Posted on 02/04/2011 5:02:18 AM PST by IbJensen
The "husband" is in Washington DC.
Oh yeah.
Girls marrying older men is currently seen as "bad" by society.
It's worse than that, I'm afraid: girls marrying men is currently seen as bad by the dominant culture.
Look at today's popular television shows. See any normal, happy, heterosexual families there? What you are far more likely to see are broken families, gay "families", and dysfunctional families. And the man is always portrayed as a dunce, a moron, a braggart, a bigot, a louse, a cheater, or a tyrant. This is obviously true because Hollywood is such a happy place. /s
Democrats and Gentleman Bird’s Great Society encourages illegitimacy, rootlessness, and the absence of any family ties. Democrat policies reinforce the State as the ultimate and only social structure.
The black family in America survived slavery. The black family in America survived Reconstruction and Jim Crow. The black family in America survived the Depression.
But the black family could not survive “the Great Society.”
That just shows you how powerful is the left’s attack, how deadly are the weapons of social policy.
Grab a pitchfork and join the parade!
End ALL welfare!
They don’t care. Poverty in the US is quite comfortable. The government (taxpayers!) provide you with everything you need and more. You even get a “free” cell phone. The dummies are those of us who continue to work and pay taxes.
Neutering is the only humane choice for everyone involved. These sires will never stop screwing with anything that moves, so it is best to remove the consequences of that choice since we're already forced to care for the first of the brood.
The sad part is that subsidies hurt those who receive them, whether it is individuals or businesses. They prevent people from making good decisions.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/our-economic-past-subsidies-hurt-recipients-too/
*mandate birth control for every girl till she is 18 years old
How do you plan to enforce the mandate? And only for black girls? What about white girls with black boyfriends? What about people who are already mixed-race?*
And these are the same people who gripe & moan when the gubmint tries to make all girls take the HPV shot. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.
These are examples of countries where the number of poor people vastly outnumber the taxpayers who could conceivably support them. Bangladesh per capita GDP, for example, is just $1,700, versus $47,400 for the US.
Given that the underclass is having a lot more babies than the middle and upper-middle taxpayer classes, what happens to those babies when the welfare state finally collapses?
Do I think welfare is a good idea? No, but I would rather see young women in inner cities who do not get pregnant rewarded. Pay them if necessary for not getting pregnant and for staying in school, at least for a trial period. It might be the best money we ever spent.
Will you also pay my daughters for not getting pregnant? If not, why not?
In the final analysis, it is the girl who decides whether to spread her legs or not.
We DO have consequences. Guys can get hit for child support payments, with jail penalties for refusal to pay. What is the net result? Girls get knocked up by low-level thugs who are judgment-proof, who have no "visible" jobs whose salaries can be garnished, who have no fixed address, and whose real legal name may not even be known by the girl. The net result of all these penalties is to scare off people with something to lose, in favor of gang-bangers who do not give a damn about any penalties you might try to impose on them.
bump
Won't work, for one simple reason. It only takes ONE male to impregnate LOTS of girls, and in your scenario that one male will be the one who either thinks he can escape consequences, or who is unimpressed by the consequences.
Conversely, if the girl suffers consequences SHE regards as unacceptable, then she will not screw a guy unless (a) he marries her first, and (b) he has a good job and prospects for career advancement.
>Will you also pay my daughters for not getting pregnant? If not, why not?<
Do your daughters qualify for welfare at this point in time, or are they your dependents? Does your household qualify for welfare?
If they now qualify for welfare, and do not live with a family that means tests above the welfare line, then yes.
If you claim them as dependents, and do not qualify for welfare, then no.
I don’t care what color they are, if that is why you asked the question.
I just had the thought that instead of making it a requirement, provide a financial incentive. A cahs bonus if you go on birth control while on welfare, just make it part of the ‘benefits’ package. For instance, if someone goes on welfare, give them fifty dollars per month they stay on it. For instance, the Depo Provera shot. Each time they patient gets an injection, they get fifty dollars dropped into a bank account, the shot is of course free.
Initially it would cost money, but more would be saved over the long run since many women wouldn’t be breeding like rabbits. the welfare would go to the person holding hte money and the person only. Not another kid and more welfare and WIC stuff to a woman who is breeding one future criminal after another.
You have now just created another incentive for a family just above the welfare threshold to say "screw it" and drop into welfare.
Every benefit that accrues to the welfare class acts as a magnet for marginal individuals and families to hop onto welfare, or if on welfare to refrain from getting off.
When the sum of the benefits of staying on welfare exceeds the income you would get if you got off it onto some low-level job, you stay on welfare. At best, you work "off the books" for somebody.
Which explains why Obama is such a b*stard...;)
I don’t know the poster’s stance on mandatory HPV vaccination. I’m against both that and mandatory contraception.
The evidence, from here and other countries, is that young women act rationally. Maybe not intelligently, but rationally ... in that when the payoff for having babies is reduced, they have fewer babies. Imagine if there was no payoff at all ... all the costs borne by the parents, their families, or private charity if any.
The same people who say that’s a political impossibility seem to imagine that mandatory, effective contraception of all unmarried people would work, though.
Actually, I'd say that we are cruel because we abandon God's Law. The Ten Commandments and other laws set forth in the Bible weren't put there for no reason. Whether you are a believer or not, I do not see how you can argue with the Ten Commandments as being something that will not result in a healthy and prosperous society.
Ping
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.