Bush pushing for couples to get married??

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: Czar
The issue here is not exactly if kids are better of in a two parent family or one parent family. The issue is are the kids better off in a happy or a unhappy family, regardless if there are one or two parents.
This is the row how I see it, best to worst
Two parent happy family
One parent happy family
One parent unhappy family
Two parent unhappy family
Czar, I would change the list.

Two parent happy family
One parent happy family
Two parent unhappy family
One parent unhappy family

The government has no control over whether a family is happy or not. They can encourage through the program whether people would tend to stay married or be encouraged to have children out of marriage knowing that the government will pay for the consequences.

I think a two parent unhappy family would still have better dynamics then a single "bad" parent.




 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Czar
The issue here is not exactly if kids are better of in a two parent family or one parent family. The issue is are the kids better off in a happy or a unhappy family, regardless if there are one or two parents.
This is the row how I see it, best to worst
Two parent happy family
One parent happy family
One parent unhappy family
Two parent unhappy family
Czar, I would change the list.

Two parent happy family
One parent happy family
Two parent unhappy family
One parent unhappy family

The government has no control over whether a family is happy or not. They can encourage through the program whether people would tend to stay married or be encouraged to have children out of marriage knowing that the government will pay for the consequences.

I think a two parent unhappy family would still have better dynamics then a single "bad" parent.
that is just your opinion, like it is mine.

almost forcing people to get married when they dont want to will not help creating happy families thats for sure
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: etech
Red
I doubt it. Also, your idea of taking away services to women who have children out of wedlock not only hurts the women but the child, who BTW, had nothing to do with his/her mothers decision to have sex with the deadbeat father.

Of course I know that you winning this debate is more important to you than talking about reality.
Red, before you starting throwing your typical insults you asked what my solution to the problem is. I'm going to return the favor and ask you the same question. What is the answer to the huge increase in single parent families or do you even see that as a problem?
There isn't any unless we push abortions.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Czar
The issue here is not exactly if kids are better of in a two parent family or one parent family. The issue is are the kids better off in a happy or a unhappy family, regardless if there are one or two parents.
This is the row how I see it, best to worst
Two parent happy family
One parent happy family
One parent unhappy family
Two parent unhappy family
Czar, I would change the list.

Two parent happy family
One parent happy family
Two parent unhappy family
One parent unhappy family

The government has no control over whether a family is happy or not. They can encourage through the program whether people would tend to stay married or be encouraged to have children out of marriage knowing that the government will pay for the consequences.

I think a two parent unhappy family would still have better dynamics then a single "bad" parent.
that is just your opinion, like it is mine.

almost forcing people to get married when they dont want to will not help creating happy families thats for sure
That's funny, I don't recall anyone in this thread advocating forced marriage. Paying for the consequences of your actions is somthing that seems to be a foreign concept though.


Red,

That's a pretty limited approach. Are widespread on demand abortions the only solution you can come up with? Is that the best solution?

 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: etech
That's funny, I don't recall anyone in this thread advocating forced marriage. Paying for the consequences of your actions is somthing that seems to be a foreign concept though.
tell me, is this funding new or is it pulled from some other social services?
 

Geekbabe

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 16, 1999
32,068
2,114
126
www.theshoppinqueen.com
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Czar
The issue here is not exactly if kids are better of in a two parent family or one parent family. The issue is are the kids better off in a happy or a unhappy family, regardless if there are one or two parents.
This is the row how I see it, best to worst
Two parent happy family
One parent happy family
One parent unhappy family
Two parent unhappy family
Czar, I would change the list.

Two parent happy family
One parent happy family
Two parent unhappy family
One parent unhappy family

The government has no control over whether a family is happy or not. They can encourage through the program whether people would tend to stay married or be encouraged to have children out of marriage knowing that the government will pay for the consequences.

I think a two parent unhappy family would still have better dynamics then a single "bad" parent.
that is just your opinion, like it is mine.

almost forcing people to get married when they dont want to will not help creating happy families thats for sure
That's funny, I don't recall anyone in this thread advocating forced marriage. Paying for the consequences of your actions is somthing that seems to be a foreign concept though.


Red,

That's a pretty limited approach. Are widespread on demand abortions the only solution you can come up with? Is that the best solution?

The people who end up paying the biggest consequences are the very people who had no say in the making of the "problem" ie: the kids.Sorry I'm not down with that at all.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
The people who end up paying the biggest consequences are the very people who had no say in the making of the "problem" ie: the kids.Sorry I'm not down with that at all.
I think it is wrong for people to bring children into the world that don't have a stabe relationship or the means to care for them.

I don't see any solution to that problem though.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Czar
The issue here is not exactly if kids are better of in a two parent family or one parent family. The issue is are the kids better off in a happy or a unhappy family, regardless if there are one or two parents.
This is the row how I see it, best to worst
Two parent happy family
One parent happy family
One parent unhappy family
Two parent unhappy family
Czar, I would change the list.

Two parent happy family
One parent happy family
Two parent unhappy family
One parent unhappy family

The government has no control over whether a family is happy or not. They can encourage through the program whether people would tend to stay married or be encouraged to have children out of marriage knowing that the government will pay for the consequences.

I think a two parent unhappy family would still have better dynamics then a single "bad" parent.
that is just your opinion, like it is mine.

almost forcing people to get married when they dont want to will not help creating happy families thats for sure
That's funny, I don't recall anyone in this thread advocating forced marriage. Paying for the consequences of your actions is somthing that seems to be a foreign concept though.


Red,

That's a pretty limited approach. Are widespread on demand abortions the only solution you can come up with? Is that the best solution?
I agree but that's the only solution that has a realistic chance of working...plus it would be much cheaper for the taxpayers than having to support the unwed Mothers and child, paying for the cost of the crimes they commit and then paying for their incarceration when convicted of those crimes.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: etech
The people who end up paying the biggest consequences are the very people who had no say in the making of the "problem" ie: the kids.Sorry I'm not down with that at all.
I think it is wrong for people to bring children into the world that don't have a stabe relationship or the means to care for them.

I don't see any solution to that problem though.
agree with you there, think maybe better sex education could help and easier access to contraceptives would also help alot

 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: etech
The people who end up paying the biggest consequences are the very people who had no say in the making of the "problem" ie: the kids.Sorry I'm not down with that at all.
I think it is wrong for people to bring children into the world that don't have a stabe relationship or the means to care for them.

I don't see any solution to that problem though.
agree with you there, think maybe better sex education could help and easier access to contraceptives would also help alot
And just pehaps a small program to encourage people to enter into stable relationships and have the means to care for children before having them. My what a novel concept!

 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: etech
The people who end up paying the biggest consequences are the very people who had no say in the making of the "problem" ie: the kids.Sorry I'm not down with that at all.
I think it is wrong for people to bring children into the world that don't have a stabe relationship or the means to care for them.

I don't see any solution to that problem though.
agree with you there, think maybe better sex education could help and easier access to contraceptives would also help alot
And just pehaps a small program to encourage people to enter into stable relationships and have the means to care for children before having them. My what a novel concept!
but where does that money come from?

 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
but where does that money come from?
Taxes, my boy, it all comes from taxes. If there is a chance that this program will reduce not only the initial cost but the futher costs as postulated by Red, don't you think it is a worthwhile investment?

 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: etech
The people who end up paying the biggest consequences are the very people who had no say in the making of the "problem" ie: the kids.Sorry I'm not down with that at all.
I think it is wrong for people to bring children into the world that don't have a stabe relationship or the means to care for them.

I don't see any solution to that problem though.
agree with you there, think maybe better sex education could help and easier access to contraceptives would also help alot
And just pehaps a small program to encourage people to enter into stable relationships and have the means to care for children before having them. My what a novel concept!
You don't think that would be a waste of time and taxpayers money?
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: etech
but where does that money come from?
Taxes, my boy, it all comes from taxes. If there is a chance that this program will reduce not only the initial cost but the futher costs as postulated by Red, don't you think it is a worthwhile investment?
thats not what I meant, what I meant where is this money transfered from? what other part of govermental funding lost this money?
 

Skyclad1uhm1

Lifer
Aug 10, 2001
11,383
87
91
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Czar
The issue here is not exactly if kids are better of in a two parent family or one parent family. The issue is are the kids better off in a happy or a unhappy family, regardless if there are one or two parents.
This is the row how I see it, best to worst
Two parent happy family
One parent happy family
One parent unhappy family
Two parent unhappy family
Czar, I would change the list.

Two parent happy family
One parent happy family
Two parent unhappy family
One parent unhappy family

The government has no control over whether a family is happy or not. They can encourage through the program whether people would tend to stay married or be encouraged to have children out of marriage knowing that the government will pay for the consequences.

I think a two parent unhappy family would still have better dynamics then a single "bad" parent.
I know a family where the parents constantly fight, and where each parent has said to several of the kids that 'they are not their kids anymore', because they refuse to take sides. Several left the moment they could, and the other kids stay with them a lot to escape their parents. Two unhappy parents are far more f*cked up for the kids than one (unless that one is abusive to the kids of course).

My own parents had stopped loving eachother ages ago already, and I grew up without any role models when concerning relations with other human beings. Thanks to that I'm totally f*cked up when it comes to relations. My parents divorced when I turned 18 (my mom wanted to make sure that I could leave the house legally if I wanted before divorcing), and my mother remarried and is now happy. Wish she had done that much sooner.
 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: etech
The people who end up paying the biggest consequences are the very people who had no say in the making of the "problem" ie: the kids.Sorry I'm not down with that at all.
I think it is wrong for people to bring children into the world that don't have a stabe relationship or the means to care for them.

I don't see any solution to that problem though.
agree with you there, think maybe better sex education could help and easier access to contraceptives would also help alot
And just pehaps a small program to encourage people to enter into stable relationships and have the means to care for children before having them. My what a novel concept!

Here is where Bush's faith based initiatives come into play. They can do the counciling, with a stypind from the Gov't coffers, and the government should emphasise to all young women--- NO wic,or well baby services or anything unless the name of the father is given and he is held responsible along with the mother for taking care of that child.End the government handout for raising children when there is no return on the investment. Make Child rearing the responsibility of the parents,and THEN give them the tools to do the job, IE: a good economy and employment preferential treatment.

How novel, a reward for being responsible.

I am sick of seeing ghettos filled to the rafters with un wed mothers and throw away children, and them blaming society and the government for their problems. Take the government out of it and make THEM responsible.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
You don't think that would be a waste of time and taxpayers money?

"plus it would be much cheaper for the taxpayers than having to support the unwed Mothers and child, paying for the cost of the crimes they commit and then paying for their incarceration when convicted of those crimes. "

We won't know until they try now will we. Compared to the current situation don't you think it is time to try something different?


Yes, Czar , I know where the money is coming from. Prove that it will hurt those programs or is a significant part of the funding before you get carried away with a point that you can't make.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Policy wonks and so-called conservative family values advocates do not emphasize principles of love and affection. These are always subservient to their surrogate which is heterosexual married couple. Admittedly, their surrogate is a quite reasonable generalization but fails to address many issues that derail upward mobility and cohesive family units. Real reform in public education, real reform in healthcare, and the semblance of a childcare system would do far more for supporting the family (financially) than current Bush rhetoric and meager policy initiatives.

The financial/social plight of some families is far more complex than the vestiges of a failed welfare state. Legacy poverty will require years of effort and billions of dollars (trillions if you count childcare subsidies, health/education reform). But the kind of love and affection that supports good families has little to do with the Family Research Council or Heritage Foundation's vision for America and it will not be found in Bush (or any other) administration's policies.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: etech
Yes, Czar , I know where the money is coming from. Prove that it will hurt those programs or is a significant part of the funding before you get carried away with a point that you can't make.
where? I dont know so tell me

 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: etech
Yes, Czar , I know where the money is coming from. Prove that it will hurt those programs or is a significant part of the funding before you get carried away with a point that you can't make.
where? I dont know so tell me
I think you just proved that you haven't even read the article this thread is based on.

 

spamsk8r

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2001
1,787
0
76
Originally posted by: BDawg
Originally posted by: etech
Shoulda, coulda, didn'ta. This is the real world, not Bob Jones University.
Exactly, this is the real world and there should be real consequences for making mistakes.

One of those I support is going after the deadbeat fathers and making them pay child support until the kid is 18. You wanta play, then you gonna pay.
I agree 100%. Deadbeat dads should be monitored like sex offenders (figure of speach) so they don't miss a payment.
Yeah deadbeat dads are stupid, but many of these women go after these guys and get pregnant just so the guy will pay her bills and she won't have to get off her lazy butt and get a job. I can't stand it when people are too lazy to work for themselves so they expect someone else to pay their way through life.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: etech
You don't think that would be a waste of time and taxpayers money?

"plus it would be much cheaper for the taxpayers than having to support the unwed Mothers and child, paying for the cost of the crimes they commit and then paying for their incarceration when convicted of those crimes. "

We won't know until they try now will we. Compared to the current situation don't you think it is time to try something different?
And who do you propose to teach this course, Teachers who are married happily with one or more children? How about some Celibate Catholic Priest (one who isd not a child molestor)

 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: etech
Yes, Czar , I know where the money is coming from. Prove that it will hurt those programs or is a significant part of the funding before you get carried away with a point that you can't make.
where? I dont know so tell me
I think you just proved that you haven't even read the article this thread is based on.
I have rather quickly though, along with the AP news about this. The AP one didnt say where the money was transfered from.
 

Skyclad1uhm1

Lifer
Aug 10, 2001
11,383
87
91
Originally posted by: spamsk8r
Originally posted by: BDawg
Originally posted by: etech
Shoulda, coulda, didn'ta. This is the real world, not Bob Jones University.
Exactly, this is the real world and there should be real consequences for making mistakes.

One of those I support is going after the deadbeat fathers and making them pay child support until the kid is 18. You wanta play, then you gonna pay.
I agree 100%. Deadbeat dads should be monitored like sex offenders (figure of speach) so they don't miss a payment.
Yeah deadbeat dads are stupid, but many of these women go after these guys and get pregnant just so the guy will pay her bills and she won't have to get off her lazy butt and get a job. I can't stand it when people are too lazy to work for themselves so they expect someone else to pay their way through life.
If you screw a girl without using protection you should be willing to face the consequences. Either use a condom, or pay for the kid you conceived. Pregnancy is the responsibility of 2 persons, not one.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Here is where Bush's faith based initiatives come into play. They can do the counciling, with a stypind from the Gov't coffers, and the government should emphasise to all young women--- NO wic,or well baby services or anything unless the name of the father is given and he is held responsible along with the mother for taking care of that child.End the government handout for raising children when there is no return on the investment. Make Child rearing the responsibility of the parents,and THEN give them the tools to do the job, IE: a good economy and employment preferential treatment.
That's pretty damn reasonable . . . except for your premise that Bush's faith-based initiatives are either necessary or sufficient. One other caveat . . . denying basic food (WIC) and health services (well baby) is horrible public policy. Your premise would be to deny absolute necessities to the children in the hope that irresponsible people will transform into quality parents. It makes more sense to discourage MAKING babies (realistic sex ed, conception control) than to making it difficult to take care of babies.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY