I think I've found a reason to support Romney/Ryan in November

[Rasputin_Vol]

Paul Ryan

This woman, in an attempt to demagogue the issue, has done enough homework and collected enough stats that truly shows that women's entitlement programs are sucking this country dry... and that men are carrying these women from cradle to grave. She basically did all the work for me.

I rest my case...

1. Medicaid is crucial to women’s health. It provides coverage to nearly 19 million low-income women, meaning that they make up 70 percent of the program’s beneficiaries. Any slashing of Medicaid’s rolls will therefore fall heavily on their shoulders.

2. Social Security is another crucial safety net program that women disproportionately rely on. It is virtually the only source of income for about a third of female beneficiaries over 65. (Compare that to less than a quarter of men.) Without it, half of those women would live in poverty.

4. There are other huge pieces of the social safety net that women rely on that Ryan would unravel if given the chance. Beyond all the above cuts, his budget plan would spend about sixteen percent less than President Obama’s budget on programs for the poor. This includes slashing SNAP, or food stamps, by $133.5 billion, more than seventeen percent all told, over the next decade.

According to the National Women’s Law Center, women were over sixty percent of adult SNAP recipients and over sixty-five percent of elderly recipients in 2010. Plus over half of all households that rely on SNAP benefits were headed by a single adult – and over ninety percent of them were women.

5. His budget would also cut TANF, the program that replaced welfare, and Supplemental Security Income by $463 billion. Nearly nine in ten adult beneficiaries of TANF were women in 2009 – over eighty-five percent.

I'm officially throwing my support behind Romney if he promises to implement Ryan's cuts.

Romney/Ryan 2012

 

[MG1968]

is the He Man Woman Haters Club accepting new members?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

is the He Man Woman Haters Club accepting new members?

Bandwagon still has room... come onboard.

 

[lawgator1]

I think women are disproportionately represented, particularly in Medicaid, due to the fact that in the single parent situation they tend to be the only child caregiver. They end up qualifying for a lot of programs that men might not.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I think women are disproportionately represented, particularly in Medicaid, due to the fact that in the single parent situation they tend to be the only child caregiver. They end up qualifying for a lot of programs that men might not.

Here's how you solve that. Women need to be married (with a man) before they have children. Boooom... now you have the traditional family re-established in this country and you've reduced the tax burden at the same time.

 

[allvol123]

Here's how you solve that. Women need to be married (with a man) before they have children. Boooom... now you have the traditional family re-established in this country and you've reduced the tax burden at the same time.

Hell no. How would dems scare single mothers into voting for them if the females were in traditional marriages that were self supporting. Welfare would not seem near as vital at that point.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Ryan is going to cost Romney votes from women. If I remember correctly, he is already down 15ish points among women.

Why would you nominate the cosponsor of the federal version of embryonic personhood if you wanted any shot at independents or women?

 

[milohimself]

is the He Man Woman Haters Club accepting new members?

Why can't women drive?

 

[YorkVol]

I think women are disproportionately represented, particularly in Medicaid, due to the fact that in the single parent situation they tend to be the only child caregiver. They end up qualifying for a lot of programs that men might not.

From personal experience, if a man is the single parent he is expected to be able to work and has a very difficult time getting approved. The social services folks will help acquire child care and employment services but drag their feet on the rest.

A female single parent can get approved over the phone. I've seen it happen.

So since the system is designed to support women the poor/working class learn the trick is to have a female sign up for assistance and keep the man out of the picture.

 

[lawgator1]

Here's how you solve that. Women need to be married (with a man) before they have children. Boooom... now you have the traditional family re-established in this country and you've reduced the tax burden at the same time.

1952 called.

They want their Puritan sense of moral outrage back.

 

[BigPapaVol]

1952 called.

They want their Puritan sense of moral outrage back.

it's puritanical to try and lean back toward a dual parent family as means of reducing the welfare rolls?

 

[PKT_VOL]

Here's how you solve that. Women need to be married (with a man) before they have children. Boooom... now you have the traditional family re-established in this country and you've reduced the tax burden at the same time.

Yeah, because men are never the source of broken homes. Got it.

 

[emainvol]

it's puritanical to try and lean back toward a dual parent family as means of reducing the welfare rolls?

No, but it's awfully intrusive from a governmental standpoint to mandate it. That said, I agree in principle.

 

[emainvol]

Yeah, because men are never the source of broken homes. Got it.

That's the other side of this. Let's just make vasectomies free and easy to obtain.

 

[volprof]

Some folks talk about the traditional family like it's some sort of sacred thing, and, to be honest, I agree that it is a good thing when it works. However, there's a reason why the "traditional family" is failing in this country: because in many cases it's always been dysfunctional. Husbands beat on wives or act the part of the deadbeat; sometimes vice versa but not nearly as much. Women today don't rely upon men as much, especially abusive men, and, to be quite honest, men today are more goobified then they've probably ever been in this country at least. A good deal of them would rather play video games all day instead of learn something, whether it be intellectual or practical.

 

[YorkVol]

Some folks talk about the traditional family like it's some sort of sacred thing, and, to be honest, I agree that it is a good thing when it works. However, there's a reason why the "traditional family" is failing in this country: because in many cases it's always been dysfunctional. Husbands beat on wives or act the part of the deadbeat; sometimes vice versa but not nearly as much. Women today don't rely upon men as much, especially abusive men, and, to be quite honest, men today are more goobified then they've probably ever been in this country at least. A good deal of them would rather play video games all day instead of learn something, whether it be intellectual or practical.

I maintain that our social welfare system encourages women and men to stay apart regardless of the actual relationship. If a woman has kids but there is a man in her life, either a boyfriend or husband, and the social worker finds out, her various forms of assistance are cut.

Ok, most would say that makes sense because there are two adults and they should be able to find enough work to make ends meet. But, realistically, it is easier for everyone if the man simply leaves the picture. Sure he may be classified as a dead beat but his lady and kids get health care, food, shelter, cell phones and so forth. This is often way more lucrative than a working man can provide so the choice would be an easy one to make.

The other sad fact is there are a lot of honest, caring men who are the non-abuser in the relationship. It seems to me that we would want a system that is gender neutral and gravitates toward the "good" parent in the situation. However, the system defaults to blaming the man and it takes a significant fight to get it to look at the woman's role in the relationship.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Some folks talk about the traditional family like it's some sort of sacred thing, and, to be honest, I agree that it is a good thing when it works. However, there's a reason why the "traditional family" is failing in this country: because in many cases it's always been dysfunctional. Husbands beat on wives or act the part of the deadbeat; sometimes vice versa but not nearly as much. Women today don't rely upon men as much, especially abusive men, and, to be quite honest, men today are more goobified then they've probably ever been in this country at least. A good deal of them would rather play video games all day instead of learn something, whether it be intellectual or practical.

Oh lawd. Sweeping brushstrokes everywhere.

 

[volprof]

Oh lawd. Sweeping brushstrokes everywhere.

What was sweeping? I made good use of qualifier terms like "many" and "a good deal." And I mean, what else was a woman going to do with herself back before the 1960s/70s (and that may be a generous date for many women)? It's not like many of them were working self-sustaining jobs, at least not middle-class women. Poor women might have been working jobs but them and their kids probably wouldn't have much of a standard of living and often poor health. These are just some of the reasons why the traditional family seemed so efficient and well-functioning. However, the Leave it to Beaver family has been more media mythology than reality for numerous people throughout the years.

 

[volprof]

I maintain that our social welfare system encourages women and men to stay apart regardless of the actual relationship. If a woman has kids but there is a man in her life, either a boyfriend or husband, and the social worker finds out, her various forms of assistance are cut.

Ok, most would say that makes sense because there are two adults and they should be able to find enough work to make ends meet. But, realistically, it is easier for everyone if the man simply leaves the picture. Sure he may be classified as a dead beat but his lady and kids get health care, food, shelter, cell phones and so forth. This is often way more lucrative than a working man can provide so the choice would be an easy one to make.

The other sad fact is there are a lot of honest, caring men who are the non-abuser in the relationship. It seems to me that we would want a system that is gender neutral and gravitates toward the "good" parent in the situation. However, the system defaults to blaming the man and it takes a significant fight to get it to look at the woman's role in the relationship.

I agree with a lot you say here. Certainly the system does not help things, and yes, it should be more equitable, because you are right in your claim that sometimes the woman is more at fault. My comment was more directed at the so-called breakdown of the traditional family argument that we here from some elements in society and wasn't necessarily directed at welfare or those in poverty. I was talking about it more in terms of a social change we've witnessed over the last few decades that has affected multiple social strata.

 

[YorkVol]

I agree with a lot you say here. Certainly the system does not help things, and yes, it should be more equitable, because you are right in your claim that sometimes the woman is more at fault. My comment was more directed at the so-called breakdown of the traditional family argument that we here from some elements in society and wasn't necessarily directed at welfare or those in poverty. I was talking about it more in terms of a social change we've witnessed over the last few decades that has affected multiple social strata.

There is a lot of evidence that 2 parent households have a higher chance of raising successful kids. It would seem as though the people who are charged with helping the neediest raise their kids would do things to encourage situations that would lead to success. Sadly, they do the opposite in my view.

 

[PKT_VOL]

What was sweeping? I made good use of qualifier terms like "many" and "a good deal."

Quote One:

Husbands beat on wives or act the part of the deadbeat;

Quote Two:

men today are more goobified then they've probably ever been in this country at least.

Although you used a couple qualifier terms, you basically imply that men (as a whole) are incapable having a healthy, committed, and intellectual marriage. Probably not what you intended, but it came off that way.

 

[82_VOL_83]

it's puritanical to try and lean back toward a dual parent family as means of reducing the welfare rolls?

Well it's certainly not Prgressive, how dare you suggest that we do something the way it was always done just because it works!!!!

 

[hog88]

Could it be there is no more stigma attached to being on wellfare, being a single mom or a deadbeat dad? To me we as a country have become way too accepting. Now anything goes and those who disapprove of irresponsible behavior are labeled and ostracized.

 

[82_VOL_83]

That's the other side of this. Let's just make vasectomies free and easy to obtain.

Let's throw a couple billion at researching making them permanently reversible. No kids until you request to have yourself unfixed. Oh wait, that reduces the current regime's voting pool also doesn't it.

 

[volprof]

There is a lot of evidence that 2 parent households have a higher chance of raising successful kids. It would seem as though the people who are charged with helping the neediest raise their kids would do things to encourage situations that would lead to success. Sadly, they do the opposite in my view.

That's a fair point, and a good one I think. I will say, however, that the middle-class more often tends to raise successful kids - more so than the lower-class. Studies have also shown that poor economic conditions can lead to violence and domestic disharmony. One has to wonder what the socioeconomics of the "successful 2-parent system" are. I'm not saying you're wrong, because I think you make a valid point, but I also wonder how much that 2-parent system is the product of a particular social context and not necessarily universal.