Reducing Abortion in America: The Effect of Economic and Social Supports

[The Sisko]

ASF, your view is equal to mine, that's fair and understood. Use your church's teachings to make your decisions about who to vote for and I'll use the core values I've come up with myself. That is what it's about. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Yusuf, If I ever make it to GA, I would love to have a beer with you. One of the best posters on this board. (despite my rarely agreeing with you)

That's very kind. Back at cha.

Agreed, and I wouldn't want it any other way either.

And I'd be happy to share a beer with both of you...well maybe a glass of wine.

...don't forget the cheese. I hear wine is useless without it for "our" crowd.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Who is doing the taking? We are talking about abortion correct?

Unless raped, you earned it. If we are talking about money, the only money you HAVE to give up is for taxes, that's it. Everything else is your own doing. Nobody is being oppressed.

Those were in reference to Yusuf's post about poverty and welfare, not so much directed at the issue of abortion. However the two are not completely unrelated in that if the article that I started with is to be believed then there are 300% more abortions among the poor than the rest of society, thus the issue of poverty is at the heart of the issue of abortion in that the two seem to be linked.

[Koolblue13]

Those were in reference to Yusuf's post about poverty and welfare, not so much directed at the issue of abortion. However the two are not completely unrelated in that if the article that I started with is to be believed then there are 300% more abortions among the poor than the rest of society, thus the issue of poverty is at the heart of the issue of abortion in that the two seem to be linked.

There is a lot more linked to being poor and all of it negative, but other than educate and reduce crime, I don't know what you do.

[techboy]

The really interesting thing to me about our staunch support for a strict capitalist approach to things is that we spend a heck of a lot of money on corporate welfare but nobody seems to have a problem with that.

I have a problem with that.

[DRSmith]

Kinda like communist China. I hear their program works stellar over there.

Not quite there your limit is one no matter what here you can have as many as you can pay and care for, just demonstrate you can first

[Koolblue13]

We don't have a free trade system, nor do we have a pure capitalistic society.

[AsburySkinsFan]

There is a lot more linked to being poor and all of it negative, but other than educate and reduce crime, I don't know what you do.

That's where it starts, people need to be empowered to change their lives and then there needs to be opportunities for them to make those changes. Also the very real systemic problems surrounding poverty need to be recognized and seriously addressed; issues like the cyclical nature of poverty; alchoholism; drug use etc. While I don't want to paint the picture that all poor are "victims" I also do not want to paint the picture that's been painted for too long that "if they just try harder then it will work." Another place to start is indeed what Yusuf mentioned, billions of dollars for corporate bail-outs that included multi-million dollar severance packages are simply outrageous in the shadow of the millions living in poverty in this country. IMO seriously addressing the issue of poverty in this nation will cost us something, and IMO those who have not been paying their share of the costs i.e. the rich who abuse the system need to step up.

[Koolblue13]

Take from the rich(who create jobs) and give to the poor (who will drink it anyway).

How about we don't take from me and I will just donate where I see fit.

Again, I go back to my OP in the thread.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Take from the rich(who create jobs) and give to the poor (who will drink it anyway).

:doh: oy...just when I thought we were getting somewhere.

[The Sisko]

I have a problem with that.

I take you at your word on that TB. However, it's rare that anyone ever brings it up. That in spite of the fact that corporate welfare spending outstrips TANF by a factor of 3.

Furthermore, the hard truth is that the hardcore entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare account for roughly half the Federal budget. IIRC, servicing the debt accounts for about another 30%-before the bailout BTW. Therefore, when you remove military spending, what's left is relatively miniscule. In other words, whether it's McCain or Obama next January, taxes are going to have to go up at some point because neither one of them is going to cut spending where it might actually matter-the entitlements.

My point is that welfare is a convenient wedge issue that gets voters hackles up and yet it amounts to nothing more than a distractor. In short, to quote Malcom X, "You've been hoodwinked, bamboozled, led astray".

I'm a big fan of the early childhood education programs I mentioned earlier for two reasons. First, it's the right thing to do. Second, unlike most other poverty programs, there is an actual return on the investment of a decrease in poverty and improvement in the quality of life...both for the person being helped and society at large. I'd happily pay higher taxes to fund any program that can prove it has those outcomes.

[gbear]

who will drink it away? at a bar owned by the rich? employing how many?

you mean they'll spend it? That's bad in your eyes, right? PArdon me if I disagree.

I'm still with Clinton's position from a decade and a half ago: "Safe, legal and rare." Some how people seem to think making it illegal is the best way to reduce the number of abortions. Why not just attack the needs for abortions by looking at why people get them and trying to address those causes. If you think people only use them as birth control, you probably missed the why they need the past the last second birthcontrol in the first place...what they had didn't work, believed silly lies like "never get pregges the first time, can't afford another kid, rape, etc. Deal with those, because as long as there is demand, there will be a market. Reduce the numbers by reducing the demand.

[Koolblue13]

:doh: oy...just when I thought we were getting somewhere.

Just taking it from your comment.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Take from the rich(who create jobs) and give to the poor (who will drink it anyway).

Ok, here's the problem with this thinking, the rich are about increasing profit not creating jobs. If the rich have to create jobs to increase profits then they will do so, however if eliminating jobs means increasing profits then jobs will be cut. 2nd if the rich out of their benevolence were going to help the poor then why are there so many millionaires and billionaires compared to the number of poor? The pure and simple of it is that all too many of the rich simply don't care.

How about we don't take from me and I will just donate where I see fit.

Well just a few posts ago you said that apart from education and crime reduction you didn't know how to fix things, so I am left to ask "where would you see fit?" And, even if you did know where, your benevolence is not enought to offset the tide of poverty in this country, what is needed is a national effort to reduce poverty, and that requires the will do actually sacrifice for the sake of others, something that all too many are far too reluctant to do.

[techboy]

I take you at your word on that TB. However, it's rare that anyone ever brings it up.

That's because it's pretty rare that anyone is a libertarian. Sadly.