Posted on 11/01/2012 6:17:44 AM PDT by TigerClaws
I heard a preacher (a pretty conservative one at that) of a large church a while back speak on this subject. He made the statement that women who were virgins on their wedding day was all but non-existant—even in the church.
And, who did the preacher blame? The men, not the women. In his opinion the root of the problem is the constant pressure from men (both boyfriends and fiancees) that breaks down the woman’s will.
Instead of focusing so much on women and calling them names, maybe we should take a look at the men and their attitudes.
Just have taxpayers support them.
Where am I apologising? I agree there are many disincentives, I’m asking about ones that would actually come to fruition in todays political atmosphere?
None that I can see any politician actually backing. Do you think Mitt would suggest these actions, or Newt, or Sarah, or any candidate?
One of the only worthwhile contributions Slick Willie made to the national discourse was his use of the phrase: "welfare as a way of life". Welfare is a way of life for all too many, a planned way of life, just as planned as anyone else's finishing HS, applying to college, picking a major, etc., etc.
A great TV moment I witnessed during the '80s was on PBS. That great lib Phil Donahue was conducting a discussion about welfare with a panel of several. The statement was made that many black girls got pregnant intentionally so they could get welfare, food stamps, an apartment, etc., and move out on their own.
This drove Phil up a wall and his problem was greatly compounded by the fact that those statements came from a black, female social worker from SC. Old Phil was craning his neck and loosening his tie, really between a rock and a hard place as to how to handle the dilemma. He finally said that he just couldn't allow those statements to stand, that black girls intentionally got pregnant to obtain welfare benefits.
The black, female social worker from SC held her ground. Of course, she was telling the truth and she knew it from her job experience. A pretty high percentage of out-of-wedlock births are planned. They are 'career' moves.
And it is insane to suggest that high birth rates among people with few jobs skills and no means of support is a good thing, no matter the birthrate among the more productive.
Out-of-wedlock births and the trillion dollar annual cost, (about 30% of our budget), and all the other problems that are amplified in single mom families, is our greatest national problem, at present and getting worse for the future.
What folly of the past is exposed today?
Why do you say it’s our fault?
???
Gang Mugging in NY During Hurricane Sandy,
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2953003/posts
Here is really what separates the Takers scum, from the Worker class, or better yet, Liberals from Conservatives.. My first reaction was to act like them, and strike out at someone, something, or where our morality has fallen.. JUST GET’M ALL..
What else should we expect, these feral cretins, were raised without any structure, or moral underpinnings, or genuine love..
My guess is that most of these heartless ba$tards, have never been told that they would be punished for their actions.. Not only with jail, which they wear as a trophy, but with SHAME, as in utter disappointment leveled at them by someone that they admire, that expected more from them..
Whom in their pitiful lives has eared that kind of dignity, that taught them, by example.. That you only get what you are willing to give in life, and the Do Unto Others’ is really a road-map to reward, proven by results..
So much work, so little time.. Sorry folks, I really do fear we are entering the last quarter in the “American Dream”, reality showdown.. Damned Liberals .. %@%#@%
Unless something changes drastically re: our budget, spending, budget deficits, national debt, etc., we will have no choice but to make painful cuts in many programs in the near future.
A Republican president with a Republican House and Senate would make some changes. Repealing Obamacare is a first major step and I believe that will be done if Republicans win the presidency and a majority in the Senate.
/sarc
I would take idleness off the table as a lifestyle option and test all public assistance applicants for drugs. If you seek welfare, you’re going to have to show up every morning and put in a day’s work. If addiction is part of the problem, we’ll find that out and work on it.
The devil is in the details. Finding work for all these folks will be a challenge, especially in major metro areas. If it’s makework, so be it; there should not be a scrap of litter, a trace of graffiti, or an unscrubbed surface in any city with a large welfare population, and if the makework runs out, we can hand out picks and shovels and dig subway tunnels by hand.
The point is not to be punitive. The point is threefold: to make getting and keeping a real job preferable to welfare; to get rid of welfare cheats; and to make little Cassie, Maria, and Lakeesha think twice, and then twice again, before getting pregnant to begin with.
When I was a kid, the national rate of illegitimacy was about 5%. Then government stepped in as the great enabler. We have to stop enabling. Obviously we don’t want anyone going hungry, but assistance should not be free.
Excellent use of modifiers in your sentences.
Many of the inner-city baby-daddies have no above-the-table wages that can be garnished. Many don't even use their real birth names in their day-to-day interactions, have no fixed address, and are transient from state to state. Being a gang-banger is a disincentive to having proper ID (which may be another reason why the Dems are so opposed to ID requirements to vote)
The “Single Mother” is a hero figure in popular parlance.
Did that happen the last time we had Republicans in charge?
I propose that you start by donating "YOUR" paycheck....if you have one.
Which party do you see actually running on a platform like that and do you think they would be elected?
Who would I donate it to?
Your main contribution to this thread has been to constanly ask others: What would you do? As if nothing can be done. That is little better than being a far left advocate and defender of all welfare programs.
A person has to be at the point of supporting some disincentives rather than constantly throwing up their hands, or they are just helping perpetuate the current situation.
That old wisdom: you get more of what you subsidize. You have to get to the point of lessening the subsidies, or the incentives, or all you will ever be is just one more enabler.
LOL, no, they by and large don't. Homosexuals want acceptance, they want their lifestyle mainstreamed and they want to encourage and raise as many new, young people into the homosexual lifestyle as they can. The notion of same-sex marriage is just a tool to achieve those ends.
It's also a tool used by leftists in general to help end any differentiation between the genders, in pursuit of their irrational, unnatural concept of "equality." Just like global warming is a smokescreen to raise taxes, same-sex marriage is probably promoted more as a red herring by leftists to advance radical feminism than it is by homosexuals at all.
The concepts of "shame" and "social sanctions" have totally gone by the wayside. We celebrate it now on TV programs, such as "Teen Mom" and "Honey Boo Boo."
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.