Tea- "Christian" GOP bill: " to provide an overall spending limit on means-tested welfare programs" SAY IT ISN'T SO! (high school, carry)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
]Do you not think the cost of human life and the human potential destroyed affects us all if an Einstein, Saulk or other gifted genius is aborted?[/b] When innocent human life is not protected it degrades the value of all other human life as well. Just look around and the evidence is quite clear.
In this day and age when there is no stigma attached to minor girls easily obtaining contraception control, much less adult women, there is no excuse for females not practicing reproductive responsibilty outside of rape or incest, absolutely none.
Yet you, as a conservative, have no problem with cutting funding that this little potential Einstein or Saulk may need to survive.
Wanted to add, that an EBT where I live is for food stamps and you cannot get cash back on it. You can't even buy anything with it that is not a food item.
Now I have met people trying to get me to give them $40 cash and offer to buy me $80 worth of groceries on their card, but that is fraud so I always decline.
Also wanted to add that birth control does not cost $4 a month or even $10 a month . When I was a young college student over 10 years ago I went to (uh oh....) Planned Parenthood and got on BC. It was $25 a month. If I were to get it currently with my insurance it would be $20 per month so now that I have more money and am better off, it would actually be less than it was when I was a poor, starving college student.
As far as that's concerned, why would you NOT be responsible for protecting yourself?
If YOU want to express YOUR sexual freedom, who should pay?
Ahhhh...i love the cockiness of CD posters. Especially the conservative ones. They're all rich and good looking. And if by some chance they get unemployed, it would NEVER be for more than a day.
You hit the nail on the head. Do you know me?
The only reason that I would be out of a job for more than 1 day is by choice.
However, many of your fellow Americans live in depressed areas, are low skilled or (judging by the unemployment rate) can't get a job "tomorrow." And many of them are weeks away from poverty. Many of these people are hardworking and honest... A lot like you and me.
I know it's easy to see the poor as much different than you and me... drug addicts, irresponsible single women, and lazy and unmotivated. However the reality is we live in a country where many families are weeks away from poverty. Sad but true.
Living in a society means, to some degree, we take care of each other. Not sure why that idea is offensive to anyone... unless of course you are simply selfish.
Being lucky had nothing to do with it. It takes discipline and hard work.
As far as taking care of each other, don't you understand that it is one's duty as a human being to help others?
It is NOT a function of the federal government to redistribute wealth.
Yet you, as a conservative, have no problem with cutting funding that this little potential Einstein or Saulk may need to survive.
If parents cannot raise the children they conceive they have family to help out or they may choose adoption. At some point, sooner rather than later, it takes parents to raise a child, not the government. Family planning includes being responsible enough to know if you have the means to raise any child you may conceive Do you not see that?
Funding is available for the poorest of the poor, especially the children, and always will be. Cutting funding is not the same as eliminating all funding.
Not all support needs to come from the federal government. Private charities, food pantries, corporate sponsored scholarship, low income housing via private charity go a long way in bridging the gap.
The problem is that you and other "big government" proponents like to pretend that if taxpayers do not foot the bill via federal entitlement programs for raising/feeding/educating/housing little Johnny or Jane, that he/she will simply wilt away in pain and suffering and that no other options exist. The aforementioned illustration is blatently false and nothing but disengenuous fear mongering to the public at large.
Imagine how much more money would actually make it to those who need it when the size of buraucracy and resulting waste is drastically cut.
You do know that there are poor people out there that can barely pay their rent and utilities, don't you? People that live paycheck to paycheck with nothing to spare.
You can't assume others can afford the cost of a doctor's visit, just because YOU can.
Asking some people to come up with approx. $400 to visit a gyno and pay for required testing is equivalent to asking others to come up with $15,000......they just don't HAVE it.
He's not that skilled....believe me. Arrogant? That's more likely. All conservative CD posters are superbly "skilled," in case you didn't notice.
Confident. Not arrogant.
Skilled? Absolutely.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.