Poll: Would You Vote for Mitt Romney if He Promised to Address the Out-of-Wedlock Problem?

@ImaniScully I feel Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton should take the lead regarding out of wedlock problems. Obama has enough to do already. Who is the president suppose to be Jesus Christ?

 reem11  ImaniScully You can forget about Jesse, seeing that he has an out of wedlock child himself!

@Bunny77 @reem11 @ImaniScully He could be the poster child for this cause. "Hey look guys I've gone down that road and we got to do better" What a better person to do this, and no one can say "OH Mr. Goodie two shoes" He is well known amoung the bc, bm causes and politics.

 reem11  That was funny..

@ImaniScully I agree 100%, while it is nice to know where presidents stand on the issue, the president already has a ton of issues to worry about, like the economy, health care, foriegn relations and immigration, education(public education is seriously lacking) etc. I think "community advocates" should address the out-of-wedlock issue. If the president were to address the issue then it would have to be in the context of all americans not just the BC.

Also, i have a good friend who is a black mormon, and she is just the greatest.

 Veron Maybe not one poilcy but changes to the existing ones can help. Let's stop rewarding women for having kids whether they work or not. Let's change some of the drug policies (that would be more libertarian). People forget that this oow thing happened when liberal laws took effect. What was initially seen as help became the way to live.

 Veron Romney addressed Education Reform particularly for minorities at his NAACP speech and many other occassions. No matter what Romney proposes,blacks will vote for obama out of racial solidarity, even though they are suffering the highest unemployment in the country of any group (14.4% so far). But people have a right to engage in self-sabotage.

 QadirMohamed  Romney definitely mentioned education in his NAACP speech. Addressed it? Addressed anything for that matter? I wouldn't say.  He was eloquently vague, as he is in a good majority of his speeches,  and offered exactly one solution to the problems he was pledging to repair, and that was repealing "obamacare" in order to save the economy and subsequently, jobs. Which... what?

My idea of "addressing" education would not be telling a predominately poor demographic "You know what you guys need? Charter schools. Yep, the reason your demographic is flailing in education is because you're not sending your kids to charter schools! I'm totally going to open more charter schools for you when I'm president."  Oh, great thanks. 

Seriously, the answer to an underachieving school system is to build more schools? Assuming that those schools even succeed because charter/magnet and private schools are not as academically superior, statistically, as they'd like you to believe, it's a bandaid. That's not addressing a problem, that's fluffing over a problem. And I stand by my original statement that Romney hasn't said anything about education. Maybe I should say he hasn't said anything of substance.

In terms of racial solidarity, it's true for some, not for all. I'm sure there are many whites who will vote for Romney out of racial solidarity. It doesn't mean there aren't a number of people of any color who aren't actually listening to what these men are saying, or watching their actions.  There are tons of problems with the democratic party, and everyone is going to have their own biases, but I don't think it is fair to say that people who vote for obama are doing it because of appearance. Especially when the republican nominee is not exactly the picture of political stability.

 R. Kamaria That is not because of the Pres. it is the economy. That kind of stuff kicks off during hard times when there is less around for everybody.  Brings out the ugly in people.

 Brenda55 Great point.

 modernmystic As a Catholic, I have an issue with the mandate as well.  As I stated below, I'm voting with the party and candidate that aligns most closely to my personal beliefs.  For me, that's the Republican party.

What is wrong with providing reproductive health services to employees?

If you were to say that you have a problem with abortion or the morning after pill, that I could understand. But I can't understand not wanting women to have pap smears, men to receive vasectomies, or those who need treatment for uterine fibroids or other medical conditions related to their reproductive system not to receive that treatment.

 Jamila  Aren't vasectomies out of line with the Church's teachings?  That's my issue.  Forcing the Church to provide for things outside of its own teachings.  Not pap smears and fibroid treatments.  

 Jamila You can provide 'reproductive health services' to YOUR employees if you so choose. Nobody is quarrelling with that. But the Gov't has/should never have A  RIGHT TO FORCE YOU to do it if its against your conscience or philosophical outlook. That's a slippery slope toward Total Nanny State.

 QadirMohamed  Jamila "the Gov't has/should never have A  RIGHT TO FORCE YOU to do it.."

Once you decide to hire employees, your philosophical outlook takes a backseat to providing a hospitable environment for your employees. This mandate does not force employers to wheel a cart of contraceptives down the hall daily, but to offer it within an employment compensation package: insurance.

the Catholic church is not a philosophical organization it is a religious one. I suspect that this ruling will cause the Catholic voting block, who have historically voted democrat to vote Republican.

 QadirMohamed Better a nanny state then a war-mongering, billion-dollar spending state. Which is EXACTLY what the US has become. Why is it ok to spend that much money on wars but it's absolutely wrong to spend that much towards the people's welfare? And I hate to tell you this, but US corporations (FCC, anyone?), insurance and oil companies are already playing nannies to the American people. That ship has long sailed.

I don't like corporate tyrany either.

@modernmystic ?...we are in shark infested waters folks ..... 1) religious institutions were, after much hoopla, exempted from such requirements. The government hasn't forced churches to do anything 2) I happen to disagree with the exemption for two reasons (a) most catholic institutions (except for a catholic hospital) may have employees, but they do NOT actually provide the health insurance, they pay for the insurance. Often Insurance will cover the service, but it is the catholic employer who is objecting. I am uncomfortable with a lesser interested party being able to dictate what a person can and cannot do under their insurance. And by lesser I mean as a woman I am much closer to issue of my mensutral cycle than my catholic employer. They may care very strongly, but always they are less vested as they don't have to raise my baby. (b) lets look at the other side of the slippery slope. There are a lot of common carrier exceptions...this is where the government says because of the size of your service and the necessity of your service will treat you and regulate you as though you were a state entity. Thus...you can't refuse to rent apartments to Muslims, or block Mexicans for staying at your hotel chain, you can't (religious) hospital simply decided not to perform blood transfusions because you are a jevoiah's witnesses as transfusions are an essential part of emergency medicine which trumps the hosptial's religious beliefs. But nobody wants to fight about where life begins so catholic employers are exempted. Vote however you want ---- but please know this exemption exists. No word yet on how many religions may apply for such exemption or exactly how many procedures an employer can block you from having. That scares me more. Remember nobody is actually requiring those who don't want birth control to take it. The idea was people have a constitutional right to birth control and "the free market" of insurance in a benefits package from a catholic employer should NOT be able to block a fundamental right. Call me crazy, but that makes sense to me.

 Blackberry  modernmystic 

BB,

Thanks for saying this. Most people are acting like it's the religious institution is being made to carry and offer birth control. Unless the special Catholic organization is offering and have their own private brand of medical insurance, then they are using the same insurance companies options available to almost all profit and non-profit organizations in the country.

This issue is about women and their bodies and who/what can control it.

I really wonder if some women understand what could and would happen if the Govt said F*** it and allowed religious institutions to decide and do whatever they wanted about women's reproductive right and health.

 Blackberry  modernmystic

 Thanks, Blackberry, for pointing out the truth so eloquently.  I'm a Catholic, too, but I also believe that any individual's health care decisions are personal and private.  Each person must look into their own hearts to decide what is right for them and outsiders and institutions should butt out.

And while I have the floor, let me say that I have a somewhat different take on the Mormon organization.  There are a lot of Mormons and Mormon communities in southern Nevada and hereabouts.  The attitude toward women isn't all that pretty.  Just sayin' . . . .

@keimiasmoon They're a community of Mormons here in the PNW, my husband's boss is a Mormon and they are really nice.

 keimiasmoon The few Mormons that I know of are indeed very nice. And their strong family structure is something I definitely  admire.

Presidents have a tremendous amount of power, but it's important to know that they can control and what they can't.

Governors have a lot of control because they administer all (or almost all?) of the federal programs at the state level.

When Reagan was president he did alot to mess up black families during the 80's. Reaganomics destroyed many inner city black communities. If one president can do that much harm, then another president can do as much good.

 Jamila

 The decline of the black family has been happening since the late 60's. It has continued to the present day with little slowdown regardless of whom is the President. I think crack cocaine did to inner city black communities in the 80's what meth is doing to rural white communities today. Interestingly both are heavily dependent on social welfare programs of all kinds. Entitlement mentality, dependency, victim mentality(also found in rural white America) and decline of socially sucessful values have caused most of our social problems.

"It has continued to the present day with little slowdown regardless of whom is the President"

That's not really true.  Blacks have been advancing, but white people have been advancing even faster, and now certain Asian groups have been putting both whites and blacks to shame on some metrics.

Food Stamps/Snap--Federal Program

Housing Vouchers/Section 8--Federal Program

Student Loans--Federal Program

Medicaid (i.e., health care for poor)--Federal Program

Child tax credits--Federal Program

I think that it seems as if presidential and congressional politics don't make that much difference is because virtually no presidents or other politicians have done much to attack the prison industrial complex, or to do anything about the educational system, or to do anything about the hell holes that some inner cities have become--they could do something, but they have chosen not to. Even President Obama knows that he can't be too "pro black" or else he never would have been elected.

 Jamila

 The OOW birth rates have been in steady decline you can check this by viewing census data going back decades. I'm not denying that in some ways advances have been made I was referring only to the black family. Politicians of both parties have tried to reform education without meaningful results, I don't believe there is a prison industrial complex, inner cities are only part of our problems in the grand scheme not even that large of a part. I may be wrong but it seems you start with the assumption that government is to be the prime solution to many problems but haven't considered it's past failures or reasonable prospects for its sucesss. You seem logic and fact driven in your thinking, you should examine conservatism more closely. Perhaps you already have:) Not trying to be condescending:)

"The OOW birth rates have been in steady decline you can check this by viewing census data going back decades."

I don't want to get into an argument over minutia. Yes, I understant that the number of children black women have been having has been declining. I understand what you're saying.

"Politicians of both parties have tried to reform education without meaningful results..."

It's unfortunate that they've failed thus far, but everything hasn't been tried yet.

Personally, I think there should be more single-sex schools, especially at the high school level, in urban areas where teen and oow pregnancies are high.

KIPP charter schools are good but expensive. If the will existed to spend the money on funding the schools and training the teachers KIPP programs could be expanded, but that won't happen in a political atmosphere where politicians can't raise taxes for education.

" I don't believe there is a prison industrial complex,.."

I do. Many rural communities are dependent upon prisons for jobs. in In Illinois there were plans to close a prison downstate and people from the community actually came out with protest signs saying "Don't Close Our Prison." Some corporations use prison labor to make cheap goods.

 "I may be wrong but it seems you start with the assumption that government is to be the prime solution to many problems but haven't considered it's past failures or reasonable prospects for its sucesss"

Government can be a tool for evil or  a tool for good. I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. When government does something wrong it should be corrected as soon as possible and then you learn from the mistake. Sometimes government is the best solution, but not always.

 Jamila

 I agree with your view on single sex schools, so much of my time as a boy was spent thinking about and trying to impress girls. There has got be a better way than the controlled chaos that mixed sex classrooms can sometimes be. I think charter schools should be expanded but ultimately I would like to see education moved to a voucher based system. This would spark competition and increase outcomes. We spend far more than many nations and get less when it comes to education.I think you vastly overstate the importance of rural voters in the political process. Yes they want to protect their jobs but this ignores the fact  that most Americans live in urban or suburban areas. I think drug laws need to be reformed in some ways to reduce the numbers of people incarcerated. Also there are many good ideas for prison reform especially faith based. I agree with you in principle about government as a tool for good or evil. I think conservatives have become convinced that many social welfare programs actually hurt not help. The problem is that bureacracy gathers momentum and resists reform. Today liberal progressives are arm in arm with bureacrats and forcefully resist any meaningful reform.

 LewisandClark  Single sex schools and a strictly enforced uniform policy. (Absolutely no sagging pants!, and shirts tucked in with ties- everyday, Monday - Friday). These two things would do a world of wonder for our educational system. It wouldn't fix everything obviously, but it would be a start. 

 LewisandClark "I think charter schools should be expanded but ultimately I would like to see education moved to a voucher based system. This would spark competition and increase outcomes."

Creating more charter schools and expanding voucher programs are small band-aids to the larger problem--creating meaningful educational reform--at best.

For starters...

1. Parents have to transport their children to school. So having a voucher to attend a school that the child cannot even reach (you cannot put a small child on public transportation; the parent may not have a car or the time to take their child to a school that is farther away; etc., ) makes the voucher useless.

2. Quality schools will fill up fast, normally with the local kids. So a school cannot  accept a child with a voucher if they have no room for that kid.

3. A voucher may not cover the total cost of tuition (and other fees) at private or charter school so the child still would not be attend due to cost.

etc.,  

 Jamila

 To respond:

Any transportation issues could be resolved by keeping in place and modifying when necessary arrangements already made within the present system. Transportation is a small portion of total education costs most costs are personnel including district staff. This is hardly a difficult situation to resolve when public education is and has been in crisis for decades.

More schools will open this is simple supply and demand. Any time capacity is reached the school will expand or a competitor will open another location.

Several Catholic schools in inner cities around the nation have agreed to take any vouchers given in pilot programs. I'm sure other faith based and non profit groups will do the same. Remember there has been a great deal of uncertainty regarding vouchers because of the stiff opposition from teachers union and thus the Democratic Party. If you haven't already read up about what was done to the succesful voucher program in D.C. by the Democrats and President Obama. If vouchers were a permanent part of the landscape many more schools would learn to accomodate the students by making alternative arrangements as is common now with families earning lower incomes.

Finally "education reform" has been tried on some level by every President of both parties going back 20 years. Usually this is some blend of testing, technology and increased spending on teacher training and retention. These attempts have all been enormous failures on many levels. It is clear to everyone that public educaton with a few counterexamples is failing horribly. I believe ensuring quality public education is a good example of a thing government does very poorly. The role of government should be to provide access to quality education NOT provide it. To me this is abundantly clear any reform that has commonly been proposed is more of the same and will not work. We spend more than most nations including European nations and get less. This is an area where original thinking and bold creative thinking would go a long way. The liberal progressives have embraced a reactionary special interest driven approach with public education.

@Jamila But Reagan had congress that backed him on that mess up, what I'm saying is a President can't do this alone. Yes, I know they have powers but they have nothing if they have no congress to back them on their proposals. Look at Obama, when he had a congress that could have backed him they decided to do nothing. Now that part of that congress is gone he's almost lame duck. Same thing for George W. Bush at the end of his last 4 years as president. I know exactly what Reagan did, I lived through it but Reagan couldn't have done that w/o the legislature. Ppl seem to forget that part, now I have no idea who's about to get in the congress on next election or who's going to president but that combo will determine what if anything will happen.

I vote in every election just about, especially my local ones b/c those matter a lot, local politics effects me more than national. I especially vote when it comes to my Congress ppl, unlike the President who only gets to stay for 8 years so as soon as they get going good it's time for them to go. My Congress ppl, my reps & senators are there for a long time & they hold a lot of power, many of them are there 10, 20+ years I'd be as concerned about them as I am the President probably more.