You all know how I would vote. So lets see how many like me are out there.

That not what I said,

I asked what is your plan to take care of them?

I was a teenager of 19 when I got pregnant with my first child. I know all about being young and pregnant. I kept my baby. I'm glad I did. He is now 28 years old and doing fine. He went to HS and College and is making a good life for himself. I didn't want to have a baby at 19, when I could barely support my own self at the time. I did the best I could and made it work.

I started out with nothing, and was determined to grow and better myself. I could have stayed down and allowed the welfare programs to keep me down, but I didn't. That's the first option. Help yourself.

The second option would be adoption for the baby. Many parents want children and can't have them.

Another option is family. Many people who are young and/or poor have family around who love them and will help them.

Another option is the father of the child, or his family. They should be there to help raise the baby.

I believe that if abortion were not an option, then people will make due because they would have to. It beats killing them.

I can vote for the main election, Obama-Mccain but not when it was Hillary against Obama or Romney against Mccain.

See that? I think it's important to be able to choose who the running mate is going to be as well. I may stick it out as a republican.

I can vote for the main election, Obama-Mccain but not when it was Hillary against Obama or Romney against Mccain.

Our state has a closed primary - independents cannot vote. Most states have opened primaries where they can.

You mean you don't know her plan?

Well, giving up her baby for adoption (providing it's a healthy white infant - because that's the only demand) would be the first choice.

Maybe the white babies are in higher demand because there are more white people than black people who live in america. Did you ever think of that? There are many black couples who want to adopt babies as well, so that's just plain stupid.

But most women are poor and they keep their babies. So, they are supposed to work at least two minimum wage jobs while going to community college or taking the Red Cross's CNA program for $800.

They should be able to save enough money for this during their 9 months of pregnancy (of course they don't have any other children who need childcare).

They are to find an apartment for $100/week (these require roommates, but I'm sure there are plenty who want a poor, pregnant woman or screaming infant).

Then after they become a CNA they take more training and work their way up to $14/hour at which point they can surely save money for a down payment on a nice house. They just have to make sure they don't spend money on things like cable, big screen tvs, and expensive cars.

Childcare while they are doing on this is a little less clear. But surely there are tons of in-home child care along the bus lines (that they must live near in that $100/week apartment) that offer childcare for someone making minimum wage.

So, you see, it's all very easy. THIS IS THE CONSERVATIVE/REPUBLICAN/PATTYGREEN PLAN!!!

People who are poor don't always stay that way. Everyone starts out there usually, unless you have wealthy parents who provide for you. I certainly was poor at 19 years old, but I CHOSE to save my money and pay for a CNA class and better myself financially. It took 8 weeks of school and it gave me a $5.00 an hour increase over my minimum wage job. This increase allowed me to CHOOSE to save even more money for other education that bettered my career choices.

Now, you can make fun of that, or you can see the reality in it. Anyone CAN better themselves if they put on their thinking caps and use a little incentive, motivation and brain power instead of sitting on their duff and being comfortable with their situation. Some things in life take a little sacrifice. It doesn't just plop into your lap, although I'm sure you liberals don't think that way. You would love for the government to be your wealthy parents who support you and get you through life without any worries. I understand your need for the government security blanket. But, conservatives want to be able to care for themselves for the most part.

There are 10 white couples waiting for every one, healthy, white baby to adopt. And if there are more white people, then there would also be more white babies born. Your logic escapes me.

And there are plenty of people who consider themselves conservatives who are glad to take any handout the government gives them. Don't make it sound like it's only liberals. Liberals aren't necessarily the ones who take the government help, they just support the concept of helping the least among us.

Patty,

I am glad your life worked out so well for you, I was also very poor and I have worked my way up and now I too live a very comfortable life due to my own hard work.

However, I am qualified to say there are worse things than being aborted. I have 1 child who I hold very dear, but if I knew that he would have the childhood I did I would have aborted him. Period. I will not put the details of my early life on this public forum but feel free to ask this question to any first responder. Have you ever looked at a child in a situation and said to yourself "This child would be better off if he/she had been aborted."? Every policeman, fireman, social worker that I know will admit to thinking this at one time or another.

There are 10 white couples waiting for every one, healthy, white baby to adopt. And if there are more white people, then there would also be more white babies born. Your logic escapes me.

And there are plenty of people who consider themselves conservatives who are glad to take any handout the government gives them. Don't make it sound like it's only liberals. Liberals aren't necessarily the ones who take the government help, they just support the concept of helping the least among us.

Everyone will take what is offered for free. It is the governments fault for tempting the people with these free handouts, and it needs to be stopped. But, it is the liberals who wants to keep the people dependant on the government. It is a wonderful thing to help the least among us. I embrace that concept as well, and help many people out financially. But, it is my place to do that with my money, not the governments. I understand this and want the people to be free to give from their hearts to whatever cause in society that moves them. Did you see how the american people stepped up to the plate for the people of Haiti? We are a very generous and giving nation. We don't need the government to 'order' us or 'make' us give. We will give when we see a need.

Patty,

I am glad your life worked out so well for you, I was also very poor and I have worked my way up and now I too live a very comfortable life due to my own hard work.

However, I am qualified to say there are worse things than being aborted. I have 1 child who I hold very dear, but if I knew that he would have the childhood I did I would have aborted him. Period. I will not put the details of my early life on this public forum but feel free to ask this question to any first responder. Have you ever looked at a child in a situation and said to yourself "This child would be better off if he/she had been aborted."? Every policeman, fireman, social worker that I know will admit to thinking this at one time or another.

No. Never! I would not dare think that. God has a plan for every life. Even the hard lives.

The only good thing that comes from an abortion is the soul that died went straight to God and lives eternally with him. If it were not for that, I would be devestated at the many souls that did not get their opportunity to come into this world and make that one most important decision that every human being needs to make which is to accept Jesus as their savior. God is gracious! I'm thankful for that.

Everyone will take what is offered for free. It is the governments fault for tempting the people with these free handouts, and it needs to be stopped. But, it is the liberals who wants to keep the people dependant on the government. It is a wonderful thing to help the least among us. I embrace that concept as well, and help many people out financially. But, it is my place to do that with my money, not the governments. I understand this and want the people to be free to give from their hearts to whatever cause in society that moves them. Did you see how the american people stepped up to the plate for the people of Haiti? We are a very generous and giving nation. We don't need the government to 'order' us or 'make' us give. We will give when we see a need.

There are 350 million people in this country. The needs of the poor, disabled, elderly and least among us are far too great to be serviced by the capricious nature of handouts among those whose choose to be charitable.

Medicaid to pay for nursing home care is an example. It is very expensive. About $6000/month per person. That's after all the person's assets are used up. And please don't go into your example about how the family should take their incontinent, bedridden elderly parent into their home and provide 24/7 care, meds, therapy and medical care. We've already been there, done that.

There are single parents who need government subsidized child care in order to be able to work and pay taxes.

There are disabled people who need social security disability because they can't work.

Liberals want a safety net for these people. This distinguishes us from countries like Iran and Uganda. I don't want to be like them. I want the United States to be a country that is proud of how it helps those who need it.

Liberals don't want a lifelong dependency, just a hand up when needed. That's who we are. And I'm proud of it.

There are 350 million people in this country. The needs of the poor, disabled, elderly and least among us are far too great to be serviced by the capricious nature of handouts among those whose choose to be charitable.

Medicaid to pay for nursing home care is an example. It is very expensive. About $6000/month per person. That's after all the person's assets are used up. And please don't go into your example about how the family should take their incontinent, bedridden elderly parent into their home and provide 24/7 care, meds, therapy and medical care. We've already been there, done that.

I believe that families need to care for their own elderly.

There are single parents who need government subsidized child care in order to be able to work and pay taxes.

There is such a thing as birth control. People need to either be responsible for the care of their children on their own after they are born, or get on some form of birth control if they can't do it. When the government pays for their folly, it does not discourage them from having as many kids as they can't afford. why should the childcare expenses of others be placed on the rest of society? This is wrong.

There are disabled people who need social security disability because they can't work.

Then they should receive it. Like i said before, I'm not against some government help, just not the monstrous amount of "so called" help we give away. It is so called because it is not to anyones benefit to enable them.

Liberals want a safety net for these people. This distinguishes us from countries like Iran and Uganda. I don't want to be like them. I want the United States to be a country that is proud of how it helps those who need it.

Liberals don't want a lifelong dependency, just a hand up when needed. That's who we are. And I'm proud of it.

When you allow safety nets, as you call them, it encourages dependency and discourages those who receive the help from helping themselves. they begin to feel a sense of entitlement even though they are not working or entitled to anythng. Liberals may not want a lifelong dependencay, but they support every agency out there that gives freely to anyone who meets the guidelines. This WILL encourage lifelong dependency and if the government continues to add more and more programs with giveaways, we will bankrupt ourselves. OOPS! Sorry, we are already there.:thumbup:

I own 5 rent houses. In 2005 when one was available I was contacted by a person who had "section 42" (HUD) and wanted to rent it. So we did the paperwork and she moved in. She was a single mom who was working a job and going to college. She lived in my house until last May when she graduated (engineering degree) and went to work for Exxon. She moved to Humble for her job so she is no longer in my house. Of course she now has a good job and is no longer on public assistance. She had a choice she could have stayed in her situation of working odd jobs or she could get on public assistance (temporarily) and earn her degree and have a career. I am proud of her and I am proud that my taxes were well spent.

Oh and by the way when the public assistance money is spent, it goes back into the community in the form of rent, groceries, school, etc.

I own 5 rent houses. In 2005 when one was available I was contacted by a person who had "section 42" (HUD) and wanted to rent it. So we did the paperwork and she moved in. She was a single mom who was working a job and going to college. She lived in my house until last May when she graduated (engineering degree) and went to work for Exxon. She moved to Humble for her job so she is no longer in my house. Of course she now has a good job and is no longer on public assistance. She had a choice she could have stayed in her situation of working odd jobs or she could get on public assistance (temporarily) and earn her degree and have a career. I am proud of her and I am proud that my taxes were well spent.

I think this is a fine thing for the government to do, except I feel that they should get repaid after the college education and the great paying job kicks in. Why should she get a free education, housing, childcare and assistance temporarily without having to repay it? Even if it has to be repaid at a low monthly rate she can afford.

Oh and by the way when the public assistance money is spent, it goes back into the community in the form of rent, groceries, school, etc.

So does my money. So what. All money goes back into the community, therefore, that does not make a good arguement for supporting people with welfare.

Originally Posted by Cleo's Mom

There are 350 million people in this country. The needs of the poor, disabled, elderly and least among us are far too great to be serviced by the capricious nature of handouts among those whose choose to be charitable.

Medicaid to pay for nursing home care is an example. It is very expensive. About $6000/month per person. That's after all the person's assets are used up. And please don't go into your example about how the family should take their incontinent, bedridden elderly parent into their home and provide 24/7 care, meds, therapy and medical care. We've already been there, done that.

I believe that families need to care for their own elderly.

Another unrealistic solution to the millions who are in nursing homes. You always think that if you did something, well, then EVERYONE should be able to do it. Everyone's situation is different. Do not judge, lest ye be judged.

There are single parents who need government subsidized child care in order to be able to work and pay taxes.

There is such a thing as birth control. People need to either be responsible for the care of their children on their own after they are born, or get on some form of birth control if they can't do it. When the government pays for their folly, it does not discourage them from having as many kids as they can't afford. why should the childcare expenses of others be placed on the rest of society? This is wrong.

You didn't use birth control, got pregnant and went on welfare. So what that you paid it back, you used it because it was there to help and you took the help. I don't blame you for doing that. But I do blame you for saying "use birth control" - which can fail, by the way. And if you want people to get off welfare and get a job, then they will need subsidized childcare.

There are disabled people who need social security disability because they can't work.

Then they should receive it. Like i said before, I'm not against some government help, just not the monstrous amount of "so called" help we give away. It is so called because it is not to anyones benefit to enable them.

Liberals want a safety net for these people. This distinguishes us from countries like Iran and Uganda. I don't want to be like them. I want the United States to be a country that is proud of how it helps those who need it.

Liberals don't want a lifelong dependency, just a hand up when needed. That's who we are. And I'm proud of it.

Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. 14They came to him and said, "Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? 15Should we pay or shouldn't we?" But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. "Why are you trying to trap me?" he asked. "Bring me a denarius and let me look at it." 16They brought the coin, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar's," they replied. 17Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him.Mark 12

When you allow safety nets, as you call them, it encourages dependency and discourages those who receive the help from helping themselves. they begin to feel a sense of entitlement even though they are not working or entitled to anythng. Liberals may not want a lifelong dependencay, but they support every agency out there that gives freely to anyone who meets the guidelines. This WILL encourage lifelong dependency and if the government continues to add more and more programs with giveaways, we will bankrupt ourselves. OOPS! Sorry, we are already there.:thumbup:

I think you would be very surprised to know that a lot of people who receive any type of government assistance are employed. You always portray them as lazy ass slackers who stay at home all day watching their big screen tv.

Of course you always have an example of misuse of public assistance and extrapolate that to everyone.

Your attitude is very cold-hearted no matter how you try to defend it with all your rhetoric. And you can quote the bible all you want but Jesus walked among the poor and there are far more examples of passages about helping the poor and least among us.

Life was different in those times, people lived in small villages with extended families. It could not have been written to predict a country this size with 350 million people. So, it didn't precisely say that government should help poor people but you seem to want other bible passages to become part of the way our government does business (anti-gay, anti-abortion) but not those passages that say about helping the poor. Then it's NOT about the government, it's about family. Just more hypocrisy.