Many of the safety nets that once strengthened families - schools, childcare, affordable housing, healthcare costs, and more - have been weakened by social and political factors. We need to fix it.
Do not read Mr Davis's columns before breakfast, anymore than you did Mr Kenney's before he went to his safe place.
Yes, the problems are real. No, it's not "both sides of the aisle".
And the apathy of the idea that "federal funding decisions are what they are" is truly nauseating.
THAT is how folks like Mr Kenney can, with a straight face - state that Rob Wittman is a "great man", and mean it. If he's never held accountable for his votes, why wouldn't he be?
How hard did you have to put your thumb on the scales to balance a Democratic president 30 years ago expanding access to funding for higher education to the systemic beating that Republicans have given the lower 50% in the last 50 years?
When that expansion happened, Republican mindsets had already been pulling back support for higher education for a generation. Compare college costs in the 60s-70s in VA to those in the 90s-00s.
I would argue the problem with Democrats has been their willingness to compromise their ideals to appease the all-important baby boomer demographic as they age, not because they stuck to their principles.
Massive incarceration industry growth and privatization, welfare mom demonization also came under Clinton's watch.
But no, it's not hard to see which demographic has been driving those policies - or their primary party. I'll give you a hint, it's not the one who thought caging children, welfare for billionaires, or "healthcare for none" were bad ideas.
And the problem is not that your average citizen is not getting out and volunteering in his local school or daycare enough.
The problem is that we accept a system that systemically does not support children, or those raising them. And that whether or not they receive that support is based upon the circumstance of their personal family. employer, or community.
We see pap stories where some noble citizen paid the tab for hungry school children's lunch bill. Or giving away turkeys on Thanksgiving. Rather than spending so much time patting ourselves on the back for those grand gestures, would it not be better to create a system where those gestures are not needed?
Other nations do so, why not us?
We do that by changing our policies. That means government. At all levels.
Apathy and equivocation in an attempt to avoid offense is not the solution.
You see the problems as clearly as I do. Demand they be fixed as I do.
Our politicians represent us. If we do not hold them accountable for their actions, and just give them a pass, whatever the reason - that represents us as well.
The two fold problem is Fredericksburg is predominantly lower middle class, hence a church on every street corner. The second issue is NO Dept of Economic Development to bring in new clean industry to provide an economic buffer to the tax base. Only one in name only. Blaming Clinton because student loans proliferated during his administration is foolhardy. You borrow--You payback. What's so hard to understand here? When youth grow, get great jobs, they leave. What's so hard to understand about this? You can't blame them. So we're suffocated by those who demand FREE services and FREE everything else. Where's the Briar Patch? Not City Council. The last election saw a physician run for City Council. He lost because he told the truth. Teachers voted (again) for that endless bottomless bucket called Public Schools. We, as a city, are schools poor. Too much too soon destroying us fiscally. No one cares.
Respectfully, I would argue that there are two fallacies in your argument.
I disagree that Fredericksburg exists on an island. That is a construct of our Constitutions, not of reality. We choose to make it so. The balkanization of our governments are deliberate. With things like the Dillon rule in state government, prohibitions on annexation, etc. - local governments such as Fburg are hamstrung by these limitations, while those capable of moving to the outer donut are not.
Until the ageing infrastructure creates the same problems in the communities they move to, as the one they left. Caring for the children of Fredricksburg is as much a concern of the citizens of VA and the nation, as they are the citizens of that good city. We need to act like it. Creating policies that resolve these issues are how we do.
The 2nd argument is the conservative one. A farmer would be considered a poor farmer if he didn't tend his fields. Likewise, a tradesman his tools, or a rancher his livestock. Yet we as a society begrudge paying for the care of our youngest citizens with the most potential. That's a poor business decision. Pennywise and pound foolish, as they say.
Our collective birth rate is well under a sustainable number, yet we create conditions that discourage our young parents from having children.
You see feeding or caring for a hungry child as someone taking from you. I see it as a long term investment in our collective future. One of the best available. Not only is it kind and decent to take care of those least capable of taking care of themselves, it's good business.
You, too, are on that infinitesimal FREE bandwagon. Long standing residents should not be displaced, that's forced to move, because we have a fiscally unsound, fiscally irresponsible City Council that cannot, and I repeat, cannot be voted out. The only elderly who come here's are those of that religious cult in that Cowan apartment complex who've come here to die. Beyond them, no one elderly views us as their final exit That malarky about youth being an investment gets old real quick. And believe me, no one is collecting, the collecting you use in every paragraph, toward any future you mention. This is my final response. Your obtuse verbosity because you love to write and love to read what you write will no longer drag me into to your dungeon.
Note to self.
Do not read Mr Davis's columns before breakfast, anymore than you did Mr Kenney's before he went to his safe place.
Yes, the problems are real. No, it's not "both sides of the aisle".
And the apathy of the idea that "federal funding decisions are what they are" is truly nauseating.
THAT is how folks like Mr Kenney can, with a straight face - state that Rob Wittman is a "great man", and mean it. If he's never held accountable for his votes, why wouldn't he be?
How hard did you have to put your thumb on the scales to balance a Democratic president 30 years ago expanding access to funding for higher education to the systemic beating that Republicans have given the lower 50% in the last 50 years?
When that expansion happened, Republican mindsets had already been pulling back support for higher education for a generation. Compare college costs in the 60s-70s in VA to those in the 90s-00s.
I would argue the problem with Democrats has been their willingness to compromise their ideals to appease the all-important baby boomer demographic as they age, not because they stuck to their principles.
Massive incarceration industry growth and privatization, welfare mom demonization also came under Clinton's watch.
But no, it's not hard to see which demographic has been driving those policies - or their primary party. I'll give you a hint, it's not the one who thought caging children, welfare for billionaires, or "healthcare for none" were bad ideas.
And the problem is not that your average citizen is not getting out and volunteering in his local school or daycare enough.
The problem is that we accept a system that systemically does not support children, or those raising them. And that whether or not they receive that support is based upon the circumstance of their personal family. employer, or community.
We see pap stories where some noble citizen paid the tab for hungry school children's lunch bill. Or giving away turkeys on Thanksgiving. Rather than spending so much time patting ourselves on the back for those grand gestures, would it not be better to create a system where those gestures are not needed?
Other nations do so, why not us?
We do that by changing our policies. That means government. At all levels.
Apathy and equivocation in an attempt to avoid offense is not the solution.
You see the problems as clearly as I do. Demand they be fixed as I do.
Our politicians represent us. If we do not hold them accountable for their actions, and just give them a pass, whatever the reason - that represents us as well.
Is that who you want to be?
Not me.
Now, time for coffee.......
The two fold problem is Fredericksburg is predominantly lower middle class, hence a church on every street corner. The second issue is NO Dept of Economic Development to bring in new clean industry to provide an economic buffer to the tax base. Only one in name only. Blaming Clinton because student loans proliferated during his administration is foolhardy. You borrow--You payback. What's so hard to understand here? When youth grow, get great jobs, they leave. What's so hard to understand about this? You can't blame them. So we're suffocated by those who demand FREE services and FREE everything else. Where's the Briar Patch? Not City Council. The last election saw a physician run for City Council. He lost because he told the truth. Teachers voted (again) for that endless bottomless bucket called Public Schools. We, as a city, are schools poor. Too much too soon destroying us fiscally. No one cares.
Respectfully, I would argue that there are two fallacies in your argument.
I disagree that Fredericksburg exists on an island. That is a construct of our Constitutions, not of reality. We choose to make it so. The balkanization of our governments are deliberate. With things like the Dillon rule in state government, prohibitions on annexation, etc. - local governments such as Fburg are hamstrung by these limitations, while those capable of moving to the outer donut are not.
Until the ageing infrastructure creates the same problems in the communities they move to, as the one they left. Caring for the children of Fredricksburg is as much a concern of the citizens of VA and the nation, as they are the citizens of that good city. We need to act like it. Creating policies that resolve these issues are how we do.
The 2nd argument is the conservative one. A farmer would be considered a poor farmer if he didn't tend his fields. Likewise, a tradesman his tools, or a rancher his livestock. Yet we as a society begrudge paying for the care of our youngest citizens with the most potential. That's a poor business decision. Pennywise and pound foolish, as they say.
Our collective birth rate is well under a sustainable number, yet we create conditions that discourage our young parents from having children.
You see feeding or caring for a hungry child as someone taking from you. I see it as a long term investment in our collective future. One of the best available. Not only is it kind and decent to take care of those least capable of taking care of themselves, it's good business.
For all of us.
Good day.
You, too, are on that infinitesimal FREE bandwagon. Long standing residents should not be displaced, that's forced to move, because we have a fiscally unsound, fiscally irresponsible City Council that cannot, and I repeat, cannot be voted out. The only elderly who come here's are those of that religious cult in that Cowan apartment complex who've come here to die. Beyond them, no one elderly views us as their final exit That malarky about youth being an investment gets old real quick. And believe me, no one is collecting, the collecting you use in every paragraph, toward any future you mention. This is my final response. Your obtuse verbosity because you love to write and love to read what you write will no longer drag me into to your dungeon.