Jump to content

Rand Paul: enough's enough for unwed mothers


Zaro
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) suggested the possibility of cutting government benefits for unwed mothers who have multiple children.

“Maybe we have to say ‘enough’s enough, you shouldn’t be having kids after a certain amount,’” said Paul, who opposes legal abortion and has criticized the federal health care law’s contraception mandate as a violation of religious and economic liberty.

The likely 2016 presidential candidate made the remarks Thursday during a luncheon in Lexington, reported the Lexington Herald-Leader, in response to a question about workforce development.

He admitted the suggestion, which he did not directly endorse, might be unpopular and difficult to implement.

“I don’t know how you do all that because then it’s tough to tell a woman with four kids that she’s got a fifth kid we’re not going to give her any more money,” Paul said. “But we have to figure out how to get that message through because that is part of the answer. Some of that’s not coming from government. It needs to come from ministers and people in the community and parents and grandparents to convince our kids to do something different.”

The conservative senator said communities or families should be responsible for the prevention of unplanned or unwanted pregnancy, but he said government policies could discourage unwed mothers from having additional children.

“Married with kids versus unmarried with kids is the difference between living in poverty and not,” Paul said.

U.S. Census Bureau data back his claim, showing that 30.9 percent of families led by a single mother were living in poverty in 2012, compared to 6.3 percent of families led by a married couple and 16.4 percent of families led by a single father.

“We should sell that message,” Paul said. “Not in a mean way to tell people who already have made a bad decision, but if you’ve had one child and you’re not married, you shouldn’t have another one.”

He said children should be strongly encouraged not to have children until they’re married, arguing that this would allow them entry into the middle class.

“There’s all kinds of ways, and we can debate … but there are all kinds of ways to stop having kids,” said Paul, although he didn’t specifically identify any of those ways.

An aide to Paul declined to comment later Thursday when asked to clarify the senator’s remarks, but Paul himself offered an explanation Sunday morning on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“I mused about how you’d have a government policy, but I actually came down saying it would be very difficult to have a government policy,” Paul said. “I mostly concluded by saying it’s a community, it’s a religious, it’s a personal problem, but it is a problem.”

He conceded during the television program that “government can’t do anything about this, (but) we shouldn’t just give up.”

“The community, ministers, pastors, parents, grandparents, we need to be saying — and this is maybe one of the most important things we ought to be saying that doesn’t have a specific policy prescription — but we need to be telling our kids that poverty is linked to having children before you’re married,” Paul said. “The institution of marriage is incredibly important, not just as a religious institution but as an economic institution.”

“It’s not that I’m against children — I come from a large family,” he said. “In the right context, it can lead to a great life, but in the wrong context, it really can be a burden for those who aren’t yet married.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 156
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

He admitted the suggestion, which he did not directly endorse, might be unpopular and difficult to implement.

“I don’t know how you do all that because then it’s tough to tell a woman with four kids that she’s got a fifth kid we’re not going to give her any more money,” Paul said. “But we have to figure out how to get that message through because that is part of the answer. Some of that’s not coming from government. It needs to come from ministers and people in the community and parents and grandparents to convince our kids to do something different.”

 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

He's correct, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He admitted the suggestion, which he did not directly endorse, might be unpopular and difficult to implement.

“I don’t know how you do all that because then it’s tough to tell a woman with four kids that she’s got a fifth kid we’re not going to give her any more money,” Paul said. “But we have to figure out how to get that message through because that is part of the answer. Some of that’s not coming from government. It needs to come from ministers and people in the community and parents and grandparents to convince our kids to do something different.”

 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

He's correct, of course.

Rand Paul isn't afraid to say that he doesn't have ALL the answers, BUT as President, he would surround himself with thinking people that would have a better chance of coming up with a solution, unlike our current President that surrounds himself with rigid idiologs that can only say "YES SIR", and "HOW CAN WE MAKE THE PEOPLE MORE SUBSERVIENT TO THE GOVERNMENT", "SPEND MORE MONEY", and "MORE TAXES". :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand Paul isn't afraid to say that he doesn't have ALL the answers, BUT as President, he would surround himself with thinking people that would have a better chance of coming up with a solution, unlike our current President that surrounds himself with rigid idiologs that can only say "YES SIR", and "HOW CAN WE MAKE THE PEOPLE MORE SUBSERVIENT TO THE GOVERNMENT", "SPEND MORE MONEY", and "MORE TAXES". :)

 

We either get real about our problems or continue to dance around, and go down the toilet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So rand wants to sterilize single mothers and make them beg in the street for enuf rice and porridge to stave off malnutrition & hunger.

Meanwhile, funding prisons and overseas bases is AOK.

F*****g Nazis.

a single mother has no reason to be angry at government for her own stupid choice. the government is not "baby daddy".

if she wants to be pissed at anyone, she should either be pissed at herself for choosing such a deadbeat to spread her

legs open to. or she should be pissed at the man for getting her pregnant and not having the integrity to marry her and take

care of his family. this broken home, single mother bull$h!t is one of the most destructive social diseases we have in america

today, and in no way should be encouraged by government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) suggested the possibility of cutting government benefits for unwed mothers who have multiple children.

“Maybe we have to say ‘enough’s enough, you shouldn’t be having kids after a certain amount,’” said Paul, who opposes legal abortion and has criticized the federal health care law’s contraception mandate as a violation of religious and economic liberty.

The likely 2016 presidential candidate made the remarks Thursday during a luncheon in Lexington, reported the Lexington Herald-Leader, in response to a question about workforce development.

He admitted the suggestion, which he did not directly endorse, might be unpopular and difficult to implement.

“I don’t know how you do all that because then it’s tough to tell a woman with four kids that she’s got a fifth kid we’re not going to give her any more money,” Paul said. “But we have to figure out how to get that message through because that is part of the answer. Some of that’s not coming from government. It needs to come from ministers and people in the community and parents and grandparents to convince our kids to do something different.”

The conservative senator said communities or families should be responsible for the prevention of unplanned or unwanted pregnancy, but he said government policies could discourage unwed mothers from having additional children.

“Married with kids versus unmarried with kids is the difference between living in poverty and not,” Paul said.

U.S. Census Bureau data back his claim, showing that 30.9 percent of families led by a single mother were living in poverty in 2012, compared to 6.3 percent of families led by a married couple and 16.4 percent of families led by a single father.

“We should sell that message,” Paul said. “Not in a mean way to tell people who already have made a bad decision, but if you’ve had one child and you’re not married, you shouldn’t have another one.”

He said children should be strongly encouraged not to have children until they’re married, arguing that this would allow them entry into the middle class.

“There’s all kinds of ways, and we can debate … but there are all kinds of ways to stop having kids,” said Paul, although he didn’t specifically identify any of those ways.

An aide to Paul declined to comment later Thursday when asked to clarify the senator’s remarks, but Paul himself offered an explanation Sunday morning on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“I mused about how you’d have a government policy, but I actually came down saying it would be very difficult to have a government policy,” Paul said. “I mostly concluded by saying it’s a community, it’s a religious, it’s a personal problem, but it is a problem.”

He conceded during the television program that “government can’t do anything about this, (but) we shouldn’t just give up.”

“The community, ministers, pastors, parents, grandparents, we need to be saying — and this is maybe one of the most important things we ought to be saying that doesn’t have a specific policy prescription — but we need to be telling our kids that poverty is linked to having children before you’re married,” Paul said. “The institution of marriage is incredibly important, not just as a religious institution but as an economic institution.”

“It’s not that I’m against children — I come from a large family,” he said. “In the right context, it can lead to a great life, but in the wrong context, it really can be a burden for those who aren’t yet married.”

So what's your suggestion, I for one can fully understand people making a mistake and understand that there will be situations that lead to a woman becoming an unwed mother of four, divorce, abandonment or death of a spouse but not the voluntary creation of becoming an unwed mother of four. Like I said I can see and understand how one could become an unwed mother of one, maybe even two, but four tends to erode my sense of understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a single mother has no reason to be angry at government for her own stupid choice. the government is not "baby daddy".

if she wants to be pissed at anyone, she should either be pissed at herself for choosing such a deadbeat to spread her

legs open to. or she should be pissed at the man for getting her pregnant and not having the integrity to marry her and take

care of his family. this broken home, single mother bull$h!t is one of the most destructive social diseases we have in america

today, and in no way should be encouraged by government.

Completely irrelavent. Who are you to stand lofty and posh and pass godly judgement on someone else? Who are you? You're avoiding the point.

I made some direct, pointed points in my response, and none of them were addressed.

Gee, i wonder why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely irrelavent. Who are you to stand lofty and posh and pass godly judgement on someone else? Who are you? You're avoiding the point.

I made some direct, pointed points in my response, and none of them were addressed.

Gee, i wonder why?

well, i'm against funding overseas bases, as well. but this OP topic isn't about overseas bases...it's about unwed mothers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So rand wants to sterilize single mothers and make them beg in the street for enuf rice and porridge to stave off malnutrition & hunger.

Meanwhile, funding prisons and overseas bases is AOK.

F*****g Nazis.

welcome back

hey did you know the NFL is tax exempt since the 60's?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enough's enough for republican welfare for farmers and large landowners,

 

Enough's enough for republican welfare for welfare for oil billionaires,

 

Enough's enough for republican welfare for religions,

 

Enough's enough for republican welfare low tax rates for the rich and corporations

and evading paying taxes by hiding money offshore,

 

Enough's enough for republican welfare for cafta, nafta, TPP, and APP

 

Enough's enough for welfare for repukes LYING to start wars to steal

trillions of tax dollars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'He said children should be strongly encouraged not to have children until they’re married, arguing that this would allow them entry into the middle class.'

 

 

 

 

 

 

yep

what he's saying is that we should privatize societal problems(poverty, low employment,crime,drugs,etc.) just like we privatized our military. he wants to absolve gov. of any responsibility to deal with the problems it in most cases created. he says that you, joe sixpack should deal with it. 'cause Rand Paul is busy going from one fundraiser to the next to buy his next election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what he's saying is that we should privatize societal problems(poverty, low employment,crime,drugs,etc.) just like we privatized our military. he wants to absolve gov. of any responsibility to deal with the problems it in most cases created. he says that you, joe sixpack should deal with it. 'cause Rand Paul is busy going from one fundraiser to the next to buy his next election.

i really doubt rand paul gets the nomination. the money will make sure another pure globalist like bush, obama, hillary, or boehner

get in. the money wants government expansion in order to maintain crony capitalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what's your suggestion, I for one can fully understand people making a mistake and understand that there will be situations that lead to a woman becoming an unwed mother of four, divorce, abandonment or death of a spouse but not the voluntary creation of becoming an unwed mother of four. Like I said I can see and understand how one could become an unwed mother of one, maybe even two, but four tends to erode my sense of understanding.

mine too (in bold)

I like to see some statistics on just how many kids unwed mothers on average have. I think Paul wants to reinforce the stereotype of the black welfare mother who cranks a kid out every year in order to stay on welfare. it's not far fetched to think that someone with radical ideas like Paul would try to appeal to the worst instincts of his base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

welcome back

hey did you know the NFL is tax exempt since the 60's?

Thanks.

That bites, the nfl should pay like everyone else.

So rand wants to slit poor kids throats, and cut out the wombs of poor single mothers, and the nfl skates, both on taxes and taking care of brain damaged players.

Time for justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enough's enough for republican welfare for farmers and large landowners,

 

Enough's enough for republican welfare for welfare for oil billionaires,

 

Enough's enough for republican welfare for religions,

 

Enough's enough for republican welfare low tax rates for the rich and corporations

and evading paying taxes by hiding money offshore,

 

Enough's enough for republican welfare for cafta, nafta, TPP, and APP

 

Enough's enough for welfare for repukes LYING to start wars to steal

trillions of tax dollars.

bump

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'He said children should be strongly encouraged not to have children until they’re married, arguing that this would allow them entry into the middle class.'

 

 

 

 

 

 

yep

That's not saying anything that people don't already know! BFD!

 

He wants to put mother and child out into the streets!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not saying anything that people don't already know! BFD!

 

He wants to put mother and child out into the streets!

if the mother and child go into the streets, there's no one to blame but the parents. blaming rand paul is simply more liberal obfuscation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not saying anything that people don't already know! BFD!

 

He wants to put mother and child out into the streets!

Rand Paul knows as well as anybody that there just are not enough jobs for the poor in this "new economy". they are mostly outsourced overseas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mine too (in bold)

I like to see some statistics on just how many kids unwed mothers on average have. I think Paul wants to reinforce the stereotype of the black welfare mother who cranks a kid out every year in order to stay on welfare. it's not far fetched to think that someone with radical ideas like Paul would try to appeal to the worst instincts of his base.

Of course!

 

Its Rethuglican code: " I hate welfare rat ni66ers" is what he is saying.

 

"I'm a racist just like you, so its OK to be a racist"

 

Rethugs been doing this for decades:

 

Reagan's "Welfare Cadillac" myth

 

Pop Bush's "Willie Horton prison murderer"

 

Nixon's "Forced Bussing" issue

 

Its never about talking about REAL issues.....its always divisive wedge crap.

 

The Rethug Party would be exposed for the criminals they are if real issues were discussed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...