joshbl74

The birth rate among the poor is higher than the birth rate for affluent well educated populations. If you look at trends in birth rate and socioeconomic background the poor are actually winning. You see, most people who are poor have come from a background of poor financial education. That is to say that thier parents were bad with money, had poor spending habits and taught those bad habits to thier kids. At the same time most of those who are or become wealthy have good spending habits taught to them by parents who also had good spending habits.

Keep in mind that these are statistical trends so don't freak out just cause you happen to know one poor person with good spending habits or a complete idiot who is inexplicably rich.

In any case. The poor have more kids than the rich. The reasons why are interesting. Some speculate that awareness of costs causes them to be more conscious of the childs needs and financial discipline transfers to carnal disciplin and a desire to have only those kids that can be well supported. Rich couples in fact have a birth rate near 1 meaning that they do not even replace thier own population. So the knowlegde of good habits they pass on goes to a smaller and smaller population.

In the mean time the poor are well above replacement levels. Maybe the bad spending and poor discipline is also reflected in carnal discipline. Sex is as much fun as impulse shopping or they can't afford birth control? Which ever, but the poor are cranking out kids and not teaching them good spending habits.

So, while social mobility is certainly possible the general trend of an ever increasing wage gap can be seen more accurately as a decline in the population of the wealthy. I'm sure many of you will not even shed a tear when they become extinct and the dream of socialism dies with them as we finally once and for all run out of other peoples money.

By Lower I mean raise the cost of premiums by 12.6%. $500 this year. what will his royal highness cost me next year?

This is from the letter from HR that went out today.

"There continues to be a significant increase in costs associated with Employee + Spouse & Children coverage which is driven by high claims and increased family size. In addition, within the economic downturn, more children are remaining on their parents’ plans after graduation. In 2012, OSI had a 5% increase in the average number of children per employee enrolled in this tier of coverage. In light of these factors, there will be a 12.6% increase to medical contributions for 2013 ($42.66/month in the PPO and $24.71/month in the HSP) and there will be an increase to dental contributions of $6.86/month ($1,400 plan) and $0.08/month ($1,650 plan)."

And notice that the provision to leave kids on the policy to age 26 is a primary driver of that cost increase. We haven't even started the expensive stuff yet.

Seriously. My question is not about this debate but about our ability to debate anything. I think we've lost it.

How common is pregnancy due to rape? More or less than consentual sex? Is this a valid legal exception that should be in the laws or are we only talking about a few cases a year which can be administered as needed by courts?

Maybe he misspoke. His actual point seemed to be about 'statutory' vs 'forced' rape. The idea he expressed is wierd and I can't think that the female body could 'shut that whole thing down' but there are natural processes which occur during consentual sex which do promote pregnancy which would not be present during a horrific and traumatizing attack. Statutory rape is still abusive and evil but it is most often consentual sex albiet with someone who should not be consenting to such things at thier age. The guy used really bad choice of words with 'legitamate' but the point is not invalid. Why can't we discuss it? I would think there is a somewhat reduced likelyhood of pregnancy during an assault than during consentual intercourse but I have no idea what the actual numbers would be. It might really be a small difference and there may be other factors which negate that difference. I'm guessing that some super pro-life lobbiest got a chance to feed him some 'Facts' and he was dumb enough to believe it without question.

The rape and incest exceptions have been used for years by pro-choice groups as wedge tactics. Its a good argument technique. They say 'no abortion ever' and you say 'well what about this very extreme scenario?' and they say 'ok, if that extreme ever occured then fine, in that case sure' then you simply say 'ok, so you don't really mean NEVER, you're open to the idea in some cases, i just have to create more cases'

Akin was fed a counter to that tactic which is to say, 'no, that extreme scenario is too unlikely to be valid'. He botched the delivery of that counter and in fact the counter info is just to weak to be a valid counter. It was a major fail in politics.

I think we could have had pundits talking about these points. Saying, is it true? Is it valid? But instead you get this rabid attack machine that says "gotcha". I don't really care that he was discussing rape or abortion or whatever. We've lost our ability to have conversation. He is a political leader and he raised a point. I don't think it was a good point but we could have at least talked about it.

The Federal government is addicted to debt. They fund that debt by selling bolds. I'd guess that an enormous sum of those are purchased by our retirement accounts. All we have to do is 'click click' and change our 401K selections to all stock funds. Will they get the message if we stop giving them more loans?

Some of this story just seems fairly easy to prove or disprove the Zimmerman account of what happened and quite frankly I assume it has been done and can be found in the police report.

1. Zim called cops giving a pretty clear timeline for his side of it. You can tell when he exited his vehicle and eye witnesses and other 911 calls have given pretty clear time stamps to the rest of the encounter.

2. Martin was on the phone as well giving us a good idea when the altercation started.

3. There are only 2 small windows of missing time where the incident was not observed by others.

4. Since the end run hear would be a trial we can assume that only facts usable in court matter.

5. A witness who would presumably testify said it was Zimmerman on bottom screaming for help. You can throw up whatever voice experts you want but juries believe the guy who was staring right at them and saw him sceaming.

6. The wounds to Zim are likely photographed as evinednce. They are usually measured and pictures taken.

7. Blood residue from Zim might have been left on the pavement where his head was hit. Not sure since it was raining. If so there would be samples taken and the location marked.

8. Imprints in the grass should show the movement of the fight. If it transpired as Zim claims then there will be indications on the ground that can be photographed as evidence.

9. zim claims Martin tried to get his weapon. There may also be Martins fingerprints on the weapon. Again it was raining so that too is questionable. These are easily checked against the two individuals involved.

10. Martins body may have skin abrasions from hitting Zim. Not bruzing since the blood flow stopped around the same time but abasions that could be documented.

11. There should be more to be had also. Video from the store where Martin got his snacks. Where is that juciy pie of 'last time seen alive' footage?

12. Zim had a Red jacket so maybe blood was not shown in the video but it can be tested and detected.

13. A neighbor claimed Zim had bandages the next morning. Where is the video from the drug store where he bought those bandages? I doubt I'd got to the ER cause I got my butt kicked but I might go to the Pharmacy and buy some bandaids.

If I think this is easy enough to prove then I really assume the cops do as well. I;m sure the special prosecutor and the FBI investigators also think its easy. None have made an arrest so I'm starting to think there is a reason for that.

I hear the line that the poor did not choose to be poor. I disagree. I grew up very poor. My parents made choices every day that kept our family poor. Mom refused promotions cause she didn't want the added responsibility. Dad got fired from good paying jobs for not showing up. They spent frivolusly and never saved. My childhood home looked like an episode of horders with moldy food and roaches crawling inside the telivision. They were lazy. Welfare would not correct these bad choices but simply throws money down the well. The poor need less money and more good advice. They need neighbors who tell them to clean up thier yard and family members who tell them to get a damn job.

I'm sure the poor would love to be rich or even middle class but they don't do the things that it takes to be better off. Those are choices. Every day choices we can all make.

How much drugs are bought with welfare dollars? How many prostitutes are paid with your tax money? How many bootleg guns? How many children murdered on the streets?

The anti-abortion crowd freaks out that someone might somehow pay for an abortion with public funds. Is this really all that different?

Some of this is demographics. The poor commit most crimes. But if someone is a criminal while receiving welfare does it really help the situation to continue to give them welfare?

I'll concede the dubious point that people who are not criminals might turn to it if they didn't have welfare, but for those found to be criminals who are on welfare already... why keep going down that road?

What can be done? What responsibility do we have? ...to be stewards of public funds? ... to not fund murder?

Ok lots of questions, its realy not meant as a rant. What do you think? Even if you think it can't be changed then tell me if you think it 'should' be changed and why or why not.

Those guns are really expensive. This guy was driving a busted old car and could not hold down even a minimum wage job. He hadn't worked for months yet he bought a gun that costs $700. Did he receive welfare? Did your tax dollars do this?

What do our tax dollars fund? The anti-abortion crowd gets all fired up that tax dollars might somehow possibly go to fund the death of a baby yet billions in welfare dollars buy drugs and guns to kill babys by the dozen on the streets of Chicago.

Does our welfare state have a responsibility to ensure that public funds are not used to facilitate criminal activity??

I always marvel at the socialist concept of "your fair share". What is my "fair share"?

I spent 6 years in the navy under terrible working condition for terrible pay so I could get money for college. I spent 10's of thousands and 4 years of hard work to get that degree. I work 10 hour days for an employer. I deny myself basic luxuries to save money so I can invest. I work every night after work and most weekends to manage that investment.

Is my fair share the same as the guy who dropped out of high school cause he liked to smoke pot and still works at the same minimum wage job? Is it wrong that he doesn't have the things that I have? What does that guy "deserve" relative to what I "deserve"? Is my effort of measurable value in the socialist model? What do I owe to that guy? Should I support his pot smoking with my efforts?

To be clear, I believe in charity and I try to help those who can be helped. I'm not saying I refuse to help the disadvantaged but what about those who have chosen to be where they are. I started dirt poor without any type of role model. I chose to work hard to be more. Success and failure are optional states for most people.

I think it is. The worst racial epithets that can be generated are easily turned with the charge of racism. A racist is a loathesome thing reviled by all of society. To be racist is to be linked to Hitler, the KKK and every vile group in history.

So why is it acceptable to brand and entire political party with such an inflamatory label? Do you think it is a justifiable label for an entire group or is it overly offensive and devisive?

Tell me, what is the difference between someone who hates people of another religion and someone who hates people of another political affiliation?

You are still making assumptions about a group based on what 'you think they believe' and making decisions on how to talk about them and treat them, and you still justify it by saying that you 'know'. It's crap. Predudice sucks!

We've devided into TWO camps. That's 50% of people you are going to lump in as being [insert deragatory name of choice]. Are you really that silly?

Here I am. Talk to me.

If marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman then does that in someway prevent a gay man from marrying any woman he wants to marry???

Is a gay woman prohibited from marrying any man she wants to marry???

If you created a new word for a union between one man and one man, would that union have the same rights, rules and protections as a marriage. I think it would develop different rights and protections based on the unique nature of that union.

The same can be said of a union between one woman and one woman. That union would be different than a union between two men and different than marriage.

I fully support same sex unions whatever you decide to call them but a marriage is a man and a woman. Pick a new word and work out the rules for it.

Abortion is the concious act of taking a human life. We, as a society, have long ago determined that the taking of human life is acceptable under a variety of circumstances but that the decission is not to be made by a single person. Taking of a life is to deny one of the core tennants of our constitution (LIFE, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness). For these tasks we have created a system of courts which can thus afford the condemned (the fetus) with due process of law.

Just as the courts have carefully crafted the provisions for termination of life at the end of viability, so to can the courts craft the rules for termination at the beginning of viability. Just as cases for the terminally ill these cases too would require the input of all relevant parties, mother, father, child (via guardian ad litum) and medical experts as needed.

It does not seem reasonable to condem the unborn child to a life of deformity and suffering in some vain attepmt to blindly preserve all life. Likewise it would be foolhardy at best to trust the child's prenatal development to the care of a mother who has wished for the death of that child and has no means or motivation to provide for the safe delivery of said child.

You want a abortion, fine, go see the judge.... bring the daddy with you. And if you are a minor then bring your our guardian as well. If the fetus is non-viable then that really just requires an afidavit by a doctor and a stamp by the court clerk. We have a court system and while there are still those who will protest no matter what the court says doesn't it make sense that this is a proper issue for courts to decide.

In the interest of full disclosure, I actually support abortion rights. It's your kid. Your responsible for their life. If your the type that wants to kill your kid then that is one strand of DNA our gene pool can do without. I'm only opposed to letting minors get surgury without parental consent(or judicial consent if your so sure daddy will ACTUALLY kill you) .

I really have no problem with gay people at all and most of this debate is just foolish. A large number of the rights in question seem like a no brainer. (Anyone should be able to designate another person as "next of kin" or grant familial status for matters such as hospital visitation.) There are other rights and priveledges associated with marriage that have financial benifits which are not trivial. So, while part of the debate is a very valid agument regarding civil law, the rest of the debate seems to be about the word "marriage" and what it means to be married.

This issue seems like an attempt by the gay community to take an existing term and use it to define what they are doing. It certainly implies a degree of legitimacy to call it marriage as opposed to having to describe the relationship. "My Husband" sounds lots better than "My Life Partner" or "My Gay Lover". I think however that for some people it just seems nonsensical to have "marriage" used to describe some relationship other than a man and a woman. It is particularly frustrating when marriage has certain legal rights and privileges associated with it and by claiming to be "married" gay people are laying claim to those rights and privileges. Marriage has spent hundreds and thousands of years being defined and gaining the rights it has today.

Can gay people come up with a new word that describes their relationship and then work to have rights and benifits associated with that new institution? Do you NEED it to be called 'marriage' or do you NEED the tax and civil law privledges.

Are gays asking for legal status or social acceptance? Legal status seams pretty fair but social acceptance does not seem like something you should try to force through via the law.

Congress has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent swarms of officers to harass the people, and eat out their substance.

My kid can't get her ears pierced or get a tattoo without my consent because as a minor she is not legally deemed to be responsible enough to decide such life changing matters without adult counsel.

She is too young to make wise choices about what is and is not a safe place to have such services performed so as to avoid infection and possibly death. If my child needs an abortion then I will take her to a safe place to have it done. We will talk before hand to ensure that she knows the magnitude of what it means. We will talk with the father so that he knows what is happening and can voice an opinion. If he is also a minor then we will talk with his parents as well.

This is not some trivial decision like where to have lunch. I want my child safe. I do not want her to have surgery without my consent and more importantly my guidance.

If you really think parental notification was a danger then a court order should be required. Family court can handle this sort of thing just fine.

I seen many liberals on here who say they would have no problem paying more in order to help the working man but has anyone ever done it? Did you know that you can voluntarily pay more taxes? You can.

So would you? Have you? Why not?

If government is better at deciding how to spend your money then shouldn't your charity dollars go there too?

Does it really make sense to anyone that government can somehow give you money? If they get their money from the people then give money to the people its not really a gift is it? Plus they have to pay to collect it. They pay to print and deliver checks. It seems like this costs more out of my pocket than I get back.

The current Health insurance bill proposes creating an entire new agency. I'm guessing they will need a building. A few thousand employees, furniture, computers, all so I can get health insurance (which, it just so happens, I already have)

In all fairness, a requirement that insurance companies give coverage for those with pre-existing conditions is dumb. The concept of insurance is that I'm betting I'll pay less in premiums that the ins co pays for my bills. The ins co is betting that they pay less than I do. WHY would they ever do business with me if they KNOW for a fact that they will pay more than I do? That is crazy!

I do support a requirement that they cannot cancel coverage after the fact cause someone discovers a condition that existed before. Unless they can prove criminal fraud then they have to pay as agreed.

Under the house bill (HR 3200) the president will appoint a 'commissioner' who is to decide what every health insurance plan (public and private) must cover and not cover.

I assume that democrats will not rule forever so.... IF(and it is a big if) If it was Sarah Palin who was appointing the commissioner and deciding what could be covered and not covered, would you be ok with that?

I know many of you think Palin will never be president but that is why I used her as the example. If it were her, would you be comfortable with the law (as currently written) that allows her to decide what treatments are covered and which are not?