I would never give a second thought to anything that flagpole posts. This is the guy that guaranteed Trump would not run in 2020, LOL as he couldn't have been more wrong.
The notion that the majority of broken homes in America are widowers or abuse victims is absolute nonsense.
This is akin to pretending that the majority of abortions are for rape or incest.
I totally agree, but that's not an answer to my question. What would you say to them? Do you think they should receive the same single-parent stigma? And do you think they should be eligible for govt assistance? If so, do you think that govt assistance should only be extended to victims of tragedies or violent crimes?
The social safety net was intended for people like that. When there's 500 single mothers who are single mothers because they made poor choices for every actual victim of circumstance you overburden the system.
Who out there is railing against the idea of extended family members helping parents raise their children?
You and everyone else who didn’t understand what they read.
Uhh no, I'm not. Why did BLM ever feel the need to write they want to "disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement?" Who in Western culture is requiring people not to live with extended family members, or have extended family help raise children? Nobody. And even if extended families are living together less, I have yet to see evidence that they're helping each other out less.
The social safety net was intended for people like that. When there's 500 single mothers who are single mothers because they made poor choices for every actual victim of circumstance you overburden the system.
Ah social safety net like the extended family that the Brooks article you posted was lauding. yes
What if providing money to single-parent households actually saves money? What if a small welfare investment can keep a portion of the children who are born into single-parent homes from repeating the poor choices of their parents and thus causing larger problems for the govt (e.g. crime, reduced labor ability, reduced taxpaying ability) down the line?
The social safety net was intended for people like that. When there's 500 single mothers who are single mothers because they made poor choices for every actual victim of circumstance you overburden the system.
Ah social safety net like the extended family that the Brooks article you posted was lauding. yes
What if providing money to single-parent households actually saves money? What if a small welfare investment can keep a portion of the children who are born into single-parent homes from repeating the poor choices of their parents and thus causing larger problems for the govt (e.g. crime, reduced labor ability, reduced taxpaying ability) down the line?
You don't have to ask these questions, just look at the historical data. Is that how it panned out? Did single parenthood decrease after the government paid parents for having kids outside of wedlock?
The social safety net was intended for people like that. When there's 500 single mothers who are single mothers because they made poor choices for every actual victim of circumstance you overburden the system.
Ah social safety net like the extended family that the Brooks article you posted was lauding. yes
What if providing money to single-parent households actually saves money? What if a small welfare investment can keep a portion of the children who are born into single-parent homes from repeating the poor choices of their parents and thus causing larger problems for the govt (e.g. crime, reduced labor ability, reduced taxpaying ability) down the line?
We have 60 years of data which proves that paying single mothers does not save money it creates more single mothers.
The wishes and hopes of naive liberals all fail in the real world.
You don't have to ask these questions, just look at the historical data. Is that how it panned out? Did single parenthood decrease after the government paid parents for having kids outside of wedlock?
I'm not asking if single parenthood decreased - I'm asking if the gov't saved money. If single parenthood increases but that increase does not cause the gov't any issues, then who cares? I have no idea if it did save money or not, but it's hard for me to see how NOT supporting single parents saves money.
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
We have 60 years of data which proves that paying single mothers does not save money it creates more single mothers.
The wishes and hopes of naive liberals all fail in the real world.
It appears that adult does have this data - adult, can you share it please? I would be happy to be proven wrong. Also, you'd be wrong to assume that I'm a liberal in either the modern sense (them libruls!) or the classical sense (neoliberal)
You don't have to ask these questions, just look at the historical data. Is that how it panned out? Did single parenthood decrease after the government paid parents for having kids outside of wedlock?
I'm not asking if single parenthood decreased - I'm asking if the gov't saved money. If single parenthood increases but that increase does not cause the gov't any issues, then who cares? I have no idea if it did save money or not, but it's hard for me to see how NOT supporting single parents saves money.
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
We have 60 years of data which proves that paying single mothers does not save money it creates more single mothers.
The wishes and hopes of naive liberals all fail in the real world.
It appears that adult does have this data - adult, can you share it please? I would be happy to be proven wrong. Also, you'd be wrong to assume that I'm a liberal in either the modern sense (them libruls!) or the classical sense (neoliberal)
Hmm, good question. My guess is that increased welfare costs did not save the government (aka, the taxpayers) money, and the unintended social consequences costed everyone more money.
You don't have to ask these questions, just look at the historical data. Is that how it panned out? Did single parenthood decrease after the government paid parents for having kids outside of wedlock?
I'm not asking if single parenthood decreased - I'm asking if the gov't saved money. If single parenthood increases but that increase does not cause the gov't any issues, then who cares? I have no idea if it did save money or not, but it's hard for me to see how NOT supporting single parents saves money.
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
We have 60 years of data which proves that paying single mothers does not save money it creates more single mothers.
The wishes and hopes of naive liberals all fail in the real world.
It appears that adult does have this data - adult, can you share it please? I would be happy to be proven wrong. Also, you'd be wrong to assume that I'm a liberal in either the modern sense (them libruls!) or the classical sense (neoliberal)
So you defend every progressive position because you're not a liberal? Seems implausible.
Welfare spending has been a major factor in total federal government spending. Meanwhile, the national debt grows larger. Has one political party been the bigger spender? Ger all of the facts in this article!
Removing the stigma on single motherhood is no different than removing the stigma on obesity.
When you normalize bad things you get more of them.
Effectively dissolving extended families used to have a stigma (today people generally see their extended family once a year, if that).
That stigma has not only been removed, but reversed. People remaining together in extended families now has a stigma. People who don't move away from their family upon adulthood are considered "weird" or "losers".
This is a bad thing.
Removing the stigma on dissolving extended families is no different than removing the stigma on obesity.
When you normalize bad things you get more of them.
You and everyone else who didn’t understand what they read.
Uhh no, I'm not. Why did BLM ever feel the need to write they want to "disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement?" Who in Western culture is requiring people not to live with extended family members, or have extended family help raise children? Nobody. And even if extended families are living together less, I have yet to see evidence that they're helping each other out less.
You sir, are monumentally dumb.
A pretty standard extended family (grown kids) today has mom and dad in Florida, sister in Wisconsin, brother in Arizona. With brother and sister having little idea who their cousins are, let alone where they live or what they are up to.
And yet, they get together to share meals, stories, hardships and projects two or three times a week? Hmmmm . . . seems unlikely.
The extended family has been abandoned by Americans - everywhere but on Christmas cards and in cheesy movies.
Removing the stigma on single motherhood is no different than removing the stigma on obesity.
When you normalize bad things you get more of them.
Effectively dissolving extended families used to have a stigma (today people generally see their extended family once a year, if that).
That stigma has not only been removed, but reversed. People remaining together in extended families now has a stigma. People who don't move away from their family upon adulthood are considered "weird" or "losers".
This is a bad thing.
Removing the stigma on dissolving extended families is no different than removing the stigma on obesity.
When you normalize bad things you get more of them.
Zoomers live at home until they're 26 to get the healthcare. Where do you live that people are fleeing the home the moment they turn 18?
Hmm, good question. My guess is that increased welfare costs did not save the government (aka, the taxpayers) money, and the unintended social consequences costed everyone more money.
That's definitely possible, but I have no idea. I'll google it
We conduct a comparative welfare analysis of 133 historical policy changes over the past half-century in the United States, focusing on policies in social insurance, education and job training, taxes and cash transfers, and in-kind transfers. For each policy, we use existing causal estimates to calculate both the benefit that each policy provides its recipients (measured as their willingness to pay) and the policy’s net cost, inclusive of long-term impacts on the government’s budget ... Our results suggest that direct investments in low-income children’s health and education have historically had the highest MVPFs, on average exceeding 5. Many such policies have paid for themselves as governments recouped the cost of their initial expenditures through additional taxes collected and reduced transfers. We find large MVPFs for education and health policies amongst children of all ages, rather than observing diminishing marginal returns throughout childhood. We find smaller MVPFs for policies targeting adults, generally between 0.5 and 2. Expenditures on adults have exceeded this MVPF range in particular if they induced large spillovers on children.
Obviously this is just one paper, but it's good to see that people do this type of research
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
So you defend every progressive position because you're not a liberal? Seems implausible.
Generally speaking I do not consider myself to be a modern American liberal or a progressive, no. e.g. I don't support increased gun regulation or student loan forgiveness and I think that the overemphasis on identity politics is unhealthy
I'm not asking if single parenthood decreased - I'm asking if the gov't saved money. If single parenthood increases but that increase does not cause the gov't any issues, then who cares? I have no idea if it did save money or not, but it's hard for me to see how NOT supporting single parents saves money.
It appears that adult does have this data - adult, can you share it please? I would be happy to be proven wrong. Also, you'd be wrong to assume that I'm a liberal in either the modern sense (them libruls!) or the classical sense (neoliberal)
So you defend every progressive position because you're not a liberal? Seems implausible.
Notice the expenditures have skyrocketed since the 1960s.
In that same time the single motherhood rate has exploded.
Ok, but is the increase in assistance the reason for the increased rate of single parents? It seems like it could be any number of things.
I doubt people are considering the social safety net when they are getting it on with their partners, or thinking that losing their husband/wife's income is no big deal when they are getting divorced because they'll get an extra tax break. When a college student finds out she's pregnant, do you really think she is thinking, "It will be okay, the government will take care of me"?
A third of single mothers in the US live in poverty, so I don't think anyone is becoming a single parent because they can get money from the government. The assistance that exists doesn't come close to making up for the 2nd income you'd have in a dual household, or covering the costs of having a kid, or helping with any of the other non-financial struggles of single parenthood, so the thought that welfare is somehow encouraging people to have broken homes seems like a stretch.
Effectively dissolving extended families used to have a stigma (today people generally see their extended family once a year, if that).
That stigma has not only been removed, but reversed. People remaining together in extended families now has a stigma. People who don't move away from their family upon adulthood are considered "weird" or "losers".
This is a bad thing.
Removing the stigma on dissolving extended families is no different than removing the stigma on obesity.
When you normalize bad things you get more of them.
Zoomers live at home until they're 26 to get the healthcare. Where do you live that people are fleeing the home the moment they turn 18?
I already knew you were stup!d and rarely posted anything other than straw men.
Notice the expenditures have skyrocketed since the 1960s.
In that same time the single motherhood rate has exploded.
Ok, but is the increase in assistance the reason for the increased rate of single parents? It seems like it could be any number of things.
I doubt people are considering the social safety net when they are getting it on with their partners, or thinking that losing their husband/wife's income is no big deal when they are getting divorced because they'll get an extra tax break. When a college student finds out she's pregnant, do you really think she is thinking, "It will be okay, the government will take care of me"?
A third of single mothers in the US live in poverty, so I don't think anyone is becoming a single parent because they can get money from the government. The assistance that exists doesn't come close to making up for the 2nd income you'd have in a dual household, or covering the costs of having a kid, or helping with any of the other non-financial struggles of single parenthood, so the thought that welfare is somehow encouraging people to have broken homes seems like a stretch.
Too many American children experience the hurt from broken bonds at an early age. About 35% of American adolescents live without one of their parents, and around 40% of American children are born outside of marriage. Although...
"...under Johnson’s Great Society, which began in 1964, benefits became substantially more generous and came under greater control of the federal government. In the words of Harvard’s Paul Peterson, “some programs actively discouraged marriage,” because “welfare assistance went to mothers so long as no male was boarding in the household… Marriage to an employed male, even one earning the minimum wage, placed at risk a mother’s economic well-being.” Infamous “man in the house” rules meant that welfare workers would randomly appear in homes to check and see if the mother was accurately reporting her family-status. The benefits available were extremely generous. According to Peterson, it was “estimated that in 1975 a household head would have to earn $20,000 a year to have more resources than what could be obtained from Great Society programs.” In today’s dollars, that’s over $90,000 per year in earnings. That may be a reason why, in 1964, only 7% of American children were born out of wedlock, compared to 40% today. As Jason Riley has noted, “the government paid mothers to keep fathers out of the home—and paid them well.”
At least in part, a lot of affirmation is centered around sports for boys when they are growing up, then after HS that vanishes for almost all of them.
Real mean continue to work hard and act responsibly; lost men waste time playing video games, watching porn, and spending inordinate time on watching sports.
