People have been losing jobs that have gone overseas since the last conservative administration, so single mom"" could very easily have had a non-minimum wage job when she started her family, but people are so busy judging, they don't consider THAT at all. So I guess all of the people saying "she shouldn't have kids" think she should kill them or put them up for adoption once she's lost the corporate gig, right ? Heartless. Exactly like Romney.

Best Answer

There isn't enough information about why she had two kids is she divorced? a widow? Why is she working a minimum wage job, lack of education and skills? lack of ambition, was she a house wife for years and suddnely found herself on her own? From what was given she sounds like the sort of person the food stamp program was designed to help. As for the rest, the questioner has completely misconstrued what Romney said. and left out the part where he said he wanted to help ALL Americans become self sporting and employed unlike 0bama who seems to want to expand the welfare rolls and only help those few that think the government owes then a living.. as for jobs going overseas the root cause of that is a whole pile of burdensome government regulations, taxes and fees plus union demands that have made it impossible for domestically produced goods to compete on the world market.

Best Answer

At the company I worked for, what the union demanded was a living wage for its workers and healthcare, which the company was trying to take away, even though we'd made them very very rich. Their way of getting around it was to send some of our technical jobs overseas, so they could pay lower salaries and not have to provide benefits at all. Romney, as a business owner, has a record in MA of having done the same thing (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57472228/what-was-romneys-role-at-bain-during-outsourcing/). Fine for profits, sucks for someone trying to earn a living. Obama's record on helping increase funding for Pell grants and establishing college tax credits (http://www.barackobama.com/education/) actually does more to help someone become qualified for a higher paying job so that they can improve their own lives. Wasn't Romney's suggestion "...borrow the money from your parents..." ? Sigh :/

Best Answer

I worked 40 years in a timber related industry, Government restrictions and union demands increased to the point that it became cheaper to ship logs to Japan, convert them into a finished product and ship it back to the US than to manufacture the end product here in the US...........You must have hear a different clip than I did I never heard him say borrow money from your parents. When I listen to 0bama speak I hear a constant drumbeat of class warfare and an effort to divide the nation, that is not what we need , we need to ALL work together for the good of All Americans. If you are referring to the repeatedly played video clip where Romney is reported to say that it isn't his job to care about the poor, that was a heavily edited clip taken out of context if you heard it all you would realize that he was saying that it wasn't his job to try to convince those people that had already made up their minds to vote for 0bama to vote for him, that would be a waste of resources.

Best Answer

I think sometimes it's perception, too; where you see Obama as divisive, I see him as recognising the divisions that already exist, and alway have, long before he became president. Romney, on the other hand, doesn't seem to understand how frustrated people have been for some time---it's not his world. http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=20209572

Best Answer
1 More Response

Sounds like she's doing her best.

Best Answer

Exploited is the correct term, but the exploiters will use the term unproductive.

Best Answer

Thumbs down to anyone who says she should not have had children. She could have been in a perfectly stable situation when those children were born, then life happened. Now, a woman in this situation who decides to have another child - THAT'S irresponsible!

Best Answer

While I am sympathic with your problems and I do understnd that you are at least working. However that being said, the income taxes that you suggest are being taken out of pay each week that you say is in effect paying your way. You know that is not true inasmusch as the government sends you a a child credit check in far more value than the taxes held out every year...<br />
The truth is that the government augments your subsistence to a remnarkable degree. As a taxpayer who has no such deductions I am in effect giving you my cash.<br />
If your ex-husband is dead my sympathies again but if he lives and cannot provide child support why do we have to subsidize your marital mistake.<br />
I am willing and give tremendous amnount each year to worthwhile charities but It will be hard to convince me that all those receiving largesse from the government in one form or the other is not working the system at my expense.<br />
This may not sit well with some but you cannot expect those of us who struggle as well without govenmental asssitance , pay our taxes with no relief, to feel you are unique.

Best Answer

@ Zorbas, DAMN your an eloquent SOB. I wish I had your gift.

Best Answer

@ lowridergirl. If they are using foodstamps then they arent taking care of their kids on their own. They are using taxpayer dollars to support their kids.

Best Answer

Well, zorbas, if you're in the 30-35% income tax range, that means your tax percentage is about twice that of Mr. Romney (at least of the last year-and-a-half he has released--refusing to release any more).
Regarding what you give to charities, what is your assurance that they are spending it wisely/economically? Some charities use 80% of what they receive for "overhead costs,etc." and only 20% goes to the actual people they claim to help.
Check out some of the mansions/holdings of the most popular TV evangelists who are constantly flogging for more cash to bring aid to __________________ (insert name of godforsaken country here).

Best Answer

Check my profile, zorbas. Never assume.

Best Answer
1 More Response

Thats what they are there for ..and when I hear about a woman raising 2 kids and working I think, wow how tired is she...

Best Answer

who said that. did they say it in arms reach of any women?.. oO

Best Answer

Nope, she at least is trying to do something by working and supporting her family, unlike those other welfare people who only want to live off the hard working people like her..Aren't you so glad now that Obama says the welfare people don't have to work anymore for their checks??? I liked what Clinton did with the welfare to work law but of course that isn't what Obama believes so why should people actually have to work for their gov't handout?

Best Answer

You have it wrong, Lifeis. Actually, President Obama was complying with requests from governors (Republicans, most of them) that they be allowed more leeway in relief/welfare programs, so that they could tailor the programs to their own individual state needs.
He did NOT do away with the work requirement. Get the FULL story instead of choosing to remain ignorant.

Best Answer

Who told her to have kids when she isn't financially prepared to care for them? Why should WE THE PEOPLE feed them for her. Thats HER responsibility.<br />
WWJD? Havent you heard of Seperation of Church and State?<br />
The liberals love to shout that.

Best Answer

Pro-choice, are you ?

Best Answer

Yep, ya make the choice BEFORE you get into the sack , not after.

Best Answer

But...conservatives are against birth-control, against abortion...they want pregnant women to have the babies even if they CAN'T afford them, but don't respect their attempts to feed and care for them. Their issue can't be sex, conservatives certainly don't practice abstinence only (Bristol Palin)...

Best Answer

Conservatives are against BirthControl ? WOW I didnt know you spoke for or know all conservatives and know how ALL of them are. Here is a reality check for you. I am VERY conservative. Birth control ( as long as it is not abortion) is FINE with me. So your wrong. If a woman is going to jump into the sac with ANYONE she should then be ready for the consequences up to and including 100% support for the child.

Best Answer

WWJD?

Best Answer

Well, califdom, if your profile is correct, you're due to reach retirement age in a few years. So, to further the cause of conservatism and intellectual honesty, will you refuse Medicare/Social Security? After all, those payments will be provided by people who are currently working at that time.

Best Answer

Good point, bijoux. If all pregnancies were only the deliberate ones, many people would not be here today--perhaps even some of the angry, resentful, bitter people replying to my question.

Best Answer

@ frankly The topic is not me. Nice try at trying to muddy the waters though.

Best Answer

Why would you object to abortion ? That guarantees NO children for you to support, regardless of who the woman sleeps with. If you're staying out of it, be consistent and STAY out of it. Otherwise you're just punishing the women who choose not to abort. Simply saying someone "should" be able to support their child doesn't make the funds magically appear. Rush called Sandra Fluke an ugly name for wanting pills used for both feminine care (cysts) and contraception covered as part of her healthcare. THAT's where I get the impression of conservatives and birth control, from your own spokesman.

Best Answer

abortion is murder. Its easy for some to be ok with killing the most innocent amongst us , because they are a burden. I cannot. I pray that all those support and believe in abortion that when they die, they meet the souls of all the dead babies on the way to see God.
No one is punishing anyone. Its called consequences, you play you pay. Sandra Fluke please, when she was told that those pills she was crying about are avail at the local drug store for $ 10.00 a month she said she wasnt aware. So she is a red herring.

Best Answer

The "innocent" ? You've just SAID they shouldn't be here, if she can't support them. With abortion they wouldn't be, and she still has that legal choice. Clearly you couldn't care less about these children AFTER they're born, or you'd be more than happy to help support them, if not adopt them yourself, RIGHT ???

Best Answer

The "innocent" ? Yes innocent . I have never met a baby that wasnt innocent. I said "they shouldn't be here" Where in my text did you see those words? its not after their born that concerns me its PRIOR to conception that concerns me. You cant un fire a gun. So the best prevention is to NOT fire it in the first place.

Best Answer

"Souls on their way to see God" ? Weren't you just talking about separating church and state ? So if you DO believe, I'd love to see YOU explaining to whichever deity you worship how one justifies starving living children to punish the mother you don't think should've had them.

Best Answer

when someone has to sleep in the bed they made is not punishment. its life. I have clothed the naked , fed the hungry. So I have no problems with allowing others to be responsible for their own actions.

Best Answer

@ cram so you can tell how much compassion I have by this academic discussion. OK. LOL.. you seem to have the same problem that alot of people do Thinking that Society and Government are one in the same.
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Mr Thomas Payne.

Best Answer

Just a couple of points here for bijouxbroussard Conservatives are not opposed to birth control,most if not all think that is a personal responsibility and are opposed to paying for someone else birth control and only a few on the fringe think abortion is wrong in all circumstances. califdom - the responsibility for providing for and raising the children falls on the shoulders of both the mother and father, we have far too many dead beat dads and that requires the government to sometimes step in and pick up the slack. The innocent parties in this are the (perhaps unwanted) children - don't punish them.

Best Answer

Ya know maple I once thought as you. I was in a heated debate with a friend of mine. Then he told me to read this and get back to him.
http://www.fee.org/library/not-yours-to-give-2/
After reading it I had to concede the debate because he was 100 %.

Best Answer

Cram1892, that is a good point. Somehow we can always come up with trillions of dollars for wars but funding education and healthcare, which European countries and Australia provide for their citizens as a matter of course, are always too expensive. Sorry, califdom, when someone is struggling to feed their children by honest means, saying "who told her to have kids ?" sure doesn't sound very Christian, if that's what you call yourself. (I'm not one, so I have a bit more latitude, I guess.) It sounds a lot like sitting in judgment. You really can't have it both ways, because women are going to keep getting pregnant---that's pretty much inevitable. If you really feel strongly that abortion is wrong, take comfort in the fact that the food stamps you (we) pay for are feeding real, live children, whose mothers chose not to abort. Women who make the other choice, if they're not asking YOU for money, should be none of your business.

Best Answer

@ bij "Women who make the other choice, if they're not asking YOU for money, should be none of your business"
If they are on food stamps then yes they are taking money from me. Why is it everyone else that should pay because someone was irrisponsible. I have worked in stores, seen people come in with food stamps , buy a pack of gum with a $ 20.00 stamp, have to give them change in dollars, they then take that change buy beer smokes wine. it happens more often then you think it does. I have seen them selling them for pennies on the dollar. The gov shouldnt be in the food stamp business. Let the charities take care of it and make every penny tax deductable.

Best Answer

Like I said, either you really care about those children you think shoudn't be aborted or you're blowing smoke. The food stamps help feed them and they need to eat, whether the mother's irresponsible or not. And if she IS irresponsible, why shouldn't she have an abortion ? I'm guessing you wouldn't be stepping in and offering to adopt the child, to stop her .

Best Answer

Did you read " its not yours to give" ?
Like I said you cannot unfire a gun. personal responsibility. Why on earth would I or should I support someone elses kid? I dont want to do it via my taxes why should I be responsible for someone elses lack of responsibility?

Best Answer

Like I said, either you care or you don't. If you really don't you couldn't possibly care whether or not women choose to have abortions---those are less children your taxes will have to support, and you've just stated THAT'S your bottom line. Which is fine, I'm just saying be consistent about it and recognise the contradictions in your stated position. Why would you want someone irresponsible giving birth anyway ?

Best Answer

I am very consistent. I dont believe in murdering innocent children. Why should I or anyone else support anyone else or their bad planning. If you cant support your desicions then change them. Dont KILL a child because its a burden.

Best Answer

You refuse to grasp the concept of personal responsibilty.
You want everyone to pay for someone else. Again read its not yours to give then get back to me.
http://www.fee.org/library/not-yours-to-give-2/

Best Answer

YOU refuse to deal with facts. Yes, perhaps people shouldn't have sex without having a college degree, healthy bank account, gainful employment, wedding ring, etc. Guess what ? They do anyway--- with men, in fact. But you even blame the woman for the man's behaviour ("she shouldn't have chosen him". Right, because losers always wear signs). And all children SHOULD be wanted---sadly, they're not. The child that may result here, is only a burden to YOU, because the woman will either terminate the pregnancy, which is her legal choice, or do what she can to raise and support it. Don't you get it ? YOU make abortion the only viable option precisely when you cut social programs that would help people who aren't wealthy go back to school to qualify for higher paying jobs to improve their situation. If you're going to be selfish, BE selfish. Let them all have abortions; you don't care about the actual children, anyway---just the idea of them. Once they're here, they're more than an idea, they're real, living people, who need food, shelter, education and healthcare. If you insist they be born, and saying someone "shouldn't be pregnant" alters nothing, don't complain about your taxes helping them LIVE, they've certainly helped kill enough people's children overseas---every time they've funded a war.

Best Answer

It is you that refuses to deal with the facts.
#1. Women get pregnant.
#2. They are responsible for their own actions.
#3. You want everyone else to help those that make bad choices. I gave you the link to "Its not yours to give" and to Common sense. Did you bother to read them ? Government and society are not one in the same. You can yell and argue all you want but it still is not going to change the fact that US TAX dollars should be use by the gov only on the gov and not on society. No where in the US Constitution does it say that tax dollars are to be used to help society. This nation rose from to its greatness by having people take care of themselves. The murdering of innocent people is not ever ok just because they are inconvenient. People should be responsible for their own actions. Life is not an easy road. But taking money from hard working people to give to others is wrong. The gov is NOT Robin Hood.

Best Answer

well if I had a choice to be dead or living on the streets guess which one I would pick?

Best Answer
24 More Responses

There is not enough info to know why she is a single mom so , "She shouldn't have had kids, " comments are inappropriate and without foundation. <br />
<br />
Second, as far as I know, most everyone pays taxes no matter how low their income is. I am not sure where this statistic of 47% not paying taxes comes from? Can anyone site a credible source for that statistic?<br />
<br />
Third, Romneys argument is tragically flawed. If everyone paid the same percentage of income that the people in his camp (super rich) paid, then we would not need so many things from the government.<br />
<br />
As far as I know, most of us can count on the government taking about 30 to 35 percent of our pay and we get a pittance back. If I was in the same income bracket as the super rich then I too would have a lot of extra cash to do things with that the government does now.<br />
<br />
Flat rate tax for everyone!

Best Answer

Flat tax rate sounds fair--at first. However, how much do you pay for gasoline (if you drive) per gallon? Let's say it's 4 bucks a gallon. OK, and how much does a millionaire pay for a gallon of gasoline? Same price. However, the impact on you is much greater. How about the price of food? A loaf of bread is priced the same for the poor as for the rich. However, the impact of that price on the poor is much greater. How much is tuition at a four-year college/university for both income extremes? Same. (However, it should also be noted that it's much easier for the child of someone who's given an endowment to Harvard/Yale, etc. to be admitted with mediocre grades, as opposed to the child of a poor/middle-class person). There are reasons for our progressive tax structure. It has enabled millions of poor people to move into the middle class, and millions of middle-class people to move upward. It (in the past) helped prevent the ever-widening gap between the wealthy and everyone else, a gap that (as some of us learned in world history classes) often contributes to revolutions, civil disorders, grinding poverty. As the wealthy and their cronies have chipped away at the progressive tax system, the gap has widened. Of course, they have no problem with that widening gap. THEIR children continue to get to go to college without having to join the military and risk a little trip to Afghanistan just to provide tuition funding. THEIR families can afford medical care and top-of-the-line private insurance despite "pre-existing conditions." THEIR homes and properties are safe within gated communities despite the cutbacks in police and firefighter coverage. And THEIR voices are much louder in the halls of Congress and on the air as a result of lobbyists and paid political advertising.
So yes, the wealthy LOOOOOOOOOOOVE the flat tax. A certain Mr. Forbes (of the Forbes fortune) campaigned for a flat tax. He lost.
Even his vast fortune could not fool all the people all the time.

Best Answer

This is the same jerkoff who thinks that the median american income is 120K.... enough said.

Best Answer

I think it depends on her conditions and opportunities. If she has a chance to better herself to make more money for her family then she may should take it but money isn't everything. The love of the family means more than money or any other materialistic item. I'd rather have love and be poor than be rich and depressed.

Best Answer

The unproductive part would be to stay at a minimum wage job. Always be looking for a better job. Stop having kids while you are in this situation. When you stay in this situation is unproductive, not going back to school, not having an initiative......you don't help your kids. That is the crime.

Best Answer

Yeah, why can't those unproductive slobs borrow college money from their parents?

Best Answer

Aside from the fact that you have completely misrepresented what Romney said and who he was talking about, She is the sort of person that the food stamp program was designed to help. She is doing her best to provide for and feed her kids probably without the help of a dead beat dad who is also on food stamps and sells them at 50 cents on the dollar to get cash for beer and pot. NO one wants to deny her the help that she needs, least of all Romney. The difference here is that 0bama wants her to be forever dependent on a govern stipend, while Romney wants to give her the help she needs to become self sufficient and independent..

Best Answer

If that's what he REALLY believes, why hasn't he been saying it all along? There's no need to "misrepresent" what Romney said or was talking about. Very soon, the entire written transcript of the questions and his words will be available online. Then, people can read them for themselves--in context, warts and all.

Best Answer

I am staggered at how anybody could reduce a fellow human being and their efforts to survive so callously.Perhaps the truth is that because the authorities view each of us as no more than units of profit,they want more dividends.

Best Answer

Good point. We used to be "personnel." Now, we're just "human resources"--resources to be used until the cost-benefit ratio is not to the shareholders' liking....

Best Answer

Thats a dumb statement. Sounds like she is very responsible !

Best Answer