Isn't this country great when 2 people can see the same situation 2 differnt ways? Where you see condemnation, I see responsability. You see in the end this debate is easily ended, the woman should have never gotten pregnant (not by rape) in the first place. But what people like you want is to create a system designed to help the idiots of this society while not calling them idiots, because they have rights, right? The right to be idiots.



LOL, this right here proves Draginols article, witty replies used as a substitute for a coherent argument for their position.

Man, we have a whole thread which I really don't want to point anyone to discussing how great women are and what they can do, even when they're pregnant. So, I'm sure they can take care of their kids AND do community service. They don't need childcare. The kids can work! And if there's a baby, I'm sure Mommy can put him in a wrap and carry him around as she works, too.

That's assuming the father isn't around, though. If he is, he should be carrying a kid, too. Family community service time!

Nah, it's not bad enough that we have women paying strangers minimum-wage to raise their children in daycare centers while they trade their motherhood for the almighty dollar. We now expect government to provide it 'free of charge.'

Here's a not so hypothetical situation.

Father works a full time plus job. Mom has three babies and plans on attending school to complete her education that was put on hold to have children before the biological clock stopped ticking. Childcare cost is $1200.00 a month. School is no longer an option.

For our family to get better childcare assistance is a must have. I would be on the streets without WIC. Our formula alone is over $800 a month.

We aren't poor. We are strapped and trying to forge a better life. Should we not avail ourselves to these programs if they are there and we qualify?

I understand that someone who doesn't work and can't wait for the first of the month is different but if these sorts of programs didn't exist, I don't have any idea how we would make it.

Oh, I was being serious, LW. Put that baby in a wrap and get working. My kid would love to run around the park as we're cleaning it. Heck, he'd probably even (try to) help.

As for just john, take advantage of them. But, it's not going to get any better as you start making more money. In fact, there's a hole where your lifestyle will get worse if you make too much money yourself. That's the real problem with the system. It does not encourage bettering oneself at a certain point.

Good luck, man!

Yes, in the good ol' days every bride was a virgin on her wedding night. Nope, the difference was that if a woman got pregnant it was unacceptable to have a child out of wedlock and keep it. Either they went to Aunt Tilly's for a visit and gave the baby up for adoption or they got married in a big hurry.



Yep, that would be great but we're not talking about the world how it should be. We're talking about the reality of how it is.

Oh, and by the way - they managed because only the men worked. Moms were free childcare. When women joined the workforce, it created the dual-income family. Not only did it remove that childcare, but it also raised the cost of living to a point where it's extremely hard to just be starting out with a single income. It's not impossible, just harder. If every family had a single income, it would bring prices back down, and it would be a lot easier financially to live off one income.
Because of the rise in divorce, there are more single income families, so that will keep the prices from continuing their ascent. If people have more money to spend, they demand more, and the price goes up. Dual-income families have more money. That simple.

So here I am, with my entry-level job, with someone in the family having to get a night job to hopefully pay off enough stuff that we can be in the black from week to week.

If the health insurance we DID have had paid for the health care we wanted, ie, the $3,000 midwife they didn't pay a dime for, while we paid $250 per month premiums for however many months, we might have had that leeway now. But you know, why would health insurance want to cover your care? That might cost them money. At least they covered the hospital stay for her.

Are you both making more than $14,400 a year working? If not, economically, it makes more sense for one of you to stay home and be with the children. (Oh heaven forbid I make another statement saying a woman shouldn't be out in the workplace, how sexist!) Hey, and without all that extra income, maybe you can qualify for more benefits from the government!

i don' t think abortion is the most evil thing on the planet. i think mass murder like Saddam, Hitler, Stalin and Manson have done is the most evil.


not even sure it is evil at all. but it is wrong

i agree with this one but with the income tax and economy as it is and has been for 16 years or more you have to have two incomes for a family usually

Well, if the cost of childcare is higher than the revenue stream from your job, it is costing you money to work. However, it is up to each individual to value

1. Their sanity that's lost staying home with the kids.
2. The value of being the one with your kids every day.

My family finds number 2 very important, so even if it made financial sense for my wife to work I don't think she would. By 'work' I mean be away from the kids and get childcare for them that is not me. Like, full time day job. What she does now, while it is definitely work, involves her continued mothering of our children, and therefore does not violate #2, but it also causes the loss of sanity to be higher than normal. Ah, nannying. So glad that's not what I do.

"What about young girls who fall for the bs some boy told them and 'accidentally' found themselves pregnant before finishing high school? Don't they deserve a little help to get their life back on track?"

"Would these ghetto-queens start having kids at age 14 if THEY knew that no government assistance would be forthcoming?"

What's the difference between the young girls who fall for the bs some boy told them and the ghetto-queens? At 14, I think these ghetto-queens are the same as these young girls who fell for the bs some boy told them. BOTH need a little help to get their life back on track, even though they don't DESERVE it for sure.

I think we would see a difference if we removed the entitlement programs. I think we'd see kids out on the street a lot more often at first, because what good are these extra mouths to feed if they're not bringing in any money? I know my wife was kicked out of her Mom's house as soon as she was 18, because there was no more child support. Luckily, her Dad was a good sort of Dad and took her in. Then, her Mom rose all hell when her younger sister, still a supported child, decided to move with her.

But, that's no way to live anyway - only being cared about for the dollars you bring. If kids were only a cost, there might be less of them in those ghettos, because people would realize what it really meant. Right now, they're not a cost, they're extra drugs. But if we removed the incentive to have more when you're poor, we would either see more dead babies/abortions, or less conceptions.

Oh, that's right. I read it as if it was already a cost to them, and therefore couldn't afford school. I see now that it is just the added cost to school.

Night school, one class or two classes at a time, hire a babysitter/nanny or watch them yourself, just john. I bet you could get away with $500 a month on babysitter fees, given 3 kids at $5 per hour each, eight hours of school a week.

"What if 50 k dude lost everything in the dot com bust? What if 20k dude decided to invest in subprime loans? Would Mr. safety be such a bad guy then? Do you think those that double their money are smarter than other people or just luckier?"

I never addressed this. Smarter. They're the guy's servants. He's entrusting a lot of money to them. He knows them very well. He knows who knows how to handle money, and who doesn't. That's why they get different amounts to start with.

Mr. Safety could have put his money in the bank where at least it earned interest, but he didn't. Buried it in a mayonaise jar. So it would have been better off to have given it to the first guy, who knows how to wisely invest. So, that's what was done.

OK, I'll bite.   

Considering there was a time when these programs did not exist and learning from my mom about how things were in Puerto Rico when she was a child, I would say that they would probably still keep popping out kids (today) like there was no tomorrow except maybe the only differnce would be that the father would probably be there (like before in many cases)and work to provide for his new family or face the wrath of his father-in-law who, in Puerto Rico, commonly owned a machete and probably carried it on him most of the time, though in this day in age it would probably be a gun. But because in todays society it's OK to have children out of wed lock (like me) or as a single parent these, as you call them, "ghetto-queens" expect to be helped and have a life while being a parent all at the same time because they were told they would be helped by someone (a politicia) who was simply looking for a vote.

What if 50 k dude lost everything in the dot com bust? What if 20k dude decided to invest in subprime loans? Would Mr. safety be such a bad guy then? Do you think those that double their money are smarter than other people or just luckier?

WHat if they all went to Vegas and gambled it and had the same outcome?  Are we to protect everyone who goes to Vegas, gambles and loses?