Minimum Wage Earners Shouldn’t Be Allowed to Have Children

[left-of-center2012]

On Fox News Monday:
Rebecca Vallas:
the “real shame here is that our minimum wage in this country is a poverty wage.”
She argued that the wage isn’t enough to lift a family of three out of poverty.

Guest Seton Motley, seeing his opportunity to strike,
argued that the best way to help minimum wage earners get ahead is to prevent them from having children.
“If you’re making minimum wage, you shouldn’t be having children and trying to raise a family on it.”

http://ringoffireradio.com/2015/09/fox-guest-says-minimum-wage-earners-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-have-childre/

[closeupready]

1. Eugenics, anyone?

[daleanime]

2. ......

[WillowTree]

3. So.......he didn't say.......

......that minimum wage earners shouldn't be allowed to have children, he said that they shouldn't have children. That's different.

And I can't say that I don't agree. If I'm not in a position to care for and support a child, I have no business having one until I am. I fail to see what's wrong with that logic.

Now, if I have kids and then my circumstances change and I'm only making minimum wage, that's a different story altogether. Not talking about that situation.

[gollygee]

5. There are a huge number of people who would then never ever have children

and that's unreasonable and incredibly unfair.

Especially when the reason they are in that financial situation is because of an unfairly low minimum wage.

[WillowTree]

11. OK. They SHOULD have children even if they can't afford to care for them. My mistake.

[gollygee]

12. They should be able to decide if they have children

and the huge number of people who are poor in our country should not be considered selfish or to have made bad decisions if they choose to have children. The decision to have children isn't like the decision to buy a piece of electronic equipment. It's a much more personal choice that has tons of emotional issues involved.

[WillowTree]

18. I just agreed with you!

People should have as many children as their emotions dictate regardless of whether they're equipped to care for them or not. No argument here!

[gollygee]

22. I am actually able to read snarky sarcasm

and I can tell when someone is being disingenuous, and also when someone blames victims for their victimhood. Greedy corporate owners + an unfair economic system that rewards greedy corporations at the expense of working people = a lot of poor people. It isn't their fault and they should live the happiest lives they can regardless of what they're victims of. If happiness for them involves having children, then yes, they should have children.

[Facility Inspector]

24. I think you overstate the victim mentality

There are tons of opportunities if you want something better out of life.

Not just financial opportunities. Spiritual opportunities abound. Hell, libraries are still free.

But if a person constantly shit mouths their lot in life and portrays the perennial victim, it shouldn't be any surprise if they get what they are giving the universe or even their local community.

It should be everyone's goal to seek to understand, rather than be understood.

NEWSFLASH: most people are actually decent and will help most people if they're willing to do SOMETHING.

Even a minimum wage job can be a career pathway.

Plenty of fast food operators/franchisees/managers got their start at the lowest entry point in the system.

[alarimer]

71. I think YOU overstate the number of opportunities out there

The playing field is no where near level. Sometimes you are dealt a shit hand in life. And being poor is expensive. You buy cheap shoes (or cars, clothes, whatever) because you need them but they wear out and break down more often than the expensive ones. So you buy $10 shoes 10 times instead of one $90 pair of shoes.

Housing is expensive. Cheap house is shitty, by and large, full of rats and bugs and with slumlords who won't fix it. That's even if you can afford to rent. To rent a place means needing deposits (sometimes first and last month's rent plus a security deposit).

You cannot afford to live in some cities at anything like minimum wage. Look at San Francisco. All those tech bro's pricing out the cops and waitresses.

I don't know what kind of rainbow-colored world you live in, but it sure isn't the world most of us live.

People are not poor because it's their fault. People are poor because of socio-economic policies that punish people for being poor.

[WillowTree]

25. I'm not blaming the victims.

I'm just saying that I do not believe that people who are not in a position to adequately care for children, be it for financial reasons or otherwise, ought to have children until and unless they can change those conditions.

Consider the fact that, if a person is only making minimum wage, it's going to be one hell of a lot harder to get out of that situation if you add a baby into the mix. Isn't it already hard enough to provide for one person without adding another person to feed and clothe and provide day care and medical care for?. That just makes the chances of getting out of poverty even slimmer.......now for an additional person, too.

But have it your way. I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine, so have a great day!!

[hollysmom]

44. that would be a wonderful way to completely annihilate a people.

first keep them in a poverty situation, then do not let them breed - see - you get to wipe a whole group of people off the earth all the time claiming you are helping them - you job creator you!

[WillowTree]

60. So you think that the path out of poverty is to have a baby.......or maybe another?

I thought I indicated that I thought that one had a better chance of climbing out of poverty if they didn't have a kid. I'm hot saying that such people shouldn't "breed" (love the way you talk down, by the way.......disgusting term when referring to human beings) but to see if they can't better their situation first. Honest to God, I don't see why that's such a dreadful suggestion.

[hollysmom]

63. no, I do not, but neither should people be judged

and condemned for having childre or be barred from having any because they are not rich, where do you draw the line? Do you think it is governments job to tell people how many children they could have? Should that judgement be drawn because "people cheat on welfare"? Or could that possibly be a crappy thing to say?
Keep in mind that republicans are trying to deny people both abortion AND birth control - so ???

[WillowTree]

65. Nobody said that people who can't afford to have children should be "barred".......

.......from having them or "should not be allowed" to have them, including the guy who was on CNN. Nobody. What he, and I, and a few others on this thread are saying is that we think that they shouldn't. I, personally, think it's irresponsible to bring a child into such a situation. It only makes life more difficult for them and the kid and, frankly, if they do, my sympathy for them (not the children, mind you) is limited on that account. Don't do something that can have no other outcome but to make your financial situation even worse than it already is and then complain about the fact that your financial situation is worse.

But I do not.......not not not.......think that any steps should be taken to stop people from making that particular stupid decision. It's too personal.

[gollygee]

70. Some people will never get out of poverty

And again, we're talking about people who actually have jobs! We're not even talking about people who are unable to find employment. Minimum wage used to be enough, and now it isn't. That isn't because people aren't working as hard as they used to. Someone has to do those jobs. Lots of people have to do those kinds of jobs, and not all of them will ever move to jobs that pay well enough to adequately afford a family. None of those people should have children? We're talking about a pretty large percentage of people.

[WillowTree]

73. And having a child.......or maybe another child.......

is one of the surest things that those people can do to make sure they never get out of poverty. But that's their decision. I, personally, think that they shouldn't, but no one, not the government and certainly not me, should be able to make that decision for them. But if they do decide to have a child (or another), my sympathy for their worsening circumstance will be limited.

It sounds as if you want Life to be fair to everyone. A noble aspiration, but not realistic in this world. We all have to make our own choices and then live with them. I've made some along the way that, in retrospect, were just about idiotic. There are and, in some cases, will continue to be prices to pay for some of those choices. But choosing to have children that you can't afford to support is a decision that will have consequences for more than just she who makes that decision. You seem to think that's OK. I don't. Doesn't make either one of us a bad person. We just disagree. And that's OK.

[gollygee]

79. I know life isn't fair

I don't assume it'll become fair either. In fact, I know that there are a lot of people who will unfairly never have much money at all, never break even, and will never get out of poverty no matter how much they don't have children and how much they do work, because the system is set up that way. But everyone deserves happiness regardless of whether life is fair. For some people, having children is a part of happiness.

[Chemisse]

87. That is so true.

Many people feel their life is not complete without children, and in fact it is one of our strongest biological drives.

For many of the people living in poverty in the U.S., waiting until you can afford a baby is akin to not ever having one at all - ever.

[onenote]

34. so no issues with the Duggars having 19 kids, then?

[gollygee]

82. My issue is that the minimum wage is so low. n/t

[treestar]

108. It's a fact they can

And always will. This is a right wing argument and it doesn't work on humanity anyway. But it's very individual, like those children are no benefit to society - it's individualism to a right wing extent.

[Facility Inspector]

16. Don't use the "R" word

NEVER place the word "personal" in front of it either.

[gollygee]

17. Well, yeah, Republican talking points don't go over well here

There's that.

[Facility Inspector]

20. granted,

though taking responsibility for one's action transcends political faction.

[WillowTree]

21. Guess I'm damned if I do agree and damned if I don't.

Whatever.

[Facility Inspector]

23. People will seize on practically anything

but yes, you are damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[tkmorris]

47. Stop it. Seriously.

I was more or less with you on the basic point, that people who know they cannot care properly for a child should probably decide not to have one until they can. Of course the fact that so many people would fall into this category is a problem and it requires multiple solutions, one of which is to raise the minimum wage.

However, acting as if you tried to agree with the poster and they are being completely unreasonable is just lying. You tried to be snarky and rude, which you managed quite nicely, so just own that and be done with it.

[mythology]

13. Life isn't fair

And frankly given how bad most parents are, huge numbers of people shouldn't have kids regardless of income.

But leaving that aside, if you want to argue for fairness, is it fair to kids who have parents who make minimum wage? It's hard enough to make ends meet on minimum wage, without adding additional costs. Kids in that situation aren't going to be put in a situation to succeed.

[gollygee]

15. Poor kids can be very happy

And the huge number of people who "can't afford" children an unrelated issue to the huge number of people who shouldn't have children because they are or would be bad parents. There are plenty of wealthy bad parents.

And the problem is still that there is inherent unfairness behind poverty in this country. It isn't the fault of the people who are victims of our economic system.

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. It would be easier to escape the minimum wage cycle without kids.

I don't think that kids are a human right so much as they are a responsibility.

[gollygee]

66. Some people never escape it and don't really have much opportunity to escape it

And there are plenty of wealthy people who are irresponsible parents, and there are wonderful poor parents.

[Gormy Cuss]

53. From an economic standpoint, it's a short term solution

because our economy counts on the availability of cheap labor. If low income people weren't reproducing the economy would have to depend on a steady stream of cheap immigrant labor.

There are lots of dystopian novels out there that posit what happens to a society like that. It ain't pretty.

[lumberjack_jeff]

59. The economy doesn't count on it at all. Corporate profits do.

More affluent working class created by a shortage of workers would decrease inequality and fuel growth.

Besides, that's exactly what we have now; population growth among the native born is less than zero. Cheap labor is the purpose of our porous border.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/11/29/u-s-birth-rate-falls-to-a-record-low-decline-is-greatest-among-immigrants/

[Gormy Cuss]

90. There would not be a shortage of workers until all cheap labor is exhausted.

Even fewer native-born workers just means more foreign workers will do the work. It will have no effect on income inequality until there are no cheaper workers anywhere, and so far there has always been a cheaper supply of foreign workers who either come here to work or who do offshored jobs.

The only way for us to develop a more affluent "working class" is through wage and benefits improvement.

[lumberjack_jeff]

91. The only mechanism for wage and benefit improvement is labor shortage.

This is definitively and provably true.

[Gormy Cuss]

92. Not true. Minimum wage and ACA are two government interventions. n/t

[notadmblnd]

83. And should one give them up when one loses their job too?

How about when the primary bread winner dies? My husband died when our child was 10. Should I have given him up to god know what kind of person to finish raising him because I wasn't working making big enough money to finish raising him?

[WillowTree]

88. No one said that.

I went so far as to say that I wasn't talking about people who already have children and then suffer a change in circumstance. Honest, I did! Go back and read my unedited post if you don't believe me.

[TexasBushwhacker]

105. I don't disagree with you BUT

the desire to have a child with someone you love doesn't wait until you're financially stable. In fact, for a lot of people, if they waited until they were "ready" they may never have children. Some will choose to stay childless, but I think it's unrealistic to expect all of them to be satisfied with that.

I came from a middle class family. That was what I was used to. I always knew when my next meal was and that I would have clean clothes for school. But my parents' marriage was unhappy, and my mother stayed with my dad because she "didn't want my children to live in poverty". I decided I would never get trapped in a loveless marriage and that I wouldn't have children unless I could afford to raise them by myself. Well, I ended up not having kids

If someone grows up poor, their reality is that sometimes there's not enough food, that their clothes may be threadbare hand me downs and that the electricity might get shut off in the heat of summer. But those poor parents still love their kids and their kids feel loved. They know their parents struggled and they expect that they will struggle as well. They look at being poor as a reason to not start a family.

Procreation is a strong drive. Our species depends on it. Most parents find it very rewarding to have children. Poor people don't have a manic switch to turn off their desire for a family.

[magical thyme]

4. so they want to end government intervention, de-fund planned parenthood to keep

pregnancy prevention unaffordable to low income people, and prevent low income people from getting pregnant...how exactly?

the cognitive disconnect is mind boggling...

[gollygee]

7. They also want to ban abortion

No birth control, no abortion, human beings living human lives . . . you end up with babies. Many more babies than you'd have with easily availble and affordable/free birth control and the accessible abortion.

[hollysmom]

45. tha is OK, I am sure they will allow forced sterilization - so practical

ugh It is getting harder and harder to like any republicans.

[haikugal]

8. Exactly...

How does that work....it doesn't.

[ProfessorGAC]

9. You Forgot They're Against Contraceptives

Makes the bush even thornier, no?

[BuelahWitch]

38. I hear Chastity Belts are big this fall! n/t

[Ilsa]

93. This is what we need to use to make our point:

Make fun of them by girdling everyone up with some nasty looking chastity belts worn over their clothing. Men too. Maybe then they'll get the point that they are ridiculously illogical.

[BlueJazz]

54. I have to say, as my other country being Australia, Australians are able to have children because..

...the minimum wage is not %$ Slave wages. 21 years or over is $15.96.

[GoCubsGo]

62. They're not supposed to even have sex, apparently.

Just like they're not supposed to be able to buy things like steak and seafood if they are on welfare. Or, have a cell phone, even if it's a cheap throw-away kind. Anything to make them more miserable for not being fortunate enough to be in a position to make more money. The only thing I wish on these FoxNoise assholes is that they become poor themselves. Bunch of cruel SOBs.

[alarimer]

72. Nope, you're supposed to work at least two jobs because one won't guarantee you full time.

And be on call when you are off because they won't use a fixed schedule so that you can, you know, have a life.

Work, work, work, til you die. You are poor, so you are not allowed fun.

And then if you lose your better-paying job and have to work some minimum wage job, you should lose your kids.

I'm not astonished that Fox News would say such a thing. I AM astonished that there are people on this thread who essentially agree with them. Throwing the "personal responsibility" canard around like it's the solution for everything.

I get that people make bad choices sometimes. And some people always seem to make bad ones. But you cannot condemn everyone on minimum wage because of it.

Middle class and rich people have some leeway if they make bad decisions. Poor people do not. Also, poverty is stressful. That kind of chronic stress takes its toll on cognitive function; it really does. Or maybe the only options you have are between bad and worse.

[TubbersUK]

102. Well said

I know numerous young couples who work extremely hard and smart in trying to carve out a life in the new "flexible" labour market. They contend with junk contracts, zero/low hours, minimum wage pay, low security etc. They juggle multiple jobs , they bustle, they hustle, they sweat - in fact they perform minor miracles in keeping their households together. Most have educational or vocational qualifications, all are perfectly responsible and looking to better themselves . The lucky ones may light upon better jobs or (that holy grail) a career. Some won't however, and will always be earning at or close to minimum wage - which, of course, will always be set at a rate determined by whichever faction of the economic/political elite happens to be in charge.

Who the hell am I to say which of these couples should or shouldn't have children ? Who the hell is anyone to judge any of them for aspiring to be parents ? Why should the unlucky ones stuck on minimum wage be labelled and judged for having children ? Because the most recent round of political horse trading happened to spew out a particularly unjust minimum wage rate ?

It disgusts me to see the free-market zealots and the perennially greedy, those who cheered on the "rush to the bottom" in respect of wages and working conditions, now looking to blame and shame and constrain the victims for their predicament. But as you say, you expect that from Fox News and its ilk.

Seeing those views supported here just makes me despair.

[laundry_queen]

104. Agree with everything you've said

I'm not astonished. More disgusted. Those types likely have never had to struggle.

[TubbersUK]

109. +10000

[MindfulOne]

6. But then who will bear children to replace the slave wage work force? Think it through!

I think such people should be fed to one another, people who think this way.

[TexasBushwhacker]

36. Exactly

Last edited Mon Sep 28, 2015, 02:29 PM - Edit history (1)

All the shaming of poor parents is BULLSHIT until the GOP supports sex education in the public schools and free highly effective birth control (IUDs & hormone implants) to anyone who wants it. It's just like the illegal immigrant "problem". If they really wanted to do something about it, they would have, but their ideal economy us based on having a lot if poorly educated workers willing to work shitty jobs for shitty wages. It is our caste system. They chronically poor are our "untouchables". They are the Epsilons of Brave New World.

[1939]

43. I support sex in public schools

The more the merrier.

[appalachiablue]

98. +10 Tell it!

[riversedge]

10. I am sure this turd has slamed Planned Parenthood also and does not want

contraception. No, not looking him up. I have seen that face and his gutter talk a few times too many already.



....“The problem is a family of three is not supposed to be living on a minimum wage,” said Motley. “If you’re making minimum wage, you shouldn’t be having children and trying to raise a family on it.”

[AtheistCrusader]

61. Undoubtably. Damned if you do, damned if you try not to.

[Zorra]

14. If you're paying minimum wage, maybe your parents shouldn't have had children.

[gollygee]

19. Thank you!

+1

[TubbersUK]

28. Spot on n/t

[appalachiablue]

94. THREAD WINNER!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~ Remember the American Spirit and Dream in ~ "IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE", 1946 ~

~ MR. POTTER is a banker and the richest, most unscrupulous and hated man in Bedford Falls, the small town setting of Frank Capra's classic film "It's A Wonderful Life" (1946). Capra's film is one of the top 100 US movies of all time.

The years 1928 and 1929 are key to the early story when George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) and Mary (Donna Reed) meet in High School and then marry in 1929 on the day of the Wall Street Crash.

The Depression era brings hardships including a sudden run on the bank at George Bailey's family Building and Loan business. Yet George and Mary Bailey endure problems and crises through hard work, sacrifice, love of their children, their family and close- knit neighbors in the community in this moving, uniquely American period story.

Old man Henry J. POTTER is portrayed by Lionel Barrymore, the famous award winning actor who gives an outstanding performance as one of the worst villains ever dramatized in film, rivaling Charles Dickens' Ebenezer Scrooge in 'A Christmas Carol' and 'The Grinch Who Stole Christmas'.



"Every time a bell rings, an angel gets its wings", Zuzu Bailey.

[Nye Bevan]

26. Nobody said that minimum wage earners shouldn't be "allowed" to have children.

The author of the article that the OP links to decided to insert the word "allowed", even though nobody said it, to try to draw more attention and pageviews.

[WillowTree]

32. That kind of thing is happening a lot these days.

[onenote]

77. +1

[pecwae]

110. I wasn't going to read

the article until I saw your post. You're entirely correct.

[The empressof all]

27. Well I say lets give him what he asks for....

Mandatory Vasectomy for all boys at age 12. Reversals only available when they can prove an income that would support a child.

Sometimes you just need to be crazier to argue with the crazy.

[bobclark86]

29. Did I miss the part in the segment...

where the word "allowed" was used?

Fun Fact of the Day: Even if people read articles, most of the time, the headline is more powerful. When the headline is misleading or factually incorrect, that's what sticks in a person's mind.

BTW, thank you to the original source for making me not only having to watch, but defend these jerkwads ...

[Initech]

30. And how exactly are they going to test for this?

Boy for the party of "less government", they sure do want more of it, don't they?

[rusty fender]

31. I've always believed that anyone who wants children

should have to apply for a license to have one, the requirements of which would be the ability to support the child financially and emotionally. No 16 year-olds need apply.

[Laffy Kat]

37. "...support financially" to whose standards?

Slippery slope there.

[rusty fender]

39. Not really

Food
Clothing
Love
Understanding
Medical insurance

These are the minimums that every person should be able to cover before having a child.

[Laffy Kat]

41. With the exception of med. ins.

Not sure how you would quantify or document such things. Still slippery slope. Who gets to decide what's enough?

[Throd]

35. My wife and I chose not to have children until we could afford it.

Seemed like the responsible thing to do.

[peace13]

52. I think the point is that in our society...

...that will no longer be possible for millions. Good on you if your kids have great jobs. If things keep going the way that they are you will be hugging your grandkids and telling them how sorry you are that they are too poor to make you a great grandparent.

[TubbersUK]

106. That's a very important point

The rush to the bottom in terms of pay and conditions for the new "flexible" workforce has produced a really big precariat (horrible word, but apt). I read recently that it's around 25% of the workforce and growing in some modern economies.

From what I can see, certainly here in the UK, youngsters are particularly badly affected and education is no longer a reliable safeguard against insecure, low pay employment.

ETA: A lot of my contemporaries (middle-class with children in further and higher education) are starting to look askance at their kids' prospects. Even the Conservative types, previously prone to berating the unemployed and working poor for existing and having children, are beginning to realise that their future generations aren't necessarily immune to the problem.

They were warned .

[gollygee]

67. Some people can NEVER afford it

My husband and I waited too, but we had strong potential that our wealth would increase. There are tons and tons of people who will always be poor.

[WestCoastLib]

40. Allowed was never used, so this is pretty true.

People shouldn't have children until they are ready.

Of course many, many people don't do what they "should" do.

My wife and I didn't have children until we were older than many, if not most, of our peers. We are now among the older(oldest?) parents in the elementary school (and daycare for the youngest). We prioritized getting our lives in order first, including financially, to be sure we could provide the kind of life we felt our child deserved. We have 2 kids and there's also a significant age gap between them for the same reason. We didn't feel it was viable to bring a second one in until we could ensure we could provide for the new one along with continuing with what we were doing with our older child. If we had never gotten to that point, we wouldn't have had a second child. If we had never gotten our lives in order, would we have had the first? I don't know, but I agree that we "shouldn't".

Like much in today's political and social climate, this is another of the points satirized in the movie Idiocracy. People in poverty, with a lesser education, keep having more children, while those with the means to provide for children continually hold off, until it's too late, hastening the decline of the general population. Like all good satire, there is truth in this. The quickest way for us to have impoverished, uneducated masses be the vast majority of our population is to have the impoverished, uneducated masses multiply quickly, which helps to prevent those families from raising out of poverty and prevent their children from becoming educated.

[Eleanors38]

42. I remember running low on money, so I quit having sex. Really

[kiva]

46. Where is "allowed" in the statement?

Inserting words that weren't said into people's mouths is a Fox thing and should be here.

[left-of-center2012]

49. "... "Where is allowed" ... is a Fox thing "

Actually, "Fox Guest Says Minimum Wage Earners Shouldn’t Be Allowed to Have Children"
is the title provided for by 'Ring of Fire' and in this one case Fox is not to blame.

I'd just guess 'not allowed' was Ring of Fire's interpretation of the comment.

[kiva]

50. And that's wrong.

I get that most sites - conservative, liberal, and not political - post clickbait like this, because saying that people 'shouldn't' do something isn't nearly as effective as saying they 'shouldn't be allowed' to it...the latter evokes pictures of government intervention and laws regarding having children.

My point is that in GD (unlike Latest Breaking) posters don't have to use the exact titles of the articles they link to, and so don't have to repeat false information that is only meant to get clicks...and yes, it worked, because I clicked on it

[pnwmom]

48. I wonder if the faux viewing Catholics noticed the difference. Pope Francis

has just told us over and over that young people should be able to make enough money to afford having children and that everyone should be able to have health insurance and housing.

[Warpy]

51. Wingers have it completely backwards, all the time.

Before the OPEC oil shocks, the minimum wage was set so a family of four could stay above the poverty line on a "thrifty" budget that featured chuck instead of sirloin, an old car, and rented housing. Conservatives in both parties just let it fall farther and farther behind the inflation rate and now we have a minimum wage that won't support a single worker above the poverty line.

Conservatives are always the problem, no matter which party they claim. They are never the solution to anything.

[gollygee]

69. +100

Minimum wage SHOULD be enough, and the fact that it isn't is NOT the fault of those on minimum wage.

People used to say that people on welfare shouldn't have kids, and now it's people who are working but only making minimum wage. Wow.

[TubbersUK]

84. +100000

"People used to say that people on welfare shouldn't have kids ....... "

Yes, that was/is a mantra of right wingers in the UK - courtesy of the Thatcherites initially.

As you say, it's shocking to see it now being applied to working people.

And, I would add, in this forum.

[spanone]

55. ....and they want to eliminate planned parenthood???? which is it faux?

[KitSileya]

56. Because it's not like Fox "News" and their fans

Aren't doing their damned best to make it impossible for people (especially poor people) to decide not to have kids. They're absolutely contemptible.

[Quantess]

57. At the same time, take away their birth control!!!

Too Poor to Fuck!!!

Take your punishment, poor women!!
This is War on Women, continued.

[Cairycat]

58. Not everybody making low wages started out that way

People lose jobs, there are layoffs, whole industries change, not to mention when people plan on raising children with a partner and that partner loses their job, leaves, or dies. Circumstances can change, for the worse as well as for the better.

[Sam_Fields]

64. A smaller government guy wants the government to stop women from having babies.

These libertarians are something else. I'm sure he supports Rand Paul with the elimination of Planned Parenthood and outlawing abortion.

[WillowTree]

68. Read what he actually said, not what the click-bait headline says.

Two different things.

[PowerToThePeople]

74. Or better yet,

Exterminate the rich and everyone left on earth will have greatly improved conditions.

[me b zola]

75. Back to the bad old days of shaming women out of their infants

Of course it has been happening since the end of the baby scoop era, it just changed a little, but the amount of women willing to relinquish has dropped significantly. Onward to baby scoop era 2.0, where churches, employers, and family can once again force a woman into a maternity home and shame her into relinquishing her child.

True, many adoption agencies and rw fundamentalists have orphanages all over third world nations deceiving poor and powerless families out of their children to be sold to American and Europeans, but I'll be dang if some nations don't get angry about it and shut their boarders to overseas adoption, not to mention that pesky United Nations and The Hague defining the rights of the child and attempting to stop (or at least slow down) the child trafficking that occurs in the name of adoption.

It is sad that so many are committed to avoiding looking into this subject.

[haikugal]

85. That is sad and such things make me spitting mad..it's also used as an argument against abortion..

Those babies could be adopted they wail and they bemoan the fact that there aren't enough 'white' babies to adopt...hateful people!!

The child trafficking is horrendous and I agree there isn't enough done to curtail it.

[me b zola]

96. All intended to dimish women

I see it all, anti-choice, anti-birth control, and the shaming of vulnerable women into relinquishment, as a kind of rape. Its about power and control. It is its own form of violence against women.

[haikugal]

99. On an industrial level.

[me b zola]

101. Whats the fun in the subjegation of women if you don't get a billion dollar industry out of it?

And just like Wall Street, the way to ensure that every day Americans will think positively about the industry is to get as many every day Americans invested into the institution as possible. Investing in an institution makes most people a cheer leader for that institution.

[appalachiablue]

100. You got it, power and control over women, and anyone or anything else.

[Thinkingabout]

76. Too much guberment interference.

[RufusTFirefly]

78. Classic Faux logic: Correctly identifying a problem...

... but then arriving at a batshit crazy solution.

The problem is that people who earn the current minimum wage can't afford to raise a family. Unfortunately, the most obvious solution -- paying everyone a living wage -- threatens the immense profits of corporate fat cats and questions the underlying principle of the free market. We obviously can't do that! Hence, the creepy alternative offered by Seton Motley.

Reminds me of when Archie Bunker suggested that the solution to airplane hijackings was to "arm all yer passengers."

[gollygee]

81. Yes! Why are people responding by agreeing rather than saying that they should

be making more money? We talk about a $15 minimum wage. That's the answer! Not that people shouldn't have kids. This thread is crazy.

[tavernier]

80. I wouldn't be here now.

I did save a few lives in my nursing career. My daughter who teaches nursing has saved hundreds more. But perhaps we saved the wrong lives because we didn't ask for their bank statements.

Morans. 😂

[ibegurpard]

86. And does he have a problem with birth control?

And/or abortion?
Bet so.

[romanic]

89. Well if these morons weren't so deadset against safe-sex education, birth control and abortion

then all of these kids wouldn't be having kids, right? Cause and effect morans!

But that being said, having kids is a huge expense and having them when you're income is low will be a huge challenge. Then again, that's something that should be taught by parents and sex-ed in school. JMHO

[WinkyDink]

95. The pronunciation of his first name seems obvious.

[fadedrose]

97. a lot of couples live together

but don't marry because they can't afford the cost of a wedding..

[TexasBushwhacker]

103. You don't have to have a wedding to get married

You can go to city hall. In fact, most states recognize common law marriages. If you live together, say you're married and file joint income tax returns, you're married - at least in Texas.

[Omaha Steve]

107. Wage earners with children shouldn't be allowed to earn minimum wage is more like it!