• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bush to Promote Marriage in $1.5 Billion Plan, Report Says

F

Fausto

Elite Member
Let me be the first to say: What the f*ck is this all about?

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Bush administration officials are planning a $1.5 billion election-year initiative to promote marriage, especially among low-income couples, the New York Times reported on Wednesday.

Administration officials have worked with conservative groups for months on the proposal, the paper said, and are weighing whether President Bush (news - web sites) should promote the plan next week in his State of the Union address.

The plan would provide at least $1.5 billion for training to help couples develop interpersonal skills that sustain "healthy marriages," the paper said.

According to the Times, the officials said they believed the measure was timely because they were facing pressure from conservatives eager to see the federal government defend traditional marriage, after the highest court in Massachusetts ruled in November that gay couples had a right to marry.
Click to expand...
 
For those who decry it a waste of money, how would $1.5 billion be better spent on lower income families?
Edit: Or not spent?
 
Originally posted by: alchemize
For those who decry it a waste of money, how would $1.5 billion be better spent on lower income families?
Click to expand...

More prisons for thier criminal children.
 
Originally posted by: alchemize
For those who decry it a waste of money, how would $1.5 billion be better spent on lower income families?
Edit: Or not spent?
Click to expand...

Scholarships.

Then it would not only be going to lower income families, it would be going to lower income families doing something about getting out of poverty.
 
That would equal 50,000 30k scholarships which should cover almost all of a 4 year in-state tuition (not room and board) at most state schools.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
It's about Big Governmnet and Big spending on everything and we must be happy about it, aren't you? 😕
Click to expand...
Isn't it funny how Republicans are known for cutting down government size and breadthe, yet George just bloats it all up over the top?

George must be polish. lol 😉 (btw: I'm polish, so i can say that, before anyone chides me for it!)

 
For those who decry it a waste of money, how would $1.5 billion be better spent on lower income families?
Click to expand...

Like most of the bait and switch proposals by the "spend" administration, its better off not spent at all.
 
how much is the national debt now?

and how much have we wasted upon bush's iraqi adventure that got thousands of innocent iraqis and americans killed?
 
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
It's about Big Governmnet and Big spending on everything and we must be happy about it, aren't you? 😕
Click to expand...
Isn't it funny how Republicans are known for cutting down government size and breadthe, yet George just bloats it all up over the top?

George must be polish. lol 😉 (btw: I'm polish, so i can say that, before anyone chides me for it!)
Click to expand...

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
how much is the national debt now?

and how much have we wasted upon bush's iraqi adventure that got thousands of innocent iraqis and americans killed?
Click to expand...

Well...well...well...

I shall remember these when we look at budget cuts. If you are soooooo concerned about spending and the size of debt - I hope you are prepared to see spending cut. I better not hear any whining out of you.
Or was it all just partisan yapping?

CkG
 
Let see what baloney he comes up with next week.

I can see education scholarships, however, how is that going to promote marriage within the low income.

Tax cuts - nope - little if any tax is paid to make a difference therre.
Housing/welfare subsidies - Possible - if geared toward a "mother/father" marriage.
Employment subsidies - Discrimentory (as if it would matter).

Encourage marriage to illegals - possibly.

Federal $$ to churches. - unconstitutional - see ACLU
 
Well CAD, it is YOU guys who pigeonhole people into partisan catacombs.

I speak out about what makes sense, and the truth behind smoke screens.

Sorry you are so isolated into thinking everyone has partisan agendas. But I call a spade for what it is.
 
Marriage doesn't need promoting -- certainly not by the government. It's a thinly veiled attempt to curry favor with conservatives and the religious right who are seething over all of the progress gay marriage/lifestyle issues are making.

And Cad, you're supposedly one of the "real" conservatives around here, why don't we hear you speaking out against YET MORE wasteful spending by the government-expanding Bush administration? Instead you tsk tsk us like you're our grandpa or something. "I don't want to hear a peep out you whippersnappers in the peanut gallery once those heroes and patriots in the Bush administration show us their budget numbers."
 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Marriage doesn't need promoting -- certainly not by the government. It's a thinly veiled attempt to curry favor with conservatives and the religious right who are seething over all of the progress gay marriage/lifestyle issues are making.

And Cad, you're supposedly one of the "real" conservatives around here, why don't we hear you speaking out against YET MORE wasteful spending by the government-expanding Bush administration? Instead you tsk tsk us like you're our grandpa or something. "I don't want to hear a peep out you whippersnappers in the peanut gallery once those heroes and patriots in the Bush administration show us their budget numbers."
Click to expand...

No - I haven't spoken on the subject perse. I have not fully read the proposal and am waiting until I see what it entails before giving my opinion on it. Seems like others here wish to play the knee-jerk headline games with this though. If this indeed is more worthless spending as some suggest -then it should never see a vote. I'm still waiting for these people who are now all worried about "fiscal responsibility" to address and admit that SPENDING is the problem and that we need to reduce it. I'm also waiting for a candidate to run for President who will truthfully address the spending problem Washington has.

rbV5 - NO politicians in Washington seem to be and haven't been.

philly - who is this "you guys"? And no, IMO your yapping does not make sense - you don't seem to understand the ideologies of the parties.
And you haven't seemed to want to call anyone else a spade - you just railing against Bush and his Administration.
It's nice to see you want to consider yourself non-partisan and all that - just like everyone is trying to play this "I'm and Independent" game, but when all the rhetoric you spew is aimed at one side instead of the issue - it hurts your claim. No one is guilt free in this - not me - not you - not anyone who posts here regularly - we all tend to end up doing it.

CkG
 
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Let see what baloney he comes up with next week.

I can see education scholarships, however, how is that going to promote marriage within the low income.

Tax cuts - nope - little if any tax is paid to make a difference therre.
Housing/welfare subsidies - Possible - if geared toward a "mother/father" marriage.
Employment subsidies - Discrimentory (as if it would matter).

Encourage marriage to illegals - possibly.

Federal $$ to churches. - unconstitutional - see ACLU
Click to expand...

Why does marriage need any funding? If you actually want to marry an individual you should be able to figure it out on your own. However, funding something like education increases the chance of getting a better job and getting out from under the poverty line, which should be a much higher priority for the government.
 
I rail against Bush because he's just SO BAD and his behavior is wreckless! And I'm obviously not alone in thinking this, as many around here remind you with their posts. And the country will be indicitive of this upon Election '04, to be sure.

Further, I can't be partisan because it appears that neither of the major parties even follow their traditional platforms any more. They're both hypocrites of another.

Again, I call the situation for what it is: any anything Bush touches DOES NOT turn to gold - quite the opposite, in fact.
 
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Let see what baloney he comes up with next week.

I can see education scholarships, however, how is that going to promote marriage within the low income.

Tax cuts - nope - little if any tax is paid to make a difference therre.
Housing/welfare subsidies - Possible - if geared toward a "mother/father" marriage.
Employment subsidies - Discrimentory (as if it would matter).

Encourage marriage to illegals - possibly.

Federal $$ to churches. - unconstitutional - see ACLU
Click to expand...

Why does marriage need any funding? If you actually want to marry an individual you should be able to figure it out on your own. However, funding something like education increases the chance of getting a better job and getting out from under the poverty line, which should be a much higher priority for the government.
Click to expand...

You are following my train of thought.

I was trying to figure out where the funding might go and be useful.

With the ultra-conservatives up in arms against the gay marriage inroads being made, that is where they may try to funnel money; to overturn and or weaken these rulings. This is the only thing that would make sense based on the way the article(s) are written. Waste of our tax money to shut up some religious freaks (my choice of words). will not benefit society as a whole.


 
rbV5 - NO politicians in Washington seem to be and haven't been.
Click to expand...

They seem to be very good at divide and conquer however. Under the guise of "Us" against "Them", they have created a convincing cloak over the real "Us" against "Them".
 
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
No - I haven't spoken on the subject perse. I have not fully read the proposal and am waiting until I see what it entails before giving my opinion on it. Seems like others here wish to play the knee-jerk headline games with this though. If this indeed is more worthless spending as some suggest -then it should never see a vote. I'm still waiting for these people who are now all worried about "fiscal responsibility" to address and admit that SPENDING is the problem and that we need to reduce it. I'm also waiting for a candidate to run for President who will truthfully address the spending problem Washington has.
Click to expand...
WTH is there to know Cad? The plan seems pretty straightforward as detailed in the link:
The plan would provide at least $1.5 billion for training to help couples develop interpersonal skills that sustain "healthy marriages," the paper said.
Click to expand...
This sort of "training" is what churches already do. Well, at least the Catholic church does. This smacks of religious pandering to me -- not to mention more unnecessary spending. I'm sure the actual plan will have even more detail, however I've heard enough already. $1.5 Billion -> Promote Marriage --> Unnecessary spending. Bush is writing more checks his ass can't cash. 🙂
 
Most likely a form of funding to Religeous Groups for parallel use
in their 'Just Say No' and 'Abstinence' programs.
Select churches to be identified and selected for thier
involvement in support of Bush and Conservative Agenda.

All them there H'Spanics are Catholics aren't they ?
 
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Most likely a form of funding to Religeous Groups for parallel use
in their 'Just Say No' and 'Abstinence' programs.
Select churches to be identified and selected for thier
involvement in support of Bush and Conservative Agenda.

All them there H'Spanics are Catholics aren't they ?
Click to expand...

Heteros will get their weddings paid for gratas while Gays will be left out.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top