Single Moms Are Making Us Broke, Says Joe Soucheray

St. Paul Pioneer Press ^ | 05/06/13 | Joe Soucheray

[mn-bush-man]

It was reported the other day on an inside page of the Pioneer Press, and without nearly enough fanfare, that more than six out of 10 women who give birth in their early 20s are unmarried. That is census data, from census demographers, from the very government that then becomes responsible for many, if not most, of those unmarried women and children.

If that isn't an astonishing statistic, it should be. Why, to any logical person's way of thinking, it explains everything in terms of government at all levels bloating out of control.

Supposing that even angels might fear to tread here, it being liberal dogma that I shouldn't be telling women what to do, or men, either, for that matter, I would submit that marriage would solve virtually every economic issue facing this country.

(**snip**)

[grey_whiskers]

...with the woman.

Women are the gatekeepers of sex, men of commitment.

Which is why so many soon-to-be crazy cat ladies wail, "WHERE have all the GOOD MEN gone?"

They gave up after you spent your twenties slutting it up with bad boys; and then had the nerve to ask them to marry you and support other mens' children.

You GO, G'RRRRL.

Cheers!

[Blue Ink]

The headline is “Single Moms are Making Us Broke.”

Wrong. Single moms AND FATHERS are making us, the taxpayers, broke.

And “Single motherhood up blah blah blah percent?” Why not “Single fatherhood” up the exact same percentage?

There is no single motherhood without single fatherhood.

And the progressive, socialist slide you’re on about? I’m not enjoying it at all. But I don’t make the fundamental logic error of blaming it exclusively on women.

Every poor kid of a single mom has a single dad. There’s plenty of blame to go around.

[gleeaikin]

I have never figured out how the super rich managed to hook the fundamentalists and tea party people on their agenda. Didn’t Romney realize that many in those groups actually fall in the 47% category economically?

[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

Huge issue that nobody wants to talk about.

We have a winner.

[EricT.]

Worth the time to watch:

Fempocalypse

[manc]

I have not understood that either, also how Dems can keep saying the GOPO is the party of the rich is beyond me, most of their support comes fro the west coast and north east which has much more money, they have more millionaires supporting them and yet they label us as the party of the rich, .

I guess they have not been around here and seen the working class who vote republican then.

[BenLurkin]

Twas moi — actually I’ve ben using it for years.

Dan Quayle was right about Murphy Brown.

[familyop]

"And 'Single motherhood up blah blah blah percent?' Why not 'Single fatherhood' up the exact same percentage?"

Single fatherhood is rare, most of the illegitimate children seldom or never see their fathers. They're reared by single mothers. That's not fatherhood, but it is the result of decades of propaganda and laws promoting and coercing single motherhood.

"There is no single motherhood without single fatherhood."

Yes, there is. We frequently see women, each with kids from several fathers. Not so with the many young men who are only good for a night's fun.

"And the progressive, socialist slide you’re on about? I’m not enjoying it at all. But I don’t make the fundamental logic error of blaming it exclusively on women."

..."you're on about?" Are you from East London in England? In your first comment, you wrote, "But the point of this article is STOP FATHERING CHILDREN. And if you do and the state (i.e., ME) ends up supporting them, you’re the farthest thing from a king — you’re a bum."

...a reminder of who you were blaming. On the money issue, two recent products of broken, high-income families cost quite a bit (Lanza and Holmes). But there aren't many true private sector producers remaining anyway. With most who call themselves taxpayers, they receive incomes derived from government debt.

"Every poor kid of a single mom has a single dad."

Young men who don't stay with their children until adulthood, at least, aren't single dads or dads at all. Young men were taught to be more traditional during decades of feminist indoctrination for girls (indoctrination mostly aimed at promiscuity).

Many laws were passed decades ago to stop working class men from making women pregnant outside of marriage. At the same time, men were rejected for jobs in many companies for the sake of feminism. We've tried the feminist model for a long time, and we see how it has worked. Our forefathers knew better, and our leadership is too vain to acknowledge that. Western culture is morally bankrupt.

We don't need more institutionalized social pathologies (e.g., sexual confusion). We need new leadership in business, academia and politics, and we'll get new leadership at the other end of the default process.

[Blue Ink]

“Young men who don’t stay with their children until adulthood, at least, aren’t single dads or dads at all.”

Yeah, you know who disagrees with you? Western civilization and jurisprudence. Try telling the judge who orders you to pay child support that you aren’t a single dad or a dad at all.

If you father a child and aren’t married to the mother, you’re a single dad, whether you raise your kid or not.

This is simply biologically irrefutable.

[GatorGirl]

If it wasn’t so easy to have all the kids they want in order to increase their level of public assistance, these women would not get pregnant at all. Birth control is cheap and abundant. They and their partners are choosing irresponsibility.

Adoption is an option for the truly “accidental” pregnancy, but the gravy train won’t be available to them if they give these kids up like they should.

Welfare reform and pro life are not mutually exclusive.

[familyop]

The video linked in the comment said it all, and I hadn't watched it until now. Thanks, EricT and girlwriteswhat.

"Worth the time to watch:

Fempocalypse "

[familyop]

[A resend for Blue Ink.]

The video linked in the comment said it all, and I hadn't watched it until now. Thanks, EricT and girlwriteswhat.

"Worth the time to watch:

Fempocalypse "

[familyop]

"Yeah, you know who disagrees with you? Western civilization and jurisprudence. Try telling the judge who orders you to pay child support that you aren’t a single dad or a dad at all. If you father a child and aren’t married to the mother, you’re a single dad, whether you raise your kid or not. This is simply biologically irrefutable."

I have avoided promiscuous feminist women and have not been ordered to pay support/alimony, so don't bother with the repetitions of "you." To rebut the feminist socialist canard, the personal is not political. I'd already written that we're seeing the consequences of feminist socialist policy and related policies. It's common knowledge. The following explains it well.

Fempocalypse

[doc]

There are approximately 80 social net welfare programs in Ca. which contributes heavily to the overall debt.

[Tammy8]

I am not going to argue with what he says...but illegals are making us broke and they shouldn’t be here to begin with so get all the illegals out of our pockets and then we can worry about what to do about our citizens that are an issue.

[gleeaikin]

I understand there has been a study of 9,000 women in St. Louis who were allowed the option of the more expensive long term birth control that requires a doctor’s involvement. There was an 80% drop in pregnancies and abortions compared with the national average.

[Reddy]

Oh, yeah... there’s a whole bravado male-bashing intent behind the words “single mom”.

I have a family member who posts graphics daily touting single motherhood (the guy was a loser and left her). The graphics say stuff like, “I’m one heck of a woman because I’m the father and mother to my child.” or something like that.

Gag inducing.

[ek_hornbeck]

I have never figured out how the super rich managed to hook the fundamentalists and tea party people on their agenda. Didn’t Romney realize that many in those groups actually fall in the 47% category economically?

There are a lot of political alliances that don't make sense. Fiscal and social conservatives aren't necessarily the same people, i.e. the Wall Street Broker or Fortune 500 Executive may be liberal on many social issues (or just not care), and vote Republican for the sake of lower taxes and less regulation. Meanwhile, there are impoverished people who rely on welfare and foodstamps but still vote Republican because of their views on abortion, gay marriage, and other social issues. What's the logical connection between the two? None. It's an alliance of convenience.

However, you see the same thing with alliances that make up the Democrats. Most blue collar union workers are very conservative on social issues. I doubt that a homosexual with his "spouse" would make many friends at an AFL-CIO meeting, nor would some shrieking feminist. The same is true of most blacks, Hispanics, and especially Muslims, yet they all vote for Democrats and tolerate the feminists, homosexuals, and other social radicals among them. They do so because they either put their economic interests or their racial/ethnic identity ahead of their social views.