Anyone see a problem with this besides me?
Real Estate Investor · the villages, FL · Member since 2008 · 5k+ posts · 3k+ votes
UsaToday had an article the other day on social changes in our country.
The % of babies born to single moms has risen about 1% per year each of the last 5 years. It now stands at over 45% of babies born. My guess is the majority of these will use WIC, food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing, free health services etc.
As one concerned about the amount of money obama is currently "redistributing", this seems like it will cause the printing presses to run longer at the Mint and more funds neccessary for the social programs required. I continue to see so many future demands on the money folks have, I don't know how we can keep up with it.
I'm sure Libs think all is well, but I just don't see the funds to do all these marvelous things. Greece, Spain, Portugal and others, here we come. Rich
There are plenty of single parents who raise their kids well and without asking for handouts. Single parenting is NOT the problem.
It's the unfit parents (single OR married) that we should be concerned with. Of course, there is a correlation between single and unfit, but I've seen no evidence of causation.
Personally, I think it's cheaper to pay for someone's abortion than to pay to raise their kids, so I'd love the government offer to pay to abort and save taxpayer dollars down the road.
Unfortunately, the religious right in this country would rather have unfit mothers raising welfare children than to encourage abortion, so that won't ever happen.
Rich, I would have to agree that all of these social burdens are going to create a huge tax burden over time. Fascinating that they are talking about the need to hire many more IRS agents in order to insure that individuals and businesses are purchasing health insurance or paying the penalties involved.
As government grows and social programs grow and a large segment of the population retires those left that work or provide jobs will be footing a huge bill.
I agree the entitlement mentality is disturbing.
Politicians like to give away freebies in the name of social justice in exchange for votes/power. This works because people continue to vote for those that keep throwing money at social issues because it sounds so righteous.
When do we reach the tipping point? Is it too late?
Each end of this scenario is just enabling the other. They are both selfishly getting what they want so neither is looking to the future or to end their symbiotic relationship. IMO it is going to take a serious bottom to change this mindset and we are not at a serious bottom yet.
It is going to take more than cash to fix the issues with this country but people have to WANT for things to be better and more importantly they must be willing to make the effort.
Faith without works is dead.
Chris
There are plenty of single parents who raise their kids well and without asking for handouts. Single parenting is NOT the problem.
It's the unfit parents (single OR married) that we should be concerned with. Of course, there is a correlation between single and unfit, but I've seen no evidence of causation.
Personally, I think it's cheaper to pay for someone's abortion than to pay to raise their kids, so I'd love the government offer to pay to abort and save taxpayer dollars down the road.
Unfortunately, the religious right in this country would rather have unfit mothers raising welfare children than to encourage abortion, so that won't ever happen.
Here are some suggestions to resolve the problems.
1. Forget abortion, try adoption. There are tons of families that would love to adopt. That is why we see stories of problems with Russian abortions, and kidnapping in Haiti to name just 2. We ALL know families or couples unable to have their own kids that will try all other means, including adoption. This would solve the abortion is murder item, and allow the babies to have a better chance in a home that truly wanted them, and not let the single mom to "most likely" be cast into a life of govt assistance.
2. On a previous trip, I visited Singapore. Instead og govt giving assistance to single, unwed girls, they actually Paid a stipend to those MARRIED couples that had a baby. They figured it was MUCH less expensive for a one time stipend, than a lifelong freebie train that most likely continue to future generations of more of the same, imo.
3. End the free assistance after the FIRST unwed baby born.
4. Require the identity of the sperm donor and require child support, tied to drivers' license. No child support, forfeiture of license until child support is current.
You may not like the ideas, but at least I posted some.
Rich
Unfortunately, the babies we're talking about tend to be those born to impoverished black families, and while it may be "hip" to adopt black children from Africa these days, it's still not hip to adopt black American babies (at least not in America).
All these kids would end up in foster care going from one family to another their whole lives, which is a problem just as bad as the original one.
I don't know the statistics on black, white, asian etc. I don't care what color. I think there could be credits given for adoption of babies- any color.
End the free assistance after the FIRST unwed baby born.
I was told the unwed birth rates dropped considerably when no assistance was being given. Maybe the ones having these babies would develop some discipline and make some decisions before just becoming a baby factory. We'll never know if we don't try it.
This problem is growing 1% per year in # which means a 2and 1/2% growth per year. We'll soon be looking at 50% and then 55% etc if nothing is done. This doesn't begin to discuss the problems, in general, that develop by having no supervision in the home. Single, unwed mother chooses to be on the dole and in the home, or work and leave child less supervised. I see both as complicated and costly- just one is costly financially and the other is costly in the social structure. My guess(just that) is the majority of the incarcerated are from single parent homes. Those will grow together and cost us big time. Approx 50K per year to hold a prisoner, and that # is growing. I don't have all the answers, but it doesn't seem those in power to do anything,,,,,are doing anything. Rich
Here's my politically incorrect suggestion:
$5000 sterilization bonus (if you have no kids), and $2500 if you have one kid.
Couple that with an end to government assistance to anyone with more than two kids, plus going after the sperm donor as relentlessly as the IRS would.
Frankly, if guys faced serious consequences for unprotected sex, THEY'D STOP HAVING UNPROTECTED SEX. And if women didn't get paid to have babies, THEY WOULDN'T.
It's amazing nobody's mentioned an effective male contraceptive similar to the pill. Of course there are too many people with "Holier than thou" solutions to make such a suggestion. The real issue here is that in many cases these children are a result of relationship where the man's primary interest was just sex, not a long term relationship. Given the choice a lot of men would opt for a greater ability to control their ability to get a woman pregnant without the encumberances of a condom. If we can get an effective male contraceptive it would go a long way toward solving the phenomena of unplanned pregnancies.
On another note so many people are against the expansion fo government but on the other hand they have no problem proposing government sanctions for people's sexual behavior. What's up with that? Or is just O.K. to use government to advance certain moral adgenda's?
"Here's my politically incorrect suggestion:
$5000 sterilization bonus (if you have no kids), and $2500 if you have one kid.
"
"Love it!!! Plus government-paid sterilization procedures..."
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)
Or bed older chicks! Like me! 40 years with the young thing that is now a GRANDMA 11 times over. Sunday marks 40 years. Rich
Personal responsibility is an encumbrance? I always thought of it as a sign of maturity.
I believe Carlton was using subtle sarcasm in voicing the perspectives of a lot of men who do have unintended children...
The suggestion was offering an incentive for voluntary sterilization, not forcing people to get sterilized.
Hopefully the difference is clear...
I am probably profiling. But, why don't we drug test before any hand outs? It sure has eliminated a few job applicants I have had roam through here. I speak from experience. My son and his girlfreind are rehabbed meth heads. While popping out three beautiful kids, she knew every hand out the government had. She even knew how to time the babies so another one would arrive just about the same time the first one ran out of some kind of giveaway.
I was finally successful in having their kids placed in my home through the state. That cut all of their "give me's" out.
Thank God, now they are clean and sober. They realize that their kids could be taken away again and this terrifies them. But, for more than a year there has been no need that I can see.
They have been winged over a year from the give aways and are productive now.
Don
Big point: not every unwed mother is on welfare or single, either one. Marriage is out of style and many couples with kids are together, just not legally married.
My politically incorrect solution to welfare? Make birth control a mandatory condition to receive welfare.
DNA every child on welfare and when you find 3 illegitimate children with 3 different mothers and the same father, castrate the father. That will make men suddenly take some responsibility for preventing unwed pregnancy.
Go after fathers for child support. End the free ride for Daddy. Again, if there is some sort of cost, men will be a bit more careful.
Stop paying additional money for additional kids on welfare. That gives a monetary incentive to produce children. If women insist on having children they can't afford, oh well. It shouldn't be my problem to pay for their choice.
Low income children get free food and free clothing through the school system and charities. They get a free education through the public school system. If they have to sleep 6 to a bedroom, it won't kill them. it's done all over the world to no ill effect.
Yup, the religious right likes to characterize the problem as "unwed mothers," but it's really "unfit parents," whether married or not...
I love how this issue always gets wrapped up with cries for "traditional marriage"...and funny how the religious zealots who say this tend to neglect the fact that most of the big name patriarchs in the bible didn't have "traditional marriages" (in fact, most were polygamists).
It's just people wanting to control other people and using religion to do so, even when those other people are value-add contributors to society. Bad parents are bad parents, regardless of their marital status and good parents are good parents regardless of their marital status.
J Scott- I think i need to disagree with a couple points here. Your term of "unfit parent" is too vague. What my thread is concerned about is the costs we provide for single parents, normally the mom, through social programs. I wouldn't define her as unfit, just a further drag on the economy, in most cases. I've rented to a lot of them in the past and many know how to milk the system for their beer and cigs, in the name of their kids.
I'm not going to espouse the traditional marriage thing. I don't really care.Just get sperm donor and baby factory to pay their own bills for their creation, and not taxpayers.
I don't care to "control others". I just don't want the taxpayers to have to pay for choices and decisions made by the 2 parties dicking around. Let them be reponsible for their actions. That would be a new concept, imo!!
Being married doesn't automatically make you a good parent, nor does being a single mom automatically make you a bad parent. I'm only looking at this from a financial standpoint. Pay for your choices, good or bad, both parties.
This was the intent of my thread and intent of this reply. The money is limited, as I just reiterated in my new thread on 2019. I'm just worrying about it, before everyone else . We are headed there, and time will tell if I was right or wrong. Rich
Why are the costs higher for single parents on welfare versus married parents on welfare?
Your original post pre-supposed that there was causation between being a single parent and being on welfare. But, you haven't provided any data to support that.
I believe there is a correlation between the two, but I don't believe it is a causative effect. And without a causative effect, there's no reason to believe that solving one problem (# of single parents) is going to solve the other problem (escalating welfare costs).
You even used the phrase "My guess is..." to support your theory, but again, guessing is a lot different than finding actual data.
Remember, Fox News blames Mr. Rogers for all the entitlement in this country...that's their "guess", but that doesn't make it true...in fact, it's pretty pathetic...but, even is entitled to their "guess"...just don't rely too much on it when it comes to actually solving real problems.
That's all I'm saying...
Do you believe that if all these unmarried mothers got married to the father of their child(ren) that they would then suddenly not need welfare?
If not, the problem isn't one of marital status, it's one of stupid people having kids when they can't support them...and getting married isn't going to cure stupidity.
Again, without data, I'm not convinced that the number of single parents increasing is causing welfare payouts to increase.
How about just looking at LOGIC. If you have 2 adults in a home, you'd have to agree that logic tells you there is a better chance that at least one will be holding down a job! That makes less welfare needed. When only 1 parent is in the home, as I stated before, choice is to work outside home and not parent, or stay at home and parent and let the govt pay the bills.
As I said, I don't care if they get married, just have TWO people responsible for the creation they made, instead of taxpayers. I'm sick of all the freebie handouts.
"Again, without data, I'm not convinced that the number of single parents increasing is causing welfare payouts to increase."
If you seriously believe this, you are not in the real world. It isn't just welfare- it is WIC, food stamps, housing, etc. Having own(ed) lots of rentals, There is no question about this, in my experiences. Rich
By that logic, you should be arguing that the government should allow polygamy, as that would allow even more people into the home as primary care-givers and bread-winners.
But I don't see you arguing for that...if the primary goal is to end welfare and you believe that "more people = more money", then why not?
Got it...so you have nothing against parents being single, just against single parenting. Those are two very different things!
Sorry, a couple thousand out of 250 million really doesn't mean anything statistically. At least not in the real world.
Ok, so maybe it's not an example, but it shows that not all single mothers are alike. My beautiful wife lived in Jamaica all her life (Except for the past three years since she got married to me). Growing up in a very poor family, she was a single mother of three children. While raising her kids alone (No child support, or welfare of any kind) She worked two jobs and went to college in the evening. She eventually became a special education teacher and bought a home in Montego Bay. Since her arrival to the US, she finished nursing school (No money in teaching...:) and now is working as a nurse.
If there is a will there is a way.
Obviously, grewing up without the complex of entitlement helped...