This is one scary lady...

[lblanchard]

Nancy Pelosi: "Every month that we don't pass a recovery package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs. I don't think we can go fast enough."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8hMJVXt09E

The total U.S. population as of July 2008 was 303 million. Yeah, yeah, she misspoke and meant 500,000, but it also suggests she doesn't have the firmest possible grip on big numbers.

Now, 500,000 workers is a scary number, but I think it's about 1/2 of one percent of the workforce, if that.

Comments

[montieth.livejournal.com]

Clearly those job losses will be stopped by $330 Million dollars in condom handouts!

[johnpalmer.livejournal.com]

Nope. Allowing Medicaid to handle family planning would help alleviate one of the biggest problems facing economically disadvantaged women, an issue that is even more important in a recession... an unwanted pregnancy now is an even bigger problem now than normally. But, you are correct, it would put more money into the economy, and help alleviate job losses.

[montieth.livejournal.com]

Condoms are economic stimulus in what way? Condoms would help alleviate job losses how?

And allowing Medicaid? Let me see, I don't see any allowances for the likes of Medicaid in Article I section 8.

[lblanchard.livejournal.com]

They're good for the latex market, I guess.

Not saying this is representative of all economically disadvantaged women, of course, because it isn't, but...there's a subculture in the inner city neighborhoods here in which the women go in surreptitiously for a depoprovera shot or an IUD because if their boyfriends find out they're using birth control they'll have the crap beaten out of them. Those guys view making babies as a sign of their manliness. Sadly, they don't view taking care of those babies as important.

Thus, these women can't afford to have their men find a packet of pills or see a patch. Forget condoms in these cases.

[karenkay.livejournal.com]

This is a good point.

[johnpalmer.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but "allowing Medicaid to provide family planning services" and "condoms" are not the same thing.

As for Medicaid, take it up with a constitutional lawyer. I'm just this weirdo you met on the internet... complaining to me isn't likely to improve things.

[lblanchard.livejournal.com]

Well, commenting on my posting isn't likely to improve anything either, but that didn't stop you!

Seriously, as long as y'all don't jump from teh snark to outright abuse of one another, you can continue your lively exchange of viewpoints. I'm happy to watch.

[johnpalmer.livejournal.com]

Well, let me provide you with two possible exchanges.

"I don't agree with the government spending on Medicaid at all!"

"Oh, cool, pleased-ta-meetcha, some of my best friends, and all that. Let's not argue politics, but I can listen to you grump once in a while if you'll put up with me occasionally feeling I have to offer challenges to particular points you raise."

versus

"Despite the widespread acceptance of a particular issue or program, and the lack of any serious challenge to those issues or programs, I'm going to claim that the issue or program is a violation of the Constitution!"

"Uh, yeah, well, good luck with that and all, and why don't you go take that argument to a constitutional lawyer, who, I'm sure, is going to receive your arguments warmly and help you go out and storm the capital and change the world. Assuming that it's as solid and obvious as you seem to think, and all."

[lblanchard.livejournal.com]

I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

[johnpalmer.livejournal.com]

Merely that any snark was based solely upon the argument raised, not the opinion that it was in support of.

I think I've established my cred in "able to handle dissenting opinions respectfully, in general".

[lblanchard.livejournal.com]

"Y'all" is a plural noun, you know, and the comment was directed to both of you. It just happened to be appended to your post.

[lblanchard.livejournal.com]

Allowing Medicaid to handle this program is a good way to get $100 million worth of aid to economically disadvantaged women out of the $320 million allocated to it. The rest will get dribbled away as it wends its way through five layers of bureaucracy.

[$100 million is my dyspeptic estimate -- the actual number may be higher or lower. But the money has to go through the feds, and then the state, and then the local government. Each layer takes a chunk for administering the funds.]

Better to leave that $320 million in the hands of corporations that create real stuff and real jobs.