Welcome to TigerFan.com! Log in or Sign up to interact with the LSU community.

Paul:We need less big government, but we need the govt to tell us how many kids poor people can have

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Cajun Sensation, Feb 4, 2014.

  1. Cajun Sensation

    Cajun Sensation I'm kind of a big deal

    Of course the Tea Party hypocrisy continues.

    Just read this article and a quote from Rand Paul that read ""Maybe we have to say 'enough's enough, you shouldn't be having kids after a certain amount,'" Paul told the business group at one point.

    Isn't this the guy who wants the government to stop intruding on our lives? But he wants the government to tell you how many kids you may have?

    Is it just me or is there quite a bit of hypocrisy there? Am I reading this wrong?

    http://www.nola.com/politics/index....nding_be_c.html#comments#incart_most-comments


    edit: this thread, to me, really isn't about single mothers and welfare, etc....it's more about the hypocrisy of folks that want small government, then want laws on women's bodies and maybe a law or two telling you how many kids people can have. The hypocrisy drives me nuts!
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2014
    Contained Chaos likes this.
  2. red55

    red55 curmudgeon

    Meanwhile the rest of the Republicans want the government to force women to have kids that they don't want!
    Contained Chaos likes this.
  3. Cajun Sensation

    Cajun Sensation I'm kind of a big deal

    ...and then when they DO have them....they don't want the government helping to feed the kids that she didn't want in the first place.

    IDK
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2014
  4. MLUTiger

    MLUTiger Secular Humanist

    Damn librales...
  5. Tiger Exile

    Tiger Exile Long time lurker

    I'm glad you are all in agreement. Rand Paul and I agree if you actually read the article that we really don't give a crap how many kids you have, but enough is enough when there is a dollar figure attached to each one you add to the public dole. Have twenty for all I care, but the tax payers should only have to pay for a fixed amount. Maybe you have five when the unfortunate situation hits you, but you shouldn't be rewarded for having another. Isn't that what all that free birth control is about?
  6. Tiger Exile

    Tiger Exile Long time lurker

    shane0911 likes this.
  7. Contained Chaos

    Contained Chaos I'm self-smart

    And then they want to fry 'em when the destitute, fatherless little SOBs step out of line. Yep, lets force the mother to have the kid so we can starve it and then kill it.
  8. Tiger Exile

    Tiger Exile Long time lurker


    Umm, if you have ever looked at a sonogram or scan, after 20 weeks you are already killing it. I guess you have the taxpayers' best interest in mind. Democrats don't care if the aborted baby comes out alive, they must be starving or destitute so kill it anyway. Partial birth abortion is supported by BHO and the rest of the enlightened do nothing wrong party. What a joke.
  9. red55

    red55 curmudgeon

    You know, this was all addressed decades ago in the Clinton era welfare reforms, also known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. There is a work requirement and there are short lifetime benefit limits among other measures designed to discourage unemployed unmarried motherhood. Having additional children no longer adds to and extends their benefits. Hasn't for a long time. Paul should know this.
  10. Tiger Exile

    Tiger Exile Long time lurker

Share This Page