Women and children first: Why single motherhood is on the rise

[CG9603]

http://www.reason.com/news/show/133625.html  From "Reason" website.  Read and post comments at either their website, or below. 

One of the money quotes from the "Comments" section of the article: 

'Bitter Single Father | May 21, 2009, 3:55pm | #

"Many blame the growth of single motherhood on selfish, irresponsible men who shun commitment and abandon their partners and children. Others condemn self-centered women who refuse to settle for a less-than-perfect man or want total control over [selfishly put their own short-term interests above] their child's upbringing. Both stereotypes have some truth to them, [the former typical among those that live in trailer parks and Section 8 housing, the latter commonplace among middle-class white women becuase they do not bear an equal share in the risk and cost of a divorce]." '

There are a few others, as well as some rather bitter posters there.  However, I just could not pass this article up.

[devia]

I blame it almost completely on the fact that poor (marginalized) people are more likely to breed and bring with them a lack of understanding of proper family structure which they have passed down to their children.

If you were to grow up in an environment where welfare was only available to single mothers, where mom got a bigger check with more kids and dad was either in and out of jail or counting his manhood on the amount of babies he's produced.. you too would think it's the norm to do what your parents have done.

Welfare mom has four kids, those four kids all breed and live like her... it's no wonder that the numbers haven't grown four fold in a generation. Luckily there are starting to be some programs to stop this cycle.

[Mr. X]

Yup, and the people who pay no tax use the services the most.

[devia]

Of course they pay no taxes.. they earn nothing and just marginally consume.

It's a multigenerational ....fuckfest that those who earn sustain. IMHO opinion a government created breeding disposable population that will come in handy if we need bodies to kill the enemy etc.

[The Gonzman]

It's why we need to stop sustaining it.  One day people will learn that if you subsidize failure and stupidity you just get more failure and stupidity.

[scarbo]

It's why we need to stop sustaining it.  One day people will learn that if you subsidize failure and stupidity you just get more failure and stupidity.

Not only that, but it actually artificially prevents Darwin's laws of survival of the fittest from being able to work their magic.

Which is ironic, considering most liberals believe that we're all here BECAUSE of Darwin's laws.

[Andrew Usher]

The article doesn't actually answer 'why', so the title is a bit mysterious.

Anyway this attitude toward welfare recipients seems wrongheaded. If they choose to remain on benefits rather than working, that's because the system makes it more attractive for them to do so if one regards any job they can realistically get. That's not stupid.

As I've said there's no way to find all of them useful jobs paying a living wage, which means that such systems serve the same purpose as my guaranteed income, albeit in a way that disadvantages men and especially white men.

[The Gonzman]

Your system disadvantages ayone who is productive, precisely because it allows the merely slothful to maintain a parasitic lifestyle; Any mention of differentiating between the "Can't" and "Won't" work is labelled "wacist" or "sexist" or some other nonsense.

If welfare was a fallback of absolute last resort, it would be another thing; and also by weeding out those who were indolent mre money would be there to go around for the truly needy.  That there is so much pushback for such reform amply demonstrates that "helping the needy" is not the primary reason for welfare.

[Andrew Usher]

Your system disadvantages ayone who is productive, precisely because it allows the merely slothful to maintain a parasitic lifestyle; Any mention of differentiating between the "Can't" and "Won't" work is labelled "wacist" or "sexist" or some other nonsense.

This is precisely why I do not make such a distinction.

If welfare was a fallback of absolute last resort, it would be another thing; and also by weeding out those who were indolent mre money would be there to go around for the truly needy.  That there is so much pushback for such reform amply demonstrates that "helping the needy" is not the primary reason for welfare.

Do you 'need' the goverment benefits you receive?

[The Gonzman]

Your system disadvantages ayone who is productive, precisely because it allows the merely slothful to maintain a parasitic lifestyle; Any mention of differentiating between the "Can't" and "Won't" work is labelled "wacist" or "sexist" or some other nonsense.

This is precisely why I do not make such a distinction.

Typical liberal.

If welfare was a fallback of absolute last resort, it would be another thing; and also by weeding out those who were indolent mre money would be there to go around for the truly needy.  That there is so much pushback for such reform amply demonstrates that "helping the needy" is not the primary reason for welfare.

Do you 'need' the goverment benefits you receive?

Absolutely Not!  LOL! If they were removed tomorrow my life would change not one iota!  I'm not living off them, Andy - once again missing the point - I'm doing my part to try to bankrupt the system and make a point; the very fact that someone like me can even DRAW such benefits is proof positive that the system does not work.

[Mr. X]

The article doesn't actually answer 'why', so the title is a bit mysterious.

Anyway this attitude toward welfare recipients seems wrongheaded. If they choose to remain on benefits rather than working, that's because the system makes it more attractive for them to do so if one regards any job they can realistically get. That's not stupid.

As I've said there's no way to find all of them useful jobs paying a living wage, which means that such systems serve the same purpose as my guaranteed income, albeit in a way that disadvantages men and especially white men.

My God Andy you're actually understanding! Fantastic! Yes staying on welfare and popping out babies is more attractive than working. Now what are the barriers to working? Well first off as soon as you start working you're taxed though not so much to start, but still there. A homeless person standing on a street corner begging makes more money per hour than if they got a job at McDonalds and they do less work. Same with staying on welfare, less work and more money. McDonalds will fix their income at X per hour, will demand payment of taxes, will require fulfillment of X number of regulations to work. Welfare is easier. PLUS the government steals money from us to fund welfare so a welfare person disadvantages the rest of us.

People aren't dumb. They will maximize their income ESPECIALLY poor people. That is exactly what they should do, be efficient at earning money. But because of government programs they see more money from welfare than work. Government does not help these people by keeping them forever in welfare.

[outdoors]

All that remains is romantic love--and refusing to marry your child's other parent is often seen as more honorable than marrying someone you don't love, at least if you're a woman.

because men marry women they don't love....all the time--fuck-off.

this is definately not the cathy young i was thinkin of

[Andrew Usher]

My God Andy you're actually understanding! Fantastic! Yes staying on welfare and popping out babies is more attractive than working. Now what are the barriers to working? Well first off as soon as you start working you're taxed though not so much to start, but still there. A homeless person standing on a street corner begging makes more money per hour than if they got a job at McDonalds and they do less work. Same with staying on welfare, less work and more money. McDonalds will fix their income at X per hour, will demand payment of taxes, will require fulfillment of X number of regulations to work. Welfare is easier.

Well then, how do you think it could change? You pretty much agree that there aren't any good job options for most of these people (or you would have mentioned some). If we just abolished all welfare, what would happen?

PLUS the government steals money from us to fund welfare so a welfare person disadvantages the rest of us.

If they're just lazy or unproductive, they're going to disadvantage the rest of us no matter what. Since society has determined that we can't just kill them or let them starve, this is not a good reason to oppose 'welfare'.

People aren't dumb. They will maximize their income ESPECIALLY poor people. That is exactly what they should do, be efficient at earning money. But because of government programs they see more money from welfare than work. Government does not help these people by keeping them forever in welfare.

Of course welfare helps people. As you just said, they rationally choose it over working, so it must be better. And no, no one gets satisfaction from working at low-end service jobs.

[Andrew Usher]

Your system disadvantages ayone who is productive, precisely because it allows the merely slothful to maintain a parasitic lifestyle; Any mention of differentiating between the "Can't" and "Won't" work is labelled "wacist" or "sexist" or some other nonsense.

This is precisely why I do not make such a distinction.

Typical liberal.

If reality-based thinking makes one a 'liberal', then I am.

I'm doing my part to try to bankrupt the system and make a point; the very fact that someone like me can even DRAW such benefits is proof positive that the system does not work.

The only point you're making is that you can be an asshole. Congratulations.

[Cordell Walker]

Your system disadvantages ayone who is productive, precisely because it allows the merely slothful to maintain a parasitic lifestyle; Any mention of differentiating between the "Can't" and "Won't" work is labelled "wacist" or "sexist" or some other nonsense.

If welfare was a fallback of absolute last resort, it would be another thing; and also by weeding out those who were indolent mre money would be there to go around for the truly needy.  That there is so much pushback for such reform amply demonstrates that "helping the needy" is not the primary reason for welfare.

to be honest Gonz, at least here in the lone star state, I would say that very few refuse to work so they can rack up welfare(by that I mean  AFDC, tanniff, and the lone star card, not housing, section 8 or SSI/unemployment).
even in places like stop six, acres homes or east side ATX; almost all of the adults do some kind of work or hustle.
What kinda pisses me off about  people talking about welfare, is they wanna talk about the bus stop Keisha's and the trailer park Tracy's and their food stamp cards, but many seem to turn a blind eye on other forms of welfare, such as corperate bailouts, commercial farm subsidies, no bid contracts etc