• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The State Board of Elections Earns Great Reviews

no, no it's science don't you see? It is an uncontrovertible fact that when the state pays money to support children fathers see an opportunity to bolt so they bolt. That's why in states with the most generous payouts, there are so many more single parent homes ... wait ... no ... I lost my train of thought ...
 
jhmd2000 said:
Start working on solutions whose side effects don't more than offset their benefits.
Click to expand...

what immediate solutions do you propose to help poor people NOW while you start working on this long term goal of somehow using limited government to enforce two parent households
 
Last edited:
Wakeforest22890 said:
What are you arguing against? The goal of welfare is not to replace another parent, it's to provide assistance for people who cannot support their children or themselves. You're arguing that two-parent households are better than one and not a single person here has said otherwise or argued against it.
Click to expand...

I don't give a rat's Wellman about the goal; I'm looking at the result. I know what you think it does...what does it actually do?
 
Milhouse said:
what immediate solutions do you propose to help poor people NOW while you start working on this long term goal of somehow using limited government to enforce two parent households
Click to expand...

Immediately? I'm going to begin by stopping making the problem worse.

Immediately, I would announce that we're phasing out subsidies for children of able bodied parents, effective January 1, 2015. We can gladly rededicate those resources towards things that people can't afford to pay (contrast: $7.00 per day for food), such as a single payer baseline level of primary care. Until that time, able bodied parents can a) locate a minimum wage job to work 90 minutes per day per child to feed them, b) start saving money they earn in said job before that date and c) stop conceiving children they can't afford to raise. Immediately would be fine on all of those goals.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I don't give a rat's Wellman about the goal; I'm looking at the result. I know what you think it does...what does it actually do?
Click to expand...

It gives money to people who need it so they can afford to feed their kids and provide for their families. What do you think it actually does?
 
jhmd2000 said:
Immediately? I'm going to begin by stopping making the problem worse.

Immediately, I would announce that we're phasing out subsidies for children of able bodied parents, effective January 1, 2015. We can gladly rededicate those resources towards things that people can't afford to pay (contrast: $7.00 per day for food), such as a single payer baseline level of primary care. Until that time, able bodied parents can a) locate a minimum wage job to work 90 minutes per day per child to feed them, b) start saving money they earn in said job before that date and c) stop conceiving children they can't afford to raise. Immediately would be fine on all of those goals.
Click to expand...

Where are all these jobs coming from? Most likely these people who are unable to find minimum wage jobs are not going to be very adept at financial planning. They probably also have a lot of debt and bills to pay off since they're using money from the government to get by. Furthermore the vast majority of the people who are receiving these benefits are not highly qualified for many jobs and many don't even have a high school degree. If they fail to do all these "goals" you have set out, we would still be paying for them one way or another because as a civilized society we would take care of the children and take care of the needy individuals.

Do you read what you type before you send it or do you just get Rush Limbaugh to type it while your mouth is on his nuts?

It's also not just about seven dollars a day for food. It's about housing, clothes, monthly bills, etc. Do you think you could get by if I gave you seven dollars a day and you started with a negative amount of money since you're in debt?
 
Welfare keeps family bonds stronger by reducing financial stress. This results in fewer single parent households. See 923's list of states.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
It gives money to people who need it so they can afford to feed their kids and provide for their families. What do you think it actually does?
Click to expand...

It makes black men run in the opposite direction prancing with glee on their way to impregnate another woman and leave her in a similar manner further ruining jhmd's 'Murica? Or mandated vasectomies or something, I'm not sure really.
 
Admire his persistence.

There was once this program called Aid to Families with Dependent Children which gave out checks to poor single moms, pretty much no strings attached. You may have heard of it, Ronald Reagan said it was creating welfare queens with Cadillacs. Anyway, in 1996 Clinton and the GOP struck a deal to get rid of it and make the poor single moms work to get benefits. So, as you would expect based on jhmd's scientific discovery that welfare causes single parent families, after welfare reform births out of wedlock plummeted.

b2465_chart3.ashx



Woops.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
It gives money to people who need it so they can afford to feed their kids and provide for their families. What do you think it actually does?
Click to expand...

I think most people could afford to feed their children, but the fact that we offer to do it for them gives them an opportunity to leave. Far too many have taken us up on that opportunity.
 
Deacon923 said:
Admire his persistence.

There was once this program called Aid to Families with Dependent Children which gave out checks to poor single moms, pretty much no strings attached. You may have heard of it, Ronald Reagan said it was creating welfare queens with Cadillacs. Anyway, in 1996 Clinton and the GOP struck a deal to get rid of it and make the poor single moms work to get benefits. So, as you would expect based on jhmd's scientific discovery that welfare causes single parent families, after welfare reform births out of wedlock plummeted.

b2465_chart3.ashx



Woops.
Click to expand...

Remind me, when did the Great Society's entitlement programs start rolling out? Oh, right before single family homes exploded you say? Oh, how interesting. Who would have guessed that? #everybodywhothinks
 
Last edited:
You might also expect that since government money takes the place of a father, as jhmd has proven scientifically, that if women have high paying jobs that would also provide money to take the place of a father. So therefore, science has shown that women who have higher incomes are more likely to be single parents.

Oh wait.

economix-03hamilton-blog480.jpg


Dang, it turns out that even as marriage is falling across the board, the women with the highest incomes are the most likely to be married. Well, we'll have to find a different theory.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Remind me, when did the Great Society's entitlement programs start rolling out? Oh, right before single family homes exploded you say? Oh, how interesting. Who would have guessed that? #everybodywhothinks
Click to expand...

Well, today's lesson in "correlation = causation because I say so" by profession JHMD has just come full circle. Thanks to everyone who participated, and remember to turn in your homework.
 
Deacon923 said:
Well, today's lesson in "correlation = causation because I say so" by profession JHMD has just come full circle. Thanks to everyone who participated, and remember to turn in your homework.
Click to expand...

So your solution to the fact that 7 out of 10 people are born into single family homes in some communities is....to deny that there's a problem and shout at anyone who wants to talk about it? Got it.
 
When "anyone" is you, yes. Please feel free to address any of the data I have presented on this thread demonstrating that there is, in fact, an positive correlation between welfare benefits and two-family households, and that severely tightening the availability of aid to poor single women in 1996 did absolutely nothing to slow down the growth of unmarried childbirth. I am sure you can come up with a reason why it is that all the facts presented run completely counter to your proposed solution, continue harping on your one sole, solitary, lonely data point. Have a good evening.
 
jhmd2000 said:
So your solution to the fact that 7 out of 10 people are born into single family homes in some communities is....to deny that there's a problem and shout at anyone who wants to talk about it? Got it.
Click to expand...

Just wave the "white" flag dude.
 
Deacon923 said:
When "anyone" is you, yes. Please feel free to address any of the data I have presented on this thread demonstrating that there is, in fact, an positive correlation between welfare benefits and two-family households, and that severely tightening the availability of aid to poor single women in 1996 did absolutely nothing to slow down the growth of unmarried childbirth. I am sure you can come up with a reason why it is that all the facts presented run completely counter to your proposed solution, continue harping on your one sole, solitary, lonely data point. Have a good evening.
Click to expand...

Again, your position is that as we've increased the entitlements (from the Great Society forward), and single parent homes have exploded over the same span, it's all a coincidence. We should totally look away from personal responsibility and role of hard work. It's not like food stamps are the only form of entitlements (and you know that, but it doesn't help your distortion and dilution case to include these other forms of entitlements...no, not at all).
 
To me, there is nothing unreasonable about using the very achievable responsibility of providing food for your family ($7.00 per day, per person) as a baseline responsibility so the kids can see that their family is responsible, capable and functional. Kids won't see a housing subsidy, or single payer health care, they'd never understand it at the young ages I'm concerned about. But every kid is going to eat and watch his family eat, and if the worst thing that happens is that one of their parents leaves the house to go to work and brings homes $30.00 bucks a day so their family can eat, then that child will see an example worth emulating. IDGAS about the $30.00, I care about kids growing up thinking that "Our (read: lesser) family eats what the government tells us we can eat. Food money comes from the mailbox."

Remind me, what is the harm from the child witnessing the habit of the expectation of work? Why does that position draw such ire? What's the worst that happens if people start working entry level jobs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top