bucks over babies: when stimulating your wallet trumps stimulating life

| | Comments (3)

so, is this the voice of reason or the voice of hell? you may think i'm kidding, using a bit of hyperbole to bring my point across, but i'm not. doesn't nancy sound so reasonable? "we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy." which consequences would that be, nancy? the same consequences president BO mentioned as mistakes? sounds like nancy wants to go around her elbow to get to her thumb.

this all reminds me of a quote from broadcast news, when as albert brooks, as aaron, says to as holly hunter, as jane:

what do you think the devil is going to look like if he's around? c'mon! nobody's gonna be taken in by a guy with a long, red, pointy tail ... no. i'm semi-serious here. he will be attractive, he'll be nice and helpful. he'll get a job where he influences a great god-fearing nation. he'll never do an evil thing. he'll never deliberately hurt a living thing ... he'll just bit by little bit lower standards where they are important. just coax along -- flash over substance -- just a tiny little bit. and he will talk about all of us really being salesmen.

well, at least we know where their priorities are.


I heard this on the radio, and I had to sit down because I was so sick at my stomach.

I called PapaC to tell him. "You know who DOESN'T deserve a bailout? Babies! Them, we have to kill 'cause they're too spendy. Chase Bank? They can get all the bucks they want."

I'm become more radicalized by the moment.

This is evil.

Pure, unadulterated evil.

a tidy cleansing for our nation of costly, needy children is what it boils too.

i can't think about it too much. not only enraging but terrifying. what is america going to be like when my grandkids are born?

great quote, smock. made my spine cold.


Great thoughts from all the Mamas, but my favourite is MamaT's comment.

How chilling that Pelosi is willing to bailout big corporations but thinks that babies are too expensive to consider.

On a more "neutral" note: I read somewhere that the idea that a smaller population is good for the economy was thoroughly disproved during the lifetime of the economist who proposed it. Malthus, was it? I'll find out . . .

Anyway, you'd think that common sense would tell everyone that more babies means more demand, and that more demand . . . Well, you can connect the dots.



About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by smockmomma published on January 28, 2009 9:29 PM.

Oh, Beanymama #2! was the previous entry in this blog.

No, it's Not Nutritionally the Same as Sugar. is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.