Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, January 27, 2014

During a luncheon Thursday before a business group in Lexington, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) discussed the possibility of cutting government benefits for unwed mothers who have multiple children. "Maybe we have to say 'enough's enough, you shouldn't be having kids after a certain amount,'" Paul said. "[Being] married with kids versus unmarried with kids is the difference between living in poverty and not. We should sell that message. Not in a mean way to tell people who already have made a bad decision, but if you've had one child and you're not married, you shouldn't have another one."

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

So what if those kids go hungry, they should have known better than to be born to unwed mothers. It's their own damn fault.

#1 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-27 09:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

he discussed it with a business group. That's the only reason it even gets mentioned.

Paul knows that is going nowhere.

#2 | Posted by eberly at 2014-01-27 09:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

You think he's cruel? Just look at the women who keep having children when they can't take care of the ones they already have.

#3 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-01-27 09:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

You think he's cruel?

#3 | Posted by Dalton

I think he's stupid.

Mandatory vasectomies for any male who fathers too many children.

#4 | Posted by Zed at 2014-01-27 09:49 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

"You think he's cruel?"

He wants to cut off the food supply for children. Yes, he is cruel. I don't have to approve of the behavior of the mothers to still want to feed the kids.

#5 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-27 09:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

#3 Then punish the woman some how but not the kids. Taking away aid will only hurt the kids

#6 | Posted by patron at 2014-01-27 09:52 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Mandatory vasectomies for any male who fathers too many children.

#4 | Posted by Zed at 2014-01-27 09:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

I guess you have trouble reading Zed. It's not having too many children. It's having more children when you can't take care of the ones you have. I know a couple that has 14 children but, they are all well fed and provided for.

#7 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-01-27 09:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

Planned Parenthood can be a taxpayer's best friend, yet there are fools on the right that want to put it out of business.. Birth control is a bargain.

#8 | Posted by Robson at 2014-01-27 09:54 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

DALTON....What's up with all you conservative types forgetting that there are two sexes, and each is required for reproduction? Seriously.

Most of these women get left with the kids when their "man" runs away. What's your plan for them?

#9 | Posted by Zed at 2014-01-27 09:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's having more children when you can't take care of the ones you have.

#7 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-01-27 09:54 AMFlag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Sure. What about the dads?

#10 | Posted by Zed at 2014-01-27 09:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

Most of these women get left with the kids when their "man" runs away. What's your plan for them?

#9 | Posted by Zed at 2014-01-27 09:55 AM | Reply | Flag

No need to yell skippy. I'm fine with vasectomies for them too.

#11 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-01-27 09:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm fine with vasectomies for them too.

#11 | Posted by Dalton at

Court-ordered and enforced?

#12 | Posted by Zed at 2014-01-27 09:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

sure

#13 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-01-27 09:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

Now what about the women who knows the guy is a loser and a deadbeat who keep getting pregnant by them? Don't you consider it cruel to the children she already can't take care of?

#14 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-01-27 10:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

sure

#13 | Posted by Dalton

Great. Then we look forward to the day when there are repoduction courts who get to decide when sterilizations are handed out and too many kids means that some of them starve.

I'm still interested in why people like Huckabee refuse to acknowledge two sexes aren't involved in baby-making. Any ideas?

#15 | Posted by Zed at 2014-01-27 10:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

Paul explained it in a civil and rational way as a loving father might explain it to a daughter, and not mean spirited as some on the left might call it and to be honest as the headline portrayed it.

Much more effort needs to be made identifying fathers and subjecting them to child support.

#16 | Posted by Robson at 2014-01-27 10:02 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Now what about the women who knows the guy is a loser and a deadbeat who keep getting pregnant by them?

#14 | Posted by Dalton at 2014

This is an example of what I mean. What about the guys who keep having sex with the gals they know are losers and deadbeats?

Why do you always pick on the ladies first?

#17 | Posted by Zed at 2014-01-27 10:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Two sexes ARE involved in baby-making...."

I only slept through half of Health class.

#18 | Posted by Zed at 2014-01-27 10:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Paul explained it in a civil and rational way as a loving father might explain it to a daughter, and not mean spirited as some on the left might call it and to be honest as the headline portrayed it."

He explained starvation in a loving way. How sweet. Perhaps he ought to try it first himself.

#19 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-27 10:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

Let's put this another way, DALTON. Why doesn't the GOP like women?

#20 | Posted by Zed at 2014-01-27 10:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

Too blunt? I can pretty much assure you that most of the fairer sex gets this blunt come election days.

#21 | Posted by Zed at 2014-01-27 10:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

No response? Then I'll leave you to wonder which of your male friends are studs and which of your female friends are -----.

#22 | Posted by Zed at 2014-01-27 10:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

A little tough love is hard to except sometimes but, if you keep encouraging bad behavior with financial incentives, you "will" get more bad behavior. Besides, they should be locating the sperm donors for these children and make them accept the responsibility for their selfish activity. Actions have consequences. That would have the largest impact on out of wedlock births.

#23 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-01-27 10:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

"This is an example of what I mean. What about the guys who keep having sex with the gals they know are losers and deadbeats?"

Zed you are not very bright or honest as we know but, the court has a remedy for guys who don't pay child support. It's called jail time. What we don't have is some incentive for the women who continually have sex with guys and get pregnant while there current children are hungry. These women are just humpin away in the same house while their children sit on the couch hungry.

#24 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-01-27 10:13 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Any one see that, is it a Taco Bueno commercial? The one with the young man who is eating Mexican food as the enraged father chases him out of the house and away from his daughter?

I hope that the dad catches that tadpole and beats the s--- out of him.

#25 | Posted by Zed at 2014-01-27 10:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

Why doesn't the GOP like women?"

republicans are like hot air balloons-- the more hot air they are filled with, the higher up they go...

#26 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2014-01-27 10:14 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

the court has a remedy for guys who don't pay child support. It's called jail time.

#24 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-01-27 10:13 AM | Reply | F

Jail comes and goes but children, and I can attest to this, last a lifetime.

The Republican Party will never be PERMITTED to lecture about sexual morality for as long as they play the part of misogynists.

#27 | Posted by Zed at 2014-01-27 10:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

there=their

#28 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-01-27 10:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

Actually jail doesn't come and go. Until the father pays off his debt to his children he stays in jail.

#29 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-01-27 10:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

Zed you act as if the mother has not responsibility to her children. Maybe instead of sexing it up with Mr. deadbeat she should be out working or attempting to feed her children. I'm all for feeding children but, you have to wonder if these mothers aren't feeding their children what other basic needs of life they are not providing.

#30 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-01-27 10:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

A lot of these particular 'mothers' reproduce strictly for the check....been going on a very long time....they know exactly what they are doing... of course, the 'left' likes this and looks at it as a 'voter reproduction program' to enrich their base...
It is as much the irresponsibility of the woman getting pregnant in a lot of these cases as the irresponsible father...

#31 | Posted by drsoul at 2014-01-27 10:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

"He wants to cut off the food supply for children."

actually he wants to talk about the notion of doing that with folks that want to hear that kind of talk......but anybody with a brain knows it won't go further than a speech like this.

#32 | Posted by eberly at 2014-01-27 10:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

Until the father pays off his debt to his children he stays in jail.

#29 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-01-27

That's not the way it works aroud here. Where are you from?

#33 | Posted by Zed at 2014-01-27 10:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

"The Republican Party will never be PERMITTED to lecture about sexual morality for as long as they play the part of misogynists."

they do it every day, Zed.

#34 | Posted by eberly at 2014-01-27 10:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

Under Kentucky law, those who have reached the felony mark for failure to support may upon conviction be sentenced to up to five years in prison and/or fines of $1,000 to $10,000 in addition to whatever amount the offender is in arrears for child support payments. Child support felony charges can be brought after failing to pay $1,000 or more in support, missing six months of payments or if your child is destitute.

#35 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-01-27 10:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

And Kentucky will extradite a felony non-supporter from any other state that has a child in Kentucky.

#36 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-01-27 10:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I'm all for feeding children but, you have to wonder if these mothers aren't feeding their children what other basic needs of life they are not providing."

you can stop wondering. They're not providing those basic needs. These are the same households that send kids to school who can't read or perform at the level they are supposed to be at and that drives up the cost of education. I wish these households would do a better job of taking advantage of early ed programs such as Head Start. Unfortunately these kids wind up being "special" issues for the schools to deal with until they are out of school.

#37 | Posted by eberly at 2014-01-27 10:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

I agree that cutting off the mothers ends up punishing the kids.

But I don't see why talking about these issues keeping biological reality in mind is "sexist". In reality, a (bad) man can run away from a pregnant woman. A woman decides to continue the pregnancy or not but she can't simply avoid responsibility by running away. This is due to biology, not sexism. If a woman gets pregnant by a guy she knows to be a deadbeat and decides to go ahead with the pregnancy and keep the baby as opposed to giving it up for adoption, she knows all too well what the implications of that decision are - especially when its not her first kid.

If you want to blame anyone for this being unfair, blame the invisible sky man.

Or maybe someone just needs to teach Zed where babies come from....

#38 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-27 10:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Or maybe someone just needs to teach Zed where babies come from...."

at least warn Zed to get rid of the nutmeg, cough syrup and beer from the house.

#39 | Posted by eberly at 2014-01-27 10:45 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

#38: Sully, you hit upon a very good point. There are millions of couples that would love to have these children that would improve their lives a thousand fold. But, government red tape and exorbitant fees make it all but impossible to adopt in this country for many couples.

#40 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-01-27 10:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

Free vasectomies for any guy who has more than three kids would be a good idea.

But of course the randoid would think in more draconian terms.

#41 | Posted by Tor at 2014-01-27 10:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

Unfortunately, a lot of these 'welfare and government supported' children are nothing but objects to their mothers...there is very little basic care for them and they certainly are not the priority of these type of mothers...you can call it 'picking on the women', but they know exactly what they are doing...and, to condone this by letting it continue to go on without ANY type of program to deter it will not make it any better... this government loves to hand out checks to anyone and promote those who really do not care to work...that is where it starts..!!!
as said by others, the kids are 'collateral damage' in this case, but when the government keeps promoting this behavior, what do you expect???

#42 | Posted by drsoul at 2014-01-27 10:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

at least warn Zed to get rid of the nutmeg, cough syrup and beer from the house.

#39 | Posted by eberly at 2014-01-27

None of these items are so bad in themselves. But mix them....

#43 | Posted by Zed at 2014-01-27 10:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

...and no birth control either.... just control your urges....and if you're raped, well its all part of God's plan.

#44 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-01-27 10:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Besides, they should be locating the sperm donors for these children and make them accept the responsibility for their selfish activity."

Go for it but in the mean time the kids still need to eat. Any solution that includes not feeding the kids is no solution, it's the creation of a new problem that society will someday have to pay for.

#45 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-27 11:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

The GOTP answer to abortion and contraception and family planning is let the children slowly starve to death?

Gosh. What a well thought out plan.

You go GOTP.

#46 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-01-27 11:13 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

If you women would just control your Libidos or ------ or something we wouldn't have this problem and Rand Paul wouldn't be forced to starve the children.

#47 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-01-27 11:17 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

#45...you assume that these kids are all being fed properly and taken care of...which, if you read many papers across the nation, are not happening... more and more kids are being abused because they are neglected by these same people taking the money and not spending it on the children... I do not disagree one bit that children need to be taken care of, but as long as there is no monitoring on how the money is spent, to keep dishing it out is no guarantee of the child getting ANY benefit.

#48 | Posted by drsoul at 2014-01-27 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#46
#47

Shouldn't be too long before GOTPers starting telling us people who want to feed children are anti-life.

#49 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-27 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

#45: Danni, you keep harping on this meme of "not feeding the kids" but, that is not the issue being discussed here. Rand Paul is not suggesting we let these children starve as you keep insisting. In this state, you have to be criminally negligent for a child to go hungry. There are numerous programs whether it is government or private that any child will be feed no matter how they got there. What kind of hellhole do you live in that advocates starving children?

#50 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-01-27 11:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

Here is what happens, mommy has a child out of wedlock, she has no job and no money and gets welfare and ADC. Nobody has a problem with that. Daddy moves in, money gets tight so how do we get by? Have another baby, increase your ADC. So now you have multiple babies that grow up with no supervision, get involved with drugs, break into cars and houses, and the story goes on until they end up in prison or get shot in the ghetto.

Meanwhile mommy and daddy are not living in luxury but they have enough income to support themselves without doing anything. And there is absolutely zero incentive to better yourself. So the welfare cycle continues generation after generation.

So why not allow the mother ADC for every child she brings with her, but nothing for those she has while receiving ADC? Now there is no advantage to having a baby every year. A NJ governor proposed this many years ago but it went nowhere.

Now in order to help the mother give her free day care so she can go to school and learn a skill. Help with tuition, and when she finishes her course and gets a job give her a two for one credit for her paycheck. In other words for every two dollars she earns the government reduces her welfare check by one dollar. Now she has an incentive to get a skill, improve her life, but still has a safety net until she gets on her feet.

I would much rather give these people a chance to move up in the world rather than just stay in public housing, and suck up tax dollars. Of course nobody in this country has the intestinal fortitude to stand up and do this and the liberal judges would strike down any attempt. It's too bad because this could have thousands out of the life in the ghetto. Somehow I missed the section in the constitution that allows people to live off the tax payers and make no attempt to get ahead because they are entitled to a welfare check. At some point this has to change

#51 | Posted by gtjr at 2014-01-27 11:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

Dsniel

I belive that hellhole is CT.

#52 | Posted by gtjr at 2014-01-27 11:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

#49; No Doc, we just have problems with the disinformation being promoted as truth. There is a purposeful attempt at deceiving people and it helps no one, except maybe the politically motivated.

#53 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-01-27 11:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

"No Doc, we just have problems promoting disinformation as truth."

See? Fixed!

#54 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-27 11:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

"There are numerous programs whether it is government or private that any child will be feed no matter how they got there. What kind of hellhole do you live in that advocates starving children?"

I don't advocate that it is those who want to cut food stamps who do and no, you're wrong, without food stamps millions of kids would go hungry in this country. I clearly remember the days before we had food stamps when kids absolutely did go hungry in America.

#55 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-27 11:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Ah so, Rand Paul is Chinese?

If you can't tell by his rhetoric that he is a dangerous Fascist, then just look at his eyes and listen to his whine of a voice and know that he is a dangerous loon.

#56 | Posted by Corky at 2014-01-27 11:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

#54: You're a funny man Doc but, you just proved my point.

#57 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-01-27 11:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

#55: Umm Danni, it's 2014 not 1930. We have "progressed".

#58 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-01-27 11:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

"#55: Umm Danni, it's 2014 not 1930. We have "progressed"."

Yeah, we passed the Great Society back when Johnson was President. Why do you want to take us backwards?

#59 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-27 11:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

Free birth control, sex education in schools.
Here's the simple fact, the poor don't have many entertainment options, sex is fun and doesn't cost anything....for months.
Reality is often simpler than rhetoric.

#60 | Posted by kingcuke at 2014-01-27 11:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Reality is often simpler than rhetoric."

And usually more real.

#61 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-27 11:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

Backwards? What the heck are you talking about? Do you advocate for more unwed mothers having "more" children they can't or won't support? Do you not see the problems you are making even worse? The issue is too many children going hungry. Shouldn't we address the causes for these problems and stop making excuses for it?

#62 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-01-27 11:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I would much rather give these people a chance to move up in the world rather than just stay in public housing, and suck up tax dollars."

If you go back and read LBJ's State of the Union speech when he created the "War on Poverty," "moving up" was supposed to be the goal...BUT, if the goal was to move poor people out of welfare as he stated, it has failed miserably, created a permanent, constantly growing dependent class of Americans, and has wasted trillions of dollars.

#63 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-01-27 11:51 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Unborn Souls better start being more careful who they decide to be born by. They will be punished to the fullest if Paul and his followers get their way if they choose poor unmarried woman as mothers.

#64 | Posted by THomewood at 2014-01-27 11:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

#64: More disinformation.

Define "disinformation":

: false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth

#65 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-01-27 11:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

Oh, you mean like "death panels"

#66 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-27 11:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

My great grandfather got Home Relief during the Depression to keep his family of nine going. I can't imagine what would have happened to them if he had been forced to move out of the home in order for my great grandmother to receive benefits.

#67 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2014-01-27 12:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

"it has failed miserably, created a permanent, constantly growing dependent class of Americans, and has wasted trillions of dollars."

As usual just ignore the facts, most recipients of food stamps work for a living. Big corporations, like Walmart, have taken advantage of food stamps and Medicaid so that they can pay their employees less than what it costs them to eat and have a roof over their heads. You blame the program instead of the billiaires who take advantage of those programs. Raise the minimum wage to $10.00 per hour and you'll bump millions off the food stamp rolls and force the Walton family to pay their employees enough to eat.

#68 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-27 12:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Here's the thing: I bet we can all agree that people who are JUST lazy, fully sponging, need to be made to take responsibility for themselves. Can we not also agree that stopping aid to children is a bad idea, that punishing kids for their parents' failures and bad deeds is, quite simply, wrong?

I saw someone here (more than once) suggest that young people in that situation should be removed (into foster care or some such) until such time as the parent gets his/her sh** together. I can get behind that, but who decides, and where do the kids go? Many of you who push the "responsibility" argument also do not trust government with pretty much anything. So what's the mechanism for decision and removal, who gets the kids, how do we know if they're any good, and perhaps most importantly, how does the "bad parent" earn his/her kids back? (And is such removal bad for the kids...?)

#69 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-01-27 12:11 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

" I bet we can all agree that people who are JUST lazy, fully sponging, need to be made to take responsibility for themselves."

I agree with that statement.

#70 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-27 12:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Can we not also agree that stopping aid to children is a bad idea, that punishing kids for their parents' failures and bad deeds is, quite simply, wrong? "

Oops, I forgot to copy this part which is what makes it possible for me to agree with you.

#71 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-27 12:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you limit the children the govt will subsidize to two, I do believe they would start to use that 'free' birth control provided by obamacare.

#72 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-01-27 12:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

#67 | POSTED BY HAGBARD_CELINE

I cannot imagine by what logic they came to a stupid decision with THAT one, Hag. Can someone please explain to me how it's going to benefit a family by forcing the man out of the house in order to provide assistance? So now we have about 40% of all births to single mothers and 75% of all black children. When are they going to admit that this "War on Poverty" is a major gaff and does way more harm than good.

"Since 1970, out-of-wedlock birth rates have soared. In 1965, 24 percent of black infants and 3.1 percent of white infants were born to single mothers. By 1990 the rates had risen to 64 percent for black infants, 18 percent for whites. Every year about one million more children are born into fatherless families. If we have learned any policy lesson well over the past 25 years, it is that for children living in single-parent homes, the odds of living in poverty are great. The policy implications of the increase in out-of-wedlock births are staggering."

www.brookings.edu

#73 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-01-27 12:34 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

This is exactly where the lefty welfare system set us up for this problem---and now society is reaping the benefits. Paul is absolutely correct----something needs to be done about this issue. It should be debated and solutions proposed and put in place. We can continue to blow smoke on this problem or actually do something about it. If not, it'll just become another one of the sinkholes undermining this society. The more you support the behavior, the more it'll become a vicious cycle. It was just great when everybody was fat and sassy (to many) but this economy and financial system is crumbling before our eyes and it is no longer business as usual if we don't want to continue the inexorable Obama plunge into 3rd world status.

#74 | Posted by matsop at 2014-01-27 12:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

#69: That's a good point Prag but, we are not talking about take food away from kids. What Paul is suggesting, is that we discourage activity that promotes these problems. I do not believe Paul is saying anything about starving kids, only to discourage those that get a check for just having kids. The kids will be feed no matter what circumstance put them in that situation. Our children are like our country's 401k plan. If we invest poorly, we will reap poor returns in the future. And I fear, we may be already reaping some of those returns today.

#75 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-01-27 12:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is an issue similar to immigration-----You don't come in with some half-ass back end solutions like most lefties would. You first make sure up front that you pass legislation that will prevent the problem going forward. An example is that the responsible policy in immigration would be first to secure the borders before you legitimize the illegals already here. The same goes for the welfare system. You first put a maximum on the number of children the system will support going forward; then you deal with the children already in the system.

#76 | Posted by matsop at 2014-01-27 12:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

How did we get into this situation?

Is there more out of wedlock pregnancies now or in the past? As Danni states we will pay for this, but its regardless of whether we pay for a child's meals.

Was the government as involved as much as it is now in providing for these "families"? More or less since even sex education came into the picture? Images on TV that promote sex? Contraception ads?

Whatever happened to shame?

The road back to the promised land is a slow journey, we didn't get here overnight.

I could see a progressive cut in the amount we give to mothers that have children out of wedlock for each child.

Along with that rather than "reward" this irresponsible behavior, lets reward marriage........ Lets reward people that are below the poverty line yet choose to marry as opposed to letting the mother go off and have the child without a father. Currently the system is geared towards only giving welfare to a mother that is unattached, make it easier for married people to receive the same welfare check, even if the father is working.

#77 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-01-27 12:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

I've got to give Paul credit; he's got the guts to say we have a serious problem that none of the other establishment politicians (along with Obummer)from either party will get close to. The Obummer will harangue about an inequality problem and then look the other way about causal factors. I wish we had a real POTUS in the WH and not the pretender we have.

#78 | Posted by matsop at 2014-01-27 12:48 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

How did we get into this situation?

#77 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-01-27 12:46 PM | Reply |

The 60's and the "great society" programs was the beginning. I love the name of these programs---just the fact they called it "great", you knew it was destined to failure. Kind of like the "Affordable Care Act"----anybody with half a brain in America should have known up front that it would be the opposite. Whenever the government comes up with a new program and names it; just insert the opposite language and you probably have reality.

#79 | Posted by matsop at 2014-01-27 12:53 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"An example is that the responsible policy in immigration would be first to secure the borders before you legitimize the illegals already here."

In other words attach a Catch 22 to any solution to any problem so that nothing will ever actually get done.

"An example is that the responsible policy in immigration would be first to secure the borders before you legitimize the illegals already here."

Kids who eat three meals a day don't consider those programs to be failures.

Are you old enough to actually remember before we had those programs? Yes or no?

#80 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-27 12:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is readily fixable.

You fix it the same way we do with feral tom cats in my neighborhood. Catch and release, we call it. Catch'em, fix'em, and release them. They're alive, happy, but no longer making babies.

I'll almost guarantee you that the threat of "de-nutation" to those who currently roam the streets impregnating girls at taxpayer expense will give them second thoughts.

Lastly on those that are fixed they need a civil lien on them that can be used to garnish wages, and a scarlet "N" for neutered on their forehead. The decline in testosterone might cut down on crime too.

#81 | Posted by Robson at 2014-01-27 01:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Kids who eat three meals a day don't consider those programs to be failures."Danni

Ofcourse they don't but, then again they believe in Santa Claus, tooth fairy, and easter bunny. When did we start running programs on what kids think are good? I said earlier that the kids should be fed but, to just ignore the problem is creating a disaster.

#82 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-01-27 01:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Corporations destroyed the american family. They shipped jobs overseas to increase profits and stock prices. Jobs disappeared, and women don't want a jobless man, so marriage plummeted.

For one of these politicians who loves giving corporate BJs to come along and blame the victims of corporate selfishness is either and stupid or deceitful.

#83 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-01-27 01:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I said earlier that the kids should be fed but, to just ignore the problem is creating a disaster."

No one wants to ignore the problem but you want these parents to be out working...great...create some jobs. Stop filibustering bills designed to bring jobs back home. Quit whining about people struggling to survive in an economy that sends millions of jobs overseas. No one takes you seriously about this because your side always supports the billionaires who sent the jobs away.

#84 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-27 01:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

We need a return to orphanages where children can be fed, educated and cared for. A volunteer system of national service with a stipend for youth (espec young women) could also be used and it would provide needed parenting experience. The cycle of teens having kids, dropping out of school, then on welfare for the kids and life of poverty, needs to be broken.

Most of these kids would be better off in a 24/7 institutional environment than raising themselves on the street, often with irresponsible mothers as is currently the case. The savings from welfare and the many pre school subsidies to the unwed mothers could be used to fund this.

#85 | Posted by Robson at 2014-01-27 01:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

"No one wants to ignore the problem but you want these parents to be out working...great...create some jobs."

Obama got a trillion dollars to create jobs and what did he do with it? Nothing. How much more would you like to spend when he pissed the first trillion away? He got his tax increase on the rich. He got his healthcare law. He had two years of control with democrats and what did they do with it? Nothing thats what.

#86 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-01-27 01:20 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#78 | POSTED BY MATSOP

When he makes that statement in a general election debate, I'd consider it "guts".

Till then I'll take it for what I think it is, pandering to a group so they contribute to his coffers.

In other words, another politician that will say whatever it takes to get enough money to 'effectively' campaign in elections.

Politicians (left and right) are great at pointing out the problems, but ----- on any solution.

#87 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-01-27 01:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Obama got a trillion dollars to create jobs and what did he do with it?"

He pulled the country back from a near depression with it. You can pretend otherwise but facts are facts.

#88 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-27 01:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

"He had two years of control with democrats and what did they do with it?"

Actually about 11 weeks.

#89 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-27 01:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

"make it easier for married people to receive the same welfare check, even if the father is working."

You allow both parents (I'd argue to not even require marriage) to live in the same home and the benefit is twofold, firstly both would be custodial parents with all the traditional benefits that provides the children, plus you also don't have one parent shelling out for a second rent while simultaneously having his/her wages garnished for a court determined amount of child support. I believe that would put families in a better position to get themselves off public support.

#90 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2014-01-27 01:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Most of these kids would be better off in a 24/7 institutional environment than raising themselves on the street, often with irresponsible mothers as is currently the case."

Karl Marx said as much.

#91 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2014-01-27 01:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Kids who eat three meals a day don't consider those programs to be failures.

#80 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-27 12:59 PM | Reply

The reason we now feed kids those 3 meals is because of the welfare system that put them in that situation----breaking up of families tend to do that. Once the lefties broke up the family structure, then all kinds of other programs had to be put in place to pick up the pieces. It becomes a vicious cycle.

#92 | Posted by matsop at 2014-01-27 01:38 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Well, since in a free society you can't forcibly perform surgery on someone, the ideal solution would be to keep these kids healthy and give them a good education. That way the welfare and food stamp money would be a good investment. Instead of a further burden on society these kids would become Doctors and Entrepreneurs.
Or is that too much of a win-win for you folks.

#93 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2014-01-27 01:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Once the lefties broke up the family structure, then all kinds of other programs had to be put in place to pick up the pieces. It becomes a vicious cycle.

#92 | Posted by matsop

Lefties didn't break the family structure. Corporations did. When they ended the ability for one provider to care for a family. Now it takes 2 incomes. And many of those incomes have been shifted overseas to increase profits and stock prices.

#94 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-01-27 01:39 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Lefties didn't break the family structure. Corporations did.
#94 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

bingo

#95 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2014-01-27 01:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Karl Marx said as much.
#91 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

And Groucho Marx said: "A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five."

#96 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-27 01:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Actually about 11 weeks.

#89 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-27 01:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

It was long enough to jam ACA through. He should have passed his jobs bills you claim he has instead.

#97 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-01-27 01:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

He pulled the country back from a near depression with it. You can pretend otherwise but facts are facts.

#88 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-27 01:31 PM | Reply

Wrong; all he did was put us in a deeper hole until the next huge downturn which is coming. He gave us a healthcare bill which is a disaster and will weigh on this society for years. The Federal Reserve which is as responsible as anyone for the mess we're in was the entity that "pulled the country back from a near depression" by the heavy printing of money. Of course, the Obummer was a bit player in it just like Bush was back in 2001 with fiscal stimulus along with Greenspan's money printing. The stock market is down in a big way and we're getting close to the next major downturn-----2014 will be a transitional year and the folks better be battening down the hatches. When the stock markets go the next time, Obama will have nothing successful on his plate except for allowing kids up to the age of 26 falling under their parents' health insurance, pre-existings acquiring health insurance, and Bin Laden dead. What a wasted 8 years it'll be.

#98 | Posted by matsop at 2014-01-27 01:46 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

"A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five."

#96 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-27 01:45 PM | Reply

Make sure that child has Danni's address.

#99 | Posted by matsop at 2014-01-27 01:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The stock market is down in a big way"

Compared to when Obama took over??? Ridiculous.
Your entire post is nonsense. The economy has been doing better for several years now, it isn't fixing to collapse any time soon. You might pray for it to but sorry God isn't listening to you.

#100 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-27 01:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

He pulled the country back from a near depression with it. You can pretend otherwise but facts are facts.

#88 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-27 01:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

You claim that but, no one really knows. What we do know is he admitted his "shovel ready jobs" weren't as shovel ready as he claimed. After he pissed away 1 trillion why would anyone believe any of his other claims?

#101 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-01-27 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Lefties didn't break the family structure. Corporations did.
#94 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

bingo

#95 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2014-01-27 01:42 PM | Reply |

Wrong again. There were 2 primary movers----the lefty welfare system was the first. The other one was Nixon going off of the international gold standard in 1971. That was the open door to the Federal Reserve unsound fiat money. If you knew your history, you would realize it was about then when the great capital misallocation began along with wages not keeping up with inflation. That along with the feminist movement encouraged women to enter the work force.

#102 | Posted by matsop at 2014-01-27 01:54 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Most of mother's like these have no heart. A child going hungry would tear most parents up. But instead they just sit there and go "Who gonna take care of all THESE babies? SOMEBODY gotta pay for THIS".

Hold them accountable. Stop making it easy to not be held accountable. It's not the public's fault these mothers and thugs are irresponsible. Scorn needs to be heaped on the mother's for making such bad decisions instead of lauding them as "strong women" and victim status.

That's the only way it's going to be broken.

#103 | Posted by boaz at 2014-01-27 01:55 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Most of these kids would be better off in a 24/7 institutional environment than raising themselves on the street, often with irresponsible mothers as is currently the case. The savings from welfare and the many pre school subsidies to the unwed mothers could be used to fund this.

#85 | POSTED BY ROBSON

Not sure how fiscally responsible that is.

Average cost per welfare recipient is $9000 (I'm guessing annually, article doesn't say).
www.askheritage.org

Average cost per student in the US is $10500.
www.governing.com

Annual costs per inmate are $21,006 for minimum security, $25,378 for low security,
$26,247 for medium security, and $33,930 for high security. A
www.urban.org

I'm guessing that you will have to combine a little bit prison and a little bit school and going by current numbers, you end up spending a lot more. The only question is how effective it is.

Considering the issues that kids face from just being in an orphanage or foster care, it's hard to judge the eventual outcome IMHO.

Also, would this be considered 'small govt' or 'limited govt'?

#104 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-01-27 01:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

That along with the feminist movement encouraged women to enter the work force.
#102 | POSTED BY MATSOP

But that was a good thing, right?

#105 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-27 01:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Lefties didn't break the family structure. Corporations did. When they ended the ability for one provider to care for a family. Now it takes 2 incomes. And many of those incomes have been shifted overseas to increase profits and stock prices."

I disagree. Neither lefties nor corporations broke the family structure......although neither has helped the situation.

#106 | Posted by eberly at 2014-01-27 01:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

"After he pissed away 1 trillion why would anyone believe any of his other claims?"

Well, if you're danni, you adhere strictly to the first tenet of Dannism.
1) Democrats...GOOD!

#107 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-01-27 01:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Oops, I forgot to copy this part which is what makes it possible for me to agree with you."

Really, Danni, it's not possible for you to agree that people who are fully lazy, who choose to sponge, need to become responsible?

"I do not believe Paul is saying anything about starving kids, only to discourage those that get a check for just having kids."

Well, I'd have to see his specific proposal; I'm too lazy to read the article. : ) There was a proposal recently (Kentucky?) that featured stopping aid to those with too many... Stopping. Like no more aid. That would be pretty horrible.

"You first put a maximum on the number of children the system will support going forward"

At first blush, I have no problem with that.

"Lets reward people that are below the poverty line yet choose to marry as opposed to letting the mother go off and have the child without a father. "

I'd be very, very careful with that. Staying married can be bad for kids if the marriage is bad, the parents unable to be positive together, etc.

#108 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-01-27 02:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The stock market is down in a big way"

Compared to when Obama took over??? Ridiculous.
Your entire post is nonsense. The economy has been doing better for several years now, it isn't fixing to collapse any time soon. You might pray for it to but sorry God isn't listening to you.

#100 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-27 01:49 PM | Reply

Just talking about last week, Danni, just talking about last week. The only people doing better the last "several years" are the 1%ers. More people then ever on food stamps. The real unemployment figures still in the stratosphere (remember that little factoid of the participation rate plunging to 1978 levels {62.8%}and people not in the workforce at a record 91.8 million). If this is better, I would hate to see "bad"----which by the way is coming. You can only manipulate markets so long before they decide game over.

#109 | Posted by matsop at 2014-01-27 02:01 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The only question is how effective it is.

Considering the issues that kids face from just being in an orphanage or foster care, it's hard to judge the eventual outcome IMHO.

If there's any interest in these kids succeeding, finding any way to keep them OUT of the criminal justice system (particulary prison) is a key factor. Nobody realizes how criminalizing the prison experience truly is until they personally know someone who is sent there.

You want to ensure kids don't end up as life long criminals? Make sure there are policies in place that help them stay out of prison.

Also, would this be considered 'small govt' or 'limited govt'?
#104 | POSTED BY LOHOCLA

Far from it.

#110 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-27 02:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

How abot a blast from the past? Remember when we were losing 750,000 jobs per month?

nuf said.

As another thread discusses, Republicans can't seem to remember things vere well.

#111 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-27 02:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

"If there's any interest in these kids succeeding, finding any way to keep them OUT of the criminal justice system (particulary prison) is a key factor. "

A good first step would be to decriminalize weed.

#112 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-27 02:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The real unemployment figures still in the stratosphere (remember that little factoid of the participation rate plunging to 1978 levels {62.8%}and people not in the workforce at a record 91.8 million). If this is better, I would hate to see "bad"----which by the way is coming.

This is all in accordance with the third tenet of Dannism:
3) Blame Bush/Reagan!

#113 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-01-27 02:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

It can't be both ways with women having control of their bodies and then on the other hand it's not their fault to continually give birth to children they can't provide for. The problem with issues such as poverty is there is not one thing that creates it. For some it's education while there are other reason like bad parents or where they live. What can be done is convince these mothers to quit harming their current children by having more children. To me it's not even about the money as much as it simply creates a mindset much like a child abused. They start to think its normal.

#114 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-01-27 02:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

"As another thread discusses, Republicans can't seem to remember things vere well."

Danni, applying more Dannism tenets:
#2 Republicans...BAD!

#115 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-01-27 02:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

As another thread discusses, Republicans can't seem to remember things vere well.

#111 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-27 02:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

What do Republicans have to do with Obama getting his trillion dollar stimulus and pissing it in the wind? What does it have to do with him focusing on his legacy by jamming ACA through instead of passing all of those awesome jobs bill you claim he has?

#116 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-01-27 02:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

That along with the feminist movement encouraged women to enter the work force.
#102 | POSTED BY MATSOP

But that was a good thing, right?

#105 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-27 01:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

For women? Yes. For fairness? Yes.

For kids? No. For a workforce that basically doubled in a few decades while demand for labor did not keep pace? No.

Not saying it shouldn't have happened. It is only fair that it did. But its hard to ignore the unintended consequences.

#117 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-27 02:09 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#81 | POSTED BY ROBSON

WoW! I didn't think I would see advocacy for eugenics on the DR, but there it is.

"Just fix them. That will solve everything."

I hope you meant all this in jest. I'm not very adept at identifying sarcasm here, so if you could, clarify for me. Otherwise I may label ROBSON inaccurately.

#118 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-27 02:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

For women? Yes. For fairness? Yes.

For kids? No. For a workforce that basically doubled in a few decades while demand for labor did not keep pace? No.

Not saying it shouldn't have happened. It is only fair that it did. But its hard to ignore the unintended consequences.

#117 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-27 02:09 PM | Reply

Couldn't agree more with Sully. Welfare and more women in the workforce in many cases weren't favorable to the children.

#119 | Posted by matsop at 2014-01-27 02:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

"What do Republicans have to do with Obama getting his trillion dollar stimulus and pissing it in the wind? What does it have to do with him focusing on his legacy by jamming ACA through instead of passing all of those awesome jobs bill you claim he has?"

Nothing!
You have to realize that ALL danni thoughts and posts are predicated STRICTLY upon the four tenets of Danniism.
1)Democrats...GOOD!
2)Republicans...BAD!
3)Blame Bush/Reagan!
4)Tax The Rich!

#120 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-01-27 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

But its hard to ignore the unintended consequences.

An unintended need for sacrifice more like it, but I know what you mean. It's far more difficult to identify the potential unintended consequences of maintaining the 1950s workforce frame:

The opinion of the time was that parents should have sole authority over their children rather than sharing that authority with grandparents. Families were expected to strike out on their own, "away from the close scrutiny of the elder generation" (Coontz 26). This meant that young families had the added stress of dealing with their problems within their family rather than being able to seek the support of their extended families. This lack of extend family ties meant that men were expected to be more involved with their families. For the first time, men "were encouraged to root their identity and self-image in familial and parental roles" (Coontz 27). A man's career was not his social identity as it had been in past generations. Men were now expected to take time to be with their families. The "lack of a suitable wife could mean the loss of a job or promotion for a middle-class man" because of this women's etiquette books of the time explain exactly what to do when meeting their husband's boss (Coontz 32). The television shows reflected this idea, in "Leave It to Beaver" while it is clear that the husband has a job it is never known what that job is. Many people believe that these 1950's television shows represent what the families of the time were like, but they actually represent what families should try to be. In reality, "fewer than 10 percent of American families met the '[Leave] It to Beaver'" (Coontz 23). Shows such as these have perpetuated a myth that nuclear families are the ideal family type and a goal that all families should strive for.
voices.yahoo.com

IOW, feminism was the significant factor that forced America to realize the nuclear family may have been the instituted goal for families, but was FAR from reality.

#121 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-27 02:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

DAMN!

[/b]

#122 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-27 02:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

As another thread discusses, Republicans can't seem to remember things vere well.

#111 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-27 02:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

What do Republicans have to do with Obama getting his trillion dollar stimulus and pissing it in the wind? What does it have to do with him focusing on his legacy by jamming ACA through instead of passing all of those awesome jobs bill you claim he has?

#116 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-01-27 02:09 PM | Reply

Obama was so intent on getting his name on some horrible piece of healthcare legislation that he knew nothing about when it would have been more appropriate to be focusing on jobs. Oh, I'm sorry; he had no knowledge about economics and didn't have any executive experience. My bad.

#123 | Posted by matsop at 2014-01-27 02:20 PM | Reply | Flag:


So what if those kids go hungry, they should have known better than to be born to unwed mothers. It's their own damn fault.

#1 | Posted by danni

Hate to say it, but these kids are better off being a ward of the State. The cycle needs to end and unfortunately, the Democrats have proven over and over that all they can do is make the problem bigger and bigger.

#124 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-01-27 02:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Welfare and more women in the workforce in many cases weren't favorable to the children.
#119 | POSTED BY MATSOP

In many cases, sure, but as a whole:

In the early decades of the twentieth century, the numbers of child laborers in the U.S. peaked. Child labor began to decline as the labor and reform movements grew and labor standards in general began improving, increasing the political power of working people and other social reformers to demand legislation regulating child labor. Union organizing and child labor reform were often intertwined, and common initiatives were conducted by organizations led by working women and middle class consumers, such as state Consumers' Leagues and Working Women's Societies. These organizations generated the National Consumers' League in 1899 and the National Child Labor Committee in 1904, which shared goals of challenging child labor, including through anti-sweatshop campaigns and labeling programs. The National Child Labor Committee's work to end child labor was combined with efforts to provide free, compulsory education for all children, and culminated in the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, which set federal standards for child labor.
www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu

Silly feminist liberals and their attacks on child welfare. HA!

#125 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-27 02:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hate to say it, but these kids are better off being a ward of the State. The cycle needs to end and unfortunately, the Democrats have proven over and over that all they can do is make the problem bigger and bigger.
#124 | POSTED BY LASTAMERICAN

Interesting, your solution to the problem (stated above) would simply make government bigger and bigger. That's what you really want? Why do conservatives constantly moan about bigger government when their only solution to crime and social ills, such as that within the thread's topic, is bigger government?

#126 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-27 02:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

IOW, feminism was the significant factor that forced America to realize the nuclear family may have been the instituted goal for families, but was FAR from reality.

#121 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-27 02:20 PM | Reply |

What a bunch of contrived BS. Rusty; how old are you? Did you grow up in that era. I did and what the author says is certainly not my experience. I wonder how old the author is----must be part of the propaganda machine. And by the way----use of tranquilizers? I see history forms of women applying for jobs. I've never seen so many of them on anti-depressants and anti-anxiety drugs as I do today.

#127 | Posted by matsop at 2014-01-27 02:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

#121 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-27 02:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

I wasn't around back then so I wouldn't know what was going on for everyone else. I know that even when my family was desperately poor, the women didn't and this was the norm in the neghborhoods they lived in.

#128 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-27 02:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

#125 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

No doubt unions served a beneficial purpose in earlier decades and were instrumental in the passing of laws which have eventually made them irrelevant. However, as with most organizations, they will never voluntarily disband so they have devoted their efforts and wealth to gaining MORE power and MORE wealth. Government worker unions are the most egregious because they have no loyalty to the taxpayers who pay them.

#129 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-01-27 02:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rusty; how old are you?

Hardly relevant, just as it's hardly relevant how old you are when you provide an observation regarding other historical outcomes, such as the Exodus.

I did and what the author says is certainly not my experience.

You must have been a member of the 10% identified by the author. You're not very good with statistics, eh?

I wonder how old the author is----must be part of the propaganda machine.

Is that how you interpret all outside observations? If they don't fit your POV, they must be propaganda? Eeeesh. You must not enjoy learning.

I've never seen so many of them on anti-depressants and anti-anxiety drugs as I do today.
#127 | POSTED BY MATSOP

That surely can be said for women, men, and children, can it not?

Anyways, Stephanie Coontz, the author of said observation, was born in 1944. Again, not that such a variable has any bearing upon the observation made regarding America in the 1950s, but hopefully it will give you some comfort knowing that the person providing the "BS propaganda" is indeed old enough to have experienced that era. However, I'm going to take a guess that it still doesn't matter to you. So be it.

#130 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-27 03:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Government worker unions are the most egregious because they have no loyalty to the taxpayers who pay them.
#129 | POSTED BY JESTGETTINALONG

I whole-heartedly agree. The prison guard union in California is a prime example of what you describe.

Criminal justice reform is needed more now than ever.

#131 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-27 03:06 PM | Reply | Flag:


#124 | POSTED BY LASTAMERICAN
Interesting, your solution to the problem (stated above) would simply make government bigger and bigger. That's what you really want? Why do conservatives constantly moan about bigger government when their only solution to crime and social ills, such as that within the thread's topic, is bigger government?
#126 | Posted by rstybeach11

It wouldn't make government bigger for very long.

#132 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-01-27 03:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

And the Reagan legacy continues...

#133 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2014-01-27 03:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

It wouldn't make government bigger for very long.
#132 | POSTED BY LASTAMERICAN

So your solution has a time limit? I'm interested. Could you elaborate?

#134 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-27 03:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You must have been a member of the 10% identified by the author. You're not very good with statistics, eh?"

She seems to be saying less than 10% of families were exactly like Leave It to Beaver - whatever the hell that really means. A statistic that isn't clear about what it is measuring is meaningless.

She's definitely not clearly saying that less than 10% of American families were married families where the husband worked and the wife took care of the children and home.

#135 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-27 03:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

Government worker unions are the most egregious because they have no loyalty to the taxpayers who pay them.

#129 | Posted by jestgettinalong

Yeah. Rag on unions while talking about loyalty.

What about corporations who show no loyalty to the country that enabled their creation? Dodging taxes, writing their own loopholes, polluting the country, buying off representatives, and outshoring jobs.

Such loyal patriots they are!

#136 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-01-27 03:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

I've never seen so many of them on anti-depressants and anti-anxiety drugs as I do today.
#127 | POSTED BY MATSOP

AND that's probably because they don't institutionalize women for having a disinterest in bearing children or for providing women shock-treatment therapy when they expressed feelings of depression relating to their singular role as house-wife:

The family is defined as a crucial component in both the socialization and installation of cultural values of the child; the importance of the intact parental pair, and especially the mother, is also strongly stressed. In fact, it was considered strange for a
woman to not desire motherhood; in some cases, women endured shock treatments and other medical procedures as a result of attempting abortion or otherwise not living up to motherly expectations.
scholarworks.gvsu.edu

Got to fix those silly women somehow, right MATTY?

#137 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-27 03:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

#135 | POSTED BY SULLY

You make a very valid point. The definition of "nuclear family" is arbitrary, but her point regarding women in the workforce and its effects on society are better explained here:

Coontz's strategy is to describe the sociological imagination and to apply it to some of the most well-known concerns about families (such as working mothers, divorce, and marriage). She critiques the "solution" of holding on to tradition and shows it as a form of scapegoating. Coontz identifies economic issues as key to the current problematic changes occurring in our family lives, and concludes with specific proposals about what real families need.

Coontz explores one source that has been offered as a model: the "typical" family of the 1950s. She shows how our hazy and sometimes faulty images of the 1950s are better understood if we place those personal experiences into the broader picture of the economic situation of the '50s and its connection to governmental support of households. She reminds us that real wages grew faster in a year in the 1950s than in the whole decade of the 1980s. Furthermore, she describes the political "experiment" of the '50s that provided such policies as a minimum wage above poverty, a much larger proportion of federal spending on public works (schools and sewage systems), GI benefits, and home financing. With most of the experiment dismantled and poverty rates growing among every kind of family, including those headed by white men, no wonder we reminisce about the '50s.

The downside of the '50s was that a large proportion of the adult population -- mostly women -- was restricted to the domestic sphere. The steady increase of women into the paid labor force may have occurred partly in response to a need to overcome those constraints. Both women and men report working for reasons beyond the paycheck. But, perhaps more important, as the 1950s economy began to unravel, households had to increase their earnings. Women -- who had always worked but often not for pay -- revived their role as co-provider by entering the paid labor force in larger and larger numbers during the past few decades. For many families, having two adults in the workforce is essential to survival; for others it means being able to achieve at least a modest amount of upward mobility. Coontz reminds us that when family values crusaders promote nuclear households with a male breadwinner and female homemaker, they are telling us we must abandon the American dream of upward mobility and replace it with a no-growth or declining family economy. She concludes that employed married mothers are here to stay. The good news is that families with employed adults in them are better off emotionally as well as economically; women are happier, men have stronger connections to children, children do better in school, and everyone is better off financially. The bad news is that multiple-job families face new problems, like finding high-quality child care and finding enough time, especially for such emergencies as the illness of a family member.

...

#138 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-27 03:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

(con't)

Male-dominated nuclear families do not help solve these problems; in fact, they exacerbate them. Coontz argues that what families really need is not to try to achieve a 1950s ideal, but instead to alter our social context. In particular, we need to change the organization of businesses and government. According to Coontz, during the transition to a male breadwinner family during the early nineteenth century, government funded the transportation systems that were essential for the development of a national market. In today's transition to a coprovider family system, child care, paid parental leaves and family-friendly work policies are equally vital social and economic investments as were canals and railroads then. (p.74). Perhaps not surprisingly, Coontz notes, those who promote the 1950s model of families also promote restrictions in birth control, abortion, divorce, and welfare, and are the same people who oppose parental leaves because these inhibit the flexibility of employers.

In the middle of the book, Coontz asks a controversial question about why the economy has failed so many of us by creating not just economic hardship but also difficult emotional and social repercussions in our families. She argues that what makes the family's condition new and problematic is the simultaneous growth in the economy and the decline in the majority's living standards. Coontz argues that while some politicians would like to divert our attention to divorced parents and unmarried mothers, the crux of the problem is in the economy, the labor market, and government policy. Coontz specifically cites as agents an increasingly unequal distribution of wealth; changes in the labor market that replaced secure and relatively well-paid jobs with parttime, temporary, low-wage positions; and a government that has reduced support just when we need it the most.

academic.evergreen.edu

#139 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-27 03:49 PM | Reply | Flag:


So your solution has a time limit? I'm interested. Could you elaborate?
#134 | Posted by rstybeach11

No time limit at all. Human nature would take over.

#140 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-01-27 03:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

I've never seen so many of them on anti-depressants and anti-anxiety drugs as I do today.
#127 | POSTED BY MATSOP

Another statistic I heard today was that 1 in 6 of the long term unemployed are now alcoholics. It's tragic.

#141 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-01-27 03:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

No time limit at all. Human nature would take over.
#140 | POSTED BY LASTAMERICAN

So you want to impose bigger government for an indefinite period of time, until "human nature takes over"?

Such solid reasoning you've got going there :-)

#142 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-27 03:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

It wouldn't make government bigger for very long.
#132 | POSTED BY LASTAMERICAN

How do you figure?

#143 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-01-27 04:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Another statistic I heard today was that 1 in 6 of the long term unemployed are now alcoholics. It's tragic."

not surprised. If I sat on my butts for 24 weeks....I can imagine several things I could do that would render me "unemployable".

no doubt, this has happened to many folks who remained unemployed for so long.

#144 | Posted by eberly at 2014-01-27 04:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's tragic.
#141 | POSTED BY LASTAMERICAN

Tragic indeed. Yet, 9% of those that are employed also abuse substances. Long term unemployment is directly associated with depression, which of course is directly related to substance abuse. Such rationality seems reasonable and expected. The 9% who are employed and still suffer from substance abuse disorder is far more tragic, IMO. So, let's try to keep that 1 in 6 figure in context.

The survey shows that 17% of unemployed workers had a substance abuse disorder last year, whereas 9% of full-time workers did so. The numbers are self-reported, and therefore, could be even higher in reality.
money.cnn.com

#145 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-27 04:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The numbers are self-reported, and therefore, could be even higher in reality."

very true. denial is the strongest ingredient in being a substance abuser....next to the substance itself.

#146 | Posted by eberly at 2014-01-27 04:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

#66

Doc

It seems to me a prominent democratic doctor who once ran for the nomination has described the healthcare law as having "death panels". That would be Howard Dean, remember him? So have many others, as is so often the truth, on either side, he who first speaks out and is labeled a fool usually comes around to being labeled ahead of their time.

Now that Obummercare has passed democrats have no problem telling you there are death panels in the bill.

#147 | Posted by gtjr at 2014-01-27 04:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

#139 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-27 03:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't disagree that its only fair that anyone who wants to work should be be allowed to enter the workforce. I don't think women working is an issue at all, let alone a moral issue.

But when we say something like this "She reminds us that real wages grew faster in a year in the 1950s than in the whole decade of the 1980s.", it would be silly to think that the great increase in the number of available workers didn't play a part in it. When supply greatly outpaces demand, any resource - in this case labor - becomes less valuable.

I don't bring this up as an argument against women working. I found it odd that she found it necessary to raise conclude that working women are here to stay - as if that was ever in questions. I'm just saying that you can't increase the workforce by almost half and expect wages not to be affected. It is what it is.

#148 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-27 04:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Where are "death panels" mentioned in the law?

"Death panel" is a political term that originated during the 2009 debate about federal health care legislation to cover the uninsured in the United States. The term was coined in August 2009 by Sarah Palin, the former Republican Governor of Alaska, when she charged that the then-proposed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would create a "death panel" of bureaucrats who would decide whether Americans -- such as her elderly parents or children with Down syndrome -- were "worthy of medical care". Palin's claim, however, was debunked, and it has been referred to as the "death panel myth",[1] as nothing in any proposed legislation would have led to individuals being judged to see if they were worthy of health care....

For 2009, "death panel" was named as PolitiFact's "Lie of the Year", one of FactCheck's "whoppers", and the most outrageous term by the American Dialect Society.
en.wikipedia.org


Your contention that "he who first speaks out and is labeled a fool usually comes around to being labeled ahead of their time" is just plain silly. Unless you can prove it, although I can't imagine how you'd manage doing so; it's a big planet with 7 billion people, give or take, and...well, I'm sure you get the picture.

#149 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-27 04:17 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

If, however, you want to stretch the definition of "death panel" beyond the scaremongering in which Palin (and others)engaged, then you'd have to say insurance companies have been operating them for decades, generations even.

#150 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-27 04:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

I found it odd that she found it necessary to raise conclude that working women are here to stay - as if that was ever in questions.

Not to speak or answer for the author, but I believe she was attempting to point out one of the current arguments from the most socially conservative perspective. "Women should not be in the workforce; they should be at home with the children," is a very real argument. So in her experience in debating such sentiments, the continuation of women in the workforce is questioned. She very well may be addressing the very vocal, yet small minority with that statement, but it's addressing a current argument none the less.

#151 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-27 04:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

" That would be Howard Dean"

Really, he used the phrase "death panels"?

150: Bingo!

#152 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-01-27 04:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

#145 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

Been trying to look for the poll data but don't see any other than a link to this data: samhsa.gov

But this stood out to me:


Badel and Greaney say the data aren't completely conclusive, but the results could be consistent with the idea that previously drug-free workers could have turned to drugs after losing their jobs.

Considering the fiasco with drug testing welfare recipients in Florida, I take that poll with a very large grain of salt.

#153 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-01-27 04:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

#84

Wondered how long it was going to take for Danni to get to "sending jobs overseas". The reason jobs go overseas are three fold, first our tax rates are too high, second the government makes it too expensive to do business here, and unions seem to think there is a well that provides continuous money for worker salaries and their wages are in no way attached to the price of goods.

#154 | Posted by gtjr at 2014-01-27 04:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

#153 | POSTED BY LOHOCLA

Good find and thanks for the added context.

#155 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-27 04:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

#155 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

NP...been taking a month off waiting for a new contract to work for and caught up and bored so I'm just surfing the net on some of these more interesting topics on the DR.

#156 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-01-27 04:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

#156 | POSTED BY LOHOCLA

At least you have a justifiable reason to do so ;-)

Most of us here on the DR don't.

AAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

#157 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-27 04:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Really, he used the phrase "death panels"?

He did not, and GTJR's statement at #147 above reflects either (a) ignorance and/or (b) a lie. Here's Howard Dean's article from the WSJ - online.wsj.com - about what he sees as problems with the Independent Payment Advisory Board (for which he offers suggestions about changing).

An accurate reflection of Dean's views on the ACA comes from, well, Dean:

Clearly, the foremost achievement of President Obama's first term is the Affordable Care Act, and when fully implemented the law will move America closer to universal health coverage -- something many progressives have sought for years. Like it or not, the law -- at least its foundation -- is here to stay, and lawmakers ought to focus over the next year on ensuring a relatively smooth implementation.

#158 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-27 04:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

#88

No Danni,

Obummer did nothing of the sort, he did use the trillion dollars to bail out his union buddies so they would have jobs for another year or two. Sorry to tell you Obummer has been a dismal failure on the economy, in fact he has not really done anything well.

Reagan inherited a much worse situation and the economy was flying by the time he went in to his second term. That is the difference between he who talks the talk and walks the walk, or the Obummer way talk the talk and do nothing else.

Obummer has dropped the unemployment rate by cooking the books in the unemployment numbers. Seems to me his labor department just happened to make a mistake that skewed unemployemnt lower than it really was just before the election. He has done a good job of shrinking the available jobs so the rate does seem lower, does not help the unemployed but looks good on paper. The real unemployment rate, U6, is around 11%.

#159 | Posted by gtjr at 2014-01-27 04:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

#158

GTJr screwed up again?

Oh, Bummer.

#160 | Posted by Corky at 2014-01-27 04:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

#88

Wrong Danni,

The democrats had control of both the house and the senate and could jamb through anything they wanted for TWO years. Obummers programs were so bad that even some democrats would not touch them.

#161 | Posted by gtjr at 2014-01-27 04:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

It seems to me a prominent democratic doctor who once ran for the nomination has described the healthcare law as having "death panels". That would be Howard Dean...
#147 | Posted by gtjr

Where did you pick up that particular lie?

Why do you circulate it if - as is clearly the case - you never read Dean's WSJ essay, which is the source (incorrectly) cited by those who peddle this crap?

#162 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-27 04:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

#158
GTJr screwed up again?
Oh, Bummer.
#160 | Posted by Corky

What's next? Gambling at Rick's?

#163 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-27 04:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Round up the usual suspects, lol.

#164 | Posted by Corky at 2014-01-27 04:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wondered how long it was going to take for Danni to get to "sending jobs overseas". The reason jobs go overseas are three fold, first our tax rates are too high, second the government makes it too expensive to do business here, and unions seem to think there is a well that provides continuous money for worker salaries and their wages are in no way attached to the price of goods.

#154 | Posted by gtjr at 2014-01-27 04:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Your first and second points seem to be the same thing.

Also, the companies ARE doing business here and making money so its obviously not too expensive to do business here. They just aren't hiring here.

IMO, its a pretty easy fix. The US is one of the most lucrative markets in the world. All we have to do is say that if you want access to our market, you have to hire Americans or you have to pay for access. If that bothers you, don't do business here. Someone else will gladly agree to these terms. And before anyone tells me this isn't "fair" or whatever: China already does this. In fact, China does it to comical levels. China will tell a company, "You can't just manufacture here, you have to move your R&D here as well....". Companies are still tripping over each other for access to China's market. There's no reason we can't do a little of the same here other than the fact that our country is run by corporate sellouts who aren't looking out for Americans at all. We get no respect because we don't demand any. Corporations work very hard for access to much less lucrative markets. The idea that they wouldn't make concessions for access to ours is absurd.

#165 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-27 04:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

interesting...you type "howard dean" into google and the next 2 works that flood in are "death panels".

but, as it's being point out, he didn't actually use those words

But if you are going to quote Howard Dean, correctly or otherwise, never forget what he said here....

This is a bigger bailout for the insurance industry than AIG. A very small number of people are going to get any insurance at all, until 2014, if the bill works. … This is an insurance company's dream, this bill. This is the Washington scramble, and I think it's ill-advised. … We've gotten to this stage … in Washington where passing any bill is a victory, and that's the problem. Decisions are being about the long-term future of this country for short-term political reasons, and that's never a good sign.

blog.heritage.org

#166 | Posted by eberly at 2014-01-27 04:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

The idea that they wouldn't make concessions for access to ours is absurd.
#165 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2014-01-27 04:46 PM | FLAG:

I agree, but only to a point. Wouldn't China's low labor costs be the deciding factor regarding whether or not such a model could be applied to the U.S.?

Despite my question, I still believe your post is NW.

#167 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-27 04:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

"but, as it's being point out, he didn't actually use those words"

That is correct.

He had problems with a part of the ACA, which he made clear in his WSJ essay.

The problem arises when sheeple hear what B (Hannity for example) thinks of what A (Dean) said and proceed to ascribe B's interpretation and terminology to A.

#168 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-27 04:52 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Reagan inherited a much worse situation and the economy was flying by the time he went in to his second term."

Riiiight. I had a family of my own when REagan was PResident, trust me, it was not anything like what we went through from 2007-2009. What problems we did have though we didn't have to deal with while at the same time fighting two foreign wars.

#169 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-27 05:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I agree, but only to a point. Wouldn't China's low labor costs be the deciding factor regarding whether or not such a model could be applied to the U.S.?"

China's low labor cost is the reason why they can tell companies "You can manufacture here, but only if you move some R&D here as well and BTW, you still can't compete with Chinese firms and sell here".

We can't reach that level of ridiculousness because we have high labor costs.

But we could be successful at incenting companies to find jobs for Americans if only our government considered it an objective worthy of its effort.

#170 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-27 05:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

But we could be successful at incenting companies to find jobs for Americans if only our government considered it an objective worthy of its effort.
#170 | POSTED BY SULLY

Agreed. Thanks for the elaboration.

#171 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-27 05:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

"s "You can manufacture here, but only if you move some R&D here as well and BTW, you still can't compete with Chinese firms and sell here"."

And then we call it free trade. We need to protect American jobs, too bad if corporate honchos don't like it, our work force should have an equal voice at the table.

#172 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-27 05:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Since the general topic of feminism (often poorly understood, especially by - soooprise - many males) has been featured on this thread, I thought you GOPers might enjoy this:

"Reince Priebus: Mike Huckabee's 'Libido' Comments Not Where GOP Stands"
www.huffingtonpost.com

Couldn't see that one coming a light-year off, could you?

#173 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-27 05:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Jest you forgot one talking point for Danni. To be honest I had forgotten it too. She screams Republicans until she gets to something Clinton or Obama pushed onto this country like nafta or Obama's TPP and then it's corporations.

#174 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-01-27 05:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

The entire quote...

"It's not where our party stands, it isn't really even what Mike Huckabee meant to say," he added. "I mean he had a pretty good message, and it was overshadowed by a choice of words that was just a little bit off, that's all."

#175 | Posted by eberly at 2014-01-27 05:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It's not where our party stands, it isn't really even what Mike Huckabee meant to say," he added.

I love how the RNC chair knows exactly what Huckabee meant to say, even though Huckabee doesn't know what he meant to say.

#176 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-27 05:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

"We can't reach that level of ridiculousness because we have high labor costs."

not according to the experts here. according to them, wages are so low that labor is cheap here.

#177 | Posted by eberly at 2014-01-27 05:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

"This whole sort of war on women thing, I'm scratching my head because if there was a war on women, I think they won."

- Rand Paul, January 26 2014

And once again only women are being blamed for having children. Republicans need basic sex ed.

#178 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2014-01-27 05:33 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

"It's not where our party stands, it isn't really even what Mike Huckabee meant to say," he added. "I mean he had a pretty good message, and it was overshadowed by a choice of words that was just a little bit off, that's all."
#175 | Posted by eberly

In other words, the RNC chair disagrees with what Huckabee said - although he's not necessarily opposed to what he thinks Huckabee meant to say? If it's because the chair thinks he knows what Huckabee was thinking, but didn't say, then I can see where you might identify with the guy.

#179 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-27 05:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

#176 | Posted by rstybeach11

Amen

#180 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-27 05:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

#179

hard to follow that trail.

But whatever. Huckabee attempted to put words in the mouths of dems, obviously, but just made it easier for the left to make those words his.

#181 | Posted by eberly at 2014-01-27 05:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

"China will tell a company, "You can't just manufacture here, you have to move your R&D here as well...."."

You obviously don't know how this works, manufacturing is contracted out......

Apple will disagree with you, and I disagree with you. I know for a fact that we have never had this issue. Although there is a contingent in the manufactured company this typically has to do with manufacturing engineering, and not R&D. China faces competition from Vietnam, and other SEA countries.

You want to see more US firms hiring Americans, defer/cut repatriation taxes if the companies hire a percentage of new full time employees, per dollar repatriated. The ratio can be worked out an negotiated.

Companies want to bring the money back, but don't want to get nothing in exchange for it, they have already been taxed in the country of sale. If they get an employee, we get the employees taxes, and someone off the unemployment line. Its a win win all around.


#182 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-01-27 05:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

#182 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Good post. I'm looking forward to a SULLY retort. This should be a good discussion, if it pans out.

#183 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-27 05:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

As for companies moving factories to locations with cheaper labor, well, it is global. In the mid 90s I was gifted with a Grundig (of Germany) Yachtboy 400 multi band radio. It was manufactured in China for Grundig.

American companies need to move to survive as they all [with little exception] have competitors putting out comparable products, but at cheaper prices. Lose too much market share to those competitors and you go out of business.

#184 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-01-27 06:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

American companies need to move to survive

#184 | Posted by MSgt at 2014

A better argument against free trade would be hard to find.

#185 | Posted by Zed at 2014-01-27 06:45 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"Jest you forgot one talking point for Danni. To be honest I had forgotten it too. She screams Republicans until she gets to something Clinton or Obama pushed onto this country like nafta or Obama's TPP and then it's corporations"

I have probably posted more against TPP than anyone else that posts here and I have absolutely included Obama in many of those posts because he apparently does support this complete sell out of American workers. I also openly blamed Clinton for signing NAFTA which was though actually negotiated by the Bush Sr. administration. It is though the corporations who have profited from these agreements and it is also true that most economists say that these agreements are the main driver in wealth inequality and the reduction in wages for American workers.

#186 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-27 07:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sounds like a good ideal. We must stop this abuse of the system.

#187 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-01-27 07:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

"American companies need to move to survive as they all [with little exception] have competitors putting out comparable products, but at cheaper prices. Lose too much market share to those competitors and you go out of business."

Tell it to the Germans.

#188 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-27 07:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

You can't just let the kids starve. They didn't do anything. You can, however, make the mother submit to chemical sterilization. Or take her kids away. What you don't want to do is incentivize having more kids when you can't take care of the ones you have.

#189 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-01-27 08:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You can, however, make the mother submit to chemical sterilization. Or take her kids away. "

Actually, you can't do either of those things. There are little things known as the law and the Constitution that get in the way. (Termination of parental rights is not easy. It can be done, but it's not easy.)

#190 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-01-27 08:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

He wants to cut off the food supply for children. Yes, he is cruel. I don't have to approve of the behavior of the mothers to still want to feed the kids.

#5 | Posted by danni at 2014-01

but you would NEVER even try and stop them....talking to them won't work for many...as long as more money is tied into, they will keep having them....so what is YOUR solution then?

#191 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-01-27 08:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

".so what is YOUR solution then?"

It's not my job to solve all the world's problems, it's my job to keep reminding folks that the children aren't the ones causing the problems, they are the victims and society needs to do its best to make sure they eat and have a roof over their innocent heads.

#192 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-27 08:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

#149

To put the comment in correct context as I remember Palin was talking about the board that makes healthcare decisions that has no medical representation and makes decisions based on life expectency death panels. (if you remember Obummer even acknowledged this but the media ignored it) Since then some prominent democrats have admitted that this is what is going to happen even refering to it as death panels. Palin hit the nail on the head and was vilified for saying this, later democrats agreed but were not vilified.

Throughout history many people have been laughed at only to be proven right sometimes years later. Examples such as Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Edison were initially laughed at. The stock market guru's that predicted the real estate drop were laughed at, seems they were right. Just because Palin used such graphic words to describe the panel she was vilified, but as more people read Obummercare it became very apparent that, while not called death panels, the board is indeed a death panel. Sorry you don't want to admit it but a panel that determines, based on age, what kind of medical care you get sure seems to me to fit the death panel image.

#193 | Posted by gtjr at 2014-01-27 10:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

#186

What garbage Danni,

You obviously know nothing about what you are trying to appear to be an expert on.

NAFTA has been a boon to many of the states that have expanded thier export business like Texas. Sure it did not help states like Ohio or Michigan, but like it or not when one area prospers ohter areas lose. It is a fact of life for every up there is a down.

About four years ago when I was travelling I read an article in USA Today about NAFTA and it seems that Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. feel they got screwed. Funny how htat played out. Truth is there was changes in the economies of all three countries and as we know humans hate change, but it is a fact of life.

NAFTA has been good for parts of our country, bad for others, the same goes for the other countries. Being a closed country is not the answer that only hurts us as a country. We cannot make everything in this country, we need the world economy.

As for the mothers that keep having kids while on ADC and welfare we need to stop increasing thier income for children conceived while getting support through ADC. If they had the child before filing for ADC fine, but increasing their income for popping out a few more kids only increases the drain on taxpayers and does nothing to encourage the mother to try to get out of the program.

#194 | Posted by gtjr at 2014-01-27 11:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Pro-fetus people are responsible for this--not government payments. No one gets rich from what the government pays. Pro-fetus people want ALL fetuses to be brought to term. After that, they bitch about the government paying for them.

#195 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2014-01-27 11:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Joan Walsh wrote a slice-and-dice piece on Rand Paul, "Dim and Divisive Rand Paul Self-Destructs, Again: Flailing at the Clintons and Insisting Women Won the War on Women, He's What Happens When Stupid Goes Unchallenged" (www.salon.com)

Walsh launches the essay with this:

"Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is what you get when traditional and corrosive American nepotism meets the 21st century GOP echo chamber: a pampered princeling whose dumb ideas have never been challenged by reality."

Paul's performance [on "Meet the Press"] was most interesting for the window it gave us into his character, as the indulged but slightly dim scion of an eccentric political family whose every utterance, all his life, has been treated as important. At some points in interviews with the freshman senator, including this one, you can see the wheels turning in his head, maybe a little slowly, as he winds up to deliver what he thinks is a political humdinger. It's the oily crazy of Rand Paul being adorably Rand Paul: saying what he thinks is brave and leader-like, but that thing turns out to be simply nutty.

Then the media collectively scrunches its forehead and tries to decide if he's brave or nutty.

#196 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-28 07:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

".so what is YOUR solution then?"

It's not my job to solve all the world's problems

#192 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2014-01-27 08:49 PM | FLAG:

For a second I thought I was in a thread about ACA with Republicans pointing out the problems, and Democrats saying "Republicans don't have any ideas".

#197 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-01-28 07:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Republicans don't have any ideas".

Oh, they have ideas. They just don't have any good ideas. Ever.

#198 | Posted by 726 at 2014-01-28 10:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Apple will disagree with you, and I disagree with you. I know for a fact that we have never had this issue. Although there is a contingent in the manufactured company this typically has to do with manufacturing engineering, and not R&D. China faces competition from Vietnam, and other SEA countries."

Who do mean by "we" when you say "we" have never had that problem?

The issue of China coercing companies to move R&D to China through practices that would be considered illegal if anyone else tried it is well known. Your personal experience being differet is irrelevant to the fact that this is a known problem.

I know for a fact this one shows up pretty easily in almost logically worded Google search you do on the topic. I don't know if you're just trying to deflect or if you're genuinely misinformed but in either case you're wrong.

"You want to see more US firms hiring Americans, defer/cut repatriation taxes if the companies hire a percentage of new full time employees, per dollar repatriated. The ratio can be worked out an negotiated."

Or you can do what I said.

"Companies want to bring the money back, but don't want to get nothing in exchange for it, they have already been taxed in the country of sale. If they get an employee, we get the employees taxes, and someone off the unemployment line. Its a win win all around."

And we'd love to have companies sell their goods here, we just don't want to get nothing in exchange for it.

Your problem is that you think the government should look at everything from the point of view of the corporations, which has already proven to be bad for the US.

#199 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-28 01:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

#120

1)Democrats...GOOD!
2)Republicans...BAD!
3)Blame Bush/Reagan!
4)Tax The Rich!

Wow...I guess that I'm a Dannist. All Hail the Prophet Danni!

While I do believe in room for nuance and interpretation, these are four commandments I can get down with. Maybe put a "usually" between Democrat and Good, but you can etch the other three commandments in stone.

Was that supposed to be a dig at Danni?

#200 | Posted by bocaink at 2014-01-29 07:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort