Posted on 03/29/2021 9:54:52 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Hey, I can say it in 1 word: Liberalism!
Pretty sure that the destruction of society is a morality issue. And boy, does America have that in spades.
Add in abortion numbers, where for example by some accounts over half of black babies are medically lynched, and the numbers should help to show why Romans 1:18-32 seems to be happening everywhere in our so-called culture.
Obviously posting that is racis’. Just sayin’. LOL! “Facts? We don’t need no steenkin’ facts!” Seems like a lot of this started around the CRA64 time frame. Weird huh? Promises made, promises denied.
I don’t believe in government “charity” but to the extent we have it, it should be inverse.
Single people should get X total.
A married couple should get 3X total.
A married couple with 1 child should get 2X total.
A married couple with 2 children should get X total.
A married couple with 3 children get nothing at all.
And X, by the way, should never be a large number.
Systemic racism indeed thy name is Liberal.
There’s an awful lot of anger in this country.
There used to be a lot of love found in a 1200 square foot house with one car.
Do people really need an 8000 square foot house and four luxury cars and a vacation home and a boat and expensive vacations and submarines?
Madison Avenue is killing our happiness.
There’s nothing wrong with making a lot of money, but I don’t think it’s a cure-all.
Black women are “married” to their government-paid slave-owners? And, increasingly, white elderly and white liberal unmarried women are also “married for life” to their “security blankets” in Washington for their “life until death does us apart.”
(Except democrat voters keep voting after death...”
Love to see murders, rapes, crimes, government assistance, .... stats in this same format.
Is it common for the mother to work in Asian households?
Is it a question of which comes first - the chicken or the egg - the lesser income or the out-of-wedlock birth(s)?
A “Conservative” argument could say that the out-of-wedlock births bring about male and female choices in both education and marriage, or lack thereof, that lead to choices about jobs that lead to fewer income opportunities.
A “Liberal” argument would say the lesser income status for both males and females preceded the out-of-wed-lock birth.
I personally think it is neither; that the primary determinant is in culture, the culture that the individual is part of, mostly from the family they are part of but also from the social culture they associate with. I think that cultural influence is greater than income, education, or “class”.
Been pointing this correlation out to others for years - if one is concerned about the condition of the underclass, and you focus on racism while ignoring the dissolution of the family, it’s like going all out to treat an ingrown toenail while ignoring stomach cancer.
An additional interesting point: if one adds the average income for each group (in thousands, as a two-digit number) to the fraction of single-parent families (again, as a two-digit number, where 70.0% = 70), the sum in the four cases is pretty nearly constant. That indicates an almost perfect inverse dependence of economic success on traditional family structure.
**that should be “absence of traditional family structure”.
The direct correlation is traditional family structure leads to economic success.
Anyone on welfare should get mandatory birth control after one child.
Pretty sure that the destruction of society is a morality issue. And boy, does America have that in spades.
************
Its a full on moral, ethical and cultural decline.
I do not believe in any greater government money benefit to individuals, married or not, due to dependent children.
Yes, having children is a good for society, but I believe the basic investment for it has to be from the parents, not the government.
Dependency on government is not a strength, its a weakness suggesting the recipient has obtained obligations on themselves before preparing to take on those obligations.
An increasing enterprise of government dependency, reflecting a weakness of individuals, makes the nation weaker, not stronger. It should be discouraged, not encouraged. Payments should always be bare minimums, not the most maximum, or else individual initiative will be perpetually overcome by good enough government dependency.
Your points suggest that you think those earning more are only doing so at the expense of those earning less, and if those who are earning more earned less then the difference would reach those regularly earning less and they would have more. Its an economically unsound idea.
People are not earning less because of people earning more.
I don’t know if it still holds true, but there is or was a financial incentive for the poor to remain unwed. If you have a child and are poor you are eligible for certain benefits but only if there is no man living in the home. This policy discourages marriage and results in children growing up without 2 parents.
Lol. I see lots of big 4-5 bedroom homes with retired couples living in them. They aren’t empty nests. The homes were bought when the couples had no kids. It’s a type of status symbol. Having the Range Rover or BMW in the driveway seems to be required also. Though the logic of paying 10s of thousands of extra dollars for a car that is more likely to strand you than a 20 year old Subaru escapes me.
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.