tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post5294888273569413715..comments2023-09-11T08:58:24.710-06:00Comments on Reach Upward: Saving the American FamilyScott Hinrichshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11831447472339880148noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-25833401857984515082009-05-29T09:18:54.485-06:002009-05-29T09:18:54.485-06:001) Social safety nets are, and have historically b...1) Social safety nets are, and have historically been, much stronger when not run by governments.<br /><br />2) Even today, a family which plans early and makes sacrifices can have only one parent work for money. No woman is forced to work outside the home. (This is not a commentary on the difficulty of working in the home - one of the hardest jobs there is, btw.)<br /><br />3) The cost of medical care is driven by government medical meddling, not the other way around. Medicare/Medicaid (and related fraud) have done more to drive up the cost of health care than any other factor.<br /><br />4) Citing average pretax income makes no sense. Cite take-home income if you want to compare standards of living.<br /><br />5) Labor unions forgot their mandate and killed themselves. My step-father belongs to a union. Simply from what I've seen his union do, I would never join one.<br /><br />6) Off-shoring of jobs does not eqate to fewer jobs for Americans. Job count is not a zero-sum game.<br /><br />7 - and most important) The federal government is a _constrained_ agreement - it is not a one-size fits all answer to any community problem that comes along. To attempt to use the Federal Government to solve society's problems is akin to using a pickaxe to drive a nail - it's the wrong tool, and somebody's going to get hurt. "Government spending for human needs" and a "social safety net" are not part of the charter (i.e. constitution) and violate the intent of the agreement between the states. They constitute a bad faith use of the good will represented in the constitution.<br /><br />- "We can't fix this by teaching children that it would be better for one parent to stay home with the children while supporting government policies that make it impossible to have a home on one income."<br />It's not impossible, and it's not government policies that made it hard where it is hard.<br /><br />-"It's not personal choices that got us into this mess or that can get us out of it."<br />What? The article cited is about family and children. How is having sex/having a child anything BUT a personal choice?<br /><br />-"It is a political problem caused by unquestioning devotion to idiotic economic and social policy."<br />Idiocy is in the eye of the beholder. I personally believe the currently proposed economic and social policies are the idiotic ones.Hyrumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359109719827836884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-53249456045473700832009-05-28T20:48:08.834-06:002009-05-28T20:48:08.834-06:00Decreasing the social safety net?! In what world ...Decreasing the social safety net?! In what world did that happen? The boom and bust cycle started in the 50s?! What was all of that stuff that went on starting in 1929 and well into WWII?<br /><br />A man could once support a family of four on $40K because overall tax burden took much less of his income and people were generally satisfied with less stuff. The excess in real dollars that it now costs to support a family of four is directly proportionate to the increase in the number of square feet of living space per person. We have decided to live in bigger houses and in houses that have fewer occupants. Divorce and single parent households lend to this trend as well.<br /><br />There are lots of reasons for the state in which we find ourselves today and not all of them are politically driven.Scott Hinrichshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11831447472339880148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-29374281946778456302009-05-28T20:07:41.838-06:002009-05-28T20:07:41.838-06:00Well, you can call the policies of Reagan/Bush/Cli...Well, you can call the policies of Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush whatever you want, but the fact is that the particular agenda of reducing government spending for human needs, lowering taxes on the wealthy, and removing the social safety net have done a great deal to make life more stressful for middle and lower income Americans.<br /><br />As for your state-by-state analysis, yes the largest states that have the largest number of financial companies and the largest immigrant populations have the greatest income disparity and they are somewhat more liberal than the low population states. <br /><br />Women entered the work force because they were forced to do so. In the 1950's a man making the equivalent of $40,000 could support a family of 4 on his income alone. There were no worries about high health care costs, housing prices were low, most employers had fixed benefit pension plans, and there were high-quality public schools, low or no-tuition public universities and the GI bill. As we moved into a boom-and-bust economy driven by neo-liberal economic policy, pensions disappeared, health care and housing prices skyrocketed, aid to education dropped, and the only way to maintain a decent standard of living was for both parents to work. <br /><br />We can't fix this by teaching children that it would be better for one parent to stay home with the children while supporting government policies that make it impossible to have a home on one income. It's not personal choices that got us into this mess or that can get us out of it. It is a political problem caused by unquestioning devotion to idiotic economic and social policy.Charles Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02975241234146573609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-74725566918368588012009-05-27T22:20:02.054-06:002009-05-27T22:20:02.054-06:00Jesse's statement about "the number one determinan...Jesse's statement about "the number one determinant" is the reason that I go out and play catch with my boys just about anytime they ask me to, even if I'm wiped out because it's been a bad day at work.<br /><br />I really didn't want to take them to the amusement park last Saturday, but I'm glad I did! It's those kinds of memories that last boys a lifetime.Frank Stahelihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-77470485355341420792009-05-27T19:37:43.895-06:002009-05-27T19:37:43.895-06:00Conservatives do not think that there has been muc...Conservatives do not think that there has been much movement toward conservative principles during the period cited. (Unless some kind of evil caricature of conservatism is used as a measuring stick.) They see quite the opposite trend.<br /><br />The states that follow the progressive policies suggested have the greatest rates of income disparity. The states with the least income disparity are those that lean the furthest away from these policies. It's kind of like how real income disparity in the good old USSR was as great as (and perhaps greater than) in the most capitalist nations of the time. Go figure.<br /><br />The entrance of women into the income producing work force -- something that was long sought by both business interests and supporters of women's rights -- has paralleled the increase in the liberalizing of divorce laws and the increase in divorce rates. For the first time in history, many women could afford to survive without a husband. But this has not come without a cost to society.<br /><br />I'm not arguing against women working or equal pay or any such thing. I'm merely stating a known correlation: a condition, not an accusation or the preface to a solution. I am suggesting that it might be helpful to realize the correlation, understand that we're never going back to the way it once was, and to think about positive ways to go forward and to deal with the consequences.<br /><br />Children should be taught what conditions produce the best outcomes for children and they should be encouraged to follow those patterns. They should be taught that while they are free to make a broad variety of lifestyle choices, those choices produce real and long lasting consequences for their own offspring and for society as a whole.Scott Hinrichshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11831447472339880148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-85043449422308432272009-05-27T17:13:10.520-06:002009-05-27T17:13:10.520-06:00And they say that Republicans are doubling down on...And they say that <EM>Republicans</EM> are doubling down on bat-crap crazy...Jesse Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11468928702710912142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-65158232358039835882009-05-27T17:07:40.276-06:002009-05-27T17:07:40.276-06:00I think we need to examine the possibility that th...I think we need to examine the possibility that the increase in out-of-wedlock births and the "deterioration of of middle- and lower-income families" has been caused not by increased divorce or another cultural issue, but by the conservative economic policies of the last 30 years that have put middle and lower income families under increased stress.<br /><br />- From 1977 - 1989, the wealthiest 660,000 families gained 75% of "average pretax income" increases, while most middle income families saw only a 4% increase -- and those in the bottom 40% of income had real declines.<br />- The cost of medical care and household costs of medical care rose 50%, 1970 - 1990, in constant dollars.<br /><br />Add to these facts the huge increase in housing prices over the last decades, the destruction of labor unions, off-shoring of jobs and other measures that affect job security and you have a tremendous pressure on families that simply did not exist a few decades ago.<br /><br />These changes were not just coincidence. Conservative economic policy has funneled wealth to the wealthy and cut services that support middle and lower class families. These are political problems and they will require political solutions: increased social security benefits, single-payer universal health care, a coherent industrial policy, strong financial regulation, and a return to a progressive tax structure that requires those who benefit most to pay most.Charles Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02975241234146573609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-3895343698528188432009-05-26T20:59:14.078-06:002009-05-26T20:59:14.078-06:00The number one determinant for if a young boy of 7...The number one determinant for if a young boy of 7 will grow up to be a criminal is whether or not he grew up with his father. No other metric, be it education, income, or geographical location, has such a strong correlation. If that isn't reason enough to push harder for stronger families and getting couples to stick through the tough times, I don't know what is.Jesse Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11468928702710912142noreply@blogger.com