How dangerous are liberal social policies.

Lord of Planar · Nov 21, 2016

roguenuke said:
That simply isn't a realistic view. That isn't even what really happened in the past. We currently have a teen pregnancy rate that matches that of the 40s or 50s.

They use les than 20 yrs. old for such statistics, and in the 50's and earlier, 85% or more of those so-called teens were married. The question is how many of then are poor by the standards of the day. You know, unable to support a family.

roguenuke said:
While some of it is due to having less sex, thanks to comprehensive sex education, much of it is due to the availability of affordable birth control options and boys who realize that if a woman they have sex with gets pregnant, they will have to pay child support and may not get to have say in how that child is raised.

Birth control still fails, and that's what happens in so many cases. It is oversold, and the hardships are undersold.

roguenuke said:
I'm all for mandatory home economics and basic common sense courses being required to pass high school. At least one year of comprehensive child care and development no later than 10th grade. Mandatory comprehensive sex education. And I'd like to see a mandatory home economics course that actually gets into economics of running a household. Stop putting sports above an education, as something that should be more than a hobby.

Funny how things have become worse with more sex education.

Lord of Planar · Nov 21, 2016

roguenuke said:
It isn't exposure to sex in media that harms children. It is parents of any affiliation failing to talk to their children about responsible sex, love, relationships. And yes there are a lot of conservative parents out there who think that talking about sex will lead to kids having sex. It's ignorance.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think with the busy lifestyles people have today, especially when both parents work, that the family values get neglected. It seems liberal parents believe it's the education systems responsibility to tech kids such thinks instead of in the homes.

Left or right, it happens. It just seems to be more so on the left.

Cephus · Nov 21, 2016

roguenuke said:
Clinton was in office and approved a reduction on TANF and put a 5 year limit on it.

It was a Republican bill, part of the Contract With America. Having already vetoed 2 similar welfare bills, Clinton felt it was political suicide to do so again and would get in the way of other legislation that he was pushing. It was a wholly political act.

So yeah, not so much.

roguenuke · Nov 21, 2016

Lord of Planar said:
They use les than 20 yrs. old for such statistics, and in the 50's and earlier, 85% or more of those so-called teens were married. The question is how many of then are poor by the standards of the day. You know, unable to support a family.

Birth control still fails, and that's what happens in so many cases. It is oversold, and the hardships are undersold.

Funny how things have become worse with more sex education.

Birth control failing is an issue but not nearly as big as ignorance. Beliefs that you can only get pregnant a couple days a month and that the average teen girl is able to track that accurately (most adult women can't). Teenage girls listening to teen boys and even older men tell them that they will take care of them and any baby then abandon them. That's reality.

But no things haven't become worse with more sex education. All evidence shows it's better to educate young people about sex.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

roguenuke · Nov 21, 2016

Cephus said:
It was a Republican bill, part of the Contract With America. Having already vetoed 2 similar welfare bills, Clinton felt it was political suicide to do so again and would get in the way of other legislation that he was pushing. It was a wholly political act.

So yeah, not so much.

He still did it. And it is still in effect. Which means that they are still limited on how much TANF they can get.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

roguenuke · Nov 21, 2016

Lord of Planar said:
I think with the busy lifestyles people have today, especially when both parents work, that the family values get neglected. It seems liberal parents believe it's the education systems responsibility to tech kids such thinks instead of in the homes.

Left or right, it happens. It just seems to be more so on the left.

Evidence please. We've already covered that things have changed. Times change with it. You want parents to have more time to teach their children those lessons instead of schools? Fine. Convince companies to pay more per hour and have people work less hours, at least between two parents. That would be a start.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cephus · Nov 21, 2016

roguenuke said:
He still did it. And it is still in effect. Which means that they are still limited on how much TANF they can get.

Yes, he still did it but that was a political reality, not by choice. I suppose it could have been part of his 1992 campaign promise to "end welfare as we have come to know it", but personally, I don't think it really did anything to end welfare since, as we all know, it's still here. And of course, Clinton's "workfare" ended up costing the taxpayer 5x what just handing out welfare did, so we all still lost.

roguenuke · Nov 21, 2016

Cephus said:
Yes, he still did it but that was a political reality, not by choice. I suppose it could have been part of his 1992 campaign promise to "end welfare as we have come to know it", but personally, I don't think it really did anything to end welfare since, as we all know, it's still here. And of course, Clinton's "workfare" ended up costing the taxpayer 5x what just handing out welfare did, so we all still lost.

And other programs aren't costing us or will cost us if implemented by conservatives? I'd rather spend money to help people make it on their own than just to have them being given handouts. There's plenty of changes that have come about and been proposed that are simply rejected, not because they aren't or weren't good ideas, but because they came from the other side politically.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cephus · Nov 21, 2016

roguenuke said:
And other programs aren't costing us or will cost us if implemented by conservatives? I'd rather spend money to help people make it on their own than just to have them being given handouts. There's plenty of changes that have come about and been proposed that are simply rejected, not because they aren't or weren't good ideas, but because they came from the other side politically.

I'm just reporting history, not making any value judgements. The historical reality is that Bill Clinton voted for it *ONLY* because he needed the political capital to do other things, he vetoed two other similar bills prior and was facing a hostile Republican Congress. That is the way history remembers reality. What you would or would not rather do is irrelevant to the question you've presented.

roguenuke · Nov 21, 2016

Cephus said:
I'm just reporting history, not making any value judgements. The historical reality is that Bill Clinton voted for it *ONLY* because he needed the political capital to do other things, he vetoed two other similar bills prior and was facing a hostile Republican Congress. That is the way history remembers reality. What you would or would not rather do is irrelevant to the question you've presented.

I never presented a question in that first reply. I was simply pointing out that he approved it. He was involved. He could have vetoed it, stuck to his principles. What exactly would it have cost him? Votes? He was a very popular president and the entire premise being debated there was that people would vote for the person that gave them stuff, not that took it away. So if welfare is about getting votes, why would approving a bill that limited it be politically better, more likely to gain votes?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gathomas88 · Nov 21, 2016

Lord Tammerlain said:
That has more to do with the war on drugs that generally targeted black communities and gave more severe penalties to blacks then to whites

No, it primarily has to do with the structure of the modern welfare system making it more profitable for women to be unmarried and unemployed, in many circumstances, than married or working.

Henrin · Nov 21, 2016

roguenuke said:
Only certain kinds. It's just as easy to get most welfare married as single depending on your income. I got Medicaid and wic for the boys while married. (We may have even possibly have qualified for food stamps but didn't apply.)

But even that is limited and it would still be more beneficial to keep the father around to help than to "kick him out". Some family in Washington state a few years back made over a million by claiming not married (idiots got married in Vegas and thought the assistance wools wouldn't notice) and having like half a dozen kids, dividing the home into basically two parts and claiming the mom and kids were simply renting from the guy. How is that family "broken" in the manner described in the OP rather than simply assholes defrauding the government? In reality, they would be better off with two incomes, or at least one income receiving some assistance (the single parent assistance is the one that's capped on how many years it can be used) while the other person went to school.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would agree that his point doesn't make much sense. It would make more sense to say that marriage is disincentivized because of how welfare works. As long as welfare is based on someones individual income and marriage does very much the opposite people will always be motivated to not get married. If someone is single and qualifies for food stamps, but would lose their food stamps if they got married then in order to keep their bills lower it only makes sense to not get married.

James972 · Nov 21, 2016

Henrin said:
I would agree that his point doesn't make much sense. It would make more sense to say that marriage is disincentivized because of how welfare works. As long as welfare is based on someones individual income and marriage does very much the opposite people will always be motivated to not get married. If someone is single and qualifies for food stamps, but would lose their food stamps if they got married then in order to keep their bills lower it only makes sense to not get married.

exactly, liberal programs have attacked love, marriage, and family. No wonder more young black men are in prison than in college. How can such pure and deadly ignorance be legal in America. Can America survive while it is legal to be a liberal?

Lord of Planar · Nov 21, 2016

roguenuke said:
Birth control failing is an issue but not nearly as big as ignorance. Beliefs that you can only get pregnant a couple days a month and that the average teen girl is able to track that accurately (most adult women can't). Teenage girls listening to teen boys and even older men tell them that they will take care of them and any baby then abandon them. That's reality.

But no things haven't become worse with more sex education. All evidence shows it's better to educate young people about sex.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think that's correct when you look at statistics showing teen pregnancies for high school students. Take the young married teens out of the equation, and what do you have?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so. The problem is with the knowledge of birth control, comes a false sense of security. Maybe more focus has become part of the curricula not to trust birth control, but if kids are taught not to worry about pregnancies because of the quality of birth control, then the schools are doing a disservice.

Lord of Planar · Nov 21, 2016

roguenuke said:
Evidence please. We've already covered that things have changed. Times change with it. You want parents to have more time to teach their children those lessons instead of schools? Fine. Convince companies to pay more per hour and have people work less hours, at least between two parents. That would be a start.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Have to bring the supply and demand of jobs and workers back into balance.

Get the illegal aliens to move back to their country of origin.

Disassemble the global free trade agreements, and make foreign goods cost as much or more than USA products with tariffs.

Once employers have to compete to get employees again, the wages will rise. That's the nature of supply and demand.

Lord of Planar · Nov 21, 2016

Cephus said:
Yes, he still did it but that was a political reality, not by choice. I suppose it could have been part of his 1992 campaign promise to "end welfare as we have come to know it", but personally, I don't think it really did anything to end welfare since, as we all know, it's still here. And of course, Clinton's "workfare" ended up costing the taxpayer 5x what just handing out welfare did, so we all still lost.

Part of the reason is with the time limits, many women dependent on the system now have a kid every three years, like clockwork, to stay on the best of the benefits.

James972 · Nov 21, 2016

Lord of Planar said:
Disassemble the global free trade agreements,

definitely don't want to do that. Republicans saved the world by defeated USSR and Red China and now we're integrating China into the world. We don't ever want them as enemies again. Trade between NY and CA must be looked at just like trade between USA and China.

roguenuke · Nov 21, 2016

Lord of Planar said:
I don't think that's correct when you look at statistics showing teen pregnancies for high school students. Take the young married teens out of the equation, and what do you have?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so. The problem is with the knowledge of birth control, comes a false sense of security. Maybe more focus has become part of the curricula not to trust birth control, but if kids are taught not to worry about pregnancies because of the quality of birth control, then the schools are doing a disservice.

You are wrong. The statistics show that not only is teen pregnancy rates dropping (not teen parent rates either, but actual pregnancy rates), but most areas with the lowest rates are those areas that have comprehensive sex education programs rather than abstinence only programs in place. That means that it's definitely not about birth control being taken for granted but rather not using it at all or correctly.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Carjosse · Nov 21, 2016

Lord of Planar said:
I don't think that's correct when you look at statistics showing teen pregnancies for high school students. Take the young married teens out of the equation, and what do you have?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so. The problem is with the knowledge of birth control, comes a false sense of security. Maybe more focus has become part of the curricula not to trust birth control, but if kids are taught not to worry about pregnancies because of the quality of birth control, then the schools are doing a disservice.

The pregnancy rate would still be much lower with the "false sense of security" because birth control actually does work than if you just lie to them and let them have sex without any kind of protection. On top of that reason it is just better than kids and teens learn about sexuality and their bodies because it benefits everyone.

Henrin · Nov 21, 2016

James972 said:
exactly, liberal programs have attacked love, marriage, and family. No wonder more young black men are in prison than in college. How can such pure and deadly ignorance be legal in America. Can America survive while it is legal to be a liberal?

People love to abuse things and government programs aren't any different. Hell, women will even abuse child support sometimes. Lets say a woman is getting child support from the father of her child, but she is currently living with a man that earns say a hundred grand(doesn't really matter what the amount is). What she will end up doing is avoid marriage with the man, get her child support payments as they would be, while having whatever she earns in the same pot as the man she is currently with. If she is working at say a waitress job she also have the earned income credit coming in every year. The government is so easy to play anyone can do it.

James972 · Nov 21, 2016

Henrin said:
People love to abuse things and government programs aren't any different. Hell, women will even abuse child support sometimes. Lets say a woman is getting child support from the father of her child, but she is currently living with a man that earns say a hundred grand(doesn't really matter what the amount is). What she will end up doing is avoid marriage with the man, get her child support payments as they would be, while having whatever she earns in the same pot as the man she is currently with. If she is working at say a waitress job she also have the earned income credit coming in every year. The government is so easy to play anyone can do it.

yep the liberal war on love and family is huge tragedy for America.

Cephus · Nov 21, 2016

Lord of Planar said:
Part of the reason is with the time limits, many women dependent on the system now have a kid every three years, like clockwork, to stay on the best of the benefits.

That's exactly why we need to put a hard limit, regardless of how many kids you have. In fact, you ought to be penalized for having more kids while on welfare. If you can't afford to pay for 'em, stop popping 'em out.

NoLeftNoRight · Nov 21, 2016

How Dangerous?
Ask the family of this dead man

Killed by this man....

We don't know enough yet to fully understand the circumstances.
Did this officer do something horribly wrong to the man? We don't know.
The suspect had a record and priors.

Anyone who claims violence in our society is not on the increase has relied too heavily on Obama-justice statistics.
With all the illegals coming in and liberals pledging to give them sanctuary...and all the felons Obama is releasing from prison, and all the terrorists he released from Guantanamo and all the Democrat riots and killings in Chicago and on and on and on....

I would say liberal social policies are public enemy number ONE

James972 · Nov 22, 2016

NoLeftNoRight said:
I would say liberal social policies are public enemy number ONE

yep the killings in Chicago making it more dangerous than Iraq are proof, but tragically the liberal solution is even more liberal gasoline on the fire.

How dangerous are liberal social policies.

Sit Nomine Digna