From the patron saint of the left.........Margaret Sanger.

 

I was thinking more of Joseph Goebbels.

 

Goebbels, if he said that was just parroting what Mrs Sanger had said. Planned Parenthood Abortion centers opened way before the Nazis came to power.

So, exactly at what point in one's lifetime economic cycle is acceptable to start a family?

 

When you have the means to be able to afford them

Please. Spare me. The guy at McDonalds has the same right to raise a family as the CEO of a Fortune 500 company or the middle-manager at a corporate job. You're telling me you believe that people making 7.50 an hour should be held in contempt for having children?

 

It's none of your business, none of my business, none of anyone's business if a person wants to have a child when they make $7.25/hr, just like it's none of my business if a person making millions wants to have children.

 

If they have children knowing that they can't afford them and expecting others to subsidize them the yes I do hold them in contempt.

It's interesting, this thread. One shouldn't start a family until one can "afford" to. We want to make damn sure that no one gets any benefits, but we don't want to pay a minimum wage that allows them to cover their basic needs. What the hell does a person do if they make the "mistake" of having a family? No one's advocating more people on aid...they're advocating a minum wage that moves them OFF aid.

Rights and abilities. Two different things RM. Someone making $7.50 an hour has all the same rights we do. Abilities is a totally different matter. Just like I don't have the ability to go by the new yacht that Bill Gates can. The guy making $7.50 might not have the ability to drive to French Lick and play an afternoon round of golf at a nice resort course the way I do because his income situation dictates that he can't...or maybe shouldn't.

 

And you sure have been good on this thread putting words in peoples mouths. So I hold people in contempt now that have children and make low wages? Where did I say that or give that idea? Maybe I should stop helping support my GF's little 1 yo grand daughter since I hold low wage earners in such contempt. I mean, after all her daughter makes barley more than minimum wage and shouldn't have had a baby, so it would be against my evil conservative principles to help out where I can. What was I thinking?

 

You're right in the point that it is none of my/your business who has children and how many they have. That is, if/when/until they start depending on the government for their needs, then it in reality becomes ALL of our business in a very indirect way.

 

Now...tell me where I was wrong in my original post?

 

I'm glad your girlfriends daughter has someone who cares to help her. What about another girl who doesn't? What is she to do? Or a young couple? The reality is there are people of all ages who have no one that either CAN or WILL help them. What of those people?

It's interesting, this thread. One shouldn't start a family until one can "afford" to. We want to make damn sure that no one gets any benefits, but we don't want to pay a minimum wage that allows them to cover their basic needs. What the hell does a person do if they make the "mistake" of having a family? No one's advocating more people on aid...they're advocating a minum wage that moves them OFF aid.

 

They take care of their decisions by bettering themselves, either through education, military service or other training, they work 2,3,4 jobs, they hustle….they don't ask for handouts, they accept help when they need it, but not because they believe they deserve it…..people make mistakes, I do not believe that children are mistakes….but someone should not expect to have a higher "living wage" just because they didn't better themselves….why should I have to foot the bill for someone when I got myself up and did what I had to do to better my position?!?!?!

 

This is America, where we can do and be anything we want…if we are willing to sacrifice and work hard….the problem is too many people think they "deserve" $15 / hr to pour my $4 coffee. I earned my right to purchase a $4 coffee with no help from anyone else….I deserve it because I did it, no one gave it to me.

 

Minimum wage is not intended to cover "basic needs". Minimum wage jobs are entry level, entry level into life…if you want to advance in life, then do something besides a minimum wage job, don't expect someone to hand it to you because you can't take care of your business.

I realize that our biases cause us to somewhat see things the way we went to see them, but I thought Grimes was extremely rude during the portion of the debate I watched (unfortunately, I only got to catch the tail end; working on my dang taxes until then). What you consider forceful, I considered unnecessary combative to the point of being evasive. She interrupted both McConnell and the moderator on several occasions, which drives me nuts every time regardless of who does it (maybe McConnell did so earlier in the debate). My take away was that she was desperate and flustered, and not yet ready for the big time and lacking on the fine skills and arts of persuasion. McConnell instead sat back and remained stoic and calm. He did have a stupid grin on his face like the cat that had just swallowed the pet parakeet though.

 

He kept beating her on being someone that will support Obama if she gets elected; she kept being him on being someone that has been up there for 30 years and thus is responsible for the mess in DC.

 

I have no idea if Grimes will be supportive of Obama if she gets elected. No one other than she can know that for certain. So McConnell may be wrong on that charge.

 

But I do know that if you disagree with President Obama's policies, in my opinion you can't say that McConnell is responsible for the mess in DC. At least not the mess caused by President Obama's policies. I'm sure there are some Tea Party members that say McConnell should have never compromised on any thing and McConnell should have taken President Obama to the mat on everything, and that caused the mess in DC. That's the black and white (and in my opinion unrealistic and impractical) world that the far right lives in (the far left lives there also, just on the other side of the planet). Then again, there are more moderate folks out there that say there was not enough willingness to compromise, which resulted in a constant state of "stalement", and that caused the mess in DC.

 

Being in Congress these days is a very tough balancing act because of the very different view points present in the US these days. Particularly when you are in a leadership position and have to be concerned about not only the issue at hand but the impact your position on a specific issue has on future issues.

 

It's quite easy to judge from the peanut gallery. It's true in sports; it's true in politics; and its true in every other aspect of life. Heck, just from my time on the KHSAA BOC and having read thread after thread on here about how the KHSAA screwed this up and screwed that up. 99% of the posters on here didn't have a clue about the facts of a particular decision and didn't have a clue about how a specific decision impacted other decisions. Did my best within privacy and other limitations to educate, but some members of the peanut gallery kept on roaring. Frankly, I think McConnell has done a pretty artful job opposing President Obama's policies. I'm sure that some will disagree on me, but McConnell has a well deserved reputation as being one of the shrewdest members of Congress. I genuinely doubt any Republican could have done a better job of opposing President Obama's policies.

 

Do I agree with every decision made and every position taken by McConnell? Nope. But I am sympathetic and understanding of the extremely difficult position he has been in as the Senate Minority Leader.

 

For me at least, it's almost impossible to believe that Grimes will be in a position, as a newly elected Democratic Senator, from stopping President Obama's policies from being implemented or reversing them. If she even tries, she will be placed on an island so distant from influence that she might as well blow up a volleyball and call it Wilson. McConnell, if re-elected, will have a much greater ability to stop President Obama's policies, particularly if the Senate goes Republican.

 

Crunching it down to one sentence: if you are opposed to President Obama and his policies, you vote for McConnell as you are certain he'll do everything within his powers and abilities to likewise oppose. It's that simple for me.

 

Well said and I agree, again with the majority of your position….I think the 99% of people not knowing the facts about BOC issues is a little heavy, but I'm glad to be in the 1 % !

Please. Spare me. The guy at McDonalds has the same right to raise a family as the CEO of a Fortune 500 company or the middle-manager at a corporate job. You're telling me you believe that people making 7.50 an hour should be held in contempt for having children?

 

It's none of your business, none of my business, none of anyone's business if a person wants to have a child when they make $7.25/hr, just like it's none of my business if a person making millions wants to have children.

 

It becomes my business when they want the government to subsidize their poor decision making with my tax dollars or laws forcing business owners to pay more money than a position is worth.

It's interesting, this thread. One shouldn't start a family until one can "afford" to. We want to make damn sure that no one gets any benefits, but we don't want to pay a minimum wage that allows them to cover their basic needs. What the hell does a person do if they make the "mistake" of having a family? No one's advocating more people on aid...they're advocating a minum wage that moves them OFF aid.

 

In what world was a single minimum wage job ever suppose to support the basic needs of a family. It's an entry level no skill position . If your skill set doesn't allow you to get a higher paying job then why is that individual only working one job?

So ppl who make minimum wage need to work more jobs and somehow go to school between those two jobs, and not have any children until they can afford to. Anything else to add?

In what world was a single minimum wage job ever suppose to support the basic needs of a family. It's an entry level no skill position . If your skill set doesn't allow you to get a higher paying job then why is that individual only working one job?

 

When your manufacturing jobs are being pulled right out from under you, what are you going to do with a high school education?

 

Go to college, get a degree, and then be unemployed because everyone who is working these low level positions are expected to continue their education.

So ppl who make minimum wage need to work more jobs and somehow go to school between those two jobs, and not have any children until they can afford to. Anything else to add?

 

So your answer is to have children when you can't afford. Makes perfect sense.

When your manufacturing jobs are being pulled right out from under you, what are you going to do with a high school education?

 

Go to college, get a degree, and then be unemployed because everyone who is working these low level positions are expected to continue their education.

 

Learn a skill ? Crazy idea I know.

So your answer is to have children when you can't afford. Makes perfect sense.

 

You're "afford" and my "afford" are probably not the same. You can have all the money in the world and still not "afford" to be a parent.

 

But like I said, should the rich be forced to have children since the poor shouldn't since they can't afford it?

Learn a skill ? Crazy idea I know.

 

And crowd another employment area with too a surplus of workers? Sure thing.

 

Let's get 10,000 plumbers out there when only 1,000 are needed. But hey! They know a trade!