A new progressive idea that families must be abolished to create social and economic equality

a reply to: Puppylove

"Technically the right does a much more efficient and effective job of family destruction as the left is so obvious it's more easily countered"

Be specific. Which policies/cultural movements of the right are destructive to the traditional idea of family?

a reply to: elDooberino

Fighting worker's rights at every turn and thus destroying the family unit due to neither parent being at home or resulting in one parent families as a result. Fighting any and all policy that might allow low income families to stay together and have the time to decicate to raising a family.

a reply to: Puppylove

"Worker's rights"

Be specific. Which worker's rights are they fighting at every turn?

"Fighting any and all policy that might allow low income families to stay together and have the time to dedicate to raising a family"

Be specific. Provide some examples.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Your participation is voluntary.

Since you brought it up, though, notice that most of the power Wall Street has over our lives is exerted through government. They pay politicians to enact policy that benefits them.

Also worth noting, in the last national election, political contributions from "Wall Street" to Democrats and Democrat organizations were almost double what they gave to Republicans and republican organizations.

a reply to: elDooberino

How damn specific do you expect me to get?

Ok here's a workers rights issue, republicans have fought overtime pay being a right for home health aides at every turn. In fact they've fought the home health aide industry at every turn.

Which burdens families looking after parents. It burdens the low paid aides themselves, forcing them to work extreme hours. It results in fewer people willing to do the job.

They fight any money going to medicare or pretty much anything that helps the impoverished. They're against anything to help people get on their feet or stay on their feet once they're on shaky footing.

All these things are just examples of things that destroy families. Even well off families can be destroyed trying to cover their parents medical care because the right cares more about bailing out and protecting big industry and the filthy rich than they do humans stuggling at the bottom.

I'm not saying to give people a free ride, but at least get them functional and healthy enough to work, and make sure they've got some kind of cushion so that they aren't completely annihilated by the first bad day that comes along.

Honestly I think health care is the biggest issue holding everything back. Even at my # pay if my health care was covered I'd be fine.

Stop fighting health care. Get it for everybody. I don't care how, but find a way. That one thing by itself will fix most of the biggest issues.

a reply to: Puppylove

How damn specific do you expect me to get?

More specific than the generalized term "worker's rights". Depending on who you're speaking to, that could include a long list of real and perceived issues.

republicans have fought overtime pay being a right for home health aides at every turn.

Last year, Trump's Department of Labor sued several home healthcare providers for failing to pay their workers overtime and/or hourly wages.
The healthcare providers that have fought the 2015 regulations passed by the Obama administration have cited an increase of cost to the consumer and a necessary reduction in hours worked by employees as reasons for their opposition.

Which burdens families looking after parents. It burdens the low paid aides themselves, forcing them to work extreme hours. It results in fewer people willing to do the job.

This doesn't really have anything to do with the progressive movement seeking to replace the family with the state, as I asserted.

They fight any money going to medicare or pretty much anything that helps the impoverished. They're against anything to help people get on their feet or stay on their feet once they're on shaky footing.

I hope you understand almost every single time, if not every time, someone tells you republicans are cutting medicare what is actually happening is they are reducing the rate at which it's funding grows. Meaning the medicare budget still increases, just not at the rate some would prefer.

They fight almost anything that helps the impoverished?
You know what helps the impoverished? Jobs. We are in the middle of a historically positive job market. Record, or near record, employment rates for women, african americans and hispanics. Wage growth is at 3.5%. That's good. If wages grow too quickly it can cause too much inflation at once, which is bad.
Yeah, still not seeing how this directly relates to progressivism seeking to replace the family with the state. Self reliance is the antithesis of reliance on the state.

All these things are just examples of things that destroy families.

I don't think you understand my point. I'm not talking about families having to work more hours or look after sick family members, or families having financial troubles. It has very little to nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about a concerted effort by progressives/globalists to replace the family with the state. All you've done is give an example or two of Republicans being in favor of less government. Which sort of reinforces my argument.

a reply to: elDooberino

Like I said the right tends to be more indirect than direct, and often seems more a consequence than necessarily the direct goal.

That said, glad to hear that about Trump. It helps secure my vote. Was conflicted because recent research only mentioned things passed by the left to help home health aides and measures blocked over and over by republicans.

There wasn't a lot of specifics on what though. So is good to hear Trump is in our court, even if we, or at least we in Ohio have not seen any of that pay growth everyone in other jobs supposedly has.

As for the increased cost to customers and reduction in hours. They need to figure something out, because, and they are aware of this, with all the boomers hitting retirement, there's about to be a crisis. The lack of real benefits and decent pay, along with abuse, and more work based injuries than most other jobs has resulted in fewer workers and more turn over than the industry can handle already. Add the boomers and... well you get the picture. What's the republicans solution to the issue? Ignoring it won't work.

a reply to: Puppylove

So charity, private charity funded by honest to goodness empathy rather than a tax funded, inequality welfare system doesn't exist in your mind? Why should your girlfriend be the tax payers' responsibility?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

No it doesn't exist in my mind because I'm not a naive simpleton.

Most people are decent people, but they are too busy leading their lives and few trust most charities due to many being havens for corruption.

I tend to prefer donating time or nevessities rather than money myself, because at least I know that's getting where it belongs, or far more likely. Most others are the same.

People tend not to see too far outside their personal bubble and lead busy lives being pulled in all directions. Depending on the donations of most people is a dumb solution to such an important problem.

Especially when the people that are trying to convine people to rely on donations are the same people bitching about being required to help others. Is not very convincing as is pretty clear the people bitching aren't likely to help if charity was relied on.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: The2Billies

It's almost as if psychopaths are trying to reproduce and kill off all the normal people.

Compassion and empathy for no one.

Its beneficial for the ruling class to weaken the family unit, just another tool of divide and conquer.

a reply to: Puppylove

Has it ever occur to you that your forced "charity" via the state also weakens family units when those on the margins are forced to give beyond what they can afford but that some government bean counter somewhere says they can?

a reply to: ketsuko

I'm aware of that. Is part of the welfare trap I bitch about often.

Look I'm not saying what we have is perfect. However, nothing is even worse.

We need to do better on both ends. We need to deal with corrupt bureaucracy. I won't deny that, but we can't just abandon our own when they need it either, and we can't depend on random donations either. You need something that's sustainable and consistent. Random chaos cannot deal with such a major issue.

a reply to: ketsuko

in fact, that was the rise of progressivism 1900-1929. The beginnings of the welfare state because private donations were "partisan" (you had to listen to a sermon before getting your bowl of soup), and judgmental because the donors were often religious and wanted the people they helped to clean up their lives by foreswearing alcohol

Although it was progressives who were behind the prohibition of alcohol. Working men were squandering their payslips in bars and poker games instead of spending it on groceries for their families. The progressive solution was not to preach the drunks a sermon, but just to close down all the liquor stores, so they had no choice....

The same folks who say that you cannot legislate morality are the same ones who want to take away your free-will.... through legislation...

a reply to: Puppylove

Not true. It is difficult to donate to charities when your budget is stretched thin by taxes and your purchasing power is directly competing with people subsidized by government programs.

a reply to: The2Billies

It's not a new idea. It was old when I first heard it in the late 70s.

Like most radical ideas, it has some valid points that bear considering, if only to show how crap the concept is.

Like most really radical ideas, there are maybe a few dozen people who think it is realistic.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese
a reply to: The2Billies

It's not a new idea. It was old when I first heard it in the late 70s.

Like most radical ideas, it has some valid points that bear considering, if only to show how crap the concept is.

Like most really radical ideas, there are maybe a few dozen people who think it is realistic.

There is a new twist on it. "nuclear family privilege"

Just like "white privilege" it is an attempt to awaken white people to the damage they do to society by just being born white. This idea has taken hold and spread and is no longer an idea but a concept taught in Universities.

Nuclear family privilege is an attempt to awaken people to the damage they do to society by having children within a 2 adult family. This idea is so similar to "white privilege" that it too may just take hold the way "white privilege" has.

One can not change the color of one's skin, but one can, as a conscientious "woke" parent, stop doing things that overprivilege ones child out of concern for equality of outcome for all and demand that all children be raised by the state.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Bull# and you know it. The only difficulty for you, is there's no longer throngs of desperate people for churches and cults to prey upon the desperation of. I just realized this isn't a capitalism vs. socialism issue, that''s just a disguise. It's a religious right issue. All your talk about relying on charity made me realize it. You're all wishful for the days where all the desperate had to turn to were the churches, so that people had no choice but to learn to follow or at minimum pretend to follow your religions. Having society itself take care of it's desperate and help uplift them, that's no good, that's the job of the churches. Heaven forbid the pact that is society itself, do it's job. Sorry, no, we'll never go back to those days. I've seen first hands the results of what cults preying on the desperate do to people, especially if they resist the indoctrination. I will buy a gun and fight to my last dying breath before we go back to that nonsense.

The reason you're responsible for paying taxes to help the unfortunately is because you agree to live in a society of other people. You want the benefits of society, you need to accept what's important to society, and part of that happens to be caring for even the least of us, and providing programs to help any of us should we falter. The reason people fail in these programs is because they simply are ship programs that aren't good enough and need improvement. The main thing they need improvement with is having a less decisive line on when benefits are cut off. Right now it's basically an all or nothing deal for the most part. There is no gradual loss of benefits. Which results in people working ending up in a worst position than they were before they worked. The biggest issue being loss of health care benefits. Many people trying to improve their lot are dealing with medical conditions, which while on welfare are tended to (albeit with a whole crap load of resistance, but tended to none the less), which might allow them to get up to a point they can work, but unfortunately, it takes very little work to lose that same medical care and have to rely on insurance, which due to their preexisting condition, costs them a #load, and since they have a medical condition they cannot work two or three low end jobs, end up in a situation where they are not only more impoverished than they were on welfare, they now have to work, in order to be worse of than they were before. Next thing you know, back on welfare, because working simply isn't worth it for many people because of medical care sucking everyone dry.

Every issue in society leads back to people or an organization preying upon the desperate. This is why the desperate need protecting and we need systems in place to fairly and without malice help them back on their feet. No agenda other than helping those who need it get to where they need to be. The issue with charities is they rarely are organized by people without an ulterior motive, be it to skim from the top, convert people to their faith, indoctrinate people to manipulate and abuse them (I separated faith and indoctrination because some are just happy with basic conversion, even if just lip service and won't push as much, while others are truly predatory), or to use a way to funnel money, or get tax breaks. Society as a whole though, in theory, should be about uplifting and improving society, and helping to make things better for society and the people in it. The very purpose of society.

Unfortunately, society has been corrupted by special interests with their lobbyists and other such nonsense. It's no longer for the people, like it should be. You all are for protecting special interests, be it, corporations with their lobbyists, be it churches with their influence, it doesn't matter, you're for powerful groups over the people as a whole having control, so long as it's not directly the government because that would be socialism. You might not mean to be, but you are. You all complain and bitch about socialism controlling everyone's lives, but in the end, you all want the same thing, just, you want different masters in charge (so long as they pretend to not be the government, and simply control it from the shadows with big money), you must, because you're damn certain to defend them getting more and more of a strangle hold on society. Even worse, you're not only about defending them from the people, you're about stripping as many protections from the people as possible to allow these groups to better take advantage of the people. You want society as a whole to not give a # about it's citizens and care exclusively about protecting special interests, because the only time most of you bitch about anything is if it's some program to help actual people. If it involves helping big business though you'll defend it to your last breath, but actual people can go rot for all you care, well that is, unless they're wiling to do whatever special groups want from them.

Society should be for the citizens, but it's not due to special interests and that damn Citizens United bull#. We've been sold out, and your solution is just a way to sell us out faster.

a reply to: Graysen

And this is true also.

The "no morals" crowd are often some of the biggest moralizers of all. How do you think Kansas got so messed up? It's been living under this same coalition forever, so they really agree on the morals and using the law to enforce them. Everyone who doesn't live here likes to blame Republicans, but the progressive Dems are complicit up to their eyeballs. The state flips governors regularly but it's legislative trajectory never changes.

a reply to: The2Billies

I even saw an editorial in one of the proggie blogs about how needed to "sacrifice" a generetion or two of our children to the public ducation crapholes because eventually that would improve them ... just, you know, not in time for it to matter for our children or grandchildren.