If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Strengthen families"
-- Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have custody of such child. "Strengthen Families Promote Responsible Fatherhood: Obama will sign into law his Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act to remove some of the government penalties on married families, crack down on men avoiding child support payments, and ensure that payments go to families instead of state bureaucracies." So Obama is going to "strengthen families" by maximizing the amount of "child support" extorted from men? Wait a minute, the answer is blatantly obvious. By "family" he means a woman and her children. How could I be so dumb........... http://www.barackobama.com/issues/po...gthen-families |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Strengthen families"
Once again politicians build their careers on the backs of the poor man!
"Chris" wrote in message ... -- Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have custody of such child. "Strengthen Families Promote Responsible Fatherhood: Obama will sign into law his Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act to remove some of the government penalties on married families, crack down on men avoiding child support payments, and ensure that payments go to families instead of state bureaucracies." So Obama is going to "strengthen families" by maximizing the amount of "child support" extorted from men? Wait a minute, the answer is blatantly obvious. By "family" he means a woman and her children. How could I be so dumb........... http://www.barackobama.com/issues/po...gthen-families |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Strengthen families"
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:24:23 -0800, "Chris" wrote:
-- Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have custody of such child. "Strengthen Families Promote Responsible Fatherhood: Obama will sign into law his Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act to remove some of the government penalties on married families, crack down on men avoiding child support payments, and ensure that payments go to families instead of state bureaucracies." So Obama is going to "strengthen families" by maximizing the amount of "child support" extorted from men? Wait a minute, the answer is blatantly obvious. By "family" he means a woman and her children. How could I be so dumb........... http://www.barackobama.com/issues/po...gthen-families Chris's comment is very much to the point. Unfortunately, there are two crucial messages that fathers' groups and genuine defenders of traditional two-parent families have never managed to get across to the general public in the U.S. and to policymakers: (1) There is conclusive evidence that the best measure to prevent childhood poverty is the two-parent family, and fatherless families are a very good way of promoting childhood poverty. (2) The "child support" system and the continued glass ceiling on paternal custody are major incentives for mothers to create single-parent families. In 1990 a think-tank linked to the Democratic Party (yes, the Democratic, not the Republican, party) laid out some of this in a report titled "Putting Children First" http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?...entID=2 54874. Unfortunately, in the years since then, nothing has been done to strengthen the two-parent family. The only measures taken to remove the incentives for the creation of fatherless families were the welfare reforms of some years back. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Strengthen families"
"Kenneth S." wrote in message ... On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:24:23 -0800, "Chris" wrote: -- Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have custody of such child. "Strengthen Families Promote Responsible Fatherhood: Obama will sign into law his Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act to remove some of the government penalties on married families, crack down on men avoiding child support payments, and ensure that payments go to families instead of state bureaucracies." So Obama is going to "strengthen families" by maximizing the amount of "child support" extorted from men? Wait a minute, the answer is blatantly obvious. By "family" he means a woman and her children. How could I be so dumb........... http://www.barackobama.com/issues/po...gthen-families Chris's comment is very much to the point. Unfortunately, there are two crucial messages that fathers' groups and genuine defenders of traditional two-parent families have never managed to get across to the general public in the U.S. and to policymakers: (1) There is conclusive evidence that the best measure to prevent childhood poverty is the two-parent family, and fatherless families are a very good way of promoting childhood poverty. (2) The "child support" system and the continued glass ceiling on paternal custody are major incentives for mothers to create single-parent families. In 1990 a think-tank linked to the Democratic Party (yes, the Democratic, not the Republican, party) laid out some of this in a report titled "Putting Children First" http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?...entID=2 54874. Unfortunately, in the years since then, nothing has been done to strengthen the two-parent family. The only measures taken to remove the incentives for the creation of fatherless families were the welfare reforms of some years back. One problem I see with recent family programs coming out of Washington is they have titles that sound great but they get implemented in ways counter to what the title suggests they are about. And even more alarming is the way these programs define "families" in various combinations of relationships without a biological father being included in the definition. A good example is the Fatherhood Initiative passed during the Bush 43 years. The program was purported to be aimed at strengthening the perceptions about the role of fathers and the importance of fathers in children's lives. In reality the money appropriated to do what sounded like a fine program turned out to be hijacked by the states and morphed into programs aimed at encouraging fathers to pay their CS. The bureaucratic mindset gets exposed over and over again to have perceptions of fathers as deadbeats who don't pay CS so government needs to educate men to provide money if you want to be a good dad. All of the social science research that shows the value fathers bring into children's lives gets distilled down to just pay up. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Strengthen families"
"Bob W" wrote in message ... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:24:23 -0800, "Chris" wrote: -- Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have custody of such child. "Strengthen Families Promote Responsible Fatherhood: Obama will sign into law his Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act to remove some of the government penalties on married families, crack down on men avoiding child support payments, and ensure that payments go to families instead of state bureaucracies." So Obama is going to "strengthen families" by maximizing the amount of "child support" extorted from men? Wait a minute, the answer is blatantly obvious. By "family" he means a woman and her children. How could I be so dumb........... http://www.barackobama.com/issues/po...gthen-families Chris's comment is very much to the point. Unfortunately, there are two crucial messages that fathers' groups and genuine defenders of traditional two-parent families have never managed to get across to the general public in the U.S. and to policymakers: (1) There is conclusive evidence that the best measure to prevent childhood poverty is the two-parent family, and fatherless families are a very good way of promoting childhood poverty. (2) The "child support" system and the continued glass ceiling on paternal custody are major incentives for mothers to create single-parent families. In 1990 a think-tank linked to the Democratic Party (yes, the Democratic, not the Republican, party) laid out some of this in a report titled "Putting Children First" http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?...entID=2 54874. Unfortunately, in the years since then, nothing has been done to strengthen the two-parent family. The only measures taken to remove the incentives for the creation of fatherless families were the welfare reforms of some years back. One problem I see with recent family programs coming out of Washington is they have titles that sound great but they get implemented in ways counter to what the title suggests they are about. And even more alarming is the way these programs define "families" in various combinations of relationships without a biological father being included in the definition. A good example is the Fatherhood Initiative passed during the Bush 43 years. The program was purported to be aimed at strengthening the perceptions about the role of fathers and the importance of fathers in children's lives. In reality the money appropriated to do what sounded like a fine program turned out to be hijacked by the states and morphed into programs aimed at encouraging fathers to pay their CS. The bureaucratic mindset gets exposed over and over again to have perceptions of fathers as deadbeats who don't pay CS so government needs to educate men to provide money if you want to be a good dad. All of the social science research that shows the value fathers bring into children's lives gets distilled down to just pay up. I couldn't be a dead beat even if I wanted to, I don't have a job! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Strengthen families"
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:29:32 -0800, "Bob W"
wrote: "Kenneth S." wrote in message .. . On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:24:23 -0800, "Chris" wrote: -- Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have custody of such child. "Strengthen Families Promote Responsible Fatherhood: Obama will sign into law his Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act to remove some of the government penalties on married families, crack down on men avoiding child support payments, and ensure that payments go to families instead of state bureaucracies." So Obama is going to "strengthen families" by maximizing the amount of "child support" extorted from men? Wait a minute, the answer is blatantly obvious. By "family" he means a woman and her children. How could I be so dumb........... http://www.barackobama.com/issues/po...gthen-families Chris's comment is very much to the point. Unfortunately, there are two crucial messages that fathers' groups and genuine defenders of traditional two-parent families have never managed to get across to the general public in the U.S. and to policymakers: (1) There is conclusive evidence that the best measure to prevent childhood poverty is the two-parent family, and fatherless families are a very good way of promoting childhood poverty. (2) The "child support" system and the continued glass ceiling on paternal custody are major incentives for mothers to create single-parent families. In 1990 a think-tank linked to the Democratic Party (yes, the Democratic, not the Republican, party) laid out some of this in a report titled "Putting Children First" http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?...entID=2 54874. Unfortunately, in the years since then, nothing has been done to strengthen the two-parent family. The only measures taken to remove the incentives for the creation of fatherless families were the welfare reforms of some years back. One problem I see with recent family programs coming out of Washington is they have titles that sound great but they get implemented in ways counter to what the title suggests they are about. And even more alarming is the way these programs define "families" in various combinations of relationships without a biological father being included in the definition. A good example is the Fatherhood Initiative passed during the Bush 43 years. The program was purported to be aimed at strengthening the perceptions about the role of fathers and the importance of fathers in children's lives. In reality the money appropriated to do what sounded like a fine program turned out to be hijacked by the states and morphed into programs aimed at encouraging fathers to pay their CS. The bureaucratic mindset gets exposed over and over again to have perceptions of fathers as deadbeats who don't pay CS so government needs to educate men to provide money if you want to be a good dad. All of the social science research that shows the value fathers bring into children's lives gets distilled down to just pay up. I entirely agree with your comments, Bob. In fact, the gravitational pull you describe applies even to some of the non-government organizations that fathers might have thought to be their allies in these battles -- such as conservative church organizations and at least one of the groups that claims to be trying to promote the notion of presumptive joint custody. What it amounts to is that the core message of these groups is, as you point out, that there is nothing more to being a good father than paying "child support." After that, good fathers are supposed to get out of the way, so that mothers can raise the children and spend the money. But ask yourself why is this happening and what should we do about it. In my view, this message always comes out that way because this is the only "pro-father" message that is acceptable to feminists and those who want to curry favor with feminists. I would like to see people being willing to attack feminist propaganda openly. The objective should be to demolish the prevailing notion that -- particularly in family problem areas -- women invariably are innocent victims and men are evil perpetrators. However, no one seems to start the demolition process. They're too afraid of being labeled misogynist. So I suggest that the immediate message should be the two points that I made above. These boil down to the principle that it's transparently clear from the research that children's interests are best served by growing up in two-parent families. The incentives should be for the creation and preservation of such families, even if that entails removal of the bribes mothers are now being offered to establish fatherless families. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Strengthen families"
Exactly, Chris. Men are nothing more than sperm donors who are forced to
abide by and finance the many choices of women. Phil #3 "Chris" wrote in message ... -- Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have custody of such child. "Strengthen Families Promote Responsible Fatherhood: Obama will sign into law his Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act to remove some of the government penalties on married families, crack down on men avoiding child support payments, and ensure that payments go to families instead of state bureaucracies." So Obama is going to "strengthen families" by maximizing the amount of "child support" extorted from men? Wait a minute, the answer is blatantly obvious. By "family" he means a woman and her children. How could I be so dumb........... http://www.barackobama.com/issues/po...gthen-families |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Child "Protective" Services: Destroyers of Families | fx | Spanking | 1 | April 16th 11 05:43 PM |
"Juro" is a newer series that resembles the "Museum," but features asmaller face and more subtle diamond inlays. The men's "Esperanza" model isthe most complex luxury model with the three minute, second andtenth-of-a-sec | wholesale2 | Spanking | 0 | April 26th 08 11:52 AM |
Child "Protective" Services: Destroyers of Families | fx | Foster Parents | 0 | December 11th 07 11:03 PM |
PHOENIX Arizonas in a state of "perennial panic," endangering childreneven as it needlessly destroys thousands of families... | fx | Foster Parents | 0 | August 21st 07 07:16 PM |
New book! "The Best Old Movies for Families: A Guide to Watching Together" - by Ty Burr | [email protected] | General | 0 | March 3rd 07 06:57 PM |