snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Inboxer Rebellion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 17 June 2012, 04:11 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Default

You are making the mistake here of believing the rhetoric. In real life, "saving babies" and even saving taxpayer money takes a back seat to the importance of making sure poor people are miserable.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 17 June 2012, 04:22 PM
diddy diddy is offline
 
Join Date: 07 March 2004
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 10,928
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey Blue View Post
You cannot both say "Our economy is dying! Obama is bad" and also say "Poor people should just get better jobs! They are lazy!".
Who says they canít? Itís not like anybody calls these guys out on the facts to any significant degree. Yes, its contrarian, but when did that ever stop anybody. All they have to do is claim that, yes the economy is in the crapper, but thats due to all of the welfare queens and lazy folks who think that itís easier to get a handout then getting a job. If they would only hoist themselves off their petards and get a job, the economy would start picking up. But they canít expect any help here! We canít promote anything that goes against absolute personal responsibility. Of course there can be exceptions for people who really need it, but since we are paying for their free money, they need to have egregious limits placed on them so they arenít tempted to abuse the bare minimum. You give them an inch, they start demanding a yard. And remember this is all Obamaís fault that the economy is in the crapper - the buck stops at him!

Thatís how *I* would spin it if I was a conservative who was all for ďsmall governmentĒ and one that wanted to promote the idea of personal responsibility - the highlight being essentially a blame someone else who canít defend themselves. Thats why they target the poor - they are an easy target that people are already highly opinionated with and they tend not to be vocal - representing them tends to be very limited IMO and you combine that with a topic that people donít have a good grasp on and you can just spat out whatever nonsense you want as long as you get a visceral response (like outrage). It not like people are actually going to check these things - not when they can blame someone else.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 17 June 2012, 04:23 PM
smittykins's Avatar
smittykins smittykins is offline
 
Join Date: 27 December 2003
Location: Seneca Falls, NY
Posts: 2,643
Jaded

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8 View Post
True. Every time a woman on welfare gets knocked up, she's either going to have one more mouth to feed (for the taxpayer to feed, that is), or will get an abortion. It seems to me like the right should be jumping at the chance to get the "welfare queen" proper birth control.
But..but that allows them to avoid the *natural consequences of their sin*! After all, you play with fire, you get burned...

(Not to mention their belief that adoption solves everything. "Let's stop killing these bables and start giving them to people who want them.")
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 17 June 2012, 04:53 PM
Bettie Page Turner Bettie Page Turner is offline
 
Join Date: 28 July 2005
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 3,890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderwoman View Post
Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal legations.
I asked for a tubal ligation when I was on Medicaid. I was told Medicaid would not pay for it until I was 25.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 17 June 2012, 05:21 PM
diddy diddy is offline
 
Join Date: 07 March 2004
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 10,928
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smittykins View Post
But..but that allows them to avoid the *natural consequences of their sin*! After all, you play with fire, you get burned...:roll eyes:
Thatís what I was kinda going for - any screw ups a person made are their fault and they need to lie in it like any other mess. Thats the whole notion about personal responsibility that these guys like to promote. After all, this is America - the land of opportunity to those who worked for it

Quote:
(Not to mention their belief that adoption solves everything. "Let's stop killing these bables and start giving them to people who want them.")
Not to mention that they conveniently ignore how hard it is in many instances to actually adopt and how long it can take. It just doesnít match with reality in their minds. The fit is, we have issues with putting children in homes even with abortion available - getting rid of it isnít going to make the problem get any better.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 17 June 2012, 05:39 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Default

Banning abortion, assuming it actually worked, would put about a million babies into the adoption market every year. Rough math: let's assume 100 million households in the US. Let's say (and this is generous ) one in 20 wants to adopt, say three children over 30 years. Where are the other babies going to go? Not to mention the older children already waiting for homes.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 17 June 2012, 05:54 PM
Nonny Mouse's Avatar
Nonny Mouse Nonny Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 30 April 2006
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 14,286
Default

Having more babies available for adoption might reduce wait times for potential adopters, up to a point. Problem being, of course, that the once the supply exceeds the demand the government's going to have to pay someone to care for the overflow.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 17 June 2012, 05:59 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Default

Yes, and the point where supply exceeds demand would likely come as early as year one.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 17 June 2012, 06:03 PM
geminilee's Avatar
geminilee geminilee is offline
 
Join Date: 02 December 2005
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 11,518
Default

From what I understand, a lot of the wait time is because people are asking for particular types of babies. I don't have a cite offhand (I will look for one if you want) but it is much easier for a white infant to be adopted out than a minority infant.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 17 June 2012, 06:14 PM
diddy diddy is offline
 
Join Date: 07 March 2004
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 10,928
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloe View Post
Yes, and the point where supply exceeds demand would likely come as early as year one.
Given how many kinds are waiting for adoptions now, I wager that we already have a problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by geminilee View Post
From what I understand, a lot of the wait time is because people are asking for particular types of babies. I don't have a cite offhand (I will look for one if you want) but it is much easier for a white infant to be adopted out than a minority infant.
I have no problem with that. Not to mention that people are very picky about other traits that they adopt - it has to be perfectly healthy, no long term problems. You also have to overcome the fact that many parents might not want to give up their children even when forced to do so. But you raise a valid point, adoptions are a slow process even under ideal situations.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 17 June 2012, 06:19 PM
geminilee's Avatar
geminilee geminilee is offline
 
Join Date: 02 December 2005
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 11,518
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post
Given how many kinds are waiting for adoptions now, I wager that we already have a problem.
I wasn't even considering the older kids in the system, from toddlers on up. Those kids have little chance of being adopted, and the chances get less the older they get. Skin color and health problems are still considerations in this group, making many children essentially unadoptable.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 17 June 2012, 06:20 PM
Mickey Blue's Avatar
Mickey Blue Mickey Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,571
Default

Yea but those are usually (if I recall..) older kids, I would assume newborns (barring medical issues) can get adopted fairly easily but I could be dead wrong on that.

That said, of course, odds are the supply will exceed the demand pretty fast, and any kids that happen to be born with major medical issues even faster.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 17 June 2012, 06:29 PM
geminilee's Avatar
geminilee geminilee is offline
 
Join Date: 02 December 2005
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 11,518
Default

Here is a link that supports the fact that white infants are preferred. In fact, African American babies are offered at discount rates.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 17 June 2012, 06:40 PM
dungeondragon18 dungeondragon18 is offline
 
Join Date: 16 September 2007
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 436
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonny Mouse View Post
Having more babies available for adoption might reduce wait times for potential adopters, up to a point. Problem being, of course, that the once the supply exceeds the demand the government's going to have to pay someone to care for the overflow.
I got it! Have the people who are on welfare work for their living by being forced to take care of the "overflow" children!

Oh, wait....
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 17 June 2012, 06:58 PM
diddy diddy is offline
 
Join Date: 07 March 2004
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 10,928
Default

I bet Newt already thought of that idea!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 18 June 2012, 12:13 AM
Thera Thera is offline
 
Join Date: 28 March 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 603
Default

My 38-year-old (at the time) broke friend got pregnant and Medicaid paid for all of it. She wanted the baby, was desperate for the baby, had been married to an older man who'd had his kids and was done and was stringing her along with the baby issue and she finally had enough, divorced him, and got pregnant as fast as she could with the rebound guy she married (whom she's no longer with, as he's crazy and needs meds which he doesn't take).
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 18 June 2012, 04:44 PM
ULTRAGOTHA ULTRAGOTHA is offline
 
Join Date: 06 October 2000
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 3,996
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bettie Page Turner View Post
I asked for a tubal ligation when I was on Medicaid. I was told Medicaid would not pay for it until I was 25.
Federal guidelines state you must be 21. What state were you in at the time?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 18 June 2012, 04:47 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,331
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ULTRAGOTHA View Post
Federal guidelines state you must be 21. What state were you in at the time?
I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Betty was misinformed or outright lied to.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 18 June 2012, 06:30 PM
Beachlife!'s Avatar
Beachlife! Beachlife! is offline
 
Join Date: 22 June 2001
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 28,460
Default

Both are very possible. It is also possible the guidelines have changed in 20 years.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 18 June 2012, 06:45 PM
geminilee's Avatar
geminilee geminilee is offline
 
Join Date: 02 December 2005
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 11,518
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ULTRAGOTHA View Post
Federal guidelines state you must be 21. What state were you in at the time?
I would have had to be 21 in Florida to get my tubes tied. They had to get an exception made for me.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GM changed "employee" to "employe" snopes Business 41 21 July 2009 10:55 PM
SC Republican Fiercely Opposes "North American Union" and the "Amero" Bohemian Rhapsody in Blue Sightings 13 31 May 2008 11:46 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.