Posted on 09/04/2007 6:08:36 AM PDT by madprof98
Which also means there is one clear means of ending it completely, wrenching though it might be. Stop feeding it external resources.
“And there always seems to be enough dirt in a politician’s background to make that charge plausible.”
Yeah, well, what goes around, comes around. I’m thinking the socon bashing of Newt.
Why indeed. I've been asking this question for years, since the welfare to work program came out (which I support).
BOTH parents should be responsible for children they sire ... not just one.
Agreed. But we cannot show that a US minority is as good as or better than Whitey, because that would indicate that it didn’t matter that Whitey was a bigot.
The leftists have made clear as day: Any politician who tries to discuss a “family values” issue from now on will get branded a hypocrite. And there always seems to be enough dirt in a politician’s background to make that charge plausible.
_________________________________
Yup. You can defend perversity, even if you are a family man that doesn’t cheat (that isn’t viewed as hypocrisy), but you can’t defend family values unless you’ve been squeeky clean since puberty.
It comes down to a lack of moral education among the public. If no sinner can condemn sin, no one can condemn sin, because all of us are sinners. That’s the human condition. Condoning and encouraging sin is always wrong, regardless of your own past.
Tell that to Tom Brady.
I doubt that 'white-guilt' had anything to do with the New Deal.
That’s why I said “partly”.
Men’s moral character is the other half of the equation.
If you accept that we are complex beings with minds, bodies and souls, and accept that the training of the mind and body is mandatory throughout society, then why is the training of the soul such a bad thing, why is it discouraged and prevented by government and so many families?
Could this be the answer??
Points from ‘The Naked Communist,’ 1958:
17. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures and TV.
18. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as normal, natural and healthy.
19. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with social religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a religious crutch.
20. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principles of separation of church and state.
25. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
26. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents.
They’ve been working on this for over 40 years now. And they’re winning.
Vicous cycle would be better.
One cannot cut good lumber from bad timber.
The plague of illegitimacy produces - as its natural result - "bad timber".
With seven out of ten black babies are born illegitimate, and nearly half of the Hispanic ones as well, it creates a millstone around our society and culture's neck that cannot be overcome through either goodwill or funding.
It was back in 1993 in a seminal essay in the Wall Street Journal entitled "The Coming White Underclass" in which Charles Murray warned about rising illegitimacy rates amonst whites, as well.
There is only one way to end this madness: to simply cut off all benefits and money to females who bear illegitimate children. No help - NONE - not even for the newborn. When mothers who insist on living outside cultural rules must suffer along with their "innocent children", then and only then will we see a return to the once-historic norm of a [roughly] five percent rate of illegitimacy.
Of course, this will never be undertaken as a matter of public policy.
So the plague of black and Hispanic illegitimacy is with us to stay, I'm afraid. In many black areas, it has become the "new norm" - it is now _marriage_ which is the social oddity. Does anyone here seriously expect this to change?
- John
Exactly. Why put the fathers name down? They know they can't get any money from him. If they put unknown, then Uncle Sammy will give them whatever they need compliments of the people who work and pay taxes.
Same principle applies to Je$$e Jack$on and why he won't race pimp in Sudan, where they still have slaves. Sudan won't give him any money, so he does it here instead.
But the best thing about it all is that I save time. Every time I get paid, I don't have to walk through the inner city and hand out money. Theres plenty of people who already do that for me.
I am sure that is partly the case. It is all part of the social fabric that ties one individual to another and makes the individual resonsible for his/her actions.
This is far too simplistic. Marriage is a lot of things, and not all marriages are created equal. Just saying "marriage reduces poverty" does nothing actually to address the issues that really inform the problem.
If you forced marriage on the types of folks who spawn the vast majority of illegitimate children, I seriously doubt that the poverty rate would change much. The divorce rate would go up, certainly.
Ultimately, illegitimacy is a byproduct of loose sexual mores. Girls who put out, and males who spread their seed indiscriminately. It's a cultural issue. And, like so many cultural issues, changing sexual mores will depend on the women.
There is that issue of financial interest: right now, there's no particular incentive to name the father; and there's plenty of incentive for the fathers to want to remain anonymous.
Raising the costs for both parents might help to reduce the illegitimacy rate somewhat, by increasing the abortion rate. But when the heat of the moment arrives, the girls will spread their legs without thinking about the welfare issues they'll face in 9 months.
If you want to attack the problem, you've got to convince the girls not to put out unless they're married. It's a difficult fight, made more difficult by the presence of a huge and pervasive media push to convince them otherwise.
That may be so, however I do find it hypocritical for a divorced man to speak to the importance of family bonds (unless he is speaking to repentance for his bad choices). It obviously was not a high priority for him or his wife.
Unwed women are among the Democrats’ most reliable constituencies. They have no incentive to reduce their numbers.
. . . and what does that mean about the government check? It means that, to the extent that the guy who becomes a "deadbeat dad" wants a long-term relationship with his girlfriend who becomes the "nondeadbeat mother," the government is a serious competitor. As far as he is concerned, the government is the problem.Let's not be so cavalier about poor men's problems. Because their sons are the next generation of the same syndrome - you cannot actually help a boy by any device which assures that he does not grow up respecting his 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.