Posted on 01/16/2018 1:02:58 PM PST by Thalean
If the welfare system were to be overhauled to pay single Moms less and married Moms lving with their children’s Father more, there would be a reversal of that trend. Perhaps an EO could do the trick.
Communist Goals (1963)
Congressional Record—Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
My mother raised me alone for 17 years, without ever taking a drink, skipping work, or accepting assistance.
Fidelis ad mortem, RIP.
By not marrying those “enlightened” women lose some important rights - such as SS survivor benefits, for one. Guys shy away from marriage, and women chase after it, because it is lopsidedly in their favor (in terms of alimony, custody of children). I suspect many of these women are just happy to get a child, and have to settle for guys unwilling to marry.
No upside for guys to marry.
I understand that; my point was that when women who don’t fit the traditional lower-class stereotype of single mother have children without marriage, I believe they are making a calculated decision to raise a child alone rather than raise cats and die alone - marriage isn’t even being offered. May even live with the father for the rest of their lives; he simply won’t risk alimony-for-life on top of child support.
Here in NJ last year they began discussions on ending “alimony for life”; the white birth rate has fallen so far they see no other choice but to claw back something for the guys (though it won’t work - alimony is one of several issues, child custody another significant one). Guys have no interest in having an unhappy wife just move another guy into the house he’s forced to leave...
if he lives with her and has a kid they will treat it as marriage. many states have time limits cohab to de facto marriage. so there is no upsideto live wth them either. you live with them you can still face a 911 call at any moment they decide they want you gone.
nope, this is the beginnng of the end and nothing will be offered to make it worthwhile ever again. not with current modern women and the current gynocentric state.
you also forget child support. that is a huge percentage. alimony plus child support plus at least half the assets and most likely the house.
MGTOW
Many of the problems facing our country are exacerbated by single parent households. Higher crime rates, lower incomes, medical costs and poorer education results all increased in single parent families.
The child support in this instance is a moot point because the woman was having a child - just not married. Child support isn’t so much a deterrent to marriage; it is a deterrent to having children specifically.
As long as we import women who will raise the children white women don’t want until they’re 50, this isn’t the end of anything. My parents have half a dozen grandchildren with foreign-born mothers (in addition to the smaller number of strictly “American” grandchildren).
“Feminist propaganda demonizing men has caused a lot of this.”
And it’s interesting that “demon” men are not good enough to support kids in some women’s minds, but they’re good enough to jump in to bed with for a night - if that long.
“WHERE IS THE SHAME???”
The concept of shame began its downward slide when prayer was ordered out of schools.
Maybe it’s a coincidence; probably not.
You are only considering the costs to support the mother.
Single parent homes, particularly at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale, generate a disproportionate share of the children who eventually end up in foster care.
Once a child gets into the system of foster care, and associated services, his or her long term prospects decrease enormously.
The social services complex built up around troubled “families” is also enormously expensive.
LBJ was the most evil President in the nation’s history.
First he killed his predecessor to get the job.
Then he launched the insane Vietnam War to enrich his crony defense contractors.
Then he destroyed the black family.
They’re filled with hate but they are still women and crave male company. Once they satisfy their sexual appetite their hate takes back over.
“Then he launched the insane Vietnam War to enrich his crony defense contractors.”
You need to read more about that war from a sane, honest standpoint, which it seems you have missed thus far.
One thing to remember about the Vietnam war is that we were opposing evil. As a general rule, opposing evil is a good thing to do. I will not argue if it was worth 58,000 men, especially since it could have been done with a much smaller butcher’s bill, but a great deal of good came of our actions there.
I was around during those days.
The enemy was evil—no doubt about that.
But Sun Tzu teaches that the great leader chooses the time and place to fight their battles.
Vietnam was the wrong time and the wrong place.
But—this is an academic discussion of policy.
LBJ had other motives (mentioned in my earlier post). It is meaningless to discuss policy when the key actors are criminals who are pretending they care about policy.
“I was around during those days.”
Then you will remember that very little was said that could be called either honest or sane. Disinformation was the order of the day.
“Vietnam was the wrong time and the wrong place.”
It was the time and place we were handed. Communism was attacking there; the South asked us to save them from the inevitable bloodbath and reduction under tyranny.
“LBJ had other motives (mentioned in my earlier post). It is meaningless to discuss policy when the key actors are criminals who are pretending they care about policy.”
You said that LBJ got us into the war. In fact, Eisenhower had observers on the ground at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, and Kennedy expanded our role. There was a strong revulsion among Americans at the idea of cutting and running, and leaving the South to its fate.
When Johnson took office, it was already too late to cut and run. He would have lost all political capital, and might even have been removed from office. He was trapped between the political necessity of not losing in Vietnam, and his strong personal desire to throw them to the commies and waste America’s wealth on turning us socialist.
He gradually increased our participation by just enough not to lose, without ever harboring the slightest desire to win. In my view, he murdered 58,000 Americans.
Transgenderism is the next step in destroying the family.
70% of Black children born today are raised in single parent households. LBJ saw to it that government replaced the Father.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.