Did you know your kids aren't yours? (Page 2)

c'mon Tony...coneect the dots! 

Sure, I will send you the leftover money after taking care of the four I've already got!

Sounds nice, but that's not what she's saying.  Here is the transcript:

We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we've always had kind of a private notion of children: Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven't had a very collective notion of these are our children. So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once it's everybody's responsibility, and not just the household's, then we start making better investments.

My kids ARE my responsibility.  Your kids ARE your responsibility.  I'm willing to help you out.  But I'm not willing (and the state has no business) taking OVER any part of your responsibility. Assistance to, not replacement of, the parental figure is the goal.

Kids do NOT belong to communities.  Communities can help children that are not your blood relatives.  But my children do not BELONG to the community.  She has the entire concept backwards.

You can make the "it takes a village" argument at a very high level.  But if you look at what she said, that's not her message.

I wasn't following the thread when Mitt made his comment.  I don't know what the big deal about Mitt telling the TRUTH is?  We've got a nation that has an GROWING sense of ENTITLEMENT.  YOU are responsible AND accountable for YOU!  I AM NOT responsible for YOU staying healthy or getting medical care or a lifetime stipend to sit on your sofa not having worked a day in your life!

The segment of the population that has a TRUE need for assistance is MINOR.  YES, we have an obligation to them, BUT, they are a miniscule percentage. Having two elderly parents (83+ both), I advocate the absolute dissolution of Medicare & Medicaid.  Good intentions that fell prey to being a government program.  Those two programs alone are responsible for outrageous medical costs.  As to Social Security; give me what I've paid in for the past thirty-five years sans interest and let me invest it for MY future.  I don't care if I make lousy investments because those are MY decisions!!  I got a big issue with someone else making investment decisions for me. 

I work for the G.  Believe me the greatest oxymoron is "a successful government program"

I, too, work for the G.  And I agree with almost everything you said.  We ARE a society of growing entitlement.  But if you go back to the OP and the ensuing thought processes-If you eliminate Govt. assistance programs then the COMMUNITY plays an even greater role in protecting those who can't protect/feed/shelter/educate themselves.  We can't pretend to ignore those (few) folks who simply CAN NOT provide for themselves.  I don't want to imagine living in a community/country/society where 'good-heartedness' and 'charity' and 'blessings' become dirty words.  THAT is what "I" think Melissa Harris-Perry was refering to.  But obviously, other folks have different interpretations.

I think the world needs more 'nice'.

I like to think this professor poorly worded her message.  At least that's what I thought when I first heard the ad.  

I will admit, even for a left o' center guy like me, the ad struck a sour chord for me.  Heck, I'm the guy here who would support a bill punishing parents when their children break the law.    

It's kind of a sign of the times though.  Quite sad.  So many parents out there would prefer to have me-time over we-time.  I guess when ya think about it, in many cases the kid is better off being parented by someone else...oh well.

Where's Beck's blackboard when I need it?  

According to my wife, that is exactly when they ARE mine.....

I think you can emphasize what you want and see the message that you want to see:

If you believe that you are not just a member of your family but also a member of your community (defined as a group of people sharing not just some geography but also services such as schools, policing, fire control, etc), it is easier to see her statement as being that we all share the responsibilities for how the community turns out. Much like a condo board decides what work needs to be done on the building, but is itself made up of the individual owners of the units, who can decide what things to do inside their own units, which collectively make up the building. A community is a group of individuals and families who ultimately (unless they choose to remain in isolation) share the responsibility for turning out well educated, law abiding individuals who can contribute meaningfully in the future.

wow, what?

really?

sorry we aren't all perfect!  didn't realize my father needed me to be present in my life to be successful!  i'm such a mooch for going to a public school, where i got the desire to study science and engineering, continuing on to a public university, and now contributing more both in taxes and charitable donations than any other people my age at my church - both those with destroyed families and very strong ones (and yes i know this from the year i was on the budget committee)

I think you missed what I was trying to say.  Granted, I don't always say things the best way and my humor doesn't translate well on internet forums. 

I was keying on her statement about making "better investments" with referring to our kids.  I don't think she's talking about investing in a Janus Fund, and typically any "investments" when it's related to the "collective" involve pumping more tax dollars into failing systems.  If they weren't failing/falling behind then they wouldn't need more money or investment.

You could pump $1B into the failing public schools and it won't fix the problem because that's not the problem.  IMHO the number one cause to poverty, crime, drugs, drop outs, you name it is due to the absence of a Father or at the least a cohesive family that truly cares about their own children.  Therefore people like this go out there and say, hey the problem is there's not enough "community raising these kids" all while completely ignoring why the parents aren't raising their kids and have to rely on the community.

Take a look at this chart:

The progressives have pushed and pushed society to live free, have fun, ignore the consequences, don't stick around with that dirt bag, go get a new husband, etc... which has led to a severe moral decline in our society as well as severe under parenting to our kids.  Then you throw in the worldly lust for money, power, and possessions and even in families with two parents they're so absent the kids barely know who they are and get raised by daycare/babysitter/<insert sport>.

So, do you have to have a father in your life to be successful?  Absolutely not and it's obviously not that simple.  I came from a very poor split family and had a lot of strikes against me.  My father loved me to death and I knew it so I still managed to garner some semblance of right and wrong and morals that enabled me to be successful.  However, probably 90% of the kids I grew up with are still every bit as poor or poorer than they were when we were kids.  Heck, I know several of them that are in jail for life.  If you take a kid whose in a tough place (inner city, drugs, gangs, etc...) all around him and then remove the stable family it's not going to turn out well more times than not.  You can remove a stable family for someone in a nice neighborhood and good schools and it can and will still jack them up, but not at the same rate.

Sorry for the long post, but I'm really passionate about the decline of marriage in America and the impact it's having on kids.

Also, I in no way consider anyone who goes to public schools as moochers.  I went to public schools, my kids go to public schools, and my oldest is going to a public university next year.  Honestly I prefer public schools to private schools.  I just feel throwing more money at failing public schools is unsuccessfully trying to fix a symptom of a completely different issue.

My father wasn't around, yet my mother managed to raise two successful children. Go figure. And I know plenty of families with the father giving full attention to the children, who turn out to be absolute $hit.

One doesn't necessarily need a traditional family (husband & wife =  perfection?!?!?!?) to raise good kids. One needs to realize that these kids need and deserve love and attention, and not to be of the mindset that society is responsible for raising the children.

YES, thank you.

also, tuwood, don't ever go to europe if children out of wedlock offend you so badly.

I don't care whatever end of the spectrum we all fall on this issue, but let's get the wording straight.  It is well known that in the PR battle of politics, phrasing matters so there has been a concentrated effort to "re-brand" some phrases and words.  Investments = taxes and Community = government. 

For sure, there are words/phrases on the right that have been rebranded as well, but since we are talking about MSNBC's latest commercial, you can substitute the above words in so that we are all accurately debating/discussing what she said.  As a parent, it certainly sounds better to say my community shares some responsbility in raising my kids, as it conjurs up thoughts of my neighbors, even their teachers, pastor ... etc.  However, when you say the children belong to collective government, I don't get such a warm feeling. Again, its just symantics, but I think they matter here in order to discuss accurately.

I'm curious, what does that chart REALLY depict?  I'm not sure what you can really take from it.  What's important to you?  The family or the fact the child was born out of wedlock?  The chart ONLY depicts if the parents are "married" or not when they have a child.  Nothing else or nothing about what happens after.  So really, it tells you very little.

For example, that chart is true even if:

• Child is born and parents get married the next day - still born out of wedlock
• Child is born in a two parent home, but they just decide not to get married - still born out of wedlock.
• Child is born and new father/mother comes into the picture and you have a "family" - still born out of wedlock.

What about the child that's IS born in wedlock and the parents get divorce the next month?  So the "born in wedlock" aspect still means something?

I was born a month out of wedlock

My sister was born out of wedlock because our father died weeks before she was born (but my mother remarried a couple years after).

My sister had a child but wasn't married to the guy she was with for years and years before, married shortly after that and still with him 16 years later.

THEN you get single parents (like my mom for a while) that do amazing jobs.  You have joint unions that can be good parents.

On and on.

I think people don't automatically marry like they did 50 years ago so it was "easy" to have a child in wedlock back then since everyone was married like at 21.

So really, some chart that tells me more babies are born out of wedlock than in the past - or even based on skin color tells me diddly squat about their family, upbringing, or if they became good people or not.

OK before things get a little nuts with this.  Come on Meh you know that he is not saying you cannot be a success if you come from a single parent household.  You also know in terms of economics it has been shown that economic success is less likely if you come from a single parent household, particularly in the lower income levels where there is not much cushion to begin with.

The chart don't show that.  Only infers it based on some born out of wedlock stat.

marriage is NOT the correlation, socioeconomic status is.  and he IS exactly saying that the degradation of the institution of marriage is the problem.  which is beyond ridiculous.

and just for kickers, he threw race in there.

I was born with nothing and still have most of it.