The Political Discussion Thread

[aretood2]

It does unfortunately take a certain level of income to be able to support children. I would argue though that children have become a burden only because the asinine policies of socialist left-wingers have made it so/ Because of their disastrous economic policies the cost of living has risen exponentially from what it was when I was born back in 1981.

And self-control doesn't necessarily have to be a religious thing. We're supposed to have this thing called free will but I don't see a whole lot of people even TRYING to exercise basic self-control over their actions these days.

I don't know, my grandparents did manage with no government assistance and lots of kids who lived to father kids who went/are going to schools either here or back in Mexico....and by schools I mean post secondary. I'm not saying that people should have kids all willy nilly. If you only want one, that's perfectly fine. What I don't agree with is using money as an excuse.

You think I'm making that up? Happens all the time here. I have several friends who work for or have worked for social services in the past, and I've heard that tale on multiple occasions from all of them.

NY state is among the most generous states, if not the most generous state in the union when it comes to handing out free taxpayer money. By some accounting methods, the area I live in is the most heavily taxed part of the entire US. Got that?

How many times do you think I go to the store for my weekly shopping and carefully watch what I spend, discount this, that and the other thing, lesser grades of meat, etc... and watch the person ahead of me in line buying top of the line everything and paying for it with their EBT cards. Nearly every week. I can say with certainty that many welfare recipients eat way better than I do. But who cares, I have to buy my food with my own hard earned money, I don't have it handed to me.

I'm going to categorize that as "too hard to believe" unless you have some hard numbers to back it up? My parents did very well here in PA without the government. At most, I just got a reduced lunch at school depending on the year.

About 15 years ago, I passed on a very good job opportunity that would have taken me out of this economic hellhole. The reason was so that my mother didn't have to give up the house she had been in most of her life; Dad had passed some years before, and while able to live independently, she was no longer able to take care of it on her own. I was the only immediate family member whose situation at the time allowed me that choice.

So don't tell me that it doesn't happen.

Moving in with you wasn't an option? Anyway, that's awesome of you. However, you're not exactly the "current generation" and I was speaking in hyperbole. The trend does not match up to your example.

One thing that I find interesting is the sheer difference between attitude to children here in Israel and in the US.

In Israel, kids are free-range, and it is largely due to the fact that families are typically larger than in Europe. Two working parents can't spread themselves thin enough to helicopter-parent 3 or more kids. So when a typical Israeli child goes to school, parents can drop them off OR - just as normal - the child can walk to school alone or ride a bike there. My co-workers routinely bring their kids to work when they have nowhere to leave them during school holidays. A school-age child can be left home alone for half a day without issues. It is also pretty normal for an Israeli parent to do his friend a favor and pick up his child from the kindergarten. Older siblings watch over younger ones - walk them to school, make lunch, help with homework etc. Also, babysitters and nannies are not as widespread here as they are in Europe because a willing relative (most often grandmother) gladly takes up the role for free. On Yom Kippur, when nobody drives, children on bicycles roam all over the city without an adult in sight.

Minus the Jewish thing, you just described my childhood in the mid 1990's to early 2000's. And yes, we had to be very careful about it because the government/nanny state didn't like that sorta thing. But I lived. It works...that should be an option. Most people that I know who are Latin grew up like that because culturally, Latinos agree with Israelis on that aspect. I just hope the rest of the country adopts it like they did piñatas.

In the USA the attitude is very different, to the point that police may take into custody children found walking to school unattended and file child neglect charges against parents. There are laws on the books in some states that prohibit leaving children as old as 12 home alone. American parents schedule "play dates" to have their kids play together, and drive their child to and from, in situations where a flock of Israeli children would just call each other to coordinate and run outside for a game of soccer. I get where it comes from; crime in the USA is higher, distances are greater and multiple-car families are more common than in Israel so there's both more pressure and more opportunities to helicopter-parent. But it also means higher cost of parenting. Driving a child everywhere, paying for activities that in another society would have come for free simply from neighborhood mingling, hiring babysitters and nannies in more situations than otherwise would be necessary (and massively inflated perception of what level of material prosperity a child needs) all drive up the costs.

True, although at least in rural/suburban areas Crime really isn't an issue for these sort of things. I grew up in rural PA...which probably shapes my opinions on a lot of things.

Also, I think American employers are typically less family-friendly than the Israeli ones. Here it's not at all frowned upon to bring one's child to work when you have nowhere to leave them; a girl from my department routinely brings her toddler daughter to work for the entire 8 hour shift, and the management doesn't see it as hurting her productivity (truth be told, whatever we lose in productivity when there's a child in office, we gain in morale; nothing hurts efficiency quite so much as boredom, and nothing destroys boredom as effectively as children). I can't imagine my co-worker bringing her two little girls (5 and 8) to office had we worked for, say, Amazon or another large American company.

That's interesting, I could be my upbringing here in the US, but that really strikes as being different.

so would rather let a child die after birth because parents couldn't pay healthcare, instead of paying for it - good to know

conservative slogan: Pro-life...to a point

lol

Spoiler:

So much truth...though some of the implications I am seeing in it are...troublesome.

Hmmm.. What a predicament. How to solve it? Don't know if there's an answer to that..

Oh, wait a minute. How about not getting pregnant/donating sperm if you aren't in a situation where you can afford to raise the child YOURSELF, and provide a stable environment for it to grow up in.. Sorta like being prepared BEFORE getting pregnant (or donating sperm)

Be responsible for your own actions.

That way, the helpless infant doesn't get murdered before its born or die shortly thereafter because the parents couldn't afford healthcare for it.

Nice tidy solution. Pity so few people try it.

I think you completely missed the point.

[aretood2]

what if the pill fails - hold the pharma company accountable or make an exception for them?

Or you could care for the kid, love him or her and invest in his or her future so that they can grow and add to society instead of treating it as a financial sinkhole for either the parents or the state. The old saying, it takes a village, really goes back to the belief that the village should partake in the child's well being regardless of the manner/context of his or her conception.

[SoulReaver]

Or you could care for the kid, love him or her and invest in his or her future so that they can grow and add to society instead of treating it as a financial sinkhole for either the parents or the state. The old saying, it takes a village, really goes back to the belief that the village should partake in the child's well being regardless of the manner/context of his or her conception.

I meant if the pill fails in addition to financial problems (since Annoyed brought up the "prevention" aspect)

besides even if the parents are financially well-off, how would the kid feel if he learnt that they never meant to have him & that he's an "accident"? (I imagine that'd be a weird feeling "sh-- I'm not supposed to be here" lol)

[SoulReaver]

I'm going to categorize that as "too hard to believe"

yup me too (next thing he'll claim is that welfare recipients drive in Cadillacs)

[aretood2]

I meant if the pill fails in addition to financial problems (since Annoyed brought up the "prevention" aspect)

besides even if the parents are financially well-off, how would the kid feel if he learnt that they never meant to have him & that he's an "accident"? (I imagine that'd be a weird feeling "sh-- I'm not supposed to be here" lol)

That's based on the false premise that it makes any difference. I never understood this whole idea with having to be a purposeful conception(Edit: As in parents won't love an "accident" as much). Does that make the joy of having a child any less? Will the parents love them less? If so, then I question them of ever truly loving a child regardless of the manner of the child's conception. But I do understand how a young kid would see it as being bad. But as an adult? Who cares. Were you loved? Cared for? Did they sacrifice for you? I mean, all things being equal of course.

[SoulReaver]

I do understand how a young kid would see it as being bad. But as an adult? Who cares.

child is the father of man

[mad_gater]

I don't know, my grandparents did manage with no government assistance and lots of kids who lived to father kids who went/are going to schools either here or back in Mexico....and by schools I mean post secondary. I'm not saying that people should have kids all willy nilly. If you only want one, that's perfectly fine. What I don't agree with is using money as an excuse.



I'm going to categorize that as "too hard to believe" unless you have some hard numbers to back it up? My parents did very well here in PA without the government. At most, I just got a reduced lunch at school depending on the year.




Moving in with you wasn't an option? Anyway, that's awesome of you. However, you're not exactly the "current generation" and I was speaking in hyperbole. The trend does not match up to your example.



Minus the Jewish thing, you just described my childhood in the mid 1990's to early 2000's. And yes, we had to be very careful about it because the government/nanny state didn't like that sorta thing. But I lived. It works...that should be an option. Most people that I know who are Latin grew up like that because culturally, Latinos agree with Israelis on that aspect. I just hope the rest of the country adopts it like they did piñatas.



True, although at least in rural/suburban areas Crime really isn't an issue for these sort of things. I grew up in rural PA...which probably shapes my opinions on a lot of things.


That's interesting, I could be my upbringing here in the US, but that really strikes as being different.


So much truth...though some of the implications I am seeing in it are...troublesome.


I think you completely missed the point.

never said raising a child couldn'[t be done without government assistance...all I was saying is that you can't disregard income altogether as you do have to buy certain things for the child to live on

although there are various non-profits available to help single parents or coupled parents of little financial means with basic supplies for a child such as diapers, baby formula, etc.

the St. Gianna Molla pregnancy outreach center is one such place in the Buffalo area that does that

[SGalisa]

One thing that I find interesting is the sheer difference between attitude to children here in Israel and in the US.

In Israel, kids are free-range, and it is largely due to the fact that families are typically larger than in Europe. Two working parents can't spread themselves thin enough to helicopter-parent 3 or more kids. So when a typical Israeli child goes to school, parents can drop them off OR - just as normal - the child can walk to school alone or ride a bike there. My co-workers routinely bring their kids to work when they have nowhere to leave them during school holidays. A school-age child can be left home alone for half a day without issues. It is also pretty normal for an Israeli parent to do his friend a favor and pick up his child from the kindergarten. Older siblings watch over younger ones - walk them to school, make lunch, help with homework etc. Also, babysitters and nannies are not as widespread here as they are in Europe because a willing relative (most often grandmother) gladly takes up the role for free. On Yom Kippur, when nobody drives, children on bicycles roam all over the city without an adult in sight.

I remember years like that in the USA back in the 1960's and 1970's. My mom had to drive my sister to work, until my sister got her license, so they both ended up getting a job at the same place at the same time. When that happened, I was left home alone and ended up being a "latch-key kid" around 11 years old. I also had to start cooking supper for the whole family, because there wasn't anyone around to start the meal cooking process. Ended up doing the laundry, too. And I sometimes rode my bicycle (alone) into town to get an extra gallon of milk, since the milkman didn't leave enough milk.

In the USA the attitude is very different, to the point that police may take into custody children found walking to school unattended and file child neglect charges against parents. There are laws on the books in some states that prohibit leaving children as old as 12 home alone.

It's only in recent years that I've heard this is the situation in the same area I grew up in. It's very sad that life has come to that level. Too many stories of creeps, possibly *trust* in family relationships, and other safety issues going on now that parents have to drive everywhere with kids in tow. Children aren't allowed to be left home alone, unless they are in high school..? I was shocked when my neighbor's kids were allowed to be home without their mom or dad hovering over them. They still weren't permitted to leave the house, until one of their parents came home.

...we have quite a few kids being hauled away by DYFS in our area. My neighbor down the road was telling me what happened to a few particular families, and said the foster families were getting approximately $200 per child from DYFS. So, I asked where DYFS was getting the money from. They said it was coming from the parents of the kids who got taken away.

I don't know how true that is...

Clarification-- if the above is accurate, then I think this is how the system works (tho to be more sure, I'd have to ask my friend who works in social services and studied law)--
If the parents have enough in their income, then they (have to) pay DYFS, who then gives that money to the foster parents for the care of the child who got hauled off to a new home. Money comes directly from the income of the natural parents (sometimes by court order).

However, if the family is already living on welfare, but the home is determined to be too violent or dangerous for the child to be living there, then DYFS takes the child away to a new foster family, but the welfare income that was granted to the natural parents / family ends up being transferred over by the various agencies and then given to the new foster parents/home. In this situation, the welfare money designated to the care of the child never reaches the natural parents/family, as it is deducted from their welfare plan and automatically sent over to the foster family instead. Also, the taxpayers are paying for the foster care, but were already paying for the family already on welfare, so there isn't (or shouldn't be) any more money being taken away from the taxpayers.

[Gatefan1976]

you are the one claiming that a born baby has developed to the point of being able to use higher brain functions

I merely poked holes in that argument using simple logic...something I've been doin' for years with socialist left-wingers

You do what now?


Higher brain function does not equal "better than a cockroach", but hey, it explains a lot if that's the standard.
It may have been simple, but logic?

[Gatefan1976]

One thing that I find interesting is the sheer difference between attitude to children here in Israel and in the US.

It's not just Israel and the US Womble.

In Israel, kids are free-range, and it is largely due to the fact that families are typically larger than in Europe. Two working parents can't spread themselves thin enough to helicopter-parent 3 or more kids. So when a typical Israeli child goes to school, parents can drop them off OR - just as normal - the child can walk to school alone or ride a bike there. My co-workers routinely bring their kids to work when they have nowhere to leave them during school holidays. A school-age child can be left home alone for half a day without issues. It is also pretty normal for an Israeli parent to do his friend a favor and pick up his child from the kindergarten. Older siblings watch over younger ones - walk them to school, make lunch, help with homework etc. Also, babysitters and nannies are not as widespread here as they are in Europe because a willing relative (most often grandmother) gladly takes up the role for free. On Yom Kippur, when nobody drives, children on bicycles roam all over the city without an adult in sight.

Dare I say some of that comes down to not just a culture of more personal responsibility, but also stronger extended family ties?

In the USA the attitude is very different, to the point that police may take into custody children found walking to school unattended and file child neglect charges against parents. There are laws on the books in some states that prohibit leaving children as old as 12 home alone. American parents schedule "play dates" to have their kids play together, and drive their child to and from, in situations where a flock of Israeli children would just call each other to coordinate and run outside for a game of soccer. I get where it comes from; crime in the USA is higher, distances are greater and multiple-car families are more common than in Israel so there's both more pressure and more opportunities to helicopter-parent. But it also means higher cost of parenting. Driving a child everywhere, paying for activities that in another society would have come for free simply from neighborhood mingling, hiring babysitters and nannies in more situations than otherwise would be necessary (and massively inflated perception of what level of material prosperity a child needs) all drive up the costs.

I would add that -statistically speaking- it is actually no more dangerous to be a child -now- than it was when most of us were pre-teen children. What we do have however is the 24/7 news cycle that operates on sensationalism and fear. A child gets kidnapped or murdered on the other side of the country, and people want to worry about it as if the psycho responsible is in their own neighbourhood.
I would wager that (and feel free to correct me) that the average child in Israel is possibly in more danger than a kid Australia, or America simply due to location and (possible) beliefs, yet instead of being sensationalized and having the fear of "what could be out there" driven into them, they are taught reasonable and controlled reactions to potential threats.

Also, I think American employers are typically less family-friendly than the Israeli ones. Here it's not at all frowned upon to bring one's child to work when you have nowhere to leave them; a girl from my department routinely brings her toddler daughter to work for the entire 8 hour shift, and the management doesn't see it as hurting her productivity (truth be told, whatever we lose in productivity when there's a child in office, we gain in morale; nothing hurts efficiency quite so much as boredom, and nothing destroys boredom as effectively as children). I can't imagine my co-worker bringing her two little girls (5 and 8) to office had we worked for, say, Amazon or another large American company.

Very true.

Anyway, I do think that Americans - both social conservatives and liberals - have a less healthy attitude to children. Social conservatives view them as a kind of luxury one should only acquire when they have the disposable income to pay for it. Liberals, on the other hand, tend to turn the state into a helicopter parent and drive up the costs of parenting.

I am unsure what you mean when you speak of Liberals here.
Do you mean social support, or do you mean police forces spending time chasing perfectly fine "free range" children?

[garhkal]

Also, I think American employers are typically less family-friendly than the Israeli ones. Here it's not at all frowned upon to bring one's child to work when you have nowhere to leave them; a girl from my department routinely brings her toddler daughter to work for the entire 8 hour shift, and the management doesn't see it as hurting her productivity (truth be told, whatever we lose in productivity when there's a child in office, we gain in morale; nothing hurts efficiency quite so much as boredom, and nothing destroys boredom as effectively as children). I can't imagine my co-worker bringing her two little girls (5 and 8) to office had we worked for, say, Amazon or another large American company.
.

I disagree. I have seen plenty of 'family friendliness' at work. Almost to the point it seems Single folk get the shaft.
Case and point, i have in my mil career, had leave yanked TWICE. Once was cause a deployment got moved up, and once cause though my leave was already in and approved for over a month, a Married person 'just had to take leave to his niece's wedding'. HE got it, i got shafted.
I have also had many an instance I got called in (as a single person) on weekend/evening shift for a problem, over calling a CLOSER married person (or married with kids).
I have also seen plenty of instances where a person with kids (or just a spouse) was given permission to leave early MANY times, or just had their 'lateness' hand waived away, when if that had been one of us Single folk, we would have gotten yelled at.

At the stage of abortion there is no child - nor is there a baby to speak of. Just a bunch of split cells that might form an organism at some point in time.

Which stage are you on about?? Not the stage where viable organs can be gotten from the aborted feotus.

[Gatefan1976]

I disagree. I have seen plenty of 'family friendliness' at work. Almost to the point it seems Single folk get the shaft.
Case and point, i have in my mil career, had leave yanked TWICE. Once was cause a deployment got moved up, and once cause though my leave was already in and approved for over a month, a Married person 'just had to take leave to his niece's wedding'. HE got it, i got shafted.
I have also had many an instance I got called in (as a single person) on weekend/evening shift for a problem, over calling a CLOSER married person (or married with kids).
I have also seen plenty of instances where a person with kids (or just a spouse) was given permission to leave early MANY times, or just had their 'lateness' hand waived away, when if that had been one of us Single folk, we would have gotten yelled at.

So, you are pissy that they get their situation taken into account?
What about ME, it isn't fair, I've had enough now I want MY share.
Sounds like a left wing liberal rant to me............

Which stage are you on about?? Not the stage where viable organs can be gotten from the aborted feotus.

Umm, once you have "harvestable organs" you are past the foetus stage, which is why there is a time factor in the legality of abortions.

[Falcon Horus]

I disagree. I have seen plenty of 'family friendliness' at work. Almost to the point it seems Single folk get the shaft.

Something I can agree with. Plenty of family friendliness going at my workplace, especially when it comes to approving time off.

Which stage are you on about?? Not the stage where viable organs can be gotten from the aborted feotus.

Abortion laws throught Europe
Gestational period: between 12 and 26 weeks (conditions apply, see country)

Abortion laws in the USA

I don't know what stage you're on about, especially since organs from a foetus are not fully developped and thus cannot be used to save the life of anyone. Unless you are referring to stem cell research, which still has nothing to do with what you claim there.

Stem cell basics
--> What are embryonic stem cells?

####

Reply to why I feel the veto on the Keystone XL pipeline is a good thing:
(in order)
1) the environment
2) according to the state department there's a negligable impact on the economy - not large enough to warrant the building of the pipeline
3) the future is green energy, not oil or tar

[Annoyed]

I disagree. I have seen plenty of 'family friendliness' at work. Almost to the point it seems Single folk get the shaft.
Case and point, i have in my mil career, had leave yanked TWICE. Once was cause a deployment got moved up, and once cause though my leave was already in and approved for over a month, a Married person 'just had to take leave to his niece's wedding'. HE got it, i got shafted.
I have also had many an instance I got called in (as a single person) on weekend/evening shift for a problem, over calling a CLOSER married person (or married with kids).
I have also seen plenty of instances where a person with kids (or just a spouse) was given permission to leave early MANY times, or just had their 'lateness' hand waived away, when if that had been one of us Single folk, we would have gotten yelled at.

As i said last week? on another topic, any time a special interest group demands "equality", what they really want is preferential treatment. Why the hell should an employer make special allowances for married/etc? If the person, man/woman/married/single/whatever can't do the job or put in the time required, why should the singles pick up the slack?

[Falcon Horus]

As i said last week? on another topic, any time a special interest group demands "equality", what they really want is preferential treatment. Why the hell should an employer make special allowances for married/etc? If the person, man/woman/married/single/whatever can't do the job or put in the time required, why should the singles pick up the slack?

It usually doesn't have anything to do with picking up the slack. I understand that. It's the part where these people have children to take care off, which if they leave early is more tolerated than when someone who doesn't have kids needs to leave earlier. The usual reasoning is along the lines of "but why do you need to leave early, you don't have anyone at home waiting for you, do you?".
Holidays are a pain for these people cause they have to find someone to look after their kids while they're at work. And I can mildly understand why they would get first pick on vacation days as school is mandatory so going on holidays can only happen during those holiday-periods.

However, when holidays for non-parents are being revoked in favor of parents, even though those holidays were already approved way before, then it becomes a problem - one that I take issue with.