Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Neither party has shown any willingness to tackle this issue, but just keep adding to it year after year. How long do you think we can go on this way? Neither party has the guts to tell the American people the truth - you're going to have to pay more and get less.
What I feel the strongest about, but no politician is willing to touch it in a meaningful way with a ten-foot pole, is out-of-wedlock births. So very many social ills can be directly tied to the phenomenon, and for multiple generations after it first occurs in a family. Fathers are not expendable.
Well, this touches on one of the reasons that government-supported birth control, including voluntary abortion, is so important to me. I firmly believe that every child born should be wanted by parents who are able and willing to love and care and adequately provide for the children.
Yet, how -- I am asking this seriously -- is government supposed to "handle" the issue of children being born to unfit single women, or even to unfit married people? (Some single parents make better parents than two married ones.) What would be the guidelines for "unfit", and then what should the government do to prevent people who are unfit to be parents from having kids? If anyone would talk about restricting who has kids and who doesn't in any way, there would be howls of protest and accusations of "eugenics" -- yet in any one day, there are approximate 450,000 kids in foster care because their parents were not able to adequately care for them.
And who pays the price? The kids do, and society does, too. Taxpapers must pay for the kids' care, which often includes expensive therapy of one kind or another, and former foster kids end up in the juvenile justice system and prison more than any other group, percentage-wise, if memory serves. (I have done more than the average share of reading about kids in foster care, as we fostered two older kids, who we then adopted.) Kids who go into foster care become damaged, if they aren't already, which is very likely as most foster care placements are due to abuse and/or neglect -- and, of course, the major blame for this rests with their parents, who were often damaged themselves, as you indicated in your post. (That was definitely the case with my kids' bio mom.)
I think the cycle MUST stop -- but how? I have a few ideas, but I am realistic enough to know that they wouldn't be implemented for several decades, at least, and probably never -- and perhaps my ideas shouldn't be implemented because they would trample on some people's freedoms, and I am basically against that.
Meanwhile, more than a half-million children a year suffer due to the poor choices of their parents.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by katharsis
In other words, what issue must a candidate be for or against in order for you to vote for him or her? (Okay, fine, you can say more than one.)
Personally, I would not vote for any candidate who was not pro-choice up to some point between the 12th and 23rd week of pregnancy, and in extreme cases -- probable death of mother, non-viable fetus, etc. -- after that time.
I agree pro-choice is important but my real criteria is electing a man/woman with integrity and character, IMO two things absent with the current POTUS. In 2016 I wrote in Jim Webb, I'm not even sure what his position was on all issues but in every interview I ever saw with him he impressed me as a man of character and integrity. Positions can be discussed and compromised on, character and integrity are things someone has or doesn't, that doesn't change.
Elected representatives who fail to serve those they were elected to serve, by ignoring messages from constituents, lying, accepting money and other goodies from businesses, foreign or domestic, and organizations whose interests are not directed towards the people said officials were elected to serve, dishonesty in elected officials and candidates, indisputable track records of corrupt practices in business or other dealings either before or during being in office, concealing or lying about said influences, donations, and track records, placing self-interests and special interests above the best interests of the populace, blatant nepotism, corrupt use of government power for self-enrichment at the cost of the public. Abuse of the environment to enrich special interests. Destroying public lands for special interests.
Fascistic tendencies demonstrated by interactions with other government officials, other governments, foreign and domestic businesses and organizations and their leaders, again at the cost of the best interests of the people of this country. A record of unreformed and blatant personal dissipation and corruption. Discounting of the most vulnerable members of our society with policies which harm children, the elderly, the disabled, minorities and women by favoring those who are not in these categories, both here and abroad.
I realize this is far more than one issue, but these various issues seem to clump together in those individuals whom I cannot support for elected office, time and again. Four of whom are presently in office, my state's "representatives", governor, and the current president. I cannot wait to vote 'em out!
Everybody should pay something... at least a little bit to have some skin in the game.
I'm tired of paying more and more every year, while half of the country pays nothing, and all the while being scolded that "I'm not paying my fair share."
I'd vote for any politician that proposes a flat tax. Something around 15% works.
Everybody should pay something... at least a little bit to have some skin in the game.
I'm tired of paying more and more every year, while half of the country pays nothing, and all the while being scolded that "I'm not paying my fair share."
I'd vote for any politician that proposes a flat tax. Something around 15% works.
In other words, what issue must a candidate be for or against in order for you to vote for him or her?
the one social issue that affects my vote is party sanctioned racial hatred. the political party that is anti-white and anti-jewish ain't gettin' my vote.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
