Quantcast

Comments about ‘It's about time the government recognize the realities of parenthood’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Aug. 28 2014 10:00 a.m. MDT

Updated: Thursday, Aug. 28 2014 10:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Christina
Logan, UT

Everyone can save - even if is only a few dollars a week. How about cancelling tv services, internet services, and smartphones? Our grandparents did fine without these things.

BYU Track Star
Los Angeles, CA

Re: Yes we can, Yes we can,

Mitt made his Millions breaking up companies by buying them and selling off their valuable assets, Employees laid off were collateral damage. Much like buying a clunker car and selling the valuable parts. Nothing wrong with what Mitt did. But he and his kind also made it harder over these last 40 years to have a ssav-at-home Mom supported by a Stay-at-work Dad.

Melanna
Salt Lake City, Utah

@ Christina: Yes, our grandparents did without the internet and the telephone and many other of today's modern conveniences.

My daughter has to turn in weekly reports on news stories complete with research into the part of the world and the issue being discussed. Yes, she could do it without a phone, but she can't do it without the internet.

She has to do group projects once a month. It is much easier to coordinate meeting times with the use of a phone.

Our grandparents did without a lot of stuff we now consider necessary to our everyday lives - but they would have a hard time getting by now without those things and I am not going to disadvantage my child by making her pretend she lives in a world that no longer exists.

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

This is one of the reasons why traditional marriage deserves extra benefits that other unions (such as my union with my aunt and uncle or the Acme Widget 'family') don't deserve. It doesn't mean the unions are inferior, but they don't deserve special benefits that traditional marriages deserve children sre not a natural result of those unions.

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

@BYU track star:

I am confused. You must be the last liberal in America next to me. Ever since the Hobby Lobby decision all sorts of liberal institutiions in America have been falling all over themselves to say that companies exist to make money and that morals need to stay out of business.

It is refreshing to see somene who thinks otherwise.

Kind of lonely though.

Kalindra
Salt Lake City, Utah

@ Tekakaromatagi: Are you saying that only families that can have children through "natural" means deserve recognition from the government? Is it somehow cheaper to raise adopted children or children conceived through reproductive technologies?

Why should only traditional couples who can conceive through natural means have the protections marriage offers?

And are you also suggesting that couples without children deserve protections some couples with children don't deserve because it is better to actively choose not to have a child through natural means than to actively choose to have one through alternative means? Or are you suggesting we prohibit couples who cannot or will not have children from marrying?

Or is your real meaning that we should prohibit marriage to couples of whom you disapprove and you are using this story as non sequitur proof?

koseighty
The Shire, UT

@ Tekakaromatagi

Kalindra forgot the many children that our gay brothers and sisters have had through natural means, often when they were in "traditional" marriages that society said would help make them "normal."

But the question is out there, how are these children and their families less than "traditional" children? How are they less deserving of recognition or support?

I have an amazing "traditional" marriage of 30-ish years. I can't imagine denying that same right to any adult.

tethered
Salem, OR

Tekakaromatagi's comments are astounding!

So all of the grandparents, aunts and uncles who pick up the primary responsibility of raising children which came about to pick up the slack from parents who are physically or financially unable to parent (such as parents who are incarcerated, recovering or being rehabilitated from drug/alcohol abuse, or medically disabled) -- Would you still say that those relatives who pick up the child card do NOT deserve anything as the "back up parents" solely because they are not the ones who gave birth to those children?

How can you not have empathy for thosee children & their guardians or foster parents?

What did the CHILDREN do, to deserve second class status, because of the problems of their birth parents?

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

aome of the posters are commenting about how the children stuck in gay "families" have it harder than kids in traditional marriages. They are finally recognizing truth. Maybe they should think of the children and not themselves before they decide they want to adopt or concieve through non-natural methods.

Paul in MD
Montgomery Village, MD

Yes, there are things we can't really do without that our grandparents did. Today's schools and work place demands on us only satisfied by some of today's technology. That said, yes, we need phones. No, we don't necessarily ALL need $500 smartphones requiring $80 per line contracts.

Our children are the brightest hope for our best future. Families with two parents are actually DISCOURAGED by rules governing our welfare system, encouraging single-parent families. If welfare assistance were granted equally to EACH PARENT in a family, there would not be an incentive to remain or become single parents. But if a single mother receiving welfare assistance marries the father of her child(ren), her benefits are cut or eliminated by virtue of some calculation that figures two parents raising some number of children need less help than one parent raising the same number.

Paul in MD
Montgomery Village, MD

@BYU track star

Not every business bought by venture capitalists is bought to be ripped apart, and that's certainly true of Bain Capital. Yes, they made some money buying companies they ultimately dismantled, but they typically only dismantle them after trying to find a way to turn them around and make them profitable. Look at what they did for Staples.

Companies that go under do so for many reasons. Bad management, competition, lack of customer base, lack of adequate worker base, poor quality goods, poor service, changing times (reducing demand for a company's goods/services).

Many jobs are shed from good companies who are faced with choices given them by the government that actually encourage sending jobs off-shore, like the 3rd highest corporate tax rate in the world. Companies also have to please customers, who continue demanding high-quality goods at lower and lower prices. Even companies good at reducing cost and improving efficiency eventually are left with only one cost to cut - labor. So we also have to blame ourselves for some of the changes over our grandparents' world.

rnoble
Pendleton, OR

I often have problems with "government" math. I have raised three children and my total income over the years has been considerably less than the $13000+ annual cost claimed for raising one child. I am not sure how they get those numbers but they don't reflect my reality nor the reality of 95% of those I know well enough to have a gauge of their finances. A few families have had that kind of income and the things those kids had reflect higher incomes, but I don't really think that is a fair assessment. It can be argued that the times have changed so that things are more expensive. I agree! But the assertion (as an example) that the kids need a back-to-school visit to a pediatrician, barring indicators that have nothing at all to do with back to school, represents waste; not wisdom nor necessity.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments