Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (245452)	2/24/2014 7:44:44 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542129

I don't see what you can do about it. If you cut poor unwed mothers off of assistance, you hurt the kids- potentially hurting them enough that they'll never rise above their mother's cycle of poverty. If you try to go after more affluent mothers, what are you going to do? Give them tax credits for marrying? And you'll have to give those to everyone- gays and straights, or it won't be equal protection. Seems to me, society has changed. Divorce is easy, and men are not very interested in raising children, so mothers get stuck with the kids. I don't see an easy way to change that. I don't see people being very eager to walk back from easy divorce laws. Do you? A lot of blustering and demagoguing aside, what do the republicans really have to offer? Mostly they just want to target poor moms on assistance- some of the weakest and most vulnerable people in our society, raising the weakest and most vulnerable. If "debates" in this country actually took the welfare of people in to account, I'd be more interested in them. But posturing, and blaming the victims (mothers and children) seems pretty stupid to me.

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (245452)	2/24/2014 7:50:24 PM
From: Alex MG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542129

The Republicans will put some sort of a "values" issue before the electorate. Why not that one? Lots of studies come to the conclusion that being raised in a married household is way better economically for kids. Yes.. A big joke that the republicons claim the mantle of "values voter crowd"... not a funny joke but more a sick joke if I remember correctly it was Jerry Falwell who started this "values voters" referendum... the fat ass bigot who blamed 9/11 on gay people and liberals... claimed that "god" was punishing America... and the same idiotic crap from Pat Robertson about hurricanes being god's punishment and then the fact that the current republicons want to even ban contraception and social services to help people with family planning... banning contraception will result in more unwanted pregnancies... duhhhhhhhhh it's a sick joke... too bad you seem to have bought in to it so please explain where you think democrats or liberals, as opposed to republicons, are not for children being raised in a married stable household??.. exactly how do you sell that argument to anyone other than moronic Fox news viewers oh btw, some guy named Obama was not raised in a married household and he seems to have turned out pretty well