No. Prior to the legalization of abortion, adoption rates were litterally 13-15 times higher than they are today. Abortion caused a depression of the number of adoptions available (understandable), but at the same time, adoption laws became stricter and more difficult. Today, its easier to go overseas and adopt a baby from Asia than it is to adopt one right here in the states. If the laws and regulations were relaxed, you would probably be able to have far more adoptions and situations where both ends - the unfit parents and barren parents meet in the middle and are able to help eachother out.

for every dollar the government issues is like $2 more that we owe to the federal reserve...now tell me is that justice?

I don't take my economics from a political party. I've based my econonomic view by watching and reading many many lecutrers from many, many economists over the past few years.

And having said that, go look at the actual data of government spending on public works projects to stimulate the economy. Many projects are funded, and few succeed. Those that do are always lauded as being proof that stimulus works, but many people fail to note the tens of trillions of dollars that are spent in waste.

I will give you an example: ethanol subsidies. Until a few months ago, our government spent billions of dollars each year by giving $0.50 per gallon to ethanol producers as an incentive to make biofuels. Did it stimulate the industry? Yes. But it also drove corn prices up to a level unheard of, causing the price of all corn products and corn-fed animals to double in price in the past 5-6 years.

The problem with government stimulus is that approximately 600 people decide where billions of dollars are sent each year for stimulus. Because of this, much of the money is malinvested, causing waste and excess which destroys wealth in America. For example, what good did it do for the 2009 Stimulus program to pay $5 million USD to my local town to have about 10 acres mowed, and the road re-paved when it was just done 5 years ago and was in good condition? Would not the money of been better invested by ensuring it was in the hands of 300 million Americans, and their decisions on where investments should go? That is why I am against stimulus: the government has a poor track record picking winners and losers, while private monies can be invested into markets as needed, and is far more flexible and has a better track record.

Additionally, your argument about the fed (and I am unsure what part you are discussing - the Federal Reserve or other areas of the federal government) doesn't make a lot of sense. Our nation's greatest growth in GDP was well before our government became the size it is today. Our nation grew by leaps and bounds when government spending was much lower than today, and we had far fewer safety nets. Government may be well meaning, but I would argue they create many programs for poltical points and in hopes they rectify situations, regardless if the result is achieved. Our 'war on drugs' is proof positive that government intervention rarely works the way as intended - even if you throw trillions of dollars at a problem and incarcerate millions.

So that's why 2 HUGE stimulus attempts later and the US economy is in perfect condition. Oh wait...

No.  It is.... for babies.

See the thing with adoption is, we have a great undersupply of babies to the point where people basically buy babies either here or overseas via differnet tactics.....

It just doesn't seem that way because of all the kids in orphanages.  Sad truth is, everyone wants a baby and almost nobody wants a kid that already has someone elses "fingerprints" on them.

From my (very limited) understanding, up until the child is "school aged" they are in high demand but after that demand (essentially) disappears ...

You could be right, really just the point is that there is plenty of demand for adoption... it just doesn't seem that way due to all the kids.

The op is sadly mistaken on the benefits of government spending and is clearly using theoretical Keynesian numbers vs real world numbers.

However government spending does artificially increase gdp which isn't a bad thing in a recession. Of course government can't stop spending after the recession which is why Keynesian theories are not workable in real world scenarios.

Generally, its very difficult to adopt up to about 2 or 3 years old. After that, the desire to adopt drops off - especially when it is a baby of a minority ethnicity.

A good example of our adoption system is told to us by Tony Dungy, former head coach of the Indianapolis Colts. He and his family have adopted multiple children in their lives. When they went to adopt their first boy, the case worker told them it would take 3 years and cost tens of thousands of dollars. When she asked what age they wanted for their white baby (the Dungys are black, FWIW), Tony and his wife told the worker that they simply wanted to adopt, and any child of any race was fine. The case worker's response was "We thought you wanted a white baby. If you are okay with a black baby, you can take one home today.'.

Here is a whitepaper on adoption statistics from 1957-current. According to their data, less adoptions take place today than in 1970, despite the fact that US population has increased considerably: http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/13653_Chapter3.pdf

Of course, the crest being the year before Roe v. Wade was introduced.