paddymcdougall
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2013
- Messages
- 3,032
- Reaction score
- 1,687
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
and the idea that the government is somehow involved in a plot to make sure all kids are in state run daycares based on one sentence spoken by the potus is about as absurd of a conspiracy theory as i've heard, and there have been some pretty absurd ones promoted on this forum.
Obama has already muttered the nonsensical and already debunked figures of wage inequality. He is obviously a feminist thinking person. Feminism is in bed with socialism and marxism which is all about the state raising the kids. Is it really surprising that he would support such propaganda based on the roots he came from and the people he surrounded himself with before he was president. He may have tempered his marxist and socialist tendencies in order got elected, but they are still there and they have effected policy.
and very few places other than food service actually pay minimum wage...at least if you work there for a little while.
Table B-3. Average hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
I nominate that post for the "barefoot and pregnant" award.
Americans wouldn't have to make that choice if the government didn't cause Mom to have to be in the workplace...in the first place.
Thanks to almost a hundred years of liberals changing our society, Moms have no choice...they have to work. So what is the liberal solution?...more nanny state.
Obama...the sooner you and your ilk are gone, the better.
But that in itself is a problem. They are even unwilling to recognize any experience that women do gain by staying home with their children, especially in jobs where the pay is based on experience but experience at home could easily transfer if they would actually look at it.
For those of you extolling having a parent stay at home with the children - assuming they are a good parent, that is great for the kids.
Americans wouldn't have to make that choice if the government didn't cause Mom to have to be in the workplace...in the first place.
Thanks to almost a hundred years of liberals changing our society, Moms have no choice...they have to work. So what is the liberal solution?...more nanny state.
Obama...the sooner you and your ilk are gone, the better.
While I editorialized the title of this thread, here's what was said:
"Sometimes, someone, usually mom, leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result. And that’s not a choice we want Americans to make."
Obama on Moms Who Stay Home to Raise Kids: 'That's Not a Choice We Want Americans to Make' | The Weekly Standard
Now, what I would hope what he meant to say was something like "...that's not a choice we want Americans TO HAVE to make...", that's simply not what he actually said.
Through the cost of government.How, exactly, did the government cause mom's to need to work outside of the home?
I agree. Certainly not an option for single parents. However, one, that is not what Obama was discussing in the original quote. Two, the government should, at the very least, not encourage single parents and should try to discourage, as much as possible - as it is not the ideal situation. Of course there are single parents that are single parents through no fault of their own. That is a minority of the issue, though.
Through the cost of government.
At one time an average man could afford to provide for a wife and family but those days are gone. The difference is the rise of the role of government in family life, the decline in personal responsibility, and the expectation by many that someone, somewhere, will somehow pay for these extra government services. The fact is that it is the middle class, the group central to social well being, who always pays. That is why the middle class is shrinking, the two parent family is becoming rarer, and social unrest growing.
Ironically, the response by many has been to ask the government to do something about the problem.
Through the cost of government.
At one time an average man could afford to provide for a wife and family but those days are gone. The difference is the rise of the role of government in family life, the decline in personal responsibility, and the expectation by many that someone, somewhere, will somehow pay for these extra government services. The fact is that it is the middle class, the group central to social well being, who always pays. That is why the middle class is shrinking, the two parent family is becoming rarer, and social unrest growing.
Ironically, the response by many has been to ask the government to do something about the problem.
Do you feel it is government's role to judge 'income equality'? 'Wage stagnation'? Have they ever demonstrated any success in these areas?Um, the cost of govt is NOT why families with single breadwinners are struggling. Check into Income Inequality, wage stagnation and such. The govt. didn't cause it. Decline of strong labor unions and the growing income gap caused it.
Of course there are far more taxes than those on the income tax forms, which is why many don't realize just how much taxes have increased..That (bolded above) assertion needs some facts to back it up.
View attachment 67175354
Federal Income Taxes on Middle-Income Families Remain Near Historic Lows — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Of course there are far more taxes than those on the income tax forms, which is why many don't realize just how much taxes have increased..
Pres. Obama was discussing having high quality day care/preschools available for people who need that for their children. THAT was totally lost in the original op.
Sometimes, someone, usually mom, leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result. And that’s not a choice we want Americans to make.
I know life is tougher as a single parent. But is it tougher than having an abuser as one of the parents? And if conservatives so want two parent families, and if they think govt. should encourage that, then why did they fight so hard against same sex marriage?
I definitely would NOT try to discourage single parents by giving them no day care/preschool options. That would be bad, mmmkay?
Through the cost of government.
At one time an average man could afford to provide for a wife and family but those days are gone. The difference is the rise of the role of government in family life, the decline in personal responsibility, and the expectation by many that someone, somewhere, will somehow pay for these extra government services. The fact is that it is the middle class, the group central to social well being, who always pays. That is why the middle class is shrinking, the two parent family is becoming rarer, and social unrest growing.
Ironically, the response by many has been to ask the government to do something about the problem.
That (bolded above) assertion needs some facts to back it up.
View attachment 67175354
Federal Income Taxes on Middle-Income Families Remain Near Historic Lows — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Maybe he's making a commentary on how our society is inherently sexist as it is the expectation that the mother make such a sacrifice to stay home and raise the kids, while the father tends to be inexplicably immune from this expectation.
What exactly is sexist about expecting the most common arrangement to be that which is most natural?
This is the quote from Obama:
This is about parents that have a choice of leaving the workplace. I don't know that single parents have much of a choice on the matter.
“Too often parents have no choice but to put their kids in cheaper day care that maybe doesn’t have the kinds of programming that makes a big difference in a child’s development. Sometimes, someone, usually Mom, leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result. That’s not a choice we want Americans to make.”
Actually, here is a fuller and more complete quote
emphasis mine
He is not saying he doesn't want americans to choose to stay home. He's saying the choice should not be between cheap and inadequate day care or stop working and stay home to take care of the children
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?