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.
How am I wading into anything? LOL. All i did was clarify the OP's original post.
I know all of that you posted! I even alluded to it in one of my previous responses.
Women are having less babies than they used to, but more of them are born out of wedlock. I am aware.
Do you have me confused with another poster? I've been arguing all along that this has more to do with a lack of decent jobs for non college educated men than "irresponsibility".
Which explains the skyrocketing rates of welfare dependency. More children than ever are raised on Medicaid, food stamps, WIC and so on.
Anyone who believes women should be in the workforce should be against welfare as a lifelong reward for having fatherless babies. Welfare dependency is counterproductive, it not only rewards those who make bad choices but makes it difficult for them to ever leave that lifestyle.
I have no problem with some help, just like working women get a 6 week maternity leave, I can see the same amount of time off work for these women, but then they need to be working to support their children. If they choose to have baby after baby with no father to help support them, then they need to learn to live with less and work for what they have.
Which explains the skyrocketing rates of welfare dependency. More children than ever are raised on Medicaid, food stamps, WIC and so on.
Anyone who believes women should be in the workforce should be against welfare as a lifelong reward for having fatherless babies. Welfare dependency is counterproductive, it not only rewards those who make bad choices but makes it difficult for them to ever leave that lifestyle.
I have no problem with some help, just like working women get a 6 week maternity leave, I can see the same amount of time off work for these women, but then they need to be working to support their children. If they choose to have baby after baby with no father to help support them, then they need to learn to live with less and work for what they have.
Which explains the skyrocketing rates of welfare dependency. More children than ever are raised on Medicaid, food stamps, WIC and so on.
Anyone who believes women should be in the workforce should be against welfare as a lifelong reward for having fatherless babies. Welfare dependency is counterproductive, it not only rewards those who make bad choices but makes it difficult for them to ever leave that lifestyle.
I have no problem with some help, just like working women get a 6 week maternity leave, I can see the same amount of time off work for these women, but then they need to be working to support their children. If they choose to have baby after baby with no father to help support them, then they need to learn to live with less and work for what they have.
Well -- why not? It's legal -- if the only reason they're having babies is so they can use them to exploit all the government handouts, there is nothing stopping them now from just having those babies killed before they're born. How is legal abortion helping solve the rapidly growing problem of welfare?
I'm for sterilization more than abortion. Many aborters just keep conceiving to abort, over and over, they'd be far less expensive if given sterilization the first time.
6 weeks is what most women get - but FLMA gives them up to 3 months. Why should the welfare class expect 18 years for each child?
Also most working women don't actually get a paid vacation just for having a baby, they can use sick time if they have sick time to use, or they can use vacation pay.
The lazy class shouldn't expect to live so much better than the working class. 6 weeks is more than enough time to recover from either a vaginal delivery or c-section. You don't get that much time off for a heart attack.
Well -- why not? It's legal -- if the only reason they're having babies is so they can use them to exploit all the government handouts, there is nothing stopping them now from just having those babies killed before they're born. How is legal abortion helping solve the rapidly growing problem of welfare?
I'm for sterilization more than abortion. Many aborters just keep conceiving to abort, over and over, they'd be far less expensive if given sterilization the first time.
glad to know you are pro choice. many people who don't believe in helping poor women and children are not. not many women conceive to just abort. abortion does stop lots of children who would otherwise be on welfare.
Which explains the skyrocketing rates of welfare dependency. More children than ever are raised on Medicaid, food stamps, WIC and so on.
Anyone who believes women should be in the workforce should be against welfare as a lifelong reward for having fatherless babies. Welfare dependency is counterproductive, it not only rewards those who make bad choices but makes it difficult for them to ever leave that lifestyle.
I have no problem with some help, just like working women get a 6 week maternity leave, I can see the same amount of time off work for these women, but then they need to be working to support their children. If they choose to have baby after baby with no father to help support them, then they need to learn to live with less and work for what they have.
I believe that under capitalism that capital seeks the path of least resistance to return on investment or profit. That usually means low wages, low regulations and low taxes, if we let the free market rule. Welfare, like it or not, tends to reduce the degree of worker exploitation because a person can opt to go on welfare instead of working for just above slave wages. I mean, there is a GOOD reason why union and such were created and needed....even if they became bloated and overshot their mandate and need, by some degree. One cannot simply leave it up to individuals and corporation motivated by profit.....to do the right thing.
What I think many people do not realize is that transfer payment serves a purpose other than what seems to be altruism. Over 2/3 of our economy and GDP is driven by consumer consumption. When too much money pools to the few, as in the rich, they cannot spend it all and hence that money cannot and does not go to stimulate consumption and the economy. Thus, what transfer payments do is put money into the hands of people who have a 100% probability of spending it. When they spend that money, it stimulats production and employment that keep many other people employed. In other words, there is a symbiotic relationship between transfer payments and the well being of the over all economy.
I can guarantee you that if you cut people off and create the small government that many covet.....that the economy will collapse because the economy is actually dependent upon large government. Hell....that is why Bush was such a big spender, despite being a "Republican". They know that if they cut spending and programs that it will have a negative impact on the economy which will kill their incumbency. This is why Republicans want to fight so hard now to cut the deficit by cutting spending drastically, because it will have a calamitous impact on the economy which then will boost there chances to be reelected. However, once elected I will guarantee you they will not massively, if at all, cut spending like they want the Democrats to do. Its all a ruse.
6 weeks is what most women get - but FLMA gives them up to 3 months. Why should the welfare class expect 18 years for each child?
Also most working women don't actually get a paid vacation just for having a baby, they can use sick time if they have sick time to use, or they can use vacation pay.
The lazy class shouldn't expect to live so much better than the working class. 6 weeks is more than enough time to recover from either a vaginal delivery or c-section. You don't get that much time off for a heart attack.
You have the WORSE mat leave in the industrialized world. Furthermore, it's not just about recovering from a delivery. It's about bonding, recovering from possible PPD, learning how to become a parent, and dealing with the stress of lifestyle changes and no sleep. We get a year for mat leave, which could be split between moms and dads.
You have the WORSE mat leave in the industrialized world. Furthermore, it's not just about recovering from a delivery. It's about bonding, recovering from possible PPD, learning how to become a parent, and dealing with the stress of lifestyle changes and no sleep. We get a year for mat leave, which could be split between moms and dads.
Then why don't we export our welfare mothers and children to Canada? Sounds like a plan.
Then you can give them a whole year of handouts, here they currently get 18 years for each child and after that they get SSI.
glad to know you are pro choice. many people who don't believe in helping poor women and children are not. not many women conceive to just abort. abortion does stop lots of children who would otherwise be on welfare.
You know I'm not --- I asked what exactly is the point of conceiving babies only to kill them? I'm all for sterilization though because not everyone is cut out for raising children. Tubal ligation and vasectomy are a one time cost.
Obviously legal and easy abortion is not solving the problem of babies being born to welfare dependency. The welfare class has grown much much larger since legal abortion. Strange isn't it.
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.
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.
