Reply With Quote
How's that workin for CA?
A: Broke
California is 19th with roughly the same percentage of minorities.
How's that workin for CA?
A: Broke
Cali's also going bankrupt.
I thought that in Texas the position of governor was a relatively powerless one compared to executive positions in other states/levels of government.
Is there a demonstrated correlation between the two facts?
It seems that some are arguing that throwing more money at the situation won't change the metrics in the study, while some are arguing that the only reason California is ranked higher is because they threw more money at the situation and went bankrupt solely because of that.
Can both be true?
I've never believed that welfare helped the poor. At least not in the long term.
Well, you must think it helps in some fashion because when I posted California's higher ranking you seemed to indicate that it was the result of state welfare.
I mean, you could have just as easily said, "Well, they have good wine there, that's why kids are better off," or "The weather's better there." But if we're tying California's higher ranking to some type of state expenditure then is that proof that more money can be a solution to some of these issues?
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 07-27-2010 at 07:47 PM.
Last I heard gay's ass ing doesn't make babies.
That explains your statistical 15 place difference. They are both middle of the pack.
I love Texas!!!!! Congrats on being number 1!!!!!!!!
OK.
Chronic Poverty = PTSD/Chronic Stress syndrome/ADHD/ADD = Drug Addiction/Alcoholism/Learned helplessness = feeling of inadequacy in girls/emotional or physical negligence or abuse at home/teen status = teen pregenancy = Circle of Poverty.
/thread.
So why didn't we have these crazy teen pregnancy numbers back when pregnant girls went to "homes for unwed mothers" where they could get counseling and support instead of taking the societal at ude "There's nothing wrong with getting pregnant it's society's fault" and mainstreaming them?
Funny how that psycho-babble bull comes back to bite you.
And how many of us are spending too much time at work trying to make money to keep up with the Jones's and too much time on the internet posting, instead of spending time with our children?
I think I will log off now...
Yeah, you are. You love Rick Perry.
Another politician appealing to the 'protect the children' mantra for political gain.
Obvious politician is obvious.
Is Rick Perry still talking secession or did he finally realize no one in their right ing mind is going to go to fight a war essentially for him.
Good for Texas not giving as many incentives for people to out talentless mud children.
By my lights you are about correct.
The Lieutenant Governor (and Speaker of the TX Senate), the Speaker of the TX House and the TX State Comptroller are all cons utionally more powerful than the Texas Governor.
I've not heard much argument about that but I could be wrong. Someone could jump in to contradict me.
Last edited by Winehole23; 07-28-2010 at 05:11 AM. Reason: removed a comma, shaded a point, excised a platitude and blotted out needless personalization
There is none. But if you frame it that way people will address it as such.
If you construe it as a zero sum game I suppose you could say because business gets the consideration some other comparably deserving interest doesn't.
(But that sword cuts both ways...
...in principle it cuts omni-directionally.)
I often wonder about the reading comprehension level in here. The article is not talking about child welfare- as in government pay outs- but child welfare, as in health and well-being.Good for Texas not giving as many incentives for people to out talentless mud children.
And our Republican governor can't do a damn thing to fix it.
So your argument is that more sexuals in a community equates with a better quality of life for the children in that community. Interesting.
Right, but some in here (oddly enough, the conservatives) are arguing that increased health and well-being are the result of higher government pay outs.
All of them.
Texas government policies directly or indirectly affect every single one of those measures. Perry is the governor, and head of one of the branches of that government.
If such measures of child wellness were a priority of his, surely he could do *something* to improve them, could he not?
Frankly I think the notion that politicians are somehow responsible for things like how many teenagers get pregnant and how many deadbeat parents there are is ludicrous, but I'll play along. How do you know those policies that are directly or indirectly affecting every single one of those measures are affecting them for the better or for the worse? How do you know whether or not Texas would be higher or lower on that list if not for Perry?
All of them.
Texas government policies directly or indirectly affect every single one of those measures. Perry is the governor, and head of one of the branches of that government.
If such measures of child wellness were a priority of his, surely he could do *something* to improve them, could he not?
Couldn't one look at those factors, identify a correlation to economic status and logically conclude that the comparatively low unemployment rate of Texas actually helps Texas in terms of child wellness? If you've got a job then you're children are going to be better off. If Perry is responsible when teenagers decide to have unprotected sex then certainly he's responsible for the job you have.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
