Over 50% of US babies were born on Medicaid

[Ray From Cleveland]

So among those of you who think we should let poor kids die for lack of healthcare, to I guess teach their parents a lesson of some sort,

shouldn't we also deny those kids an education?

So how would you stop it? Oh, that's right, you're a liberal so you want it to go on forever.

It has nothing to do with teaching parents a lesson. It has to do with stopping the cancer that we currently have.

If you can't afford to pay your rent, you get evicted from your apartment.
If you can't afford to make mortgage and insurance payments on your home, the bank forecloses on you.
If you can't afford your car payments, the repo man comes along and tows the car out of your driveway.

That's the way it's supposed to work when you take on a responsibility.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So among those of you who think we should let poor kids die for lack of healthcare, to I guess teach their parents a lesson of some sort,

shouldn't we also deny those kids an education?

So how would you stop it? Oh, that's right, you're a liberal so you want it to go on forever.

It has nothing to do with teaching parents a lesson. It has to do with stopping the cancer that we currently have.

If you can't afford to pay your rent, you get evicted from your apartment.
If you can't afford to make mortgage and insurance payments on your home, the bank forecloses on you.
If you can't afford your car payments, the repo man comes along and tows the car out of your driveway.

That's the way it's supposed to work when you take on a responsibility.

So you DO support letting the kids die to teach the parents a lesson.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So among those of you who think we should let poor kids die for lack of healthcare, to I guess teach their parents a lesson of some sort,

shouldn't we also deny those kids an education?

So how would you stop it? Oh, that's right, you're a liberal so you want it to go on forever.

It has nothing to do with teaching parents a lesson. It has to do with stopping the cancer that we currently have.

If you can't afford to pay your rent, you get evicted from your apartment.
If you can't afford to make mortgage and insurance payments on your home, the bank forecloses on you.
If you can't afford your car payments, the repo man comes along and tows the car out of your driveway.

That's the way it's supposed to work when you take on a responsibility.

So you DO support letting the kids die to teach the parents a lesson.

No, but I do support government taking the kids out of the household if the parents can't support them, just like they do when the parents are hooked on dope, or the father is abusive to the rest of the family, or the parents end up in prison.

 

[rightwinger]

30 million families receive government assistance. Working three jobs means 60 million unfilled jobs out there waiting to be filled

Your buckle down and work harder makes a great bumper sticker for your conservative buddies, but as a practical solution on a national level it is ridiculous

It's only a ridiculous notion to someone lazy and entitled like yourself. There were plenty of times in the past I worked more than one job and I would do it again if ever needed. There used to be an understanding in this country that you earned your own keep. Then LBJ came along with his welfare state and the result is people like you who somehow feel working hard is beneath you.

Used to be more "extra jobs" available
Used to be you could get a low skilled job that still paid the bills
Used to be you could get a union job and be set for life
Used to be minimum wage would pay for some life essentials

That is before Republicans sold out to corporate America

Yeah, sure, tard, automation and technological advances would have never happened if it weren't for evil Republicans colluding with corporate America. I'm sure the buggy makers were pretty upset when Henry Ford starting cranking out automobiles. Good thing Bernie Sanders wasn't around then to halt the production of Fords and rein in that greedy corporatist making them.

"Used to be" sounds like a wonderful Utopia, but this is now. Learn a new skill. Make yourself needed and if all else fails, well, the world needs ditch diggers too. Who's responsibility is it to make sure you have the skills to get a job? Oh, yeah, yours.

More excuses and finger pointing at everyone else but yourself.

Same thing happened when they invented electricity and the internal combustion engine
Yet we, as a society, used to value labor
Now we have sold out to capitalists and labor is just a necessary evil for them to make more profit. A smaller percentage of corporate profit now goes to workers
Taxpayers have had to make up the difference

 

[rightwinger]

So among those of you who think we should let poor kids die for lack of healthcare, to I guess teach their parents a lesson of some sort,

shouldn't we also deny those kids an education?

So how would you stop it? Oh, that's right, you're a liberal so you want it to go on forever.

It has nothing to do with teaching parents a lesson. It has to do with stopping the cancer that we currently have.

If you can't afford to pay your rent, you get evicted from your apartment.
If you can't afford to make mortgage and insurance payments on your home, the bank forecloses on you.
If you can't afford your car payments, the repo man comes along and tows the car out of your driveway.

That's the way it's supposed to work when you take on a responsibility.

So you DO support letting the kids die to teach the parents a lesson.

No, but I do support government taking the kids out of the household if the parents can't support them, just like they do when the parents are hooked on dope, or the father is abusive to the rest of the family, or the parents end up in prison.

How can you possibly believe that is better for the children and better for society?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

30 million families receive government assistance. Working three jobs means 60 million unfilled jobs out there waiting to be filled

Your buckle down and work harder makes a great bumper sticker for your conservative buddies, but as a practical solution on a national level it is ridiculous

It's only a ridiculous notion to someone lazy and entitled like yourself. There were plenty of times in the past I worked more than one job and I would do it again if ever needed. There used to be an understanding in this country that you earned your own keep. Then LBJ came along with his welfare state and the result is people like you who somehow feel working hard is beneath you.

Used to be more "extra jobs" available
Used to be you could get a low skilled job that still paid the bills
Used to be you could get a union job and be set for life
Used to be minimum wage would pay for some life essentials

That is before Republicans sold out to corporate America

Yeah, sure, tard, automation and technological advances would have never happened if it weren't for evil Republicans colluding with corporate America. I'm sure the buggy makers were pretty upset when Henry Ford starting cranking out automobiles. Good thing Bernie Sanders wasn't around then to halt the production of Fords and rein in that greedy corporatist making them.

"Used to be" sounds like a wonderful Utopia, but this is now. Learn a new skill. Make yourself needed and if all else fails, well, the world needs ditch diggers too. Who's responsibility is it to make sure you have the skills to get a job? Oh, yeah, yours.

More excuses and finger pointing at everyone else but yourself.

Same thing happened when they invented electricity and the internal combustion engine
Yet we, as a society, used to value labor
Now we have sold out to capitalists and labor is just a necessary evil for them to make more profit. A smaller percentage of corporate profit now goes to workers
Taxpayers have had to make up the difference

Why would taxpayers have to do that? Ask yourself that question.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So among those of you who think we should let poor kids die for lack of healthcare, to I guess teach their parents a lesson of some sort,

shouldn't we also deny those kids an education?

So how would you stop it? Oh, that's right, you're a liberal so you want it to go on forever.

It has nothing to do with teaching parents a lesson. It has to do with stopping the cancer that we currently have.

If you can't afford to pay your rent, you get evicted from your apartment.
If you can't afford to make mortgage and insurance payments on your home, the bank forecloses on you.
If you can't afford your car payments, the repo man comes along and tows the car out of your driveway.

That's the way it's supposed to work when you take on a responsibility.

So you DO support letting the kids die to teach the parents a lesson.

No, but I do support government taking the kids out of the household if the parents can't support them, just like they do when the parents are hooked on dope, or the father is abusive to the rest of the family, or the parents end up in prison.

How can you possibly believe that is better for the children and better for society?

Because it would take the incentive of poor people having children, that's how. The reason 1/5 of our society is producing 50% of the babies is because they know they will benefit from having those babies. If we take the incentive away, that will encourage people to be more responsible.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

When I get into debates with liberals about our social programs, it doesn't take long for a few to chime in and tell us about some unfortunate person who had children and then lost control over supporting them. Yeah, I'm sure that's the typical case.

On the right, we have asserted that this is not the typical case. The typical case is poor people having children knowing they can't afford them, but have them anyhow because we working people will have to support them.

That debate is now over. In over half of the states across the country, over 50% of babies are born using Medicaid, further proof that the so-called poor have more children than do the working on average. Either that, or half of the country is on Medicaid. Either way, something has to change.

In almost half of the United States, 50% or more babies born were on Medicaid

It is a nationwide shame that so many employers pay such low wages and do not provide health insurance

Thank God for Medicaid

Oh, so now it's still not their fault, it's the employers fault.

Employers don't control what you earn--you control what you earn. If your skill set (whatever that may be) doesn't pay the kind of money you want to earn, you have to find another line of work.

You're not going to be able to support yourself stocking shelves, flipping hamburgers, sweeping floors, or cleaning toilets, and you certainly won't be able to support children. You have to get into a line of work that not everybody can do.

Why do you continue to blame poor people for being poor? Why don't you try looking at the causes of poverty?

In the 1950's, you had a 20% chance of working yourself up from poverty to middle class. Today's you have a 2% chance. Why do you continue to blame those who don't succeed when the system has been totallly stacked against them?

While poverty and dependency has increased, more and more of the country's wealth and assets are being transferred to the top 5%, less and less money is going into public education in poor districts. It's like tossing the poor overboard with rocks tied to their feet and then criticizing them for not being able to swim to shore.

Poverty is a very simple problem with very simple solutions. Poverty is the state of not having enough money to live on if any money at all. The solution to poverty is money. To obtain money, you need to get a job.

There, poverty is now solved. But wait! There is more........

Once you have a job, save the money you make. Get an apartment with others in your situation or answer some ads of people looking for roommates to share expenses with. DO NOT HAVE ANY CHILDREN until you have a secure job and career. If you cannot get a good job or secure a career, don't have any children. Avoid going into debt and buying things you cannot reasonably afford. Instead of taking your money to buy the newest I-phone, put that money in your savings account.

If your savings account starts to accumulate into the thousands or tens of thousands, it's time to start thinking about investments. You have an array of investments to choose from. You can use your money to start your own business like lawn care. You can use that money for a trade school. You can invest that money in the stock market, commodities market, real estate, treasury bonds.....

There. Now tell me why anybody cannot do what I just wrote.

That is a childish view of the world.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When I get into debates with liberals about our social programs, it doesn't take long for a few to chime in and tell us about some unfortunate person who had children and then lost control over supporting them. Yeah, I'm sure that's the typical case.

On the right, we have asserted that this is not the typical case. The typical case is poor people having children knowing they can't afford them, but have them anyhow because we working people will have to support them.

That debate is now over. In over half of the states across the country, over 50% of babies are born using Medicaid, further proof that the so-called poor have more children than do the working on average. Either that, or half of the country is on Medicaid. Either way, something has to change.

In almost half of the United States, 50% or more babies born were on Medicaid

It is a nationwide shame that so many employers pay such low wages and do not provide health insurance

Thank God for Medicaid

Oh, so now it's still not their fault, it's the employers fault.

Employers don't control what you earn--you control what you earn. If your skill set (whatever that may be) doesn't pay the kind of money you want to earn, you have to find another line of work.

You're not going to be able to support yourself stocking shelves, flipping hamburgers, sweeping floors, or cleaning toilets, and you certainly won't be able to support children. You have to get into a line of work that not everybody can do.

Why do you continue to blame poor people for being poor? Why don't you try looking at the causes of poverty?

In the 1950's, you had a 20% chance of working yourself up from poverty to middle class. Today's you have a 2% chance. Why do you continue to blame those who don't succeed when the system has been totallly stacked against them?

While poverty and dependency has increased, more and more of the country's wealth and assets are being transferred to the top 5%, less and less money is going into public education in poor districts. It's like tossing the poor overboard with rocks tied to their feet and then criticizing them for not being able to swim to shore.

Poverty is a very simple problem with very simple solutions. Poverty is the state of not having enough money to live on if any money at all. The solution to poverty is money. To obtain money, you need to get a job.

There, poverty is now solved. But wait! There is more........

Once you have a job, save the money you make. Get an apartment with others in your situation or answer some ads of people looking for roommates to share expenses with. DO NOT HAVE ANY CHILDREN until you have a secure job and career. If you cannot get a good job or secure a career, don't have any children. Avoid going into debt and buying things you cannot reasonably afford. Instead of taking your money to buy the newest I-phone, put that money in your savings account.

If your savings account starts to accumulate into the thousands or tens of thousands, it's time to start thinking about investments. You have an array of investments to choose from. You can use your money to start your own business like lawn care. You can use that money for a trade school. You can invest that money in the stock market, commodities market, real estate, treasury bonds.....

There. Now tell me why anybody cannot do what I just wrote.

That is a childish view of the world.

How so? Tell me where I"m wrong.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Ray From Cleveland, post

And why is my solution so terrible?

That is your solution?

The working poor could not afford an insurance plan out of employer group plans prior to the ACA.

A private plan covering pregnancy and childbirth was probably a few thousand a month.

What are people in poverty supposed to do? Sell Drugs to make the payments.

That is no solution. You are a fraud.

Claiming you have posted solutions.

Well Duh! How about the solution being if you can't afford to have children, don't have them?

So, let's get right to the heart of your argument, Ray. What political solution do you propose for poor people having children? Let me guess. You would stop feeding the children. THAT would keep poor people from having sex, right? After all, they have already failed to feed them, so, somehow you think that withholding food from their kids is going to make them suddenly responsible for what they do on Saturday night with their sex organs? Seriously, Ray, I hear nothing but bitching, but no solutions from the Right.

You've read the solutions (at least from me) but refuse to acknowledge them. If people are on any kind of government assistance, it should be a fixed amount no matter if they have children or not. If that fixed amount does not give them the capability to support children, those children should be taken away and put into an orphanage.

As this OP points out, supposed poor people have children with no concern or pressure as to how to support them. In fact, they are rewarded by having those children. Take the reward away, and you'll create more responsible poor people.

So, here we have a person who is dead set against the government getting involved with health care, and complains of oppressive over regulations by said government, but wants the feds to have the power to decide if you can properly support your kids, and if they decide that you can't, such government we take those kids away and have strangers raise them

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray From Cleveland, post

And why is my solution so terrible?

That is your solution?

The working poor could not afford an insurance plan out of employer group plans prior to the ACA.

A private plan covering pregnancy and childbirth was probably a few thousand a month.

What are people in poverty supposed to do? Sell Drugs to make the payments.

That is no solution. You are a fraud.

Claiming you have posted solutions.

Well Duh! How about the solution being if you can't afford to have children, don't have them?

So, let's get right to the heart of your argument, Ray. What political solution do you propose for poor people having children? Let me guess. You would stop feeding the children. THAT would keep poor people from having sex, right? After all, they have already failed to feed them, so, somehow you think that withholding food from their kids is going to make them suddenly responsible for what they do on Saturday night with their sex organs? Seriously, Ray, I hear nothing but bitching, but no solutions from the Right.

You've read the solutions (at least from me) but refuse to acknowledge them. If people are on any kind of government assistance, it should be a fixed amount no matter if they have children or not. If that fixed amount does not give them the capability to support children, those children should be taken away and put into an orphanage.

As this OP points out, supposed poor people have children with no concern or pressure as to how to support them. In fact, they are rewarded by having those children. Take the reward away, and you'll create more responsible poor people.

So, here we have a person who is dead set against the government getting involved with health care, and complains of oppressive over regulations by said government, but wants the feds to have the power to decide if you can properly support your kids, and if they decide that you can't, such government we take those kids away and have strangers raise them

And government isn't involved now? Government is not taking money from taxpayers and supporting these lowlifes?

Hey, I'm all for getting government totally out of raising families, how about you?

 

[Vandalshandle]

It stands to reason that if no government funds can go to PP because they do abortions, then doctors who agree to see Medicaid patients and are reimbursed by the government....but then, surely, you don't need me to explain this to you.

PP claims they do not use taxpayer funds for abortions. I am proposing a solution. What does a Medicaid patient have to do with Planned Parenthood performing an abortion?

I give up Markle. If you don't see why cutting off funds to PP which does abortions is the same as the government refusing to contract with a doctor for Medicaid who does abortions, then I am wasting my time with you.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

One thing I would like to know, Ray. I have heard you complain bitterly about how your employer dropped your group insurance plan because of ACA. I have also heard you complain endlessly about poor people who can not afford to have a family, but do not work to improve their skills to earn a good living on their own. My question is this. How much time do you spend per month complaining on this message board about ACA that you can not afford, and welfare taxes that you are burdened with, vs. how much time do you spend per month improving your skills so that you can afford insurance and the onerous taxes you have to pay? I ask, because I don't even work, and I have neither of those problems, and it seems to me that you belong in the same category as the others that you complain about.

I was thinking the exact same thing.

 

[Dragonlady]

Marker posted charts on poverty rates a few pages back. I noted that poverty steadily declined until 1980. Then Reagan ended the War on Poverty. Said it wasn't working. Under Republicans, poverty increased. When Clinton was elected, once again poverty started declining and then came W and poverty increased. Under Obama it again declined.

Republicans keep saying that all you need to end poverty is to elect Republicans who create jobs. In reality it is Republican policies which exacerbate poverty, and Democrat policies that decrease it. even Jimmy Carter created more jobs than Reagan although his Presidency is seen as an economic failure.

By every economic measure, Republican from Reagan forward have been an economic disaster. Job creation under Clinton and Obama were much stronger, the deficit doubled then tripled under Reagan. Clinton balanced the budget, and then W exploded it. Obama reined in spending and brought the deficit down to under a billion dollars per year, but Trump, with his proposed tax cuts and military spending is getting ready to explode it again.

Middle class saving declined under Reagan as his tax cuts engineered the biggest transfer of wealth the world has ever seen - all of it upward. This transfer continues unabated and if Trump carries through with his promised tax cuts, will actually worsen.

But still, you vote for the stuff Republicans say they believe in, while doing the opposite. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Yet here you, getting ready to cut taxes and expecting this to create jobs and strengthen the economy. By definition, those who vote Republican are insane.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Republicans put a pu$$y grabbing serial adulterer up as a role model for their children.

We elected a president not a role model. Role model is not one of the President's jobs.

Trump stiffed his own workers, started a criminal organization and called it a charity and stole from children with cancer.

The Clinton Foundation is better?

How much lower can you get?

I would say Hillary but i guess not since I am assuming she never blew Bill based on the fact he had to get a fatty to do it.

Absolutely. It is quite obvious that golf is Trump's job.

At least it isn't selling out America to the highest bidder like the Clintons did.

At least Trump never went after a 12 yr old rape victim.

True, He only enters dressing rooms of adult female beauty contestants, and grabs adult *****.

Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Bush: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab ’em by the *****. You can do anything.

He never claimed he assaulted any women.

Neither did Bill or Hillary, but at least they didn't brag that they could if they wanted to.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Ray From Cleveland, post That is your solution?

The working poor could not afford an insurance plan out of employer group plans prior to the ACA.

A private plan covering pregnancy and childbirth was probably a few thousand a month.

What are people in poverty supposed to do? Sell Drugs to make the payments.

That is no solution. You are a fraud.

Claiming you have posted solutions.

Well Duh! How about the solution being if you can't afford to have children, don't have them?

So, let's get right to the heart of your argument, Ray. What political solution do you propose for poor people having children? Let me guess. You would stop feeding the children. THAT would keep poor people from having sex, right? After all, they have already failed to feed them, so, somehow you think that withholding food from their kids is going to make them suddenly responsible for what they do on Saturday night with their sex organs? Seriously, Ray, I hear nothing but bitching, but no solutions from the Right.

You've read the solutions (at least from me) but refuse to acknowledge them. If people are on any kind of government assistance, it should be a fixed amount no matter if they have children or not. If that fixed amount does not give them the capability to support children, those children should be taken away and put into an orphanage.

As this OP points out, supposed poor people have children with no concern or pressure as to how to support them. In fact, they are rewarded by having those children. Take the reward away, and you'll create more responsible poor people.

So, here we have a person who is dead set against the government getting involved with health care, and complains of oppressive over regulations by said government, but wants the feds to have the power to decide if you can properly support your kids, and if they decide that you can't, such government we take those kids away and have strangers raise them

And government isn't involved now? Government is not taking money from taxpayers and supporting these lowlifes?

Hey, I'm all for getting government totally out of raising families, how about you?

I have not seen anyone reverse their opinion this fast since Trump changed his health care bill strategy 4 times in 48 hours last week!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Marker posted charts on poverty rates a few pages back. I noted that poverty steadily declined until 1980. Then Reagan ended the War on Poverty. Said it wasn't working. Under Republicans, poverty increased. When Clinton was elected, once again poverty started declining and then came W and poverty increased. Under Obama it again declined.

Republicans keep saying that all you need to end poverty is to elect Republicans who create jobs. In reality it is Republican policies which exacerbate poverty, and Democrat policies that decrease it. even Jimmy Carter created more jobs than Reagan although his Presidency is seen as an economic failure.

By every economic measure, Republican from Reagan forward have been an economic disaster. Job creation under Clinton and Obama were much stronger, the deficit doubled then tripled under Reagan. Clinton balanced the budget, and then W exploded it. Obama reined in spending and brought the deficit down to under a billion dollars per year, but Trump, with his proposed tax cuts and military spending is getting ready to explode it again.

Middle class saving declined under Reagan as his tax cuts engineered the biggest transfer of wealth the world has ever seen - all of it upward. This transfer continues unabated and if Trump carries through with his promised tax cuts, will actually worsen.

But still, you vote for the stuff Republicans say they believe in, while doing the opposite. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Yet here you, getting ready to cut taxes and expecting this to create jobs and strengthen the economy. By definition, those who vote Republican are insane.

So are people that just make up their own facts:

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well Duh! How about the solution being if you can't afford to have children, don't have them?

So, let's get right to the heart of your argument, Ray. What political solution do you propose for poor people having children? Let me guess. You would stop feeding the children. THAT would keep poor people from having sex, right? After all, they have already failed to feed them, so, somehow you think that withholding food from their kids is going to make them suddenly responsible for what they do on Saturday night with their sex organs? Seriously, Ray, I hear nothing but bitching, but no solutions from the Right.

You've read the solutions (at least from me) but refuse to acknowledge them. If people are on any kind of government assistance, it should be a fixed amount no matter if they have children or not. If that fixed amount does not give them the capability to support children, those children should be taken away and put into an orphanage.

As this OP points out, supposed poor people have children with no concern or pressure as to how to support them. In fact, they are rewarded by having those children. Take the reward away, and you'll create more responsible poor people.

So, here we have a person who is dead set against the government getting involved with health care, and complains of oppressive over regulations by said government, but wants the feds to have the power to decide if you can properly support your kids, and if they decide that you can't, such government we take those kids away and have strangers raise them

And government isn't involved now? Government is not taking money from taxpayers and supporting these lowlifes?

Hey, I'm all for getting government totally out of raising families, how about you?

I have not seen anyone reverse their opinion this fast since Trump changed his health care bill strategy 4 times in 48 hours last week!

What reversal of opinion do you speak of? What I said is government is already involved. If we can't get government out of raising families, at least use a government strategy that will likely reduce the amount of babies born into poverty.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

When I get into debates with liberals about our social programs, it doesn't take long for a few to chime in and tell us about some unfortunate person who had children and then lost control over supporting them. Yeah, I'm sure that's the typical case.

On the right, we have asserted that this is not the typical case. The typical case is poor people having children knowing they can't afford them, but have them anyhow because we working people will have to support them.

That debate is now over. In over half of the states across the country, over 50% of babies are born using Medicaid, further proof that the so-called poor have more children than do the working on average. Either that, or half of the country is on Medicaid. Either way, something has to change.

In almost half of the United States, 50% or more babies born were on Medicaid

No.
The debate is why you applaud a plan that removes so many from that benefit.
Nearly 2/3 of seniors in nursing care depend on Medicaid as well.


Let's put this in perspective. Do you believe that contraception should be free and readily available?

No I don't because that wouldn't solve the problem. Poor people are not having children they can't afford because of BC, they are having children because they will not be financially responsible for them. Lots of folks would love to have larger families, but only the poor on social programs can fulfill that desire because they are not supporting them. Working people who are not on any government program have to limit the size of their family, and I think that's totally unfair, because the working people have to support their own kids, and other people's kids as well. It's just plain wrong.

Condoms cost anywhere from 37 cents each to $1.55 each depending on how fancy you want to get:

Condoms | Walgreens

Poor people are not having children they can't afford because of BC, they are having children because they will not be financially responsible for them

^WITF does this mean?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When I get into debates with liberals about our social programs, it doesn't take long for a few to chime in and tell us about some unfortunate person who had children and then lost control over supporting them. Yeah, I'm sure that's the typical case.

On the right, we have asserted that this is not the typical case. The typical case is poor people having children knowing they can't afford them, but have them anyhow because we working people will have to support them.

That debate is now over. In over half of the states across the country, over 50% of babies are born using Medicaid, further proof that the so-called poor have more children than do the working on average. Either that, or half of the country is on Medicaid. Either way, something has to change.

In almost half of the United States, 50% or more babies born were on Medicaid

No.
The debate is why you applaud a plan that removes so many from that benefit.
Nearly 2/3 of seniors in nursing care depend on Medicaid as well.


Let's put this in perspective. Do you believe that contraception should be free and readily available?

No I don't because that wouldn't solve the problem. Poor people are not having children they can't afford because of BC, they are having children because they will not be financially responsible for them. Lots of folks would love to have larger families, but only the poor on social programs can fulfill that desire because they are not supporting them. Working people who are not on any government program have to limit the size of their family, and I think that's totally unfair, because the working people have to support their own kids, and other people's kids as well. It's just plain wrong.

Condoms cost anywhere from 37 cents each to $1.55 each depending on how fancy you want to get:

Condoms | Walgreens

Poor people are not having children they can't afford because of BC, they are having children because they will not be financially responsible for them

^WITF does this mean?

It means taxpayers will pay for the child's medical care, taxpayers will pay for the child's food, taxpayers will pay for the child's housing, taxpayers will pay for the utilities in the apartment or house. Middle-class working people have to worry about those things if they decide to have a baby; they have to pay for everything themselves.