[mediamatters.org]

I read it this morning. Don't see him calling any religious leaders or political figures (right wing ones caught in gay sex scandals anyone?) out about their drug and prostitute problems though, no, just a pregnant Engaged actress.
What. Ever.

Meh. Which is worse... out of wedlock birth with a couple that loves each other OR politician's wives who stand by their man after he is caught cheating on them for years and years? *shrug*

"Most single moms are very poor, uneducated, can't get a job, and if it weren't for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and never have health care. "

Oh my gawd... does this man know ANYTHING about America? Of course poor needy single mothers are on welfare because that is what the program was designed for -- to help poor needy single parents. But that is but a SMALL portion of the single mothers. In real life... I only know one single mother that is on state assistance and she is going to school to get a college degree. Meanwhile I know many many single mothers that are working and providing for their families, many have college educations, and are holding up the very fabric of this nation. I guarantee you Huckabee interfaces with hard working single mothers every day and doesn't even realize it. Who is bringing him his meal at the restaurant? Cutting his hair? Selling him a car? Processing his deposit at the bank? Scheduling his flights around the country? And so forth.

He's an ass.

WHERE ARE THE DEADBEAT DADS?

It's odd, but there was nothing but love from the vicar for that model mom Bristol Palin when she was in the same boat(um, except not an Ivy League grad nor legitimately engaged to the father, like Natalie Portman). Hmmmmm.

Ain't no hypocrisy like these people's hypocrisy 'cos these people's hypocrisy don't stop!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2011 09:47PM by Tamukha.

Oh, you'd think he'd be all over that, how G_d "punished" her with a child that has downs. If it happened to anyone else that's what we would have heard, you betcha!

My view on Huckabee - I never cared for him because I consider him a RINO; he's not a fiscal conservative and he is a social liberal. I'm not into the social issues with my politics that much. I did hear that because there are so many black children being raised without a father, it contributes to the high crime rate, and the sorry state of the black community. and I do have an issue with welfare queens who have children so they can collect the welfare payments and never have to work - glom off the system.

I don't have a problem with single mothers who are doing the best they can for themselves and their children and I also think mothers place is home with their little children, so if they need welfare to do that, that's okay with me. I just don't like the fraud and abuse of social services.

Kidraw: That whole 'welfare queen' thing has been busted as an urban myth, from what I understand. Yeah, there are people scamming the system by having a bunch of people living in one place and using the same address or whatever. I am sure that happens. But even poor people selling food stamps for drugs--are they really scamming the system? They aren't using the money for what it was intended but they are not living high off the hog, either. What I have a problem with is that some people think that fathers are expendable. If you don't want the father of your children around your kids because he is a dangerous character, then I think you are being responisible. But this "I don't need a man" or "My kids don't need a father" is wrong-headed, IMO. If you are pissed with this man, well, you liked him enough to lay down with him at one time! But in any case, you should never badmouth your ex to the kids. Yes, if he's in jail or an addict, you may have to tell them the truth but I really think there are men out there who are being punished by their exes and the kid are used as pawns. Even if the man cheated on you, it still shouldn't mean that the kids don't get to see their dad or that you say bad stuff about him to them.

banana who Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kidraw:

> Yeah, there are people scamming the system by
> having a bunch of people living in one place and
> using the same address or whatever. I am sure that
> happens.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm referring to. That's what I object to.

But even poor people selling food stamps
> for drugs--are they really scamming the system?
> They aren't using the money for what it was
> intended but they are not living high off the hog,
> either.

Yes, they are scamming the system, because I don't think taxpayers should be FORCED to give their money to drug addicts to buy drugs with. That is also what I object to.

And then of course there's all the fraud and abuse with Medicaid and Medicare. It all needs to be stopped.

The Federal (centralized) Government should not be in the business of social services - that is the place for Local Government and Charities and it would be more efficient.

banana who Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kidraw: Yes, if he's in jail
> or an addict, you may have to tell them the truth
> but I really think there are men out there who are
> being punished by their exes and the kid are used
> as pawns. Even if the man cheated on you, it still
> shouldn't mean that the kids don't get to see
> their dad or that you say bad stuff about him to
> them.

Yes, I agree. There are a lot of b*tches out there and more being formed every day,(through the media and government schools, and of course horrible nutrition affecting emotions and behavior, and the Psychiatic Industry that pumps them full of drugs) so it's a two-way street.

Yes Kid, I agree w/all your statements. I wish that the local governments had the dough, though. In IL our state has a budget shortfall; it's right up there with CA. Where's all the money going to? The Federal Government is throwing money down the toilet to pay for two wars. Not only that, but to private contractors instead of our military!

While I agree that fraud needs to be stopped, I strongly disagree that we should not have programs in place to help the needy. We are a society and like it or not there are members of every society that need assistance or are disable and unable to provide for themselves. What choice do we have but to care for them?

I have lived in many countries that did not care for it's disabled and those unable to care for themselves and let me tell you it isn't pretty. Crippled people scooting themselves along the ground begging for handouts, withered old ladies crying in shame as they beg for food, crazy people attacking each other over a piece of bread. It is not pretty. Once a body layed in a ditch for over 3 days until the embassy investigated and discovered it was a homeless child that had been run over and killed and left to decay in the ditch with thousands of people walking past every day. Nobody cared.

RocketShip Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While I agree that fraud needs to be stopped, I
> strongly disagree that we should not have programs
> in place to help the needy. We are a society and
> like it or not there are members of every society
> that need assistance or are disable and unable to
> provide for themselves. What choice do we have
> but to care for them?

Yes, I think we need programs, too. I said "The FEDERAL (centralized) Government should not be in the business of social services - that is the place for LOCAL Government and Charities and it would be more efficient."

The same with Education. Just think if Education wasn't centralized to the Federal Government, but localized to the States, how much money we would save so the States could also afford to have great social programs. There would be so much less bureaucracy, red tape, waste, fraud, abuse, waste of money, etc.

This articles explains it better than I can --

Oppose the FEDERAL Welfare State

[www.lewrockwell.com]

"increasing FEDERAL funds always increases FEDERAL control, as the recipients of the funds must tailor their programs to meet federal mandates and regulations. More importantly, since federal funds represent resources taken out of the hands of private individuals, increasing federal funding leaves fewer resources available for the voluntary provision of social services, which, as I will explain in more detail later, is a more effective, moral, and constitutional means of meeting the needs of the poor.

**************

I like the Federal govt managing welfare programs (medicare included) and I like the federal govt regulating schools. In a country this large there has to be a system of continuity and equality across the nation.

No kidding. Can you imagine what individual states would be teaching (or Not teaching) kids if given the say? We get some of your news up here, I gotta tell you a few of your states seem absolutely insane to the rest of the world. You guys have some bizarre books bans already, the people making those choices should not have any power let alone More of it!

Isn't Natalie Portman a vegan? When I first saw the story on "Hard ball" they announced Huckabee taking a jab at her, I thought it was going to be over something to do with animal rights, or veganism or something related to that. The program brought up Bristol also. Don't expect consistency.

RocketShip Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like the Federal govt managing welfare programs
> (medicare included) and I like the federal govt
> regulating schools. In a country this large there
> has to be a system of continuity and equality
> across the nation.


Why?

I guess I don't really get it - that the Federal government has to be in the business of regulating schools nationwide.

Heck, while we're at it, why not create a one world government so everything can be regulated by one dictator?

I'm just saying'...

Juicerkatz,
Well somethings are already regulated nationwide, is that a bad thing? A one world government with a dictator? Thats a leap, but why would that be automatically bad?

jk,

I'll take a stab at that one--because every civilized democracy has an education curriculum devised at the federal level and administered by province/district/oblast/whatever, and they are all educating better, according to every metric that even we use, than we are. And because we are already seeing that, in the American South, for instance, where the lower down in government one gets the greater the control over academic curricula, the creep of ani-intellectualism is insidiuously drawing an entire generation of children backwards to an anti-science, anti-math, anti-civics, anti-social studies Neolothic mentality. This will destroy our Republic, which is only as strong as the health and intelligence of its citizens.

I don't want anybody who graduated high school and has no training in pedagogy and is not responsive to a larger authority, teaching anybody's kids, anybody's. I trained as an educator and come from a line of them, and I say with absolute conviction that designing curricula at the state or municipal level, without overarching centralized oversight, in many cases produces children who will not be able to compete with their peers even in the developing world. And I say that as someone who thinks NCLB is a stinker.

yes... everything that Tam said.

juicer - I don't understand why anyone would want education regulation to be left up to individual states with their varying degrees of economic resources and religious/political/educational agendas.

Just saying...