Would you vote for Governor Kasich as president? (Cleveland, Toledo: unemployment, buying)

[UKWildcat1981]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Kasich was one of the best in the debates. Unfortunately, it's relative to the fact that pretty much every GOP candidate is batsh*t. If it had been a stage full of reasonable moderates, he wouldn't have looked good at all. Kasich is *far* too socially conservative for me and he's no more fiscally responsible than any of the other candidates, so I couldn't vote for him anyway.

I actually agree with you for once wow, I agree that Kasich is really sensible for a GOP candidate, he won't win the nomination thou.

[Zen_master]

Originally Posted by WRnative

The analysis reported in post 200 quoted median household income for Ohio of 46,398 vs. the national median household income of 51,939. As indicated, it's from Table H-8 here:

Historical Income Tables - Households - U.S Census Bureau

Anybody can verify the source of the numbers in the analysis by looking at Table H-8, so the analysis appears accurate. So 2013 Ohio household income, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau today, was indeed 89.33 percent of national household income.

Where's the link for the source of your data?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househ..._United_States

You quoted "family income," which after some further research I discovered excludes single person households and multiple-person households where the individuals are unrelated. Obviously, "household income" is the more comprehensive term.

<<
What is the difference between households and families?
A family consists of two or more people (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption residing in the same housing unit. A household consists of all people who occupy a housing unit regardless of relationship. A household may consist of a person living alone or multiple unrelated individuals or families living together. You may access all of the CPS definitions at Current Population Survey>>


Frequently Asked Questions - U.S Census Bureau


I would still link to see the link for the tables to your data.


Household income is the criteria generally used as it makes no sense to exclude single person households from the calculation, nor households shared by non-related person.


More importantly, you don't have a time series so we can't see how median family income has fared in Ohio versus the national average. It's possible that it has fallen from a premium to the national average in 2007 to the 2013 deficit as reported by you, but for which we don't have the actual link to the table that was the source of your data.

Census quick facts:

Ohio QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

[WRnative]

Originally Posted by Zen_master

Does a rapist's child have any less value than you, me, or the next person?

Let me rephrase your question so it is most relevant. Does a child conceived in rape have less value to most mothers who are rape victims than a child conceived in a loving or at least consenting relationship, even if the rapist is of a different race, or is identified and determined to be mentally impaired?

Let me add another relevant question. Can the mother of a child conceived in rape expect much, if any, financial support from the rapist father?

So, if the answer to either question is no, why should the mother be forced to bear and raise that child, especially unless you and others who believe they have the right to force her to do so are willing to pay her for her suffering, lost wages, medical costs, physical harm of pregnancy, counseling sessions, and other identifiable damages.

Furthermore, as pro-lifers want to impose the burden on a rape victim mother of giving birth to the child conceived in rape, since they value human life so much, they should put themselves on a list to adopt and raise any child conceived in rape, assigned to them randomly, in a loving relationship providing the same financial support that they would provide their own children. Is there such a list???

It's clear that many pro-lifers who would force a rape victim to bear the child of rape, also oppose funding welfare, Medicaid, and even good public schools, so an impoverished rape victim mother can't even expect a good social safety net, if the mother chose to keep the child. Is that fair?

Those of us who believe that a rape victim mother should be allowed to take a pill or otherwise abort a pregnancy resulting from rape certainly shouldn't be asked to share the responsibility of raising the child, especially when many pro-lifers don't want much, if any, responsibility for raising any children other than their own.

[Zen_master]

Originally Posted by WRnative

Let me rephrase your question so it is most relevant. Does a child conceived in rape have less value to most mothers who are rape victims than a child conceived in a loving or at least consenting relationship, even if the rapist is of a different race, or is identified and determined to be mentally impaired?

Let me add another relevant question. Can the mother of a child conceived in rape expect much, if any, financial support from the rapist father?

So, if the answer to either question is no, why should the mother be forced to bear and raise that child, especially unless you and others who believe they have the right to force her to do so are willing to pay her for her suffering, lost wages, medical costs, physical harm of pregnancy, counseling sessions, and other identifiable damages.

Furthermore, as pro-lifers want to impose the burden on a rape victim mother of giving birth to the child conceived in rape, since they value human life so much, they should put themselves on a list to adopt and raise any child conceived in rape, assigned to them randomly, in a loving relationship providing the same financial support that they would provide their own children. Is there such a list???

It's clear that many pro-lifers who would force a rape victim to bear the child of rape, also oppose funding welfare, Medicaid, and even good public schools, so an impoverished rape victim mother can't even expect a good social safety net, if the mother chose to keep the child. Is that fair?

Those of us who believe that a rape victim mother should be allowed to take a pill or otherwise abort a pregnancy resulting from rape certainly shouldn't be asked to share the responsibility of raising the child, especially when many pro-lifers don't want much, if any, responsibility for raising any children other than their own.

So effectively what you are saying is life is not worth the financial cost?

[1watertiger]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Abortion, health care, equal pay, etc.

If it were up to most of them, women would be back in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant (even with a rapist's child).

Do you really believe that? Honestly?

[1watertiger]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Abortion, health care, equal pay, etc.

If it were up to most of them, women would be back in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant (even with a rapist's child).

no one will vote for a candidate that wants to make abortion illegal.but half of America disapprove of abortion including myself. but I do believe it should be legal to save the mother or in cases of rape and incest. to me that's just common sense. the recent videos that without a doubt show what Planned Parenthood hood does with our tax Dollar is a downright crime. and on that front I hope they stop funding my tax Dollars to that ****ing organization.the videos are sickening and a disgrace on America.. secondly I think you are the one stuck in the fifties. women's pay and Healthcareare are equal to men in my profession. and I have a very physical construction job which they cant perform equally. but of course the Union pays them the same as me. it's bull****.but hey that's the way it is. I'm a bigot or a chauvinist if I disagree. right?and what the hell do you know about everyday life in America? haven't you been squirreled away in Mexico ? far left liberalism and progressive agendas from the minority of the country can really screw up this country the past three years since you've been gone.

[1watertiger]

Originally Posted by WRnative

Let me rephrase your question so it is most relevant. Does a child conceived in rape have less value to most mothers who are rape victims than a child conceived in a loving or at least consenting relationship, even if the rapist is of a different race, or is identified and determined to be mentally impaired?

Let me add another relevant question. Can the mother of a child conceived in rape expect much, if any, financial support from the rapist father?

So, if the answer to either question is no, why should the mother be forced to bear and raise that child, especially unless you and others who believe they have the right to force her to do so are willing to pay her for her suffering, lost wages, medical costs, physical harm of pregnancy, counseling sessions, and other identifiable damages.

Furthermore, as pro-lifers want to impose the burden on a rape victim mother of giving birth to the child conceived in rape, since they value human life so much, they should put themselves on a list to adopt and raise any child conceived in rape, assigned to them randomly, in a loving relationship providing the same financial support that they would provide their own children. Is there such a list???

It's clear that many pro-lifers who would force a rape victim to bear the child of rape, also oppose funding welfare, Medicaid, and even good public schools, so an impoverished rape victim mother can't even expect a good social safety net, if the mother chose to keep the child. Is that fair?

Those of us who believe that a rape victim mother should be allowed to take a pill or otherwise abort a pregnancy resulting from rape certainly shouldn't be asked to share the responsibility of raising the child, especially when many pro-lifers don't want much, if any, responsibility for raising any children other than their own.

You point out an extreme pro life conservative regarding abortion. Just as there are extreme pro choice liberals who are fine with using abortion as birth control. That's why its important that commen sense moderates from both sides work together to move this country forward. Secondly, what's wrong with wanting to take care of your own kids? taking care of orphans and the like is a natural common sense human thing to do. what you don't seem to understand is that the hard working taxpayer is tired of paying for all the millions of Americans that keep making poor decisions time and time again. can't you see the hard working taxpayer in America is waking up and getting pissed off that so much of his/her tax dollar goes to handouts to undeserving people who abuse the system?

[WRnative]

Originally Posted by Zen_master

So effectively what you are saying is life is not worth the financial cost?

No, I'm saying that those who would force a woman who was a victim of a rape and who doesn't want to give birth to and care for the child are hypocrites.

If these pro-lifers really were interested in the child, they would comfort the woman in every way possible, attempt to make her whole, and then personally assume responsibility for the child. Why don't they do this?

It's easy to understand many reasons why the mother wouldn't be comfortable with the child, more so if she doesn't have the resources to care for the child.

Yet these hard-core, pro-lifers say to the woman, who might not share their religious philosophy that life begins at conception, tough luck, it's your problem, deal with it.

They place no or little value on the mother or the child's well-being. Hypocrites.

Of course, I don't believe that anybody has the right to impose their religious philosophies on another person's body in the first place. If you're going to do it, however, don't be hypocritical about it.

[WRnative]

Originally Posted by 1watertiger

You point out an extreme pro life conservative regarding abortion. Just as there are extreme pro choice liberals who are fine with using abortion as birth control. That's why its important that commen sense moderates from both sides work together to move this country forward. Secondly, what's wrong with wanting to take care of your own kids? taking care of orphans and the like is a natural common sense human thing to do. what you don't seem to understand is that the hard working taxpayer is tired of paying for all the millions of Americans that keep making poor decisions time and time again. can't you see the hard working taxpayer in America is waking up and getting pissed off that so much of his/her tax dollar goes to handouts to undeserving people who abuse the system?

You make my point. You don't want to pay for the support of children that, due to your religious belief, you admittedly are forcing on mothers that don't want them. Hypocritical.

Do you approve of the morning-after pill?

If not, what right do you have to deny someone else the right to control their body in a way that they and a large portion of society considers ethical?

I don't see how a "hard-working" taxpayer can deny support for a unwanted child that they forced on a mother. Please explain.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by 1watertiger

Do you really believe that? Honestly?

For some of them, absolutely.