Unbelievable

She said it literally.

Read your own link.

 

Let's be precise here. I will transcribe the entire text of the video, so we can have our semantic arguments on a uniform basis.

"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 everyone's responsibility, and not just the household's, then we start making better investments."

 

Actually, she doesn't say that. She says we need to "break through" the notion that kids belong to their families, not eliminate it. The individual responsibility of parents to raise their children should not be minimized, but it should also not be used as an excuse for others to be unwilling to invest in their betterment, because the development of those children will impact people outside their family as well.

In no way is she saying that people outside the family should be permitted to exert undue influence upon the upbringing of the child; she is simply saying that those outside the family should be willing to supplement the resources available for child development.

Long story short--she doesn't want her hands on my children; she wants them on your money.

 

We need to break through the notion that families can have more than one child. After all, we have the collective to place higher than human beings.

But I really am not suggesting forced abortions like they have in China.

I mean it figuratively!

 

Did I need green font for my previous post? I mean she came very close to suggesting the same sort of thing. That we can only have children, like anything else, because govt. owns it all but allows us enough to keep us from rioting in the streets.

 

Poor analogy. Again, the "break through" statement does not suggest elimination of that concept, but tangential action in spite of it. I'm sorry that you're not grasping the difference.

 

Do children belong to their parents or families?

At what point does some neglected official have the right to force some method of parenting on you?

I say yes, and never.

 

I don't believe I disagreed with you at any point on either of those statements. Perhaps you should re-read post #25; seems like it didn't all sink in the first time.

 

We've spent $16 TRILLION to fight poverty with no effect. The number of people in poverty is higher (raw numbers) or the same (percentage wise) compared to before these programs. All there's been is money spent and a $16T debt.

Not only is it outrageous that we need to break through the notion that children belong to their families (which you now claim to disagree with), but we need to throw more money into this black hole? Money goes in, nothing, not even light, escapes!

You say you don't disagree with me, yet find it important to defend her.

 

I don't disagree with your perspective on government intrusion on parenting, and I'm not defending her. All I've done with every post is disagree with your interpretation of her statement.

Would you care to point out where I made any assertions as to the validity of her claims?

 

I'm not misrepresenting her point of view.

Like I said, what she said was deliberate. It was written and reviewed. Rehearsed. As many takes required to get a satisfactory reading on camera and recorded. And they decided to air it.

It's part of a broader philosophy that the government does own everything and grants us the money we earn or the rights we have.

 

You go ahead and continue telling yourself that, despite the contextual evidence to the contrary.

 

Which is why I'm alone in comprehending what she says. Oh wait, I'm not alone. Nevermind

 

Right.

It's a slippery slope. You'll end up with a parent pushing kids around in the stroller at the amusement park getting arrested for child abuse if the kids get a little sunburn.

If you're throwing the addicts in jail, then the family courts can figure out what to do with the children.