Over 50% of US babies were born on Medicaid

[SassyIrishLass]

As expected.

Conservatives scream about abortions but as soon as a baby leaves the womb it's a huge burden to society and should be ridiculed and forced to live in poverty. Because one out of the womb a baby is no longer a political tool the right wangs can use, so they reject it.

You've adopted or fostered how many?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Are you folks even aware that the US has the highest rate of women's death in childbirth in the first world, as well as the highest rate of infant mortality?

Sassy says the poor ought to be using all that free birth control that's "everywhere". Birth control fails - often. Half of the women who have abortions were using birth control when they hit pregnant.

Conservatives don't want the poor to have babies, but they don't want the poor to have abortions either. Given the frequency with which BC fails, what you're really saying is that poor people shouldn't have sex because that's the only way they're not going to get pregnant.

Good luck with that one.

Ahhh shaddup with your leftist gobbly gook

Combined contraceptive pill: more than 99% effective if taken correctly

Funny, my daughter was taking that pill, correctly too, and she's about to have another baby. It didn't work.

Not all women can take BC pills. Quite a few face adverse reactions to the Pill.

But keep believe the bullshit lies.

Should have used another method also.

I guess we should conclude that the reason one-fifth of our population is producing 50% of our US babies is because of all the failures with birth control pills, not because of irresponsibility or that taxpayers will support those kids.

They'd have to be using birth control pills for that to be true

In past discussions when I brought up what I see around me; single mothers with three, four, five kids, the liberal defense is that they had children in good faith, but came into some sort of financial hardship that gave them no other choice than to rely on taxpayer money. Same thing with food stamps.

My claim is (and always was) that these people have kids while on some welfare program; that they are inconsiderate to taxpayers, our government, and are personally irresponsible because they just don't G.A.S.

This OP proves my point has been correct all along.

It's not that I'm heartless of those less fortunate than I, but I'm also very against people who don't work (or otherwise don't make much money) living better than the working taxpayer.

I know many working people (several in my family alone) that wanted to have a larger family, but couldn't afford to. Yet, people who don't work have as large of a family as they desire. Something is seriously wrong with our safety net systems that needs to be addressed. The non-working should not have more than the working.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

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

If 50% of the children in America are being born into poverty, while America remains the world supreme economic power...it only proves that our system of economics is a complete failure!

I would view it as a complete failure of the individuals who precipitate the situation.

Timmy shouldn't be busting a nut in Tammy.

Tammy should be prepared in the event that Timmy busts a nut in Tammy.

It has nothing to do with our economics.

You are welcome.

 

[ClosedCaption]

When you realize that a very large number of those babies will grow up to be dependent on the government for everything, it almost makes a pretty convincing case for Planned Parenthood.

I honestly thought that you could expound more on realizing that you can see into the future of millions of people as a more astounding feat.

 

[initforme]

perhaps even those that can afford kids should not have kids. Then the country wins correct Ray? But the rich need youngsters to fight their wars for them.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

All these deadbeat babies need to plan ahead and make proper financial arrangements before being born. Statistics show that 96% of babies often go for 16 or more years of being unemployed after being born. They are a drag on society.

They are only a drag on society if their parents avoid, neglect or evade their responsibility.

 

[initforme]

wanting a large family...why?

 

[ClosedCaption]

God knows that everyone when they decide to or gets pregnant are always financially ready for it...that is until medicaid came around then poor people went crazy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

perhaps even those that can afford kids should not have kids. Then the country wins correct Ray? But the rich need youngsters to fight their wars for them.

The rich don't start wars. I could care less who has what when it comes to children, as long as you don't send me the bill for having them. I don't want to pay for your kids, I don't want to pay for your car, I don't want to pay for your home. Whatever it is you want in life, you should pay for it yourself.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

As expected.

Conservatives scream about abortions but as soon as a baby leaves the womb it's a huge burden to society and should be ridiculed and forced to live in poverty. Because one out of the womb a baby is no longer a political tool the right wangs can use, so they reject it.

No, conservatives believe that once the baby leaves the womb, it should be taken care of by the parents--not the taxpayer.

And don't kid yourself. Unborn babies are just as much of a political tool on the left as it is the right.

 

[danielpalos]

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

I already gave you the solution; it is compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States. The right wing doesn't like it, Because the poor may benefit.

 

[Vandalshandle]

All these deadbeat babies need to plan ahead and make proper financial arrangements before being born. Statistics show that 96% of babies often go for 16 or more years of being unemployed after being born. They are a drag on society.

They are only a drag on society if their parents avoid, neglect or evade their responsibility.

I know. And the republican solution to the problem is to punish the baby. I've heard it all before.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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

Well, repugs are opposed to abortion, birth control, planned parenthood, and sex education. You expected a different outcome?

Bingo!

[emoji844]


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Yousaidwhat]

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

I already gave you the solution; it is compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States. The right wing doesn't like it, Because the poor may benefit.

You want the Government/Taxpayer to compensate the lazy or inept?

Unacceptable.

 

[Borillar]

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

Well, repugs are opposed to abortion, birth control, planned parenthood, and sex education. You expected a different outcome?

Bingo!

[emoji844]


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Then once the kid is born, they bitch about that too.

 

[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

I already gave you the solution; it is compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States. The right wing doesn't like it, Because the poor may benefit.

 

[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

Well, repugs are opposed to abortion, birth control, planned parenthood, and sex education. You expected a different outcome?

Bingo!

[emoji844]


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Then once the kid is born, they bitch about that too.

Not if the parents are taking care of them we don't. What we bitch about is the taxpayer taking care of them. Big difference .

 

[toobfreak]

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

The truth is that the government encourages the poor to get knocked up and have lots of kids so that they qualify for cash assistance. The more of a burden you become, the more the government rewards you, but if you are struggling to get back on your feet to stay out of poverty and avoid becoming one of the chronically needy, the government hasn't a cent's worth of help to offer your way.

And then the government wonders why its social entitlement programs are going broke overflowing with dependees!

 

[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

The truth is that the government encourages the poor to get knocked up and have lots of kids so that they qualify for cash assistance. The more of a burden you become, the more the government rewards you, but if you are struggling to get back on your feet to stay out of poverty and avoid becoming one of the chronically needy, the government hasn't a cent's worth of help to offer your way.

And then the government wonders why its social entitlement programs are going broke overflowing with dependees!

I think I've mentioned this before, but I live next to a HUD property. This is the suburbs, and I resent putting HUD people in our city. They don't belong here and are nothing but problems. In fact, I had the cops out here just last weekend.

When I see their children playing outside, there are six of them: four from the HUD house in the front of the property, and two from the HUD rear house, although those are her grandchildren who her daughter sent here to take advantage of our school system which they don't pay anything in to.

If government will pay for home in the suburbs, pay to educate your kids, pay for all your food, pay for your utilities, pay for your medical care along with your family, what's the point of working your way to the suburbs? Nothing, because they are doing just as well if not better than the working people in this neighborhood.

 

[Dragonlady]

Republican policies have 47% of Americans receiving public assistance of some sort. You keep voting for governments that suppress wages to benefit corporations and their shareholders. Then you bitch that people don't pay their own way.

Most of the people on Medicaid and food stamps are working full time, but haven't seen a meaningful wage increase in 20 years.

Like a good Republican, you vilify the poor, not the policies that keep them dependent.