Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
@Joe: I know, but that would be what I want, not what I could feasibly do.
Heck, even my idea of getting rid of inheritance, which I doubt will ever happen, is a total compromise on my part, since I know that my idea of how children should be raised will absolutely never happen, and would completely get rid of the need for inheritance, and the government would be able to just seize all assets of a person after they died.
Also, college should be free.
edited 19th Nov '12 8:03:19 PM by deathpigeon
We've got diploma inflation here as well but it isn't so bloody expensive.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?Obama's been trying to lighten the burden on students by suggesting forgiving student loans and increasing Pell grants and the like. Not sure how successful he is as of right now because I haven't looked it up recently.
@Deviant; Wow, you think people don't go into debt for education here in the South? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
@Dp: Wait, so do you really want people's children taken away from them? Because if you do that is pointlessly cruel.
I just report what the facts tell me.
edited 19th Nov '12 8:26:00 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016First off, cheaper does not prevent going into debt. Also, they add OUT OF STATE CHARGES. Not to mention all the other additions of living, the fact that some career training paths just plain cost more, and general fact that college tuition still appears to be rising. Hell, I have to pay more at my community college because I don't live in the same county!
If you weren't actively running I'm pretty sure you can turn it down. People retire from office or quit in the middle of terms quite a bit, I think. And I'm pretty sure you can't be legally forced to do a job you weren't actively seeking out. (This of course assumes you simply got voted in without you doing anything.)
If you were running, you can probably concede to the runner up.
@Ace: I feel like most parents aren't fit to raise their children. I'm not saying they shouldn't, like, be able to spend time with their children, but I feel like children would be able to have better lives if someone who is trained in raising children and certified raises them, perhaps in a group, like a group home, or something. I mean, should we not focus on the children and give them the best life they can? Would that not be the best and most ethical thing to do? No one would have to grow up in a home where their parents are abusive. No one would have to grow up in a home where their parents are neglectful. No one would have to grow up in a home where their parents are always working just to get food on the table, but sometimes can't even do that. No one would have to grow up in a home where their parents just don't know how to properly raise children. Children should have the best childhood possible, and I don't trust biological parents to give them that. Even the most well meaning parent can screw up, and most do.
I know that's not a personal insult to my parents, but it damn sure feels like it. Yes, children deserve to grow up in abuse free homes, but what the fuck gives anyone the right to just take away children as they're born? THAT, what you SAID RIGHT THERE, is TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.
It's also insulting to the vast majority of people who manage to raise their children right, and do their DAMNEDEST to give their children as good a life as they can. I don't know that I can take anything you say seriously anymore, because Goddamn is this a stupid thing for you to say. And this is before I get into the fact that kids would still slip through the cracks in this beauracratic nonsense you've suggested. Taking kids away from people creates a lot of emotional damage to the parents, particularly the mothers. Post partum depression is a thing. Whoever raises the child would still screw up. Children would still get abused. And you haven't even said HOW the children would be raised. In fucking orphanages, where the number of children would outnumber the adults to a ridiculous fucking degree?
I'm sorry, but there is absolutely nothing that can replace the FAMILY for love, support, and health of a child. The state cannot replace a parent. This impersonal system you've suggested is absolutely appalling. Of course there are fuck ups, that's an irremovable part of human nature. But taking children away from people who haven't done anything wrong yet is not the solution. That you think this would improve a child's life is fucking ridiculous to the extreme. It is pointlessly cruel and does not actually solve the problem.
edited 19th Nov '12 9:05:10 PM by AceofSpades
Back on the estate thing... the simplest way to get around 100% seizure is to transfer all your wealth to your kids prior to dying, that way they only get taxed on it as income and not as an estate.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"My parents tried their hardest, but they messed me up, and, because of certain decisions they've made, I can't go to college, like I want. I don't even have it bad. One of my roommates has PTSD because of how his parent's treated him. I know someone with parents who are constantly attempt to control his every waking hour, and from whom he is forced to hide his sexuality since he knows his parents will throw him out. The number of people I know who's parents are abusive is at least in the double digits. Over half of everyone I know have parents who have messed them up in some way. That's completely unacceptable. Most people know nothing about being a parent, and are forced to make it up as they go. Sure, a lot of parents raise their kids right, but the amount who don't is appalling and unacceptable. Heck, teen pregnancy is on the rise, and teenagers certainly don't know how to raise their children, let alone balance that with going through high school so they can get a job to care for themselves and their children. I'm not willing to sacrifice the kids who are born to parents who are abusive, neglectful, unready, or just plain bad to save the feelings of those who are good parents.
You say it's cruel to take children from their parents. Well, it's cruel to let anyone who happened to have unprotected sex without birth control raise kids.
The kids can get a family with the people who are trained and certified in how to raise kids and the children they are raised with. Family doesn't have to be related by blood.
Teenage pregnancy is on the rise?
I've read some info contrary to that.
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/05/teen-pregnancy-rate-lowest-in-two-decades/
Welp, Loose Cannon just torpedoed that part of your argument.
Also, while teens having sex is stupid, it also feels like punishment to take their children away from them after they've gone through the decision and process of giving birth. Just as much as denying a teen the right to an abortion, actually. Both are just different ways to punish a teen for an action that doesn't deserve a punishment at all.
And you know what? A lot of those teens actually have supportive parents. Also, this is what I think CPS would be involved in, for the welfare of the child. But taking the baby away from someone who loves them is far, far too much.
And what about the parents who aren't teens? Who wait until they're financially capable? Who have prepared for years and months? I'm talking about my parents and my sister and her husband here. And the ones who want to go through the adoption process? What are you going to say to those people? Tough luck, no matter how much love they have to give to a needy child they're just not good enough?
Yeah, I'm sorry you got a fucked up situation. Shit happens, and that's what we need CPS for. But your solution just doesn't in any tangible way prevent abuse. It's just taking a baby away from people who you haven't proven are bad parents yet. And it's a way to tell someone they're not good enough on a large scale. Exactly what do you think that's going to do to the human psyche?
Yes, people make it up as they go along. But you know what? A lot of people learn good things from their parents. At the very least, what not to do. My sister asks Mom all the time, and she consults other sources as well. They learn from books. They learn from doing. And hey, most of us are still here and are well adjusted human beings. That tells me that most parents are managing to do it right. And that removing children from loving homes does not solve the problem of the homes where the child is being hurt.
You've presented us with a non-solution, deathpigeon. I support government intervention where I think it would solve the problem. Removing, in every single case, the child from the parents does not solve the problem of child abuse. I suggest you completely ditch this idea and actually think up something that does help.
The cost to your solution is far too much interference and human pain for far, far too little gain.
@Grizzly: I seem to get a lot of kudos in this thread. I'm not sure why.
edited 19th Nov '12 9:39:24 PM by AceofSpades
@Ace: Usually not from me, though, so enjoy it while you can
Even if foster parents could replace biological parents, the sheer logistics of it would be impossible. Our existing foster parent system is already massively overtaxed just caring for children who were actually abused. For society to continue, there needs to be at least one child for each adult in each generation, and to grow up emotionally healthy, a child needs the devoted, individual attention of multiple adults. That means that most of society needs to be involved in child raising. It isn't a thing you can delegate to experts.
<><@Ace: While I accept I was wrong about teen parents, that was only a small part of my argument.
It may seem like a punishment to the parent, but leaving these kids with the parent seems like a punishment to the child to me. I know that I will put the child above the parent every time.
Just because the parent is supportive or trying real hard doesn't make the person a good parent. That doesn't make the parent raise their kid right.
Not all parents wait until they are capable or prepare for years, and, even if they do, that's no guarantee to a parent being a good one. Having the person who raises them go through extensive training and be tested to see if they are capable probably isn't either, but it's better than what we already have. And, yes, unfortunately some people who really want children won't get them, but that's better than children getting abused, neglected, or just raised in an environment that isn't good for the kid or the kid's development, and I see that happen far too much. I am putting the children ahead of the parents.
It's not just me. Hundreds of thousands of children get abused each year, and I'm sure there are even more who haven't had it bad enough to be considered abuse, but still had a bad parents.
People make it up as the go along because they don't know how. By the time they've learned to be a good parent, it might be too late for the kid.
Having the children raised by well trained people who have been psychologically tested and are reviewed regularly would certainly reduce child abuse by a ton. Possibly even to the point of it being almost non-existent.
I consider saving all children from the possibility of having a bad childhood to be a gigantic gain. Much better than the possible loss.
@Tomu-uguu~: It doesn't in practice because foster care is underfunded. If we could get more funding to it, and get more people in it who care deeply about children and are trained in dealing with them successfully, then I'm sure it could.
@Grizzly: Our foster system is overtaxed because we don't put nearly enough into it. If we could put a lot of well trained people and a lot of money into funding it, it wouldn't be overtaxed.
So, I guess Grizz is callin' me emotionally unhealthy because I grew up in a single-parent household.

@death-not gonna happen. it just wont. theres the occasional co-op type thing, but thats it.could never get gov owned businesses here.
I'm baaaaaaack