Are there actually any Republicans on here?

[ondaflipside]

I will vote for Romney in this next election.

[Deleted]

Sept 18, 2012 10:48:06 GMT -5 soozy87 said:

So yeah, I am fine helping people who need help because of an unplanned baby. But I give the side-eye to people who have lots of kids just so they can get more assistance from the government.

If you believe the vast majority of people are having kids just to get money from the government, you're completely oblivious to how these people live. Have you ever been in an inner city? Fabulous, let me tell you. Sign me up for having tons of babies so I can live in a crack house too!

[soozy87]

Sept 18, 2012 10:47:46 GMT -5 @cookiemonster03 said:

Sept 18, 2012 10:41:01 GMT -5 soozy87 said:

Absoultly not! I am refering to the people who never get out of "the system" because they don't want to. If people are unemployed, or down on their luck for whatever reason I am more than happy to help them out. People who abuse the system come in all types.

do you have any idea how hard it is TO get out of the system/poverty? Pretend you grew up with an uneducated single mom. You started working at 12, 14, maybe 16. You went to a crappy high school. You may or may not have gotten pregnant, perhaps because of poor sex ed, perhaps because as far as you know, everyone has babies at 16 or 18. Now you're working one or two jobs at an hourly wage, likely making just over min wage. You live in a food desert. You may rely on public transit, which is spotty at best. How exactly to you plan to get out this situation?

I'm not trying to be snarky, but it is just NOT that easy to change your SES.

It is exactly people like that that need help. That person is doing their best and they are not abusing the system. If they need help I am all for it. It takes a long time to change your SES, but I think that it can be done. Maybe not by yourself, but it will never happen if the person doesn't want it for themselves and for their kids.

[stingsharkruns]

This has been a very interesting post - I've actually learned a few things - thought about things I hadn't considered before.

[soozy87]

Sept 18, 2012 10:52:19 GMT -5 @iheartcosmos said:

Sept 18, 2012 10:48:06 GMT -5 soozy87 said:

So yeah, I am fine helping people who need help because of an unplanned baby. But I give the side-eye to people who have lots of kids just so they can get more assistance from the government.

If you believe the vast majority of people are having kids just to get money from the government, you're completely oblivious to how these people live. Have you ever been in an inner city? Fabulous, let me tell you. Sign me up for having tons of babies so I can live in a crack house too!

I never said that. I am sure there are people like that, but like I have said, the people who need the help, who are trying to help themselves and need a little extra helping hand, those are the people that it is worth it having these programs for.

[soozy87]

Sept 18, 2012 10:53:22 GMT -5 carrotsmakemefat said:

Sept 18, 2012 10:48:06 GMT -5 soozy87 said:

I would rather pay for the healthcare for the baby and the mother than to see the baby die because the mother can't get coverage. That being said, I would also like the mother, and the father to do everything they can to be able to provide for that child as well as themselves.

If we are going to have the social welfare programs I would rather they serve the people that need them than the people that want them. To be able to actually help people to the point that they can become self sufficiant, that would be great.

So yeah, I am fine helping people who need help because of an unplanned baby. But I give the side-eye to people who have lots of kids just so they can get more assistance from the government.

This makes sense. I just worry that the "party" itself would still want to reduce the funding to make that almost impossible.

I get the ideal of wanting people to WANT to take care of themselves. It's just not the reality.

I think we can both agree that some changes to how/who gets assistance is needed, because we all know there are gaps & people take advantage.

Yes for sure! The system is broken. People who need the help aren't getting it. I dont know what the right way to do it is, but I don't think that the current way is the best way.

[phoenixrising]

I am a registered Republican. I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I don't generally vote on social issues, however, at least in the current economic climate.

[soozy87]

Sept 18, 2012 10:56:20 GMT -5 nuggetbrain said:

The minute I hear someone use their religion as the reason they vote a certain way then I stop listening. Because what that tells me is that they want their religion and religious beliefs to dictate the laws of the country. Which means they want a theocracy. Go ask the entire goddamn Middle East how that's worked out for them so far.

What is the reason that you vote the way you do?

[msamyfarrahfowler]

[ quote author=carrotsmakemefat board=mm thread=59576 post=961245 time=1347982708]

Sept 18, 2012 9:47:08 GMT -5 soozy87 said:

In my opinion abortions are killing babies. It's not right to kill something innocent and helpless.

Gay marriage- I base my belief system on my Christian background and because of that I think that gay marriage is not natural or right.

I won't bash you because you didn't post for that purpose, and I also appreciate your input.

I agree that a fetus is a baby. I personally could never have an abortion. That said, i don't feel the gov't should tell me what to do with my body.

I also have a question because this confuses me. The Republicans generally want to cut funding for various government programs that help those less fortunate. But if you aren't allowed to have an abortion (if Roe. v. Wade were reversed), what happens to all the babies and mothers who can not afford health care? Who can't afford day care? Is that really Pro Life if you can't afford to care for your kid?

Honest question, I promise I am not causing drama. [/quote]

Maybe it would deter ppl from having babies they can't afford. Maybe it would force the parents to find a J O B. Maybe it would force the mother to rely on charity from her community and church. Maybe it would force the mother to give up the child for adoption in a home that is financially sound. I'm pro choice, and I agree that there are grey areas and lots of catch 22s. Just thinking outloud here...I don't intend to cause drama either

ETA: yikes, I messed up the quote function somehow...

[Deleted]

Sept 18, 2012 10:57:28 GMT -5 carrotsmakemefat said:

Sept 18, 2012 10:52:19 GMT -5 @iheartcosmos said:

If you believe the vast majority of people are having kids just to get money from the government, you're completely oblivious to how these people live. Have you ever been in an inner city? Fabulous, let me tell you. Sign me up for having tons of babies so I can live in a crack house too!

While these people are not the majority, there are people who do this. The problem is the few are exploited and the Republicans make it look like a humungous issue.

I personally know someone (through a friend) who literally has 6 kids. She got gov't money for the first kid. Found out how much she could get for the 2nd kid, etc. It makes me very sad that people feel they need to have another baby to make extra money. She works on and off, mostly by choice.

A nestie friend from an old local board I was on would apply for jobs, kept getting her unemployment, and really felt justified in doing so. She would F up job interviews so she didn't HAVE to go back to work. She wanted to be at home, but she still needed to prove to the state that she was TRYING to get a job.

Sadly, these cases do exist. As I said, and I will repeat, it is a minority I think, but it is made to look like the majority.

I have a lot of comments here that I won't get into, but it would probably be useful for you to know that unemployment is a form of insurance, and not a government handout.

[soozy87]

Sept 18, 2012 10:57:28 GMT -5 carrotsmakemefat said:

Sept 18, 2012 10:52:19 GMT -5 @iheartcosmos said:

If you believe the vast majority of people are having kids just to get money from the government, you're completely oblivious to how these people live. Have you ever been in an inner city? Fabulous, let me tell you. Sign me up for having tons of babies so I can live in a crack house too!

While these people are not the majority, there are people who do this. The problem is the few are exploited and the Republicans make it look like a humungous issue.

I personally know someone (through a friend) who literally has 6 kids. She got gov't money for the first kid. Found out how much she could get for the 2nd kid, etc. It makes me very sad that people feel they need to have another baby to make extra money. She works on and off, mostly by choice.

A nestie friend from an old local board I was on would apply for jobs, kept getting her unemployment, and really felt justified in doing so. She would F up job interviews so she didn't HAVE to go back to work. She wanted to be at home, but she still needed to prove to the state that she was TRYING to get a job.

Sadly, these cases do exist. As I said, and I will repeat, it is a minority I think, but it is made to look like the majority.

I am one of 5 kids. I come from a family where my mom didn't work and my dad didn't have the most high paying job. I think that large families are great, but I think it is possible to have a large family and be able to take care of that family.

It is people like this woman that you know that, maybe not ruin it for everyone, but leave people with a bad taste in their mouth. I am sure there are tons of stories out there about people overcoming all of that and living a happy life.

[soozy87]

Sept 18, 2012 11:00:45 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

Sept 18, 2012 10:49:57 GMT -5 soozy87 said:

What about babies that are born early? Why should one get the "rights" of a baby at 6 months post-conception and another at 9 months?

Um, because it's been born. Born early or born on time still = born and no longer living in it's mother's body. Your argument only makes any kind of sense because you are using a timeline based on conception and can't see past that.

But I don't see how one minute it is a baby and instantly it can gain all of the rights as a human. Please explain.

[Deleted]

Sept 18, 2012 10:51:38 GMT -5 liveintheville said:

Sept 18, 2012 10:49:41 GMT -5 @iheartcosmos said:

um, you didn't pay exactly what you are getting out. The amount you paid into it was a lot less than what you will be getting.

Interesting that you know this.

Ok, I don't KNOW this. I'm sorry for assuming. However, its called "insurance"-- the whole premise is that you pay lower premiums to what is paid out. I certainly got a lot more of state disability when I was pg than I paid into the program. But I am not familiar with SSDI so I apologize for the assumption.

Also, I'm sorry I offended you for calling it a social program, but I still believe it is. Again, I am paying the government back WAY more than I borrowed for my student loans and I believe that is a social program as well. That being said, I don't see anything wrong with it. You are on it because you qualify and I'm glad it is around to help you.

[Mrs.Beagle]

People who think we're a nation founded on Christian beliefs needs to pick up a history book. Just not one from Texas.

Also, someone should insert SBP's post about abortion and personhood here.

[soozy87]

Sept 18, 2012 11:01:44 GMT -5 v said:

Sept 18, 2012 10:57:28 GMT -5 carrotsmakemefat said:

While these people are not the majority, there are people who do this. The problem is the few are exploited and the Republicans make it look like a humungous issue.

I personally know someone (through a friend) who literally has 6 kids. She got gov't money for the first kid. Found out how much she could get for the 2nd kid, etc. It makes me very sad that people feel they need to have another baby to make extra money. She works on and off, mostly by choice.

A nestie friend from an old local board I was on would apply for jobs, kept getting her unemployment, and really felt justified in doing so. She would F up job interviews so she didn't HAVE to go back to work. She wanted to be at home, but she still needed to prove to the state that she was TRYING to get a job.

Sadly, these cases do exist. As I said, and I will repeat, it is a minority I think, but it is made to look like the majority.

I have a lot of comments here that I won't get into, but it would probably be useful for you to know that unemployment is a form of insurance, and not a government handout.

So v, you think what this woman did is okay because it is insurance? Itsn't unemployment at least partially funded by the government? I know that companies pay for unemployment insurance, but I don't think they pay for 100% of it. I could be wrong.

[liveintheville]

Sept 18, 2012 11:04:18 GMT -5 @iheartcosmos said:

Sept 18, 2012 10:51:38 GMT -5 liveintheville said:

Interesting that you know this.

Ok, I don't KNOW this. I'm sorry for assuming. However, its called "insurance"-- the whole premise is that you pay lower premiums to what is paid out. I certainly got a lot more of state disability when I was pg than I paid into the program. But I am not familiar with SSDI so I apologize for the assumption.

Also, I'm sorry I offended you for calling it a social program, but I still believe it is. Again, I am paying the government back WAY more than I borrowed for my student loans and I believe that is a social program as well. That being said, I don't see anything wrong with it. You are on it because you qualify and I'm glad it is around to help you.

No no no. Sorry didn't mean to imply that you offended me. We're always cool

I just meant I've never actually done the math and honestly it never really occurred to me to do so. Sorry the "interesting" part was more a mental hmmm.... to myself. Because most people say they'll pay more into SS than they ever expect to collect.

And I get what you're saying regarding it being a social welfare program.

[soozy87]

Sept 18, 2012 11:06:05 GMT -5 nuggetbrain said:

Sept 18, 2012 10:57:44 GMT -5 soozy87 said:

What is the reason that you vote the way you do?

Life experiences, social justice, a belief in the rights of others, a desire to see my country succeed. If I was an atheist, I would have enough respect for those who aren't that I wouldn't desire that the Christians in our country are forced to follow my on personal laws in their daily lives by doing things like removing religious-run schools and colleges, making it illegal to pray in public or in schools, etc. I know many people who are Christians, and who would never themselves have an abortion but who also know that their own personal religious beliefs should NEVER dictate the rights of others.

Note that I said religious beliefs, not just beliefs that go against mine. If you are truely pro-life (as mentioned before) then while I don't agree with you, I can understand and respect your point of view. I cannot respect it, however, when the only answer to "why do you vote this way" is a straight "because God says so."

I don't think that I ever said that though. I said that my voting methods were "based" on my religious beliefs. There are other things that help my decisions along. For example, I agree with you, I also want our country to succeed and I want people to live peacefully with eachother. I want everyone to be able to provide for their familes and a comforble old age, among other things.

[amberatkins]

Sept 18, 2012 11:03:56 GMT -5 soozy87 said:

But I don't see how one minute it is a baby and instantly it can gain all of the rights as a human. Please explain.

Because it is once it is born, it is a separate physical entity, whereas before it was physically joined to and living inside of its mother?

[Deleted]

Sept 18, 2012 11:08:40 GMT -5 liveintheville said:

Sept 18, 2012 11:04:18 GMT -5 @iheartcosmos said:

Ok, I don't KNOW this. I'm sorry for assuming. However, its called "insurance"-- the whole premise is that you pay lower premiums to what is paid out. I certainly got a lot more of state disability when I was pg than I paid into the program. But I am not familiar with SSDI so I apologize for the assumption.

Also, I'm sorry I offended you for calling it a social program, but I still believe it is. Again, I am paying the government back WAY more than I borrowed for my student loans and I believe that is a social program as well. That being said, I don't see anything wrong with it. You are on it because you qualify and I'm glad it is around to help you.

No no no. Sorry didn't mean to imply that you offended me. We're always cool

I just meant I've never actually done the math and honestly it never really occurred to me to do so. Sorry the "interesting" part was more a mental hmmm.... to myself. Because most people say they'll pay more into SS than they ever expect to collect.

And I get what you're saying regarding it being a social welfare program.

ok, good, you know I love ya!

I think people who say that are referring to SS retirement, not SSDI, which are two different balls of wax.

[SJ]

Sept 18, 2012 10:57:44 GMT -5 soozy87 said:

Sept 18, 2012 10:56:20 GMT -5 nuggetbrain said:

The minute I hear someone use their religion as the reason they vote a certain way then I stop listening. Because what that tells me is that they want their religion and religious beliefs to dictate the laws of the country. Which means they want a theocracy. Go ask the entire goddamn Middle East how that's worked out for them so far.

What is the reason that you vote the way you do?

This is interesting to me. I am grateful beyond belief that I live in a country where I can be as religious or non-religious as I want to be, where I can make decisions for myself and my body without government interference. You, soozy, will have MORE freedom to practice your religious beliefs if we continue to maintain this country as one that is not dictated by the beliefs of one particular religion.

If you fight too hard to establish a theocracy, you are setting a terrible precedent that might one day turn against you. Imagine sending your child to public school and having them pray to a god you do not believe in. What if Islamic beliefs were legislated into law and it was no longer legal for any American to eat pork? Wouldn't you be furious? Just because you happen to be in the "majority" right now, doesn't give you the right to legally mandate your religious views to everyone living in this country.

Unfortunately, right now not everyone in this country has equal rights and freedom. I will never be able to vote for a candidate that does not advocate civil rights and equality for ALL. If I want to be free to practice my religious beliefs, it is only logical and fair that I have to extend that freedom to others.

[soozy87]

Sept 18, 2012 11:07:12 GMT -5 @cookiemonster03 said:

Sept 18, 2012 10:53:25 GMT -5 soozy87 said:

It is exactly people like that that need help. That person is doing their best and they are not abusing the system. If they need help I am all for it. It takes a long time to change your SES, but I think that it can be done. Maybe not by yourself, but it will never happen if the person doesn't want it for themselves and for their kids.

As other posters have said, the percentage of people abusing the system is not huge. There are a lot of legitimately poor people out there. The efforts it would take to get whole communities out of poverty is quite substantial. Would you support additional funding, sex ed, job/career training for low income communities as a whole?

The efforts needed are huge, I agree. But people need to take some responsibility for their actions and for themselves and help the government out if that I how it has to be.

And yes I would.

[Deleted]

Sept 18, 2012 11:10:02 GMT -5 amberatkins said:

Sept 18, 2012 11:03:56 GMT -5 soozy87 said:

But I don't see how one minute it is a baby and instantly it can gain all of the rights as a human. Please explain.

Because it is once it is born, it is a separate physical entity, whereas before it was physically joined to and living inside of its mother?

This.

Attached to mother = parasite = no legal rights.
Once out of the mother AND ALIVE = person = legal rights.

[Deleted]

Sept 18, 2012 11:06:09 GMT -5 soozy87 said:

Sept 18, 2012 11:01:44 GMT -5 v said:

I have a lot of comments here that I won't get into, but it would probably be useful for you to know that unemployment is a form of insurance, and not a government handout.

So v, you think what this woman did is okay because it is insurance? Itsn't unemployment at least partially funded by the government? I know that companies pay for unemployment insurance, but I don't think they pay for 100% of it. I could be wrong.

I'm not sure what government funding goes into unemployment insurance. Clearly companies don't pay for 100% of it because we pay in too.

I didn't say that what she's doing is right -- committing insurance fraud is obviously not a good thing to do. But I don't think that it really has much correlation with the tale about the friend of a friend of carrots' who supposedly had children in order to get money from the government.

Not that personal anecdotes really matter anyway. Two unrelated stories (that don't sound like full stories anyway) of people milking systems don't say much in general about a country with what, 300,000,000 people?

[mollz007]

I think I am probably financially conservitave, or however you would say that. Otherwise Im all liberal, I have never voted republican in the past, but I am only 24 so I have not voted in that many elections, so it may happen.

[liveintheville]

Sept 18, 2012 11:10:38 GMT -5 @iheartcosmos said:

Sept 18, 2012 11:08:40 GMT -5 liveintheville said:

No no no. Sorry didn't mean to imply that you offended me. We're always cool

I just meant I've never actually done the math and honestly it never really occurred to me to do so. Sorry the "interesting" part was more a mental hmmm.... to myself. Because most people say they'll pay more into SS than they ever expect to collect.

And I get what you're saying regarding it being a social welfare program.

ok, good, you know I love ya!

I think people who say that are referring to SS retirement, not SSDI, which are two different balls of wax.

No prob! You just brought up an interesting point to me, that's all

[InBetweenDays]

Sept 18, 2012 11:03:56 GMT -5 soozy87 said:

Sept 18, 2012 11:00:45 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

Um, because it's been born. Born early or born on time still = born and no longer living in it's mother's body. Your argument only makes any kind of sense because you are using a timeline based on conception and can't see past that.

But I don't see how one minute it is a baby and instantly it can gain all of the rights as a human. Please explain.

A fetus does not have personhood status or constitutional rights, and providing rights to a fetus would conflict with the rights of the pregnant woman.

[phunluvin82]

I just want to throw my 2 cents in here. I grew up in an upper-middle class household in a very vanilla suburb. My public high school sent over 80% of its graduates to 4 year colleges. Because it was a good school because it was in an upper-middle income, white collar area. My H.S. had plenty of funding from local tax dollars, therefore had plenty of resources. Additionally, many families in my community could afford to fund some, if not all, of their children's college educations. I leaned Republican only because my parents did and I didn't really follow or understand many of the issues. I had the same negative idea about "welfare" recipients that a lot of people who have never actually *met* a poor person do.

Then, I worked in an inner city High School for 5 years. Changed my ENTIRE outlook. Poverty is such a complex issue. Just saying, "Get off your ass and get a job" doesn't cut it. It just doesn't...and anyone who thinks there are plenty of jobs out there for poor and uneducated** people that would actually allow them to support *themselves*, let alone a child...is not living in reality.

**And when I say uneducated, I don't mean through their own faults. Imagine a school where the textbooks are a decade old. Where any money coming in goes to updating the metal detectors and hiring another security guard, instead of to new computers or books. Where the vast majority of students are reading 2 or more grades below grade level and exhausted and underpaid teachers are spending 90% of their school day trying to teach them how to pass the standardized test that will allow them to get a diploma...and the other 10% dealing with the issues (hunger, crime, drugs, etc) that the students bring into school with them.

/end rant

[soozy87]

Sept 18, 2012 11:11:42 GMT -5 SJ said:

Sept 18, 2012 10:57:44 GMT -5 soozy87 said:

What is the reason that you vote the way you do?

This is interesting to me. I am grateful beyond belief that I live in a country where I can be as religious or non-religious as I want to be, where I can make decisions for myself and my body without government interference. You, soozy, will have MORE freedom to practice your religious beliefs if we continue to maintain this country as one that is not dictated by the beliefs of one particular religion.

If you fight too hard to establish a theocracy, you are setting a terrible precedent that might one day turn against you. Imagine sending your child to public school and having them pray to a god you do not believe in. What if Islamic beliefs were legislated into law and it was no longer legal for any American to eat pork? Wouldn't you be furious? Just because you happen to be in the "majority" right now, doesn't give you the right to legally mandate your religious views to everyone living in this country.

Unfortunately, right now not everyone in this country has equal rights and freedom. I will never be able to vote for a candidate that does not advocate civil rights and equality for ALL. If I want to be free to practice my religious beliefs, it is only logical and fair that I have to extend that freedom to others.

I am not for establishing a theocracy. There are many types of religious schools where I live, like hopefully there are where you live. I don't want to shut them down. I don't want to mandate my religious views on to everyone. That is not how my religion works. That being said though I don't have a problem with the 10 Commandments, I bet most people don't (at least with 80%), it is just the fact that they are associated with a specific religion.

I am all for equality, but then this is where I have a hard time with many of you saying that babies aren't people.

[soozy87]

Sept 18, 2012 11:12:52 GMT -5 v said:

Sept 18, 2012 11:06:09 GMT -5 soozy87 said:

So v, you think what this woman did is okay because it is insurance? Itsn't unemployment at least partially funded by the government? I know that companies pay for unemployment insurance, but I don't think they pay for 100% of it. I could be wrong.

I'm not sure what government funding goes into unemployment insurance. Clearly companies don't pay for 100% of it because we pay in too.

I didn't say that what she's doing is right -- committing insurance fraud is obviously not a good thing to do. But I don't think that it really has much correlation with the tale about the friend of a friend of carrots' who supposedly had children in order to get money from the government.

Not that personal anecdotes really matter anyway. Two unrelated stories (that don't sound like full stories anyway) of people milking systems don't say much in general about a country with what, 300,000,000 people?

I agree.

[ijack]

Sept 18, 2012 11:11:42 GMT -5 SJ said:

Sept 18, 2012 10:57:44 GMT -5 soozy87 said:

What is the reason that you vote the way you do?

This is interesting to me. I am grateful beyond belief that I live in a country where I can be as religious or non-religious as I want to be, where I can make decisions for myself and my body without government interference. You, soozy, will have MORE freedom to practice your religious beliefs if we continue to maintain this country as one that is not dictated by the beliefs of one particular religion.

If you fight too hard to establish a theocracy, you are setting a terrible precedent that might one day turn against you. Imagine sending your child to public school and having them pray to a god you do not believe in. What if Islamic beliefs were legislated into law and it was no longer legal for any American to eat pork? Wouldn't you be furious? Just because you happen to be in the "majority" right now, doesn't give you the right to legally mandate your religious views to everyone living in this country.

Unfortunately, right now not everyone in this country has equal rights and freedom. I will never be able to vote for a candidate that does not advocate civil rights and equality for ALL. If I want to be free to practice my religious beliefs, it is only logical and fair that I have to extend that freedom to others.

<3