What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

[milohimself]

Bleedingheart? Aside from giving a damn about the lot of others, which I know some can't be bothered to do, I have a vested interest in the development of the human capital of others so they are less of a burden to society. I'd hope you're not too short-sighted to see that.

I'm pretty sure if the "they should quit ****ing up" approach worked, things would be hunky dory right now.

You need to get a grip on reality.

 

[utvolpj]

so increase the current burden on society so that there may possibly be a payoff in the future?

 

[sjt18]

Really? Equal treatment and fair pay for women leads to illegitimacy?

No. The absurd claim that women and men are "equal" or the "same" most certainly does though.

I lived through alot of that non-sense. The "reasoning" went that women and men were equals and that the only differences were imposed on them as children. Therefore, "remedies" were needed to fix it. This ideal also gave base for the idea that a child didn't need both a mother and a father since the woman could easily do it all once unshackled from that wicked traditional paradigm.

The people doing this did everything they could to prevent discussion of obvious innate differences between men and women- physical, emotional, and even intellectual. Women are vastly superior at some things. Men are superior at other things.

The left equates "same" with "fair". It is seldom "fair" to treat people the "same".

 

[sjt18]

I don't see how that being omitted makes your statement any less sexist.

Ridiculous.

This is an example of PC.... where the truth becomes a victim of bias.

 

[sjt18]

Oh boy...

Let me start by saying this. Single mothers, particularly in black communities, are a fact of life. Unless everybody here is all for quadrupling enforcement of child support, this is going to happen.

I am.

The question comes down to this: What is really most important for a mother of young children? That she have the ability to raise them the best that she can, or that she stop being a leech on the system?

False dichotomy. When you encourage rather than mock morality and responsibility she can both raise the children well (usually with the father) AND stop being a leech on the system.

"The system" does NOT make good mothers.

There is still a notion of women being irresponsible

Yes and....

and having children so they know they can be lazy and get government assistance.

Sometimes.

Does anybody here know any welfare moms?

Yes.

Have they told you they like getting paltry sums and living at or near poverty?

No. They have repeatedly demonstrated that they are unwilling to make the changes in their moral/ethical choices to change their circumstances. They manipulate the system and other people as a way of life.

Do you honestly think the majority of them would tell you that they have no interest in seeking work again? Don't tell me it ain't so bad. The amount paid to cash welfare recipients has dropped since the 90's -- particularly with the TANF act signed in by Clinton.

There are three classes of people taking assistance. The retired, those who are temporarily down, and those who have come to have an entitlement mentality.

I know and have known many people in all three classes. The first class would work if they could. The second class will work again when they can. The last class has no interest in working. They expect not only what they are getting now but more.

Welfare should NOT pay well. It should be a safety net... not a soft bed.

Among the problems we face is a deincentivization of obtaining decent work for single moms (insert stripper joke here). Put yourself in one's shoes. You're a 23 year old mother of two young children, not yet old enough to be in preschool. You can't afford childcare and putting together a patchwork of babysitters is difficult and inconsistent at best. Do you: A) Get a minimum wage job at 32 hours a week, significantly reducing your ability to provide for your children and cutting back or eliminating your welfare amounts and most importantly jeopardizing Medicaid benefits, or do you B) maintain welfare status so you can ensure medical coverage for yourself and your family knowing you can scrape together what you need on a month to month basis, though you have no ability to save?

C) Be responsible enough to only have children with a man who will marry you and help provide for them.

SCHIP has made some advances in providing care for children. I don't think anybody would be alright with penalizing kids for being born into crappy situations and denying them basic healthcare. But their mothers?

The best thing that could be done for the kids is a voucher program. By and large, even the lowest of moms wants something better for their kids. Private and religious schools can and will do a much better job of teaching children who were born into illegitimacy how to raise the next generation in a two parent home.

Everybody in this debate sees the same goal: Getting as many people off welfare as possible. But a simple look around will show that poverty as is, is a cyclical thing. Many people revert to an individualist approach to the problem, that if people wanted out they would pick themselves up by the boot straps and improve their lot. But once somebody is in a cycle of poverty, that happens at a very, very low rate.

The rate is lowered further when they can comfortably stay in "poverty".

The one person I am thinking of right now lives as if not more "lavishly" than I do. She has a fancy phone with internet access. She has her nails done. She parties all the time. She buys the most expensive brand of cigarettes available. She eats well. She buys more expensive clothes than I wear. She finances this through entitlements and sponging off her parents.

My point is that welfare and Medicaid as it exists is a crappy patchwork system that only results in more poverty. Instead of providing people with enough to not starve, how about providing a way for them to take themselves and improve their value of human capital, so that they have a decent shot at pulling themselves out of poverty and eventually pay more back to society than they take from it? And one that allows single mothers to raise healthy children that won't grow up to be truants and eventually criminals? Or maybe the ability to work towards a four year degree should they decide to work hard enough for one.

Vouchers that can also be used for pre-school and day care... plus work-fare. Those who refuse to work should be cut off and their children removed.

 

[sjt18]

milo, your fundamental mistake is that you think this is primarily economic. It isn't. It is primarily moral and ethical.

Most of the people we are talking about are where they are because of the choices they've made and continue to make. You can throw all the money at it that you want but it won't be solved until their pattern of decision making fundamentally and permanently changes... That will take more "tough love" than coddling.

 

[volinbham]

The problem you have here is that these irresponsible women are bearing children. When they receive punitive treatment while trying to be parents, their children are thereby likely damned to poverty as well. It's not like they chose to be born into that situation (any Hindus in the room?). That's how it breeds itself. A way to break the cycle is needed.

Enabling them to raise healthy kids that won't go on to make the same dumb decisions is a start.

I appreciate your optimism but the history of these programs doesn't match the theory.

Also, the choice of terms like "punitive treatment" to describe a situation where there isn't MORE government support is interesting.

Since the 60s, government "help" programs have been put in place to break the cycle. The cycle has accelerated. Hardly strong evidence to fix it by expanding these programs.

I'm not advocating removing or even cutting Medicaid. I am saying the evidence tells us that more government programs to help with self esteem, a leg-up or whatever feel good term you want to use are not the answer. Not sure what the answer is but I see no compelling evidence for and plenty against expanding government programs to address this issue.

 

[volinbham]

Reducing the number of single parent families is another matter entirely.

Correlation does not mean causality here.

That's why I used the word correlation :hi:

 

[volinbham]

milo, your fundamental mistake is that you think this is primarily economic. It isn't. It is primarily moral and ethical.

Most of the people we are talking about are where they are because of the choices they've made and continue to make. You can throw all the money at it that you want but it won't be solved until their pattern of decision making fundamentally and permanently changes... That will take more "tough love" than coddling.

I don't know how to solve the program but there is considerable evidence to suggest that increasing dependency does NOT improve self-esteem, motivation nor break the cycle.

 

[sjt18]

Reducing the number of single parent families is another matter entirely.

Correlation does not mean causality here.

Yes... it most obviously does. A man and woman working together to finance and run a home through their own resources is demonstrably more effective than homes headed by a single mom.

The problem we have here is what I would call a self-esteem issue. .

What? LOL.....

MORAL.... ETHICAL... These people are only victims in the sense that they were raised and trained poorly. They have the capacity to make good decisions.

 

[droski]

And why do you think this is? Ever looked at how much a family actually received from TANF and EBT? In many states, it's not even enough to survive on. Many welfare recipients have to focus all of their energy merely into making sure their kids have food in their mouths, through earning side money. That then makes them fraudulent recipients, but they have to do it to survive. If they do go on to get legit jobs, typically at minimum wage or only a couple dollars above it, their prospects get even worse. Sporadic hours and reduced benefits come with going out and getting work.

The "cycle of dependency" only happens because most recipients do not have the resources to develop themselves as skilled persons and earn enough to pay their own way while raising a child, not because these people think they are on some gravy train. Again, you ever known somebody on TANF? Did they think it was the hottest thing since sliced bread?

Most of them do want to break out and become productive citizens. But the reality is that unless they are essentially lucky, their prospects to do so are pretty slim.

when my wife was a teacher in the inner city she'd consistantly hear her students talking about getting pregnant so taht they could move out of the house and get their own place.

 

[bleedorange1983]

The problem you have here is that these irresponsible women are bearing children. When they receive punitive treatment while trying to be parents, their children are thereby likely damned to poverty as well. It's not like they chose to be born into that situation (any Hindus in the room?). That's how it breeds itself. A way to break the cycle is needed.

Enabling them to raise healthy kids that won't go on to make the same dumb decisions is a start.

If you think that women don't have children for the sole purpose of collecting welfare then you are solely mistaken. Most of these kids are raised on the same principles in which they were born...have kids-make money off the government.

 

[droski]

i'm not convinced these parents being at home with the kids will produce better kids than a daycare. it's a bit naive to assume they'll all of a sudden give a crap about the kids if they have enough money to stay home with them.

 

[lawgator1]

72% Of Black Kids Raised In Single Parent Household, 25 Percent In U.S. | News One



If anything, wouldn't you think the lack of "policies to help support families" would be a disincentive to have children? If their are no institutions in place, wouldn't it stand to reason that most people would probably not have or delay having children?

Maybe I'm missing something...

I agree - I don't see the causal link. If anything, you would think those things facilitate single parent families.

First, both of you assume that a lot of the families we are talking about are planned.

Second, your further assumption that if planned they would be planned around the availability of social programs is pretty interesting insight into the way you view this problem.

THIS more than any act of racism keeps the black community as a whole from attaining the same levels of economic/social success as whites, hispanics, asians, or even immigrant blacks. The article seems to suggest the exact wrong solution. Whatever you subsidize.... you get more of. Patrick Moynihan recognized that a 35% illegitimacy rate amongst blacks in 1960 would sink not only blacks but the country as a whole. He was a good man IMO but he believed in "gov't as a force for good" and pushed the war on poverty programs that contributed to even more illegitimacy along with left wing social movements like "women's lib" and the sexual revolution.

First, and in accord with above, your assumption that the availability of a social program is what causes this problem is truly alarming.

Second, how do you square this problem with your condemnation of family planning, including your support for the nuking of Planned Parenthood?





The long-term solution to this problem is education and expansion of economic opportunity for the lower classes.

 

[therealUT]

This is rapidly devolving into an incredibly sexist and incredibly racist thread.

Having multiple kids while lacking the means to support them is endemic of impoverished communities the world over, to include both societies that receive extra welfare payments for extra children and societies that do not. While there are most likely some outliers, some who intentionally and vocally exploit the system, the majority do not do so for some kind of skewed personal gain.

Governments that have been able to reduce their welfare outlays to these mothers have, by and large, done so by enforcing child limitations: the most notable examples of this are China and India (the government sterilizes poor mothers after their second child in many communities).

This has nothing to do with race; it has nothing to do with the advancement in women's rights. This has everything to do with socio-economic conditions.

If one wants to look critically at the reasons in which African-American communities have higher rates, look into the red-lining and the white-flight of the 1950s, '60s, and '70s.

 

[droski]

First, both of you assume that a lot of the families we are talking about are planned.

a shocking percentage seem to be. common reasons my wife heard were: a) boyfriend wants a kid (apparently that marks her as his woman), b) boyfriend will love me or stay with me if I give him a kid (usually if he's banging some other chick), and c) mom's an ******* i need to move out and i can do that if i have a kid. no one is saying the logic is sound, but i don't think inner city kids aren't aware of what a condom is.

 

[IPorange]

Ridiculous.

This is an example of PC.... where the truth becomes a victim of bias.

You speak about truth, I'm talking about facts. Women are cognitively just as capable as men. Women are not bound to some subservient role. Men make bad choices sometimes just as women do.

 

[droski]

If one wants to look critically at the reasons in which African-American communities have higher rates, look into the red-lining and the white-flight of the 1950s, '60s, and '70s.

so if white people had stayed they'd be having fewer kids? do you think it's a coincidence that the civil rights movement is the point in african american history where they not only stopped moving up in white society, but started moving down? you tell any kid, white, black whatever, from birth that people are keeping you down, that you have no reasonable chance to succeed because of this, and the man owes you something and you'll get underachievers.

 

[therealUT]

so if white people had stayed they'd be having fewer kids? do you think it's a coincidence that the civil rights movement is the point in african american history where they not only stopped moving up in white society, but started moving down? you tell any kid, white, black whatever, from birth that people are keeping you down, that you have no reasonable chance to succeed because of this, and the man owes you something and you'll get underachievers.

Simultaneous events happened at the time of the Civil Right's movement; I would give larger credence to red-lining and white flight.

Successful, middle class African-Americans tried to move to better neighborhoods, which would afford their children with better opportunities (most notably, better school systems). White persons first tried to keep African-Americans out of their neighborhoods; once that failed, white people left en masse. The consequence of their flight was a severe drop in property values; neighborhoods that once required a certain income level, were now filled with houses of lower income individuals. Of course, this led to lower revenues collected via property taxes, ultimately leading to less funding for the local schools, and down the line a "systemic" problem concerning the African-American community and poverty.

 

[lawgator1]

a shocking percentage seem to be. common reasons my wife heard were: a) boyfriend wants a kid (apparently that marks her as his woman), b) boyfriend will love me or stay with me if I give him a kid (usually if he's banging some other chick), and c) mom's an ******* i need to move out and i can do that if i have a kid. no one is saying the logic is sound, but i don't think inner city kids aren't aware of what a condom is.

Literally all of which would be seriously reduced as incentive to have children if the mother had a meaningful opportunity for education and her own financial stability.

You want to break the cycle of poverty?

Educate and create opportunities for the poor.

You want to make it worse?

Blame the poor.

 

[droski]

Simultaneous events happened at the time of the Civil Right's movement; I would give larger credence to red-lining and white flight.

Successful, middle class African-Americans tried to move to better neighborhoods, which would afford their children with better opportunities (most notably, better school systems). White persons first tried to keep African-Americans out of their neighborhoods; once that failed, white people left en masse. The consequence of their flight was a severe drop in property values; neighborhoods that once required a certain income level, were now filled with houses of lower income individuals. Of course, this led to lower revenues collected via property taxes, ultimately leading to less funding for the local schools, and down the line a "systemic" problem concerning the African-American community and poverty.

they've been busing kids into the rich areas for decades now. hasn't seemed to have helped anything.

Literally all of which would be seriously reduced as incentive to have children if the mother had a meaningful opportunity for education and her own financial stability.

You want to break the cycle of poverty?

Educate and create opportunities for the poor.

You want to make it worse?

Blame the poor.

this was a charter school. all of them had an opportunity for education and their own financial stability. the change needs to start at home. making excuses for everything only fuels the problem. that doesn't mean that mistakes haven't been made or that our education is great or anything, but if you want to solve the problem you have to stop enabling the behavior.

 

[therealUT]

they've been busing kids into the rich areas for decades now. hasn't seemed to have helped anything.

No sh**. Take a child who grows up in a poor area and within a certain culture, and then make him an obvious minority at another school, surrounded by kids he has never seen before; by kids that have a different language set, different hobbies, and starkly different views of their world, and ask that kid to perform to a high level.

Busing simply ostracizes and intimidates these poor kids. These two factors are detrimental to learning.

this was a charter school. all of them had an opportunity for education and their own financial stability. the change needs to start at home. making excuses for everything only fuels the problem. that doesn't mean that mistakes haven't been made or that our education is great or anything, but if you want to solve the problem you have to stop enabling the behavior.

I agree that enabling needs to stop; however, to somehow make the argument that the problem began with entitlement measures is an absurd falsity. The problem was rooted in segregation, both forced and voluntary (white-flight).

 

[droski]

No sh**. Take a child who grows up in a poor area and within a certain culture, and then make him an obvious minority at another school, surrounded by kids he has never seen before; by kids that have a different language set, different hobbies, and starkly different views of their world, and ask that kid to perform to a high level.

Busing simply ostracizes and intimidates these poor kids. These two factors are detrimental to learning.



I agree that enabling needs to stop; however, to somehow make the argument that the problem began with entitlement measures is an absurd falsity. The problem was rooted in segregation, both forced and voluntary (white-flight).

they are hardly a minority in those schools in los angeles and other areas.

And they don't seem even remotely intimidated.

You give someone the easy way out and it's human nature to take it. do it for generations and people don't know any better. segregation was far worse before white flight ever existed yet african americans were getting better educated and moving up the ladder. why didn't it keep them in poverty then? why doesn't it keep other groups in poverty to the same degree?

 

[therealUT]

segregation was far worse before white flight ever existed yet african americans were getting better educated and moving up the ladder.

This is a common myth.

African-Americans were finally privy to education and experienced greater levels of freedom; therefore, they were not scraping the bottom of the barrel. That said, simply because a handful of extremely talented individuals were able to reach new heights, does not mean this was a rule.

You might as well make the claim that since Frederick Douglas and George Washington Carver were able to receive such great educations, every African-American was capable of doing the same at the time.

 

[droski]

This is a common myth.

African-Americans were finally privy to education and experienced greater levels of freedom; therefore, they were not scraping the bottom of the barrel. That said, simply because a handful of extremely talented individuals were able to reach new heights, does not mean this was a rule.

You might as well make the claim that since Frederick Douglas and George Washington Carver were able to receive such great educations, every African-American was capable of doing the same at the time.

not seeing your point since i wasn't remotely arguing it was easier then. they had worse access to education then, yet they were better educated compared to whites on average then the current african american population and were closer to white in income and wealth.