100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Defunding Planned Parenthood: A good move? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
artlo
on
Sun 07/17/11 06:01 PM
|
|
Look at the percent of blacks in this country and their abortion rates vs the total abortion rate and you find that about 50% of all black babies conceived are aborted. Sorry to butt in here, but there are some figures you should be made aware of. The highest percentages of reported abortions were for women who were unmarried (82%), white (55%), and aged <25 years (51%). Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported, 61% were performed at <8 weeks' gestation and 88% at <13 weeks. From 1992 (when detailed data regarding early abortions were first collected) through 2002, steady increases have occurred in the percentage of abortions performed at <6 weeks' gestation, with a slight decline in 2003. A limited number of abortions were obtained at >15 weeks' gestation, including 4.2% at 16--20 weeks and 1.4% at >21 weeks. A total of 36 reporting areas submitted data documenting that they performed and enumerated medical (nonsurgical) procedures, making up 8.0% of all known reported procedures from the 45 areas with adequate reporting on type of procedure. I think it's wonderful that even black women have the ability to make these choices about their bodies. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And here you are citing something that is not a fact, has no factual basis, and is begin twisted into a racial issue for bogus reasons! Way to go. Take the one social program that is trying to do something positive and make it into a horror show! Sorry but your comments lost all credibility when you and others dragged race into this issue! How about coming up with some real evil like ACORN perpetrated? Then you might have something. But this whole, "they kill black babies" argument is wasting breath! There is NO basis of fact for this. Just loaded statistics by Pro Lifers! Way to go, take a woman's choice away! http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/vs/2009sum.pdf In NYC in 2009, there were 87,273 abortions. 40,798 were of black children. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/06/us/06abortion.html In 2006, 57.4 percent of the abortions in Georgia were performed on black women, even though blacks make up about 30 percent of the population, according to the most recent figures from the federal Centers for Disease Control. Of the 37 states that reported abortion data by race, Georgia was second only to New York and Texas in the number of abortions performed on black women. Only Mississippi and Maryland reported a higher percentage of abortions going to black women than Georgia. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6001a1.htm?s_cid=ss6001a1_w Among women from the 37 areas that reported race for 2007, white women (including Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women) accounted for the largest percentage (55.9%) of abortions; black women accounted for 36.5% and women of other racial groups for 7.6% of abortions (Table 12). Black women had higher abortion rates and ratios than white women and women of other races (Table 12). Among the 27 reporting areas that provided data every year during 1998--2007, the percentage distribution of abortions by race changed little; although abortions among women in the other racial category increased, the percentage remained low (Table 13). Abortion rates decreased during 2006--2007 among women from all racial groups, continuing the long-term decrease during 1998--2007 that had been interrupted by a 1-year increase during 2005--2006. However, because the increase in abortion rates during 2005--2006 had been much greater for white women (4%) than for black women (1%), the abortion rate was 2% higher for white women in 2007 than it had been in 2005 but 1% lower than it had been for black women. Abortion ratios also decreased during 2006--2007 among women from all racial groups, with a larger cumulative decrease during 2005--2007 among black women (7%) compared with white women (2%) (Table 13). Please keep in mind that while 36.5% of the total abortions are performed of black women, blacks only make up 12.6% of the population. I see your anti and raise you one CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6001a1.htm?s_cid=ss6001a1_w Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2007 Surveillance Summaries February 25, 2011 / 60(ss01);1-39 Results U.S. Totals Among the 49 reporting areas that provided data for 2007,*** a total of 827,609 abortions were reported. For the 45 reporting areas that provided data every year during 1998--2007,††† a total of 810,582 abortions (97.9% of the total) were reported for 2007; among these 45 consistently reporting areas, the abortion rate was 16.0 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years, and the abortion ratio was 231 abortions per 1,000 live births (Table 1). Compared with 2006, the total number and rate of reported abortions in 2007 was 2% lower and the abortion ratio was 3% lower. However, given the increase in the number and rate of abortions that occurred during 2005--2006, these measures still were higher in 2007 than they had been in 2005. Nonetheless, compared with 1998, the total number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions in 2007 were 6%, 7%, and 14% lower, respectively (Figure 1). Race Among women from the 37 areas that reported race for 2007, white women (including Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women) accounted for the largest percentage (55.9%) of abortions; black women accounted for 36.5% and women of other racial groups for 7.6% of abortions (Table 12). Black women had higher abortion rates and ratios than white women and women of other races (Table 12). Among the 27 reporting areas that provided data every year during 1998--2007, the percentage distribution of abortions by race changed little; although abortions among women in the other racial category increased, the percentage remained low (Table 13). Abortion rates decreased during 2006--2007 among women from all racial groups, continuing the long-term decrease during 1998--2007 that had been interrupted by a 1-year increase during 2005--2006. However, because the increase in abortion rates during 2005--2006 had been much greater for white women (4%) than for black women (1%), the abortion rate was 2% higher for white women in 2007 than it had been in 2005 but 1% lower than it had been for black women. Abortion ratios also decreased during 2006--2007 among women from all racial groups, with a larger cumulative decrease during 2005--2007 among black women (7%) compared with white women (2%) (Table 13). Race/Ethnicity Among women from the 25 areas that reported cross-classified race/ethnicity data for 2007 (Table 14), non-Hispanic white women accounted for the largest percentage of abortions (37.1%), followed by non-Hispanic black women (34.4%), Hispanic women (22.1%), and non-Hispanic women of other races (6.4%). Non-Hispanic white women had the lowest abortion rates (8.5 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years) and ratios (144 abortions per 1,000 live births); in contrast, non-Hispanic black women had the highest abortion rates (32.1 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years) and ratios (480 abortions per 1,000 live births). Hispanic women had intermediate abortion rates and ratios; however, although Hispanic women had abortion rates that were 125% higher than non-Hispanic white women, their abortion ratios were only 34% higher. Because 2007 is the first year for which cross-classified race/ethnicity data have been compiled, trends over time could not be evaluated. Ethnicity]/b] Among the 33 areas that reported ethnicity for 2007, Hispanic women accounted for 19.8% of all abortions and had an abortion rate of 20.5 abortions per 1,000 Hispanic women; they had an abortion ratio of 193 abortions per 1,000 live births to Hispanic women (Table 15). These results are similar to those for Hispanic women who obtained abortions in the 25 reporting areas that provided cross-classified race/ethnicity data (Table 14). Among the 18 reporting areas that provided ethnicity data every year during 1998--2007, the percentage of abortions accounted for by Hispanic women increased 18% (Table 16). In contrast, during 2006--2007, abortion rates and ratios among Hispanic women decreased, continuing the pattern observed during 1998--2007, when the decrease in abortion rates and ratios was greater for Hispanic women than for non-Hispanic women of white, black, and other racial groups combined (Table 16). <sarcasm> That's great news! I'm so happy to hear that Hispanics are murdering their children at a higher rate that any other ethnicity. </sarcasm>  What does that have to do with what I posted? Look at the percent of blacks in this country and their abortion rates vs the total abortion rate and you find that about 50% of all black babies conceived are aborted. Maybe that number is higher for Hispanics. If it is, that doesn't make me wrong. Um, your switching up on your initial argument they kill more black babies than any other. This is one time your own argument got debunked and now you fall back on this? It is interesting how one moment you make complete sense and then you descend into this so readily. A sarcastic retort when proven wrong isn't manning up very well. It also isn't civil. Her numbers jibe pretty well. And there is no way you can get an accurate tally of how many black babies are conceived vs. aborted. There is no way to ever get an accurate number. It is a weak way to back peddle. Your initial statement was Planned Parenthood Killed more black babies than any other race or something to that effect. You were the one to set the tone for racial bias. Now someone refutes your claims and has some compelling evidence. More compelling than yours. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reform welfare, so that it's not a superior alternative to marriage and it's not desirable to have multiple children. ,,its been reformed,,,only unstable people or people who have no experience with welfare would consider it 'superior' to ANYTHING,,, Msharmony seems to have identified a misconception here. Who would consider formula and diarpers for their baby as something that should only be supplied if two are married? I only ask because I know MANY couples who get welfare of this nature. Obviously being married does not automatically mean have enough money to care for a baby or two or a third - does it? Any guess why so many urban areas have instituted breakfast programs in the schools? Lunch programs were not instituted becaue it was LESS EXPENSIVE to the schools - why do you suppose they were instituted? Single parents are not the only ones who get these benefits. Immunizations are free to the children of couples whether they make $6,000 a year or $50,000 a year - I think it's part of SCHIP. Of course not ALL parents receive certain tax breaks or the benefit of health insurance for their children through their work, mony such parents are not allowed to get married because of their gender. Anyway the point is welfare is not an easy way to live and it is no way to bringing up a new generation of children who were unplanned for and unwanted. I will discuss abstinence later after I read some more posts. A simple reverse income tax or the implementation of the Fair Tax would ensure that every family had enough money to survive, regardless of their income. The objection I have is to the 69 programs, where one would suffice. One program, properly implemented, would ensure that everyone was cared for and it would cost less than the current system. The whole tax thing makes no sense. the whole Fair tax concept is still being hammered out with no solution in sight for a long time! |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 07/17/11 06:12 PM
|
|
Reform welfare, so that it's not a superior alternative to marriage and it's not desirable to have multiple children. ,,its been reformed,,,only unstable people or people who have no experience with welfare would consider it 'superior' to ANYTHING,,, Msharmony seems to have identified a misconception here. Who would consider formula and diarpers for their baby as something that should only be supplied if two are married? I only ask because I know MANY couples who get welfare of this nature. Obviously being married does not automatically mean have enough money to care for a baby or two or a third - does it? Any guess why so many urban areas have instituted breakfast programs in the schools? Lunch programs were not instituted becaue it was LESS EXPENSIVE to the schools - why do you suppose they were instituted? Single parents are not the only ones who get these benefits. Immunizations are free to the children of couples whether they make $6,000 a year or $50,000 a year - I think it's part of SCHIP. Of course not ALL parents receive certain tax breaks or the benefit of health insurance for their children through their work, mony such parents are not allowed to get married because of their gender. Anyway the point is welfare is not an easy way to live and it is no way to bringing up a new generation of children who were unplanned for and unwanted. I will discuss abstinence later after I read some more posts. A simple reverse income tax or the implementation of the Fair Tax would ensure that every family had enough money to survive, regardless of their income. The objection I have is to the 69 programs, where one would suffice. One program, properly implemented, would ensure that everyone was cared for and it would cost less than the current system. this sounds interesting I know that in switzerland and even britain they have certain systems in place to insure healthcare with nominal to zero real out of pocket expense(its built into the tax system, I believe) they do the same with child care and maternity/paternity expenses I am not sure this is considered all one 'program' though,, do you have any examples of other nations which implement single programs which aid citizens at large? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Sun 07/17/11 06:12 PM
|
|
Um, your switching up on your initial argument they kill more black babies than any other. This is one time your own argument got debunked and now you fall back on this? I never said that. I said "50% of black babies conceived in this country are aborted.". I never claimed that more black babies than any other race were aborted. You guys really really really really really really really really need to learn how to read. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
from your link 'The President’s FY 2012 Budget for HHS totals $891.6 billion in outlays. The Budget proposes $79.9 billion in discretionary budget authority' from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=155 budget authority vs. outlays. The spending totals in the budget resolution are stated in two different ways: the total amount of "budget authority" that is to be provided, and the estimated level of expenditures, or "outlays." Budget authority is how much money Congress allows a federal agency to commit to spend; outlays are how much money actually flows out of the federal treasury in a given year. For example, a bill that appropriated $50 million for building a bridge would provide $50 million in budget authority in the same year, but the outlays might not reach $50 million until the following year or even later, when the bridge actually is built. Budget authority and outlays thus serve different purposes. Budget authority represents a limit on how much funding Congress will provide, and is generally what Congress focuses on in making most budgetary decisions. Outlays, because they represent actual cash flow, help determine the size of the overall deficit or surplus. No, you are seeing what you want to see. The total budget is around 892 billion for FY2012. The budget includes 10% (80 billion) in discretionary spending. If you look up just a little, you'll see the pie chart that shows "Discretionary Programs 10%". The amount they spend in a year is 892 billion. I'm done talking to you about this, it's pathological, your need to deny the truth in front of your eyes. lets just say I may not be any less capable of understanding numbers than you are reading your OWN link,,the outlays are broken down on page 12 the amount actually spent on TANF(what people generally think of when talking of 'welfare recipients') is 20.4 billion the 892 figure includes medicare, medicaid, adoption services, and a number of other things that dont actually get 'paid' to the recipients trying to even compare those medical costs to working folks is comparing apples and oranges because MOST working folks dont pay their medical bills off, especially within a fiscal year,,,,, ,,as to the racism, the only ones I see mentioning it are the self proclaimed 'ex' racists,,,,just saying,,, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
reading your OWN link,,the outlays are broken down on page 12 Whoa there! You brought up Health and Human Services, I didn't. I was talking about Welfare, which is composed of 69 different programs on both the Federal and State levels, which aren't all under the same department. You aren't going to find a single budget document for all of those programs. That was the point of my first link, it pointed out that there are 69 programs and no clear budget that people can look at and talk about. this is all true but when the statement is made that 'welfare pays better than work' it can mislead others into believing welfare(Tanf) recipients receive a better income than working people which is just not true on any level,,, Im just trying to clear that up for people who may have made such an assumption from your information,,, there are foster care programs which pay 2000 a month per child there is child tax credit which pays 1000 per child there are many incentives going on for people besides the poor and I dont wish the poor to become scapegoats for the financial ills we face nationally,,,,they are a minute part of the problem HEY SPIDER - Whoa there, yourself what happened to your superior attitudet that claimed - I'm done talking to you about this, it's pathological, your need to deny the truth in front of your eyes. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reform welfare, so that it's not a superior alternative to marriage and it's not desirable to have multiple children. ,,its been reformed,,,only unstable people or people who have no experience with welfare would consider it 'superior' to ANYTHING,,, Msharmony seems to have identified a misconception here. Who would consider formula and diarpers for their baby as something that should only be supplied if two are married? I only ask because I know MANY couples who get welfare of this nature. Obviously being married does not automatically mean have enough money to care for a baby or two or a third - does it? Any guess why so many urban areas have instituted breakfast programs in the schools? Lunch programs were not instituted becaue it was LESS EXPENSIVE to the schools - why do you suppose they were instituted? Single parents are not the only ones who get these benefits. Immunizations are free to the children of couples whether they make $6,000 a year or $50,000 a year - I think it's part of SCHIP. Of course not ALL parents receive certain tax breaks or the benefit of health insurance for their children through their work, mony such parents are not allowed to get married because of their gender. Anyway the point is welfare is not an easy way to live and it is no way to bringing up a new generation of children who were unplanned for and unwanted. I will discuss abstinence later after I read some more posts. A simple reverse income tax or the implementation of the Fair Tax would ensure that every family had enough money to survive, regardless of their income. The objection I have is to the 69 programs, where one would suffice. One program, properly implemented, would ensure that everyone was cared for and it would cost less than the current system. this sounds interesting I know that in switzerland and even britain they have certain systems in place to insure healthcare with nominal to zero real out of pocket expense(its built into the tax system, I believe) they do the same with child care and maternity/paternity expenses I am not sure this is considered all one 'program' though,, do you have any examples of other nations which implement single programs which aid citizens at large? None that I'm aware of. Libertarians have been talking about this sort of program for over 30 years. The idea is that the IRS would receive every tax-payers pay information every 2 weeks - month and would compare that to any government assistance from Social Security, Workman's Comp, etc that the taxpayer was receiving. They would then cut a check automatically to the citizen. The system would alert humans if there were a problem with Social Security numbers or number of dependents, etc. Otherwise, the system would be automated. Lose your job and in two weeks you start getting your Reverse Income tax check without filing a bit of paperwork. And it would be real money, so no more food stamps or WIC, projects, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HEY SPIDER - Whoa there, yourself what happened to your superior attitudet that claimed - I guess I had a change of heart. I don't think any of you should be left to wallow in ignorance, when I can help to enlighten you to the ways of Libertarianism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so the government would issue bi monthly paychecks?
or they would issue bi monthly 'welfare' checks based off of employers paychecks? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so the government would issue bi monthly paychecks? or they would issue bi monthly 'welfare' checks based off of employers paychecks? The Government wouldn't issue the pay check, that would be your employer's job. They would file your income information once to twice a month. The first interval that your employer didn't file the paperwork, you would be issued a Reverse Income Tax check. It wouldn't be called "welfare", it would apply to all citizens. The paperwork, red tape and hoops would be removed. In the Fair Tax, everyone would get a check once a month, regardless of if they had a job or not. Those taxpayers who paid taxes would pay a bit more to cover the checks being sent every month. You can read about it online, it's a very interesting idea. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so the government would issue bi monthly paychecks? or they would issue bi monthly 'welfare' checks based off of employers paychecks? The Government wouldn't issue the pay check, that would be your employer's job. They would file your income information once to twice a month. The first interval that your employer didn't file the paperwork, you would be issued a Reverse Income Tax check. It wouldn't be called "welfare", it would apply to all citizens. The paperwork, red tape and hoops would be removed. In the Fair Tax, everyone would get a check once a month, regardless of if they had a job or not. Those taxpayers who paid taxes would pay a bit more to cover the checks being sent every month. You can read about it online, it's a very interesting idea. sounds interesting,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I must concur a lot with what Spidercmb is saying. When the system is designed to encourage people to stay on welfare means that they whole system is the problem. "Poor Mentality" is what is the REAL problem in America, not "poor People," per say. They are taught by the system to stay poor. REALLY? And who taught you NOT to be poor? What kind of opportunities do you think the 'urban poor' have that are in any way comparable to rural families whose socioeconomic class is leaps above thier urban counterparts? the idea of Welfare is to help and temporarily supplement people. Not subsidize their existence. I can't count the number of times I would see a news story about some Poverty Stricken family with a 65" TV in their living room with a PS 2 or 3 sitting their FAT azzes, and I mean it, most of the time these poor people are FAT, griping about loosing benefits. And they all seem to have some BS medical condition. OK - here is your food budget for the month $100 and you have to buy any paper products you use out of that money. I hope you like hamburger helper and boxed mac and cheese because on that allowance you won't be able to afford much produce and meat - try hamhocks and greens are usually cheap (but not too bad with butter and salt or bacon drippings. Reality buddy - if you havn't been there how would you know? I know and I haven't always been here - but I have stood on the edge most of my life. Illness - lots of studies out there that prove that stress IS a major risk factor to many diseases. Can you imagine growing up in the environemnt of the inner-city poor? Can you even wrap you mind around a month of nights in a house with plastic coving some of the windows and shots heard nightly, and knowing that the meth house on your block is too close should it explode? Asbestos and lead paint - did you know that if a landlord posts clear warnings of possible contamination in the contract and provides safety notices to the tenants that the landlord does not have to be concerned? I know that, because I currently live in such a place. Now imagine living a life time n that kind of environment. You're right there are a lot ills do you still question why? First of all if so many of these people are poor why is it they have Big Screen TVs, leather couches, Play Stations, and are obese? Because they have money to spend evidently. That and they are too well fed. Just like a bunch of fat LAZY swine! You over generalize. THINK a little more logically. Think about the situation I just outlined for you. How long do you think those kind of belongings would last in someone's home? Not saying it doesn't happen - someone make money off the the sale of drugs, but you see the few and feel cheated. Would still feel cheated if you had grown up in that environemnt and did not own a big screen TV? On top of that Welfare has been proven to inflame alcohol and drug abuse. Stick you head in a bucket of ice water and shake out some of the hate you have inside it. Now look at drug and alcohol use from the perspective of growing up in a generationally poor family in the inner-city. I don't think welfare adds to drug and alcohol abuse, it's already being abused, remember, crack houses, meth labs, people living under stressful conditions every day of their life. NOW to apply all this to the OP; defunding planned parenthood. Someone (may have been you) suggested that the problem is education. Yes it is but there must be an all out push in this country to end that and we are nowhere near that kind of push. Even if we were and a plan was laid out - it would be a few generations before there was evident progress. It's not happening because of the kind of thinking that you have in the post I am addressing. (I really believe you are smarter than that and I hope the problem is just a lack of real knowledge and personal experience.) At any rate, planned parenthood has been a step in the right direction. We are sexual beings - and that must be obvious to anyone who can understand that our sex drive is the way we assure that there will be more humans. Planned parenthood does not judge, they do not decide who gets welfare. They help individuals find alternative means of medical advice when they can't afford to pay full price. PP saves lives and they help to make life better for families who might otherwise end up on welfare should they bring another baby into thier life. We have no right to try and judge the circumstances of every person's PP visit nor do we have a right to judge the decision of a woman in her own health care. I consider abortion a healthcare issue for a woman becasue only that woman knows the reasons behind her dicission to choose abortion. Privacy laws being what they are in this country, abortions should ALWAYS be only an anonymous statistic unless the individual chooses to share her decision with others. Having shared that information should never make it self-incrimination of a crime. It is a hearlth care issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so the government would issue bi monthly paychecks? or they would issue bi monthly 'welfare' checks based off of employers paychecks? The Government wouldn't issue the pay check, that would be your employer's job. They would file your income information once to twice a month. The first interval that your employer didn't file the paperwork, you would be issued a Reverse Income Tax check. It wouldn't be called "welfare", it would apply to all citizens. The paperwork, red tape and hoops would be removed. In the Fair Tax, everyone would get a check once a month, regardless of if they had a job or not. Those taxpayers who paid taxes would pay a bit more to cover the checks being sent every month. You can read about it online, it's a very interesting idea. Now that sounds like a real move toward socialism. With food shortages and prices expected to drive the economy, we may even be issuing 'government store' vouchers in lieu of pay. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so the government would issue bi monthly paychecks? or they would issue bi monthly 'welfare' checks based off of employers paychecks? The Government wouldn't issue the pay check, that would be your employer's job. They would file your income information once to twice a month. The first interval that your employer didn't file the paperwork, you would be issued a Reverse Income Tax check. It wouldn't be called "welfare", it would apply to all citizens. The paperwork, red tape and hoops would be removed. In the Fair Tax, everyone would get a check once a month, regardless of if they had a job or not. Those taxpayers who paid taxes would pay a bit more to cover the checks being sent every month. You can read about it online, it's a very interesting idea. Now that sounds like a real move toward socialism. With food shortages and prices expected to drive the economy, we may even be issuing 'government store' vouchers in lieu of pay. they tried that, back in the 20's with coal miners... their only pay was vouchers that were only good at the "company store".. that was what started the idea for unions... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so the government would issue bi monthly paychecks? or they would issue bi monthly 'welfare' checks based off of employers paychecks? The Government wouldn't issue the pay check, that would be your employer's job. They would file your income information once to twice a month. The first interval that your employer didn't file the paperwork, you would be issued a Reverse Income Tax check. It wouldn't be called "welfare", it would apply to all citizens. The paperwork, red tape and hoops would be removed. In the Fair Tax, everyone would get a check once a month, regardless of if they had a job or not. Those taxpayers who paid taxes would pay a bit more to cover the checks being sent every month. You can read about it online, it's a very interesting idea. Now that sounds like a real move toward socialism. With food shortages and prices expected to drive the economy, we may even be issuing 'government store' vouchers in lieu of pay. The current system is very socialist, redundant and unmanageable. The new system would eliminate the redundancy and make the system manageable while reducing the socialism of the system. Since the systems I've mentioned wouldn't require a huge bureaucracy and the money would be there for every citizen, I think it's an acceptable solution. So explain to me why you think that 69 agencies, which don't communicate to one another and employ 75,000 employees is preferable to one agency with a very small number of employees. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so the government would issue bi monthly paychecks? or they would issue bi monthly 'welfare' checks based off of employers paychecks? The Government wouldn't issue the pay check, that would be your employer's job. They would file your income information once to twice a month. The first interval that your employer didn't file the paperwork, you would be issued a Reverse Income Tax check. It wouldn't be called "welfare", it would apply to all citizens. The paperwork, red tape and hoops would be removed. In the Fair Tax, everyone would get a check once a month, regardless of if they had a job or not. Those taxpayers who paid taxes would pay a bit more to cover the checks being sent every month. You can read about it online, it's a very interesting idea. Now that sounds like a real move toward socialism. With food shortages and prices expected to drive the economy, we may even be issuing 'government store' vouchers in lieu of pay. The current system is very socialist, redundant and unmanageable. The new system would eliminate the redundancy and make the system manageable while reducing the socialism of the system. Since the systems I've mentioned wouldn't require a huge bureaucracy and the money would be there for every citizen, I think it's an acceptable solution. So explain to me why you think that 69 agencies, which don't communicate to one another and employ 75,000 employees is preferable to one agency with a very small number of employees. because a non-liberal proposed it, thats why... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I must concur a lot with what Spidercmb is saying. When the system is designed to encourage people to stay on welfare means that they whole system is the problem. "Poor Mentality" is what is the REAL problem in America, not "poor People," per say. They are taught by the system to stay poor. REALLY? And who taught you NOT to be poor? What kind of opportunities do you think the 'urban poor' have that are in any way comparable to rural families whose socioeconomic class is leaps above thier urban counterparts? the idea of Welfare is to help and temporarily supplement people. Not subsidize their existence. I can't count the number of times I would see a news story about some Poverty Stricken family with a 65" TV in their living room with a PS 2 or 3 sitting their FAT azzes, and I mean it, most of the time these poor people are FAT, griping about loosing benefits. And they all seem to have some BS medical condition. OK - here is your food budget for the month $100 and you have to buy any paper products you use out of that money. I hope you like hamburger helper and boxed mac and cheese because on that allowance you won't be able to afford much produce and meat - try hamhocks and greens are usually cheap (but not too bad with butter and salt or bacon drippings. Reality buddy - if you havn't been there how would you know? I know and I haven't always been here - but I have stood on the edge most of my life. Illness - lots of studies out there that prove that stress IS a major risk factor to many diseases. Can you imagine growing up in the environemnt of the inner-city poor? Can you even wrap you mind around a month of nights in a house with plastic coving some of the windows and shots heard nightly, and knowing that the meth house on your block is too close should it explode? Asbestos and lead paint - did you know that if a landlord posts clear warnings of possible contamination in the contract and provides safety notices to the tenants that the landlord does not have to be concerned? I know that, because I currently live in such a place. Now imagine living a life time n that kind of environment. You're right there are a lot ills do you still question why? I have lived the landlord from hell a few times already and sued one of them. I have had a crack house and a meth house in the vicinity of where i lived. And dealing with household contamination a land lord would not deal with properly? See above. Likewise I have lived so badly stressed recently that I have to take Tagamet to help deal with Acid Reflux and I had to fund all the medical myself! I PAYED OUT OF POCKET FOR ALL OF IT SO FAR! I also am having to force myself to eat because stress is eating me alive. I was stressing balls when the government hit us with Affirmative Action and I could not find a job to save my life. I had just lost the job I had to layoffs and anything out there had to fill a racial quota so instead of going hungry I scrambled for work of damn near any kind under the table and got dragged into construction. So you want to talk about living a nightmare? My aren't we judgmental ourselves tonight! I grew up in poverty being used as a Ritalin experiment. So you want to talk reality here? First of all if so many of these people are poor why is it they have Big Screen TVs, leather couches, Play Stations, and are obese? Because they have money to spend evidently. That and they are too well fed. Just like a bunch of fat LAZY swine! You over generalize. THINK a little more logically. Think about the situation I just outlined for you. How long do you think those kind of belongings would last in someone's home? Not saying it doesn't happen - someone make money off the the sale of drugs, but you see the few and feel cheated. Would still feel cheated if you had grown up in that environemnt and did not own a big screen TV? I grew up on a second hand existence and watched a black and white TV all the way to 1974 and the color TV that replaced it when I was ten was a hand me down from some friends who cot a newer color TV. I generalize? I have seen real poverty. A lot of what the media pushes in our faces as the poor are not really the poor. I feel... cheated? No, I feel ripped off and lied too! We are run by hypocrites and many of the poor out there are taught by the system to work the system to get their income from the system. Far too many people have gone on Unemployment and rode it to the end because they felt they needed and extended vacation. My father was just like that. On top of that I have witnessed sop many others doing it and citing that reason why. "I do it because I can." In some of the worst neighborhoods out here I can find high end BMWs, Benzes, Land Rovers. Fools be busting lots of bling. Hoes be fronting one another over who spends more on their doo and their nails. And oh how so many of them are brand whores! Yes, so many of these people are really poor! When I was growing up we DID use cable spools for tables. I built many a model on one. I grew up being the ultimate recycler. So again you want to compare MY life experiences? On top of that Welfare has been proven to inflame alcohol and drug abuse. Stick you head in a bucket of ice water and shake out some of the hate you have inside it. Now look at drug and alcohol use from the perspective of growing up in a generationally poor family in the inner-city. I don't think welfare adds to drug and alcohol abuse, it's already being abused, remember, crack houses, meth labs, people living under stressful conditions every day of their life. NOW to apply all this to the OP; defunding planned parenthood. Someone (may have been you) suggested that the problem is education. Yes it is but there must be an all out push in this country to end that and we are nowhere near that kind of push. Even if we were and a plan was laid out - it would be a few generations before there was evident progress. It's not happening because of the kind of thinking that you have in the post I am addressing. (I really believe you are smarter than that and I hope the problem is just a lack of real knowledge and personal experience.) At any rate, planned parenthood has been a step in the right direction. We are sexual beings - and that must be obvious to anyone who can understand that our sex drive is the way we assure that there will be more humans. Planned parenthood does not judge, they do not decide who gets welfare. They help individuals find alternative means of medical advice when they can't afford to pay full price. PP saves lives and they help to make life better for families who might otherwise end up on welfare should they bring another baby into thier life. We have no right to try and judge the circumstances of every person's PP visit nor do we have a right to judge the decision of a woman in her own health care. I consider abortion a healthcare issue for a woman becasue only that woman knows the reasons behind her dicission to choose abortion. Privacy laws being what they are in this country, abortions should ALWAYS be only an anonymous statistic unless the individual chooses to share her decision with others. Having shared that information should never make it self-incrimination of a crime. It is a hearlth care issue. I am not comparing Planned Parenthood to drug addiction. I actually support the presence of Planned Parenthood so you need to wake up. My Mom's BF after she divorced my father wound up becoming a paid councilor for NA and AA. My later HS years thanks to my looser father screwing me out of every opportunity to advance myself possible I got sucked into life on the street. I knew and know many addicts and alcoholics. I have seen both ends of the spectrum of their life and what it takes to get someone to recover and recovery begin with them actually taking responsibility for themselves. Sympathy only makes addiction worst. Planned Parenthood prevents women from giving birth to drug addled and genetically flawed children thanks to their addiction. DO NOT EXPECT ME TO SHOW ANY SYMPATHY FOR ANY ALCOHOLIC OR DRUG ADDICT! I have no sympathy as does anyone who knows anything about the problem. There is at least one member here I can think of but not by name who did do what she needed to recover herself and did and the whole thing is she admits what she faces! That is a person I can respect but I am not about to sympathize at all over. Several surveys over the years including a couple of Liberal groups looked into the world of the hard core welfare addict and found out they had no intent or desire to redeem themselves. All they wanted was their check, and their next fix. the actual lifestyle is different for crack, meth, and smack but the behaviors are the same. Addicts will ALWAYS look for a free ride and ride it as long as they can until they have to find a new way of getting what they want. that is why the reception of benefits should come with a drug test including Planned parenthood so some of these addicts can be identified and dealt with appropriately. Even if they do perform the abortion they got to make the process as pressurized as they can to get people to straighten up. it isn't about God or Jesus or revivals. it is about getting people to either pull their heads out of their azzes or letting them flounder until they kill themselves. My step brother died from Meth. I think Meth contributed to another friend of mine recently too. I don't HATE the addict. I hate the addiction. Meth DOES have medicinal uses under strict controls. I can't hate the drug itself. But I can hate the bathtub brewers! And this is how to deal with them!  Toasty!  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so the government would issue bi monthly paychecks? or they would issue bi monthly 'welfare' checks based off of employers paychecks? The Government wouldn't issue the pay check, that would be your employer's job. They would file your income information once to twice a month. The first interval that your employer didn't file the paperwork, you would be issued a Reverse Income Tax check. It wouldn't be called "welfare", it would apply to all citizens. The paperwork, red tape and hoops would be removed. In the Fair Tax, everyone would get a check once a month, regardless of if they had a job or not. Those taxpayers who paid taxes would pay a bit more to cover the checks being sent every month. You can read about it online, it's a very interesting idea. Now that sounds like a real move toward socialism. With food shortages and prices expected to drive the economy, we may even be issuing 'government store' vouchers in lieu of pay. The current system is very socialist, redundant and unmanageable. The new system would eliminate the redundancy and make the system manageable while reducing the socialism of the system. Since the systems I've mentioned wouldn't require a huge bureaucracy and the money would be there for every citizen, I think it's an acceptable solution. So explain to me why you think that 69 agencies, which don't communicate to one another and employ 75,000 employees is preferable to one agency with a very small number of employees. - Ricky Recardo you are not - so no 'splainin for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so the government would issue bi monthly paychecks? or they would issue bi monthly 'welfare' checks based off of employers paychecks? The Government wouldn't issue the pay check, that would be your employer's job. They would file your income information once to twice a month. The first interval that your employer didn't file the paperwork, you would be issued a Reverse Income Tax check. It wouldn't be called "welfare", it would apply to all citizens. The paperwork, red tape and hoops would be removed. In the Fair Tax, everyone would get a check once a month, regardless of if they had a job or not. Those taxpayers who paid taxes would pay a bit more to cover the checks being sent every month. You can read about it online, it's a very interesting idea. Now that sounds like a real move toward socialism. With food shortages and prices expected to drive the economy, we may even be issuing 'government store' vouchers in lieu of pay. The current system is very socialist, redundant and unmanageable. The new system would eliminate the redundancy and make the system manageable while reducing the socialism of the system. Since the systems I've mentioned wouldn't require a huge bureaucracy and the money would be there for every citizen, I think it's an acceptable solution. So explain to me why you think that 69 agencies, which don't communicate to one another and employ 75,000 employees is preferable to one agency with a very small number of employees. - Ricky Recardo you are not - so no 'splainin for you. I see, you are bored, so you are trollin'. That's cool...if you are 12. |
|
|
|
|
