Define abject poverty. We had, and still have, the richest poor people in the world. I agree that it shouldn't always be the mother who stays home...but what's the deciding factor? Should my wife go out in the workforce in the name of equality alone, or should it be a rational decision based on raw income? Either way, two incomes were not required for home ownership in the 1950s. Lower taxes were a huge part of this.
Much of the population lived with no indoor plumbing and no electricity, especially in the rural south, and especially non-whites. And of course, there were ghettos. Pretending this is not the case is simply historical revisionism.
There's a lot of unsubstantiated claims being made here, man. Higher taxes don't equal prosperity; I think you may have your causes and effects mixed up here. Governments don't make money, they only take it, skim a high percentage to feed beaurocracy, and distribute it elsewhere. That's as close to a tax debate as I'm willing to get. The gov't isn't, and shouldn't be, a university's only source of funding.
California's taxes are much lower today than they were in the 1950's. The University of California, which once got all the funding it needed without having to charge students tens of thousands of dollars, was admired the world over. That is a fact. You can deny it all you want, but that doesn't change history. People are so ridiculous. They know that better things cost more money, yet expect to get something for nothing from government. The UC was a publically funded school. Now it is, at best, publically 'encouraged.' It is no longer accessible to anyone who qualifies due to being chronically underfunded. It was outstanding when it got all its revenue from the public, and has declined since it has had to rely on fees.
Prisons only take money away from university funding when they're the only two things being funded. It'd be just as easy to say that congressional pensions and the six-figure salaries that university adminstrators receive drove up the cost of higher education. It's also just as easy to say that if the government didn't tax me so much, I could afford a college education without the need for a loan.
.
A university education was available to anyone who met the requirements then, whether they had money or no cash at all. Why is this not the case today? Because we decided to cut our taxes, and spend millions locking up potheads.
I'm glad to hear your personal situation is atypical of the way too many kids these days are raised. Commercialism is what drives capitalist economies; a certain amount of it isn't bad. I would argue that today's commercialism has tipped towards the point of making 'stuff' the new god; the more stuff, the happier you'll be. This was not the case in the 1950s, at least not in my family's experience. People who didn't have money were not encouraged incessantly to buy things on credit at their local Best Buy, see the latest movies, own the latest computers, buy the latest iPod, etc. "Living within your means" was a concept that was imparted to my father, at least, and most of his contemporaries that I've met; I don't see it so much now.
Everything is driven by profit in unregulated capitalism. There is no room for ethics or morality. But that's a whole different discussion.
I am a fan of saving it for marriage, but that was beside the point. I highlighted the relevant part, which you already mentioned; see my previous post on responsibility. I like birth control, too, but my kids are living proof that nothing is 100%. There are plenty of people I know who have found this out the hard way, and then abandoned kids or been abandoned. It's far, far more prevalent now than it was a few decades ago.
It's best to use condoms and another form of birth control in conjunction. That way if one fails, there's still the other. Everything you do is a risk, every step you take outside is a risk, you take the risk of choking every time you bite into a tasty hamburger. Some things are worth those risks, and with some knowledge, those risks can be minimized. I find much of the "saving it for marriage" attitude is based on religion. I subscribe to a different faith than those that hold that attitude. It's no sin for me.
I'd love to see your source for this assertion. I can find absolutely nothing, even from unreliable sources, to back up this claim.
Sending a PM, this gets a little political.
Glad to hear it. I used to like the show; when they devoted entire shows to making fun of my personal beliefs, they ceased to be funny to me, and the fact that it's only one in a long string of shows that shows the American father in a horrible light disturbs me. Again, I don't know if it's cause or effect, or both, but some shows depicting fathers doing their jobs right would be nice, for a change.
I don't like that attitude. "It's okay to ridicule everyone's beliefs but mine." It's part of the deal if they make fun of everyone, sooner or later they're going to get to me. Yes, perhaps it would be better to have shows with fathers being good dads, but that wouldn't be as funny or entertaining. The source of plot is conflict.
Good that we actually agree on something, lol.
), knowing when you do need help and being able to rely on friends, neighbors, or family to assist you.
