Does Vance understand what pro-family means?

Fantine · Aug 16, 2024

I heard excerpts from a recent Vance speech. It seemed naive and out of touch.
Children are a blessing. I had three myself. But we can't just "encourage" without addressing certain factors.
Like family and medical leave (implemented by Walz in Minnesota).
Doubling the child tax credit which temporarily cut child poverty by half.
Affordable daycare and after-school care
Safe schools and serious steps to prevent school shootings
Business policies like flexible hours, telecommuting, etc.
Most of these ideas have been vetoed over and over by Republicans.

Hammster · Aug 16, 2024

Fantine said:
I heard excerpts from a recent Vance speech. It seemed naive and out of touch.
Children are a blessing. I had three myself. But we can't just "encourage" without addressing certain factors.
Like family and medical leave (implemented by Walz in Minnesota).
Doubling the child tax credit which temporarily cut child poverty by half.
Affordable daycare and after-school care
Safe schools and serious steps to prevent school shootings
Business policies like flexible hours, telecommuting, etc.
Most of these ideas have been vetoed over and over by Republicans.

So completely take over how business run things. Got it. While we are at it, how about paying women $100000 a year 20 hour work weeks. That should help.

wing2000 · Aug 16, 2024

Fantine said:
I heard excerpts from a recent Vance speech. It seemed naive and out of touch.
Children are a blessing. I had three myself. But we can't just "encourage" without addressing certain factors.
Like family and medical leave (implemented by Walz in Minnesota).
Doubling the child tax credit which temporarily cut child poverty by half.
Affordable daycare and after-school care
Safe schools and serious steps to prevent school shootings
Business policies like flexible hours, telecommuting, etc.
Most of these ideas have been vetoed over and over by Republicans.

"Pro-family"...except when it comes to actually supporting policies that help families. Typical Republicans rhetoric.

BCP1928 · Aug 16, 2024

Hammster said:
So completely take over how business run things. Got it. While we are at it, how about paying women $100000 a year 20 hour work weeks. That should help.

Boy, that sounds like a good idea. I think I'm going to be trans.

chevyontheriver · Aug 16, 2024

Fantine said:
I heard excerpts from a recent Vance speech. It seemed naive and out of touch.
Children are a blessing. I had three myself. But we can't just "encourage" without addressing certain factors.
Like family and medical leave (implemented by Walz in Minnesota).
Doubling the child tax credit which temporarily cut child poverty by half.
Affordable daycare and after-school care
Safe schools and serious steps to prevent school shootings
Business policies like flexible hours, telecommuting, etc.
Most of these ideas have been vetoed over and over by Republicans.

He definitely does not understand families. Another guy who definitely didn't understand families was Rod Grams, a Minnesota congressman and then a senator who introduced the idea of Child Tax credits 30 years ago in his first year ib congress and got the first $500 credit passed into law. You could perhaps lay off how Republicans don't understand families a little bit. Vance says he is FOR expanding child tax credits. Most non-Democrats I know would also be in favor of expanding such credits. It's bipartisan except when you use it as a partisan weapon. It plays well for you to attack Vance on this subject but you miss the mark. If you want to look at the policies that have had the worst effect on families and the greatest effect on increasing poverty you might look at some of the policies of the 'Great Society' that resulted in more divorces and more single mothers. Being a single mother is the express ticket to poverty in this country for that mother and her children.

dogs4thewin · Aug 16, 2024

Fantine said:
I heard excerpts from a recent Vance speech. It seemed naive and out of touch.
Children are a blessing. I had three myself. But we can't just "encourage" without addressing certain factors.
Like family and medical leave (implemented by Walz in Minnesota).
Doubling the child tax credit which temporarily cut child poverty by half.
Affordable daycare and after-school care
Safe schools and serious steps to prevent school shootings
Business policies like flexible hours, telecommuting, etc.
Most of these ideas have been vetoed over and over by Republicans.

Maybe republicans feel it should be a PRIVATE issue. Each employer should CHOOSE whether to offer those or not.

As to school shootings and guns. most gun deaths are not by assault weapons anyway. The cat is too far out of the bag to reasonably try banning guns without violence.

dogs4thewin · Aug 16, 2024

wing2000 said:
"Pro-family"...except when it comes to actually supporting policies that help families. Typical Republicans rhetoric.

Again maybe republicans feel the government should stay out of private employment decisions and expect people to take care of their OWN families. There are programs like TANF that are designed to help families on a TEMP basis.

BCP1928 · Aug 16, 2024

dogs4thewin said:
Again maybe republicans feel the government should stay out of private employment decisions and expect people to take care of their OWN families. There are programs like TANF that are designed to help families on a TEMPORY basis.

That's only possible if there was a free market in labor. A union could require it and it would be a PRIVATE issue.

Fantine · Aug 16, 2024

Hammster said:
So completely take over how business run things. Got it. While we are at it, how about paying women $100000 a year 20 hour work weeks. That should help.

Vance wants women to have more children. Women want the children they already have--or the children they are planning--to have adequate food, clothing, and shelter. If women need to work to afford these basic necessities, they need to be able to pay for child care and still have enough to provide food, shelter and clothing for their children.

Vance can't just get up and say, "Have more children!" and expect responsible human beings to listen.

We are telling Vance--who forgot about his tough childhood when Silicon Valley showered him with millions--and Trump--who feels "poor" when his private plane is broken down and he has to rent Jeffrey Epstein's--that parents cannot raise children responsibly without government stepping in when necessary.

I respectfully answer Mr. Vance's question about why couples don't have as many children as they can: "You, Mr. Vance, are the reason. Republican policies are the reason."

dogs4thewin · Aug 16, 2024

Fantine said:
Vance wants women to have more children. Women want the children they already have--or the children they are planning--to have adequate food, clothing, and shelter. If women need to work to afford these basic necessities, they need to be able to pay for child care and still have enough to provide food, shelter and clothing for their children.

Vance can't just get up and say, "Have more children!" and expect responsible human beings to listen.

We are telling Vance--who forgot about his tough childhood when Silicon Valley showered him with millions--and Trump--who feels "poor" when his private plane is broken down and he has to rent Jeffrey Epstein's--that parents cannot raise children responsibly without government stepping in when necessary.

I respectfully answer Mr. Vance's question about why couples don't have as many children as they can: "You, Mr. Vance, are the reason. Republican policies are the reason."

It is not the government's job to take care your family that is YOUR job.

Fantine · Aug 16, 2024

dogs4thewin said:
It is not the government's job to take care your family that is YOUR job.

And couples who don't have children ARE taking care of all the "family" they can afford. If your statement is the hill Republicans want to die on, then their proper response to child-free couples should be: "Thank you for being responsible and not bringing children into the world we'd have to give you a tax credit to help support. Now we will be able to use that funds allocation to subsidize big oil companies or give billionaires tax cuts instead."

dogs4thewin · Aug 16, 2024

Fantine said:
And couples who don't have children ARE taking care of all the "family" they can afford. If your statement is the hill Republicans want to die on, then their proper response to child-free couples should be: "Thank you for being responsible and not bringing children into the world we'd have to give you a tax credit to help support. Now we will be able to use that funds allocation to subsidize big oil companies or give billionaires tax cuts instead."

and if you cannot afford children and you know that you have no business having them. It is not like it s very hard to not have children, nor is it as if there are not affordable options if you do choose to engage in that particular activity to aviod them.

Hammster · Aug 16, 2024

Fantine said:
Vance wants women to have more children. Women want the children they already have--or the children they are planning--to have adequate food, clothing, and shelter. If women need to work to afford these basic necessities, they need to be able to pay for child care and still have enough to provide food, shelter and clothing for their children.

That isn’t the government’s responsibility.

Fantine said:
Vance can't just get up and say, "Have more children!" and expect responsible human beings to listen.

Sure he can. Responsible people take care of their responsibilities.

Fantine said:
We are telling Vance--who forgot about his tough childhood when Silicon Valley showered him with millions--and Trump--who feels "poor" when his private plane is broken down and he has to rent Jeffrey Epstein's--that parents cannot raise children responsibly without government stepping in when necessary.

Sure they can.

Fantine said:
I respectfully answer Mr. Vance's question about why couples don't have as many children as they can: "You, Mr. Vance, are the reason. Republican policies are the reason."

Not at all.

BCP1928 · Aug 16, 2024

Hammster said:
That isn’t the government’s responsibility.

Sure he can. Responsible people take care of their responsibilities.

Is it "responsible" for a woman to have more children than she wants? Who is she responsible to?

Hammster said:
Sure they can.

Not at all.

Fantine · Aug 16, 2024

So we agree then that Vance should....

As Tim Walz says, "Mind your own business."

He should respect that they have perfectly good reasons to be prudent.

Hammster · Aug 16, 2024

BCP1928 said:
Is it "responsible" for a woman to have more children than she wants? Who is she responsible to?

She can just get rid of the ones she doesn’t want.

Hammster · Aug 16, 2024

Fantine said:
So we agree then that Vance should....

As Tim Walz says, "Mind your own business."

He should respect that they have perfectly good reasons to be prudent.

What specifically did he say that you take issue with?

BCP1928 · Aug 16, 2024

Hammster said:
She can just get rid of the ones she doesn’t want.

And so we get back to "she shudda kepper legs closed" which brings us to the conclusion of your argument.

Fantine · Aug 16, 2024

One more proviso, of course. There are irresponsible parents who have children they cannot care for.
Mr. Vance's mother, for example, as he relates in his book.
Those children need care, if only to avoid intergenerational poverty.
Perhaps pro-lifers will take them in as foster or adopted children. That would be the "responsible" response to their belief that unwanted children should be born to incompetent parents--but government should not have to care for them.
They won't be lining up to volunteer--and children need care.

dogs4thewin · Aug 16, 2024

Fantine said:
One more proviso, of course. There are irresponsible parents who have children they cannot care for.
Mr. Vance's mother, for example, as he relates in his book.
Those children need care, if only to avoid intergenerational poverty.
Perhaps pro-lifers will take them in as foster or adopted children. That would be the "responsible" response to their belief that unwanted children should be born to incompetent parents--but government should not have to care for them.
They won't be lining up to volunteer--and children need care.

The foster care system is dfferent than the adoption system. Adoption is I do nt want this child fostering is actually designed to give the parents a chance to prove they DO want the child.

Does Vance understand what pro-family means?

Dona Quixote

Carpe Chaos

E pluribus unum

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

dog lover

dog lover

Well-Known Member

Dona Quixote

dog lover

Dona Quixote

dog lover

Carpe Chaos

Well-Known Member

Dona Quixote

Carpe Chaos

Carpe Chaos

Well-Known Member

Dona Quixote

dog lover

Similar threads