Yes.

Supports of various gov't programs, whether it's feeding poor children or funding a military that's almost expensive as all other militaries combined, act as if gov't has its finger in the dike holding back complete disaster. If the gov't stopped doing those things, _most_ of those poor children would find a way to be fed and _most_ of the world would find a way to protect itself without the US.

Most people, though, think some areas of gov't spending, typically ones that account for a third of half of gov't spending are vital. That other half, though, is all moochers who don't understand the philosophical merits of smaller gov't, gov't made smaller by cutting whatever programs the person talking didn't like in the first place.

We are in accord. Go to TOTALPROSPORTS.COM. To think it really does not matter what kind of class you consider yourself in. Sad!

Largely agree. I would be happy to pay for the children that have arrived, but the delivery method should not be via the bad decision maker that got us here. that had one and can't pay to raise them. Neither should they be left in the problem environment where they cannot be supported.
Don't confuse my concept of removing the political power from parasites with either a contempt of them, or a lack of generosity. If there are no checks and balances, the system will be unstable and the consuming population will outgrow the producing population until a more drastic method of control is forced upon us.
BTW, don't think the US would exist without military contracts though. You may argue excess and waste here (and I would be happy to explain how the Government plays in waste as well), but we require a healthy military institution for existence until there is one world under fair capitalism.
...or are you just pointing out there are parasites everywhere? Totally agree.

richrobinson, Calling Stossel: Could you get her
on your show in front of an audience of working
taxpayers ?

This is what progressive policies have produced. For all those who deny that we have created a dependent class they need to speak to this woman.

Thank you, DriveTrain, you covered that well.
When the 15-children woman demanded someone
be held accountable and pay for HER and her
3 babydaddies' brood, did it not occur to her that
she and they should be held accountable ?
What does that word mean to her ? This is really scary.

If you look at the numbers, though, people don't vote by economic demographics. The narrative makes sense, but it's not true.

Regarding Romney's comment, I thought the media went WAY to hard on him. His only point was that most people don't care about the tax issue b/c it doesn't affect them. It's just like campaigning about something that only affects the coasts, I may have too much going on to make that issue a priority. If the issue is which electrical projects require licensure, I'll naturally pay more attention. The media tried to say he was saying half the people are bad. He didn't say that. He just said they don't pay taxes, so taxes is not a top issue on their radar.

The problem with gov't is NOT that one group is supporting another. Some kids getting nutrition benefits and subsidizing housing is a drop in the bucket. The problem is half of us pay in and then everyone tries to get a slice of that money back.

Maybe some people feel sanctimonious picking on a single mother who pays nothing in, but a productive attitude is willingness to go without stuff that benefits us too -- SBIR grants, military contracts, etc. Start by saying you're willing give up the stuff you get, and then it sounds more credible looking for savings by cutting benefits for children in poverty.

We don't need oppressive, paternalistic judgmentalism to know this sense of entitlement is wrong. Feminism, the notion that people should be treated equally without regard to sex, has nothing to do with this entitlement attitude.

I believe "the one remaining fallback inhibitor" will come to fruition.

Not long ago I viewed a special on the local PBS channel covering so called poverty in my city. One poor single mom, with four offspring, was living in a brand new house built by a government program that appeared well furnished including some very nice electronic gizmos. She was railing on about not getting enough assistance. I will not forget her statement "I just need about 20 more dollars a week for my children" as she butted out her cigarette. Another spot interview included asking an 11 year old boy what he wanted to be when he grew up. His response: "I want my own case number".

Romney was wrong about 47%. It was a little higher than that back then. Is it higher now?

please note that Robin is a Leach; this woman is a leech -- loves to f@&k and we get to pay.

I agree. I feel no guilt about the fate of her children. The blame and guilt is entirely hers to own.

You'd eliminate 80% of the Progressive voters that way (that 47% Romney spoke about). Not a bad idea at all. ;)

Chief Justices Sotomayor and Kagan say you don't want to play? You still have to pay! with regards to Ocare

You play; you pay! Period.

I have no sympathy for that woman and many like her. It's not a new situation. I remember the same thing going on in the mid 60's and it had gone on prior to that in the 50's. I can have some feeling for the children, but the reality is that we all know where they're headed. Altruism is such a great thing, isn't it?

she is beautifully confident and empowered. a true feminist. camila paglia, I await your praise for this wonderful woman

Quick fix? How about if you are supported by the Government during the term since the prior election, you don't get to vote in the next one?

how come she didn't use her "bama phone and just call the president up? he'll organize her community...

Isn't it a sad commentary on our times that this woman feels completely justified in saying that 'someone' needs to take responsibility for her children? It would not be at all surprising to find out that her mother espoused the same beliefs; and probably her mother before her.

Geeze! And some people still question sexual education in public schools, birth control methods and yes, abortion. With so many humans on earth, what´s so awful about sparing a soul or two? Anyhow, as a last resort a mother who can´t stop having babies is not legible for the job you know, it´s hard enough to raise one alone for you to go about having...15! I knew a poor, humble lady who had 16 kids. Eight with one man and eight with another. Some went to an orphanage, others just "got by". Had a daughter who´s keeping the family trade, already by her 13th child! Yikes! And I know ´em all but....please, "when you gonna learn"!

She is absolutely correct that someone needs to pay and if she will look in a mirror she will find exactly who it is that needs to pay!

This brings up a whole big can o' worms that tends to drive "feminists" into apoplexy, but...

There was once a serious societal stigma to bearing kids out of wedlock (or at minimum, outside of a committed relationship,) but as khalling alludes elsewhere here, the comically-misnamed "feminist" movement swept all of that oppressive, paternalistic judgmentalism aside years ago. And this chaos is the result.

The only fallback inhibitors to uncontrolled fecundity amid zero financial ability to support it used to be heavy-duty disapproval from society-at-large, and grinding poverty. Since the welfare state has swept that secondary disincentive aside in much the same way (and on the same philosophical basis) as the masculinists swept aside the simple disincentive of shame, the one remaining fallback inhibitor is:

Complete collapse of an economy that can no longer pull the dead weight of welfare behind it.

The blithe expectation that "somebody [else] needs to be held accountable" springs from soil fertilized and cultivated as a rich medium for it, for decades.

Chicken + Roost = x
Solve for x.