PDA

View Full Version : Santorum blames abortion for Social Security woes



Nate_C
03-29-2011, 12:24 PM
Right wingers are always good for a laugh. The sad thing is I am sure a few on this board will try to support this agrument.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110329/ap_on_re_us/us_santorum_nh

CONCORD, N.H. In his latest trip to New Hampshire, Republican Rick Santorum says the Social Security system would be in much better shape if there were fewer abortions.

The former Pennsylvania senator and potential presidential candidate was asked about Social Security during an interview on WESZ-AM radio in Laconia on Tuesday morning.

He says the system has design flaws, but the reason it is in big trouble is that there aren't enough workers to support retirees. He blamed that on what he called the nation's abortion culture. He says that culture, coupled with policies that do not support families, deny America what it needs more people.

Santorum has been a frequent visitor to New Hampshire, which holds the earliest presidential primary.

Roger Perry
03-29-2011, 01:55 PM
Right wingers are always good for a laugh. The sad thing is I am sure a few on this board will try to support this agrument.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110329/ap_on_re_us/us_santorum_nh

CONCORD, N.H. In his latest trip to New Hampshire, Republican Rick Santorum says the Social Security system would be in much better shape if there were fewer abortions.

The former Pennsylvania senator and potential presidential candidate was asked about Social Security during an interview on WESZ-AM radio in Laconia on Tuesday morning.

He says the system has design flaws, but the reason it is in big trouble is that there aren't enough workers to support retirees. He blamed that on what he called the nation's abortion culture. He says that culture, coupled with policies that do not support families, deny America what it needs more people.

Santorum has been a frequent visitor to New Hampshire, which holds the earliest presidential primary.

Too many retirees getting pregnant.:lol:

Cody Covey
03-29-2011, 02:06 PM
Right wingers are always good for a laugh. The sad thing is I am sure a few on this board will try to support this agrument.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110329/ap_on_re_us/us_santorum_nh

CONCORD, N.H. In his latest trip to New Hampshire, Republican Rick Santorum says the Social Security system would be in much better shape if there were fewer abortions.

The former Pennsylvania senator and potential presidential candidate was asked about Social Security during an interview on WESZ-AM radio in Laconia on Tuesday morning.

He says the system has design flaws, but the reason it is in big trouble is that there aren't enough workers to support retirees. He blamed that on what he called the nation's abortion culture. He says that culture, coupled with policies that do not support families, deny America what it needs more people.

Santorum has been a frequent visitor to New Hampshire, which holds the earliest presidential primary.He may be crazy but he's not exactly wrong...Without immigration we have negative population growth. So essentially we don't have enough people paying long enough to support the retirees. To say that abortion has no impact is a little ludicrious don't you think? there are almost 2 million abortions a year. That is quite a bit of money social security is losing.

Julie R.
03-29-2011, 02:22 PM
He says the system has design flaws, but the reason it is in big trouble is that there aren't enough workers to support retirees. He blamed that on what he called the nation's abortion culture. He says that culture, coupled with policies that do not support families, deny America what it needs more people.

Santorum has been a frequent visitor to New Hampshire, which holds the earliest presidential primary.

He forgot about the major design flaw in the system that pays people to have children even though they are incapable of supporting themselves. I suspect that, not the number of abortions, is more relevant to the lack of workers paying into the system. Along with the fact the systemit was not designed to pay benefits to those that didn't pay into it.

dnf777
03-29-2011, 02:31 PM
To say that abortion has no impact is a little ludicrious don't you think? there are almost 2 million abortions a year. That is quite a bit of money social security is losing.

I would argue just the opposite. If you do the research, I bet you'd discover that the demographics of those abortions would be more mouths for entitlement and SS to pay FOR, not be receiving revenues FROM.

But that is not to argue for or against abortion. Studies have shown across time and borders, that banning abortions results in an increase in violent and nonviolent crime 18-30 years down the road. The demographics of those having abortions overlaps the demographics of those committing crimes. The book Freakonomics discusses this at length with ample citations and documentation. Likewise, when abortion has been legalized, there is a corresponding decrease in crimes in the 20 year time frame. Our downturn in crimes that clinton liked to take credit for, with his 50,000 police, followed Roe by how much? 20 some years? This pattern has been shown not only in America, but several other nations as well, in both directions.

LokiMeister
03-29-2011, 03:03 PM
I would argue just the opposite. If you do the research, I bet you'd discover that the demographics of those abortions would be more mouths for entitlement and SS to pay FOR, not be receiving revenues FROM.

But that is not to argue for or against abortion. Studies have shown across time and borders, that banning abortions results in an increase in violent and nonviolent crime 18-30 years down the road. The demographics of those having abortions overlaps the demographics of those committing crimes. The book Freakonomics discusses this at length with ample citations and documentation. Likewise, when abortion has been legalized, there is a corresponding decrease in crimes in the 20 year time frame. Our downturn in crimes that clinton liked to take credit for, with his 50,000 police, followed Roe by how much? 20 some years? This pattern has been shown not only in America, but several other nations as well, in both directions.

I am glad someone else here has read Freakonomics. I quoted that book about abortions two weeks ago.

dnf777
03-29-2011, 03:13 PM
I am glad someone else here has read Freakonomics. I quoted that book about abortions two weeks ago.


Superfreakonomics is also good.
Hard to argue with those guys. Their conclusions are well supported.
Can't label them as left or right leaning, either. Numbers are numbers.

LokiMeister
03-29-2011, 03:22 PM
Superfreakonomics is also good.
Hard to argue with those guys. Their conclusions are well supported.
Can't label them as left or right leaning, either. Numbers are numbers.

Super Freak is on its way to me now. I can't wait to read it.

Franco
03-29-2011, 03:54 PM
He says that culture, coupled with policies that do not support families, deny America what it needs more people.


.

What an idiot! Last thing we need is more people.

Compare out standard of living in 1950 when we were a nation of 150 million to now where we are over 300 million.

No comparison!

We love to bash the Dems here on POTUS but the reality is there are just as many idiots like Santorium on both sides of the isle!

road kill
03-29-2011, 03:58 PM
What an idiot! Last thing we need is more people.

Compare out standard of living in 1950 when we were a nation of 150 million to now where we are over 300 million.

No comparison!

We love to bash the Dems here on POTUS but the reality is there are just as many idiots like Santorium on both sides of the isle!

It's amazing.
You could live incredibly well in the 50's on $25,000.

I would say at the level of $100,000 now.
I know someone will argue, but I lived then and I know what we had and how much my Pops made.

I know how much I make now it is not proportionally better.

Plus the world was a much cooler place to be then!!!!:D


RK

dnf777
03-29-2011, 04:04 PM
What an idiot! Last thing we need is more people.

Compare out standard of living in 1950 when we were a nation of 150 million to now where we are over 300 million. And what was the tax rate? What percentage of labor was unionized? All interesting comparisons!

No comparison!

We love to bash the Dems here on POTUS but the reality is there are just as many idiots like Santorium on both sides of the isle!

That, I can agree with!

huntinman
03-29-2011, 04:05 PM
What an idiot! Last thing we need is more people.

Compare out standard of living in 1950 when we were a nation of 150 million to now where we are over 300 million.

No comparison!

We love to bash the Dems here on POTUS but the reality is there are just as many idiots like Santorium on both sides of the isle!

Even the middle of the road:rolleyes:

Franco
03-29-2011, 04:20 PM
Back in the 1950's we had a higher percentage of a free workforce. It wasn't until the late 60's that unions in this country grew like weeds.

The need for unions is over. They have run off jobs to foreign lands, they burden the Federal and State governments and harbor poor performance.

RK, back in the early 50's, one could live large on 10k a year!

dnf777
03-29-2011, 04:34 PM
Back in the 1950's we had a higher percentage of a free workforce. It wasn't until the late 60's that unions in this country grew like weeds.

The need for unions is over. They have run off jobs to foreign lands, they burden the Federal and State governments and harbor poor performance.

RK, back in the early 50's, one could live large on 10k a year!

My grandfather was a union coal miner. He made just over 3k a year when he started, and sent his three daughters to school. I would bet that a much higher percentage of workers were union in the 1950s than now.

I don't disagree that our workforce cannot compete with workers who are willing to mine coal in unsafe conditions, where up to 20,000 miners die EACH YEAR. (china) But I would argue that NAFTA has caused a bigger exodus of American jobs than unions. Look at all the non-union jobs that have been lost.

Franco
03-29-2011, 04:48 PM
My grandfather was a union coal miner. He made just over 3k a year when he started, and sent his three daughters to school. I would bet that a much higher percentage of workers were union in the 1950s than now.

I don't disagree that our workforce cannot compete with workers who are willing to mine coal in unsafe conditions, where up to 20,000 miners die EACH YEAR. (china) But I would argue that NAFTA has caused a bigger exodus of American jobs than unions. Look at all the non-union jobs that have been lost.

Don't the coal companies have strict saftey regulations?

NAFTRA is bad and the unions make it worse. We just can't afford them any longer unless we want to see unemployment rise. Life is not fair! It they don't like what they are being compensated, they are free to work somewhere else.

It is the (unions) socialization of the USA that is costing us our standard of living combined with decades of poor leadership in DC.

LokiMeister
03-29-2011, 05:15 PM
Don't the coal companies have strict saftey regulations?.

In China? No, they don't care about their people it seems like. I am surprised they don't lose more in the mines.

sinner
03-29-2011, 06:10 PM
For all of you "God is not great" the book address this.
When you have time it is worth reading!
By the way we all ready have too many people in Colorado.
I am for a limit on legal & ill-legal to Colorado!

dnf777
03-29-2011, 06:38 PM
Don't the coal companies have strict saftey regulations?

NAFTRA is bad and the unions make it worse. We just can't afford them any longer unless we want to see unemployment rise. Life is not fair! It they don't like what they are being compensated, they are free to work somewhere else.

It is the (unions) socialization of the USA that is costing us our standard of living combined with decades of poor leadership in DC.

And every one of the safety regulations came off the backs of union action. You can see in China, what industry-led working conditions would be like without union counterbalance.

And I agree, there are certainly cases of union greed that have out-priced themselves. But even if they offered half their salaries up, you still couldn't compete with the cheap labor overseas.

Roger Perry
03-29-2011, 06:48 PM
Back in the 1950's we had a higher percentage of a free workforce. It wasn't until the late 60's that unions in this country grew like weeds.

The need for unions is over. They have run off jobs to foreign lands, they burden the Federal and State governments and harbor poor performance.

RK, back in the early 50's, one could live large on 10k a year!

In 1950 my parents bought a house for 10k;-)

Franco
03-29-2011, 08:07 PM
And every one of the safety regulations came off the backs of union action. You can see in China, what industry-led working conditions would be like without union counterbalance.

And I agree, there are certainly cases of union greed that have out-priced themselves. But even if they offered half their salaries up, you still couldn't compete with the cheap labor overseas.

I'd be more concerned with having to support thier rediculousley expensive pensions and health care. I'm just thankful I live in a Right To Work state, where unemployment is low and saleries competitve. Where people have the freedom to either join a union or not!

dnf777
03-29-2011, 08:57 PM
I'd be more concerned with having to support thier rediculousley expensive pensions and health care. I'm just thankful I live in a Right To Work state, where unemployment is low and saleries competitve. Where people have the freedom to either join a union or not!

I hear ya, Franco. But you and I both know that in the not too distant future, there is going to be a retiree crisis, in terms of health care and sustenance.

We are living too long after retirement, and healthcare isn't going to the country doc for a bottle of penicillin anymore. Its being helicoptered to a mega-medical center for super-sub-specialists with cutting edge technology interventions that cost millions. If you work from 20 to 65, then live to 90....well, you know the math.

It really is more of a philosophical discussion than financial. If we have the money to build carrier groups and fire million dollar tomahawks like rubber bands.....we HAVE the money to care for our citizens. But do we want to?

Its a tough situation. I know conservatives don't want to see grandma and grandpa on steam grates. But to avoid that, we're going to have to divert some of our treasury to caring for people who can't care for themselves, for whatever reason. It used to be just deadbeats who fell on hard times. Now its people who have worked 20 or 30 years and have their pensions or funds yanked out from under them. And yes, those with piss poor planning.

Franco
03-29-2011, 09:08 PM
I hear ya, Franco. But you and I both know that in the not too distant future, there is going to be a retiree crisis, in terms of health care and sustenance.

We are living too long after retirement, and healthcare isn't going to the country doc for a bottle of penicillin anymore. Its being helicoptered to a mega-medical center for super-sub-specialists with cutting edge technology interventions that cost millions. If you work from 20 to 65, then live to 90....well, you know the math.

It really is more of a philosophical discussion than financial. If we have the money to build carrier groups and fire million dollar tomahawks like rubber bands.....we HAVE the money to care for our citizens. But do we want to?

Its a tough situation. I know conservatives don't want to see grandma and grandpa on steam grates. But to avoid that, we're going to have to divert some of our treasury to caring for people who can't care for themselves, for whatever reason. It used to be just deadbeats who fell on hard times. Now its people who have worked 20 or 30 years and have their pensions or funds yanked out from under them. And yes, those with piss poor planning.

The problem is all the free-loaders that have been allowed into the system without having contributed a dime! Our Fed Gov has been a bumbling gaggle of nitwits letting everyone into the system, then raiding the system and borrowing money from it. There ought to be a lot of politicians in jail for their gross mismangement in government of public funds!

Our current dysfunctional Fed Gov now wants us to pay for the health cost of 35 million more when they can currently get excellent treatment at numerous charitable/university hospitals for free.

dnf777
03-29-2011, 09:12 PM
The problem is all the free-loaders that have been allowed into the system without having contributed a dime! Our Fed Gov has been a bumbling gaggle of nitwits letting everyone into the system, then raiding the system and borrowing money from it. There ought to be a lot of politicians in jail for their gross mismangement in government of public funds!

Amen, brother. And seeing those people on steam grates won't bother me so much. But there are those who were promised pensions, bennies, at a time when that was the norm....that have been caught in the transition. Many of them are greeters at walmart for their kibble. Those folks may have been duped, but they weren't freeloaders. Those are the ones that I'm troubled with.

Steve Hester
03-30-2011, 09:41 AM
He may be crazy but he's not exactly wrong...Without immigration we have negative population growth. So essentially we don't have enough people paying long enough to support the retirees. To say that abortion has no impact is a little ludicrious don't you think? there are almost 2 million abortions a year. That is quite a bit of money social security is losing.

This kind of thinking is what perpetuates the Social Security myth. Social Security is NOT a handout program. By the time a person reaches an age to draw Social Security, they have paid into Social Security more than they will ever draw, even if they live to be 100. But the crooked politicians have spent billions of Social Security dollars on other unnecessary crap, instead of leaving the money in the program to pay the benefits promised by the plan itself. TAKE THE CHECKBOOK AWAY FROM THE CONGRESS CRITTERS AND THE PRES.

LokiMeister
03-30-2011, 10:00 AM
By the time a person reaches an age to draw Social Security, they have paid into Social Security more than they will ever draw, even if they live to be 100.

Better check your SSA statement you get every year. I look at my parents, especially my Mom, and know that they have received way more then she put in. Now maybe with a decent interest rate they are still withdrawing their money, but there is no way no how that my Mom has paid in the money that she has gotten since she was 62.

Steve Hester
03-31-2011, 07:05 AM
Better check your SSA statement you get every year. I look at my parents, especially my Mom, and know that they have received way more then she put in. Now maybe with a decent interest rate they are still withdrawing their money, but there is no way no how that my Mom has paid in the money that she has gotten since she was 62.

I have looked at my statement many times. I have paid in way more than I'll ever get back. :rolleyes: Yes, there has been a great amount of fraud and abuse regarding Social Security, but the main problem with Social Security is the crooked politicians robbing Social Security to pay for ridiculous spending!!!!!

Pete
03-31-2011, 08:23 AM
Amen, brother. And seeing those people on steam grates won't bother me so much. But there are those who were promised pensions, bennies, at a time when that was the norm....that have been caught in the transition. Many of them are greeters at walmart for their kibble. Those folks may have been duped, but they weren't freeloaders. Those are the ones that I'm troubled with.

This is probably part of the problem. People seem to think they are entitled to retire at 62 or 65. That was never part of the american dream. At least I have n't read that any where. We live in some kind of enlightened generation.
I hope that if I live till 90 that I am able to get out of bed and go to work.
My father in law is 96 and goes to work 6 days a week at 6 in the morning.

If your company cans you at 62 then start a business you enjoy. After all a job that you enjoy is not considered work,,so they tell me. As far as I'm corncerned If you can't afford health care and it isn't life threatening then curl up in a corner and tough it out. even some of you republicans sound like you are entitled to be pampered.

Pete.

dnf777
03-31-2011, 08:29 AM
This is probably part of the problem. People seem to think they are entitled to retire at 62 or 65. That was never part of the american dream. At least I have n't read that any where. We live in some kind of enlightened generation.
I hope that if I live till 90 that I am able to get out of bed and go to work.
My father in law is 96 and goes to work 6 days a week at 6 in the morning.

If your company cans you at 62 then start a business you enjoy. After all a job that you enjoy is not considered work,,so they tell me. As far as I'm corncerned If you can't afford health care and it isn't life threatening then curl up in a corner and tough it out. even some of you republicans sound like you are entitled to be pampered.

Pete.

I hear ya, and I hope on the the right side of the grass at that point, and still able to work.

That may be easier for doctors, lawyers, and businessmen to say. I worked several years in the oil refineries as a welder's helper and gopher, and can say definitively, that kind of work is not sustainable until 96! My grandfather put 43 years in the coal mines, and was good and ready to retire at 63. At 92, he's the only one of his work buddies still alive. I think letting someone retire at 65 after 40+ years of manual labor is within the bounds of reason.

BrianW
03-31-2011, 09:33 AM
I would argue just the opposite. If you do the research, I bet you'd discover that the demographics of those abortions would be more mouths for entitlement and SS to pay FOR, not be receiving revenues FROM.

But that is not to argue for or against abortion. Studies have shown across time and borders, that banning abortions results in an increase in violent and nonviolent crime 18-30 years down the road. The demographics of those having abortions overlaps the demographics of those committing crimes. The book Freakonomics discusses this at length with ample citations and documentation.

Haven't read the book but I'm puzzled. The left, which favors abortion rights would logically have more of them than the right.
And if there were less abortions there would be more liberals having babies, with majority of those likely growing to be little liberals, logically leading to more government entitlement programs/usage/costs since the left believes in them more than the right


So - How can more liberals & more govt/social programs lead to an increase in crime? :confused:
If so, isn't that more proof that they need to be cut as soon as possible? ;)

LokiMeister
03-31-2011, 10:00 AM
Haven't read the book but I'm puzzled. The left, which favors abortion rights would logically have more of them than the right.
And if there were less abortions there would be more liberals having babies, with majority of those likely growing to be little liberals, logically leading to more government entitlement programs/usage/costs since the left believes in them more than the right


So - How can more liberals & more govt/social programs lead to an increase in crime? :confused:
If so, isn't that more proof that they need to be cut as soon as possible? ;)

The authors of Freakonomics simply says that the drop in crime rate is correlated with an increase in abortions. This is due to the fact that poor people tend to have more abortions since they cannot afford the baby in the first place especially since social programs are being eliminated for having more babies. Poor and desperate people tend to commit more crimes so if you have less poor and desperate people there tends to be less crime.

I don't know about the correlation between government social programs and crime.

(Edited, the original statement said "the drop in crime rate is correlated with a drop in abortions.")

Pete
03-31-2011, 10:01 AM
That may be easier for doctors, lawyers, and businessmen to say. I worked several years in the oil refineries as a welder's helper and gopher, and can say definitively, that kind of work is not sustainable until 96! My grandfather put 43 years in the coal mines, and was good and ready to retire at 63. At 92, he's the only one of his work buddies still alive. I think letting someone retire at 65 after 40+ years of manual labor is within the bounds of reason. Today 07:23 AM

Me too.,,, but if they are still able to be productive they should allow to be. If they are canned for one reason or another then there is always a greeting type job at walmart or they can do little things to generate money. They are responsible for their own lives.
I guess thats why eskimo's when they became to old and useless ,,would take their long cold journey out in the frozen world all by their lonesome.

I like the idea of family taking care of their loved ones myself. I can't see how their offspring could ever consider neglecting them,,unless the parents were just low lifes to begin with in which case ,,,just send them out on the ice with a six pack of beer and some jerkey. And 1 bullet.:)

Pete

dnf777
03-31-2011, 10:07 AM
Me too.,,, but if they are still able to be productive they should allow to be. If they are canned for one reason or another then there is always a greeting type job at walmart or they can do little things to generate money. They are responsible for their own lives.
I guess thats why eskimo's when they became to old and useless ,,would take their long cold journey out in the frozen world all by their lonesome.

I like the idea of family taking care of their loved ones myself. I can't see how their offspring could ever consider neglecting them,,unless the parents were just low lifes to begin with in which case ,,,just send them out on the ice with a six pack of beer and some jerkey. And 1 bullet.:)

Pete

LMAO! :D

If you set my grandfather at the enterance to wal-mart, you'd have a line out to the edge of the parking lot, waiting to hear deer camp and fishing yarns of lore, but not much shopping would ever get done!

BrianW
03-31-2011, 10:41 AM
The authors of Freakonomics simply says that the drop in crime rate is correlated with drop (increase) ? in abortions. This is due to the fact that poor people tend to have more abortions since they cannot afford the baby in the first place especially since social programs are being eliminated for having more babies. Poor and desperate people tend to commit more crimes so if you have less poor and desperate people there tends to be less crime.

I don't know about the correlation between government social programs and crime.
Isn't that what you meant? Increase in abortions = less poor people > less crime according to your formula.
So if we kill people, we'll have less crime.

Wait - isn't the left against capital punishment? :confused:

OK, We can end the life of humans that haven't done anything to anybody yet and justify it in the name of preventing possible future crime;, but we can't execute them in the event of actual crimes.
I'm really puzzled by the left.;-).

duckheads
03-31-2011, 10:55 AM
Isn't that what you meant? Increase in abortions = less poor people > less crime according to your formula.
So if we kill people, we'll have less crime.

Wait - isn't the left against capital punishment? :confused:

OK, We can end the life of humans that haven't done anything to anybody yet and justify it in the name of preventing possible future crime;, but we can't execute them in the event of actual crimes.
I'm really puzzled by the left.;-).

Liberalism is a mental disorder!

LokiMeister
03-31-2011, 11:07 AM
Isn't that what you meant? Increase in abortions = less poor people > less crime according to your formula.
So if we kill people, we'll have less crime.

Wait - isn't the left against capital punishment? :confused:

OK, We can end the life of humans that haven't done anything to anybody yet and justify it in the name of preventing possible future crime;, but we can't execute them in the event of actual crimes.
I'm really puzzled by the left.;-).

Freakonomics isn't casting blame at all nor making a political statement. It is just pointing out the correlation, and trying to explain it, between the advent of legalized abortion and the lower crime rate. You also need to note, correlation DOES NOT imply causality. Meaning just because two things happen, doesn't mean that one caused the other.

dnf777
03-31-2011, 12:40 PM
Isn't that what you meant? Increase in abortions = less poor people > less crime according to your formula.
So if we kill people, we'll have less crime.Wait - isn't the left against capital punishment? :confused:

OK, We can end the life of humans that haven't done anything to anybody yet and justify it in the name of preventing possible future crime;, but we can't execute them in the event of actual crimes.
I'm really puzzled by the left.;-).


Nobody said that.
The book merely assembled numbers and historical data along timelines.
Take it for what its worth to you.

BrianW
03-31-2011, 01:09 PM
I'm just questioning what Loki actually wrote vs what he intended to report from the book. ie less abortions can not equal less people, only more.

Then commented on what you guys put out there as a debatable point,
trying do draw some kind of logical conclusion from the correlating data.
Abortion is the termination of a human life in development. Isn't that killing - : to deprive of life : cause the death of :confused:

dnf777
03-31-2011, 01:22 PM
I'm just questioning what Loki actually wrote vs what he intended to report from the book. ie less abortions can not equal less people, only more.

Then commented on what you guys put out there as a debatable point,
trying do draw some kind of logical conclusion from the correlating data.
Abortion is the termination of a human life in development. Isn't that killing - : to deprive of life : cause the death of :confused:

Actually, what YOU say is debatable as well. Personally, I agree with that, but (and you may call me a liberal for this) but I don't impose my religious beliefs on others.

What the book points out, is that the demographics of those committing crimes, is nearly identical to those of people having abortions. After a 10-30 year lapse, the crime rates decrease. And that happens to the the age bracket for the majority of perpetrators of violent crime. Now I can touch a horseshoe and burn myself, and figure out that horseshoe is hot, rather than sit around debating if its hot or not.

LokiMeister
03-31-2011, 01:34 PM
I'm just questioning what Loki actually wrote vs what he intended to report from the book. ie less abortions can not equal less people, only more.

Then commented on what you guys put out there as a debatable point,
trying do draw some kind of logical conclusion from the correlating data.
Abortion is the termination of a human life in development. Isn't that killing - : to deprive of life : cause the death of :confused:

Where, when, how did I say that abortions equal more people?

The only logical point that might be made is that abortions might decrease the crime rate. I am not arguing that abortions should be legal or not. That is a different subject, actually the original subject in this thread. If Santorum has correlating data that sames that abortion causes the Social Security problem then it should be looked at separately.

I see why you are confused because you aren't making a lot of sense.

Cody Covey
03-31-2011, 04:24 PM
Where, when, how did I say that abortions equal more people?

The only logical point that might be made is that abortions might decrease the crime rate. I am not arguing that abortions should be legal or not. That is a different subject, actually the original subject in this thread. If Santorum has correlating data that sames that abortion causes the Social Security problem then it should be looked at separately.

I see why you are confused because you aren't making a lot of sense.

Look at your post Brian quoted...I'm sure it was a typo but it is there...

LokiMeister
03-31-2011, 04:31 PM
The authors of Freakonomics simply says that the drop in crime rate is correlated with drop in abortions. This is due to the fact that poor people tend to have more abortions since they cannot afford the baby in the first place especially since social programs are being eliminated for having more babies. Poor and desperate people tend to commit more crimes so if you have less poor and desperate people there tends to be less crime.

I don't know about the correlation between government social programs and crime.

Damn it. Sorry but the original statement should have read "the drop in crime rate is correlated with an increase in abortions."

I understand why you would be confused as I would also. Sorry for the confusion. I normally proofread before hitting "Submit Reply."

I am editing the original.

BrianW
03-31-2011, 05:58 PM
Actually, what YOU say is debatable as well. Personally, I agree with that, but (and you may call me a liberal for this) but I don't impose my religious beliefs on others.

What the book points out, is that the demographics of those committing crimes, is nearly identical to those of people having abortions. After a 10-30 year lapse, the crime rates decrease. And that happens to the the age bracket for the majority of perpetrators of violent crime. Now I can touch a horseshoe and burn myself, and figure out that horseshoe is hot, rather than sit around debating if its hot or not.
What's the debatable part?
That abortion is the termination of human life in development? Or that it is "killing"?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion
Definition of ABORTION
1: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as
a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation compare miscarriage (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/miscarriage)
b : induced expulsion of a human fetus

Note: I did not use the word "murder".

As far as the "lack of religious imposition". No, actually I'd call you more a "libertarian" for that. ;)

So the "Freak" correlation IS that for an increased rate in the terminating of life, particularly a poor state of life, there tends to be a corresponding decreased rate in the incidence of crime. Right?

dnf777
03-31-2011, 06:13 PM
What's the debatable part?
That abortion is the termination of human life in development? Or that it is "killing"?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion
Definition of ABORTION
1: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as
a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/miscarriage)
b : induced expulsion of a human fetus

Note: I did not use the word "murder".

As far as the "lack of religious imposition". No, actually I'd call you more a "libertarian" for that. ;)

So the "Freak" correlation IS that for an increased rate in the terminating of life, particularly a poor state of life, there tends to be a corresponding decreased rate in the incidence of crime. Right?

The book cites reliable statistics correlating the legalization of abortion with a subsequent decrease in violent crime, after a 20-30 year lag. And vice-versa. This was shown valid in numerous countries, at various points in history. Take it for what its worth to you.

They do not refer to abortion as "terminating of life". They refer to it as abortion. Nor make reference to the "state of life". They are not debating the morals or legalities of it, just one measurable effect upon society. Again, take those numbers for what they are worth to you.

There is much more to the definition of abortion than a simple Merriam-Webster entry, and you know it. When does a human life begin in terms of having a soul? When does a human have awareness of existence? All religious, philosophical, and in part medical questions. Not to be answered with a Collegiate dictionary!

I just posed some questions. Questions that I doubt we would find a consensus here amongst even like-minded political types.

Even though I may disagree with you, I have too much respect for YOUR beliefs and values to even considering arguing with them. Not sure I would disagree, actually. But when it comes to imposing those beliefs on the population as a whole, we would probably disagree. Call me a libertarian in that regard. Its the nicest thing I've been called here in a long time! :D

Franco
03-31-2011, 07:09 PM
Actually, Libetarians are split 60/40 on the Abortion issue according to John Stossel.

The research quoted makes sense to me.

dnf777
03-31-2011, 07:26 PM
Actually, Libetarians are split 60/40 on the Abortion issue according to John Stossel.

The research quoted makes sense to me.

Not to nit-pick, but what do you mean by "the abortion issue"?

Being opposed to it morally, personally..........or imposing those morals via legislation upon the masses? Big difference, especially to a libertarian.

Franco
03-31-2011, 07:42 PM
Not to nit-pick, but what do you mean by "the abortion issue"?

Being opposed to it morally, personally..........or imposing those morals via legislation upon the masses? Big difference, especially to a libertarian.

First, all Libetarians don't all think the same. There is diversity of ideas which is welcomed. What is shared is the core value of a small and lean Federal Government, a return to a Free Market system and a love for The Constitution.

Lets not forget that in The Constituition, the people are given power against a government out of control.

The Abortion Issue; the debate over the continuation of Roe Vs Wade or the abolishment of it, making them illegal. Not all Libetarians agree, it is split 60/40 in favor of Roe Vs Wade.

However, instead of getting bogged down with that debate, there are more important issues like our out of control Federal Government. Just two years ago they blew almost a TRILLION dollars on some BS stimulus. Payoffs to the unions is what it was and I called it then. Then they had to bailout thier financial supporters on Wall St. After they stole trillions right from under our governments nose. I want to see some real cuts in the budget for we can not support the government we have.

dnf777
03-31-2011, 07:48 PM
First, all Libetarians don't all think the same. There is diversity of ideas which is welcomed. What is shared is the core value of a small and lean Federal Government, a return to a Free Market system and a love for The Constitution.

Lets not forget that in The Constituition, the people are given power against a government out of control.

The Abortion Issue; the debate over the continuation of Roe Vs Wade or the abolishment of it, making them illegal. Not all Libetarians agree, it is split 60/40 in favor of Roe Vs Wade.

However, instead of getting bogged down with that debate, there are more important issues like our out of control Federal Government. Just two years ago they blew almost a TRILLION dollars on some BS stimulus. Payoffs to the unions is what it was and I called it then. Then they had to bailout thier financial supporters on Wall St. After they stole trillions right from under our governments nose. I want to see some real cuts in the budget.

I couldn't agree more with all of the above. Abortion is not an issue for me at all actually, since I don't plan on ever having one. ;)

And I understand libertarians don't all think the same, except when it comes to limiting government power and maintaining individual freedom. I was asking that question, because I was surprised that libertarians would have even 40% in favor of a government ban on abortion. I didn't know if those numbers referred to personal opinion, or public policy opinion. That's all.

But getting back to Ron Paul, do you have trouble reconciling his comment about nullification being justified and constitutional......with a love for the Constitution? Unless that article misquoted him, that's what he said.

aandw
03-31-2011, 07:48 PM
dnf, are you against legislating morality? was it the health care or tax increase that obama claimed was the moral thing to do. i believe he requested that priests/preachers talk about it in church.

dnf777
03-31-2011, 07:58 PM
dnf, are you against legislating morality? was it the health care or tax increase that obama claimed was the moral thing to do. i believe he requested that priests/preachers talk about it in church.

Many of our laws are based on moral principles. But mainly principles that if not upheld, will infringe on the peace and rights of others.

I am not for legislating morals for their own intrinsic sake, if they do not affect others. That's how we end up with prohibition, and laws governing what consenting adults can and cant do in their own homes!

Would you want Puritans passing laws based on their morals? How about Muslims? How about Jews? Radical Christians? Non-radical Christians? The Pope?

Think of the moral laws we could end up with.

Franco
03-31-2011, 07:59 PM
But getting back to Ron Paul, do you have trouble reconciling his comment about nullification being justified and constitutional......with a love for the Constitution? Unless that article misquoted him, that's what he said.




I think you have to look at the context in which he made those comments.

Paul is the only politican that is being honest with the American people. We have a 14 trillion debt which we can't even pay the interest on and we are over our annual budget by 1.4 trillion.

We should not raise the Debt Limit! We need to cut the fat and more out of the Fed Gov! They won't do it themselves and the GOP is only asking for 61 billion in cuts and will probably settle for less! This is an insane situation. Defaulting on loans is what's going to be forced on us if we can't control our government.

I'm off to watch Swamp People.

dnf777
03-31-2011, 09:39 PM
Paul is the only politican that is being honest with the American people.

That is true, and that's what I like about him. He just goes over the edge sometimes, and I think that renders him unelectable. I'm afraid the Donald is right about him now.

road kill
04-01-2011, 06:20 AM
Many of our laws are based on moral principles. But mainly principles that if not upheld, will infringe on the peace and rights of others.

I am not for legislating morals for their own intrinsic sake, if they do not affect others. That's how we end up with prohibition, and laws governing what consenting adults can and cant do in their own homes!

Would you want Puritans passing laws based on their morals? How about Muslims? How about Jews? Radical Christians? Non-radical Christians? The Pope?

Think of the moral laws we could end up with.

What "moral issues" are the laws supporting fetal abortive rights based on?
To me abortion is "immoral."

(nothing personal, throwin' it out there for everyone)


RK:D

road kill
04-01-2011, 06:22 AM
I think you have to look at the context in which he made those comments.

Paul is the only politican that is being honest with the American people. We have a 14 trillion debt which we can't even pay the interest on and we are over our annual budget by 1.4 trillion.

We should not raise the Debt Limit! We need to cut the fat and more out of the Fed Gov! They won't do it themselves and the GOP is only asking for 61 billion in cuts and will probably settle for less! This is an insane situation. Defaulting on loans is what's going to be forced on us if we can't control our government.

I'm off to watch Swamp People.

Don't you think Governor Walker is on the square??
He is "walking the walk!!!":cool:


RK

Roger Perry
04-01-2011, 07:01 AM
Don't you think Governor Walker is on the square??
He is "walking the walk!!!":cool:


RK

Looks like he is walking backwards now.;-)

Franco
04-01-2011, 08:20 AM
Don't you think Governor Walker is on the square??
He is "walking the walk!!!":cool:


RK

Yes I do think Walker has a very bright future.

However, I was talking about the current Presidential candidates. Ron Paul is the only one being realistic and honest with the American people.

Scott Walker, if he remains firm and continues with his agenda has a great future. We need more politicians like him!

Walker is in a tough situation as Wisconsin is controlled by the unions and freeing the state of thier grip is a major challenge. The activist judge that decided to go against he voters demonstrates just how far we have fallen as a free people!

road kill
04-01-2011, 08:21 AM
Yes I do think Walker has a very bright future.

However, I was talking about the current Presidential candidates. Ron Paul is the only one being realistic and honest with the American people.

Scott Walker, if he remains firm and continues with his agenda has a great future. We need more politicians like him!

Walker-Paul ticket???:cool:

RK

LokiMeister
04-01-2011, 08:43 AM
Don't you think Governor Walker is on the square??
He is "walking the walk!!!":cool:


RK

I think he will be a one term governor if they don't recall him in January. The things he has done, while maybe necessary have gone about it the wrong way. There are more Democrats in this state then Republicans and unless his message starts to be received he is done. He won the last election because not many people cared enough to vote and now that a lot of those people are either looking at not having a job because of him or have a reduction in income, they are NOT going to vote for him again. The only way he wins again will be a as Clinton said, "Are you better off now then you were four years ago?" (my apologies if this is not a direct quote).

Thank God, I didn't vote for him. Didn't vote for Democrat Barrett either.

Franco
04-01-2011, 08:49 AM
I think he will be a one term governor if they don't recall him in January. The things he has done, while maybe necessary have gone about it the wrong way. There are more Democrats in this state then Republicans and unless his message starts to be received he is done. He won the last election because not many people cared enough to vote and now that a lot of those people are either looking at not having a job because of him or have a reduction in income, they are NOT going to vote for him again. The only way he wins again will be a as Clinton said, "Are you better off now then you were four years ago?" (my apologies if this is not a direct quote).

Thank God, I didn't vote for him. Didn't vote for Democrat Barrett either.

If you don't let Gov Walker reform your state, Wisconsin will be no better off than Michigan! Just look at how the low-lifes moved into Michigan after the union destroyed it and they continue to take the state is a downward spiral.

LokiMeister
04-01-2011, 09:17 AM
If you don't let Gov Walker reform your state, Wisconsin will be no better off than Michigan! Just look at how the low-lifes moved into Michigan after the union destroyed it and they continue to take the state is a downward spiral.

Causing all sorts of people to potentially lose their jobs, people losing wages because of increased pension and healthcare costs, causing endless (somewhat peaceful) protests because of the backhanded, back door deals is not my idea of reform.

huntinman
04-01-2011, 09:21 AM
Causing all sorts of people to potentially lose their jobs, people losing wages because of increased pension and healthcare costs, causing endless (somewhat peaceful) protests because of the backhanded, back door deals is not my idea of reform.

As opposed to a whole lot more losing their jobs to save the "protected few"??

LokiMeister
04-01-2011, 09:24 AM
Probably not.

Franco
04-01-2011, 09:25 AM
Causing all sorts of people to potentially lose their jobs, people losing wages because of increased pension and healthcare costs, causing endless (somewhat peaceful) protests because of the backhanded, back door deals is not my idea of reform.

Then, "Welcome To New Michigan"! Enjoy the rust.

road kill
04-01-2011, 09:30 AM
Then, "Welcome To New Michigan"! Enjoy the rust.

Michigan???
That's an insult, let's go for Kalifornia!!!!:shock:


RK

Franco
04-01-2011, 10:01 AM
Michigan???

That's an insult, let's go for Kalifornia!!!!:shock:


RK

What a shame because Wisconsin is absolutley a beautiful state. If I could pick one state to train in during the Summer it would be Wisconsin.

I remember visiting some of the countryside back when I worked for the flagship station of the Saints and they held their Summer Camp just outside of LaCross. Lush and green with cool Summer mornings.

It is just that the public union has grown to the point where they have become a real problem within the state. A least Gov Walker has started something that is being addressed by several states that have thier financial health being choke by the public unions.