I'm a parent in a two-parent home and it's better because both my wife and I work (more money) and we can tag-team whatever duties need to be covered with our offspring or general living needs. This does not mean that a typical person cannot do it alone and well. It also does not mean that two parents results in kids who aren't a net negative on society.
If all other things are even (which they aren't), two parents would be better than one. In many situations it's much better to have a single parent because the other person who created the child isn't responsible. One can't make a call
The majority of the single parent mothers (never married) that I know are college educated, professional working women. The don't receive government subsidies.
should there be some limit on the number of kids that you can have that the government will support? ........
and the more kids they have out of wedlock that they can't support, the higher the probability that they will never be contributing members of society ....
not talking serialization, there are reversible forms forced birth control aren't there? ......
giving the state that kind of power is against my principles but so is supporting people, providing housing, etc for generations and it sure doesn't look like anyone has the appetite to cut back on the entitlements .....
We should be able to break down people who receive "welfare" into three groups:
- People who earned it (payed into SS/Medicaire and retired)
- People who need it and can't improve their situation
- People who could improve their situation but don't
The last group of people is the one that gets discussed, but we often forget a lot of money goes to responsible people who bought in completely and retired, became disabled, orphaned, etc.
My assumption based on experience is that the bulk of third group of people aren't going to turn it around. Obviously getting them to not have more kids who grow up with a bad influence to do the same thing is a priority.
I don't know if restructuring the payouts based on offspring will substantially change the decisions of some of these individuals. Obviously we can't limit how many children they have because of rights violations, but I'd like to see the federal/state/local governments spend money on encouraging children not to exist if parents really don't want them.
The first layer in this would be free birth control for all (something like an IUD preferably so it can't be messed up easily), but this can run afoul of religious considerations.
I'm not a fan of people getting abortions, but if we made them free to all then perhaps many of these children won't be born in the first place and cost us while they are children and likely as adults as well. This is extremely unpopular in religious context, but I believe that the economic benefit would be enormous.
You mention that theory, but I've never considered that as a possibility in my argument. I have no doubt that some think that way, but it's not my point.
To the completely dependent, theres no financial disincentive, since another baby will not affect your income or lifestyle, or the ability to care for the additional babies. You WILL get more money, but your situation remains the same.
My wife and I like kids. Be cool to have three or four, but with our income, we couldn't give those kids a safe environment and decent schools, and the lifestyle we prefer as healthy for positive growth. It's common sense family planning.
This thread seems to focus too much on poor blacks and not enough on the fact that the problem is expanding outside the poor black community due to social changes and women being more liberated...
|Terms of Service | Search/Archive | Feedback | Contact Information | DC50tv |
Baltimore Sun | Chicago Tribune | Daily Press | Hartford Courant | LA Times | Orlando Sentinel | Sun Sentinel
The Morning Call | The Virginia Gazette
Baltimore Sun, 501 N. Calvert Street, P.O. Box 1377, Baltimore, MD 21278