Rick Santorum, specifically, is an idiot.

Atomika

Santorum blames 'abortion culture' for problems with Social Security By: CNN Associate Producer Gabriella Schwarz


(CNN) - Potential 2012 presidential candidate Rick Santorum said the "abortion culture" in America is to blame for the failing Social Security system.

In an interview with WEZS Radio in Laconia, New Hampshire, Tuesday, the former Republican Pennsylvania senator said abortion rates are influencing the number of children born in the United States and there are therefore not enough children to support the program long-term.

"The Social Security system in my opinion is a flawed design, period. But having said that, the design would work a lot better if we had stable demographic trends," Santorum said. "A third of all the young people in America are not in America today because of abortion."

Santorum, an outspoken opponent of abortion, made the comments in response to a caller who said abortion rates are to blame for the problems with Social Security and Medicare.

"We have seven children so we're doing our part to fund the Social Security system," Santorum said. "I want children to be living in America and contributing. America's greatest resource is our people and we're denying America what it needs, which is more Americans."

Santorum was in New Hampshire, the first-in-the-nation primary state Tuesday to meet with voters and headline a GOP dinner in Concord.

I'm not entirely sure this needed its own thread, but considering that it overlapped the many GOP, Primary election, Abortion, and Public Entitlements thread, I couldn't really justify putting it in any single one of those.

The Tea Party/Evangelical wing of the GOP has a long, dumb history of saying, supporting, and doing some of the dumbest shit ever before performed by a civilized Western power, but I think this may just win the prize. I can just imagine Santorum telling people, perhaps with a visual aide,

"The only way to have sustained growth is by continually adding exponentially more and more levels of people paying into the levels above them, thus providing a steady stream of funding the further up the--"

"Rick."

"What?"

"That isn't a growth model. That's a Ponzi scheme."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzl1cIgLz3A&feature=player_detailpage

Marathon

I read this story yesterday as well. It struck me the exact same way. It seemed quite the bit of logical gymnastics to try and state that if only abortion were illegal we would have more than enough money to support social security.

Is that really the case, I feel that even though abortions happen they can't be happening on that large of a scale.

ChillyWilly

So what we need in a country (nay, a world) that has too many people in it already is...more people?

Mr. Santorum, I believe you may have broken my brain.

"Don't you see? Everyone needs to have 3 children to support the current system. And then when that generation gets old, the next generation will need to have 6 children each and then 9 and then 12 and then..."

Yes. I see the math you've done there. Well done, sir.

Couscous

Are there even enough abortions to make a significant difference?

Tofystedeth

ChillyWilly wrote: »

So what we need in a country (nay, a world) that has too many people in it already is...more people?

Mr. Santorum, I believe you may have broken my brain.

"Don't you see? Everyone needs to have 3 children to support the current system. And then when that generation gets old, the next generation will need to have 6 children each and then 9 and then 12 and then..."

Yes. I see the math you've done there. Well done, sir.

You're doing it wrong. He said exponential.
So, 3, 9, 27, 81, 243....

Atomika

Santorum reminds me of that guy on the educational film in the Futurama episode, "Crimes of the Hot."

"To cool the planet down, each year we drop and bigger and bigger ice cube into the ocean, solving the problem once and for all!"

The Cat

Isn't this just another incarnation of "if only we still had all those fetuses, we wouldn't need those dang messicans to do the yardwork"?

wait, I think Santorum may have been responsible for that one too...

DivideByZero

I got as far as

"A third of all the young people in America are not in America today because of abortion."

before my head exploded. That is some recursive shit right there.

Tomanta

If all we need is more people, I have the perfect solution!

I'll need a rather substantial amount of blank green cards, official statements of amnesty, and a cab to take me to certain parts of town...

Atomika

Couscous wrote: »

Are there even enough abortions to make a significant difference?

Santorum seems to think a third of all pregnancies end in abortions, judging from his statement above. His math is a little off, but not too much. The live births/abortion rate is between 2:1 and 3:1.


Still. Ponzi scheme.

mcdermott

Couscous wrote: »

Are there even enough abortions to make a significant difference?

A little quick googling (feel free to go deeper to check the numbers, they may be off) suggests over a million abortions per year, with a total birth rate in the U.S. of less than five million. I think there are like another million gained yearly by immigration/naturalization (citizens, that is).

So...upwards of 15%? Seems the answer might be yes, though it's not really relevant.

EDIT: And I forgot to count emigration.

EDIT: Also not counting miscarriage rate there, but I think the end result is still "yes, but not relevant."

Doctor Detroit

This is incredibly stupid, even before you start thinking about what all these extra people will do (and who will pay for them) during a downturn in the economy, like, for example, the one we are currently trying to beat into submission.

Atomika

Doctor Detroit wrote: »

This is incredibly stupid, even before you start thinking about what all these extra people will do (and who will pay for them) during a downturn in the economy, like, for example, the one we are currently trying to beat into submission.

Not to mention the most important thing: economic statistics.

- 1 in 4 abortions are for teenagers.
- 2 in 3 abortions are to single mothers.
- 3 in 4 abortions are to women living below the poverty line.
- 1 in 4 abortions are due to unwanted sex and/or rape.


Nothing puts money into an entitlement system like . . . uh . . . people who need entitlements?

mcdermott

Atomic Ross wrote: »

Doctor Detroit wrote: »

This is incredibly stupid, even before you start thinking about what all these extra people will do (and who will pay for them) during a downturn in the economy, like, for example, the one we are currently trying to beat into submission.

Not to mention the most important thing: economic statistics.

- 2 in 3 abortions are to single mothers.
- 3 in 4 abortions are to women living below the poverty line.
- 1 in 4 abortions are due to unwanted sex and/or rape.


Nothing puts money into an entitlement system like . . . uh . . . people who need entitlements?

Well, those kids are bound to find some menial work eventually, at least most of them, and FICA taxes are nice and regressive so we'll squeeze a lot out of them for Social Security at least no matter how poor they are.

Atomika

mcdermott wrote: »

Atomic Ross wrote: »

Doctor Detroit wrote: »

This is incredibly stupid, even before you start thinking about what all these extra people will do (and who will pay for them) during a downturn in the economy, like, for example, the one we are currently trying to beat into submission.

Not to mention the most important thing: economic statistics.

- 2 in 3 abortions are to single mothers.
- 3 in 4 abortions are to women living below the poverty line.
- 1 in 4 abortions are due to unwanted sex and/or rape.


Nothing puts money into an entitlement system like . . . uh . . . people who need entitlements?

Well, those kids are bound to find some menial work eventually, at least most of them, and FICA taxes are nice and regressive so we'll squeeze a lot out of them for Social Security at least no matter how poor they are.

Except, you know, not counting all the money they'll be siphoning from WIC and Medicaid programs.


Santorum's theory is sound except for the part that uses math to prove its position.

DivideByZero

Not to mention the competition from unemployed adults is pushing those ex-fetuses right out of the job market:

Job market particularly tough for teenagers
(2010)

Going into this summer's prime hiring time, the national unemployment rate for teens was 25.4 percent last month after hitting 27.6 percent in October - the highest rate since 1948, when the federal government began tracking the number of teens actively seeking work. Both figures are stratospheric compared with the country's 9.9 percent rate.

...

The overall teen unemployment rate pales in comparison with the African-American teen jobless rate, which shot up to just shy of 50 percent in November, nearly eclipsing the worst record, the 52.1 percent set during another bruising recession, in August 1983. The rate dropped to 37.3 percent in April.

Those former fetuses had better find their bootstraps in a hurry, our entitlements are at stake!

Couscous

Not to mention the most important thing: economic statistics.

- 2 in 3 abortions are to single mothers.
- 3 in 4 abortions are to women living below the poverty line.
- 1 in 4 abortions are due to unwanted sex and/or rape.


Nothing puts money into an entitlement system like . . . uh . . . people who need entitlements?

They will obviously pull themselves up by their bootstraps because this is America, land where people can easily go from poor to rich no matter what the statistics say about intergenerational poverty.

Couscous

DivideByZero wrote: »

Not to mention the competition from unemployed adults is pushing those ex-fetuses right out of the job market:

Job market particularly tough for teenagers
(2010)

Going into this summer's prime hiring time, the national unemployment rate for teens was 25.4 percent last month after hitting 27.6 percent in October - the highest rate since 1948, when the federal government began tracking the number of teens actively seeking work. Both figures are stratospheric compared with the country's 9.9 percent rate.

...

The overall teen unemployment rate pales in comparison with the African-American teen jobless rate, which shot up to just shy of 50 percent in November, nearly eclipsing the worst record, the 52.1 percent set during another bruising recession, in August 1983. The rate dropped to 37.3 percent in April.

Those former fetuses had better find their bootstraps in a hurry, our entitlements are at stake!

They are just lazy. There is always opportunity if they try hard enough!

Atomika

I think the onus is officially on Santorum at this point to find out the approximate number of abortions performed annually that would provide the nation with an economy-empowering citizen.

- Less than 10% of abortions are performed by women over 35, the most economically stable demographic.
- 75% of abortions are performed on women already in poverty.
- Only 13% of abortions are performed on women who are college graduates.
- Minorities are 3 times more likely than whites to have abortions.



This Venn Diagram is starting to look awful.

Atomika

Couscous wrote: »

They will obviously pull themselves up by their bootstraps because this is America, land where people can easily go from poor to rich no matter what the statistics say about intergenerational poverty.

So that's the plan? Create more poor people so old people can live longer?

nexuscrawler

Look if those fetuses want to work in a steel mill they should be allowed!

21stCentury

This is what happens when you come up with a hypothesis after picking the result you believe in.

The real problem with pro-life activists/politicians is that they claim to consider all abortion murder, when in fact their conviction is more towards "Hussies who have sex deserve to be punished". Read up on how pro-life activists believe they can get abortions or how they have trouble answering how to punish women who have illegal abortions.

And this thing? This is basically someone trying to fit the world into his worldview. it doesn't fit, but he doesn't really care. He knows he's right.

Taramoor

Couscous wrote: »

DivideByZero wrote: »

Not to mention the competition from unemployed adults is pushing those ex-fetuses right out of the job market:

Job market particularly tough for teenagers
(2010)

Going into this summer's prime hiring time, the national unemployment rate for teens was 25.4 percent last month after hitting 27.6 percent in October - the highest rate since 1948, when the federal government began tracking the number of teens actively seeking work. Both figures are stratospheric compared with the country's 9.9 percent rate.

...

The overall teen unemployment rate pales in comparison with the African-American teen jobless rate, which shot up to just shy of 50 percent in November, nearly eclipsing the worst record, the 52.1 percent set during another bruising recession, in August 1983. The rate dropped to 37.3 percent in April.

Those former fetuses had better find their bootstraps in a hurry, our entitlements are at stake!

They are just lazy. There is always opportunity if they try hard enough!

I think the trick will be lowering the minimum wage for people under a certain age, say if you're under 18. the minimum wage is actually $2/hr less than that of someone older.

Then have another bracket below that you can pay even less, say 16 and under get $3/hr less than the minimum wage.

Of course, to balance this out you'll have to let them work more hours during the week to make up the difference and save up some money, build a resume, etc. Current restrictions on hours worked by minors would have to be rescinded or at least loosened slightly, but it wouldn't be that big a deal I think.

But it wouldn't be fair if you could just hold them at those wages, so say after three months or six months you're required to increase that amount to the standard minimum wage.

This plan will get a lot more teens hired by local businesses every few months or so and really bring down unemployment while injecting a lot more fluidity into the economy.

Atomika

Taramoor wrote: »

Couscous wrote: »

DivideByZero wrote: »

Not to mention the competition from unemployed adults is pushing those ex-fetuses right out of the job market:

Job market particularly tough for teenagers
(2010)

Going into this summer's prime hiring time, the national unemployment rate for teens was 25.4 percent last month after hitting 27.6 percent in October - the highest rate since 1948, when the federal government began tracking the number of teens actively seeking work. Both figures are stratospheric compared with the country's 9.9 percent rate.

...

The overall teen unemployment rate pales in comparison with the African-American teen jobless rate, which shot up to just shy of 50 percent in November, nearly eclipsing the worst record, the 52.1 percent set during another bruising recession, in August 1983. The rate dropped to 37.3 percent in April.

Those former fetuses had better find their bootstraps in a hurry, our entitlements are at stake!

They are just lazy. There is always opportunity if they try hard enough!

I think the trick will be lowering the minimum wage for people under a certain age, say if you're under 18. the minimum wage is actually $2/hr less than that of someone older.

Then have another bracket below that you can pay even less, say 16 and under get $3/hr less than the minimum wage.

Of course, to balance this out you'll have to let them work more hours during the week to make up the difference and save up some money, build a resume, etc. Current restrictions on hours worked by minors would have to be rescinded or at least loosened slightly, but it wouldn't be that big a deal I think.

But it wouldn't be fair if you could just hold them at those wages, so say after three months or six months you're required to increase that amount to the standard minimum wage.

This plan will get a lot more teens hired by local businesses every few months or so and really bring down unemployment while injecting a lot more fluidity into the economy.

How is that going to work when teenage unemployment is already at 30%?

People aren't going to line to block to submit their application for a $4/hr job.

Tach

Santorum's logic, while stupid, has one kernel of truth- less abortions means more bodies- able or not.

I'm reminded of the professor from Freakonomics who posited the corollary between the drop in crime rate in the 90's and Row v. Wade.

Styrofoam Sammich

I'm not entirely sure this needed its own thread

Yeah me neither. I mean the guy is a massive douche, is that what we're discussing? The severity of his douchery?

Taramoor

Atomic Ross wrote: »

Taramoor wrote: »

Couscous wrote: »

DivideByZero wrote: »

Not to mention the competition from unemployed adults is pushing those ex-fetuses right out of the job market:

Job market particularly tough for teenagers
(2010)

Going into this summer's prime hiring time, the national unemployment rate for teens was 25.4 percent last month after hitting 27.6 percent in October - the highest rate since 1948, when the federal government began tracking the number of teens actively seeking work. Both figures are stratospheric compared with the country's 9.9 percent rate.

...

The overall teen unemployment rate pales in comparison with the African-American teen jobless rate, which shot up to just shy of 50 percent in November, nearly eclipsing the worst record, the 52.1 percent set during another bruising recession, in August 1983. The rate dropped to 37.3 percent in April.

Those former fetuses had better find their bootstraps in a hurry, our entitlements are at stake!

They are just lazy. There is always opportunity if they try hard enough!

I think the trick will be lowering the minimum wage for people under a certain age, say if you're under 18. the minimum wage is actually $2/hr less than that of someone older.

Then have another bracket below that you can pay even less, say 16 and under get $3/hr less than the minimum wage.

Of course, to balance this out you'll have to let them work more hours during the week to make up the difference and save up some money, build a resume, etc. Current restrictions on hours worked by minors would have to be rescinded or at least loosened slightly, but it wouldn't be that big a deal I think.

But it wouldn't be fair if you could just hold them at those wages, so say after three months or six months you're required to increase that amount to the standard minimum wage.

This plan will get a lot more teens hired by local businesses every few months or so and really bring down unemployment while injecting a lot more fluidity into the economy.

How is that going to work when teenage unemployment is already at 30%?

People aren't going to line to block to submit their application for a $4/hr job.

Yes they are. I went out for a barista job at Barnes & Noble a few months back (open interviews) and there were in excess of 350 there. ONE open position.

Lowering the minimum wage for minors only will persuade local businesses to hire teenagers far more often. Especially since, because of the high unemployment, they'll be willing to work for that wage.

This will allow them to build a resume and accrue valuable workplace experience.

Magic Pink

Santorum?

*googles*

EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Fencingsax

Taramoor wrote: »

Atomic Ross wrote: »

Taramoor wrote: »

Couscous wrote: »

DivideByZero wrote: »

Not to mention the competition from unemployed adults is pushing those ex-fetuses right out of the job market:

Job market particularly tough for teenagers
(2010)

Going into this summer's prime hiring time, the national unemployment rate for teens was 25.4 percent last month after hitting 27.6 percent in October - the highest rate since 1948, when the federal government began tracking the number of teens actively seeking work. Both figures are stratospheric compared with the country's 9.9 percent rate.

...

The overall teen unemployment rate pales in comparison with the African-American teen jobless rate, which shot up to just shy of 50 percent in November, nearly eclipsing the worst record, the 52.1 percent set during another bruising recession, in August 1983. The rate dropped to 37.3 percent in April.

Those former fetuses had better find their bootstraps in a hurry, our entitlements are at stake!

They are just lazy. There is always opportunity if they try hard enough!

I think the trick will be lowering the minimum wage for people under a certain age, say if you're under 18. the minimum wage is actually $2/hr less than that of someone older.

Then have another bracket below that you can pay even less, say 16 and under get $3/hr less than the minimum wage.

Of course, to balance this out you'll have to let them work more hours during the week to make up the difference and save up some money, build a resume, etc. Current restrictions on hours worked by minors would have to be rescinded or at least loosened slightly, but it wouldn't be that big a deal I think.

But it wouldn't be fair if you could just hold them at those wages, so say after three months or six months you're required to increase that amount to the standard minimum wage.

This plan will get a lot more teens hired by local businesses every few months or so and really bring down unemployment while injecting a lot more fluidity into the economy.

How is that going to work when teenage unemployment is already at 30%?

People aren't going to line to block to submit their application for a $4/hr job.

Yes they are. I went out for a barista job at Barnes & Noble a few months back (open interviews) and there were in excess of 350 there. ONE open position.

Lowering the minimum wage for minors only will persuade local businesses to hire teenagers far more often. Especially since, because of the high unemployment, they'll be willing to work for that wage.

This will allow them to build a resume and accrue valuable workplace experience.

Oh, so the solution to our economic troubles is to treat minimum wage workers even worse than we already do?

Arch

Taramoor wrote: »

Atomic Ross wrote: »

Taramoor wrote: »

Couscous wrote: »

DivideByZero wrote: »

Not to mention the competition from unemployed adults is pushing those ex-fetuses right out of the job market:

Job market particularly tough for teenagers
(2010)

Going into this summer's prime hiring time, the national unemployment rate for teens was 25.4 percent last month after hitting 27.6 percent in October - the highest rate since 1948, when the federal government began tracking the number of teens actively seeking work. Both figures are stratospheric compared with the country's 9.9 percent rate.

...

The overall teen unemployment rate pales in comparison with the African-American teen jobless rate, which shot up to just shy of 50 percent in November, nearly eclipsing the worst record, the 52.1 percent set during another bruising recession, in August 1983. The rate dropped to 37.3 percent in April.

Those former fetuses had better find their bootstraps in a hurry, our entitlements are at stake!

They are just lazy. There is always opportunity if they try hard enough!

I think the trick will be lowering the minimum wage for people under a certain age, say if you're under 18. the minimum wage is actually $2/hr less than that of someone older.

Then have another bracket below that you can pay even less, say 16 and under get $3/hr less than the minimum wage.

Of course, to balance this out you'll have to let them work more hours during the week to make up the difference and save up some money, build a resume, etc. Current restrictions on hours worked by minors would have to be rescinded or at least loosened slightly, but it wouldn't be that big a deal I think.

But it wouldn't be fair if you could just hold them at those wages, so say after three months or six months you're required to increase that amount to the standard minimum wage.

This plan will get a lot more teens hired by local businesses every few months or so and really bring down unemployment while injecting a lot more fluidity into the economy.

How is that going to work when teenage unemployment is already at 30%?

People aren't going to line to block to submit their application for a $4/hr job.

Yes they are. I went out for a barista job at Barnes & Noble a few months back (open interviews) and there were in excess of 350 there. ONE open position.

Lowering the minimum wage for minors only will persuade local businesses to hire teenagers far more often. Especially since, because of the high unemployment, they'll be willing to work for that wage.

This will allow them to build a resume and accrue valuable workplace experience.

You can't seriously be advocating this, and if you are you are ignorant of everything that has ever happened in any worker's rights campaign ever

EDIT: alright okay I see what you did here

Taramoor

Fencingsax wrote: »

Taramoor wrote: »

Yes they are. I went out for a barista job at Barnes & Noble a few months back (open interviews) and there were in excess of 350 there. ONE open position.

Lowering the minimum wage for minors only will persuade local businesses to hire teenagers far more often. Especially since, because of the high unemployment, they'll be willing to work for that wage.

This will allow them to build a resume and accrue valuable workplace experience.

Oh, so the solution to our economic troubles is to treat minimum wage workers even worse than we already do?

Okay, before this goes any further I need to point out that I do not support, nor have I ever supported, the position we're discussing.

But the GOP-held Legislature in Maine is trying to do it.
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_125th/billtexts/HP098701.asp

"An Act to Enhance Access to the Workplace for Minors"

Here's HuffPo's piece on it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/30/maine-gop-legislators-loo_n_842563.html

The sponsor of LD 1346, Rep. David Burns (R), did not return a request for comment. But co-sponsor Rep. Bruce Bickford (R) said that the government should stop standing in the way on child labor issues.

"This is in no way an attempt to abuse child labor, which some may look at and say, 'We've fought hard for kids and we've done this or that,'" he said. "Kids have parents. Let the parents be responsible for the kids. It's not up to the government to regulate everybody's life and lifestyle. Take the government away. Let the parents take care of their kids."

Bickford said he supported making it easier for young people to get a job so that they can earn some extra spending money and build up their resume and skills, arguing that right now, students have plenty of time after school that they could fill with employment.

The state Senate is also currently considering a bill (LD 516) that would allow 16- and 17-year-old students to work until 11:00 p.m. on school nights. Currently, they're allowed to work until 10:00 p.m. It would also allow students to work for a total of 24 hours per week, four more than current law allows. Senators on the Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development Committee are split along party lines on the bill, but it's likely to pass when the full body votes on it--the Senate, like the House, is controlled by Republicans.

Styrofoam Sammich

What we really need is jobs taken from people trying to earn a living and given to people living with their parents who will do the same work for chump change!

Its brilliant!

Taramoor

I just thought it'd be funny to try and argue it.

Couscous

Styrofoam Sammich wrote: »

What we really need is jobs taken from people trying to earn a living and given to people living with their parents who will do the same work for chump change!

Its brilliant!

We could just force prisoners to do the work.

Octoparrot

Lets keep this about that frothing dick Santorum.

Fox News' April Girouard wrote:

Former Senator Rick Santorum has criticized President Obama for being "detached" and "indecisive" about U.S. intervention in Libya, and the potential 2012 Republican challenger on Wednesday stressed that this week's presidential press conference wasn't enough to change his mind.

"The president waited five full days and just sort of made an offhand comment at a press conference," he told "On the Record" Wednesday night, slamming the Commander in Chief for seeming "disinterested" in Libya "from the very beginning."

"[T]here's one thing to engage the international community in something you want done. It's another thing to follow the international community," he said. "I think that's what happened here - not the president leading."

Why isn't the President leading the U.N.?

President Obama publicly expounded on his much-maligned approach to Libya in a press conference Tuesday, saying his "immediate concern" was the safety of U.S. citizens," and that the Administration had taken "a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Qaddafi's aggression."

"You shouldn't have your policy dependent upon American civilians in a country," Santorum, who has argued the no fly zone was established too late, rejoined. "You want to make sure you do everything you can. But you certainly can't delay what you believe is in the national security interests of this country for that reason alone."

At least he's consistent as the pro-Nation Building candidate.

Ricky Wonder Bread Santorum wrote:

“As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else. It's being drawn to Iraq and it's not being drawn to the U.S. “You know what? I want to keep it on Iraq. I don't want the Eye to come back here to the United States.”

A former Senate Armed Services Committee member, Santorum has ramped up his criticism of what he calls the Administration's "muddled foreign policy" in recent weeks. The Pennsylvania Republican, best known for his socially conservative views on domestic issues, plans to deliver a foreign policy address April 28th at Washington's National Press Club.

And following confirmed reports that the president had signed a secret finding authorizing covert action in Libya, Santorum offered some advice on how the White House should frame its approach to the Libyan rebel forces.

"If we are replacing Qaddafi with folks backed by the Muslim Brotherhood or al Qaeda, we could end up in a far worse situation," Santorum advised, adding that Qaddafi at first "wasn't an imminent threat to our country." "This is where a president would be engaged in trying to discern that, covertly or otherwise, as to who these people are, and try to have a better handle before you commit to saying that Qaddafi leave, or commit military forces to help these people."

Yes, let's ignore anything prior to 2006.

Atomika

Styrofoam Sammich wrote: »

What we really need is jobs taken from people trying to earn a living and given to people living with their parents who will do the same work for chump change!

Its brilliant!

That'll boost those tax revenues! More people who don't make enough money to pay taxes!



This is seriously the dumbest thing Santorum has ever said, and I'm fairly sure the list of dumb things he's said is quite long.

Feral

Low birth rates plus aging population = strain on retirement systems.

This is nothing new. Look at Italy and Japan as examples.

That doesn't mean we need to prop up population growth rates by taking away birth control options, it means we need to restructure the way we fund retirement systems to compensate for the changing demographics. (Raising the retirement age doesn't really work because life expectancy hasn't increased for all socioeconomic strata - if you just raise the retirement age, you screw the working poor. So what do you do? Well, I'm just going to wave my liberal flag and say "make sure the rich and big corporations pay more into the system.")

Anyway, Santorum has just found a way to take a genuine policy concern and turn it into douchebaggery.

DivideByZero

Taramoor, that was some excellent Poe'ing. I was anticipating a line about Company Stores after the increased working hours bit. Bravo!

In all seriousness though, this social security nonsense is just more pandering to the base. It combines good old-fashioned fearmongering with rah-rah Go'murrica patriotism and pins it squarely on those evil godless baby-killing liberals. Surprise surprise, the answer to an inevitable economic catastrophe is Conservative Values!

moniker

Feral wrote: »

Low birth rates plus aging population = strain on retirement systems.

This is nothing new. Look at Italy and Japan as examples.

That doesn't mean we need to prop up population growth rates by taking away birth control options, it means we need to restructure the way we fund retirement systems to compensate for the changing demographics. (Raising the retirement age doesn't really work because life expectancy hasn't increased for all socioeconomic strata - if you just raise the retirement age, you screw the working poor. So what do you do? Well, I'm just going to wave my liberal flag and say "make sure the rich and big corporations pay more into the system.")

Anyway, Santorum has just found a way to take a genuine policy concern and turn it into douchebaggery.

Alternatively we could prop up population growth rates by liberalizing immigration law. That way everybody wins. The elderly, women, and people who want to live here but can't.

KalTorak

Tach wrote: »

Santorum's logic, while stupid, has one kernel of truth- less abortions means more bodies- able or not.

I'm reminded of the professor from Freakonomics who posited the corollary between the drop in crime rate in the 90's and Row v. Wade.

That's at least a hair more logical, since if mothers who had abortions were instead forced to bear children, the children would be statistically more likely to be criminals than social-security-paying middle-managers, that Christian Focus-on-Family NFL player notwithstanding.

Atomika

Santorum 2012

"We'll fuck our way out of this mess."