Posted on 05/31/2011 8:27:46 PM PDT by AustralianConservative
Perhaps both parties need to take a bit more responsibility or “just say no” and get their jollies other ways as opposed to engaging in risky behavior with another person who is clearly not ready to take on the responsibility of the consequences of their action. Most of these people have no intention of forming a family with their “baby mama” or “baby daddy”.
The vast majority of these so called “single parents” are not poor jilted wives who put all their trust in a bad man, they are people who engaged in sexual activity with not a care for the potential results or who willingly conceived so they could up their welfare eligibility.
The welfare is for the child. If there were 2 parents supporting the child then there would be less need for welfare. Therefore, the parent who is AWOL is causing the greater harm to the taxpayer (not to mention the child) by precipitating the need for welfare to begin with.
Of course, both are responsible for the child being there to begin with ... but after that fact, the parent who will not support his/her offspring is the one most responsible for loading the taxpayer with the burden.
I’m just saying that if we didn’t provide the incentive, the child wouldn’t need the welfare because he/she wouldn’t exist!
Let families, churches, charities pick up the slack for those who really need it.
“Single Parents” aren’t all poverty stricken BTW. The child is just a cog in a very large wheel of poor choices.
The “It’s for the Children” mentality, among others, is what has gotten us into the mess we’re in. And welfare reform? Fine, AFDC/TANF no longer available? I’ll just get some quack to deem my kid “disabled” and they’ll get an SSI check for life. The only welfare reform that will work is an end to ALL handouts.
Goodbye Social Security!
Actually, politics and therefore strains of politics like libertarianism can be a profession (especially for out of touch people). I like the term “professional libertarianism” a term professional libertarians would love to censor, ironically enough.
Columnist Matt Lewis’ position is also spot on:
Liberals tend to set up equality as the highest good. Equality is the end goal of most liberal policy. The conservative asks, “Why does that idea become valued over all others?” Equality is certainly good, but as a highest end and goal, it can lead to devastating consequences.
Likewise, the pure libertarian (as opposed to those of us who have some libertarian leanings) sets up liberty as the highest good. Liberty is the end goal of all policy. The conservative looks to the libertarian and asks, “Why does that idea become valued over all others?” Liberty is obviously a great good, but as the highest end goal, it can also lead to devastating consequences.
The conservative argues that the greatest instructor on what laws should exist in a civil society is human experience. So, it would seem libertarianism hits its own walls when it ventures out of its world of make-believe theories and steps into the world of reality.
Can you tell me the difference between this “professional libertarian” term you’ve invented, and the textbook definition of the work “anarchist”?
Oh so Soros doesn’t back CATO – but when I say he gave thousands that really isn’t much money? Tell that to a prolife group and ask them if $80,000 is chicken feed? Note too that he is a socialist billionaire, so we return to the issue of more professional libertarian hypocrisy.
One example: “Cato Institute: $80,000 over 2 years to support a public and policymaker education campaign on the threats to civil liberties that a national system of identification would pose.”
That buys influence, and for every one critical thinker, there are two more clapping seals.
But I digress. Professional libertarians are “never wrong” and “beyond ccountability.” Better to target advocates of conservative free speech, than welfare queens (another example of hypocrisy). I refer you to Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell for more information.
How dare I “invent” words? LOL: Go tell the thought police. Only libertarians have the right to make up words? Big Brother is well pleased I’m sure.
I’m reminded of an Ann Coulter line: Scratch a civil libertarian, find a fascist. How about we get angry about the welfare queens closest to you? Save your righteous anger for them.
“How many women who can afford sperm banks are on welfare?” Where there’s a will there is a way. Sex operations are being handed out!
But there’s a bigger point: After using sperm banks many fall into the welfare trap. Others find cheaper “methods.” The one pattern: adults-only rights for certain people. They are burdens on society. Some of them should be sent to work camps and forced to adopt out their children.
“A child need 2 parents to thrive. Why are we demonizing the parent who is THERE, the one who has not absconded?”
Of course they need two to thrive, that’s my point! The truth is many have kicked out men – or chosen to sleep with rats and then played the victim. If one is capable of giving birth, one must think through these things more carefully.
My message to wild women: Keep your legs closed if you’re unmarried and vulnerable to pregnancy. There are enough father-hungry kids (aka anarchists) in gangs and jails.
“There would be far fewer kids on welfare if both parents contributed to both the raising and the financial support of their own offspring. The parent who is AWOL is more the problem than the parent who is there.”
I’m not talking about once married couples where there is a death, for example, but designer single mothers. However, America will probably be bankrupt before she wakes up, and then the truth will hit the fan.
Another point: Boys raised by single mothers are more likely to impregnate unwed women. It is a very feral circle – and conservatives are tired of paying for these social experiments.
“In the real world, where real people live, taxes will continue to rise where there is unwed mother promiscuity, period.”
It is that belief in the inevitability of welfare that is the real problem. You’ve confused libertarians with the squishy “compassionate conservative” or the “progressive left.” Libertarians are perfectly willing to let people live with the consequences of their own decisions.
When reasoning and then writing this piece, the author was clearly baked.
The "actions" of libertarians are nothing like what you suggest they are, and you ascribe to libertarians all kinds of beliefs that they simply don't have. I think perhaps you don't understand the difference between liberals and libertarians, or maybe you are really just a good old fashioned right wing statist - the kind who deep down in their hearts wants a big government that intrudes into everyone's lives.
Likewise, the pure libertarian (as opposed to those of us who have some libertarian leanings) sets up liberty as the highest good. Liberty is the end goal of all policy. The conservative looks to the libertarian and asks, “Why does that idea become valued over all others?” Liberty is obviously a great good, but as the highest end goal, it can also lead to devastating consequences.
The conservative argues that the greatest instructor on what laws should exist in a civil society is human experience.
Of course in the late 1700s human experience showed that the most successful form of society was a monarchy, and in particular the one in England was at the top of the stack. By the Australian's test, it of course showed the proper form of societal governance.
But somewhere far away a group of people thought that a different kind of society, one whose government was based on liberty as its overarching goal, was a better idea. Ultimately, the two groups had quite a war, and the libertarians won.
Yep, those guys who drafted the constitution and the amendment that provides for birth right citizenship are the root of our problems today! I knew we shouldn't have trusted Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln, etc. /sarc
So what's wrong with _anybody_ putting up some money to study the "threats to civil liberties" that result from national systems of identification?
Are you one of those "conservatives" who think that a national ID card is a good idea?
The use of sperm banks is not the cause of the welfare problem.
Who said sperm banks were the only issue? This is a red herring. But two wrongs don’t make a right. There are ethical and financial reasons to oppose sperm banks, because children aren’t social experiments.
YOU brougt up sperm banks in post #11 as a factor in welfare situations.
It IS a red herring in this discussion, I agree.
Why even bring it up in the first place?
The overwhelming majority of children on welfare have a father who is AWOL both financially and physically, a fact that you seem eager to not talk about.
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.