ok and just to show the rest of the examples were flawed. Ralph Lauren, never on welfare, had a stable family and was educated. Bad example.
Ralph Lauren was born Ralph Rueben Lifshitz in The Bronx to Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants from Belarus[1]: Fraydl (Kotlar) and Frank Lifshitz, a house painter.[citation needed]
From a young age he started working after school to earn money to buy suits. A four-year younger Calvin Klein, lived in the same Bronx neighborhood but it is not known if they ever met while living there.
Lauren attended the Salanter Academy Jewish Day School followed by MTA (now known as the Marsha Stern Talmudical Academy), before eventually graduating from DeWitt Clinton High School in 1957.[citation needed] In MTA Lauren was known by his classmates for selling ties to his fellow students.
Sheldon Adelson. Never on welfare, educated, apparently OWNED a business at the age of 12. Bad example.
Adelson’s parents were Jewish. His mother’s family emigrated to the United States from Ukraine; his father’s family came from Lithuania.[3] Adelson was born and grew up in the Dorchester neighborhood of Boston, Massachusetts, a rough-and-tumble section of Boston, where his father drove a taxicab. [4] He worked at a young age selling newspapers on local street corners and owned his first business by the time he was twelve. In the years that followed, he worked as a mortgage broker, investment adviser and financial consultant. He started a business selling toiletry kits, and in the 1960s he started a charter tours business with two friends. [4] He went to college at City College of New York
Chris Gardner, eh not as bad as the rest. He was homeless for a while, apparently his mom got arrested for gaming the welfare system, she was collecting checks while working. I don’t think that qualifies as going from welfare to millionaire, more like going from gaming the system to jail…….but Gardner himself did go from being homeless with a kid to making something out of himself. So that is one example out of 6.
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Poor, welfare…no need to nit-pick. They were all disadvantaged, right? They were all ‘poor’, right?
Owning a business at age 12 is a good way for a poor kid to become a wealthy young man. I’d say that’s a spot-on example.
These are people who went from having almost nothing to having great wealth thanks to their own hard work. I don’t get how libs don’t get this…
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:38 pm
No there is plenty of room to nitpick. I am poor. Yet I have never been on welfare. I do not wish to be categorized as such.
No that is not a spot on example. He was not a poor kid who started a business. He was a middle class kid with working parents and an education who started a business.
No they did not start with nothing. They started with working parents and educations. You are misrepresenting these examples.
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:48 pm
I’m not categorizing you. You asked for examples of people who went from having nothing to having wealth.
Forgive my conflicting words. You get my point, I’m sure.
So poor kids who start a business are not rags-to-riches story worthy…people on welfare aren’t supposed to be educated??? I can’t follow that logic.
I had a step-dad that worked all the time. We still were on welfare. I don’t really want to go into how I get my opinions, but I will if I need to.
Being poor doesn’t mean being on welfare. You are right about that. But by the same token, being on welfare doesn’t mean you are unable to rise above that.
In fact, that’s kind of the whole idea, isn’t it? Temporary assistance?