Quick Clip
Print

Bernard Goldberg: Obama Should Tell Unmarried Parents To "Do Their Fair Share"; The Wealthy "Aren't The Problem"

February 20, 2012 10:34 pm ET

From the February 20 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by wesley (February 20, 2012 10:37 pm ET)
        48
      Amen Goldberg...Amen.

      Someone else being rich is not the reason you might be poor.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Bongo Fury (February 20, 2012 10:44 pm ET)
        22  
        Obviously you are not new, nor normal whatever that term means. Live on the streets wes and please try to not have a sex drive.
        You might be living proof that the mouth is the a-hole of the mind. Use your mind or someone will use it for you.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Kidney Bean (February 21, 2012 11:52 am ET)
            16
          Obviously you are an idiot. Everything Goldberg said should be taught in classrooms throughout the country. We are not animals we can learn to control our sex drive. What the hell have you got against people of all pursuasions taking responsibility for themselvs and not becoming a burden to the rest of society? No you idiot liberal yours is to have everyone else "fix" somebody's problem with income redistribution after the screw ups do their thing. The a-hole here is not Bongo Fury, it's you.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by n'est-ce pas (February 21, 2012 11:59 am ET)
            8 1
            Angry illiterate screed in which an obviously uneducated wingnut calls someone else an idiot. I love these.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (February 21, 2012 1:29 pm ET)
            4  
            What "should be taught in classrooms throughout the country" is comprehensive sex education including accurate, objective infomration about contraception - something you idiots OPPOSE. What also should be done to provide access to contraception for the POOR who could not otherwise afford it - something ELSE you idiots OPPOSE. And after all that, you also oppose helping them. Yeah: I mean why HELP someone, when you can PUNNISH THEM instead? WHy SOLVE a problem, when you can create a WEDGE issue insead?

            I've historically said that Conservtaives are either EVIL or STUPID - either LYING or BUYING. And as there is a 99% chance the you and Wesley are not in the top 1%, we can all conclude which camp that puts you in. But you know what? I was wrong: Even those 1%'ers are more STUPID than EVIL, becuase even they do better under Democrats!

            But, sure, by all means keep screwing yourself in the voting booth becuase the man in the suit on Fox news told you it would be better to think that way.

            ------------------------------
            IMHO
            UTOPIA
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Kidney Bean (February 22, 2012 1:21 am ET)
                2
              what is evil is imposing anothers problems on every real tax paying citizen. Ccntraception is a non issue. It is available anywhere. Condoms can be purchased in any grocery store or pharmacy for less than the cost of a candy bar. If a male is too stupid to use one then why should I pay for his girl friend's abortion or her kids? Why not hold him accountable. No the lunacy of the left is that the tax payer owes every irresponsible individual out there a free ride. The whole country has gone to hell with the good intentions of democrats.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by kabniel (February 22, 2012 5:29 am ET)
                  1
                Kidney

                It is astonishing how stupid brainwashed and pitiful you are. You have no brain no soul no decency. You are scum. The parasites like YOU care only about yourself and couldnt care less about your nieghbor or your fellow citizens. The worship of the rich and contempt of the working class by the RIGHT is what is killing our good country. Of course you are too stupid and too brainwashed to understand this or pretty much anything else Rush didnt tell you to think you subhuman piece of garbage
                Report Abuse
          • Author by kabniel (February 21, 2012 3:27 pm ET)
              2
            kidney

            You are a liar, you are a punk, you are a moron and you are so brainwashed it is hard to believe you are human. STFU and let the adults talk now.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by kabniel (February 20, 2012 10:49 pm ET)
        25 2
        Wes

        Your abject stupidity is a constant source of amazement to me. No one said one person being rich was a reason for anything and I am not even close to poor. However it WAS the Wall St Banksters that CRATERED the economy and got richer doing it.

        You are just pathetic trollscum now Wes. You dont even try to make cogent arguments. You have become a sad parody of insanely stupid brainwashed rightwing morons everywhere. Congratulations and good luck with that
        Report Abuse
      • Author by RKAllen (February 20, 2012 10:53 pm ET)
        31  
        Someone else being rich is not the reason you might be poor.
        I'm sorry. Who made this claim?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by highlyunlikely (February 21, 2012 12:10 am ET)
          23  
          I think his name is Straw Man.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (February 21, 2012 9:01 am ET)
          10 1
          Be gentle with wesley . . . anything which contains numbers or statistics is very difficult for him. Since we're talking money here, I'm sure he's just having one of his wesley moments.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Deluded (February 20, 2012 10:54 pm ET)
        31  
        That's NOT what Goldberg is claiming.

        He's saying that the rich are not the problem, however no one ever said anything about the rich being a problem, just that they are not doing their fair share.

        If America thinks the rich are a problem, it would lock them all up, not demand that they pay their fair share, it's about equity rather than criminal accountability.

        Someone else being rich is not the reason you might be poor.


        Oh I agree, it MIGHT not be the reason you are poor...but what has that got to do with anything anyway?

        It still does not justify why the rich should be getting the tax cuts that they have ben getting for the past 30 years. Nor does it refute the point that, by paying thier fair share, the rich may well be aiding the economy.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by foole (February 21, 2012 12:42 am ET)
        22  
        Actually, when 400 people have more wealth that the bottom 50% of the country, the rich people are an insanely disproportionate part of the problem.

        From the right's new best pals Politifact

        Report Abuse
        • Author by bilbo_dies (February 21, 2012 7:55 am ET)
          9  
          Gosh, could Politifact prevaricate any more to make it seem that the premise that the 400 richest Americans are worth more than the poorest 50% of Americans might not be factual?

          At least, once they got done hemming and hawing around, they did rate that fact as True, even though they obviously didn't want to.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by teh.stoopid.lib (February 21, 2012 8:41 am ET)
            9  
            I know this is OT for this thread but did you see this Politi'fact'? We found no evidence of critics referring to the GI Bill as welfare I guess they didn't specifically and literally use the word "welfare". Talk about splitting hairs! I think one of our trolls that likes to redefine words wrote that piece.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Chameo (February 21, 2012 10:36 am ET)
              4  
              That one totally blew me away."Yes, the main criticism of the GI Bill was identical to the criticisms leveled at programs that were called "welfare" decades after its passage, but no one used the word "welfare" which did not actually come into common usage until, well, decades after its passage, so this is just short of a lie even though it is completely true and supported in substance."
              Report Abuse
      • Author by blk-in-alabam (February 21, 2012 5:18 am ET)
        8 1
        Some people who are rich have paid their congreessmen,and senators to pass laws that increase their wealth,and increases the number of working poor at the same time

        What you see today is the result of "rich" people paying the republicans to keep he minimal wage at $3.35 for over 12 years,and blocking increases after that.The result freezing the wages of everybody making above minimal wage....This kicked many working people out of the saddle,allowing their horse to be stolen
        Report Abuse
      • Author by curiousindependent (February 21, 2012 7:44 am ET)
        12  
        You are absolutely right, wes. Those rich folks, who have seen their income increase by more than 200% over the last 30 years, while their tax burden decreased by just about the same, can NOT possibly be any kind of issue. It is the actual working stiff, whose pay has decreased by about 15% over the last 30 years, and whose tax burden has increased by about 200% that is the issue.

        Someone else being GREEDY and not trickling down like St Ronnie fantasized about might be the reason for all of that, though.

        Let me see if I can explain how the real world works for you.

        In the real world, rich folks don't trickle wealth down. They sock it away in offshore tax-dodges. When we give them tax breaks and more money, that is just more that they can sock away.

        Poor folks, however, spend everything they have. If we give THEM more money, they buy things that they need. You know, things like food, furniture to replace the old nasty stuff they have; cars to replace the unreliable pos they have. That money ends up socked away in a rich guy's offshore tax-dodge as well, but the poor guy gets some use out of it first.

        Trickle UP works. Trickle down is a fantasy and a lie that idiots like you have bought (and the rest of us have paid for) for decades.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by overmars jr. (February 21, 2012 11:26 am ET)
          3  
          Do you by any chance have the link to these figures in your first paragraph. I would love to be able to bust them out when needed with sourcing.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by curiousindependent (February 21, 2012 1:03 pm ET)
            2  
            Not sure the exact spot, but just google wealth disparity, or wealth distribution. One of the hits has charts showing wages by percentile along with taxes.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by curiousindependent (February 21, 2012 3:08 pm ET)
                 
              Oh, and don't forget that when your tax rate goes, for instance, from 10% to 20%, that is not a 10% increase, that is a 100% increase. And vice versa.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by Egbert Sousť (February 21, 2012 8:21 am ET)
        7  
        Don't jump to the conclusion that Bernie is talking about the (urban) poor. He is speaking directly to dead beat, now unmarried, Republican Representative Joe Walsh. Joe, pay that $100,000 you owe in child support! Bernie says: do your part!!!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (February 21, 2012 11:01 am ET)
        5  
        "Someone else being rich is not the reason you might be poor."
        That rich person, by virtue of being rich, is supposed to be giving the poor person a job, or so I've been told by right wingers for the past 30+ years.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by steeve (February 20, 2012 10:57 pm ET)
      6 27
      As usual, Obama gives away half the store with his framing. I don't ask for the rich to do their fair share. I ask to enact policy that is proven to work, which in this case happens to be soaking the rich in taxes. Nothing personal. It's not my fault it works.

      The rich are our greatest americans. They fight the odds, pick themselves up, make things happen, and effortlessly navigate the perils of the real world. They don't need to be treated fairly. They know fairness is for babies, and they can take it.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by heehee..santorum (February 20, 2012 11:45 pm ET)
        14  
        Wow, such depth of conviction....do you often masturbate out loud?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by 17andLiberal (February 20, 2012 11:52 pm ET)
        21 1
        The rich are our greatest americans. They fight the odds, pick themselves up, make things happen, and effortlessly navigate the perils of the real world.

        But that's the kind of thinking that feeds into the narrative that all rich people are rich because they earned it, they deserve it, and they are somehow "greater" than the average American.

        Rich people who got there by working their asses off are fewer and farther between than a lot of people want to acknowledge. Plenty of rich people got there by being born into wealth. And even some who actually earned their money have done so in ways that would lead me to say they don't truly deserve it.

        But however they got there, the rich aren't by virtue of their wealth "our greatest Americans". And the sooner people realize that, the sooner we'll maybe change this silly system that caters to them.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by grunt (February 21, 2012 11:48 am ET)
            9
          Do you have any numbers showing what percentage of "the rich" were born into their money versus what percentage created their own wealth?

          Your statement about "deserving" is strange to the thinking mind. In an economy, by definition, aren't those that have wealth the ones who "deserve it?" Unless, we already live in a communist, socialist, or fascist state, in which case you could be right...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by n'est-ce pas (February 21, 2012 12:12 pm ET)
            5  
            Do you have any numbers showing what percentage of "the rich" were born into their money versus what percentage created their own wealth?


            Two things:

            1) Yes I do;

            2) NOBODY CREATES THEIR OWN WEALTH!!! Every wealthy person relied upon the infrastructure we ALL pay for and maintain to acheive their rarified status. Our roads. Ours schools. Our first responders. Our military. STOP FETISHIZING THE RICH.
            Report Abuse
              • Author by Deluded (February 21, 2012 7:13 pm ET)
                   
                The graph that is linked shows the percentage of people, who start off poor or rich, ending off or becoming poor or rich. By logical conclusion, one can also see that the children of those who end end up rich will be "born rich" and those who end up poor will be born poor.

                You can compare the percentage then of the people who are born rich, and those who are born poor and from what backgrounds they come from.

                Informative enough, if you know how to look at it.
                Report Abuse
                  • Author by Deluded (February 21, 2012 8:00 pm ET)
                    1  
                    because people have kids one rich guy can have 2 or three kids and will increase the odds of being born rich vs. aquired wealth youself.


                    Ummm the poor or middle class can have 2 or 3 kids too, that also increases the odds of being born poor right? Not sure what you're getting at here.

                    there are more than a few people here that believe that people should not inherit ANY money from their parents. i'm not one of them.


                    You're forgetting that inheritance is not the only factor in terms of being born rich having a better chance at staying rich. Socio-economic access (such as education, information, networks etc) also gives them the advantage over those born in a lower strata. They have higher employment chances overall than the poor when they grow up because of the above.

                    These rich people also have a starting base with which to make more money (and thus stay rich or get richer), I'm sure you know that having more capital in investments means higher opportunity to gain more in returns right? That's an advantage too that the rich have over the poor in staying rich.

                    Being born rich has a LOT to do with staying rich. One has a lot of advantages over others, and although not all of them are able to utilize it properly, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that most that get these advantages do, and stay ahead by doing so.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by Kidney Bean (February 22, 2012 1:29 am ET)
                      3
                    sounds like you have penis envy to me.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by kabniel (February 22, 2012 5:32 am ET)
                        1
                      kidney

                      STFU and get back to your day job blowing crackheads at the bus stop
                      Report Abuse
              • Author by n'est-ce pas (February 21, 2012 8:53 pm ET)
                   
                Um, yes. Yes it does. "39 percent of kids born rich or upper middle class will die rich or upper middle class...." As the income inequality grows, so too have the lower classes. Proportionally, the wealthy class is shrinking on comparison to the bottom two income quintiles, which is why, for the first time in American history, the current generation of family-aged citizens are making less than their parents did at the same stage of their careers.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by curiousindependent (February 21, 2012 6:12 pm ET)
               
            what percentage created their own wealth?
            Are you implying that there are rich folks who are counterfeiters?
            Report Abuse
      • Author by steeve (February 21, 2012 7:43 am ET)
        4 3
        Guess "in this case happens to be soaking the rich in taxes" didn't make anybody pause, so I gotta hold your hands.

        We should tax the rich higher than fairness dictates because it works. This is true even given a conservative's level of rich-people worship.

        What's the point of being online if you're just gonna burn past all the words at 10000/second? If you don't like to pause and take in the scenery here, go somewhere else.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by curiousindependent (February 21, 2012 7:56 am ET)
          7 2
          I saw it, the up thumb is mine. You are right, to a degree, though I would hesitate to call the rich "the greatest Americans", and I think that that might have been what turned people off. Certainly they are among the LUCKIEST of Americans, either due to circumstances of birth or luck of the draw. Sometimes that is just how it works out. I realise that Forrest Gump was not in any way reality, but you KNOW that there are an awful lot of insanely wealthy folks who just happened to be in the right place at the right time. With the right dime to finance what opportunity left on their doorstep.

          I do agree that it is funny that these Republicons don't seem to remember how well off EVERYONE in the USA was when the top tax rate was around 90%, and how NOT well off everyone (but the top 2% or so) became when that rate dropped to less than a quarter of that.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by steeve (February 21, 2012 8:10 am ET)
            7 1
            Maybe the sarcasm is obtuse (I don't think the rich are greater or lesser than others), but it amuses me to no end that the greater a conservative thinks the rich are, the less concerned she should be for treating them fairly. Is the hero in any story treated fairly?

            When fairness is brought into a tax discussion (even when liberals do it), the discussion is off the rails. Some policy works and some doesn't.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by yoiksaway (February 21, 2012 12:53 pm ET)
              3  
              Yup, the rich can take it, no matter how they were blessed with fortune. We can devise policy to let them skate (and be richer and greater!), or we can devise policy that makes them roll up their financial sleeves and figure out the balance between investing in America and investing in themselves.

              Progressive taxation works, it's been proved. The rich did not make it by themselves; America helped them get there, and they proportionally owe America back so that the next round of success happens. Moralize if you wish, to describe it as fair or not. It's a cycle that works.

              Obama is going only partway with this "fair share" theme, trying to get back to the point where the rich pay something similar to the rest, whoop-de-doo. Hooboy, it's sort-of-not-regressive-tax-policy! Woo! Maybe that's all he can do given the climate, don't know. I lean toward supporting him for trying. Congress is where it's at anyway--make them do the right thing so he has to sign it.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by rms (February 21, 2012 8:48 am ET)
        2 1
        Steeve: "The rich are our greatest americans. They fight the odds, pick themselves up, make things happen, and effortlessly navigate the perils of the real world. They don't need to be treated fairly. They know fairness is for babies, and they can take it."

        Thank you Paris Hilton!!

        Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (February 21, 2012 11:16 am ET)
           
        You have a twisted understanding of what constitutes greatness.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by SMTDL (February 21, 2012 1:12 pm ET)
        1  
        Ohh you mean Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan I guess?Maybe GW Bush or the Romney sons..They must have tolied in the sun to be so rich!Now what odds have they fought against?
        There are self made people that started out with little who got very rich on their own.Most rich people start out in life already rich or with a comfortable leg up over most other people.Some work very hard to stay rich and some don't have to.When did Mitt Romney or Donald Trump have to pick themselves up?Their way was paved by their fathers and grandfathers.Name some very wealthy(not rich) people that started from less than middle class backgrounds.After you exclude actors,athletes,musicians,politicians,the list isn't that long compared to the ones that were born into money.If you follow the money trail back to the original "self made " fortune,you may also find some exploitation or worse activities that created the wealth.Just look at the foundation of the American economy which was exploitaion of Native Americans and their land plus the institution of slavery and perpetration of Jim Crow apartheid.Certainly there were people who just worked hard and some who just worked hard to capitalize on those advantages,but it hardly was a fair system. Rich people shouldn't just be put on a monolithic noble pedestal as you are doing.Those born with no advantages shouldn't be exploited to make others get even richer with no control or protection on their behalf.That's all most people want.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by aj.physics (February 21, 2012 4:23 pm ET)
           
        I thought our greatest Americans were people like soldiers, or teachers, or astronauts, or first responders, or ... I guess when I think of our greatest Americans the 1% as a whole don't pass my mind. Some of them do based on their individual actions, not because they are rich. Just the act of having money does not make someone a great American. Having a lot of money might help give you the means to be a great American, but you have to do something with it, you have to earn the title of a great American just like everybody else.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by draftedin68 (February 20, 2012 11:18 pm ET)
      10  

      Bernard Goldberg - Master of Conflation

      Report Abuse
    • Author by boxtop (February 20, 2012 11:21 pm ET)
        31
      Thanks to all that sex education, boys and girls know how to have sex by 12.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by kabniel (February 20, 2012 11:35 pm ET)
        12 1
        botox

        STFU punk. It would be much better for everyone if you spent your time more productively searching desperatly for some dignity and self respect
        Report Abuse
      • Author by nixter (February 20, 2012 11:41 pm ET)
        13  
        And Republican Sheriffs are sexing up mexicans, whats your point ?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (February 20, 2012 11:41 pm ET)
        20 1
        CAPULET
        But saying o'er what I have said before:
        My child is yet a stranger in the world;
        She hath not seen the change of fourteen years,
        Let two more summers wither in their pride,
        Ere we may think her ripe to be a bride.
        PARIS
        Younger than she are happy mothers made.
        Yes, it's a completely new phenomenon that twelve-year-olds know how to have sex. Lord knows nobody ever had sexual urges or the mental capacity to comprehend the mechanics of the act before the age of 18, until sex ed reared its ugly head.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by heehee..santorum (February 20, 2012 11:43 pm ET)
        16  
        What was the age of consent in "olden times" ding-dong? Try 12 in a good percentage of the U.S., you think that young people phuck because they took a lesson or two in health class? Idiot.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by 17andLiberal (February 20, 2012 11:50 pm ET)
        16  
        If by "how to have sex" you mean "how to identify parts on a cutaway anatomical diagram", then sure, totally.

        Boys and girls know how to have sex instinctively, just like every other animal. Unless you're implying that before there was sex ed in schools, no one knew how things worked down there. Which is ridiculous, because we wouldn't be having this conversation if that was true.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by boxtop (February 21, 2012 11:54 am ET)
            9
          We are humans, not animals.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by JoeSixpack (February 21, 2012 12:33 pm ET)
            5  
            Biology: another subject about which you know nothing. You're really putting together quite a list. If humans aren't animals, what are they? Plants? Bacteria? Fungi? Your brain may be one-celled, but that doesn't make you a protozoa.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by pete x tp (February 21, 2012 12:23 am ET)
        10  
        I pretty much had it figured out by the time I was six thanks to spending time on a farm although it took me a few more years to see the attraction.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pete x tp (February 21, 2012 12:27 am ET)
        12  
        BTW. You do realize that countries with better sex education and fewer taboos have lower rates of single parent homes and unwanted pregnancies and poverty, no? And I'm still waiting to hear one rational reason why every public bathroom in the country, including those in schools, shouldn't have a free condom dispenser.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by boxtop (February 21, 2012 12:49 am ET)
            22
          Because doing so promotes and encourages sex. And you said free? How about none at all.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by kabniel (February 21, 2012 12:52 am ET)
            10 1
            botox

            Stop being so jealous. We understand no human being would lower themselves into such depravity to allow anything as disgusting as you touch them doesnt make sex a bad thing. G
            Report Abuse
          • Author by pete x tp (February 21, 2012 2:19 am ET)
            10  
            Citation needed, Boxedbrain. A link to a single peer reviewed study that demonstrates people of any age become more promiscuous if free condoms are available would suffice. As for the free part; we already provide free condoms under certain circumstances to charities and directly to people in the developing world. We are still the richest nation on the planet. Don't you think that we should spend some of the wealth to prevent disease and unwanted pregnancies?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by grunt (February 21, 2012 11:52 am ET)
                6
              Making things free promotes waste. Making things economical promotes consumption.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by curiousindependent (February 21, 2012 8:02 am ET)
            8  
            Look, boxy. You have already told us how you would like to see an increase in the number of abortions in this country, ALL of you Republicons have. We understand. We don't agree. We would like to see abortions go away because they are no longer needed.

            You and all of your cronies seem to be too stupid to understand that:

            free and easy access to contraception and prophylactics = no unwanted pregnancies = no abortions.

            That or you are all in favor of more abortions.

            Which is it?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by boxtop (February 21, 2012 11:28 am ET)
              1 6
              I think those things should be behind the counter, not staring at you when you walk down an isle at Wal-mart.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by pete x tp (February 21, 2012 12:34 pm ET)
                2  
                Why? Again; one single peer reviewed study showing that seeing a package of condoms has any negative effect on anyone would suffice.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by curiousindependent (February 21, 2012 2:35 pm ET)
                     
                  That's funny. You asked boxhead for a source to back up his idiotic and easily disprovable beliefs.

                  I'm sure, if he looks hard enough, he can find a Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, or Beck quote that will support him.

                  Of course, he won't be able to find any facts, but then, when has he ever needed facts to bolster his beliefs?
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by curiousindependent (February 21, 2012 12:59 pm ET)
                2  
                So you are, in fact, in favor of more abortions. Thank you for the confirmation.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by TheAlarmist (February 21, 2012 2:18 pm ET)
                   
                Where, next to the cigarettes? Those things? Have you truly never used any form of contraception?
                Condoms have the capability to save someone's life from an undesired situation. They can prevent youths from having an unwanted pregnancy, which can result in abortions.
                There are some grocery and convenience stores that I've been to that still have condoms locked behind glass, applying the notion that they are 'forbidden', and making a young teen all the less likely to ask the cashier to unlock the case for them. The logic is absurd.
                Report Abuse
      • Author by blk-in-alabam (February 21, 2012 5:53 am ET)
        5  
        You want to go back to the good ole days in the USA? Back to a time when girls married at 12,and 13 years old?? A time when they had 12 children by 25 with out even having sex????
        Report Abuse
      • Author by PurpleState (February 21, 2012 7:19 am ET)
        7  
        Perhaps you should just stop and take all of this to Twitter, seahawks. Your comedy could use that sort of wind tunnel so you can hear yourself laugh at your own jokes.

        Perhaps you should address more how sex education is more for AVOIDING sex and teenage pregnancy and the morality behind sex and not the simple cross-section of a vagina.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (February 21, 2012 11:04 am ET)
        4  
        Thanks to all that absinence-only education, Mississippi leads the nation in per capita teen births.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by boxtop (February 21, 2012 11:26 am ET)
            7
          Mississippi is a poor state. Teens can't think of nothing else to do. Trailer park material.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (February 21, 2012 11:40 am ET)
            4  
            You just said it was because of "all that sex education." Now you're saying it's because they're poor. You have no freaking clue what you're talking about, so you resort to stereotypes.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by boxtop (February 21, 2012 11:53 am ET)
                7
              If the stereotypes are true than so be it.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by pete592 (February 21, 2012 11:58 am ET)
                4  
                Especially in your case.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by SMTDL (February 22, 2012 11:37 am ET)
                1  
                Stereotypes are never true because they claim that all of a group is characterized a certain way.You should say SOME people do this or behave this way.If someone said white people are racists,you wouldn't like it because its not true,right?Only some are racists.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by pete x tp (February 21, 2012 12:30 pm ET)
              3  
              I think we might have broken Boxedbrain. We should have known better than to place extra pressure on a structure that wasn't up to code in the first place.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by PurpleState (February 21, 2012 7:00 pm ET)
               
            Ah, that's a double negative. I would like to congratulate you on becoming an advocate for more education, boxy.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by IBmoderate (February 20, 2012 11:42 pm ET)
      12  
      I think Bernie is confusing a few "surveys." There may be more babies being born out of wedlock. But the tendency to be poor is when the child is raised in a single parent household. I have 2 grandchildren borne out of wedlock, however both sets of parents are very active in their upbringing. The probability of them ever being classified as "poor" is nil......

      I realize this is just anecdotal but, the association that the parents not being married results in a child growing up poor isn't quite right.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by oscar the grouch (February 20, 2012 11:51 pm ET)
        1 14
        As long as two parents are involved in the child's upbringing, the chances that child will escape poverty are greatly enhanced. It's too bad we don't have good data on the number of children being born out of wedlock being supported, both fiscally and socially, by two parents vs the single parent scenario. From what I see and read, far too many are brought into this world by two, but supported during the formative years by only one. And in many cases, it is a multi-generational trend.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by PurpleState (February 21, 2012 7:21 am ET)
          9  
          Thank you for addressing this topic. I totally believe in children reaping the rewards from two responsible loving parents. Of course, I also encourage the child to make sound judgment calls about his or her future once they become old enough to see the direction of their future.

          It also sounds like you're totally in favor of homosexual marriage, and I commend you for that.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by curiousindependent (February 21, 2012 9:40 am ET)
            4  
            It also helps immensely if those 2-parent households are not themselves wreathed in poverty. Unfortunately, the deck has been so stacked in favor of the wealthy for the last 3 decades (at least) that even with a 2-parent household, if you are born poor, chances are that you will remain that way.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by barscotch9441 (February 21, 2012 9:59 am ET)
            5  
            Not trying to stir $h!t, but recent brain research indicates moral decision-making capability may not fully mature until the early 20's.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by n'est-ce pas (February 21, 2012 12:18 pm ET)
            1
          Okay, so first you say, with great conviction, that kids who have "two parents...involved in the child's upbringing" have a better chance of escaping poverty, then you go on to wich that you had data that proved your postulate. You don't seem to understand how the concept of "proof" works. If you don't have data to back your claim, you shouldn't make the claim. Thus endeth the lesson.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by GBU-15 (February 21, 2012 5:40 am ET)
      8  
      Goldberg makes the assumption that if you are rich and married that automatically makes you a good parent. John Hinkley and John Wayne Gacy blow that argument away. Rich men probably have a lot of children their wives know nothing about. Arnold Schwarzenegger anyone? If you want to know what unfair taxation brings about. Look at Greece. You know. The country Fox is always screaming about. Greece has a lot of billionaires who pay little or no taxes. Now watch children. As the Greek government tries to cut their way to prosperity on the backs of those who have the least to give back in tax revenue. Failure is the only option here. But tax the rich? NO! Not ever! Greece is rapidly heading toward third world status. No the wealthy are not the problem. Spineless politicians are!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by teh.stoopid.lib (February 21, 2012 8:32 am ET)
      8  
      Bernies assertion here assumes that all of the children born out of wedlock are living in single parent households. Just because a couple is not married doesn't automatically mean they don't live together and are not raising the child together. Gay couples have children but CANNOT get married so they are counted in that number. I have several friends that are not married but are raising their kids together. The idea the somehow rich people are better parents is asinine. They can just afford better help to raise their kids for them.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by littleguypainting (February 21, 2012 8:46 am ET)
      6  
      Wow! That's surprising...a couple of old white guys angry that the world has changed, using words like 'illegitimacy' to describe human beings. "Illegitimate", "Illegal", "Homeless", "Working-Poor" ... they attempt to reduce humanity to stereotypes. There is no such thing as an illegitimate person.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by bintx (February 21, 2012 9:25 am ET)
      4 1
      I was a single mother . . . I did more than my fair share. I worked 50-60 hours a week, was room mother, went to every extra-curricular event my children was involved in, drove up to 450 miles to attend some of their events, volunteered at church, volunteered in the community, paid my taxes, paid for food, paid for gas, bought consumer goods and NEVER took a single dime of assistance from anyone.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (February 21, 2012 9:31 am ET)
        3 1
        "were involved in"

        I might add that I had tons of emotional support from my family, friends, church and employer. While my ex's was a part of the kids' life, my father and brothers were father figures also. My kids turned out just fine.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by boxtop (February 21, 2012 1:43 pm ET)
        2 1
        Even though it's a shame that we have so many single mothers, it is good for someone like Bintz to make best of a bad situation.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (February 21, 2012 7:35 pm ET)
          1  
          It wasn't a "bad situation." My daughter thanked me when she was older for "fixing" our broken family. Our family was broken when before my husband and I got a divorce.

          I might add, I didn't have "ex's," I had one "ex." I refused to date until my children were in high school because I didn't want to create more problems.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Chameo (February 21, 2012 10:31 am ET)
      4  
      Let's just completely gloss over the fact that thirty years of stagnant wages for all but the top earners have made it nearly impossible to raise a family on one full-time income. Even two full-time incomes often fall short of providing enough for a family of four. If wages had actually kept pace with the cost of living, there would be far fewer single-parent households in poverty.

      Yes, it is an economic issue, and the issue is not that unmarried parents are killing the economy. It is that thirty years of flattened wages have made it impossible to raise a child on a single income. The solution is not to insist that people get married. It is to address the notion that the ultimate goal of any business is to extract as much money into as few pockets as possible and the best way to accomplish that is to undercut wages paid to workers.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (February 21, 2012 11:17 am ET)
      3  
      Many couples are choosing to have children and are raising them together without being married. If you're a committed couple and committed parents what difference does it make whether or not you are legally married?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by LibsFearMe (February 21, 2012 12:16 pm ET)
         
      Bernie is right on target as usual.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (February 21, 2012 1:22 pm ET)
      1  
      And I've got commenters on my blog wondering why I call these people scum.

      ------------------------------
      IMHO
      UTOPIA
      Report Abuse
    • Author by rashadkijani (February 21, 2012 1:27 pm ET)
      3  
      When did out of wedlock = poor and in wedlock = rich? Halle Berry, Angelina Jolie, Natalie Portman and Im sure others have children out of wedlock they are not poor. And when will republicans get off the high horse? They are celebrating Bristol Palin having a baby out of wedlock while continuing demonizing any 1 else who makes the same choice.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Lizinbklyn (February 21, 2012 1:56 pm ET)
      2  
      Too bad Bildo didn't have this conversation with Grandma Sarah Palin about Bristol . .

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Turey (February 21, 2012 3:50 pm ET)
         
      Oh, how cute. Another bootlicker for the rich.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Adendrools (February 21, 2012 10:11 pm ET)
      1  
      hey O'Reilly,

      Had you provided those young women with free birth control maybe they would be in this position, di(k. You ever make a mistake, I mean sleep with someone you maybe shouldn't have? Did you have to pay for it with your life? No? imagine my surprise.........
      Report Abuse