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

[Rasputin_Vol]

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.

The conversation appears to be "sexist" because for the first time, women are starting to held accountable for their contributions to the issue. As a black man, you have no idea how angry it makes me and others to hear black leaders, politicians and these women run all black men down into the gutter over the last 40+ years, while the women have never been addressed about the choices they make and the circumstances behind the creation of their family.

Also, white flight has nothing to do with contributing to all of these baby mommas running around out here. Let me understand this... white people moved to the suburbs, and that's why Lil Wayne and Tupac crawled between their legs to produce bastard children? I dont see the connection.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[volinbham]

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.

Hold on there skippy. You are making a mighty big leap there.

I'm simply saying agreeing with the OP that adding these programs is at best completely non-related to single parent families.

I also indicated that it could have an incentivizing impact if the consequences of being a single parent family were reduced.




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?

Once again you've jumped the shark. Link me to any condemnation I've made of family planning or where I wanted to get rid of PP. You cannot do it.




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

Brilliant -

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

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

The 2 events that have destroted the black community was the explosion in gov't programs and the rise of feminism. If you get a group of women that follow feminist doctrine and are getting govt subsidies that essentially make fathers and husbands unnecessary, you have basically destroyed a community from the inside out.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[volinbham]

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.

I particularly agree with the first part and can see the role of the second part.

Where I disagree with the article in the OP and some of the recommendations here is the solution.

Basic safety net (Medicaid and some for of WIC) are critical. Feel good, self-esteem building programs are a waste and could do as much to perpetuate the problem as solve it.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

And please, can we kill this "we need more education" nonsense? Esp. when the kids are not going to school, the parent(s) arent going to meet the teachers until lil Daquan fails a class, when we have educational spending going through the roof, and when you have so many educational opportunities available that illegal aliens have no problem taking advantage of the situation...
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[droski]

that's the question. how do you change the culture and get the parents to start giving a crap about education?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

that's the question. how do you change the culture and get the parents to start giving a crap about education?

The answer is not to continue on the path we've had the last 40-45 years. Why are most of these people having children to begin with? I had a conversation with another guy several months back. He put it best... it is reverse Darwinism occuring in the black community right now. The best and brightest are being outproduced by the least productive and responsible members in the community.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[hndog609]

So what are the "nuclear options" in all this? Some kind of sci-fi reversable sterilization until proven solvent to have kids? (or mandatory abortions after the fact) I'm not saying these are (or should be) viable options but let's flip the "feel good/wouldn't it be nice" coin for a minute...what (if any) genuinely actionable policies can we come up with that directly address the problem?

 

[utvolpj]

it is reverse Darwinism occuring in the black community right now. The best and brightest are being outproduced by the least productive and responsible members in the community.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Tyler Perry's version of Idiocracy?

 

[hndog609]

Tyler Perry's version of Idiocracy?

Love that opening sequence.

YouTube - "Idiocracy" introduction - the future of human evolution

 

[utvolpj]

it's inevitable really. I look at other people my age and I'm way behind

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

that's the question. how do you change the culture and get the parents to start giving a crap about education?

If they can't morally or even ethically think that having sex unprotected, and with someone you care nothing about, is bad, then why is education even something they would consider as important?? Seems to me that educating the parents about these things would be an important step to helping out, but your not going to get them in a classroom setting to even try. Thus, it's just a run around the proverbial life track for most impoverished adults and kids, and until they realize that ONLY they have the ability to come off that track, it's ALWAYS going to be a problem.

 

[lawgator1]

Brilliant -

The latter comment about Planned Parenthood was directed at joevol's post, not yours.

 

[sjt18]

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

Imagine that. A 1+1+1=3 equation alarms you.

"Causes"? No. Encourages and exacerbates? YES!!! It is very likely that there will always be some people including moms who refuse to take personal responsibility for themselves or their problems. There will likely always be men who abandon women and women who are fooled by them. Those are the circumstance that so appalled Moynihan.

The direct fact is that liberal social programs and social ideals have made the problems immeasurably worse and entrenched.

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

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. I know nothing of you but I doubt that you would have a child that you could not or would not support. If you made a mistake I HOPE that you would own up to it and care for the child.

FWIW, I do no condemn family planning. Abortion isn't family planning... it is a manifest lack of it.

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

No it isn't. That is the "solution" offered and paid for with trillions of tax payer $ over the past 50 years.

IIRC, the DC school district costs well over $15k per kid. If "education" were the solution, their problems should be diminishing.

The solution is something the left denies exists and gov't can never provide- A sound set of moral and ethical absolutes that govern choices.

 

[sjt18]

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

It is not sexist to recognize differences between men and women. It is not racist to be honest about problems that are harming one group more than others.

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.

I grew up in one of the poorest counties in NC... I have lived in Seattle, Chicago, Atlanta, Charlotte, and close enough to bot STL and KC to know their problems. I have met and known people from across the spectrum in these cities.... We are NOT talking about outliers.

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).

Wow! How surprising. A liberal only thinks in terms of gov't solutions.

This is NOT a gov't problem nor one the gov't can solve. It can only make it worse either the way we have or by confiscating freedom as these other countries have.

Private solutions work better and do not infringe on rights or freedoms.

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.

You can say it as often as you like... it just ain't so.

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.

You are truly, truly clueless. Do you know the causes of white flight? Whites had lived in those communities for decades and had no intentions of leaving before gov't programs forced them to.

 

[sjt18]

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.

Women have many strengths that men do not have. I have never questioned that at all.

Men do make bad choices. However this issue happens to be one controlled primarily by women and their choices.

 

[sjt18]

that's the question. how do you change the culture and get the parents to start giving a crap about education?

I think vouchers are a huge part of this. These parents have no base of understanding to socialize their children differently. They need to be in schools that can and will instill a strong set of moral and ethical values that tell them it is wrong to have children out of wedlock and if they do it is wrong to abandon them.

 

[droski]

I think vouchers are a huge part of this. These parents have no base of understanding to socialize their children differently. They need to be in schools that can and will instill a strong set of moral and ethical values that tell them it is wrong to have children out of wedlock and if they do it is wrong to abandon them.

the vouchers will only make the divide greater. the poor parents who give a crap will take advantage and those who dont' give a crap will do nothing and those schools are screwed. i..e those kids who had a chance will now have a better chance and those kids who didn't have much of one will be screwed. i'm still in favor of vouchers btw

 

[milohimself]

Also, the notion of dependency is completely flawed. The majority of women who receive welfare do so for short spells -- typically less than two years -- while they amass skills to find new careers. The problem is that nearly seven in ten will return to welfare some time in the following for years, six in ten will return within two years.

 

[utvolpj]

Also, the notion of dependency is completely flawed. The majority of women who receive welfare do so for short spells -- typically less than two years -- while they amass skills to find new careers. The problem is that nearly seven in ten will return to welfare some time in the following for years, six in ten will return within two years.

so how is the notion flawed? Seems that's why people in AA say they are still alcoholics

 

[sjt18]

the vouchers will only make the divide greater. the poor parents who give a crap will take advantage and those who dont' give a crap will do nothing and those schools are screwed. i..e those kids who had a chance will now have a better chance and those kids who didn't have much of one will be screwed. i'm still in favor of vouchers btw

IMO and experience, even the worst of parents will choose good things for their kids... as long as it costs them nothing.

FWIW, those schools are already screwed and taking almost all the kids down with them. Do we save none because we may not save all?

Also, competition has a way of making organizations better. I don't think those schools will sit still while students and money leave. Even teachers' unions understand that math.... which is why they oppose vouchers with all they can muster.

 

[milohimself]

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

The payoff being that there is, in all, less burden on the rest of society.

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.

Daycare costs $$$$ that most of them don't have. Besides, what sounds more correct here? A mother raising her own children, or a mother going to work a low-wage job while she pays somebody else a low wage to take care of her kids?

so how is the notion flawed? Seems that's why people in AA say they are still alcoholics

Because it shows that most of them break from welfare, even if for a short time. Welfare isn't a drug that people get addicted to. When you're on welfare, you're also likely to be living malnourished and in crappy conditions. You think people want to go back to that?

 

[sjt18]

Because it shows that most of them break from welfare, even if for a short time. Welfare isn't a drug that people get addicted to. When you're on welfare, you're also likely to be living malnourished and in crappy conditions. You think people want to go back to that?

You are conflating those who do not want to be dependent with those who do.

Some people ARE addicted to entitlements.

Malnourished? Crappy conditions? Those are symptoms of the same behaviors that cause the problems in the first place. They make irresponsible choices... which combined with the irresponsible choices of their neighbors creates the conditions you cite.

You live under the false liberal presumption that putting these people as they are in a better neighborhood, school, economic situation, etc will fix them. It won't. They MUST change ethically and morally. Often, falling flat on your face and becoming desperate is the ONLY way you are willing to make those changes.

 

[PKT_VOL]

You live under the false liberal presumption that putting these people as they are in a better neighborhood, school, economic situation, etc will fix them. It won't. They MUST change ethically and morally. Often, falling flat on your face and becoming desperate is the ONLY way you are willing to make those changes.

This. Change must come from within. Where there is a will, there is a way.

 

[MG1968]

Because it shows that most of them break from welfare, even if for a short time. Welfare isn't a drug that people get addicted to. When you're on welfare, you're also likely to be living malnourished and in crappy conditions. You think people want to go back to that?

then explain the "baby momma" phenomenon

I have a friend who does social work in Wyoming. Native American women on welfare will purposely have more babies out of wedlock because they know it means the government will send them a larger check.

I can understand the crappy conditions, but more often than not, those crappy conditions started out as brand-new housing projects. When you just give away money, housing, food, etc. the recipients have no incentive to better themselves nor take care of what they have been afforded by taxpayers.