(02-27-2016 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 09:41 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 09:11 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 11:19 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 11:12 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Both PARENTS are financially accountable for the child. Not THE PUBLIC.
There are multiple reasons libs dont like this:
1) For rape / incest, the perpetrator would get busted
2) If the father isnt named, the father cant be held accountable for footing the bills of the child
3) No father, mo money from the state and feds
And I like how the article is racist.

No, us liberals want rapists to walk free, fathers to abandon children and everyone to need government assistance.
Do you seriously believe that?

Liberal policies encourage these things. You disagree with liberal policy, there is a remedy. I suspect though that you will continue voting liberal policy while decrying said policies.

Exactly what liberal policies encourage these things?

The way that benefits paid to single mothers by the welfare system are structured clearly encourages dads to walk.
Obamacare clearly seeks to make far more people dependent on government assistance for health care.
The influence of sociology on law enforcement clearly seeks to blame society rather than hold all criminals accountable for their actions.

Those are three, there are many others, but those address the specific issues raised, and they will do for now.

The way that benefits paid to single mothers by the welfare system are structured clearly encourages dads to walk. - I agree this is an issue, but what history shows this was a liberal addition to the law?

Obamacare clearly seeks to make far more people dependent on government assistance for health care. - Disagree intent is to create government dependency, it is a safety net (and yes I have learned about the welfare trap). I also think that forcing business to pay for health care impedes our competitiveness & small business. Irrelevant to the DNA testing .

The influence of sociology on law enforcement clearly seeks to blame society rather than hold all criminals accountable for their actions. - difference between holding criminals accountable and laws that define what a criminal is. A felony for crack versus prohibition for actual cocaine. That is just one example. Liberals are the once against rape, conservatives blame the victim (although I do believe that a woman may claim rape even when it was originally consensual).

(02-28-2016 10:32 AM)dcCid Wrote:  The way that benefits paid to single mothers by the welfare system are structured clearly encourages dads to walk. - I agree this is an issue, but what history shows this was a liberal addition to the law?

It started with LBJ's Great Society programs, which were about as liberal as you could get back in the day. I don't think we've ever had conservatives running around pushing for this.

Quote:Obamacare clearly seeks to make far more people dependent on government assistance for health care. - Disagree intent is to create government dependency, it is a safety net (and yes I have learned about the welfare trap). I also think that forcing business to pay for health care impedes our competitiveness & small business. Irrelevant to the DNA testing.

If they intended a safety net, why did they not build a safety net? We still have millions uninsured. That's not a safety net. It did create greater government dependency. From the facts that out did not create safety net but it did create greater government dependence, I would infer that the intent was not to create a safety net but to impose greater government dependence. If the intent were to improve health care, why did they not actually take a look around the world at which systems work best, and adopt best practices? That would have almost certainly proved to be Bismarck, which is a universal safety net with less government involvement in health care delivery. I agree that forcing businesses to pay is a bad idea. What Obamacare does is to combine the worst aspect of our old system (tying health care to employment) with the worst aspect of government systems (replacing the doctor-patient relationship with a government bureaucrat as decision-maker).

Quote:The influence of sociology on law enforcement clearly seeks to blame society rather than hold all criminals accountable for their actions. - difference between holding criminals accountable and laws that define what a criminal is. A felony for crack versus prohibition for actual cocaine. That is just one example. Liberals are the once against rape, conservatives blame the victim (although I do believe that a woman may claim rape even when it was originally consensual).

I'm not aware of a situation where "conservatives" blamed the victim of an actual rape. Conservatives have certainly attacked miscarriages of justice like the Duke lacrosse team affair, which should have been attacked. You're pretty much just throwing isolated instances up against the wall, which does little to disprove the overwhelming trend.

+1'ing most of this

(02-28-2016 02:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 10:32 AM)dcCid Wrote:  The way that benefits paid to single mothers by the welfare system are structured clearly encourages dads to walk. - I agree this is an issue, but what history shows this was a liberal addition to the law?

It started with LBJ's Great Society programs, which were about as liberal as you could get back in the day. I don't think we've ever had conservatives running around pushing for this.

Liberal policies tend to want to solve the problems for 'the least' of us, while conservative ones tend to want to solve the problems for 'the majority' (words chosen correctly) of those who need help. The conservative philosophy is that those who really need it will either get an exception to the rule or will find ways to make it within the rules. The liberal philosophy is perhaps more 'sensitive', but it encourages more of 'the majority' to become 'the least'.

Example that the $15 min wage is supposed to allow for someone to generally live on their own and perhaps even support a family... but should someone whose skills and experience only justifies a 'minimum wage', regardless of where that level is, REALLY be encouraged to live on their own or supporting a family? SUre, some people are in that position (on their own or with a family) and end up on min wage, but that is usually do to economic depression or events, and not because of their skills... in other words, give them more temporary support and solve the economic issues rather than making them 'okay' on a min wage salary alone.

Quote:

Quote:Obamacare clearly seeks to make far more people dependent on government assistance for health care. - Disagree intent is to create government dependency, it is a safety net (and yes I have learned about the welfare trap). I also think that forcing business to pay for health care impedes our competitiveness & small business. Irrelevant to the DNA testing.

If they intended a safety net, why did they not build a safety net? We still have millions uninsured. That's not a safety net. It did create greater government dependency. From the facts that out did not create safety net but it did create greater government dependence, I would infer that the intent was not to create a safety net but to impose greater government dependence. If the intent were to improve health care, why did they not actually take a look around the world at which systems work best, and adopt best practices? That would have almost certainly proved to be Bismarck, which is a universal safety net with less government involvement in health care delivery. I agree that forcing businesses to pay is a bad idea. What Obamacare does is to combine the worst aspect of our old system (tying health care to employment) with the worst aspect of government systems (replacing the doctor-patient relationship with a government bureaucrat as decision-maker).

There are two ways to control costs. One, mandate them using the power of government. Two, increase the supply such that the cost goes down. The ACA does the former and actually exacerbates rather than helps the latter. By definition, this places more dependence on the government to somehow deliver to you the care they promised you at the cost you're also promised. Whether this is dependence on the government or merely a shift of the (unfunded) responsibility to the government is immaterial. Either way, the people are dependent upon the government for their healthcare.

Quote:

Quote:The influence of sociology on law enforcement clearly seeks to blame society rather than hold all criminals accountable for their actions. - difference between holding criminals accountable and laws that define what a criminal is. A felony for crack versus prohibition for actual cocaine. That is just one example. Liberals are the once against rape, conservatives blame the victim (although I do believe that a woman may claim rape even when it was originally consensual).

I'm not aware of a situation where "conservatives" blamed the victim of an actual rape. Conservatives have certainly attacked miscarriages of justice like the Duke lacrosse team affair, which should have been attacked. You're pretty much just throwing isolated instances up against the wall, which does little to disprove the overwhelming trend.

Agreed. few blame the victims... they merely question whether or not someone actually IS a victim, and there have been plenty of examples where that hasn't been the case. 5%? 20%? I don't know... but I know that the person who cries wolf is rarely stigmatized as a result, while the person wrongfully accused often lives with it for life.