Georgians look past government to solve child poverty
America’s five-decade war on poverty has made quite clear which social ill is most closely tied to child poverty. Yet, we haven’t taken the first shot at it. Fortunately, some Georgians are finally ready to take the fight where it needs to go.
I’m talking about the breakdown of the two-parent family and births out of wedlock. No other social factor comes closer to explaining why some people are poor and others aren’t.
Not education: In Georgia, the child of two married high school dropouts is less likely to be poor than the child of a single mother who has taken some college classes. More striking, a single mother with a college degree is more likely to live in poverty than are two married high school grads with a child.
Education matters. It’s just not the most important factor when it comes to child poverty.
Nor is race or ethnicity: Poverty rates are higher in Georgia for blacks and Hispanics than for whites. However, a white single parent is almost four times more likely to be poor than are married black parents, and slightly more likely than are married Hispanic parents. Births to unwed women are rising across racial groups.
Perhaps no statistic gets at it more quickly than these two: Three-quarters of poor families with children in Georgia are unmarried. And marriage drops the probability of child poverty in Georgia by 82 percent.
“The collapse of marriage … is the primary reason that you have child poverty,” the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector said Wednesday in Atlanta.
Rector was in town at the behest of the Georgia Family Council, which just launched a multiyear initiative called Breakthrough Georgia to address the real roots of poverty.
While GFC will seek some new legislation to help the cause, it’s not going to wait around for government solutions. The idea is to find private experts and community groups close to the problems, and raise private funds to pay for the programs they develop.
“Government can only do so much,” said GFC President Randy Hicks, especially when it’s already “stretched thin” financially. And existing welfare programs often exacerbate the problem by giving more money to mothers who aren’t married.
The first task is to identify why so many Georgia women are having children before marriage — already 45 percent of all births in the state and, without action, likely a majority within five years, Rector predicted.
It’s not just teens. There are twice as many unwed births to mothers over 30 than to mothers under 18. Sixty percent are to women in their 20s.
Nor is it a matter of disdain for marriage, Rector said: “These mothers … esteem the institution of marriage.”
“[But] their understanding of it tends to be idealized,” he said, “like you only marry when you’re in the middle class.”
For a starting place, Rector said, Breakthrough Georgia simply needs to tell women unmarried births are a problem.
“If you want to reduce a behavior in society, you have to tell people,” he said, making an analogy to smoking. “You have never told a single one of these young women … that having a child without being married is the royal root to persistent child poverty.”
The compounding effect of generation after generation of unwed mothers means we are “effectively dividing into two social castes,” Rector said. One with the social knowledge to save child-rearing for marriage, and one without it.
Much of the inequality in society flows from that gap. That’s the gap to bridge.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
223 comments Add your comment
Michael H. Smith
October 21st, 2011
6:08 pm
Oh this one (the topic) should be good, even if it does deteriorate very quickly.
carlosgvv
October 21st, 2011
6:12 pm
Those in Government have known for many years now that out-of-wedlock mothers raising children by themselves is one the main reasons for poverty. Since the years of LBJ and The Great Society one social experiment after another has tried to solve this problem with little, if any, success. So, don’t expect The Heritage Foundation or The Georgia Family Council or any Georgia politicians to have any effect on this problem. I don’t really think it will ever be solved except by nature, and nature can be very cruel.
Michael H. Smith
October 21st, 2011
6:12 pm
How about this Kyle: Marriage is to blame for near economic parity between black and white America,
do you believe it?
MarkV
October 21st, 2011
6:14 pm
This is one topic where I agree with Kyle.
JKL2
October 21st, 2011
6:22 pm
Everybody has an excuse for not working. My back hurts. My feet hurt. I’m only five…
Michael H. Smith
October 21st, 2011
6:40 pm
In fact Kyle, take the so-called “smoking analogy” – in reality it translates as society exerting “peer pressure” – to the “social values bank” my friend. The best way to change “social behavior” is through “social peer pressure” and not via “social engineering” or “legislating morals”, both of which have been proven less effective.
Shaniqua
October 21st, 2011
6:46 pm
Long as the government keeps paying us to download little future Democrats that’s what we’ll do. America does not have the backbone to shut off the welfare machine.
jconservative
October 21st, 2011
6:51 pm
As Daniel Patrick Moynihan predicted in his 1965 study popularly known as The Moynihan Report.
midtownguy
October 21st, 2011
7:44 pm
I agree 100%. But the same people who decry out of wedlock births oppose sex education in the schools and the distribution of birth control (but they are all in for Abstinence Education). Women need to quit having children out of wedlock. The best way for that to happen is to first tell them how to keep from getting pregnant then give them the supplies to do that while keeping abortion safe and legal.
Hillbilly D
October 21st, 2011
7:45 pm
It’ll be a long hard fight to turn this thing around. It’t taken 50 or so years to get to where we are and that’ll take a long time to reverse.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 21st, 2011
8:16 pm
There are obviously too many easy women in the state.
@@
October 21st, 2011
8:17 pm
Not gonna step into this one, except to say…The Sexual Revolution was a tremendous loss for women and children.
All NOW ever wanted was for women to be “free” while men paid child support. Stickin’ it to men at the “expense of children”.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 21st, 2011
8:18 pm
Of course people are having babies out of wedlock. We pay them when they do.
End the gravy train for these idiots. And if they can’t support the children they have, arrest them for child endangerment and adopt the kids out.
@@
October 21st, 2011
8:21 pm
Let’s not forget. NOW was a privileged organization of career women. Problem is ALL women, young and impoverished believed what they were selling.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 21st, 2011
8:23 pm
Out of wedlock births and every negative thing that results from that is just another government-caused problem. And when I say “government”, I of course mean “Democrats”.
catlady
October 21st, 2011
8:26 pm
Kyle, read the book “Promises I Can Keep,” an anthropological study of why poor women put childbirth before marriage.
JF McNamara
October 21st, 2011
8:37 pm
Women’s lib changed everything. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle unless you convince women that they have to get married and stay married. Interesting stat coming from the women’s lib era:
“The number of divorced people quadrupled between 1970 and 1996, from 4.3 million to 18.3 million.”
Before women’s lib, women were second class citizens. They had to get married and getting divorced made you a societal pariah. Now that women have options, they don’t need to put up with men’s garbage and they aren’t.
Maybe educating people will help, but everyone already knows that staying together is best for your kids. People don’t care. We’re better off accepting the new reality of free, independent women and working on solutions that cater to the new realities of our society.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
October 21st, 2011
8:39 pm
“While GFC will seek some new legislation to help the cause, it’s not going to wait around for government solutions.”
Good for them. Maybe at some point people will realize that government cannot cannot legislate nor fix social problems.
yuzeyurbrane
October 21st, 2011
8:50 pm
Kyle, what about S. Ga. Boys Clubs going belly-up? You drive in a dreamworld where the private sector fairy takes care of everything. Won’t happen. Didn’t in the Depression; won’t now. Funds for private charity will dry up and they will be overwhelmed into bankruptcy. Keep your day job Kyle.
Dusty
October 21st, 2011
9:08 pm
Well, when people stopped going to church and lost their morals, they lost the need to get married. It was do your own thing whenever and whatever you feel like doing.
The morals taught at church held families together and children thrived. Strangely enough,a large number of people decided that was foolish. Being moral went out of fashion and now they wonder why children suffer. They are searching for a solution when it has been around forever.
Christians are not perfect and many fail while trying. But the best commandments for a good life are right in the Bible. The Christian also believes in a salvation that was given to them and to all.
Keep searching, folks, but it is right there for you. Love one another, respect your wife and children and others, and stay away from the traps of life. It won’t take the troubles of life away from you but you can face it when unbetrayed love exists in your life.
There’s the solution to child poverty, the poverty of love and the poverty of need. The unselfish moral thing has seldom failed!
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 21st, 2011
9:31 pm
What are you tryin’ to do, Dusty, ruin somebody’s good time?
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
October 21st, 2011
9:40 pm
The way to solve this problem is that we all become liberals and kill the babies before they are born.
Dusty
October 21st, 2011
9:43 pm
I’m sorry, Lil Barry. Not wanting to ruin somebody’s good time. Just trying to make it better. Honest!!
@@
October 21st, 2011
9:51 pm
I knew I’d read something recently. PBS Frontline offers some insight.
Are the Conservatives Right?
For decades, liberals have run away from the issue of marriage and singleparenthood, afraid of stimatizing unwed mothers and their children. Now some are wondering whether the conservative marriage movement, embraced by President Bush, is on to something. Can government help poor communities by promoting marriage? The answer, writes FRONTLINE correspondent Alex Kotlowitz, is not simple. But it’s a question he can no longer ignore.
Maybe there’s hope, Kyle. GFC could drag liberals (kicking and screaming) into their program.
I’ve always believed Democrats want their constituents to remain poor. It helps ‘em retain power.
catlady:
The author of your “Promises” was mentioned in the article.
The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, a long-term survey of 5,000 low-income couples sponsored by a consortium of universities, has found that eight out of 10 couples surveyed planned to marry. “I was out in the field all of the time, interviewing low-income single mothers,” Kathy Edin, the director of the study, told me. “And what really struck me in those interviews was how many people talked about the desire to get married. And I would go back, you know, and talk to my friends in academia, and they would say, ‘Oh, they can’t mean that.’ But I would hear it again and again.”
Still, although attitudes appear to be changing, there hasn’t been a rush to the altar. In fact, Kathy Edin’s survey has found that while most of the couples interviewed intend to wed, they never get there.
Dusty
October 21st, 2011
9:52 pm
OOOO I report, 9:40
That one’s a bit overboard, doncha think?
Dusty
October 21st, 2011
9:58 pm
@@,
I wonder if those (doing studies) have gotten back to the idea that single mothers lose many benefits if they get married. I’m not even sure that is still true.
Browncoat
October 21st, 2011
9:58 pm
Child poverty is not the problem, it is a symptom of a larger problem. So if we ask the question “how do we solve shild poverty” we are asking the wrong question. First, ask why child povery exists.
@@
October 21st, 2011
10:00 pm
Have I been banned from here too? My comments are “awaiting moderation”. I can assure you, they’re very moderate comments…excerpts from the PBS FRONTLINE.
@@
October 21st, 2011
10:10 pm
Dusty:
single mothers lose many benefits if they get married.
I’m fairly certain that’s still the case.
Dusty
October 21st, 2011
10:14 pm
@@,
Only Kyle can answer but there’s probably an automatic moderator with buzz words that have more than one meaning. Or something!!!
PBS FRONTLINE sounds innocent to me. I’ve got my tent. Let’s PROTEST (when the weather gets warmer!).
@@
October 21st, 2011
10:15 pm
First, ask why child povery exists.
Okay! Why?
@@
October 21st, 2011
10:17 pm
Okay, I figured it out. It’s the word “knee-gro” (proper spelling). Moynihan’s word, not mine.
@@
October 21st, 2011
10:25 pm
Checkin’ out!
SeeB
October 21st, 2011
10:26 pm
@@ – Couple of questions…
On what do you base your opinion that “Democrats want their constituents to remain poor?” – The people of whom you speak probably do not bother vote. They are more than likely unaware of how policy affects them.
Also, at some point in the 8 years Bush was in office, I believe the Republicans had complete control of both houses. If the Republican party was so concerned about the issue of tax payers paying for out of wedlock/poor children, they could have dealt with it by passing some type of legislation. Did they do that? No they did not.
Single mothers lose benefits if they get married – Welfare reform took place during Clinton’s administration with the support of Republicans. One can no longer receive welfare benefits for a lifetime. The new lifetime benefit is to have your child declared “learning disabled” so the child can receive SSI benefits for life. The Bernie Marcus Center in downtown Atlanta has tested/labled many children to be “learning disabled”. Wonder what the kickback is for the center.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 21st, 2011
10:38 pm
More government, more out of wedlock births.
More government, more poverty.
More government, worse education system.
More government, less manufacturing.
More government, more financial train wrecks.
No trend there.
ld
October 21st, 2011
10:39 pm
Public schools have become as much social mixer as education center. Would like for Georgia to pioneer public/charter high schools that are oriented for “national guard” preparedness.: emphasis on common sense and character and self discipline, physical fitness and fundamentals of education w/atmosphere geared to learning to enjoy learning and practical thinking, including that the students learn cause and effect of habits–good and bad (health, $, etc) and are imbued w/understanding that the purpose of childhood education is to INCREASE the options of the individual adult. (yes, w/uniforms),
ld
October 21st, 2011
10:41 pm
Government, in and of itself, is NOT the problem–citizen apathy & and pursuit of personal agenda by gov’t officials, including greed/corruption are.
ld
October 21st, 2011
10:46 pm
Really bad marriages are harmful to children–especially if what the children are learning is how people should NOT treat each other and believe it is the way people should treat each other.
JKL2
October 21st, 2011
10:54 pm
Dusty- single mothers lose many benefits if they get married
My wifes best friend has two hearing impaired children. She got “divorced” because they found out she could get alot more money from the government as a single parent. The only thing that changed was they hyphenated her maiden name in front of theirs.
ld
October 21st, 2011
10:55 pm
TO: every self-rightous “conservative” on the issue of a woman’s reproductive right. First, it takes TWO to make a baby–get the guys to keep it in their pants. Second, date rape happens a lot more than is reported.
When the right wing-nuts go after unwed fathers w/the zeal they go after unwed mothers, and if the men are any brighter than the women–or it costs them $$$– then the unwed birth rate is more likely to go down. Until then, give out free birth control, you financially support the babies born out of wedlock, adopt the children yourself, or shut up about abortion.
JKL2
October 21st, 2011
10:59 pm
The vast majority of prison inmates come from single family homes. It’s OK cause baby mama will keep popping them out.If you have enough kids, chances are that one of them will eventually love her enough to make up for her low self esteem issues.
ld
October 21st, 2011
11:01 pm
And midtown guy has the right idea: (1) sex education in school and for every unwed mom seeking gov’t assistance, including not just cause but effect–financial, impact on future choice– including social activities… of having a child (2) and birth control easily available — free or on sliding fee scale. (3) see above not to right-wingers.
ld
October 21st, 2011
11:02 pm
(3) sic “note” not not. late. sleepy. bye.
JKL2
October 21st, 2011
11:05 pm
ld- First, it takes TWO to make a baby–get the guys to keep it in their pants. Second, date rape happens a lot more than is reported.
First, maybe you should be a little more selctive in your dating process. Second, if you keep your pants on, we don’t have any problems. Women have the control. Quit encouraging babies to have babies.
It’s kind of like ending crime or poverty. Make it uncomfortable and embarrassing and people will work at ending those undesirable activities.
Dusty
October 21st, 2011
11:19 pm
JKL2,
All I can say for your wife’s friend is good luck. Hope they can continue to get help.
I don’t know the answers to child poverty. My thoughts have already been posted so I won’t repeat.
Anyway and off subject, I made the mistake of reading the blog for Political Insider. That is one sick blog today. Never read so much hate and most of it for Bush & Cheney, or any Republican. I understand differences of opinion but that one is out of control.
Sorry to get off subject. I have enjoyed reading some sensible thoughts here. I leave with that in mind on this cold evening in Atlanta. G’nite.
Lynn43
October 21st, 2011
11:19 pm
For every single mother there is also a single father-somewhere. This is a two-sided problem which has to be addressed from all angles to work.
td
October 21st, 2011
11:30 pm
Lynn43
October 21st, 2011
11:19 pm
I agree with you that it takes two to make a baby and that two should be responsible but I will submit that it is only women that can solve this problem. Women are in total control of sex. Men get to have sex when the woman says so and under what conditions the woman says. If all women stood up together and said no sex before marriage and no marriage before a good education and a good job, then guess what men would be doing?
problem solver
October 21st, 2011
11:33 pm
1. poor blacks having more kids then they can afford ie zero.
2. the catholic church not allowing birth control
you solve those two problems you’ll solve child poverty…worldwide.
SeeB
October 21st, 2011
11:43 pm
Lynn43 – I know my comment is going to sound sexist but…women, and only women, have the power to change the dichotomy.
Unfortunately, young women, especially those who are absent of fathers, do not understand this. Instead of respecting their body, they wager it as if it were the only thing they have to offer.
On the other side of the coin, women trying to raise sons…only few succeed. Most women coddle their sons, turn them into weak dependents.
The same women wonder why they can’t find a good strong man. You can’t find one because some young boys mother, not unlike you, craddled him. He was her baby, she never let him fall, but she wonders why she can’t find a good strong man. Look at yourself single mother, have / are you creating a strong independent man or are you /have you created a momma’s boy?
td
October 21st, 2011
11:58 pm
Kyle, Thank you for being brave enough to have this conversation. We are not going to solve the poverty problem, education problem, or crime problem in this state until we get this problem under control.
Part of the problem in this state has to do with family law. It is a subject Mr. Wooten would take on from time to time but no other journalist will even consider the subject. If you take the money and power out of the hands of the courts and place it back into the hands of the parents then divorce would not as attractive.
Paddy O
October 22nd, 2011
12:27 am
This is one of the unintended consequences of feminism. What can society do? strip the parent of her child? No. Force the women to marry? No. Unfortunately, the prevailing philosophy of the last 40 years has been LBJ’s great society & feminism. Both undermine the roll of fatherhood, marriage & morality. The slippery slope that was warned about has arrived.
Paddy O
October 22nd, 2011
12:31 am
I don’t know how Rector can say that these women who are fornicating & reproducing outside of marriage have an esteem for the institution of marriage. Or, does this just mean they are gold diggers searching for a sucker? This is one element in the self-induced poverty that the federal welfare system actually promotes. If you declared that all citizens would only have access to public housing & other assistance programs for a max of 5 or 10 years, then they would have exhausted gov’t assistance, perhaps it would alter some behavior. I relatively doubt it, but at least they would no longer be wards of the state at that point.
Paddy O
October 22nd, 2011
12:33 am
also, it is not just the births but the root cause – fornication. How women with no job & no husband can run around fornicating is a mystery and challenge to the notion that women are intelligent.
Craig Spinks/ Augusta
October 22nd, 2011
3:26 am
The cynic in me says: (1) A significant portion of the legal profession has an financial stake in effectuating divorces. (2) There are no informal and few formal social controls on/penalties for reproductive irresposibility.(My late Dad told me about how the KKK would pay one visit- and only one- to any male who didn’t take care of his children. (I never asked Daddy how he knew but I suspect the Klan may have visited my offspring-neglecting, alcoholic paternal grandfather.)(3) Sexual activity has become debased to a level correspondent to “rutting” among our four-legged “friends” absent any appreciable response from the many decent among us. (4) Popular society promotes “ease” and is frightened by the difficult. Has anyone else noticed that marriage and child-rearing are “hard?” (5) To quote a female friend who is both attractive and one of the toughest-minded people I know. “Women’s liberation liberated a lot of males from their role as responsible father figure in a stable family. Women were told that they didn’t need those oppressive men anymore.” (6) Children, especially boys, develop more favorably when they live under the same roof as their loving, responsible fathers.
Craig Spinks/ Augusta
October 22nd, 2011
3:29 am
OOPS: Line 2- a financial stake
Lester Maddox
October 22nd, 2011
5:18 am
Couples must be prevented from having children until they have the resources to raise the children. The power of government must be used to this end. The longer our non leaders wait to have this discussion, the worse the situation will get. When you continue to fill a boat it will finally sink and everyone drowns.
Jezel
October 22nd, 2011
6:49 am
We have child poverty because we have national poverty.. because we have no jobs… because of business failures… because of fraud and greed.. because of too little gov regulation.. because too much gov. regulation… causes the same cycle.
Mark
October 22nd, 2011
7:14 am
There are many types of poverty. We have financial poverty among our children because we have poverty of integrity, honor, and self control among our adults. This problem can only begin to be resolved when we as individuals decide to take responsibility for our lives, stop casting blame on society and looking to the government for solutions.
Craig, I love this statement…”Popular society promotes “ease” and is frightened by the difficult. “
Ayn Rant
October 22nd, 2011
7:21 am
Yeh, yeh! Just point out to the poor the error of their ways: being black, Hispanic, or husbandless, and born to parents with no money or connections.
How do you propose to find husbands for all those poor single mothers, Kyle? Some 2,000,000 men are in prison; the country would be better off with a few million more there as well.
How about showing some concern, even if it means spending a dime? Some hassle-free financial support and decent housing would help in the short term. Job training, good child care, and a job would help in the near term. Good schools and good health care would help in the long term.
Why whine about everything but refuse to change anything? Guess that’s the meaning of “conservative”!
JKL2
October 22nd, 2011
7:42 am
ld- And midtown guy has the right idea: (1) sex education in school and for every unwed mom seeking gov’t assistance
I like the idea. What are the chances of an unwed mother being in school? I’ll guess 10%…
JKL2
October 22nd, 2011
7:54 am
ayn rant- Why whine about everything but refuse to change anything?
How about getting off your a$$ and doing something yourself instead of waiting for your government handout and complaining it’s not enough. If you don’t want handouts with strings attached, quit whining and do something about it yourself.
I’ll stick with Ben Franklin. The secret to ending poverty is to make people so uncomfortable with it that they decide to do something about it
Donna P.
October 22nd, 2011
8:00 am
Welfare and food stamps cause proverty. If you pay poor people to be poor, they stay poor and have no incentive to get out of their situation. Why do we have more poor people today then in the 1960’s; because we as a nation created it.
bob
October 22nd, 2011
8:10 am
midtown guy, Do you really think that a 16 year old girl does not know that sex causes pregnancies ?
Go ahead and blame this on conservatives if you want but you seem to be clueless.
Not So Casual Observer
October 22nd, 2011
8:16 am
Government is ALWAYS the problem.
Whether Congress is passing legislation promoting the activity (sub-prime mortgages) or financing the activity (welfare) as two examples, the end result is the same.
Corruption on both sides of the aisle in Congress leads to a “get yours while you can mentality” in the private sector. In the case at hand – have more babies to generate more money for your bad habits, whether drugs, alcohol or gambling. The government money is consumed for the parental needs rather than the children. AJC article today on the mother who was gambling while her car was being repossessed with her baby locked in the car.
The White House has been systematically doling out money in the hundreds of millions of dollars to their political pals (financial contributors) under the guise of green jobs. Loans, some already uncollectable, have been guaranteed by this White House for firms with no chance of success but that has not stopped these crooks from stepping to a micrphone to tell us how these companies are wonderful.
When the government becomes immoral the public follows.
say what?
October 22nd, 2011
8:18 am
Sadly people are still believing that poverty is a race issue. Because we live in a metro area you will see and hear about more poverty and crime. The free health clinics in Cherokee County have had to turn away people in the affluent area just as a free clinic would in metro Atlanta.
If we must make it an race issue Ayn Rand, please know that in the United States people of European descent are in the majority on poverty. Please stop listening to the news whose job it is is to create ratings and propelling race hate is no better way.
Jack
October 22nd, 2011
8:18 am
Robert Rector appears to have a good, firm grip on the obvious. Most sensible people agree that if we quit paying women to have babies, they’ll quit having babies.
Not So Casual Observer
October 22nd, 2011
8:19 am
Mark and Craig nailed the problem.
GT
October 22nd, 2011
8:34 am
The amazement here is the explosion in illegitimate white babies. As the middle class disappears the entire nation picks up the traits of the lowest denominator. For some reason the movement of our youth is downward instead of upward. I think in this we will find the demise of the economy, if not our country. Not only is a larger population poor but in being poor they are not contributing to the country as a whole. How this is not an educational question is beyond me. How can the same white guy in the 60s now accept this as a life today. Something in this study is missing.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 22nd, 2011
8:43 am
“Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud died in New York hospital early Saturday”
————————
Huh. I wonder why he didn’t go to Canada for his health care.
Sailfish
October 22nd, 2011
9:11 am
dusty
Yes, you sure are a cold one. Bush & cheney ripped this country to shreds and its like putting a jig saw puzzle back together again. Their handiwork will take many more years to fix, curse on them.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 22nd, 2011
9:18 am
Libtards went insane after their 2000 defeat and ripped this country to shreds with their all-out effort to defeat our President Bush in 2004. They went so far as to attacking our troops on the floor of the House and Senate and adopting an anti-anti-terror stance, suddenly dropped in January 2009.
Party before country every time for the Democrats.
SBinF
October 22nd, 2011
9:20 am
Those kids should pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Unfortunately, thanks to socialistic policies, small children don’t even have the option of working to support themselves any more. The 1800 and 1900s sure were a good time. At least then, kids could work in factories for a few pennies a day. Now they just don’t stand a chance.
DOWN WITH LIBRULISM
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 22nd, 2011
9:25 am
Thanks to SBinF for point out that Kyle has brought up an imaginary problem.
Sailfish
October 22nd, 2011
9:25 am
little
Yes, did you notice all the protests with people bring their guns after bush was installed? No, people were justifiably upset wtih some incompetent being outvoted by 500k and chosen by a flake supreme court decision – activist judges? You betcha, states rights? Only when republicans have the advantage.
His administration is the reason this country has been torn asunder
Now with Ten Percent More Flavor
October 22nd, 2011
9:27 am
For a starting place, Rector said, Breakthrough Georgia simply needs to tell women unmarried births are a problem.
In other words, it’s a lack of education.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 22nd, 2011
9:30 am
Sailfish: Libtards were insanely upset wtih someone not a Democrat outsmarting them in 2000 and just plain whupping them in 2004.
——————————
Fixed.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 22nd, 2011
9:31 am
Sailfish, the Democrats didn’t have to tear the country apart in revenge for it having elected our President Bush.
Democrats: Party before country. Every time.
KY
October 22nd, 2011
9:31 am
@Barry 9:18 – Party before country is the MO for both political parties. Extreme partisanship is paralyzing this country. We’re never going to solve our problems by constantly pointing fingers.
Walk softly boys
October 22nd, 2011
9:33 am
Jim Wooten’s favorite topic and we all know what happened to his credibility after I exposed his delusional stork schtick for the racist diatribe it truly was. I wonder how long Kyle tweeked this piece to sound credible.
I guess it’s up to me to present the probability of prenatal poverty: the evolution of selective racism. We use arbitrary standards to accept some blacks as worthy equals, or to reject other blacks as hopeless degenerates and objects of fear. The nature of man prevents our acceptance of every single ingredient in the melting pot. Thus injustice went viral and poverty became contagious.
Until that day we will continue to be nauseated by Tea Party editorial droolings like this overchewed cud so expertly and bulemically exorcised from the delusional demons living inside the likes of Kyle WIngfield
brainiac against the great society
October 22nd, 2011
9:34 am
amazement?
I’m amazed that anyone could be amazed at the results of “political correctness” and “the anything goes” attitude of society. As long as society does not firmly condemn child bearing out of wedlock there really isn’t anything that should amaze anyone on this issue, when society has made it a socially acceptable norm with a welfare system to fiscally support it.
Liberals don’t like Conservatives saying it but values and family values do matter.
Herein lies the final proof positive that the right, has it right, on this issue.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 22nd, 2011
9:34 am
Party before country…is that why our President Bush stayed the course in Iraq even though it hurt his poll numbers as well as Republicans running for Congress? No, He did what was right, and 100 million in Iraq and Afghanistan are free today and the middle east is becoming more democratic and safer.
Mission Accomplished.
Sailfish
October 22nd, 2011
9:36 am
little
Fact: Republican congress 1994 – 2007 january – who you gonna blame? Them that make the laws, nice job in wrecking the economy by lax regulations in the banking arena. Clinton complicit by signing away glass/steagall, both sides screwed the working man. But the iraq war, shining star of idiocy is all yours.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 22nd, 2011
9:37 am
Walk softly boys
October 22nd, 2011
9:33 am
———————-
The delusions of grandeur are strong in this one.
Boe Jiden
October 22nd, 2011
9:38 am
Mission Accomplished?
Is that Bush’s fault!
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 22nd, 2011
9:38 am
Sailfish: Fact: Republican congress 1994 – 2007 january – who you gonna blame?
————————–
Blame? For 4-6% unemployment, $170 billion deficits, and a Dow at 14,000? The Republicans, I guess. Everything changed after 2007. Who you gonna blame?
Boe Jiden
October 22nd, 2011
9:46 am
Now don’t mess with me on this guys. Get this straight… what was the unemployment rate when Barack and I took over the country and what is the unemployment rate after three years of our socialist elite crony capitalist rule?
That’s what I’m talking about and the fourth graders I talked to loved it.
Sailfish
October 22nd, 2011
9:48 am
little
Short memory – by sept 08, everything in the toilet, war cost off books, ownership society crashed and the beginning of a new depression. Great job, run up the tab, wreck the economy, then blame the next guy and demand he fix it – now! Joke on little one.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 22nd, 2011
9:52 am
Sailfish: Short memory
——————–
And as you so adroitly pointed out, that all happened after Democrats took Congress in 2007.
Thanks for helping!
Sailfish
October 22nd, 2011
9:58 am
little
I’ll not waste any more time with a bushbot. Please upgrade with a new memory card.
Auntie Christ
October 22nd, 2011
9:59 am
Typical bashing of women, NOW and the gumment here by the redneck element. I guess someone ought to explain to these benighted fools that those out-of-wedlock babies are created by women AND men. But that would involve sex education, and as we know, Jesus wouldn’t want that.
crying lil' fishjoke
October 22nd, 2011
10:00 am
then blame the next guy and demand he fix it – now!
————————–
That next guy wanted “the demanding job of fixing things” now you and lil’ obozo cry and play the blame game because he is too lil’ for the big tough job he can’t get it done. Cry on lil’ fishjoke
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 22nd, 2011
10:03 am
Auntie Christ: But that would involve sex education
————————–
Who opposes sex education? All parents should provide it to their kids. To not do so is really irresponsible.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 22nd, 2011
10:04 am
I’ll not waste any more time with a bushbot.
————————
Must be pretty embarrassing, being defeated by a bushbot.
Sailfish
October 22nd, 2011
10:04 am
cry baby
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but silly little name calling will never harm me. Is this juvenile hall?
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 22nd, 2011
10:06 am
Name calling, like “bushbot”?
GT
October 22nd, 2011
10:06 am
How does Newt find these honey holes for his gratification? He invented the political pacts that pay an arm and a leg to him to administrate and he is very involved with the Heritage Foundation which directs the blind Republicans that don’t quiet know why they are a party of bigots. Here is a man who had to gerrymand the state of Georgia to find enough like minded people to vote for his to be a congressmen, then becomes speaker because he figured out how to say in educated spin how greed is good. He is playing to the audience of the 1%, their expensive monkey on a chain. Friend this is what is wrong with America. Think tanks that have the answers first and then figure out the question. Now give me a million dollars for thinking that one up.
Bill Campbell
October 22nd, 2011
10:06 am
There should be no welfare! Take care of your own! It is not the role of the government to take care of people!
Sailfish
October 22nd, 2011
10:08 am
little
Yes defeated by your ignorance – you win!
null
October 22nd, 2011
10:08 am
Hand out condoms, easily available to all, free of charge. You’ll have fewer unexpected pregnancies…..less disease spread. It’s a win-win. Or we can continue with the abstinence fallacy. I mean, that worked out so well for Sarah Palin’s oldest slut, right?
crying lil' fishjoke
October 22nd, 2011
10:10 am
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but silly little name calling will never harm me. Is this juvenile hall?
————————
Must be even more embarrassing for a name calling hypocrite escapee from a juvenile delinquent hall being defeated by what they called a bushbot twice over.
crying lil' fishjoke
October 22nd, 2011
10:13 am
Yes defeated by your ignorance – you win!
————————
You supplied the ignorance, I supplied the win.
GT
October 22nd, 2011
10:15 am
Bill Campbell at what point do you say the opposite. The poor is getting bigger and bigger, either you will be one of them or they will be at your door. Not unlike what happen with Gaddafi who call em rats. Everybody has a point of view and then their is reality.
Sailfish
October 22nd, 2011
10:18 am
poly razz matazz
midtownguy
October 22nd, 2011
10:23 am
Why do some folks use birth control and some don’t. Why do some have abortions when they become pregnant and some don’t? The answer is almost always economic. If you see a strong economic future for yourself you don’t want an out-of-wedlock child so you keep that from happening either before or after the conception. Also, the abortion rate for married couples has skyrocketed the last four years because unemployed couples can’t afford another child.
And for those of you who think “church” is the answer, here is a little tidbit for you. Studies show that young people who classify themselves as “born again christians” are no more likely to marry as virgins than the general public. The only religious group that shows a slightly higher than average virgin marriage rate is Catholics.
@@
October 22nd, 2011
10:26 am
SeeB:
Also, at some point in the 8 years Bush was in office, I believe the Republicans had complete control of both houses. If the Republican party was so concerned about the issue of tax payers paying for out of wedlock/poor children, they could have dealt with it by passing some type of legislation. Did they do that? No they did not.
Like it or not, Bush AND Ted Kennedy implemented NCLB in an attempt to break the cycle of poverty. Poverty stems from a lack of education. For decades the federal government has been throwing money at our failing schools with nothing to show from it. The bulk of the money feeds the bureaucratic beast, not the minds of children.
If parents remain uneducated, so too will their children. It’s a cyclical problem. What I find most interesting is how left-wingers focus most of their attention on SEX EDUCATION, as if…there’s more to life than sex.
Bill and Melinda Gates have funded a program out in Portland…”Gateway to College”. It’s specifically geared towards impoverished youth. Tuition is free. By all accounts, it’s a wonderful opportunity. Problem is…there’s still a 40% drop-out rate in their program. Who rejects a second opportunity like the one they’re offering? Kids who hate school? Most people hate their jobs too, but they don’t drop out. They suck it up and show up. It’s what helps them achieve their goals.
Anyhoo, here’s the numbers
By the Numbers:
- 75 percent of state prison inmates and 59 percent of federal inmates are high-school dropouts.
- High-school dropouts are 3.5 times more likely than graduates to be incarcerated.
- Dropouts contribute disproportionately to the unemployment rate. In 2001, 55 percent of young adult dropouts were employed, compared to 74 percent of high-school graduates and 87 percent of college graduates.
- Dropouts contribute to state and federal tax coffers at about one-half the rate of high-school graduates. Over a working lifetime, a dropout will contribute about $60,000 less.
- The 23 million high-school dropouts aged 18-67 will contribute roughly $50 billion less annually in state and federal taxes.
- Studies suggest the United States would save $41.8 billion in health care costs if the 600,000 young people who dropped out in 2004 were to complete one additional year of education.
- If 33 percent of dropouts graduated from high school, the federal government would save $10.8 billion each year in food stamps, housing assistance, and temporary assistance for needy families.
- Testifying before Congress, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings said dropouts cost the United States “more than $260 billion… in lost wages, lost taxes and lost productivity over their lifetimes.”
People who choose to throw away opportunities are a drain on our society.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 22nd, 2011
10:31 am
The poor is getting bigger and bigger, either you will be one of them or they will be at your door.
———————–
Why does the left encourage and approve of criminal behavior?
GT
October 22nd, 2011
10:33 am
midtownguy is right and I consider myself religious. I have always been amazed at conservatives being that hell bent on abortions. When it was a new topic back in the 70s, the ones they wanted to rid the world of ,the minority, were the market of abortions. Now it is a mixed bag of poor and middle class trying to stay middle class. I imagine the mothers that had to work to keep the family in the middle have been a helpful contributor to this problem. Also add the divorce rate, that is now encouraged by our new leaders especially in the Republican party who campaign with the new wife right on their arm. You notice O is happily married. Not a bad place to start when looking for leadership.
GT
October 22nd, 2011
10:55 am
I am not sure the left encourages it as much as recognizes it and know it won’t go away by itself. Where in you mind do you think this corrects itself. I will grant you this, if we had not bailed out the banks and corporation and some of our brighter minds had to dip themselves in this sewer the rest of us live in they might be more proactive about putting this country back on track. Even pay a little tax to the lost cause might inspire them to get off the porch. If that happens then we can take the government out of the equation. Right now the 1% just is not involved with the rest of the country who itself is not involved because they are just trying to stay alive. Where in this unnatural world of bail out do we see this correcting itself?
brad
October 22nd, 2011
10:59 am
And of course the solution proposed by the sexually repressed conservatives is to put women back under their thumb, and shove their religion down everyone’s throats.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 22nd, 2011
11:15 am
Yeah, the 99% are “just trying to stay alive”, and yet there are still jobs Americans won’t do.
Quitcher cryin’ and get a job, 99-percenters.
midtownguy
October 22nd, 2011
11:42 am
I’m not a 99%er but when I look at who the Obama administration considers “rich” and therefore not paying enough taxes I am one of them. Somewhere along they way single people with a six figure income became “rich.” I have a good job and I am grateful for it, but I am by no means rich.
I am conflicted on this. Bush I once said “If you are wealthy because you worked hard you should not apologize to anyone for your wealth.” I agree. Bill Clinton said “If you and your wife both get up and go to work every day, you should make enough money to support your family.” I also agree.
Who the Food Stamp, WIC, housing and medicaid for children programs really support is minimum wage employers. It allows them to pay minimum wage. Wal Mart is the most infamous. They tell their new hires in Georgia to go down and apply for Peachcare for their children because they know they pay them so little that they qualify.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 22nd, 2011
11:50 am
Nonsense. Minimum wage workers are minimum wage workers because that’s all their meager skills allow them to demand from a free market. If they were worth more, they could get it.
Old Timer
October 22nd, 2011
12:08 pm
You’ll find it hard to put the genie back in the bottle now. At one time, social mores mostly took care of the problem of having children born out of wedlock. I remember as a junior in high school that a very pretty classmate became pregnant and never returned to school. It just wasn’t done or accepted.
Now, in many sectors, having a child out of wedlock is a girl’s rite of passage. And there’s that sexual element we don’t like to talk about. Why were unwed fathers chased from the home as a condition of federal and state support for impoverished children? Why, because “I don’t want my tax money goin’ to some bum that’s layin’ back and having a great time with some girl.” And so we created the situation in which unwed mothers could get more government aid by having more children and staying unwed. The minute she gets married, it’s bye-bye, support.
Acceptance of what was once called social illegitimacy is now the norm—and not only among some ethnical segments. We no longer raise an eyebrow when we learn that Mr. X and Ms. Y are living together without benefit of matrimony. It’s now the norm to include “significant others” in invitation lists. Don’t pretend that the problem we’re discussing now doesn’t have some co-conspirators, including you.
Let’s stop the pious pretense that the problem is confined to one race. We helped create it through our acceptance of illegimate births and unwed sex..
midtownguy
October 22nd, 2011
12:10 pm
I didn’t say anything about the workers, I was addressing the employers using government services in lieu of providing benefits out of their profits.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
October 22nd, 2011
12:56 pm
They aren’t.
catlady
October 22nd, 2011
1:00 pm
What might help? You might require women to marry and at least finish high school before having “permission” to have a baby. If they don’t do so, they would be sterilized at the birth of their child. If they don’t name the father, they would have to pay for the sterilization. If they do name the father, he would be sterilized, too.
Unfortunately I don’t think we are ready for that yet. It used to be that if you had one illegitimate baby, you made sure you didn’t have another. Now, it’s just the opening of the gate. Women who continue to have babies they cannot care for should be sterilized, and their male partners, too. We simply cannot afford to continue to use them as (generally substandard) breeding stock.
As a teacher, I can observe that we have NO BUSINESS paying folks to have a handicapped child. Perhaps we should pay them for having a bright, well-behaved, achieving child. There is no reason for SS payments for children due to their handicap. How many non-handicapped kids “bring in” $700 per month?
td
October 22nd, 2011
1:11 pm
Old Timer
October 22nd, 2011
12:08 pm
I agree with everything you said including that this is not a race issue. I would add that no-fault divorces has highy contributed to the greater number of poor children. A married couple making $50,000 per year can make it in society but when they divorce (because they fall out of love) then supporting two households will equal $25,000 per household and they are now considered poor. There is a billion dollar divorce industry established so it is going to be hard to solve the problem with that strong interest.
@@
October 22nd, 2011
1:13 pm
And of course the solution proposed by the sexually repressed conservatives is to put women back under their thumb
Thbppbbbt! Conservative women tolerate nothing of the sort. Remember, it wasn’t us, who needed NOW to show us the way. We had a pretty clear grasp of the realities.
By the same “token”, NOW made it easier to put women underneath men. Heck! That’s where men have always wanted women. Nothing’s changed…NOW just made it easier for men.
td
October 22nd, 2011
1:13 pm
catlady
October 22nd, 2011
1:00 pm
You may need to sit down before you read the rest of this post.
I agree with you 100%.
@@
October 22nd, 2011
1:19 pm
Why were unwed fathers chased from the home as a condition of federal and state support for impoverished children?
Same reason unwed fathers have no say when it comes to aborting his child.
td
October 22nd, 2011
1:20 pm
catlady
October 22nd, 2011
1:00 pm
Forgot to add. When I first started my career I worked for DFCS in downtown Atl. Most of the staff at my office (99% African American) said we should help a person with benefits if they make a mistake and have a benefit but in return for they help the person would have to volunteer for either sterilization or BC will receiving benefits. If the person got pregnant while receiving benefits then the person would be cut off forever and would have to pay back all the benefits they received.
Sounds like a reasonable plan I could support today.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
October 22nd, 2011
1:28 pm
Meanwhile, the food stamp president works to expand poverty.
And your doing a heckuva job, obozie!
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
October 22nd, 2011
1:29 pm
Mission accomplished!
allah akbar!
@@
October 22nd, 2011
1:35 pm
Whooaaaa!
we should help a person with benefits if they make a mistake and have a benefit but in return for they help the person would have to volunteer for either sterilization or BC will receiving benefits. If the person got pregnant while receiving benefits then the person would be cut off forever and would have to pay back all the benefits they received.
Sounds like a permanent solution to what COULD BE a temporary problem.
We simply cannot afford to continue to use them as (generally substandard) breeding stock.
In the words of eugenicist, Margaret Sanger
larry.333
October 22nd, 2011
1:38 pm
PASS EVERIFY !!!
THAT WILL FREE UP MANY JOBS HELD BY ILLEGAL ALIENS, IN THIS COUNTRY !!
THE LARGEST SHARE OF JOBS GOING TO ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE IN MANUFACTURING, CONSTRUCTION, RETAIL/WHOLESALE, AND OTHER SURPRISING POSITIONS, TAKING MONEY AWAY FROM AMERICAN CITIZENS AND KIDS !!
td
October 22nd, 2011
1:51 pm
@@
October 22nd, 2011
1:35 pm
“Sounds like a permanent solution to what COULD BE a temporary problem”
Under the plan, the client would have a choice. It could be temporary or permanent it would be their choice.
getalife
October 22nd, 2011
1:53 pm
cons are not used to winning wars so they are lashing out.
Of course they will continue to reward the gop failures with their votes and that will not change.
Our President earned four more years with his victories and accomplishments.
The gop obstructed everything but socialism for the banks and have accomplished nothing on jobs.
No jobs no cuts.
getalife
October 22nd, 2011
2:06 pm
“Much of the inequality in society flows from that gap. That’s the gap to bridge.”
Total bs.
If you want the truth on inequality today, look in the mirror.
You voted for a party that is a puppet for the 1 %.
There is a movement around our country to end the gop 1 % government.
Join them if you are sick of it.
@@
October 22nd, 2011
2:15 pm
td:
It’s a slippery slope. Besides, I seriously doubt the ACLU would support such a thing.
Legalized bribery??? There’s too much of it going on now (see Washington). Would make it harder to criticize/indict them if the citizenry is out there promoting it.
‘Ya think this woman might be over analyzing just a bit?
The questions aren’t that complicated.
td
October 22nd, 2011
2:20 pm
@@
October 22nd, 2011
2:15 pm
You are probably correct about the ACLU, although Florida is drug testing for benefits and we will be after the next legislative session, so it may not be that far of a stretch.
getalife
October 22nd, 2011
2:32 pm
td,
Do they make pols pee in a cup too?
You call that freedom?
getalife
October 22nd, 2011
2:35 pm
Are you going to check their poop and blood next and call that freedom?
Get a grip cons.
getalife
October 22nd, 2011
2:46 pm
@@,
“Legalized bribery??? There’s too much of it going on now (see Washington).”
You are the 99 %.
@@
October 22nd, 2011
2:48 pm
td:
I’m O.K. with the drug testing. Don’t forget, Roe v Wade is law. It’s centered around the right to privacy. If a woman has privacy rights to her own body, then it stands to reason no government entity can invade that.
I suppose it could be argued that, if the public is asked to assist in supporting mother and child, it’s no longer a private issue.
Gets complicated, but still…it’s that slippery slope thingy.
The only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights. It’s with the destruction of individual rights that the destruction of freedom begins.
@@
October 22nd, 2011
2:53 pm
Getalife:
You are the 99 %.
Don’t try to put me in a box. I don’t fit well within a confined space.
My wrists are crossed in front of my @@s
(ISH)
getalife
October 22nd, 2011
2:54 pm
Giving government a bodily fluid is a major invasion of privacy and freedom.
You cons are out of your freaking minds.
You don’t even ask the pols to do it too.
And you wonder why our country is going downhill.
Look in the mirror.
getalife
October 22nd, 2011
2:57 pm
@@,
You can bet they are against peeing in a cup.
They are real Americans.
You cons say you are against “legalized bribery” but do nothing but vote gop to make it worse.
@@
October 22nd, 2011
3:01 pm
Getalife:
If an employer, facing liability issues, asks an employee to pee in a cup, are he/she justified?
getalife
October 22nd, 2011
3:05 pm
@@,
I will never agree peeing in a cup is freedom .
At least employers have everybody in their company do it to be fair.
Are the florida pols doing it too?
That guv is probably high.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 22nd, 2011
3:17 pm
Occupy Atlanta fights white image
Ronaldo Sobral came to Woodruff Park not to be heard but to listen, to watch and to judge the appeal of Occupy Atlanta. One thing he noticed, moving through the crowd, listening at the edge of conversations, was that white faces far outnumbered dark ones such as his.
That is a reality, both in Atlanta and nationally: From the beginning, most movement participants have been white.
——————————-
You should be ashamed of supporting a racist movement.
You libs hypocritically t accuse others of racism.
Look in the mirror.
It’s called “projection”.
getalife
October 22nd, 2011
3:21 pm
Funny thing about the protesters.
There are so many problems they want to address, they can’t agree on a message.
A simple “cut spending ” message was easy but failed.
They are still spending higher than last year.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 22nd, 2011
3:23 pm
The protesters have a problem.
It should be their number one priority.
Their own racism.
Clean up your own house before complaining about the productive class.
@@
October 22nd, 2011
3:25 pm
Getalife:
And here I thought we had some sort of obligation to government if we avail ourselves of their services. I’d rather pee in a cup than let ‘em raise my taxes.
I can, however, understand why YOU would rather not.
getalife
October 22nd, 2011
3:26 pm
lil bar,
The gop always use projection.
Like the ones that speak out about the gays, get busted at gay bars.
I think that guv in Florida is on drugs for another example.
getalife
October 22nd, 2011
3:28 pm
@@,
I am against raising taxes until they quit wasting our money on corporate welfare.
I am against peeing in a cup because it is not freedom.
@@
October 22nd, 2011
3:28 pm
Getalife:
The difference I see between the Tea Party and OWS protesters is this:
The Tea Party opposed the bailouts because they knew it would be they, who had to pay for it. The OWS crowd was opposed to the bailout because THEY wanted the money (our money).
@@
October 22nd, 2011
3:34 pm
Getalife:
I’m for closing those loopholes that don’t support a thriving economy. At times I think closing ALL loopholes would be beneficial. No way to buy votes OR politicians.
@@
October 22nd, 2011
3:36 pm
Oh, and Getalife:
If you were to pee in a cup, the bottom would disintegrate, leaving no evidence to be tested.
schnirt
getalife
October 22nd, 2011
3:36 pm
Wrong @@,
They are against the 1 % controlling government with “legalized bribes” to get socialism to bail them out. Our government worked fast for that. It took a couple of days for them to get their socialism checks.
td
October 22nd, 2011
3:38 pm
getalife
October 22nd, 2011
2:54 pm
Giving government a bodily fluid is a major invasion of privacy and freedom
It is not an invasion of privacy if it is voluntary. The courts have already ruled that corporations can make you take a drug test as a term of employment. If you do not want take the test then do not apply for the job. This is the same principle with drug testing for welfare. One can take that a step farther and say it is the same with having children while on welfare. Stop receiving and you can have all the children you want to have.
getalife
October 22nd, 2011
3:42 pm
td,
Do all Florida pols pee in a cup too?
It opens up a discrimination lawsuit if they don’t.
td
October 22nd, 2011
3:57 pm
getalife
October 22nd, 2011
3:42 pm
td,
Do all Florida pols pee in a cup too?
It opens up a discrimination lawsuit if they don’t.
I have not idea but if I was guessing I would say no. I can guarantee you that all law enforcement officers and DFCS staff are drug tested. Why is that not discriminatory?
getalife
October 22nd, 2011
3:59 pm
Get all Florida government to pee in a cup and it will be fair but still not freedom.
Perhaps that drug addicted guv should focus on jobs so they can decrease welfare.
@@
October 22nd, 2011
4:10 pm
Getalife:
Does your doctor ask you to pee in a cup? Does he pee in a cup?
getalife
October 22nd, 2011
4:15 pm
@@,
No and no.
We believe in freedom.
@@
October 22nd, 2011
4:17 pm
Getalife:
With Obamacare, you’d be well advised not to pee in a cup at your doctor’s office.
In a proposed rule from Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the federal government is demanding insurance companies submit detailed health care information about their patients.
(See Proposed Rule: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Standards Related to Reinsurance, Risk Corridors and Risk Adjustment, Volume 76, page 41930. Proposed rule docket ID is HHS-OS-2011-0022
The HHS has proposed the federal government pursue one of three paths to obtain this sensitive information: A “centralized approach” wherein insurers’ data go directly to Washington; an “intermediate state-level approach” in which insurers give the information to the 50 states; or a “distributed approach” in which health insurance companies crunch the numbers according to federal bureaucrat edict.
They’ll know what you’ve been doin’. They’ll take away your benefits.
getalife
October 22nd, 2011
4:20 pm
@@,
I am clean.
I take prescribed drugs.
They take blood tests.
@@
October 22nd, 2011
4:31 pm
Getalife:
You gave up the weed?
getalife
October 22nd, 2011
4:33 pm
Yup.
A long time ago.
@@
October 22nd, 2011
4:38 pm
An older article, but still true today. Maybe more so with the economy in decline.
There Aren’t Enough Millionaires
The rich can’t fund our deficits
This may sound like a liberal parody of conservative economic thinking, but let me put it out there: America’s problem is that the rich don’t have enough money.
There, I said it. Let’s rumble.
Every time you raise the threshold for eating the rich, you get a much, much smaller serving of meat on the plate — but the deficit stays the same. The long division gets pretty ugly. You end up chasing a revenue will-o’-the-wisp.
So, what about Lloyd Blankfein and Charlie Sheen and Tiger Woods? What about these people? You can tax the striped pants off of them, but you won’t get enough money to balance the budget. If you’re doing it, you’re probably mostly doing it because it feels good.
I love this part: (And, yes, that does make you a bad person.)
All or none. It’s only fair.
@@
October 22nd, 2011
4:38 pm
Good for you, Getalife.
catlady
October 22nd, 2011
5:10 pm
If you don’t want to (be sterilized, pee in a cup, whatever) don’t ask for the support for yourself and your choices.
We simply cannot afford to pay people for their poor choices. The old “you made your bed” thingy.
catlady
October 22nd, 2011
5:11 pm
And, td, I am not surprised. You might be surprised that I am one of the more liberal folks on this blog, but enough is enough. Reality time. Either impose it on yourself or have it imposed for you.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
October 22nd, 2011
6:05 pm
In a proposed rule from Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the federal government is demanding insurance companies submit detailed health care information about their patients.
———-
Libtards believe in freedom. Except when they don’t.
Fascists.
@@
October 22nd, 2011
6:49 pm
Whooaaaa!
Things are heating up at Woodruff.
Occupy Atlanta ordered to clear Woodruff Park
“We are here until the civic problems that brought us here are changed,” Franzen vowed.
Ooohhhhh, the drama! And if they don’t change? Are they gonna live there forever? HOTLANTA takes on new meaning.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 22nd, 2011
6:53 pm
Occupy Atlanta ordered to clear Woodruff Park
Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed on Saturday issued a second ultimatum to Occupy Atlanta protesters who have camped out at a popular Downtown park: Leave or be arrested.
———————————-
A dollar says the coward backs down again.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 22nd, 2011
6:55 pm
Atlanta police officers and firefighters watched nearby as the 80 to 100 protesters blocked Auburn Avenue, chanting, “No Justice! No peace!”
———————-
80 to 100? Pathetic. What are these losers and parasites pretending to be 99% of?
@@
October 22nd, 2011
7:16 pm
Who didn’t see this coming?
Pedophiles want same rights as homosexuals
The gay community needs to address these “people”.
Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.
@@
October 22nd, 2011
7:20 pm
OWS Protesters Could Face Zoonotic and Vector- borne Diseases
The human waste that is reportedly being left by protesters is not only a general health risk, but also tends to attract pests that spread disease through bites and fecal matter. Tim Mack,with Politico, interviewed Catherine Hughes, who lives one block from Zuccotti Park:
“They are defecating on our doorsteps. A lot of people are very frustrated. A lot of people are concerned about the safety of our kids.”
ew
nasty
@@
October 22nd, 2011
7:39 pm
A quietly hilarious video from yesterday’s Community Board meeting at the New York State Assembly, in which a representative of the Occupy Wall Street movement explains the new “consensed” (which isn’t a word, however hard he tries to make it one) policy on drumming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPeZ1n8vrTI&feature=player_embedded
The OWS “Working Group” speaking on behalf of the “OWS Drumming Group”!!!!????!!!!
The two individuals sitting against the wall can hardly contain their laughter.
Hillbilly D
October 22nd, 2011
8:03 pm
Those Occupy folks might learn something from this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7ALb8uYdmQ
Of course, once they get the hang of it, they’ll have to change the signals every few days.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
October 22nd, 2011
8:27 pm
What obozo has done is to set a precedence. In his case, if you don’t like a strongman keeping the islamic lunatics in check, use the US Armed Forces to kill him. Herman Cain, take note.
Here’s to hoping the Herminator don’t like Iran’s Imawhackjob. Or whichever communist punk runs China nowadays.
Let’s off em like obozo would.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 22nd, 2011
9:02 pm
Yep, your cowardly mayor backed down to the white kids crapping and peeing in Woodruff Park.
zeke
October 22nd, 2011
9:04 pm
The easy quick divorce laws allowing to end a marriage just by simply saying can’t get along, or, don’t love them anymore, or simply don’t want to be married any longer, plus, the myriad socialist democrat welfare and payments to unmarried mothers to keep having children are responsible for this rampant moral decay in our country! And, to glorify unwed mothers regardless of their social status or wealth is absurd!
@@
October 22nd, 2011
9:08 pm
Hillbilly:
A lotta touchin’ goin’ on in that baseball video. A WHOLE LOT!!!
(ISH)
I think the protesters would get confused with that many hand signals. Wigglin’ fingers UP. Wigglin’ fingers DOWN. Repeat after me.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
October 22nd, 2011
9:50 pm
“The cold affects us already,” admitted Maria Fehlig, a volunteer nurse at the protesters’ makeshift infirmary, a small blue tent marked by a cross that is the only structure so far tolerated by owners of the park ensconced between skyscrapers.
Oh well, maybe they’ll remember what this was all about next spring.
Hahahahaha, yeah, right.
@@
October 22nd, 2011
9:55 pm
I wonder if the protesters would be willing to maintain the land they’re squatting on. Give ‘em all a rake with some leaf bags. Kinda like SHARECROPPERS. They’re all about sharin’ and croppin’.
schnirt
the red herring
October 22nd, 2011
9:57 pm
kyle–it’s way past time for america to wake up and smell these roses–this has been going on for at least the past 40 years. women who have children out of wedlock frequently do so to increase their welfare checks—they have no intent on spending that money on the children but rather on their own support, drug, tobacco, alcohol use. i could care less what color these women are and in fact i’m sure there are a great many white women that fit in this category. the solution doesn’t come from continuing to tell them “have a another child out of wedlock and we’ll increase your check”—that’s been tried and has failed miserably. perhaps “have another child and we’ll remove the children from your home and stop all of your government assistance”. that would greatly decrease these births. the women doing this are not as stupid as most people portray them. they are smart enough to know that their womb is key to increased wealth and the cries of “racist”, etc only serves to protect their paychecks… sad but true. any person that stands up and tells you that this isn’t continuing to happen and nobody has a child to raise their “pay” is telling you a lie.
i have known of too many cases of this behavior for it not to be so. my mother sold insurance to several of these women and when she would ask them “what in the world do you want to have another child for?” the answer was always because i’m not making enough money….. now who is dumber the woman increasing her check of the people paying for it?? when you look at a single woman working a job who has two kids and get’s all sorts of welfare, food stamps, etc then gets every dime of federal income tax she paid in back PLUS an additional 3 to 4 grand for earned income tax credits…. it’s easy to see why they feel the way they do. black,white,hispanic it’s happening in all races and it’s really hurting this country.
the red herring
October 22nd, 2011
10:08 pm
kyle–one more thing is the amount of money that is spent to try and educate the children born under these circumstances—the mothers pay none of their own money—it’s all government/taxpayer money—right down to the last drop. people have to begin to understand the taxpayer can’t continue to pay all these bills for all these folks who aren’t paying “their fair share”. we don’t have politicians who are strong enough to stand up and tell this like it really is. Perhaps Herman Cain can get this point across. For sure the current tax system is broken and we need a flat or fair tax. Still think the fair tax is a better solution than 9-9-9. imagine how much tax we would have collected from al gore, timothy geitner, and the likes if we had had a simple and straightforward tax code….. tax the rich indeed.
Carla
October 22nd, 2011
10:21 pm
Women use children as leverage in a divorce. It is no suprise that they use them as leverage to gain benefits.
@@
October 22nd, 2011
10:37 pm
Good grief!
Obama: Alone on the bus
How blatantly obvious can they be. He’s campaigning in the South…”Alone on the bus”.
Who is this Glenn Thrush guy?
SeeB
October 22nd, 2011
11:18 pm
@@ – Late response but…I in no way meant to imply that one party was more or less responsible for welfare reform. I was just trying to make the point that welfare as was known prior to Clinton no longer existed.
Now while I will probably never agree with your political views, you made a statement earlier today on this blog with which I whole heartedly agree….
Why were unwed fathers chased from the home as a condition of federal and state support for impoverished children?
Same reason unwed fathers have no say when it comes to aborting his child.
I believe a man should have a say so. If a woman can decide she does not want to be a mother and not have to have the consent of the father, a man should have the same right. And I don’t want to hear about a man not having a uterus. By the same argument, a woman is not able to impregnate herself (Last sentence not meant for you @@).
SeeB
October 22nd, 2011
11:34 pm
Red Herring – Please stop buying into the myth that women are having children out of wedlock to increase their welfare checks. Do you even know how the welfare system works? Have you ever talked to or worked with any of the women to whom you refer? A lot of the women come from homes where the father was absent. Most of the girls of whom you speak saw their mother struggle, they saw anger and bitterness. Some of these young girls became the brunt of their mothers anger. Some of these young women never see love and acceptance. Unless you have worked with the young women of whom you speak, please refrain from judgement. Do I have the answers – NO. Do I like what is going on – NO. You buy into the argument that so much tax payer money is going to “these people”, but non of us know exactly where our tax dollars are being spent. I agree that there are able bodied persons working the system, but I also believe there are some corporations working the system.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 23rd, 2011
7:31 am
“I also believe there are some corporations working the system.”
——————
“Everybody does it” is not a valid defense. It’s a lame excuse. The two problems are independent and can be solved separately. Government policy that destroys families and impoverishes children has nothing to do with cronyism.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
October 23rd, 2011
7:39 am
The US suffered a major diplomatic and military rebuff on Friday when Iraq finally rejected its pleas to maintain bases in the country beyond this year.
obozo negotiated to stay, keep 10,000 troops and would have if Iraq hadn’t punked him. They said no to immunity to our troops, said no to the bases and told this meddling islamic lunatic hiding behind hillary clinton’s skirt to get the f out.
Can you say Vietnam, Part Duhx?
Skip
October 23rd, 2011
7:58 am
The poor are responsible for all the country’s problems. They have all the power.
Michael H. Smith
October 23rd, 2011
8:51 am
Can we tweak that last comment a bit, Skip?
Those of poor – ethical and moral – character are responsible for all the country’s problems. Far too many of them have far too much and concentrated wealth.
This broadens the scope of this particular topic considerably. However, the focus is on poverty – or should be per se’ – and the members of our society who are often considered the most vulnerable to the devastating effects poverty has on them, long and short term, which has no less impacts on the society that unfortunately is responsible for creating it, for whatever inexcusable reasons.
~
Wealth divide might stifle jobs
http://www.ajc.com/business/wealth-divide-might-stifle-1208113.html
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 23rd, 2011
9:00 am
Skip: The parasites are responsible for most of the country’s problems. They suck up all the resources that should be going to “rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure” and “investing in our people”.
—————————-
Fixed. In a libtard-friendly way.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 23rd, 2011
9:04 am
My brother is visiting Finland. I suggested that he go and visit the $500 million Obozo sent to offshore to stimulate job growth elsewhere.
Michael H. Smith
October 23rd, 2011
9:12 am
Oh no llb, you don’t mean those lousy limousine liberals and people like George Sores should be creating jobs with all their wealth and writing out a big fat Warren Buffet & Bill Gates checks to the U.S. Treasury in order to pay down the debt that their buds in Congress created, instead of financing un-American activities?
Say it ain’t so llb.
I’ll wait on the resident blog socialists to take on those on the corrupt so-called right.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 23rd, 2011
9:23 am
Just trying to point out that, despite the ignorant libtards’ belief, resources are limited and choices have to be made. Support the slothful, baby-making machines to perpetuate our crime, drug, and poverty problems, or rebuild those falling bridges and spend even more on edumacation?
Michael H. Smith
October 23rd, 2011
10:45 am
How about the slothful supporting themselves, lbb?
How about the over paid CEO’s, executives and Wall Street/Bailed out Banking/GM Union crowd stop ripping off their under compensated stock holders and overburdened taxpayers who they have screwed out of billions, if not trillions of dollars?
How about zero corporate tax to get rid of all those lousy K Street lobbyist everyone claims to hate that influence Congress and their appointed bureaucrats into making crony regulations solely to enhance profits and limit if not eliminate real liberated market competition?
How about attaching education funds to the individual student instead of the to government education monopoly?
How about turning lose the energy resources of this country in the responsible way for our sole use and economic prosperity, instead of fighting wars for crony capitalism, while making the enemies of this country all richer and pretending that we don’t pollute the planet because we take our oil craps in someone else’s backyard … just so our liberals can ignore the global stink we actual made and then say we didn’t do it… It, it, was just those evil oil companies. How about American energy independence without the idiots on the left and right stopping us from achieving what can be done in the most energy sustainable yet least environmentally costly manner?
Okay Comrades, your turn to occupy.
@@
October 23rd, 2011
10:46 am
@@ – Late response but…I in no way meant to imply that one party was more or less responsible for welfare reform. I was just trying to make the point that welfare as was known prior to Clinton no longer existed.
Clinton was a reluctant participant…ergo the argument “If dems can keep you poor, they will.” It’s in their best interest.
It was a Republican, Newt Gingrich who pushed for welfare reform.
Back to the education issue. Why, if they want a better life, why do they consistently reject the OPPORTUNITY to educate themselves? Have they been “encouraged” by the powers that be? Crumbs from the table are sufficient?
I’m forced to assume they’re certifiable.
@@
October 23rd, 2011
10:49 am
Oops! why…Why…WHY. There’s one too many.
redneckbluedog
October 23rd, 2011
10:59 am
ABSOLUTELY……BAN DIVORCE NOW…!!!!!!!! And cut these government benefits like Peach Care and WIC and welfare and food stamps and FREE SCHOOLS FOR KIDS……Kids are able to work about age 8, like in China….you see how good China’s economy is…!!!! MAKE KIDS WORK AT AGE 8 AND PAY FOR SCHOOL IF THEY WANT TO GO……If not, the Koch brothers can hire them in the coal mines and oil fields for $2.00 and hour……..and they can pay for health insurance too…!!!! Especially the ones with childhood cancer…..THEY ARE COSTING US A FORTUNE…!!!!!!
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
October 23rd, 2011
11:13 am
Seeing how the lib media despises Cain and admires Romney, I now know who the best candidate for the Republican presidential nominee is.
Herman Cain 2012!
Go Herminator!
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
October 23rd, 2011
12:11 pm
And now the real genocide begins-
BENGHAZI, Libya (AP) — Libya’s transitional leader says Islamic Sharia law will be the “basic source” of all law.
allah akbar, obozo.
Toby
October 23rd, 2011
1:44 pm
Here’s a social factor which causes poverty more than single parent households: the way $140 trillion was lost when companies like Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Bear Sterns, Chase, CitiGroup, Wells Fargo & CountryWide created bogus wealth on the backs of subprime mortgages. That’s sort of a way bigger deal… it is affecting the world economy while single parent households have a much smaller effect. This article gets a D for a lack of accuracy.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
October 23rd, 2011
1:53 pm
“Libya’s transitional leader says Islamic Sharia law will be the “basic source” of all law.”
And why did many of us see this happening fro the very beginning, and the incompetent one in the Oval Office did not?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
October 23rd, 2011
1:56 pm
And Toby, who allowed for the increase in subprime mortgages? Democrats in Congress.
And who allowed for the mixing of mortgages and investments? Democrats and Republicans Congress.
Blaming Wall St. for this mess is like blaming your dog for pooping on your lawn. You don’t blame the dog for being a dog.
Hilarious
October 23rd, 2011
2:07 pm
Terrible argument, but I don’t expect much more.
Child poverty has less to do with out of wedlock births and more to do with how poor their parents are.
Obviously.
But go ahead and ignore that fact. We have an ax to grind here!
Grind away!
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
October 23rd, 2011
2:50 pm
Too darn funny. The OWS losers fighting over the donations in their account.
Greedy parasites.
southerngal
October 23rd, 2011
2:52 pm
Until we teach people that…if you cannot afford to live on your own…why would you have a child?
The Fierce Urgency of NOW
October 23rd, 2011
3:52 pm
The collapse of marriage … is the primary reason that you have child poverty,” the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector said Wednesday in Atlanta.
There are a million reasons why there is child proverty. But do we wait to find the answer before we feed and cloth these children. Why can’t we do both?
It is not the child’s fault so they should not have to suffer.
Al
October 23rd, 2011
4:26 pm
Go Occupy Atlanta!!! Tell Mayor KISS ME Reed to go shove it. If he’s not part of the solution, then he’s part of the problem!
Pagan1
October 23rd, 2011
4:42 pm
How about if the fathers of these children to single mothers were made to pay for their mistakes. The fathers are just as responsible for un-wed mothers having children. Make it a law that if a woman has a child the father is responsible too. Most of these losers don’t pay child support and never take care of their mistakes. And for added measure instead of paying the mothers to stay home and not work – use that money to pay for childcare facilities so that they can go out and get jobs instead of becoming dependent on welfare. Sound good Gov?
UIC
October 23rd, 2011
5:10 pm
Wow, I’m male and embarrassed by most of what I’ve read. I think I can assume it is not the women blaming themselves, so I’m happy to see the male population has the unmitigated gall, the temerity to say that women are the ones that have the control. What are men? Uncivilized animals. Tell me if I look through every post I’ll find a recommendation for forced sterilization.
roughrider
October 23rd, 2011
5:24 pm
If the government put a time limit on aid from DFACS, a lot of these baby factories would keep their legs together.
bev
October 23rd, 2011
5:30 pm
And you have to ask the question, why do men who are less educated make more money than women?? Doesn’t make sense. Over 90% of single parents are women. It’s time for womens’ pay to equal that of men!!
catlady
October 23rd, 2011
5:56 pm
Aid supposedly DOES have a time limit. I håve never known anyone to get put off welfare, however. I think mothers are also required to name the father. I wonder if anything happens when they don’t? And, as for not letting the children suffer: Hearing your children crying of want MIGHT just motivate some folks to get up and find some paying work–as long as they choose something legal.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
October 23rd, 2011
6:52 pm
The centrist, moderate and independent AJC is just itching to go full Palin on local man done good Herman Cain but, for now, they restrain themselves with only one hit piece a day-
WASHINGTON — Republican presidential contender Herman Cain used campaign funds to buy his own books from his motivational speaking company, Federal Election Commission records show. -Urinal
Oh my, the Urinal has issues with the misuse of campaign funds, why, obozo would never do anything like that.
Obama’s backers urge black unity -Urinal
Wow, such hard hitting journalism.
@@
October 23rd, 2011
6:56 pm
Al:
If he’s not part of the solution, then he’s part of the problem!
What EXACTLY is the problem that Mayor Reed is supposed to solve?
UIC:
What are men?
Opportunists. Any woman with a brain knows that.
@@
October 23rd, 2011
7:00 pm
catlady:
I think mothers are also required to name the father. I wonder if anything happens when they don’t?
Having multiple sex partners leaves too many women wondering who the father is. It costs money to find out.
@@
October 23rd, 2011
7:08 pm
Allow me to expand on my 6:56.
Most, but not all men are opportunists.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
October 23rd, 2011
7:20 pm
Obama’s backers urge black unity -Urinal
—————————–
racial prejudice: any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable, based on race
Ray
October 23rd, 2011
7:35 pm
Very poorly written article. Even for the ajc.
td
October 23rd, 2011
8:34 pm
roughrider
October 23rd, 2011
5:24 pm
If the government put a time limit on aid from DFACS, a lot of these baby factories would keep their legs together.
The Feds write the rules not the states. The states have some latitude but not a lot. Time limits, no.
td
October 23rd, 2011
8:42 pm
Pagan1
October 23rd, 2011
4:42 pm
How about if the fathers of these children to single mothers were made to pay for their mistakes. The fathers are just as responsible for un-wed mothers having children. Make it a law that if a woman has a child the father is responsible too. Most of these losers don’t pay child support and never take care of their mistakes.
Child support is the one part of family law in the state of Ga. that is set in stone and the state has an entire agency to track down fathers, establish paternity and set up payments. If a man has a job and wages are reported anywhere then they will pay. CSE will also suspend DL’s and any other certificates people hold to collect CS. The problem is when the mother is either does not know or will not name the father.
LizBeth
October 23rd, 2011
9:30 pm
The poor, single women I know want to be married but they left abusive men and are trying to change their lives for the better. They are divorced after trying desperately to hang on to the wedding band while they and their children got their faces rearranged by their men. Dems offer welfare as a stopgap while they also try to educate and support men and women in how to have successful relationships. Meanwhile, Repubs just say no to welfare, education programs, and support because they think saying “no” (or requiring belief in God) will fix everything.
seabeau
October 24th, 2011
6:53 am
First: We need to require that all women on welfare have birth control implanted.If the birth control fails ,the child is not the responsibility of the state. Second: periodic home inspections:(if the children are not being properly cared for,remove them and place them in a state supported orphanage where these children will be taught to be good citizens).We need to stop the cycle of raising little gang bangers on the publics dime.
LizBeth
October 24th, 2011
9:08 am
And why, Seabeau, is it always women who must be done to? Women must have birth control, women must not have abortions, women must have babies, women must be responsible for themselves, women must put up with men, women must take take care of the children, women must take care of the home, women must support their homes, women must be the slaves in our society…..or else we’ll come up with something else they must do. Meanwhile, you would have them subjected to total control by the government, who is then not responsible when both birth control and mind control fails. Why? Your taxes aren’t going to go down; they will just be transferred from health and welfare to somewhere else that you’ll hate. Supporting constant reevaluation of welfare, its goals, and its impact on families and our society would be a wiser use of your nickels and dimes.
td
October 24th, 2011
9:44 am
LizBeth
October 24th, 2011
9:08 am
If there is abuse( that is provable beyond a reasonable doubt) then the abused (woman or man) should receive the children, the abusing parent only gets supervised visits and the abusing party should pay through the nose. In all other cases then it is in the best interest of the child to have a continuous relationship with two loving parents. Both parents should have visitation as close to 50/50 as possible with both parents having equal decision making ability for the raising of the child.
If you take the money and control of the children out of a divorce and let the parents know upfront that no matter if married or divorced that you two WILL work together and must compromise with each other until the child is 18, then the divorce rate will decrease tremendously.
td
October 24th, 2011
9:53 am
td
October 24th, 2011
9:44 am
LizBeth
October 24th, 2011
9:08 am
To add on to the above comments. The rules should also apply to children born out of wedlock. Both parents should be responsible for raising the child. If one parent chooses to take the responsibility for raising the child then the more that parent should pay. Also, if it is proven that one parent refuses to be a good co parent and obstructs the other parents involvement then that parent should loose their rights to co parent and those rights totally go to the other parent.