AmericanPapist Comments
Hillary's idea sounds like a (very!) watered down version of Capital Homesteading, which was and is a very good idea. She's missing the aspects that would make it workable though. Some of Bush's proposals have also mimicked CH. Google it - a very interesting set of ideas, almost Chestertonian.
I actually don't blame the DNC for threatening to withhold delegates. These states are getting ridiculous with the front-loading of primaries, and pretty soon we're going to wind up with primaries in December. The party committee is trying to get some control over the primary schedule, which is within its rights, though the sancrosanct psoition of New Hampshire and Iowa is a little silly.
And people wonder why politics fails to capture our interest these days and that voters are growing increasingly ideological (if they remain engaged) or apathetic.
I'm all in favor of Mrs. Clinton's plan to give every woman $5,000 not to have an abortion. We all know the conservative support for pro-life stops the minute that saving an unborn life means the rich might not get a tax cut.
We all know the conservative support for pro-life stops the minute that saving an unborn life means the rich might not get a tax cut.
Yup, you've got us pegged. Terrific, insightful analysis as always.
Well, I'm opposed to paying men not to rape women, too; but I suppose that just shows that my opposition to rape is trumped by my opposition to higher taxes. Katherine, it is hard not to dismiss you as a silly crank.
You think $5,000 would really change the mind of a woman who wants to abort her baby? That is the most idiotic pro for Clinton's plan I've heard yet. Good on ya.
5000 bucks could make a big difference for women on the edge. Have you ever volunteered with women in crisis situations? Just 'cause Katherine is trying to be inflammatory doesn't mean she hasn't put her finger on a positive we should consider. Now, are there better ways of acheiving the same end? There's another question.
I like the current Canadian policy of taking federal funds earmarked for supporting daycare and instead distributing them directly to women with children under the age of 6 - whether said children are in daycare or not. Great things about that move: 1) it cut out the overhead and middlemen involved with deciding which daycares should get funds, 2) Women who have to or choose to work can use the money for daycare or other discretionary purposes, 3) Women who choose to stay home have $100 more per month per child under 6 to help them in their vocation as well!
The US budget has plenty of pork in it...what would happen if some of that could be redirected directly to the folks that need it instead of going to non-profits, corporations, and lobbyists?
Commenting by HaloScan
