SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johnathan C. Doe who wrote (4850)9/22/1998 11:27:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 67261
 
Well are they that specific... I actually dont think so, I think they just want one person to stay home with kids - it could be the father right? That would mean their primary objection is to these third party caregivers for children, and of course to people that choose not to have children?

Michelle



To: Johnathan C. Doe who wrote (4850)9/22/1998 11:40:00 PM
From: Peter O'Brien  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 67261
 
If this is one of their positions, then elimination of
the marriage penalty actually contradicts it! This is
because the marriage penalty only applies to two-earner
couples. Couples with a stay-at-home mom actually receive
a marriage bonus under current law.

So, are you saying that the "family values" agenda contains
two contradictory positions?


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News