When Poverty Attacks!

[thereisnospoon]

Number 3 became a problem for millions of people from 2008 to 2010:
September 2008 – 432,000 jobs lost
October 2008 – 489,000 jobs lost
November 2008 – 803,000 jobs lost
December 2008 – 661,000 jobs lost
January 2009 – 818,000 jobs lost
February 2009 – 724,000 jobs lost
March 2009 – 799,000 jobs lost
April 2009 – 692,000 jobs lost
May 2009 – 361,000 jobs lost
June 2009 – 482,000 jobs lost
July 2009 – 339,000 jobs lost
August 2009 – 231,000 jobs lost
September 2009 – 199,000 jobs lost
October 2009 – 202,000 jobs lost
November 2009 - 64,000 jobs created
December 2009 - 109,000 jobs lost
January 2010 - 40,000 jobs lost
February 2010 - 35,000 jobs lost

That doesn't take into account millions of people whose jobs were downsized to part-time, or who took salary/pay cuts.

So number 3 alone on your stupid list kicked their ass. What do you suggest they do if they cannot recoup their losses and slip into poverty?

Now take a $1,300,000 medical bill for your average American family, full employed. That can happen. It happened to me and my late spouse. Empire Blue picked and chose what they thought worthy to reimburse over 3.5 years of chemo and surgery for him. So when the dust settled I was left with a $285,000 balance.

Can you write a check for that? Why don't you instead just STFU.

You live in a world of unreality and should live more, read less.

You Liberal idiot...oh, was that redundant??

Losing a job does not preclude getting another.....or creating one.


Lots of folks who aren't as lazy or as inept as you are do just that.

With unemployment at 6.2% as opposed to 10% in October 2009, it looks like many people did.

But the questions are:
1. How long they were unemployed before finding a new job.
2. Difference in salaries
3. Full or part-time work

A wobble in any of these areas can alter the resources and capabilities of anyone, and in the case of the last 6 years, more people are making less and working more hours, as well as two jobs to compensate.

Thanks for your rhetorical response. It shows your true ignorance when faced with the facts behind the opinions of people who live in glass houses.

And if and when you ever have a catastrophic illness, I hope you end up in absolute financial devastation. You deserve nothing more.

More excuses.
It's always someone else's problem, right?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Right or wrong, you are advocating for eugenics,

which, according to Merriam-Webster is

a science that tries to improve the human race by controlling which people become parents

"...you are advocating for eugenics,..."

Quite a combination...but which are you more of...liar, or moron?

Your argument is for who should or shouldn't have children, according to their circumstances.

That is the core principle of eugenics.

The central theme of your original post is how badly things turned out because this woman had a child she should not have had.

You support discouraging certain people in certain circumstances from having children because the outcome is likely to be negative.

That is eugenics. What's wrong with saying so, if it's a good policy?

NO, you found a term for which you can attempt to deflect.
If you cannot fathom the concept of personal responsibility, tough shit.

 

[koshergrl]

People don't advocate being sexually responsible as a matter of EUGENICS, when they are motivated by a desire to prevent economically challenged single parent households.

Eugenics specifically refers to manipulating breeding in order to effect genetic improvements. You know, like when people opt to abort instead of giving birth to children who may (or may not) have Down's. THAT'S eugenics.

Telling people to keep their legs closed until they meet someone that would help them raise a kid, in the event one is created, is not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"...you are advocating for eugenics,..."

Quite a combination...but which are you more of...liar, or moron?

Your argument is for who should or shouldn't have children, according to their circumstances.

That is the core principle of eugenics.

The central theme of your original post is how badly things turned out because this woman had a child she should not have had.

You support discouraging certain people in certain circumstances from having children because the outcome is likely to be negative.

That is eugenics. What's wrong with saying so, if it's a good policy?

NO, you found a term for which you can attempt to deflect.
If you cannot fathom the concept of personal responsibility, tough shit.

Let me quote Margaret Sanger:

"We find the real reason that 300,000 babies died last year in the United States was that their fathers could not make enough to keep them alive. The more mothers must work in factories and sweat shops, the larger the number of deaths among their babies. To the father who makes $25.00 a week the death rate of infants is less than 84 per 1000. If he makes less than $10.00 a week, they die at the rate of over 256 per 1000. Every 300,000 babies that die from poverty and neglect has 600,000 parents who remain in ignorance of the means to prevent 300,000 more babies from coming into the world the next year to die of poverty and neglect.

Every woman who tries to exist on her husband's wage of $10.00 or $12.00 a week knows she cannot decently care for a large family. She does not want more than two or three children and is made to become a child bearing machine because of her ignorance of how to prevent it. She dreads the coming of another baby and lives in constant terror of unwanted pregnancies. The husband on the other hand is also unable to cope with the burden of a large family. It is this which keeps him compelled to accept any wage. It is the cries of the little ones which compel him to be the last one out on strike and the first one back. It makes it impossible for him to save a cent for a "rainy day" or for sickness, which in turn compels him to remain in one place, while his brother with one or two children can seek better conditions elsewhere.

Everything is against the working man with a large family. Factories and mills are hungry for his children. Juvenile Courts and dens of prostitution, jails or the trenches of war are waiting for his growing sons and daughters. The facts are that the working class produce too many children, too many for their own personal comfort, too many for the health and development of the mothers, too many for he good of their class. It is they themselves who are the sinners, in thus making worse their own wretched conditions by perpetuating poverty for generations to come. We have the statistics regarding unemployment, emigration, maternal and infantile mortality, and they all prove that there are too many babies born form the working class parents."

 

[NYcarbineer]

People don't advocate being sexually responsible as a matter of EUGENICS, when they are motivated by a desire to prevent economically challenged single parent households.

Eugenics specifically refers to manipulating breeding in order to effect genetic improvements. You know, like when people opt to abort instead of giving birth to children who may (or may not) have Down's. THAT'S eugenics.

Telling people to keep their legs closed until they meet someone that would help them raise a kid, in the event one is created, is not.

Why would you argue FOR abstinence and AGAINST birth control? That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"...you are advocating for eugenics,..."

Quite a combination...but which are you more of...liar, or moron?

Your argument is for who should or shouldn't have children, according to their circumstances.

That is the core principle of eugenics.

The central theme of your original post is how badly things turned out because this woman had a child she should not have had.

You support discouraging certain people in certain circumstances from having children because the outcome is likely to be negative.

That is eugenics. What's wrong with saying so, if it's a good policy?

You're mad. You know that, right?

You're the worst debater on this forum,

right after PoliticalChic leaves.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your argument is for who should or shouldn't have children, according to their circumstances.

That is the core principle of eugenics.

The central theme of your original post is how badly things turned out because this woman had a child she should not have had.

You support discouraging certain people in certain circumstances from having children because the outcome is likely to be negative.

That is eugenics. What's wrong with saying so, if it's a good policy?

NO, you found a term for which you can attempt to deflect.
If you cannot fathom the concept of personal responsibility, tough shit.

Let me quote Margaret Sanger:

"We find the real reason that 300,000 babies died last year in the United States was that their fathers could not make enough to keep them alive. The more mothers must work in factories and sweat shops, the larger the number of deaths among their babies. To the father who makes $25.00 a week the death rate of infants is less than 84 per 1000. If he makes less than $10.00 a week, they die at the rate of over 256 per 1000. Every 300,000 babies that die from poverty and neglect has 600,000 parents who remain in ignorance of the means to prevent 300,000 more babies from coming into the world the next year to die of poverty and neglect.

Every woman who tries to exist on her husband's wage of $10.00 or $12.00 a week knows she cannot decently care for a large family. She does not want more than two or three children and is made to become a child bearing machine because of her ignorance of how to prevent it. She dreads the coming of another baby and lives in constant terror of unwanted pregnancies. The husband on the other hand is also unable to cope with the burden of a large family. It is this which keeps him compelled to accept any wage. It is the cries of the little ones which compel him to be the last one out on strike and the first one back. It makes it impossible for him to save a cent for a "rainy day" or for sickness, which in turn compels him to remain in one place, while his brother with one or two children can seek better conditions elsewhere.

Everything is against the working man with a large family. Factories and mills are hungry for his children. Juvenile Courts and dens of prostitution, jails or the trenches of war are waiting for his growing sons and daughters. The facts are that the working class produce too many children, too many for their own personal comfort, too many for the health and development of the mothers, too many for he good of their class. It is they themselves who are the sinners, in thus making worse their own wretched conditions by perpetuating poverty for generations to come. We have the statistics regarding unemployment, emigration, maternal and infantile mortality, and they all prove that there are too many babies born form the working class parents."

Liberals, Progressives, socialists, communists, whatever....

This, about your heroine, Margaret Sanger:

It was in 1939 that Sanger's larger vision for dealing with the reproductive practices of black Americans emerged. After the January 1939 merger of her Clinical Research Bureau and the ABCL to form the Birth Control Federation of America, Dr. Clarence J. Gamble was selected to become the BCFA regional director for the South. Dr. Gamble, of the soap-manufacturing Procter and Gamble company, was no newcomer to Sanger's organization. He had previously served as director at large to the predecessor ABCL.

Gamble lost no time and drew up a memorandum in November 1939 entitled "Suggestion for Negro Project." Acknowledging that black leaders might regard birth control as an extermination plot, he suggested that black leaders be place in positions where it would appear that they were in charge, as it was at an Atlanta conference.

It is evident from the rest of the memo that Gamble conceived the project almost as a traveling road show. A charismatic black minister was to start a revival, with "contributions" to come from other local cooperating ministers. A "colored nurse" would follow, supported by a subsidized "colored doctor." Gamble even suggested that music might be a useful lure to bring the prospects to a meeting.

Sanger answered Gamble on Dec. 10. 1939, agreeing with the assessment. She wrote: "We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." In 1940, money for two "Negro Project" demonstration programs in southern states was donated by advertising magnate Albert D. Lasker and his wife, Mary.
BlackGenocide.org | The Truth About Margaret Sanger - Page Two


So....you stand proudly with Sanger....

.....interesting.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your argument is for who should or shouldn't have children, according to their circumstances.

That is the core principle of eugenics.

The central theme of your original post is how badly things turned out because this woman had a child she should not have had.

You support discouraging certain people in certain circumstances from having children because the outcome is likely to be negative.

That is eugenics. What's wrong with saying so, if it's a good policy?

You're mad. You know that, right?

You're the worst debater on this forum,

right after PoliticalChic leaves.

Every day, it seems, there's some stupid, ugly, insalubrious imbecile whose mission is to lay out the usual, lying Leftist propaganda bumper-stickers.
I see, today, you've volunteered for that role.



How long before they add 'syndrome' to your name?

 

[NYcarbineer]

NO, you found a term for which you can attempt to deflect.
If you cannot fathom the concept of personal responsibility, tough shit.

Let me quote Margaret Sanger:

"We find the real reason that 300,000 babies died last year in the United States was that their fathers could not make enough to keep them alive. The more mothers must work in factories and sweat shops, the larger the number of deaths among their babies. To the father who makes $25.00 a week the death rate of infants is less than 84 per 1000. If he makes less than $10.00 a week, they die at the rate of over 256 per 1000. Every 300,000 babies that die from poverty and neglect has 600,000 parents who remain in ignorance of the means to prevent 300,000 more babies from coming into the world the next year to die of poverty and neglect.

Every woman who tries to exist on her husband's wage of $10.00 or $12.00 a week knows she cannot decently care for a large family. She does not want more than two or three children and is made to become a child bearing machine because of her ignorance of how to prevent it. She dreads the coming of another baby and lives in constant terror of unwanted pregnancies. The husband on the other hand is also unable to cope with the burden of a large family. It is this which keeps him compelled to accept any wage. It is the cries of the little ones which compel him to be the last one out on strike and the first one back. It makes it impossible for him to save a cent for a "rainy day" or for sickness, which in turn compels him to remain in one place, while his brother with one or two children can seek better conditions elsewhere.

Everything is against the working man with a large family. Factories and mills are hungry for his children. Juvenile Courts and dens of prostitution, jails or the trenches of war are waiting for his growing sons and daughters. The facts are that the working class produce too many children, too many for their own personal comfort, too many for the health and development of the mothers, too many for he good of their class. It is they themselves who are the sinners, in thus making worse their own wretched conditions by perpetuating poverty for generations to come. We have the statistics regarding unemployment, emigration, maternal and infantile mortality, and they all prove that there are too many babies born form the working class parents."

Liberals, Progressives, socialists, communists, whatever....

This, about your heroine, Margaret Sanger:

It was in 1939 that Sanger's larger vision for dealing with the reproductive practices of black Americans emerged. After the January 1939 merger of her Clinical Research Bureau and the ABCL to form the Birth Control Federation of America, Dr. Clarence J. Gamble was selected to become the BCFA regional director for the South. Dr. Gamble, of the soap-manufacturing Procter and Gamble company, was no newcomer to Sanger's organization. He had previously served as director at large to the predecessor ABCL.

Gamble lost no time and drew up a memorandum in November 1939 entitled "Suggestion for Negro Project." Acknowledging that black leaders might regard birth control as an extermination plot, he suggested that black leaders be place in positions where it would appear that they were in charge, as it was at an Atlanta conference.

It is evident from the rest of the memo that Gamble conceived the project almost as a traveling road show. A charismatic black minister was to start a revival, with "contributions" to come from other local cooperating ministers. A "colored nurse" would follow, supported by a subsidized "colored doctor." Gamble even suggested that music might be a useful lure to bring the prospects to a meeting.

Sanger answered Gamble on Dec. 10. 1939, agreeing with the assessment. She wrote: "We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." In 1940, money for two "Negro Project" demonstration programs in southern states was donated by advertising magnate Albert D. Lasker and his wife, Mary.
BlackGenocide.org | The Truth About Margaret Sanger - Page Two


So....you stand proudly with Sanger....

.....interesting.

Why don't you address the FACT that in what I quoted she made almost exactly the same argument you did?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let me quote Margaret Sanger:

"We find the real reason that 300,000 babies died last year in the United States was that their fathers could not make enough to keep them alive. The more mothers must work in factories and sweat shops, the larger the number of deaths among their babies. To the father who makes $25.00 a week the death rate of infants is less than 84 per 1000. If he makes less than $10.00 a week, they die at the rate of over 256 per 1000. Every 300,000 babies that die from poverty and neglect has 600,000 parents who remain in ignorance of the means to prevent 300,000 more babies from coming into the world the next year to die of poverty and neglect.

Every woman who tries to exist on her husband's wage of $10.00 or $12.00 a week knows she cannot decently care for a large family. She does not want more than two or three children and is made to become a child bearing machine because of her ignorance of how to prevent it. She dreads the coming of another baby and lives in constant terror of unwanted pregnancies. The husband on the other hand is also unable to cope with the burden of a large family. It is this which keeps him compelled to accept any wage. It is the cries of the little ones which compel him to be the last one out on strike and the first one back. It makes it impossible for him to save a cent for a "rainy day" or for sickness, which in turn compels him to remain in one place, while his brother with one or two children can seek better conditions elsewhere.

Everything is against the working man with a large family. Factories and mills are hungry for his children. Juvenile Courts and dens of prostitution, jails or the trenches of war are waiting for his growing sons and daughters. The facts are that the working class produce too many children, too many for their own personal comfort, too many for the health and development of the mothers, too many for he good of their class. It is they themselves who are the sinners, in thus making worse their own wretched conditions by perpetuating poverty for generations to come. We have the statistics regarding unemployment, emigration, maternal and infantile mortality, and they all prove that there are too many babies born form the working class parents."

Liberals, Progressives, socialists, communists, whatever....

This, about your heroine, Margaret Sanger:

It was in 1939 that Sanger's larger vision for dealing with the reproductive practices of black Americans emerged. After the January 1939 merger of her Clinical Research Bureau and the ABCL to form the Birth Control Federation of America, Dr. Clarence J. Gamble was selected to become the BCFA regional director for the South. Dr. Gamble, of the soap-manufacturing Procter and Gamble company, was no newcomer to Sanger's organization. He had previously served as director at large to the predecessor ABCL.

Gamble lost no time and drew up a memorandum in November 1939 entitled "Suggestion for Negro Project." Acknowledging that black leaders might regard birth control as an extermination plot, he suggested that black leaders be place in positions where it would appear that they were in charge, as it was at an Atlanta conference.

It is evident from the rest of the memo that Gamble conceived the project almost as a traveling road show. A charismatic black minister was to start a revival, with "contributions" to come from other local cooperating ministers. A "colored nurse" would follow, supported by a subsidized "colored doctor." Gamble even suggested that music might be a useful lure to bring the prospects to a meeting.

Sanger answered Gamble on Dec. 10. 1939, agreeing with the assessment. She wrote: "We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." In 1940, money for two "Negro Project" demonstration programs in southern states was donated by advertising magnate Albert D. Lasker and his wife, Mary.
BlackGenocide.org | The Truth About Margaret Sanger - Page Two


So....you stand proudly with Sanger....

.....interesting.

Why don't you address the FACT that in what I quoted she made almost exactly the same argument you did?

You remain the poster equivalent of Windows Vista.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Your argument is for who should or shouldn't have children, according to their circumstances.

That is the core principle of eugenics.

The central theme of your original post is how badly things turned out because this woman had a child she should not have had.

You support discouraging certain people in certain circumstances from having children because the outcome is likely to be negative.

That is eugenics. What's wrong with saying so, if it's a good policy?

You're mad. You know that, right?

You're the worst debater on this forum,

right after PoliticalChic leaves.

Uh-huh. PoliticalChic and I know all about Sanger and her ilk. She's one of yours. We know what eugenics is. Like I said, you're mad.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're mad. You know that, right?

You're the worst debater on this forum,

right after PoliticalChic leaves.

Uh-huh. PoliticalChic and I know all about Sanger and her ilk. She's one of yours. We know what eugenics is. Like I said, you're mad.

Eugenics.....

Communism, socialism, Modern Liberalism, Progressivism....whatever....

All hold human life in disrepute.


"In 1917 a new state came into existence, the Soviet Union, whose premises were a radical departure from those of previous societies. Many Western intellectuals seriously misjudged that new state—what it was and what it was to become.....

Horrors developed within that society, one of the greatest of which was the mass killing in the 30s of millions of its leading farmers. Even during those horrors, the excitement of the theory continued to appeal to the pride, and in some ways the arrogance, of many in Western intellectual leadership who rationalized by saying that you cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs. "
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=1978&month=09



What kind of individuals hold mass slaughter on the same plane as "breaking eggs"?

Barbarians.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're mad. You know that, right?

You're the worst debater on this forum,

right after PoliticalChic leaves.

Uh-huh. PoliticalChic and I know all about Sanger and her ilk. She's one of yours. We know what eugenics is. Like I said, you're mad.

Point of order!

"Mad" is not synonymous with "evil."

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're mad. You know that, right?

You're the worst debater on this forum,

right after PoliticalChic leaves.

Uh-huh. PoliticalChic and I know all about Sanger and her ilk. She's one of yours. We know what eugenics is. Like I said, you're mad.

What part do you disagree with?

That discouraging poor women from having children they can't afford to care for is a form of eugenics,

or that PoliticaChic doesn't support that sort of discouragement?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Liberals, Progressives, socialists, communists, whatever....

This, about your heroine, Margaret Sanger:

It was in 1939 that Sanger's larger vision for dealing with the reproductive practices of black Americans emerged. After the January 1939 merger of her Clinical Research Bureau and the ABCL to form the Birth Control Federation of America, Dr. Clarence J. Gamble was selected to become the BCFA regional director for the South. Dr. Gamble, of the soap-manufacturing Procter and Gamble company, was no newcomer to Sanger's organization. He had previously served as director at large to the predecessor ABCL.

Gamble lost no time and drew up a memorandum in November 1939 entitled "Suggestion for Negro Project." Acknowledging that black leaders might regard birth control as an extermination plot, he suggested that black leaders be place in positions where it would appear that they were in charge, as it was at an Atlanta conference.

It is evident from the rest of the memo that Gamble conceived the project almost as a traveling road show. A charismatic black minister was to start a revival, with "contributions" to come from other local cooperating ministers. A "colored nurse" would follow, supported by a subsidized "colored doctor." Gamble even suggested that music might be a useful lure to bring the prospects to a meeting.

Sanger answered Gamble on Dec. 10. 1939, agreeing with the assessment. She wrote: "We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." In 1940, money for two "Negro Project" demonstration programs in southern states was donated by advertising magnate Albert D. Lasker and his wife, Mary.
BlackGenocide.org | The Truth About Margaret Sanger - Page Two


So....you stand proudly with Sanger....

.....interesting.

Why don't you address the FACT that in what I quoted she made almost exactly the same argument you did?

You remain the poster equivalent of Windows Vista.

You're Catholic, right?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why don't you address the FACT that in what I quoted she made almost exactly the same argument you did?

You remain the poster equivalent of Windows Vista.

You're Catholic, right?

None of your business.

 

[Care4all]

NO, you found a term for which you can attempt to deflect.
If you cannot fathom the concept of personal responsibility, tough shit.

Let me quote Margaret Sanger:

"We find the real reason that 300,000 babies died last year in the United States was that their fathers could not make enough to keep them alive. The more mothers must work in factories and sweat shops, the larger the number of deaths among their babies. To the father who makes $25.00 a week the death rate of infants is less than 84 per 1000. If he makes less than $10.00 a week, they die at the rate of over 256 per 1000. Every 300,000 babies that die from poverty and neglect has 600,000 parents who remain in ignorance of the means to prevent 300,000 more babies from coming into the world the next year to die of poverty and neglect.

Every woman who tries to exist on her husband's wage of $10.00 or $12.00 a week knows she cannot decently care for a large family. She does not want more than two or three children and is made to become a child bearing machine because of her ignorance of how to prevent it. She dreads the coming of another baby and lives in constant terror of unwanted pregnancies. The husband on the other hand is also unable to cope with the burden of a large family. It is this which keeps him compelled to accept any wage. It is the cries of the little ones which compel him to be the last one out on strike and the first one back. It makes it impossible for him to save a cent for a "rainy day" or for sickness, which in turn compels him to remain in one place, while his brother with one or two children can seek better conditions elsewhere.

Everything is against the working man with a large family. Factories and mills are hungry for his children. Juvenile Courts and dens of prostitution, jails or the trenches of war are waiting for his growing sons and daughters. The facts are that the working class produce too many children, too many for their own personal comfort, too many for the health and development of the mothers, too many for he good of their class. It is they themselves who are the sinners, in thus making worse their own wretched conditions by perpetuating poverty for generations to come. We have the statistics regarding unemployment, emigration, maternal and infantile mortality, and they all prove that there are too many babies born form the working class parents."

Liberals, Progressives, socialists, communists, whatever....

This, about your heroine, Margaret Sanger:

It was in 1939 that Sanger's larger vision for dealing with the reproductive practices of black Americans emerged. After the January 1939 merger of her Clinical Research Bureau and the ABCL to form the Birth Control Federation of America, Dr. Clarence J. Gamble was selected to become the BCFA regional director for the South. Dr. Gamble, of the soap-manufacturing Procter and Gamble company, was no newcomer to Sanger's organization. He had previously served as director at large to the predecessor ABCL.

Gamble lost no time and drew up a memorandum in November 1939 entitled "Suggestion for Negro Project." Acknowledging that black leaders might regard birth control as an extermination plot, he suggested that black leaders be place in positions where it would appear that they were in charge, as it was at an Atlanta conference.

It is evident from the rest of the memo that Gamble conceived the project almost as a traveling road show. A charismatic black minister was to start a revival, with "contributions" to come from other local cooperating ministers. A "colored nurse" would follow, supported by a subsidized "colored doctor." Gamble even suggested that music might be a useful lure to bring the prospects to a meeting.

Sanger answered Gamble on Dec. 10. 1939, agreeing with the assessment. She wrote: "We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." In 1940, money for two "Negro Project" demonstration programs in southern states was donated by advertising magnate Albert D. Lasker and his wife, Mary.
BlackGenocide.org | The Truth About Margaret Sanger - Page Two


So....you stand proudly with Sanger....

.....interesting.

Herman Cain?s rewriting of birth-control history - The Washington Post

Cain?s False Attack on Planned Parenthood

Cain claims Planned Parenthood founded for "planned genocide" | PolitiFact Georgia

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let me quote Margaret Sanger:

"We find the real reason that 300,000 babies died last year in the United States was that their fathers could not make enough to keep them alive. The more mothers must work in factories and sweat shops, the larger the number of deaths among their babies. To the father who makes $25.00 a week the death rate of infants is less than 84 per 1000. If he makes less than $10.00 a week, they die at the rate of over 256 per 1000. Every 300,000 babies that die from poverty and neglect has 600,000 parents who remain in ignorance of the means to prevent 300,000 more babies from coming into the world the next year to die of poverty and neglect.

Every woman who tries to exist on her husband's wage of $10.00 or $12.00 a week knows she cannot decently care for a large family. She does not want more than two or three children and is made to become a child bearing machine because of her ignorance of how to prevent it. She dreads the coming of another baby and lives in constant terror of unwanted pregnancies. The husband on the other hand is also unable to cope with the burden of a large family. It is this which keeps him compelled to accept any wage. It is the cries of the little ones which compel him to be the last one out on strike and the first one back. It makes it impossible for him to save a cent for a "rainy day" or for sickness, which in turn compels him to remain in one place, while his brother with one or two children can seek better conditions elsewhere.

Everything is against the working man with a large family. Factories and mills are hungry for his children. Juvenile Courts and dens of prostitution, jails or the trenches of war are waiting for his growing sons and daughters. The facts are that the working class produce too many children, too many for their own personal comfort, too many for the health and development of the mothers, too many for he good of their class. It is they themselves who are the sinners, in thus making worse their own wretched conditions by perpetuating poverty for generations to come. We have the statistics regarding unemployment, emigration, maternal and infantile mortality, and they all prove that there are too many babies born form the working class parents."

Liberals, Progressives, socialists, communists, whatever....

This, about your heroine, Margaret Sanger:

It was in 1939 that Sanger's larger vision for dealing with the reproductive practices of black Americans emerged. After the January 1939 merger of her Clinical Research Bureau and the ABCL to form the Birth Control Federation of America, Dr. Clarence J. Gamble was selected to become the BCFA regional director for the South. Dr. Gamble, of the soap-manufacturing Procter and Gamble company, was no newcomer to Sanger's organization. He had previously served as director at large to the predecessor ABCL.

Gamble lost no time and drew up a memorandum in November 1939 entitled "Suggestion for Negro Project." Acknowledging that black leaders might regard birth control as an extermination plot, he suggested that black leaders be place in positions where it would appear that they were in charge, as it was at an Atlanta conference.

It is evident from the rest of the memo that Gamble conceived the project almost as a traveling road show. A charismatic black minister was to start a revival, with "contributions" to come from other local cooperating ministers. A "colored nurse" would follow, supported by a subsidized "colored doctor." Gamble even suggested that music might be a useful lure to bring the prospects to a meeting.

Sanger answered Gamble on Dec. 10. 1939, agreeing with the assessment. She wrote: "We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." In 1940, money for two "Negro Project" demonstration programs in southern states was donated by advertising magnate Albert D. Lasker and his wife, Mary.
BlackGenocide.org | The Truth About Margaret Sanger - Page Two


So....you stand proudly with Sanger....

.....interesting.

Herman Cain?s rewriting of birth-control history - The Washington Post

Cain?s False Attack on Planned Parenthood

Cain claims Planned Parenthood founded for "planned genocide" | PolitiFact Georgia

The Liberal poster named and quoted Margaret Sanger....

...so you brought up Herman Cain....why?

Out of embarrassment?

Obfuscation?

Confusion?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You remain the poster equivalent of Windows Vista.

You're Catholic, right?

None of your business.

I'll take that as a yes. Why do you oppose birth control as a sin if you think it's also a sin for poor people to have too many children?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let me quote Margaret Sanger:

"We find the real reason that 300,000 babies died last year in the United States was that their fathers could not make enough to keep them alive. The more mothers must work in factories and sweat shops, the larger the number of deaths among their babies. To the father who makes $25.00 a week the death rate of infants is less than 84 per 1000. If he makes less than $10.00 a week, they die at the rate of over 256 per 1000. Every 300,000 babies that die from poverty and neglect has 600,000 parents who remain in ignorance of the means to prevent 300,000 more babies from coming into the world the next year to die of poverty and neglect.

Every woman who tries to exist on her husband's wage of $10.00 or $12.00 a week knows she cannot decently care for a large family. She does not want more than two or three children and is made to become a child bearing machine because of her ignorance of how to prevent it. She dreads the coming of another baby and lives in constant terror of unwanted pregnancies. The husband on the other hand is also unable to cope with the burden of a large family. It is this which keeps him compelled to accept any wage. It is the cries of the little ones which compel him to be the last one out on strike and the first one back. It makes it impossible for him to save a cent for a "rainy day" or for sickness, which in turn compels him to remain in one place, while his brother with one or two children can seek better conditions elsewhere.

Everything is against the working man with a large family. Factories and mills are hungry for his children. Juvenile Courts and dens of prostitution, jails or the trenches of war are waiting for his growing sons and daughters. The facts are that the working class produce too many children, too many for their own personal comfort, too many for the health and development of the mothers, too many for he good of their class. It is they themselves who are the sinners, in thus making worse their own wretched conditions by perpetuating poverty for generations to come. We have the statistics regarding unemployment, emigration, maternal and infantile mortality, and they all prove that there are too many babies born form the working class parents."

Liberals, Progressives, socialists, communists, whatever....

This, about your heroine, Margaret Sanger:

It was in 1939 that Sanger's larger vision for dealing with the reproductive practices of black Americans emerged. After the January 1939 merger of her Clinical Research Bureau and the ABCL to form the Birth Control Federation of America, Dr. Clarence J. Gamble was selected to become the BCFA regional director for the South. Dr. Gamble, of the soap-manufacturing Procter and Gamble company, was no newcomer to Sanger's organization. He had previously served as director at large to the predecessor ABCL.

Gamble lost no time and drew up a memorandum in November 1939 entitled "Suggestion for Negro Project." Acknowledging that black leaders might regard birth control as an extermination plot, he suggested that black leaders be place in positions where it would appear that they were in charge, as it was at an Atlanta conference.

It is evident from the rest of the memo that Gamble conceived the project almost as a traveling road show. A charismatic black minister was to start a revival, with "contributions" to come from other local cooperating ministers. A "colored nurse" would follow, supported by a subsidized "colored doctor." Gamble even suggested that music might be a useful lure to bring the prospects to a meeting.

Sanger answered Gamble on Dec. 10. 1939, agreeing with the assessment. She wrote: "We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." In 1940, money for two "Negro Project" demonstration programs in southern states was donated by advertising magnate Albert D. Lasker and his wife, Mary.
BlackGenocide.org | The Truth About Margaret Sanger - Page Two


So....you stand proudly with Sanger....

.....interesting.

Herman Cain?s rewriting of birth-control history - The Washington Post

Cain?s False Attack on Planned Parenthood

Cain claims Planned Parenthood founded for "planned genocide" | PolitiFact Georgia

Birth control is genocide? So discouraging poor people, including poor black Americans, from having too many children

is a crime against humanity?

PoliticalChic is a genocidal maniac?

lol