View Single Post
      11-08-2012, 05:22 PM   #51
MiddleAgedAl
First Lieutenant
21
Rep
326
Posts

 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sitting down, facing the keyboard

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by M_Six View Post
In theory, maybe. But in reality, that has not been the case, at least not in the past decade or so. I don't blame the past GOP administrations solely, though. It's just been the overall trend.
This article is about 1 year old..
http://www.slate.com/articles/double...cked_down.html

"the rates of unplanned pregnancies and births among poor women now dwarf the fertility rates of wealthier women, and finds that the gap between the two groups has widened significantly over the past five years. The other, by the Center for Work-Life Policy, documents rates of childlessness among corporate professional women that are higher than the childlessness rates of some European countries experiencing fertility crises. Childlessness has increased across most demographic groups but is still highest among professionals. "

"43 percent of the women in their sample of corporate professionals between the ages of 33 and 46 were childless. The rate of childlessness among the Asian American professional women in the study was a staggering 53 percent."

"Then, reinforcing the cycle, the very fact of having a child increases a woman's chances of being poor."


I'm not blaming any one party for this either, it's a fact of increasing globalization and the increased pressures to do more with less, as you described. But, if the poor have more kids, and the more-comfortable (not necessarily wealthy) have less kids, then the vote advantage any party can get by aiming their platform at a certain financially challenged group becomes more pronounced.


Quote:
Originally Posted by M_Six View Post
I have always chosen to act in my own self-interest. I'm one of your "career-oriented, college-educated professionals." My wife and I have been careful to not overextend. We bought a house that was well within our ability to support on just one of our paychecks. We save a bundle every year for retirement (just over 15% of gross) and have been doing so for a decade now. We don't live in an area we'd like to live; we live where we can afford to live given our incomes and goals.
This, especially the underlined part, sounds like it could be describing me and my wife. This is why it pisses me off when folks who make chronically dumb choices (having way more kids than someone with twice their income can afford, and buying a much fancier house than they should, only to have it foreclosed later) rely on government handouts that I pay for. My cautious approach lines the government coffers and ultimately funds the cleanup of their careless approach.

I am sorry to hear about your parents. Certainly federal subsidies for that kind of care would be something I wouldnt mind my tax dollars going towards, because that sort of illness is not something that results from their own bad choices, not the same as propping someone up because they wanted to have some lifestyle that does not correspond with their means.


Quote:
Originally Posted by M_Six View Post
But I haven't seen any fiscal responsibility from the GOP in decades. They talk a good game, but check the record of the past 40 years and see how the deficit and national debt have climbed under the various administrations. The GOP has consistently failed when it comes to fiscal responsibility.
Yes, you could argue that Clinton's record is better than any of the Bushes, for example. But, the fact that Obama has not reduced the deficit as promised , but instead increased it by more than any other president, I cannot fathom how anyone who claims to care about fiscal responsibility could vote democratic this time.

The same folks who spend themselves into foreclosure are probably also the same folks who would not hold the Democrats to a particularly high standard when it comes to managing money.