tentative wrote:Well, you might be right IF the woman finds herself single without children. BUT... in this instance, we have three potential citizens (mom and 2 children) being flushed down the toilet. Consider: We won't let them starve to death and if we do nothing to bootstrap them into self-sufficiency, then we end up with life-long welfare recipients that we PAY for.
I understand your point about the kids coming into play, but this is where I have a problem:
The most responsible order in which a person can do things is that the person would go to college, get a well-paying job, and then have children when the person is in such a position to support those children. In many cases, the responsible decision costs the Government nothing, and results in the person paying back student loans for over half of the person's life.
Contrastly, an irresponsible way to do things is to have children when you are unable to independently support them, (and we've already talked about how many women strive for financial independence, which is fine) and then go to college. However, if you do things in an irresponsible way, you will receive a free college education, get grants that pay you cash simply for going to college, and you will have nothing to pay back if you graduate.
Ultimately, let's say you have two individuals that both go to school to be nurses, or anything else, for that matter. The first person goes to school and then has kids, the second person does that in reverse AND is supported by the Government when she is in school. If you zip ahead to when they have both graduated and are working, the first person has student loan debts that need to be repaid off-setting her income and the second person does not. Just for the Hell of it, let's say they both have two kids.
How the fuck is that fair? How does that level the playing field? You fucked up, but ultimately ended up in the same position as the other person, only you're debt-free, as far as student loans are concerned. I just want to know how that's fair, that's all.
So it becomes a matter of where would you like to spend the money? Do you want to help her get past her mistakes and stop costing us money? Or would you rather leave her on subsistence teaching the children how to live on subsistence? we already have enough 3rd and 4th generation welfare people. Maybe we should bite the bullet and actually DO something about it. It's bullshit to simply throw money at them and think that we've swept the problem under the rug. Remember, the money spent on mom prevents us from having to support three people for the rest of their lives. Why would we continue to create a perpetual underclass of citizenry? There is nothing that says we can't hold mom accountable for our money spent, but we need to worry less about the up front costs and look at the long term dollars spent if we do nothing.
You can make an argument for the childcare, which I really don't have a problem with. You can make an argument for free or reduced tuition, and I'm really not going to attack such an argument ferociously, though I do strongly disagree with free tuition. I think the person should have to take out student loanbs somewhere. Again, if you have student loans and are working you must pay them back, whether you're on assistance or not. Thus, someone could have went to college first, then had kids, now requires State assistance, and if that person works, that person is still paying on student loans.
I think that you can Legislate in such a manner that the person can cost less money without paying her for the privilege of attending college. First of all, you can Legislate in a way that requires all utility companies to deliver utility services to all Government-Subsidized apartments/houses at cost. There is absolutely no reason why the electric companies should profit off of those people when they are bullshit Regulated Monopolies who get to price-rape everyone else, anyway. I think it's bad enough that such services are not delievered at cost as it is, but it's even worse when the utility companies are biting the hand (Government) that feeds them the ability to rape people without having any competition in their markets.
The second thing that you can do is have price adjustments at the grocery store (though you wouldn't advertise the prices) that happen automatically when someone uses a foodstamp card which charges the actual amount but electronically deducts the retail markup on the food items. Once again, I really see no reason that the grocery stores should profit on these people, and it also pisses me off that these people will very often buy all name brand items, buy garbage fucking food, and will not do anything to offset the cost of the food such as clipping coupons or what have you. The Government's money really becomes their money. Shit, I clip my coupons just because I'm a miser, I can afford to pay retail!
Those are a few ways that the costs can be reduced to have people on welfare, and I think those suggestions are completely reasonable. In the event that those suggestions are taken, then you will see that giving someone $12,000/year for going to college (over-and-above the fact that they are already going for free) is completely unnecessary. Why are they being given this money? I'll tell you why, at least, in many cases. They're having that carrot dangled in front of them simply because the prospect of a free education is not enough to compel them to go to college, but if they are paid
for going, then it becomes worth it in their estimation.
Can you imagine that, Tentative. Imagine someone walking up to an eighteen year-old with no kids and saying, "Here is a free college education," if the eighteen year-old were to reply, "No thanks, not good enough," what would you think of that person?
Seriously, why do you think the grants pay people actual money in addition to making the college free?
Abstinence teaching is bullshit. Raging hormones will make a lie out of that every time. "just say no" is a laughable well-wishing fable. If we're going to teach something, teach them the responsibilities and consequences of pregnancy - ALL the consequences, and then supply them with any and all contraceptives possible. Reality says people are going to have sex at their earliest ability and as often as possible. To deny that is to ignore the history of human experience.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Look at the rates of unmarried teens who were pregnant for the last few decades. People simply married younger a few decades ago, it was pretty much expected that you would marry, if not directly out of H.S., then shortly thereafter.http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107.html
Boom! For 15-19 year-olds in the year 1950, of those who got pregnant, 13% were unmarried compared to 79% in 2000.
Let's crunch some numbers:
It is true that a rate of 82 teenage births per 1,000 teenagers in 1950 was close to being an all-time high. while that rate was about 48 for the year 2000. That is offset, however, by 28 abortions per 1,000 teenagers in 2000, making the potential birthrate 76.
Since abortion was not legalized until 1973, you're basically looking at an actual birthrate of 82/1000 compared to a potential birthrate of 76/1000, which is very little difference considering the improvements in contraception.
But, no, abstinence counselling didn't work. Neither does contraceptive counselling, not really, it seems the only thing that, "Works," is abortion...which is largely fine by me.
However, only 13% of those teenagers were unmarried in 1950, so if we look at 13% of 82, then you're talking about 10.66 unmarried teen mothers per thousand teenage girls. In the year 2000, the rate was 48/1000, which is nearly half, but 79% of those were to single mothers. In that case, you are talking about 37.92 unmarried teenage mothers per thousand teenagers, for an increase of 356%.
If you look at the potential unmarried teen Mothers for the year 2000, going back to that potential statistic of 76/1000, then you end up with 60.04/1000 unwed teen Mothers, 6% of the population of teenagers 15-19 and nearly 600% more than there were in 1950.
As you can see, your contraceptive teaching (and the contraceptives, in fact, are better now which is a mitigating factor) does absolutely nothing to alleviate the amount of unwed teenage Mothers. Correlation is not Causation I will grant you, but it seems that taking the social stigma of being an unmarried parent off of both the Fathers and Mothers alike has correlated to...gasp...higher rates of unwed parents.
Thus, even if the welfare system were the same in 1950 as it is now, which it isn't, the welfare system would still be paying out substantially less as you are talking about 1.06% of the teenage population being unwed Mothers compared to 3.79%.
Marriage works. Period. Abstinence education appears no worse, it just seems more people are having abortions and contraceptives are better and more varied.
Morality works. Period.
Because we don't teach or hold accountable the males who are 50% of the problem. I think it's odd that males are more than happy to be there at the moment of conception, but cease to have any responsibility for providing 50% of the nurture and upbringing of the consequential child. Males are charged with less or no responsibility of their penis adventures - any place in the world.
I am inclined to agree with that, but only to an extent. I certainly agree with 50%, don't get me wrong, but how is he to come by that 50%? You have to take into consideration the fact that she gets free access to education after her mistakes where he does not, so his employment opportunities may be limited, unless he is already educated. Furthermore, the Court is going to order him to pay a certain amount of child support, which may impact his ability to get an education independently of Government Assistance due to the time he has to spend at work.
I don't think any of them should get free ediucation, but were we to allow that, I do not think they should be compensated, on direct, for the privilege of being educated.
I sincerely agree with your statements about how males should have to take more responsiblity, though. I would say that if a male fails to pay the designated amount of child support, which should be income-based, for three consecutive months...or if he is three total months behind...we hook him up with a little death penalty action. I think that the prospect of dying will motivate him to get his fucking ass in gear and take two jobs if he needs to.