I'll give this post credit for one thing - it's been forever since I've seen wil, or any right-winger here really, formulate any kind of argument regarding actual policy. So, for this minor miracle, kudos wil.

But regarding the actual argument - so, uh, how does this happen? I imagine you think black moms intentionally have babies to get benefits (a belief you probably acquired anecdotally and/or through stereotypes?) and only by forcing a bunch of them (and their children) into poverty do they finally stop? I'm sure this probably isn't fair to your beliefs so please expand on how this works if we put you in charge of everything.

I think the available evidence suggests that this would do the opposite of what you intend. For example, it is likely that poverty is a cause of single-parent homes, not just a consequence of them. There aren't significant differences in sexual behavior between relatively advantaged and disadvantaged people, but there are differences in contraceptive use, and those differences are obviously tied to poverty: effective contraception is economically difficult for the poor. There is no evidence that decreasing welfare programs reduces poverty. In fact, the evidence is that welfare programs reduce poverty, and removing them would make the problem worse. See for example this article from the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality.

Looking at statistics, especially in the black community, before and after large scale welfare programs were put into place are enlightening. Firstly, the 70% single motherhood in the black community is almost unreal. Looking up the statistics on men raised in single parent households is mind boggling when it comes to likelihood of going to jail. It cuts across all races.

I'm with the conservatives now on this, maybe because I'm now a parent. . Family is of utmost importance and the building block of our society. Families need two parents. Black families were more intact before the civil Rights movement, when they were much, much poorer.

The numbers don't lie. The destruction of the black family is the root problem. Black men need their fathers, just as much as everyone else. If white families had a 70% single motherhood rate I'd bet we would I see similar results. Subsidizing single mothers creates more single mothers.

I don't know how to fix this. The left will never agree to lower help for single mothers. So we are stuck in this cycle.

I agree it's possible I'm wrong. But honestly, how could it get any worse?

It's above 70% dude. What could happen if you are correct? It climbs to 80%?

I see no way to break this cycle continuing the path we've gone down. The results are unacceptable. I'm tired of it. I watch these kids their their lives away and I'm sick of it.

Same thing with the schools. Completely dominated by liberals and liberal policies. What do we get? Unacceptable results. Absolutely awful. Hey man, whatever, my kid goes to the best school in the state of Pennsylvania. I'm fine. But these poor kids are screwed, and that's not right.

well, Republican policies to defund Planned Parenthood and safe sex programs and sex ed programs is sure to reduce the single mother rate.

It doesn't make much sense to blame the growth of single-parent homes on welfare programs while noting that marriage rates were much higher at a time when the people in question were much poorer. Numbers don't lie, but there a lot of variables and it's pretty clear that the growth in single-parent homes is not a simple function of social welfare policy. What is the plausible causal relationship between the two variables? As far as I know, the variable most highly correlated to non-marital births is education, which is also probably a proxy for wealth. Cf. Pew.

Also, given the kind of argument you are attempting, you should probably read this piece on mass incarceration, which is largely a history of the Moynihan report, which dealt with the topic of family structure and poverty in the 60s and which you should find interesting.

It's time to go to Burger King. I'll be back later.

Pathetic confirmed.

Try not to sexually molest too many people in the BK toilet.

wil, can you go into detail on...
- what are the stats pre and post welfare, like, what are the years/numbers/etc
- if there's stronger evidence of causation (not just correlation) to support your theory over what well named has posted

To be clear, I don't think I've made a very good argument in a positive sense. I think it's too complicated, and I don't think there's a good simple explanation for all of the trends. I have no confident explanation for the decline in crime rates after the mid-90s, for example. I just think Wil's assertions are unfounded.

It doesn't make sense to blame liberal policy for failures related to homicide rates if homicide rates (and most other crime rates) have been generally in decline.

It doesn't make sense to associate homicide rates to single-parent homes either, given that the trend lines are moving in opposite directions. Unless the argument is that an increase in single-parent homes is causing a decline in crime rates. Changes in family structure are part of a much larger cultural change since the 60s. The effects of those changes are pretty complicated.

It does make sense to think that there is a connection between the cycle of poverty and single-parent homes. The Stanford Center article discusses that. And certainly there is a connection between poverty and crime, albeit a very complicated one.

It doesn't make sense AFAICT to think that slashing welfare spending indiscriminately would reduce the number of single-parent homes, nor to think that it would reduce crime.

It does make sense that different kinds of anti-poverty programs could be more or less useful. Some of the other articles from that same Stanford publication discuss that.

I don't think it can be argued that social policy since the 60s has been as successful as many hoped, although it's also true that Wil is wrong to think of all of that as an explicitly liberal project, or something where liberals have always gotten what they wanted. "Welfare reform" in the 90s was definitely not driven by liberal ideology, for example.

Wow. You're easily triggered aren't you.

The conservatives message with regards to the budget is pure poor shaming. Thinking poor people stay poor to get that sweet sweet gov. cheese. They think forcing people off of welfare will magically make jobs appear for them, when those jobs are the most likely to be automated away. They think making the states pay for programs will magically reduce the governments buget but not show up in the tax burden the states have to cover. It's just a hateful bill that will do way more harm than good.

I don't think looking at it as "poor people stay poor to get that sweet sweet gov. cheese." is the correct way of saying it. You have to be blind, or never associated with people on welfare, some for generations, to not know that some women have children just for that check. And if the father, or a male body isn't present in the household they get more money whether it be in food stamps, rent, car repairs, cell phones, cash money, etc.
My girlfriend has worked at our local DSS office for 2 years, my step mother for 30. Go into one of those buildings for 8 hours and you see the entitlement on peoples faces. It is gross. I've heard countless stories of people having to be physically removed from the building because they think the people working there are out to get em and personally say no when they get denied something and react violently.
What they need to do is put a cap on how much you receive. That way people aren't begging or surprised when they don't get more. Nobody told the lady down the street to have 5 kids by the time she is 24, and collect welfare like her parents did. That is her decision. So she shouldn't expect the govt to pay for all her offspring. She should receive just as much as the mother of 2 that is actually down on her luck and needs the program. There should be a limit that pays up to X amount for up to X amount of kids.
It is a hand up, not a hand out.

Welfare moms is a blast from the past, you got any sources for that because when Reagan was going on about it it wasn't true, don't see why it would be now.

Wil was right, you're an idiot.

Guess you don't believe smoking cigs is bad for you either. I mean it wasn't back then, right?

Weird how schools are utterly dominated by people who like to read.

The 90s was the height of the crime rate in the US. I would think things like the gang wars over crack cocaine exasperated that problem, but it's hard to tell. I also agree all of this is very complicated because you can look at a lot of data and dissect it.

Again, it went from horrific to just terrible.

I don't agree. Single mothers are subsidized, so you get more single mothers. What is so complicated about that?

Poverty doesn't cause crime.

Have you ever been in a situation similar to welfare? Like, being paid while not working, for a long period of time? I have. It's crippling, and it's addictive. I was paid full salary for 6 months and didn't have to work. I went from being a productive, efficient person to the exact opposite. Even my friends commented on how I really needed to find a job to get myself back together. I wouldn't get out of bed until 10 and I wouldn't take a shower until 1pm. Why should I? I had nothing to do.

It was great, but it was awful.

You meant to say "it's been a complete and utter failure of epic proportions".

It's obviously supported by the left.

There's nothing pathetic about it. People like goofy like to say "You voted for this, you own it".

Well, that knife cuts both ways. You people support just throwing the doors open and letting anyone in.

Own it.

The murder rate fell during the Obama administration.


1) What
2) The
3) ****


Your diaper is full 24/7, *****.

You keep saying this like people wouldn't believe a ****ing wanna be white trash alcoholic means this ****. We know you mean it! That's why we make fun of you!

We can look at the data. You can't. Data is for us. This is important. This is a lesson you need to be teaching your kid. Numbers, facts, knowledge? Those are of the left. They are for the left.

You have stereotypes, fear, and anger.

LOL

You what?

Maybe if you'd paid more attention to those awful liberal teachers you might be able to communicate without making a total hole of yourself every time.

Idiot. The attacker was born in the UK, as were the 2005 bombers. Actually, make that clueless idiot.

I, on the other hand, wasn't born in Britain but in a country that's now half Islamic fundamentalist. According to the fantastic logic of people like you and juank, maybe I should be put under anti-terrorist surveillance? LOL

Those are some pretty sweet anecdotes I gotta say

I mean, wil, you know that already.

"Lower the single motherhood rate by decreasing welfare programs."

doesn't mean anything.

Lower which programs, by how much?

How will that reduce single motherhood? And why is single motherhood the goal here?

Your parents told you what you were when you were, so you didn't even ****ing try. A valuable lesson.

Please can you describe for us, or better still draw us a picture, of what entitlement looks like on people's faces? I'm dying to know. Is it closer to a rash or to leprosy?