• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama on Moms Who Stay Home to Raise Kids: 'That's Not a Choice We Want Americans to

Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

tres borrachos said:
"It takes a village". Now there is a quote that grated on my nerves when she said it, and after bringing up 3 kids into their teens (where they all are now), I know damn well that no village has raised my kids. My husband & I did.
Click to expand...

Yet, I'm willing to bet that there were plenty of other influences in your children's lives. That was the whole point. Did your children go to school? Then they had teachers that played a part in their raising. Did your children interact with your other relatives on any sort of basis? If so, then those relatives likely played at least a small part in their raising. Did they have friends, did you? They too could have had some part in their raising. Coaches, scout leaders, religious leaders, babysitters or others that your children are left with to be taught or cared for by had a part of in how your children were raised, even if it is going to be way less significant than yours and your husband's. Even the media and society as a whole plays a big part in how your children are raised, even if you limit greatly what they get to see in media.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

roguenuke said:
Yet, I'm willing to bet that there were plenty of other influences in your children's lives. That was the whole point. Did your children go to school? Then they had teachers that played a part in their raising. Did your children interact with your other relatives on any sort of basis? If so, then those relatives likely played at least a small part in their raising. Did they have friends, did you? They too could have had some part in their raising. Coaches, scout leaders, religious leaders, babysitters or others that your children are left with to be taught or cared for by had a part of in how your children were raised, even if it is going to be way less significant than yours and your husband's. Even the media and society as a whole plays a big part in how your children are raised, even if you limit greatly what they get to see in media.
Click to expand...
Strange that with all thiscommunity involvement all children don't turn out the same. Maybe it takes a village to screw up children's lives also.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

buck said:
I don't buy it. In the case of most stay at home mothers and in the case of most jobs, the experience at one has barely anything to do with the experience at the other. A stay at home mother can be a lot of work, but it is (rarely) relatable to industry or job experience.
Click to expand...
I'm in a position to hire people occasionally and, more than anything, character counts. Everything else runs second.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

roguenuke said:
This is so far beyond wrong I don't know where you get these ideas.

Government programs did not cause the problems of unwed mothers. Unwed mothers led to us needing the programs more and more because societal changes in what people are taught at home caused the issues. Part of it is the fact that we look for love instead of stability and a stable reliable person when it comes to a mate and are taught this more than actually being taught what a good, positive intimate relationship is about. It all starts in what people are taught at home and by others if the home just isn't enough. Many unwed mothers are searching for someone that they can be with, to be a good father or parent for their children, and ways to better themselves, to make their career opportunities better, so they can care for their children rather than rely on the government assistance. No, it may not be all unwed mothers, but it still is many.

So you want to get people off of those programs, work on programs that give a hand up rather than a hand out, including job training that is accepted by work places that pay more than minimum wage or just barely above because parents cannot raise children on minimum wage. And when it comes to those on assistance programs, we should be working on setting up job share situations where if a mother/father is not working full time or going to school full time, then they should be first looking for a full time job or schooling or they need to be helping to take care of other people's children or helping them run errands or with rides to work or school in order to help take some of that societal burden away. And they need to get classes on relationships, budgeting, and other "life skills" classes. In fact, we should have these in high school. And these should include definitely a class on healthy, intimate, committed relationships.
Click to expand...
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I just don't agree with it. However I do agree that the moral bankruptcy of society has caused the increase in out of wedlock births and the increase of women being abandoned and left to struggle financially raising children. But by having so many government subsidies for single mothers, it doesn't hinder the bad behavior but rather encourages it because mothers are able to get by with government taking the place of the father. If benefits had greater limits on them and stronger laws forcing men to take responsibility for the children they have fathered, you would see women learning to follow the directions on their birth control and men thinking twice about having sex unprotected. While it is impossible to legislate morality, it doesn't help when the government voids personal responsibility.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

vesper said:
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I just don't agree with it. However I do agree that the moral bankruptcy of society has caused the increase in out of wedlock births and the increase of women being abandoned and left to struggle financially raising children. But by having so many government subsidies for single mothers, it doesn't hinder the bad behavior but rather encourages it because mothers are able to get by with government taking the place of the father. If benefits had greater limits on them and stronger laws forcing men to take responsibility for the children they have fathered, you would see women learning to follow the directions on their birth control and men thinking twice about having sex unprotected. While it is impossible to legislate morality, it doesn't helps when the government voids personal responsibility.
Click to expand...
Once you get past the old jokes this guy nails it. Well worth the read. Why the decline of the West is best for us - and them
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

tres borrachos said:
"It takes a village". Now there is a quote that grated on my nerves when she said it, and after bringing up 3 kids into their teens (where they all are now), I know damn well that no village has raised my kids. My husband & I did.
Click to expand...

I personally wouldn't let them get within 10 miles off my kids - I've seen and heard enough about their "Village" to know that much! My husband and I did our best to raise our children to be honest, hard working adults, and I am proud of all of them. No slackers allowed in our family, and we all had fun along the way! :lol:
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

appears to make (long-term) financial sense based on head start data:
Cost-benefit Analyses. With an average cost per child of $6,692 for 1.5 years of participation, the preschool program generates a total return to society at large of $47,759 per participant. These benefits are the result of participants’ increased earnings capacity due to educational attainment, criminal justice system savings, reduced school remedial services, and averted tangible costs to crime victims. Benefits realized in each of these areas exceed the cost of just one year of the preschool program, which is $4,400. Overall, every dollar invested in the preschool program returns $7.14 in individual, educational, social welfare and socioeconomic benefits
Click to expand...
Strengthening Head Start:* What the Evidence Shows

below is some stark data, looking at students who are eligible for free lunch versus those more affluent students who are not
in the first graph we see the effects of poverty on readiness to learn, examining those percentages at or above the fully proficient benchmark:
graph of students success compare free lunch eligible to others.gif
in this next graph we see how student performance compares for those eligible for free lunch versus those students who are more affluent. these are the numbers for those who showing inadequate performance when tested at grades 4 and 12
graph performance free lunch eligible to others.gif

what is obvious is that students from impoverished circumstances have a much lower chance of exceeding the fully proficient level and a much higher chance of exhibiting under proficient academic levels than their more affluent counterparts
this alone should cause us to embrace Obama's approach. more education, especially at the preschool level, is needed for our kids to be able to break the cycle of poverty
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

justabubba said:
appears to make (long-term) financial sense based on head start data:

Strengthening Head Start:* What the Evidence Shows

below is some stark data, looking at students who are eligible for free lunch versus those more affluent students who are not
in the first graph we see the effects of poverty on readiness to learn, examining those percentages at or above the fully proficient benchmark:
View attachment 67175406
in this next graph we see how student performance compares for those eligible for free lunch versus those students who are more affluent. these are the numbers for those who showing inadequate performance when tested at grades 4 and 12
View attachment 67175407

what is obvious is that students from impoverished circumstances have a much lower chance of exceeding the fully proficient level and a much higher chance of exhibiting under proficient academic levels than their more affluent counterparts
this alone should cause us to embrace Obama's approach. more education, especially at the preschool level, is needed for our kids to be able to break the cycle of poverty
Click to expand...

I don't know how you come to the conclusion Head Start makes good sense long term. We've had the program since the Great Society under Johnson. This study showed how inadequate the program has been in preparing children for Kindergarten. The study was so damning that HHS stalled in releasing the data.

Head Start Impact Evaluation Report Finally Released
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

Grant said:
Strange that with all thiscommunity involvement all children don't turn out the same. Maybe it takes a village to screw up children's lives also.
Click to expand...

Are two coaches the exact same? Are your friends going to be just alike? Are your friends going to be like other people's friends? How about teachers? Kids' friends? People in media your children are most exposed to compared to other people's children? Types of media your children prefer compared to others?

I'm not saying that parents aren't a huge influence on their children but there are still many more influences in a child's life, more people contributing to who they are or become than just parents. And there is nothing wrong with that for most children/people.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

vesper said:
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I just don't agree with it. However I do agree that the moral bankruptcy of society has caused the increase in out of wedlock births and the increase of women being abandoned and left to struggle financially raising children. But by having so many government subsidies for single mothers, it doesn't hinder the bad behavior but rather encourages it because mothers are able to get by with government taking the place of the father. If benefits had greater limits on them and stronger laws forcing men to take responsibility for the children they have fathered, you would see women learning to follow the directions on their birth control and men thinking twice about having sex unprotected. While it is impossible to legislate morality, it doesn't help when the government voids personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

Good morning, Vesper. :2wave:

:agree: If everyone took personal responsibility for their lives, government would not be involved to the extent they are! The day is fast approaching, though, when people will have no choice but to take care of themselves - and I fear they won't know what to do! Tough way to learn under those conditions! sad....

On another subject: Today I start painting window panes and windowsills on all the windows in my granddaughter's house! That's my job for this week, according to the powers-that-be! Okay, I can do that. After the floor sanding is done in the next week or so, they will stain the floor using a roller, but my job at that point will be staining the baseboards using a brush. Okay, I can do that, too - but my knees sure aren't going to be happy cause this house is a ranch that is 90 feet long! :no: Some of that is 2-1/2 car garage, though, so I won't have baseboards to do there. Still a lot of work, though! See you intermittently over the next two weeks! :shock:
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

vesper said:
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I just don't agree with it. However I do agree that the moral bankruptcy of society has caused the increase in out of wedlock births and the increase of women being abandoned and left to struggle financially raising children. But by having so many government subsidies for single mothers, it doesn't hinder the bad behavior but rather encourages it because mothers are able to get by with government taking the place of the father. If benefits had greater limits on them and stronger laws forcing men to take responsibility for the children they have fathered, you would see women learning to follow the directions on their birth control and men thinking twice about having sex unprotected. While it is impossible to legislate morality, it doesn't help when the government voids personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

Morality is subjective. There are some objectively speaking things that provide a more successful outcome, more positive outcome, statistically, but it really isn't about specific morals but rather general values of society and not being likely to be a continuing negative burden on society due to unwillingness to change your circumstances rather than not being able to.

As for the rest, you nor others are truly able to show the majority of single mothers want to be that way. Most don't.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

roguenuke said:
Are two coaches the exact same? Are your friends going to be just alike? Are your friends going to be like other people's friends? How about teachers? Kids' friends? People in media your children are most exposed to compared to other people's children? Types of media your children prefer compared to others?

I'm not saying that parents aren't a huge influence on their children but there are still many more influences in a child's life, more people contributing to who they are or become than just parents. And there is nothing wrong with that for most children/people.
Click to expand...
Influence is not the same thing as raising a child. I don't think anyone would have an issue with "the village you are raised in has an influence your upbringing."
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

Taylor said:
Influence is not the same thing as raising a child.
Click to expand...

It all goes into how a child is raised. We do not (for the most part) raise our children in bubbles with little to no outside influences. Especially now. Children spend at least half as much time with non parental figures during childhood as with their parents, some more time. Between school, parents working, extra activities, church, and parents wanting to have time for themselves, which is good for a healthy intimate relationship, there is a lot of time away from one or more parents for children. Especially after factoring out sleep time.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

roguenuke said:
It all goes into how a child is raised. We do not (for the most part) raise our children in bubbles with little to no outside influences. Especially now.
Click to expand...
I doubt anyone would disagree that there aren't "outside influences." This is why we choose to move to a certain state or certain part of the city to raise children. It's a leap, however, to claim that these outside influences are "raising" children.

Would you similarly claim that it takes a tv and video game system to raise a child? These seem to have an "influence" as well. I would imagine that most teachers, coaches, etc. would be among the first to say that they are NOT trying to raise your child.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

Taylor said:
I doubt anyone would disagree that there aren't "outside influences." This is why we choose to move to a certain state or certain part of the city to raise children. It's a leap, however, to claim that these outside influences are "raising" children.

Would you similarly claim that it takes a tv and video game system to raise a child? These seem to have an "influence" as well. I would imagine that most teachers, coaches, etc. would be among the first to say that they are NOT trying to raise your child.
Click to expand...

Some parents allow tv and or video games to raise their children. Those things do actually also help to raise your children as well though.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

roguenuke said:
Are two coaches the exact same? Are your friends going to be just alike? Are your friends going to be like other people's friends? How about teachers? Kids' friends? People in media your children are most exposed to compared to other people's children? Types of media your children prefer compared to others?

I'm not saying that parents aren't a huge influence on their children but there are still many more influences in a child's life, more people contributing to who they are or become than just parents. And there is nothing wrong with that for most children/people.
Click to expand...

An interesting take on this idea is a British series called Seven-Up which was based on the Jesuit idea of "Give me a child for for his first seven years and I'll give you the man". It documents children from the age of seven, beginning in the 1960's, and the last episode was when they were 56, two years ago.

As this fascinating series shows, those first seven years are essential to the development of the child, and what we see is that they really haven't changed all that much since they were seven. The essentials of who they are remain all those years later. We also learn also that a two parent family, with all the love and direction that implies, is essential for the development from child to adult, and if it doesn't happen the consequences will be socially negative, and will ultimately change that village. Once they are past the age of seven the parents have less influence and the 'village' more. Of course this is necessary and normal in any social environment.

It has been said that adults are only children who know how to behave in public, and this series seems to prove that point. The child in the adult is always visible to viewer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...901/From-Seven-to-56-Up-the-story-so-far.html
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

roguenuke said:
Some parents allow tv and or video games to raise their children. Those things do actually also help to raise your children as well though.
Click to expand...
No, it reflects on how the parents have decided to raise their children. As does how they choose to expose their children to any outside influence.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

Grant said:
An interesting take on this idea is a British series called Seven-Up which was based on the Jesuit idea of "Give me a child for for his first seven years and I'll give you the man". It documents children from the age of seven, beginning in the 1960's, and the last episode was when they were 56, two years ago.

As this fascinating series shows, those first seven years are essential to the development of the child, and what we see is that they really haven't changed all that much since they were seven. The essentials of who they are remain all those years later. We also learn also that a two parent family, with all the love and direction that implies, is essential for the development from child to adult, and if it doesn't happen the consequences will be socially negative, and will ultimately change that village. Once they are past the age of seven the parents have less influence and the 'village' more. Of course this is necessary and normal in any social environment.

It has been said that adults are only children who know how to behave in public, and this series seems to prove that point. The child in the adult is always visible to viewer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...901/From-Seven-to-56-Up-the-story-so-far.html
Click to expand...

And we still have many of those influences in our children's lives that I mentioned before age 7. Plenty of extended families out there. I'm not the only one who has let a friend take my baby less than 6 months so my husband and I could have a night for ourselves. Children start school before 7.

But I'm willing to bet they didn't thoroughly study all potential family types though. There are lots of single parents out there who raised their children well.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

roguenuke said:
Some parents allow tv and or video games to raise their children. Those things do actually also help to raise your children as well though.
Click to expand...
It helps the parents more than it helps the children. Children need parental contact, and TV is a poor substitute.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

roguenuke said:
And we still have many of those influences in our children's lives that I mentioned before age 7. Plenty of extended families out there. I'm not the only one who has let a friend take my baby less than 6 months so my husband and I could have a night for ourselves. Children start school before 7.

But I'm willing to bet they didn't thoroughly study all potential family types though. There are lots of single parents out there who raised their children well.
Click to expand...
I've provided a link so you can get an idea of the types involved in the series.

Yes, there are plenty of single parents who have done a great job, but a study of any jail population suggests that a two parent family does better.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

Aunt Spiker said:
So you are admitting, here, that having children and being a stay at home parent is a matter of penalties and consequences.

My husband and I had children together - last I looked. What consequences is he dealing with for having children?


Only, I'm unable. I'm not a stay at home parent anymore - kids are all older - he's no longer in the military. We're an aging family now. But no one wants to hire someone who put country and family first for years. Oh they'll hire him in a heartbeat. But me? No.

There's the imbalance: the social view - society doesn't value the stay at home parent or take us seriously as participants in society. Heck - even you said that it's an acceptable 'consequence' of having children and caring for them adequately.
Click to expand...


Well said! why don't we value parents who stay home and take care of their kids? Oftentimes they are the backbone of our volunteer force, helping at schools and other places. They are raising the future leaders of our country. They allow the breadwinner more flexibility with their employer, allows them to travel if needed and to change careers and whatnot.

In college, I was the only woman in a particular business class. We were doing a case study about a woman who had stayed home, and supported her hsuband's career by taking care of the children, moving when he got promoted, holding business dinners, etc. He was offered another promotion which required a move - and she said no. The teacher and the class were all saying "yeah, she better get her butt in gear and move, he makes all the money" (to paraphrase). I finally spoke up and pointed out she had been contributing to the family's success as much as he had, and she absolutely had earned the right to have equal input on the decision. The marriage was a partnership.

THEN the teacher realized what an a*hole he had been and he backed down. But absolutely the stay at home partner is a key part of the family and should be respected and their accomplishments considered as important.

(As to whether people should get extra help *just* because they are in the military - that's another subject. In general, yes, but to me it depends on what they did, how long they were in there, etc. And of course there are programs for people - well, ok, mainly women - re-entering the workforce offered through colleges and whatnot, so there is some support out there)
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

paddymcdougall said:
Well said! why don't we value parents who stay home and take care of their kids?
Click to expand...
The fact is that we do value stay-at-home parents, usually the mother, and demonstrate it often.

If anyone is to blame for this idea that women who stay home are not respected it is the ironically self-named "Women's Liberation Movement", a leftist organization who were politically motivated rather than actually 'liberating' anyone. They continue to demonstrate their indifference to real women's problems today.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

why is the president even talking about moms?

stick to constitutional governmental issues.
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

ernst barkmann said:
why is the president even talking about moms?

stick to constitutional governmental issues.
Click to expand...

It's election season, he's a politician, and moms vote. Not really that complicated. What "constitutional governmental issues" should he speak of, and would that get you to vote for him?
 
Re: Obama doesn't want Moms staying home to raise their kids. Wants the state to do i

Deuce said:
It's election season, he's a politician, and moms vote. Not really that complicated. What "constitutional governmental issues" should he speak of, and would that get you to vote for him?
Click to expand...

since i work to stay true to constitutional law, i dont recall any powers of the president, dealing with personal lives of the people for him to speak on.

governmental issues, ...those which delegated powers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom