Kamala Harris, like a lot of Progressives, is saying, if I do not have children (she does have a step-daughter, came with the husband) then you should not have children. To me that explains her desire to have unlimited abortions. Since she did not have kids, you shouldn’t.
“But the Democrats think Walz is a hero because he forced all those people who choose not to have children to pay for two meals a day for middle-class kids, upper middle-class kids and what the Dems call “rich” kids. While these people have chosen or cannot have children, the Dems force them into being in loco parentis. Talk about speaking out of both sides of their mouths.
Then Harris made it even worse with her proposal to give people a one-time credit of $6,000 if someone has a new child. They criticize Vance for talking about the kid’s vs no kids divide, but then want to force the no kid people to pay for that. The Dems’ rhetoric and policy proposals are the definition of being disparate.
We have too many childless people (for whatever reason) who want to make policies for those who do have children. They always think they are wiser than the rest of us when they really are not. Vance was saying to truly understand being a parent, you must be caring for more than a pet.”
No wonder that bring in illegal aliens—they need someone to do the work, no matter what it costs society.
Kids vs. No Kids
Posted by Bruce Bialosky, Flashreport, 10/27/24 https://www.flashreport.org/blog/2024/10/27/kids-vs-no-kids/
A guy made one caustic comment three years ago before he was even running for elected office. It became fodder for the politicos to distort rather than focusing on the essence of the public policy issue. More people are choosing not to have children and there are serious societal concerns.
This is not a new “thing.” People have made this decision many times in the past. Or perhaps they were unable to because of a biological issue. There can certainly be issues for childless couples when being in a group of friends who do have children. That might make one feel ostracized. A friend who married in his fifties told me of how he felt uncomfortable surrounded by married couples. “Bob, why aren’t you married?” Fortunately, I steered clear of that lane as I do with friends who do not have children.
Some people decide children are not for them and I often think “thank God.” They were never cut out to be parents. On the other hand, there are couples who have kids and candidly you might think, “maybe they should have skipped that part of life.”
To paraphrase an oft cited saying, “the problem with kids is they don’t come with a manual.” Even if one is blessed to have parents around to help or friends who can step in, raising kids is challenging. And in the best of circumstances there are always unique situations that can be very stressful. It is always better when the child’s two parents are on the same page.
The transition on this issue certainly became more pronounced with my generation. It was the era of the “helicopter parents.” The parents who had to be at every soccer practice/match, ballet practice or recital.
I remember when my kids were in nursery school, and I was on the school board – the only father. I told some mothers that the Beautiful Wife and I had been gone sans kids for an extended weekend. One said, “I have never been away from Madison for one day.” My response was “Don’t you want to have a romantic weekend with your husband and have sex two days in a row?” I thought the whole idea of hovering over children was nonsense.
Our method proved out very soon. When #1 Son and Darling Daughter were nine and eight years old respectively, we took #1 Son to visit a Jewish overnight camp we wanted him to attend. Darling Daughter tagged along. When we came home, we decided he would go for a week. Darling Daughter chimed in and stated she also wanted to go. The Beautiful Wife was skittish about sending such a young child away for a week. Darling Daughter said, “Mom, you leave us for many nights in a row already; I will be fine.” And she was right. She actually did better than her older brother. Our kids were socially adjusted and were not clingers.
To a great extent I believe some of the people who don’t want to have kids today regard it as too great a commitment. It is certainly not ideal to leave them for too long. I ask every new father whether he has dropped his kid yet. They look at me like I am nuts. I then say. “Everybody drops their kid; they aren’t breakable.” Parenting is an enormous commitment of both time and money. Most parents will tell you it is worth every moment and every dollar.
There are those who think they understand what it is like having kids even though they are not parents. Donna Brazile recently said in reaction to the cat lady comment that she did not have children herself, but she “had a hundred children.” No, Donna; respectfully you don’t get it. You don’t get it unless you care for kids every day, year after year. You go home to your secluded home and don’t have a four A.M. parenting moment. I understand some childless women do spend time helping others with their children. But it just is not the same.
Vance’s statement was getting at the exact thinking that Brazile was expressing. You don’t understand so you are not qualified to make policy about what we do as families. But they think they can.
This is why we have failing public schools and elected officials who keep feeding those public schools instead of nurturing independent schools that have proven time and again they do better with poor black and brown children. These are the same people about whom Jason Riley wrote in his book called, Please Stop Helping Us, with a subtitle of How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed. Some people think they are smarter and have the best policy solutions. They are unwilling to admit when they have failed because they just do not understand.
On the other hand, as the Democrats express outrage about the comment by one V-P candidate they applaud the other — the one (Walz) that enacted a law providing universal free breakfasts and lunches for school children. One might be able to understand and accept this program for those who are truly financially challenged. But the Democrats think Walz is a hero because he forced all those people who choose not to have children to pay for two meals a day for middle-class kids, upper middle-class kids and what the Dems call “rich” kids. While these people have chosen or cannot have children, the Dems force them into being in loco parentis. Talk about speaking out of both sides of their mouths.
Then Harris made it even worse with her proposal to give people a one-time credit of $6,000 if someone has a new child. They criticize Vance for talking about the kid’s vs no kids divide, but then want to force the no kid people to pay for that. The Dems’ rhetoric and policy proposals are the definition of being disparate.
We have too many childless people (for whatever reason) who want to make policies for those who do have children. They always think they are wiser than the rest of us when they really are not. Vance was saying to truly understand being a parent, you must be caring for more than a pet.
These same folks often say, “The children are our future.” One must wonder why so many today do not want children, but still want to determine policy for them. There is only one answer. “We just know better.” No, they don’t.
