What is the minimum income requirement for having sex?
Comments
-
pandora wrote:
In my opinion requiring something from people is caring. Just like the community service thread some view it as negative when it is a positive.GTFLYGIRL wrote:
We do no one favors allowing them to grow up on welfare and have babies at age 15.
To not be able to have a good education, to live in crime ridden neighborhoods and perhaps resort to crime themselves.
We can't take care of the children that are already here let alone all that will be born just this year into a system that is dragging our country down.
What solution have we come up with in this thread to solve the problem?
Or are we just talking back an forth pointing fingers at each other...
Those who claim to have such big hearts, allowing generations on welfare to drain our country.
Against the realists who want clear change and to stop being overtaxed to the point of needing second and third jobs to raise their own children.
There must be a reasonable middle of the road as with everything to solve this problem.
Okay, back to the subject at hand...
Speaking of being a realist, how exactly do you propose we disallow people from having babies at 15 without turning our backs on the babies?0 -
But we are ignoring each other now right....please say yes_ wrote:About the swearing... I use the term fuck to my friends, as some people in their 30's would do also, this commonplace for me. I don't swear when I speak to my mother, to my grandmother, to children, etc., but I don't care whether or not you find it or me attractive - this isn't match.com. This is a website for the band Pearl Jam. I'm sure everyone here is familiar with and a fan of their curse-filled music and has still chosen to stick around. Therefore, I think this is a perfectly acceptable place for such words to be used. Please note that, while I use swear words casually around here in general (not just with you), I have ALWAYS resisted the temptation to use them AGAINST you (e.g. I've never called you a bitch or told you to fuck off). My point being that my use of these words is in no way meant to insult you.
0 -
I'm not assuming this and you assuming I do is incorrect and is making an --- out of you_ wrote:pandora wrote:20 years from now, when you are 55 and have kids approaching 30 you will perhaps understand
how I feel. At this point I don't expect understanding from you. It takes very insightful people to understand and to bridge the generation gap.
I am a Mom and you are children to me.
Pretty simple concept.
Okay, I wasn't going to say anything else, but I just have to say this: You have got to stop assuming that everyone is so much younger than you and that they aren't parents. (You know what they say happens when we ass-u-me...) Many of the people you call children & talk down to are actually just about your age and have children too. (I do understand, though, how it would be difficult to guess that since some of them look so damn good for their age.) 0 -
GTFLYGIRL wrote:Jeanwah wrote:I understand the argument here, and Heidijam's position, but solving the problem, rather than argue, may simply be insisting Welfare recipients use protection. I have a friend who has 3 kids, was on welfare, now has a good temporary job, and is a single mother. She's told me that she's considering having another baby in the future! :shock: Personally, I don't advocate for her position since she may have to go back on welfare eventually, and her interests are selfish. But she's trying to get on track; she's back in school and working. That doesn't mean that she'll always be able to financially support her family. But she needs to recognize that getting pregnant again is not looking out for her or her 3 existing kids best interest.
And guys...really.....quit the fucking fighting. Take it elsewhere.
It's a tough cycle... and it is amazing to me that people continue to want to have more children in a position like this... a lot of people have babies to fulfill some personal needs of their own... it's a sad situation... like young girls who want babies so they will have a "family" and won't feel alone... or couples in horrible marriages with emotionally neglected kids who keep having kids... because they "can"... maybe they can financially take care of these kids... but who's to say these children will not become a burden on society when they are older... they grow up in unhappy households and who knows what will become of them as they mature... it's a crazy world....
I wish your friend all the best and *hopefully* she will realize having more children will not fill any type of void she is feeling and education will help her gain more self-worth....
thanks for helping to set this thread straight... i think it is now that i bow out... i avoid this forum for the exact reason you cited... i don't want to be part of all that... and just allow myself to get sucked into and become participatory (and a perpetrator) in all the bullshit on here... thanks again.
Here is a parting gift for those of you who clearly do not understand the regulations and limits of TANF (as many call "welfare"...) This spells out and explains the time limits and work regulations in a very basic way...
http://www.workworld.org/wwwebhelp/temp ... quirements
Yes, I'm worried about her 3 kids, and their place in society, as college isn't really on the brain at all with my friend, and I'm actually dying to ask her how she feels about her kids' future and if college is something she (and they) are thinking about. My friend is very caring, and I believe she's in love with the idea of being depended on, mothering, and taking care of herself. But deep down I know she may feel that her kids are all she has and having another fills some kind of void. :? I don't know how to approach her about this "idea" of hers that having more kids seems to be the answer, without hurting her feelings.0 -
Well because you called people who didn't agree with you morons in my first pm I asked please not to do that.GTFLYGIRL wrote:pandora wrote:I have pleaded with you in a couple pm's basically on my knees open heart all for naught
so I do know a bit about your lack of respect for others too.
So your words here now are a 'kettle black' thing...
I am a Mom and you are children to me.
Pretty simple concept.
You sent me a PM that was anything but "on your knees with open heart..." :roll: ..... I RESPECTFULLY requested you NOT write to me again.... but DISRESPECTFULLY... you did anyway. I have no desire to have a "relationship" with you whereby you and I PM with each other... If you notice... I RESPECTFULLY never opened your last PM as I was clear in asking you not to keep writing to me... but you were unable to abide by my simple request.
It's not surprising to me that you believe you have any clue how old I am or what my life experiences consist of... yet are so off base... it's par for the course with your assumptions about others... and your condescending remarks....
You just sound silly calling me a child when you have no idea how old I am or what I have lived through... Pretty simple concept.
It sounds like you consider yourself to be so much better than others...those who do not share your opinion.
In the second I was pleading which you did not open and I say that is quite disrespectful.
To read someones pm is one thing to answer is another.
It is the shutting out of others that really shows one's true colors.
And it is not a request for a relationship :? ...get over yourself.
I never called you a child and like I said it takes an insightful person to understand others and you don't won't or can't give it a try.
Oh yes I love the rolling eyes...do you do that to people in person too?
Very disrespectful and hurtful but not surprising.
Clearing you think yourself better than most and perhaps enjoy the put downs.0 -
Jeanwah wrote:Yes, I'm worried about her 3 kids, and their place in society, as college isn't really on the brain at all with my friend, and I'm actually dying to ask her how she feels about her kids' future and if college is something she (and they) are thinking about. My friend is very caring, and I believe she's in love with the idea of being depended on, mothering, and taking care of herself. But deep down I know she may feel that her kids are all she has and having another fills some kind of void. :? I don't know how to approach her about this "idea" of hers that having more kids seems to be the answer, without hurting her feelings.
It's a tough situation... I would say that you should maybe suggest therapy... but with working, going to school and being a single mom... if she's not in counseling...I am sure she thinks she doesn't have "time" for it.... Probably, as her friend, your only approach that would maybe be "heard," without causing her to pull away from you, would be to suggest to her, when she mentions it... that she sure seems to have her hands full now. I am sure you have probably already done that though... My only other thought is the "it takes a village to raise a child approach" and just try to make yourself as present in their lives as you can... exposing the kids to new things, concepts, experiences etc.... I can tell you clearly care about her and the kids... so that is a great thing right there!
0 -
Jeanwah wrote:I understand the argument here, and Heidijam's position, but solving the problem, rather than argue, may simply be insisting Welfare recipients use protection.
Yes, contraception use would be great, but we don't need to INSIST that poor people use contraception - we just need to ALLOW them to use contraception. There's a reason why unintended pregnancy rates & abortion rates rise in direct INVERSE proportion to income - and why this country had the highest unintended pregnancy rate in the developed world. It's a SYSTEMS issue. Poor people WANT to prevent pregnancy - even more than the rest of us, I'd say - but the system is set up to make this a lot more difficult the less money you have. Poor women have very little chance of being able to access the most reliable forms of birth control. And now Congress is about to take away even what slim chance they do have.
So if we want poor people to have fewer kids, all we have to do is fight to improve access to contraception. This is an easy solution that we know will work if we all do our part - and yet we don't. We can do this by increasing - not eliminating - funding to such programs as Title X family planning (which saves us $3.74 in averted pregnancies for every $1 spent - and that's just counting costs through the first year of life) and Planned Parenthood (which is the largest birth control provider in the nation, especially for poor people). But WE have to stand up and do our parts to make this happen; it's just not possible for the poor people to do it alone, no matter how hard they try.0 -
pandora wrote:Well because you called people who didn't agree with you morons in my first pm I asked please not to do that.
Uhmmm.... no...I called people who irresponsibly encouraged someone they do not know to KILL ANOTHER PERSON... who they also do not know.. MORONS... Apparently, you continue to believe that was responsible and sound advice...
That is why I had no desire to communicate with you further.
Since you clearly MUST always have the last word... and like to play martyr... please feel free to respond... (not in a PM!!... just making that clear!!!) ... but i will not comment back to you at all... so let the insults fly if you must... ADIOS.0 -
The bolded part is generalizing, as if you read about my friend, you'd see that you may have to adjust your thinking that all folks who are poor don't want more kids. I personally believe that there should be some kind of regulations in place for those on welfare and have kids to get counseling and seriously urged to use protection that's very available to them._ wrote:Jeanwah wrote:I understand the argument here, and Heidijam's position, but solving the problem, rather than argue, may simply be insisting Welfare recipients use protection.
Yes, contraception use would be great, but we don't need to INSIST that poor people use contraception - we just need to ALLOW them to use contraception. There's a reason why unintended pregnancy rates & abortion rates rise in direct INVERSE proportion to income - and why this country had the highest unintended pregnancy rate in the developed world. It's a SYSTEMS issue. Poor people WANT to prevent pregnancy - even more than the rest of us, I'd say - but the system is set up to make this a lot more difficult the less money you have. Poor women have very little chance of being able to access the most reliable forms of birth control. And now Congress is about to take away even what slim chance they do have.
So if we want poor people to have fewer kids, all we have to do is fight to improve access to contraception. This is an easy solution that we know will work if we all do our part - and yet we don't. We can do this by increasing - not eliminating - funding to such programs as Title X family planning (which saves us $3.74 in averted pregnancies for every $1 spent - and that's just counting costs through the first year of life) and Planned Parenthood (which is the largest birth control provider in the nation, especially for poor people). But WE have to stand up and do our parts to make this happen; it's just not possible for the poor people to do it alone, no matter how hard they try.Post edited by Jeanwah on0 -
It is not me who insults and resorts to name calling.... I respect others too much for that.GTFLYGIRL wrote:pandora wrote:Well because you called people who didn't agree with you morons in my first pm I asked please not to do that.
Uhmmm.... no...I called people who irresponsibly encouraged someone they do not know to KILL ANOTHER PERSON... who they also do not know.. MORONS... Apparently, you continue to believe that was responsible and sound advice...
That is why I had no desire to communicate with you further.
Since you clearly MUST always have the last word... and like to play martyr... please feel free to respond... (not in a PM!!... just making that clear!!!) ... but i will not comment back to you at all... so let the insults fly if you must... ADIOS.0 -
Jeanwah wrote:The bolded part is generalizing, as if you read about my friend, you'd see that you may have to adjust your thinking that all folks who are poor don't want more kids.
Clearly you are correct, Jeanwah... but especially for the working poor... access to affordable contraception can be VERY challenging... and if they cut the funding to Planned Parenthood... it's going to be a whole lot worse... :evil:0 -
pandora wrote:GTFLYGIRL wrote:pandora to GTFLYGIRL wrote:I am a Mom and you are children to me.
You just sound silly calling me a child when you have no idea how old I am or what I have lived through...
I never called you a child
:? :? :?0 -
GTFLYGIRL wrote:Jeanwah wrote:The bolded part is generalizing, as if you read about my friend, you'd see that you may have to adjust your thinking that all folks who are poor don't want more kids.
Clearly you are correct, Jeanwah... but especially for the working poor... access to affordable contraception can be VERY challenging... and if they cut the funding to Planned Parenthood... it's going to be a whole lot worse... :evil:
Yeah, I edited my post to include that contraception should be readily available. It seems that the only funding not being cut is military. Which is disgusting.0 -
Jeanwah wrote:
The bolded part is generalizing, as if you read about my friend, you'd see that you may have to adjust your thinking that all folks who are poor don't want more kids. I personally believe that there should be some kind of regulations in place for those on welfare and have kids to get counseling and seriously urged to use protection that's very available to them._ wrote:Jeanwah wrote:I understand the argument here, and Heidijam's position, but solving the problem, rather than argue, may simply be insisting Welfare recipients use protection.
Yes, contraception use would be great, but we don't need to INSIST that poor people use contraception - we just need to ALLOW them to use contraception. There's a reason why unintended pregnancy rates & abortion rates rise in direct INVERSE proportion to income - and why this country had the highest unintended pregnancy rate in the developed world. It's a SYSTEMS issue. Poor people WANT to prevent pregnancy - even more than the rest of us, I'd say - but the system is set up to make this a lot more difficult the less money you have. Poor women have very little chance of being able to access the most reliable forms of birth control. And now Congress is about to take away even what slim chance they do have.
So if we want poor people to have fewer kids, all we have to do is fight to improve access to contraception. This is an easy solution that we know will work if we all do our part - and yet we don't. We can do this by increasing - not eliminating - funding to such programs as Title X family planning (which saves us $3.74 in averted pregnancies for every $1 spent - and that's just counting costs through the first year of life) and Planned Parenthood (which is the largest birth control provider in the nation, especially for poor people). But WE have to stand up and do our parts to make this happen; it's just not possible for the poor people to do it alone, no matter how hard they try.
I should have been more clear. I don't mean that "ALL folks who are poor don't want more kids". I just mean that we can't say that poor folks want to prevent pregnancy any LESS than the rest of us do - and, based on my vast experience with poor people's reproductive decision-making processes, my best guess would be that (given their situation) they may be even more inclined to want to prevent pregnancy. Your friend is obviously an exception - and I'm sure she's not the only one - but I don't think she's the rule (which is why I left out the part about her in my response).
I don't know if you also meant to say I was generalizing about this being a systems issue, but there's plenty of evidence that this is true. Do you think, as well as urging people to use protection, that we should address the fact that they simply can't use reliable protection if it's not available to them?
EDIT: Sorry - I didn't see that you had edited your post.0 -
GTFLYGIRL wrote:
EXACTLY!
Thank you!
I thought you were letting me have the last word
you know this child thing came from a quote I say to my children
"Child there are no guarantees in life only probabilities"
I was quoting myself to _ but she missed the message and got defensive.
And yes I'm 55 my kids are approaching and over the age of many here... I meant the young people here are children to me.
Clearly that is a sin I guess but its ok to swear at people call them a martyr, hypocrite, moron etc. Go figure
This is where the disrespectful rolling eyes come in but thats not nice, I don't go there.
Now is this the end or are we beating this dead horse?
Because people here have asked you and me to be civil and I know I can be and I think you all can too.0 -
i learn my lesson with the years..i take the money first and then i get naked..
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”0 -
I miss you Brother and you always make me smile when I need it most!dimitrispearljam wrote:i learn my lesson with the years..i take the money first and then i get naked..
Heart.... warmed
Hugs 0 -
The minimum income requirement is $0. The use of your brain is free.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help