२० मार्च, २०१२
"So you’re all for like, 'yay, freedom,' and all this stuff. And 'yay, like pursuit of happiness.' You know what would make me happy? Free birth control."
Heckler to Romney, who says: "You know, let me tell you, no no, look, look let me tell you something. If you’re looking for free stuff you don’t have to pay for, vote for the other guy. That’s what he’s all about, okay? That’s not, that’s not what I’m about."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१२७ टिप्पण्या:
That's exactly the issue, isn't it? Free versus freedom.
There's no free lunch.
Duh.
He's hitting the right buttons, but I would like to see him carry them off with a bit less Richard Lewis and a bit more Patton. A face slap or two, metaphorically speaking, couldn't hurt.
What an easily mockable question, and a TOTALLY LAME response. Chris Christie would have hilariously berated her for five minutes to the delight of all.
"Yay freedom" frames the election; "yay, free stuff" frames the re-erection.
Choices, choices.
Had Romney given a response like this - unscripted - six months ago, the nomination would be over by now.
I do sort of wonder if this question was planted. Really, aren't the lefties clever enough to keep things like that on the down low?
No doubt.
I'm of the TNSTAAFL persuasion myself, but if you are going to give stuff away, then helping a heckler like this fail to breed via free birth control... twist my arm.
Hecklers, what can't they do?
If you’re looking for free stuff you don’t have to pay for, vote for the other guy.
Good reply.
Scott M and CedricL have it right except that I don't want Romney to act like someone he's not.
I guess I want him to be someone he's not.
Good reply.
I don't know. I can almost imagine that line showing up in an ad for the other guy.
"That's right, even Mitt Romney agrees: if you vote for Barack Obama, you'll get free stuff that you don't have to pay for. (This message paid for by the Committee to Re-Elect Barack Obama, with a loan from NPR and the Department of Education.)"
Would have been better to explain that there is no such thing as "free" - that the government is funded by taxes on your neighbors - so you want your neighbors to bankroll your sex life? You really want them to have a financial interests in who you choose to schtupp? That's not freedom - that's exchanging freedom for a few free rubbers.
"The other guy?" Mitt doesn't have the stones to say "The Magic Negro." And he never will.
Scott M and CedricL have it right except that I don't want Romney to act like someone he's not.
I don't believe you get to the levels of business that Romney did, nor MA politics, by being everybody's buddy. Given the gravity of what we're facing, I would appreciate the same lines delivered with a little sterner stuff...the same of which I'm sure he's made of, he just doesn't come across that way in front of potential voters.
And so the happiness theme returns...
How about if you want free birth control you barter for it with plasma?
How about an executive order that forces all plasma centers to pay in condoms
Sperm banks too.
Why is Romney so obsessed with talking about birth control?
He should be focusing on the economy!!
This is shamefully embarrassing for feminism.
As women, we may disagree, but really it's saying I'm incapable of even paying a co-pay is demeaning.
This poor woman has no idea what she said.
Tank said...
There's no free lunch.
Our resident proggs seem to think so.
I like your Paul Ryann's new tax proposal. It promises economic growth.
Go to 4:00
If you’re looking for free stuff you don’t have to pay for, vote for the other guy.
I love the response, but isn't this a bit redundant? Is there free stuff you do have to pay for? 'Cause, then it wouldn't be free stuff. It'd be stuff that costs money. Free stuff is stuff you don't pay for.
Sad that there are those who believe that if the government provides something, it is free. Tragic, even.
I heard that driving in this morning, and...
...reading it does not do it justice. You really have to hear it to appreciate it.
And when Romney says "If you’re looking for free stuff you don’t have to pay for, vote for the other guy." you hear gasps.
If the Right doesn't sample that clip and make that girl's stunt the de facto Liberal War Cry, it really hasn't learned anything. It's GOLDEN.
Ladies and Gentleman! Introducing, like, the next, like, freeloading generation! You'll never get them out of your house!!!
Romney just won the election.
That was a brilliant counter to the War on Women meme adopted by Obama's campaign. It is a war on Freebies only.
Most Americans know instinctively that Free things are worth what you pay for them.
I like your Paul Ryann's new tax proposal. It promises economic growth.
Talk about free stuff, Paul Ryan believes (and apparently a lot of you do too) that tax cuts miraculously pay for themselves. And of course for the last ten years you have had a completely free war--more free stuff for the right wing.
And of course, the next harpy follows up with a whine about what will happen to all of those poor women who depend on Planned Murder for their mammograms. Good lord, talk about low-hanging fruit. Mitt could have blasted that out of the park, beginning with tearing apart the lie that Murder, Inc. even performs mammograms, but instead he gives weak tea: "well, they can - they can go somewhere else."
"Yay freedom and all this stuff." The suffragettes must be turning over in their graves to see what utter imbeciles have the vote.
Sad that there are those who believe that if the government provides something,
The rule in question is a requirement that private insurance (which is paid for by the people who buy it) provide free birth control. The government is not paying for it.
Here's the natural partner piece for CJinPA's idea.
I think it is a winner of an answer, espcially coming after the Pelosi daughter doing that hilarious piece on welfare recipients wanting "Obama money", but the crowd response was interesting. It seemed to be a mixture of surprise that the guy would say something so direct to disappointment among some who want free stuff.
The government is not paying for it.
Oh, that's right. Because if I like my insurance policy, I can keep it.
I think Romney just found his winning angle against Obama - "I'm the guy who is not going to promise you free stuff, I'm going to give you a job".
Oh - and a chicken in every pot too and iPad in every home.
Talk about free stuff, Paul Ryan believes (and apparently a lot of you do too) that tax cuts miraculously pay for themselves.
Right. That's what we believe. Our ideology is miracle-based. You have us pegged.
Except the other guy WON'T even give you free stuff to make you happy-- unless you want free birth control.
You know what I want? Free cappuccino and Tiramisu. That would make ME happy. Where's my free happiness, liberal feminists? Aren't I a woman too????
The rule in question is a requirement that private insurance (which is paid for by the people who buy it) provide free birth control. The government is not paying for it.
Right. Other people are paying for it.
Not content with spending our tax dollars with reckless abandon, the government wants to extend its shameless profligacy to money it hasn't confiscated through taxes. What a great message: "We'll decide how to spend 20% of your income and then tell you how to spend the rest."
I want a free mansion while we're at it.
prairie wind said...
That's a good one. I wish we had video of the gal asking Romney the question.
It's not just the "free stuff" angle, it's the way she trumpets her ignorance and contempt of the country's founding principles, which, somehow, did not include the Left's most motivating issue: sex.
Aren't I a woman too????
Ain't I a woman?
So how soon before this gets featured on an episode of “South Park”?
I wonder if he planted that heckler, that's a really good comeback.
"You know, let me tell you, no no, look, look let me tell you something. If you’re looking for free stuff you don’t have to pay for, vote for the other guy. That’s what he’s all about, okay? That’s not, that’s not what I’m about."
Pure eloquence! :)
Go Willard!
Authoress Sarah Hoyt had a good posting on this issue a couple of days ago: “War is Hell.”
prairie wind said...
"Sad that there are those who believe that if the government provides something, it is free. Tragic, even."
Indeed so.
If we didn't have these people, we wouldn't have Democrats.
It's a party for leaches.
Meade, if you add #t=4m to the end of your youtube link, the video will start at 4 minutes.
Link
The rule in question is a requirement that private insurance (which is paid for by the people who buy it) provide free birth control. The government is not paying for it.
No, you want the government to force anybody else who has that company to pay higher premiums or to have people who want a policy of theirs to have a much more difficult time obtaining a policy.
Mighty kind of you.
Oh, that's right. Because if I like my insurance policy, I can keep it.
Great. My co-workers are staring at me for laughing at that.
"The other guy?" Mitt doesn't have the stones to say "The Magic Negro." And he never will.
So, what did you do after your political consulting business went bankrupt?
Mark O said...
"That's exactly the issue, isn't it? Free versus freedom."
Awesome summary.
It would be interesting to see a poll that asks Americans what is more important, free stuff or freedom? Obviously the dem base thinks free stuff is more important than freedom, conservatives think freedom is more important than free stuff, how about indies?
A country gets the government that it deserves. An electorate that can be bought deserves to be slaves.
Someone really ought to remind her that "freedom" is not freedom to not have to pay for what you want.
(There are no positive rights, lady, only negative ones.)
(Simon: Oh, you won't stop her from reproducing by giving her birth control. She'll just put it off of a while on your tab, and then do it.
And then demand, naturally, that you pay more, then. After all, by then she'll have a career she doesn't want to hurt, so she "needs" the "freedom" of free daycare, right?
Her freedoms, the public till.
Funny how none of my freedoms cost anyone else a cent; they just require the State stay out of my business, rather than the State taking care of it for me.)
Talk about free stuff, Paul Ryan believes (and apparently a lot of you do too) that tax cuts miraculously pay for themselves.
Tax cuts are "free stuff?" Whose money was it to start with?
I'm not saying we can afford tax cuts right now. But it's notable that you would equate a law that requires employers to pay for a "free" benefit for some employees with the government expropriating your and my income that we earned from working.
I think conservatism has a lot of problems right now, and they are playing out in this campaign. But they are nothing compared with the problems of liberalism that your little crack illustrates. The remaining adherents of your view are dwindling fast, and if the Republicans can avoid nominating Santorum, the 2012 election will show it clearly.
(Also, what holdfast said, and double it.
When the State controls your contraception [whether directly by paying for it on the backs of others, or indirectly by forcing others to in an insurance racket, makes no difference], the State controls it.
The important reminder is that you cannot implore the state for help without also giving it control; and there is no power you can ensure it uses only how you like.
The delusion that the state can be given immense power and also constrained to use it only "for good things" is deadly - because even if you abolish elections so The Other Guy can't win, Your Guys can and will change over time.
And then you're screwed in a way the State can't give you a rubber to mitigate.)
Mitt doesn't have the stones to say "The Magic Negro." And he never will.
It is more about Mitt having a sufficient amount of brains than an insufficient amount of stones. Calling Obama a magic negro is extremely counter productive. Why go there? The problem is not that Obama is black, the problem is that he is a lefty. Prez elections are mostly about the political party that you are electing rather than the individual prez candidate.
Alex has it on the "winning angle" of Romney characterizing Obama as promising free stuff while he promises a job and prosperity. It is the kind of theme that can be worked into various other issues, e.g., deficit, national debt, debt to Chinese, credit rating down, freedom, government regulation, etc. It is malpractice if, at the proper time, Romney does not clobber Obama with his selection of an energy secretary who does not own a car and believes it would be good for our gas prices to be as high as Europe.
I think the only risk for republicans (and our country) is if the combination of modest (and short term) economic improvement and liberal media bias allows Obama to crawl over the finish line.
The Pelosi-Bill Maher video is quite something.
Gee, in the debate over entitlements, no one ever thought to just walk up to people as they prepare to collect on them.
And then watching Pelosi trying to convince Maher that THIS MATTERS. That THIS is the reality out there and it's driving away traditional Democrats. Interesting
Leftists do not understand basic economics.
That's as good an answer as you get.
Patrick said...
Had Romney given a response like this - unscripted - six months ago, the nomination would be over by now.
No, the ABR crowd would still be bitching if he'd renounced Romneycare (which I think he should have done, BTW) while walking on water.
Problem is, people like Erick Ericson and Dan Riehl came down for their guy (or girl) and were going to badmouth anybody else - Perry, Herman, Newt, etc.
Reagan could have come back from the grave and he would have gotten the same treatment.
Bender said...
Why is Romney so obsessed with talking about birth control?
He isn't; the heckler was and he was shut down.
Freder Frederson said...
I like your Paul Ryann's new tax proposal. It promises economic growth.
Talk about free stuff, Paul Ryan believes (and apparently a lot of you do too) that tax cuts miraculously pay for themselves
You pay for them with spending cuts.
It is malpractice if, at the proper time, Romney does not clobber Obama with his selection of an energy secretary who does not own a car and believes it would be good for our gas prices to be as high as Europe.
Hysterical, if true. Despite his very public come-ta-Jesus moment over gas prices, I don't recall seeing that he doesn't own a car. Have you got back up for that? Exceptionally funny if so.
'If you want the PROMISE of free stuff, vote for the other guy..'
Well it certainly makes it easy to buy the vote when they come out and name their price like that.
So you’re all for like, 'yay, freedom,' and all this stuff. And 'yay, like pursuit of happiness.' You know what would make me happy? Free birth control."
Er, huh?
So your "pursuit of happiness" means taking something for nothing.
I highly doubt this blathering idiot really, really wants to be on the receiving end of that logical outcome.
Freder Frederson said...
Talk about free stuff, Paul Ryan believes (and apparently a lot of you do too) that tax cuts miraculously pay for themselves.
Dum Dum;
Considering that every single time, that would be all of them, federal income taxes were cut that federal revenues increased, yeah, that would be true.
Freder Frederson said...
The rule in question is a requirement that private insurance (which is paid for by the people who buy it) provide free birth control. The government is not paying for
You left out the part where employers are paying for it too.
You also left out the part where people who don't use the product are paying for it too.
Gee, why would a silly, ignorant, and dishonest hack like you do that?
I'm sure many of you have seen the Drudge-linked videos of people in 2008 ecstatic because they think Obama will pay their rent and bills. It would be interesting if we could find out how many Obama voters still believe that they'll get free stuff.
Freedom versus the freeloaders.
Which will prevail?
"... The rule in question is a requirement that private insurance (which is paid for by the people who buy it) provide free birth control..."
So the government forces private business to provide a free product.
That's awesome. Can we get them to have Exxon provide me with free gas? How about free food from Piggly Wiggly?
I love free stuff.
I would argue that if the insurance company is paying for your $3000 annual birth control, they should be able to deny maternity care if you end up becoming pregnant.
Using birth control requires disipline and personal responsibility. If someone can't even supply their own contraceptives without a third party footing the bill, I have doubts they can use it as prescribed.
I Heart Willard,
You have to be the saddest fuck on the planet. It almost goes without saying that someone with your political views is unemployed, but for God sakes, step away from the keyboard once in a while.
That people like you exist soley for the sake of internet trolling is depressing. On the other hand, it will make it all the sweeter to make fun of your dumb ass for both of Romneys terms in the white house.
The left loves to go after the free sex thing. They want it, and they want everyone to want it. Palin's daughter got drubbed by millionaire Bill Maher here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atFXtcfsDRg
I know it was on another thread but my jaw dropped when I actually heard him saying it. It is just plain vicious. Not only does he savage Palin, who is far younger than Fluke, but he savages the baby, who is innocent, and it shows how much respect he has for children.
And yet Obama is only too happy to take Maher's million dollars to the bank.
It's less than aminute to watch, but incredibly sick:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atFXtcfsDRg
I know it was on another thread but my jaw dropped when I actually heard him saying it. It is just plain vicious. Not only does he savage Palin, who is far younger than Fluke, but he savages the baby, who is innocent, and it shows how much respect he has for children.
Bill Maher has porcine eyes.
Romney does continue with this:
“Politicians get up and promise you all kinds of free stuff, more and more stuff that you won’t have to pay for and you know what? We get elected that way, in many cases, politicians do, that’s not something I subscribe to..."
Health care has costs.
On top our monthly insurance costs, we pay co-pays, deductables, and out-of-pocket expenses for over the counter, never mind our efforts to stay fit and not partake in harmful habits.
My son had to go to the ER and stay over night, in which I owe two grand for the deductable.
I will pay it, and be grateful and that my son was treated.
Birth control holds this special status, if this women wanted FREE/CHEAP birth control she could learn one of the many forms of natural family planning and practice that (like I do).
$9 dollars.
When the market actually does work, progressives still reject it.
Is there seriously no reasoning with progressives?
I'll keep on trying.
I don't recall seeing that he doesn't own a car. Have you got back up for that? Exceptionally funny if so.
Chu offered up the John Kerry defense. The car is owned by his wife.
http://freebeacon.com/chu-doesnt-own-a-car-but-his-wife-has-a-bmw/
You really want them to have a financial interests in who you choose to schtupp?
Betsy McCaughey and Gloria Allred debated this very subject last night on the Kudlow Report. McCaughey argued that women, by supporting the PPACA, are in fact inviting the government and its staff right into your bedroom, and your medicine closet, and your private medical appointments, because the PPACA says so write in its 2000 pages. Gloria's response was "but coverage is expanded."
The PPACA proponents really don't get it. Obama is going to get creamed in November. It's not even going to be close.
You have to be the saddest fuck on the planet. It almost goes without saying that someone with your political views is unemployed, but for God sakes, step away from the keyboard once in a while.
Hey, that reminds me, I need to cash my welfare check and buy a few boxes o' wine and some smokes with my foodstamps. Thank goodness my cadillac has room for all my kids!
Now get back to work, please, Mom Jeans. Someone has to pay for all my free stuff, yanno. :D
Considering that every single time, that would be all of them, federal income taxes were cut that federal revenues increased, yeah, that would be true.
Just because Federal revenues increase after a tax cut doesn't mean the tax cut paid for itself. I am supposed to be the economic ignoramus, so I'm sure I don't have to explain to you how such a thing is possible.
I assume that you made this statement not out of ignorance, but because you presumed I am ignorant and would be cowed by your superior but flawed logic.
Sorry
Health care has costs.
Yes it does, and it so happens that this country has the highest health care costs in the world (by a wide margin), yet still can not cover all the people in the country.
Something is seriously wrong with the health care system in this country, and nothing that has been suggested by any of the Obamacare haters on this blog will improve the situation, only make it worse (ever increasing costs covering fewer people).
Considering that every single time, that would be all of them, federal income taxes were cut that federal revenues increased, yeah, that would be true.
Actually, your statement, besides displaying incredible ignorance about revenues vs. tax rates, is further hampered by the fact that it isn't even true
Freder Frederson said...
I like your Paul Ryann's new tax proposal. It promises economic growth.
Talk about free stuff, Paul Ryan believes (and apparently a lot of you do too) that tax cuts miraculously pay for themselves. And of course for the last ten years you have had a completely free war--more free stuff for the right wing.
3/20/12 1:00 PM
Tax rate cuts are not tax cuts, when you start with a false assumption you will always go wrong. As for cutting rates, why not? The money belongs to the taxpayer, not the tax eater.
Cut all civillian salaries, pensions, benefits and entitlements by 20% and call it a targeted tax hike. Its not like they are doing the taxpayers any favors with their money.
Libs believe that you can't have freedom until everything is free and the people who don't want to pay for your free things are trying to take away your freedom.
It's like how little children feel.
Freder, you could try citing actual facts, not a NYT blog.
Freder Frederson said...
Sad that there are those who believe that if the government provides something,
The rule in question is a requirement that private insurance (which is paid for by the people who buy it) provide free birth control. The government is not paying for it.
3/20/12 1:02 PM
So you are saying a private party must bear the cost of a public good? Hmmm now isn't there a clause in the constitution regarding just that....
Alexandra Pelosi had a very good point - you can't convince working people that you're "their party" if you are simultaneously the party of free stuff for freeloaders. It's just a visceral thing - anyone who works hard for his or her ducats is going to resent an able-bodied person who isn't even trying to get a job, but just stands their grinning in the benefits line.
The younger Pslosi might still be a Dem and a lib, but she's clearly multiples smarter than her mom.
One small step for man; a giant leap for Romney or something like that.
Mitt Jaffee's Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions:
Q: "You know what would make me happy? Free birth control."
A: You know what, your face is all the free birth control you're ever gonna need.
Romney should have asked her what she needed the pills for. And if she said for fornication his response should have been if your boyfriend doesn't think you are worth them why should anyone else pay for them? So are you a parasite because if you are, then vote for the democrat. If you are not, then vote for the republicans.
And if he had a real pair he should have called her a whore then apologized to all honest working girls because they at least aren't asking for money for nothing.
Freder, you could try citing actual facts, not a NYT blog.
You know, sometimes blog posts contain factual information (I know that may surprise those of you that read Althouse exclusively). But if you don't like the well-known liberal bias of the NYT (which is kind of funny considering Bruce Bartlett was the author of the article I linked), how about that commie liberal Heritage Foundation
@ Hoosier Daddy - that thought seriously crossed my mind when all this blew up. Denial of maternity care, as well as denial of abortion coverage?
Those darn unintended consequences.
Freder and how will birth control with NO COPAY lower costs?
We have high costs due to unhealthy behavior, like over eating, lack of exercise, high risk sexual behavior, misuse of alchohol.
Some are due to healthy people living longer, but need medical care due to age.
"If you’re looking for free stuff you don’t have to pay for"
That description fits the Mayor of Racine, where the taxpayers are bing forced to foot his personal legal bills!
A Democrat - naturally!
John T. Dickert, current Mayor of the City of Racine, is being sued for an Intentional Tort by fired former City of Racine employee William Bielefeldt; it is the Taxpayers and Residents of Racine who are being forced to pay for John T. Dickerts Mouth. See Racine County Case No. 2011CV001078, William Bielefeldt vs. John T. Dickert et al.
RALLY tomorrow at the Kenosha County Courthouse!
On March 21, 2012, at the Kenosha County Courthouse, 912 56th. St, Kenosha, WI., starting at approx. 12:30p.m., there will be a Rally by Citizens United For Personal Responsibility and Government Accountability. The Racine Wolf Man will be there along with Wayne Clingman, who is producing a Russ Meyer Tribute film in Racine, Go Go Girls Vs the Nazis | Facebook which incorporates elements from “actual events” involving current City of Racine elected officials.
The Racine Wolf-Man will strike again!
The rule in question is a requirement that private insurance (which is paid for by the people who buy it) provide free birth control. The government is not paying for it.
It takes an odd sort of mind to say "the government isn't paying for it, the government is threatening private citizens into paying for it" and consider that a DEFENSE of the government.
Freder and how will birth control with NO COPAY lower costs?
Birth control is cheaper than pregnancy.
Freder Frederson said...
Birth control is cheaper than pregnancy.
In terms of cheapening life, abortion is the best deal.
"Paul Ryan believes (and apparently a lot of you do too) that tax cuts miraculously pay for themselves."
My money destined for the black hole of congressional spending gets turned around and stays with me. I then use said money to help a charity or give an American a job.
Yes,it is a miracle when allowed to be. Of course I could just burn it, and it would still be an improvement over the congress spending it to encourage more waste.
3/20/12 5:27 PM
"Birth control is cheaper than pregnancy."
Only if the woman never ever gets pregnant.
In fact, much of preventative medicine only delays the cost of getting sick till later, and thuis has no real cost savings at all.
Of course that's not the reason to cover it, so what happens when your government-controlled health care figures out that it's cheaper to let you die young.
I'm expecting seat belt laws to be eliminated soon after Obamacare takes full effect.
In fact, much of preventative medicine only delays the cost of getting sick till later
You apparently don't know what "preventative medicine" means.
That's not the right answer. The right answer is, "If your happiness depends on making others unhappy by taking their money, then find a different pursuit."
Wow.. people cost money, let's have fewer people. That's the logic to reducing health care costs.
So this isn't about health care of each inidividual or making people healthier, it's about less people?
What type of sick plan is this then?
"In fact, much of preventative medicine only delays the cost of getting sick till later
You apparently don't know what "preventative medicine" means."
Its purpose is to keep you alive as long as possible so that you can eventually die of some sickness in old age. So that means a life time of preventative care followed by the inevitable expensive decline. I know we all want that, but how is that a money saver?
Are you really dumb, a troll, or just blinded by partisanship?
The rule in question is a requirement that private insurance (which is paid for by the people who buy it) provide free birth control. The government is not paying for it.
What if I don't WANT to buy health insurance that provides freebies, like birth control.
I neither want nor need birth control or maternity coverage and a lot of other things that are mandatory in some states.
YET they have to include it. To force the insurance companies to provide services adds to the premiums.
To force ME to buy a policy with those services just increases my cost for the sole and ONLY purpose of subsidizing "free stuff" for other people.
There is nothing FREE. The cost is always ....always....transfered to someone else.
Freder and how will birth control with NO COPAY lower costs?
Birth control is cheaper than pregnancy.
Both of those items are personal choices and why should I have to pay for them?
Pregnancy isn't a personal choice, it's a biological result from sexual intercourse.
To artificially manipulate the body to avoid that natural and healthy consequence of pregnancy is a choice.
So instead of slut shaming, we're pregnancy shaming?
Shaming people who give birth to babies?
If an insurance company makes a decision to provide birth control free to reduce costs, and it doesn't violate the conscience of the group they're providing it to, fine.
Why can't the insurance company and the people purchasing it decide which of those options will be covered, which will require a co-pay and which will be out of pocket?
Why must the political left force their views on everyone else?
All through my youth I heard about people trying to "force their religion" on others. The only people doing the forcing are the secular ones.
Pregnancy isn't a personal choice, it's a biological result from sexual intercourse.
Oh Bull Shit. Unless the woman is forcibly raped.....fucking is a personal choice.
Pregnancy as a result of rape is very very rare.
Pregnancy as a result of being forced to have sex with your husband or boyfried.....well....you made the personal choice to marry or date the prick.
Not..My...Problem.
Try again
So when I see the heckler saying 'yay, freedom, yay, pursuit of happiness', all I can think of is her doing it the same way comedian Jim Florentine does his mentally-challenged character.
Freder,
Are you a professional actuary, dumbass?
Bravo Mitt! Well said....
@Freder,
you spouted this nonsense:
Just because Federal revenues increase after a tax cut doesn't mean the tax cut paid for itself. I am supposed to be the economic ignoramus, so I'm sure I don't have to explain to you how such a thing is possible.
What do you mean by "paid for itself"?!?!
Are taxation levels some sort of objective amount that must be replaced if cut?
No.
Not even close.
Taxes are a punishment. The govt takes a portion of the money you earned for no direct benefit.
And don't give me the "infrastructure" sob story, because the taxes aren't based on your consumption, but on the rate of your earning.
Time and life are worth money.
If the govt is going to tax me more for earning more, I am more likely to decide it isn't worth my extra time to work harder.
The exact numbers are variable, but the concept is clear.
On the other hand, if my taxes are cut to below my expectations, then my efforts are suddenly worth more wealth to me. I will create more value, which is taxed at a lower rate.
With more value created, more people consume. Economic activity increases, and tax revenues increase as everyone gets wealthier but pays a lower percentage in taxes.
It's easy to understand.
Only a cold-hearted, miserly, bitter socialist can think that raising taxes on anyone is somehow more "fair".
It does you no credit to be so consumed with envy and jealousy for those who create more wealth.
@Freder,
You said,
You apparently don't know what "preventative medicine" means.
How do you track how much money was saved by preventing pregnancies, hm?
How do you track how much money was saved by preventing actual illnesses?
Should an insurance company pay me $100/month to not crash my car? After all, that's cheaper than having me crash my car every week and keep getting insurance checks!!!!
But life doesn't work that way.
But, you were probably stupid enough to believe the "jobs created or saved" nonsense Obama's administration floated, too, weren't you?
"The rule in question is a requirement that private insurance (which is paid for by the people who buy it) provide free birth control. The government is not paying for it."
Because, like, it's totally different and stuff, if the government takes your money away and spends it on you for what someone else decides you ought to have, than if the government just makes you buy the stuff without taking your money away first.
Because then it's not, you know, *government* money.
He's just for free deficit-spending. Yay for free deficit spending!!!!
Free tax cuts!!! Free!!!!! Yayayayaaaaaayyyy!!!!1!!
Ritmo hurry to Walmart, they are having a sale on brains. Make it fast because supplies are limited.
You have a problem with people keeping more of their money? I suppose you are one those who want others to pay their "fair" share so you can get your free share.
Renee said...
Wow.. people cost money, let's have fewer people. That's the logic to reducing health care costs.
So this isn't about health care of each inidividual or making people healthier, it's about less people?
What type of sick plan is this then?
Abortion?
20,000,000 dead black babies and stuff like that?
Scott
Sorry about the slow reply. Secretary Chu testified in Congress that he does not own a car. Again, Romney at the proper point in time ought to clobber Obama with it. There is so much material for Romney to use. I wonder how he decides when?
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/09/energy-sec-chu-doesnt-own-car-but-his-wife-drives-bmw-gas-guzzler/?print=1
Patrick,
I do sort of wonder if this question was planted. Really, aren't the lefties clever enough to keep things like that on the down low?
No doubt.
Ann mentioned lying as being smart a few days ago - and now you mention it as "clever" - which leads me to wonder:
What's wrong with you people?
Pelosi's daughter is not smart (how could she be with Nancy as her Mom?). Listen to her talk. But to give her credit, she did fell it was the right thing to do to show both sides of the story.
Gee Bob. I really appreciate you coming to my country and bankrupting it. I mean, I know that's about the best contribution I could expect from a douchebag like you. But wouldn't you like to try for something more? For the sake of the country you'd pretend to love (while driving it into bankruptcy)?
I have a feeling Fidel sent Bob personally (maybe they're related) so that he could contribute to the cause of bankrupting America.
Pregnancy isn't a personal choice
That is absolutely hands down the most unintentionally funniest fucking thing any one has ever said here.
You're absolutely right. YOU should have free birth control, permanently.
"Is there free stuff you do have to pay for?"
See deficit and debt.
I like his response..especially since he manages to counter a sentence full of "like" with folksy words like stuff.
But it's fun to imagine other responses.
"Why do you think it's "fair" to make contraception free when people dealing with actual illnesses and conditions have co-pays? Your suggestion is completely selfish"
or
"As a person blessed with success in this fine country, I'm a strong proponent of charity for the greater good. Now, I just met you..but in the spirit of giving back and paying it forward, I am more than willing to pay for your tubal ligation."
or
"(pointing) SLUT!
I love how Scott demands a poster back up the charge that Chu has no car. He can find his way to post that challenge but doesn't first google something like "Secretary Chu car"..which produces 48 million hits.
Is that enough back up Scott?
What's harder to back up is my suspicion he doesn't own shoes. Or that he wears a methane collection bag to offset his wife's carbon spendy ways.
> Just because Federal revenues increase after a tax cut doesn't mean the tax cut paid for itself.
We're talking about RATE cuts. Revenue is different.
If a rate cut results in income growth such that the total revenue goes up, yes, the tax cut did pay for itself. And it let me buy stuff for myself (the growth in income doesn't all go to the govt).
Yeah tax (rate) cuts.
As far as revenue goes, the US govt already more per person than Canada and almost as much as Germany. Isn't that enough?
Yes, I know that I don't get Canada-level services for that money, but it's unclear why that justifies me paying more.
But Andy,
It's not "fair" ;)
Even in a flat tax scenario. If people make more, they pay more. The reality is flat tax is "progressive" in terms of income generated revenue. The conventional semantics belie the fact that "progressive" really is more accurately described as punitive. Works so well in Cali that companies are bailing in droves...similar doings in Illinois..even though godfather Rahm is doing some surprsingly Walker-esque reforms with little reaction. I can't wait to see how the national economy responds if income tax and capital gains taxes go up at the same time. Look for significant market cashing out and contraction at the end of the year.
Obama no longer president, the complete repudiation of leftism-progressivism, and the revitalization of America as a democratic republic under the Constitution - those would make me happy.
Those plus a telescope.
Freder Frederson said...
You know, sometimes blog posts contain factual information (I know that may surprise those of you that read Althouse exclusively). But if you don't like the well-known liberal bias of the NYT (which is kind of funny considering Bruce Bartlett was the author of the article I linked), how about that commie liberal Heritage Foundation
Um, the link says:
Congress cut income taxes and the death tax in 2001 and capital gains taxes and dividends in 2003, yet revenues continued to surge even after the tax cuts were passed.
Which refutes your point in the entirety.
Freder Frederson said...
Just because Federal revenues increase after a tax cut doesn't mean the tax cut paid for itself.
Huh?
When revenues are higher after tax rates are cut than they were before the tax rates were cut, you're left being incoherent.
But of course that is expected.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा