Your tax dollars hard at work

It just dawned on me, Gov. Sarah Palin is paid by the taxpayers of Alaska, therefor your tax dollars are paying to support and take care of an unwed pregnant teenager.

This seems like the highest form of hypocrisy to me. My thoughts are going a million miles a minute right now, and I can't put into words exactly what I am trying to say, but I just don't see how this can go un-noticed.

So if McCain/Palin is elected we have a pregnant teenager living in the whitehouse being taken care of by a mother whose salary comes from the taxpayers of this country? And the conservatives agree with this? They don't even like their tax dollars going to social programs that help pregnant teenagers seek proper health care during their pregnancy but they are okay with unwed pregnant teenagers moving into the whitehouse?

What say you?

It would be her salary. If you want to get all up on this sort of thing then every cop, librarian, firefighter, secretary in a government building, etc... would have to have every one of their expenditures accounted for and approved by the tax payers who fund their salary.

Now, if Palin 17 year-old daughter ended up getting WIC or some other welfare B.S. while living under the care of her mother or in some other situation that would count as fraud I'd be on board with your call of hypocrisy.

Otherwise you're just sort of grasping at goofy straws.

reply to post by Cowgirlstraitup7

To the first two posters, I see your point loud and clear. And believe me they are valid points, I guess I was more trying to point out the hypocrisy here. Conservative don't support teen pregnancy but here we have an unwed pregnant teen potentially moving into the whitehouse. I just don't get it.

reply to post by elevatedone


This would be true if these people were standing on a podium telling other people "do as I say not as a do".

You see, you can't tell the whole country you are against something and then do the exact opposite and pay for it with our tax dollars.

reply to post by Cowgirlstraitup7

Ummmm...in the interest of accuracy:


Image source.

So all she did was reduce funding by roughly 20% for the EXPANSION of a SINGLE facility.

Nice distortion of the facts.

If she were truly against the program all together, she had the line-item veto authority to eliminate the expansion funding COMPLETELY. Yet, she didn't...

Get it? ...or does this nuance escape all you folks working hard to deny ignorance?

[edit on 4-9-2008 by loam]

Originally posted by Cowgirlstraitup7
It just dawned on me, Gov. Sarah Palin is paid by the taxpayers of Alaska, therefor your tax dollars are paying to support and take care of an unwed pregnant teenager.

Big frickin' deal. How many of my tax dollars are going to support unwed mothers in the great state of Pennsylvania?

Originally posted by Cowgirlstraitup7
Conservative don't support teen pregnancy but here we have an unwed pregnant teen potentially moving into the whitehouse. I just don't get it.

Open your mouth and stick your foot in deeper ... conservatives typically support the pro-life agenda which would INCLUDE teen pregnancy. You want to explain or rephrase that statement?

reply to post by Crakeur


According to this website their FY 07 Budget $3,221,318 and their FY 08 Budget: $3,563,957. Seems like they been running their budgets in the 3-4 million range.

sources in pdf format

source1

source2


Could it be that she slashed the funding because they were spending less than that?

Here is the Covenant website

covenanthouseak.org...

reply to post by jam321

reply to post by jam321




So, in other words, she nearly DOUBLES their funding for an expansion and her opponents see it as the opposite.

Too funny.




[edit on 4-9-2008 by loam]

reply to post by Crakeur


No disrespect or direct quibbles intended.

Just sayin' is all.

Not terribly accurate. The implication is that she killed, or otherwise severely hobbled, the program.

Obviously not true.

And you have to admit it's even funnier when she actually doubled their size.


[edit on 4-9-2008 by loam]

reply to post by loam


She didn't double funding from FY07 to FY08, but according to that post she did INCREASE funding by $342,639 - she didn't cut funding.

reply to post by loam

reply to post by Crakeur


I guess she had no clue that at the time that her daughter was going to become a needy pregnant teen.

Interesting I didn't know about that piece of information, thanks

reply to post by sos37


No. I think you're reading that wrong.

The $3.9 million dollars approved for the program's expansion was signed this year-- either as additional spending for this year or more likely I'm assuming for 2009's budget.

In 2008, the facility already had a budget for $3.5 million. Her approval of another $3.9 million for the expansion nearly doubles it.

[edit on 4-9-2008 by loam]

I personally don't take the word of some paper or media that is only out to make Bucks with scandalous headlines. Sometimes you have to dig further for the truth.

All I know is that when I was in in the military we spent every penny that Congress gave us. The reason is that if you don't spend it all then they Congress feel that you don't need that much and will reduce your funding.

Perhaps when she did the "reduction" as to show to her fellow Christians that she didn't support teen pregnancy.

Either that or she was just balancing the budget.