Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I think the effect on the children should be considered, and by extension the effect on society. Unless you want to argue that there isn't any effect.
No, I agree whole heartedly. It's about the welfare of the children which eventually effects the quality of our society.
Moral judgements? Why do you assume I was judging just the woman involved?
I asked you why it was a problem for you... how about answering that then. (not assuming... asking if that was the case... and yes probably suspecting it)
Did you vote for him in 2004? Do you think he should removed from office?
They should be humiliated until they say they are sorry for voting for him twice.
ROFL! true!
that's dated February... is that still being considered?
I agree as well.
Excellent post, particularly pointing out the way things were worded.
But I would disagree with the last part. Educated and intelligent women who were married, had kids and then divorced can ended up on welfare (at least temporarily). It's very difficult to make ends meet when you are working full time and paying child care (at one point many many years ago, my child care expense was more than my house payment (greater than $1000 per month)). So my point is that probably the biggest reason why it's extremely difficult for many single mom's to support their families is the high cost of child care. Working a minimum wage at McD isn't going to cover it.
And of course, when you are a working single mom, you also get criticized for not being home with your kids enough. And I've heard the same type that would prefer for mom's to stay home with their young children, gripe about paying for welfare to single mothers can do the same. (I think it's good when mom's can stay home with the kids at least until pre-school if not kindergarten.)
And while one scenario is a women having children out of wedlock... any woman is at risk at needing assistance if the father of the children walks out which does happen. Why don't we hear more grumbling about that side of it?
It's the same mentallity that thinks a teenage girl who sleeps around is a slut... while a young boy is given a pat on the back.
the laws are in place... I think the trick is knowing where the father is and the appropriate agencies going after him and putting court orders in place. And I also know that many many years ago they didn't go after the fathers very often but I believe that has changed in recent years.
The only situation that I see and find troubling is the single parent family where multiple fathers are involved...
To my knowledge the taxpayer isn't involved. I do find the situation odd however.
so why is it troubling to you? sounds like you are making moral judgements about the woman's life style and choices.
You can not have a rational conversation with her on this subject.... I am reasonably certain you and her hold many of the same views...
tsk tsk... it's a matter of opinion which side of the conversation is more rational and I'm sure that's the case with your friend as well! ROFL!
you apparently think it is fine for the Gubbermint to pay for these kids having a baby in spite of the fact that they can probably afford to pay for it
not the case. if they can truly afford to pay for it themselves then I would not agree with tax payers paying for it... but that's not my problem with your original post. It's the many assumptions, judgements and undertones of your original post about the girl. so yes.... pretty much is the next sentence covers it:
are just rantings of a sexist male.....
It would seem there is nothing else to "discuss",...
done.
LOL... good guess :)
why would he bother to "bestow" this power on someone unless it was to be used?
"general phenomena I see amoung young girls"
oh really... sounds like some stereotyping going on... have any stats to back up that? You know for a fact that the majority "could afford to pay"?
IMO, sounds like sweeping genearlizations based on your biases.
In fact your remind me of a good friends wife who had 4 kids by a previous husband and raised them alone up until their early teens. It is impossible to discuss anything with her about marriage or anything to do with children because of her experience.
have you ever been a single parent? had a child out of wedlock? maybe this friend of yours has some life experiences that make her more qualified to understand these situations than you.
yup... Bush has moved up in the world...
first he busted a corporation, El Busto... and now he's managed to trash a whole country!
hey, but just as in the case of El Busto, he and his friends will walk away with big bucks while the rest are left holding the bag.
Bush tries to run things more like a dictatorship... for as much as he can get away with it. There was an article recently about how the WH reviews every legislation to specifically address presidential powers.
from my insurance friend, she said yes... regulations are different in different states. she also has alot to say about certain terms in insurance coverage agreements... such as "reasonable" and what that can mean.
it would be long overdue... republicans... anyone messing with the voting machines and elections.
a little video humor(?)
http://www.filmstripinternational.com/
Boxer legislation close to Murtha legislation...
from an email from Barbara Boxer
Yesterday we commemorated Memorial Day, a day in which we think about the men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.
Today, I am announcing that it is time to bring to a close a mission in Iraq in which our men and women in military have successfully met every single goal that was set out for them.
Now it is up to the Iraqi people to decide what kind of future they want.
My legislation is very close to the Murtha legislation in the House of Representatives in terms of its impact.
It calls for U.S. forces in Iraq to be redeployed from Iraq within 6 months, or at the earliest practicable date. And it calls for a quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines who shall be deployed in the region.
But the whereas clauses in my legislation are different from Congressman Murtha’s and reflect why I come to a similar conclusion as he does.
I would like to read you the entire legislation.
Before I do, I want to say that it is unacceptable for me to see us continue a policy that is bringing so much pain to so many -- our forces, 2,467 dead, their families, journalists and their families, and thousands of Iraqis and others. It is not acceptable to me to see our government paralyzed over a failed policy and unable to change it.
When our President continues to say we will accept nothing less than full victory I no longer know what he means.
Again, our troops have met every benchmark and it is time to end this open ended commitment which is causing not only death and destruction to our soldiers, our news people, and so many others but is acting as a catalyst for terrorist recruitment.
Our troops are hurting, they often can't tell who the enemy is, they are coming home wounded in body -- more than 18,000 already -- and experts tell me than 1 out of 3 soldiers are suffering from some form of mental health problems, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
So here is my resolution:
109th Congress
2ndSession
S. J. RES
To spur a political solution in Iraq and encourage Iraqis to provide for their own security through the redeployment of U.S.
forces.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Mrs. Boxer, introduced the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on ________________________________
JOINT RESOLUTION
Whereas the Armed Forces of the United States have served bravely in Iraq and deserve the heartfelt support of our nation;
Whereas more than 2,450 U.S. military personnel have been killed and more than 18,000 wounded in support of military operations in Iraq;
Whereas more than 200 coalition personnel have been killed in support of military operations in Iraq;
Whereas it is estimated that at least 40,000 Iraqis have been killed during the military intervention in Iraq;
Whereas much of the intelligence used by the Bush Administration to justify the use of force in Iraq was either exaggerated or simply wrong;
Whereas President George W. Bush stated that the mission in Iraq was to rid it of weapons of mass destruction;
Whereas weapons of mass destruction have not been found;
Whereas President Bush then stated that the mission in Iraq was to end the regime of Saddam Hussein and free the Iraqi people;
Whereas Saddam Hussein is in custody and standing trial for crimes against humanity;
Whereas President Bush then stated that the mission in Iraq was to establish a free, self-governing, and democratic Iraq;
Whereas Iraq elected its first permanent government on December 15, 2005, and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s cabinet has been approved by the Iraqi Parliament concluding the country's transition to full political sovereignty;
Whereas President Bush then stated that the mission in Iraq was
to train Iraqi security forces so they can do the fighting;
Whereas the Pentagon reports that more than 240,000 Iraqi military and police personnel are now trained and equipped;
Whereas on May 1, 2003, President Bush stood under a banner proclaiming “Mission Accomplished” and declared that Iraq was an ally of al-Qaeda;
Whereas the 9/11 Commission Report found no collaborative operational relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda;
Whereas the commander of the Multinational Forces-Iraq, General George Casey, testified before the Senate Committee on Armed Services on September 29, 2005, that ‘ncreased coalition presence feeds the notion of occupation ... contributes to the dependency of Iraqi security forces on the coalition ... [and] ... extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant’;
Whereas, according to a January 2006 poll, 64 percent of Iraqis believe that crime and violent attacks will decrease when the United States redeploys from Iraq, 67 percent of Iraqis believe that their day-to-day security will increase if the U.S.
redeploys from Iraq, and 73 percent of Iraqis believe that there will be greater cooperation among Iraq’s political factions when the United States redeploys from Iraq: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That –
(1) United States forces in Iraq are to be redeployed from Iraq within 6 months or earlier if practicable.
(2) A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region.
(3) Nothing in this resolution shall prohibit the use of U.S.
military forces
to –
(A) conduct targeted and specialized missions;
(B) train Iraqi security forces in the region; and
(C) protect U.S. personnel.
(from an email)
How They Stole Ohio
And the GOP 4-step Recipe to 'Blackwell' the USA in 2008
Abracadabra: Three million votes vanish
June 1, 2006
By Greg Palast
This is a fact: On November 2, 2004, in the State of Ohio, 239,127 votes for President of the United States were dumped, rejected, blocked, lost and left to rot uncounted.
And not just anyone's vote. Dive into the electoral dumpster and these "spoiled" votes have a very dark color indeed.
In another life, I taught statistics. And these statistics stank: the raw data tells us that if you are a Black voter, the chance of you losing your vote to technical errors in voting machinery is 900% higher than if you were a white voter.
Any guesses as to whom those African-Americans chose for president on those junked ballots? Check Ohio's racial demographics, do the numbers, and there it is: Kerry won Ohio. And that, too, is a fact. A fact that could not get reported in the USA.
But the shoplifting of those votes in Ohio was just the tip of the theft-berg. November 2, 2004 was a national ballot-box bonfire. In total, over three million votes (3,600,380 to be exact) were cast -- marked, punched, pulled -- YET NEVER COUNTED. I'm not talking about the Ukraine or Uganda. I'm talking about the United States of America "with liberty and justice for all."
Well, not "all." The nine-to-one Black-to-White ballot spoilage rate is a national statistic -- not just an Ohio trick. Last year, I flew to New Mexico to investigate the 33,981 cast but not counted ballots of that state in the 2004 race. George Bush "won" New Mexico by 5,988 votes. Or did he? I calculated that, of the all the ballots rejected and "spoiled," 89% were cast by voters of color. Who won New Mexico? Kerry won -- or he would have, if they had counted the ballots.
But they didn't count them. And that was deliberate. It's in the plan. It's the program. And the program for 2008 is simple. Two million ballots were cast but not counted in the 2000 race. (Over half, 54%, were cast by African-American.) In 2004, the GOP kicked it up to THREE million. Get ready, these guys aim high: "four in '06" and "five in '08" looks to be their game plan.
How will they pile up five million un-voters in 2008? Let's start with the three million "disappeared" of 2004:
Step 1: "Spoiling" ballots -- 1,389,231 of them. In the vote-count game, these are called "undervotes" and "overvotes." You can recognize these lost ballots by their hanging chads, punch cards without punches (an Ohio specialty), paper ballots eaten by scanners, and touch screens that didn't know you touched them.
Step 2: Rejecting "provisional ballots"-- 1,090,729 in this pile. Voters finding themselves at the "wrong" precinct, or wrongly "scrubbed" from voter rolls get these back-of-the-bus ballots first inaugurated in 2002. In '04, provisional ballots were passed out like candy to voters in the poorest precincts. They handed them out -- then threw them away -- one million dumped in all. In Ohio, Republican Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell changed state rules, allowing him to toss out the ballots of legal voters who cast ballots in the wrong precinct although these citizens were told their vote would count after confirming their registration.
Step 3: Not counting absentee ballots -- 526,420 of them. At least, that's what we figure from official stats. But it's anyone's guess how many mailed-in votes were dumped. (However, in one case, in Palm Beach, Florida, Jeb Bush's candidate for Elections Supervisor, Theresa LaPore, counted more absentee votes than absentee ballots mailed in. Not the brightest bulb in the vote-fix biz, that Theresa.)
Step 4: Scrub'm, Purge'm, Block'm. These are the voters who never got to vote at all. This group includes those who found their registrations were never entered on the voter rolls. In Ohio, about one-fourth of those registered by Jesse Jackson's 2004 voter drive, found their registrations delayed beyond the election date or lost.
Add to this un-voter group, those who were wrongly "scrubbed" from registries as "felons." For example, there was Bernice Kines, purged in Florida in 2004 because she was convicted of a felony on July 31, 2009. I repeat: 2009. There was something especially odd about the Ohio felon purge: ex-cons are ALLOWED to vote in that state, Mr. Blackwell.
How many lost their chance to vote by scrubbing, purging and blocking? That's anyone's guess, but one million would not be an unfair estimate -- and that's not included in the 3.6 million tally of ballots uncounted.
Was it deliberate? Oh my God, yes. I'd like you to take a look at the "caging" lists the Republican National Committee concocted to challenge voters with "suspect" addresses. It included page after page of African-American soldiers, like one Randall Prausa, shipped overseas. Mission accomplished, Mr. President?
And there's some new tricks for these old dogs. For the 2006 and 2008, the GOP is pushing new Voter ID requirements. Your signature won't be good enough anymore.
What's wrong with the new ID laws? This: in the 2004 election, 300,000 voters were turned away from the polls for "wrong" ID. For example, in the "Little Texas" counties in New Mexico, if your voter registration included a middle initial but your driver's license had none, you were kicked out of the polling station. Funny, but they only seemed to ask Hispanic voters. We should see the number of voters rejected for ID to quintuple by 2008 based on the new "voting reform" laws recently passed in several states.
Also, coming to a polling station near you: more caging lists, scrub lists, ID challenge lists and more. Exactly why do you think they are compiling those "War on Terror" and War on Immigration databases? Behind the 2000 felon purge lists and behind the 2004 caging lists were databases from the same companies that now have those homeland security contracts. Are they saving us from Osama -- or from Democrats?
I wish I could give you a book on a page, because information is our weapon: Turn on the lights and the cockroaches scatter. That's why I'm asking you to read RFK's article on the Theft of Ohio -- and GET ANGRY. Then read, "Armed Madhouse: … The Scheme to Steal '08' -- AND GET READY.
**********
from an email
he is not the one who applies for Medicaid
that's a stupid comment... he's not having the baby and doesn't need the medical care.
when I referred to him as a "bum" it was in the context of why she might not want to marry him. I didn't say he was or wasn't... but if he has a good job and isn't stepping up to the plate and offering assistance, then maybe the shoe fits.
They are both responsible. And the sad fact is that it is very difficult for a young single parent (or even couple) to support a unexpected child regardless of any judgements people may have about them. Hence, there is assistance for the benefit of the child. And I believe it is in the benefit to society as a whole, to give every child a healthy start so they can become a healthy and productive member of society.
You're not off the hook. You whole original post speaks for itself... it reeked of sexism.
p.s. when my step daughter and her husband had an unexpected child, they lived with me for a year and a half until they could get on their feet. They now have their own place, but are definitely struggling to make ends meet. They are wonderful parents.
new york has no national monuments or icons? that is outrageous.
me too
blue cross blue shield wouldn't insure me at any price... flat out wouldn't give me insurance.
interesting ideas. I don't know what the best solutions are, but I do know the system is broken and needs reform. My guess is that the system has deteriorated for the usual reasons: power and greed.
thanks for posting that... that was exactly the information I had heard.
I could tell you some really scary stories about Canadien Medicine also...
People dying before getting proper treatment etc...
it happens here too.
my previous medical plan deductibles had gotten up to $500 max... I work for myself and now have individual coverage. I would not qualify for the freebee stuff.
ROFL!
I'm sure you don't see it, but your whole take on it is very sexist.
Our culture encourages girls to think that when they grow up their knight in shinning armor will come to their rescue and take care of them... that if they give their heart to some idiot, he is also giving his heart to her. But when a girl gets pregenant (notice no mention in that popular phrase about the guys part in it), our culture then labels her as stupid, a bum and/or a slut.
And maybe, she realizes at this point what a jerk he is and doesn't want to marry the bum!
I obviously raised my girls to be self sufficient and independent because at any time someone can walk out on you... or an accidental death can occur and you can become a single parent.
And don't forget... welfare isn't for the benefit of the mother... it's compassion for the child who is truly the innocent victim in all of this.
you're right... sad how many of those are here on iHub... and interesting how many of those still support Bush.
best on the planet? I recently read that in Briton they pay half as much for better health care. I believe you are misinformed.
I know plenty of people who don't have health insurance and therefore don't get proper health care... sure, if they're about to drop dead at the doorstep of a hospital, they have to be treated... but that's not adequate or cost effective.
I've spent the last six months with a health issue that I've had to spend out of pocket nearly $1000 to try and diagnose and still don't have any answers.
I do believe that... I just get impatient :)
great article :)
yeah, those poor needy oil companies...
so if someone is working but too poor to pay for health care, you'd have them die in the street? the elderly? handicaped? children?
instead of taking away life support for the needy, how about addressing corporate welfare (i.e. oil companies)... how about addressing the deficit?
we are a very poor nation if we can't take care of our young, our elderly and our needy... I believe we can do that and be strong and safe with the right priorities and leadership.
that is sad.
most people have some point in their lives when they need support. It's great when there are good family and friends that can fill that need, or local community (church, etc)... but not everyone is fortunate enough to have that kind of support available.
de...
I hung in there for several years because I kept thinking the owner would get wise to what the prez of the company was doing... but I finally realized, the owner didn't care as long as it "worked". When they sold the company, they both walked away with very big bucks after running the horse until just before it would drop... still waiting for karma to kick in...
AND young BOYS!
geez...
same is true in earthquake country.
that's a great article and demonstrates exactly my point... these people are not "irresponsible bums"... they, as well as their lenders and even insurance companies, DID NOT PREDICT the problems facing them now and are at risk... they are in quite a predicament.
Obviously some bad decisions were made in the past by home builders, government agencies, mortgage lenders and insurance companies... you can just say that the homeowners are being irresponsible... or that trying to help them is enabling.
Unlike many Florida homeowners facing huge hikes in their insurance rates in the wake of recent hurricanes, Casper and Gushanas have decided to drop their windstorm coverage rather than pay the huge bill from their insurer, Florida Peninsula Insurance Co.
Most lenders require homeowners to have insurance, but Casper said her mortgage company approved the plan.