PELOSI SAYS BIRTH CONTROL WILL HELP ECONOMY

She really is an idiot!

Too bad her parents weren’t more careful...

She’s the kind of person that makes me believe that in some circumstances post-natal abortions might be OK.

Yes, let’s kill our unborn so we can flood our nation with people from all over the world. That’s really working out swell these days.

Mandatory family planning a-la The People’s “Republic” of America, any day from now.

Pelosi: We want to make sure we have a super race and can't tolerate inferior species that will hinder our goal.

Where did I hear that befor?

Too bad her mom didn’t use birth control.

Yes, let’s kill our unborn so we can flood our nation with people from all over the world. That’s really working out swell these days.
~~~

(spits on the ground),,,

That’s The Point...

Boy, she is stupid!! We are going to need every American citizen possible in order to pay off the debts SHE’s contemplating! We may have to do as our friends the French do, pay baby bonuses to families in order to fund the socialistic society she’s planning!! How did someone this stupid become the Speaker of the House??? Oh, I forgot, this must be the Big Pharma Relief Bill, so that Pfizer can buy Wyeth, right?

If we stop producing more babies, who’s gonna pay the taxes to fund the government’s trillion dollar programs including social security, medicare, etc, etc.?

yea, just convince all the muslim families to use it

PELOSI SAYS BIRTH CONTROL WILL HELP ECONOMY ______________________________________________________

I pill - because prevention is better than abortion .

Whats the birth rate for a muslim woman on average ?

It sure is.

If we stop producing more babies, who’s gonna pay the taxes to fund the government’s trillion dollar programs including social security, medicare, etc, etc.?

Obama's base supporters? No, that can't be it, they aren't gainfully employed. Besides, they're all getting a 'tax cut'...only as an 'incentive' though, to help them on their way to becoming productive citizens.
I guess that leaves us with an 'abortion tax'. No, not a tax on the woman having the abortion, a tax on those groups that would wish to deny her the 'right' to kill her baby. You know, backward Christians, the diabolical Catholic Church, a lot of annoying conservatives, and a handful of Democrats.

How can the Speaker of the House of the United States openly promote debauchery and promiscuity as economic virtues? Even taking Napoleon’s advice and Never ascribing to Pelosi’s malice, that which can be explained by Pelosi’s incompetence, this is one step too far into primal evil.

Does she see abortion procedures as a broken window economic stimulus? Maybe Comrade Pelosi should book a fact finding trip to the Sochi, Russia, site of the 2014 Winter Olypmics and see how the drastic abortion-induced population crash coupled with a massive state run infrastructure “improvement” project can benefit the United States?

1850
That Which is Seen, and that Which is Not Seen
by Frederick Bastiat

That Which is Seen, and that Which is Not Seen
In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause -it is seen. The others unfold in succession -they are not seen: it is well for us, if they are foreseen. Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference -the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen, and also of those which it is necessary to foresee. Now this difference is enormous, for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favourable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse. Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, -at the risk of a small present evil.

In fact, it is the same in the science of health, arts, and in that of morals. It often happens, that the sweeter the first fruit of a habit is, the more bitter are the consequences. Take, for example, debauchery, idleness, prodigality. When, therefore, a man absorbed in the effect which is seen has not yet learned to discern those which are not seen, he gives way to fatal habits, not only by inclination, but by calculation.

This explains the fatally grievous condition of mankind. Ignorance surrounds its cradle: then its actions are determined by their first consequences, the only ones which, in its first stage, it can see. It is only in the long run that it learns to take account of the others. It has to learn this lesson from two very different masters-experience and foresight. Experience teaches effectually, but brutally. It makes us acquainted with all the effects of an action, by causing us to feel them; and we cannot fail to finish by knowing that fire burns, if we have burned ourselves. For this rough teacher, I should like, if possible, to substitute a more gentle one. I mean Foresight. For this purpose I shall examine the consequences of certain economical phenomena, by placing in opposition to each other those which are seen, and those which are not seen.

I. -The Broken Window
Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James B., when his careless son happened to break a square of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation -“It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?”

Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier’s trade -that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs -I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The -lazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs Ms hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, “Stop there! your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen.”

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.

Let us take a view of industry in general, as affected by this circumstance. The window being broken, the glazier’s trade is encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is seen. If the window had not been broken, the shoemaker’s trade (or some other) would have been encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is not seen.

And if that which is -not seen is taken into consideration, because it is a negative fact, as well as that which is seen, because it is a positive fact, it will be understood that neither industry in general, nor the sum total of national labour, is affected, whether windows are broken or not.

Now let us consider James B. himself. In the former supposition, that of the window being broken, he spends six francs, and has neither more nor less than he had before, the enjoyment of a window.

In the second, where we suppose the window not to have been broken, he would have spent six francs on shoes, and would have had at the same time the enjoyment of a pair of shoes and of a window.

Now, as James B. forms a part of society, we must come to the conclusion, that, taking it altogether, and making an estimate of its enjoyments and its labours, it has lost the value of the broken window.

When we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: “Society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed;” and we must assent to a maxim which will make the hair of protectionists stand on end -To break, to spoil, to waste, is not to encourage national labour; nor, more briefly, “destruction is not profit.”

What will you say, Monsieur Industriel —what will you say, disciples of good M. F. Chamans, who has calculated with so much precision how much trade would gain by the burning of Paris, from the number of houses it would be necessary to rebuild?

I am sorry to disturb these ingenious calculations, as far as their spirit has been introduced into our legislation; but I beg him to begin them again, by taking into the account that which is not seen, and placing it alongside of that which is seen. The reader must take care to remember that there are not two persons only, but three concerned in the little scene which I have submitted to his attention. One of them, James B., represents the consumer, reduced, by an act of destruction, to one enjoyment instead of two. Another under the title of the glazier, shows us the producer, whose trade is encouraged by the accident. The third is the shoemaker (or some other tradesman), whose labour suffers proportionably by the same cause. It is this third person who is always kept in the shade, and who, personating that which is not seen, is a necessary element of the problem. It is he who shows us how absurd it is to think we see a profit in an act of destruction. It is he who will soon teach us that it is not less absurd to see a profit in a restriction, which is, after all, nothing else than a partial destruction. Therefore, if you will only go to the root of all the arguments which are adduced in its favour, all you will find will be the paraphrase of this vulgar saying -What would become of the glaziers, if nobody ever broke windows?

Is there any way we can un-born her?

This biological carbon unit is amazing she goes from Herman Goering to Josef Mengele in the matter of a few days.

Her thinking is so foreign and evil to what America is, the only thing I can think of is her constituency is:
a) complicit
b) complacent
c) fooled on a grand scale
d) stoned
e) stupid

Only babies with blue eyes and blond hair will be allowed to survive birth. - Germany 1931 -45

She will soon say that you must have test to prove it is a healthy boy and no down syndrome or other costly health care procedures... O Yes... No ADHD kids or more than one girl.... Like the wonderful system they have in China. They will make this ruling retroactive for 5 past years! Girls will have their clitoris removed.. Just like in Kenya.