[SauronOfMordor]

Just noting all these articles about welfare "reform" don't ever mention the fathers of these child welfare recipients. That's all.

The facts of life are that most of the fathers of inner-city kids either do not have the resources to support them (minimum-wage job holder), or get their incomes in ways that cannot be seized to satisfy child-report (off the books or crime) or are dead or in jail.

The bottom line is that ( however much it might violate your sense of fairness ) the only workable solution to welfare dependency is to use disincentives on the women, so that they will avoid getting pregnant unless they have a stable husband in their lives AND have the work skills to support themselves and their kids should something happen to the husband.

[Lorianne]

I reject that. That is not the "only workable solution". That's ends justify the means logic. The obvious endgame of such logic is unilateral unconstitutional actions against women.

There are lots of "disincentives" we could use that are not unilateral. For example, I don't accept the premise that a man has no obligation to work towards the support of his children, but women do.

I also do not accept that women are unilaterally responsible for the creation of children. That logic will place us right on the mandatory abortion road ... which is what all this deliberate OMMISSION men, even one single time in a discussion of welfare, is all about. That is the endgame.