Quote:
Originally posted by Not Bob
I completely agree with you on both of those points. For me, it is especially frustrating with Edwards -- I don't necessarily agree with some of his positions, and I like Obama for the nomination, but he is the only national politician who seems to be concerned about the issue enough to try to come up with solutions. And he has been working the issue since the end of the last election, knowing that it is not a "popular" issue among the chattering classes.
Does the fact that he lives in a mansion change his commitment? No. Is someone an idiot -- him, or his staff, or Elizabeth, or whoever picked the barber and approved the price -- for getting a $400 haircut, and thereby handing a club to the people who hate him and are scared that he will get the poor and working class to start voting in accordance with their economic interests? Absolutely.
|
The simplest cure for poverty is less poor people. Why we're not carpet bombing the impoverished with free birth control and incentives for not reproducing is beyond me. Nixon offered a $20k living wage in the late 60s as a substitute for all social welfare programs (I'm simplifying, but that was the thrust). I believe the GOP rejected it as wildly liberal. It's time to bring it back. Literally pay the abject poor not to reproduce. Why not?
Alternatively, if these right wing freaks must counsel women on alternatives to abortion, why not also offer them an economic incentive to put the child up for adoption to a family that wants and can afford it? Offer the impoverished and pregnant $5,000.00 to give the child up.
The idea is to get as few children being born into poverty as possible. Why not try a new angle?
