So you say federal grants shouldn’t be taken away because it provides for low-income women, but then say that because we are $300 billion shy of our debt ceiling, we should cut funding to the program that is a fraction of that number. You are not a political science, economics, or philosophy major are you? You are definitely not a logician I can see.

I am not sure why you go out of your way to try and appeal to a middle ground as some sort of “moderate” when you don’t provide any good reasons for it. If you despise Planned Parenthood (which I see that you don’t) then fine; you probably want it completely de-funded. If you like Planned Parenthood’s ability to give free rubbers and birth control to help keep stupid people from reproducing, than you probably don’t want it de-funded. But don’t argue that middle ground should be reached on the basis of budget issues. Certainly in every domain, agency and program that the government subsidizes should attempt to make no waste, in principle–that is, it should be practiced whether or not the government has a deficit or a surplus. There are legitimate arguments to be made for both points of view (even though both sides tend to reap consequences that contradict their position…see “dumbassidiot”) but balancing the budget isn’t one of them. I believe this seeking out for moderation may demonstrate your inability to grasp the nuances of providing/not providing social welfare programs, but I may be wrong in my assessment.

As far as dumbassidot’s take, I think this author is (how could she not) saying that, essentially, all reps that voted for the bill are stupid, and, yes, that the American citizens who voted those hacks into office are also retarded or something worse. I don’t see anything wrong with that, nor do I find it inaccurate (but perhaps I feel this way for reasons that aren’t voiced by this author in this article). Voters get what they deserve, and the government will reflect the citizens until voters wise up. If dumbassidiot is offended by that, being that he presumably is one of these people who voted for these reps, than I don’t see how that is anything other than a personal problem. The truth hurts sometimes. It can destroy one’s sene-of-self.

Agencies like PP do seem to not just tolerate but promote personal irresponsibility, just as welfare does to some degree. (But who is going to wise up about their sexual irresponsibility just because PP no longer exists–that’s why we call them morons.) But pointing out this obvious aspect of social programs does not subsume the whole conversation, nor does it, in and of itself, justify wiping out social programs. If welfare, in principle, is what this poster hates, it should be noted that many business ventures embarked upon by the richest of the rich take on much larger subsidies gladly (read “Free Lunch” by David Johnston), and that welfare, in particular food stamps, was a legislative compromise in order to further subsidize big farming. If poor people aren’t buying food, big food producers lose out. So, in short, dumbassidiot is an ideologue who didn’t attempt to hide the fact that he is being intellectually dishonest–a seemingly contagious syndrome around the collegian site.

There are also ramifications at many steps when one wants to drop welfare (for the poor and the rich, that is). The reason is that the political economy and policy decisions are part of one large vicious circle. You can wipe out welfare, but what do you want to do with all these people having babies who don’t have the means to? You surely don’t advocate starving infants and young children because of choices their parents made, do you? One way or the other, society pays (literally and figuratively) for allowing irresponsible people to carry out their poor decisions. I may be wrong, but I assume this poster doesn’t believe people should have an unabated right to abort their fetus (I don’t either), which is fine and dandy, but his attitude on welfare simply makes him a hypocrite. As a renowned comedian once said about the minds of pro-life conservative ideologues, ” ‘If you’re pre-born you’re fine, if you’re pre-school you’re [expletive]’ “. Surely, if abortion was banned, the government would have to pay people’s natal care in full, and perhaps require that they must give their child up for adoption if they do not have the means to care for them. I honestly think there are much worse alternatives, but what makes you think any legislative body has the balls to vouch for that one? And do you want to deal with adding to a population that has demonstrated its inability to handle a growing population? Do you want to pay their unemployment? When one realizes that even in a pristine economy, where unemployment is “just” a few million, millions of Americans (to speak nothing of the impoverished elsewhere in the world), still have no opportunity to earn a living, it becomes much more difficult to demonize certain welfare programs, regardless of the inevitable number of folks who take advantage of it.

Anybody who take a hardline stance like this poster is not being intellectually honest, because one would have to acknowledge the pitfalls each policy decision regarding the matter has in the short- and long-term. Politics usually entails having to choose between multiple alternatives that are often equally unpalatable, and always undesirable. Welcome to the real, complex, and nuance-rich world. If you don’t like it, move to a fantasy land (never mind, you are already there). I probably don’t care for the culture of PP as much as the next guy, but I am far more distressed about corporate welfare, or mass society’s seemingly endless request during rough economic times for the poor, the ignorant, and the indigent to pick up the slack. And funding for PP and other welfare programs is important because it signifies our ability (or inability) to grapple with the nuance of public policy and its ramifications on mass society and culture. I wish either the author or this poster could have illuminated this.