Then they are screwed and depend on the government to provide food stamps, insurance, etc.... 

The top 1% owns about 90+% of the wealth.  While I am not saying it is fair to tax them more but when you have a society that barely any percentage of the population controls almost all the wealth what are you supposed to do?  I've been reading the fair tax book by Neal Boortz (although I hate him and consider him to almost as bad as Rush, even though he claims to be libertarian) and it brings up an interesting way of taxing.  Not biggest fan of putting 23% tax on everything like they want to (even non prepped food (from what I understand from reading it)), medical, and a few others).  However, it would allow people to choose when to pay taxes (by spending, and getting refunded for the taxes on food up to poverty level or something like that) instead of having taxes withheld all year long.

Well, first off, when I say $8 an hour, I'm talking where I live, where the cost of living is relatively cheap.

Second off, I'm going to assume they had these kids when they were making more money, and are only temporarily making less money.  The reason I assume that is, if you cannot afford to pay for children, then you shouldn't be having children.  I know this sounds extremely cruel, but that is my plain and simple thoughts.  I don't want to have to pay for the baby that you wanted so badly.  You should pay for it.  Now, this situation changes if a poor person was raped, or something along those lines.  If they have severe difficulties raising a baby that they didn't want, I am all for helping out.

Third, before you have a child, you should have not only an emergency fund that accumulates to about half your annual income set up (You should always have this, not just if a baby is coming), but you should also have a considerable chunk of change set aside to take care of the baby.  When it comes to money management, you should always be assuming the worst is going to happen.

If you have a family that was making $32,000 per year, and continues to have kids, and winds up a family of 4 or 5, and cannot afford to live, they REALLY should have thought about that before having children.

But if you are simply making $32,000 per year, and have to take care of 2 kids, and didn't have any funding set up, yes, it will be essentially impossible, even with the most simplistic of budgets, to be able to afford the necessary expenses.

LOL

If they have always made just $32,000 a year, yes.  But if they saved for a baby, and also have an emergency fund equal to half their (normal) annual income, they should be able to make it by for up to 12 months, giving them ample time to search for better jobs.

progressive but there no real progressives in gov.

I see a flaw in the 40 hr McDonalds example. They don't give 40 hours. most large corporations only give 4 hrs a day.  Tjmaxx, wal-mart, you name it. Try and go get 40 hrs from them and see how it works out for you .  It's a joke. You are assuming that people will get the hours. This how they get around not giving you health benefits.

Progressive views. End bush tax cuts, regulate business, end wars and put that money back in to infrastructure. Problem solved. Problem is that corporate greed has got it's hands all over our politics

Then get 2, 20 hour a week jobs :-p

Bush tax cuts, wars, Corporate loop-holes and the sub-prime lending. You can't just say what was the last thing that broke the camels back.

sure because you can schedule that right in.  LOL. Then one company will not want to work with the other companies hours. Remember all those companies don't ever give set schedule.  They got to through you though a loop. To F you just that much more. that way you can't plan or get another job.