RoyalOrleans
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
I believe parenting, single or married, is a badge of honor in itself.
That's all I have to say on this matter.
That's all I have to say on this matter.
Single Mother ain't no badge of honor.
- Thread starter hugo
- Start date
RoyalOrleans
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
angie said:
I've been on a roll all week, don't EVEN get me started today.
Cogito Ergo Sum
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
RoyalOrleans said:I believe parenting, single or married, is a badge of honor in itself.
That's all I have to say on this matter.
My brother speaks the truth! Rock On!
hugo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2005
[
Testimony of
Michael Tanner
Director of Health and Welfare Studies
The Cato Institute
Before the:
Senate Judiciary Committee
Subcommittee on Youth Violence
June 7, 1995
Last year, the Maryland NAACP released a report concluding that "the ready access to a lifetime of welfare and free social service programs is a major contributory factor to the crime problems we face today."(1) Their conclusion appears to be confirmed by academic research. For example, research by Dr. June O'Neill's and Anne Hill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showed that a 50 percent increase in the monthly value of combined AFDC and food stamp benefits led to a 117 percent increase in the crime rate among young black men.(2)
Welfare contributes to crime in several ways. First, children from single-parent families are more likely to become involved in criminal activity. According to one study, children raised in single-parent families are one-third more likely to exhibit anti-social behavior.(3) Moreover, O'Neill found that, holding other variables constant, black children from single- parent households are twice as likely to commit crimes as black children from a family where the father is present. Nearly 70 percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes, as do 43 percent of prison inmates.(4) Research indicates a direct correlation between crime rates and the number of single-parent families in a neighborhood.(5)
As Barbara Dafoe Whitehead noted in her seminal article for The Atlantic Monthly:
The relationship [between single-parent families and crime] is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature. The nation's mayors, as well as police officers, social workers, probation officers, and court officials, consistently point to family break up as the most important source of rising rates of crime.(6)
At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O'Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)
The same results can be seen from welfare systems in other countries. For example, a recent study of the impact of Canada's social-welfare system on family structure concluded that "providing additional benefits to single parents encourages births of children to unwed women."(9)
Until teenage girls, particularly those living in relative poverty, can be made to see real consequences from pregnancy, it will be impossible to gain control over the problem of out-of- wedlock births. By disguising those consequences, welfare makes it easier for these girls to make the decisions that will lead to unwed motherhood.
Current welfare policies seem to be designed with an appallingly lack of concern for their impact on out-of-wedlock births. Indeed, Medicaid programs in 11 states actually provide infertility treatments to single women on welfare.(12)
I should also point out that, once the child is born, welfare also appears to discourage the mother from marrying in the future. Research by Robert Hutchins of Cornell University shows that a 10 percent increase in AFDC benefits leads to an eight percent decrease in the marriage rate of single mothers.(13)
As welfare contributes to the rise in out-of-wedlock births and single-parent families, it concomitantly contributes to the associated increase in criminal activity.
Secondly, welfare leads to increased crime by contributing to the marginalization of young black men in society. There are certainly many factors contributing to the increasing alienation and marginalization of young black men, including racism, poverty, and the failure of our educational system. However, welfare contributes as well. The welfare culture tells the man he is not a necessary part of the family. They are in effect cuckolded by the state. Their role of father and breadwinner is supplanted by the welfare check.
The role of marriage and family as a civilizing influence on young men has long been discussed. Whether or not strict causation can be proven, it is certainly true that unwed fathers are more likely to use drugs and become involved in criminal behavior.(14) Indeed, single men are five times more likely to commit violent crimes than married men.(15)
Finally, in areas where there is a high concentration of welfare, there may be an almost total lack of male role models. This can lead to crime in two ways. First, as the Maryland NAACP puts it, "A child whose parents draw a welfare check without going to work does not understand that in this society at least one parent is expected to rise five days of each week to go to some type of job."(16)
Second, boys growing up in mother only families naturally seek male influences. Unfortunately, in many inner city neighborhoods, those male role models may not exist. As George Gilder, author of Wealth and Poverty, has noted, the typical inner-city today is "almost a matriarchy. The women receive all the income, dominate the social-worker classes, and most of the schools." Thus, the boy in search of male guidance and companionship may end up in the company of gangs or other undesirable influences.(17)
Notes
John L. Wright, Marge Green, and Leroy Warren, Jr., "An Assessment of Crime in Maryland Today," Maryland State Conference of Branches, NAACP, February 1994, "Executive Summary," p. 7.
M. Anne Hill and June O'Neill, "Underclass Behaviors in the United States: Measurement and Analysis of Determinants," Barcuch College, City University of New York, March 1990.
Deborah Dawson, MD, "Family Structure and Children's Health and Well-Being: Data From the 1988 Interview Survey on Child Health," paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, May 1990.
William Barr, "Crime, Poverty, and Family," Heritage Foundation Lectures, July 29, 1992, citing statistics from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
See, for example, Douglas Smith and G. Roger Jarjoura, "Social structure and Criminal Victimization," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, February 1988; William Niskanen, "Crime, Police, and Root Causes," Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 218, November 14, 1994.
Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, "Dan Quayle Was Right, Atlantic Monthly, April 1993.
Hill and O'Neill.
Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick, "Adolescent Premarital Childbearing: Do Opportunity Costs Matter?" Population Association of America, May 1990.
Douglas Allen, "Welfare and the Family: The Canadian Experience," Journal of Labor Economics, January 1993.
Ellen Freeman, Karl Rickles, et. al., "Adolescent Contraceptive Use: Comparisons of Male and Female Attitudes and Information," American Journal of Public Health, August 1980.
Laurie Schwab Zabin, Nan Marie Astone, and Mark Emerson, "Do Adolescents Want Babies? The Relationship Between Attitudes and Behavior," Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1993. Professor Zabin reports that among those teens who chose an abortion, fully 78 percent believed that having a baby would pose a problem. But, as Douglas Besharov of the American Enterprise Institute points out "that is exactly the point: the more inconvenient unwed parenthood seems to a teenager, the less likely it is that she will become a mother. Douglas Besharov, letter to the editor, Wall Street Journal, April 27, 1994.
Hawaii, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. "The Infertility Trap," Newsweek, April 4, 1994.
Robert Hutchins, "Welfare, Remarriage and Marital Search," American Economic Review, June 1989.
Robert Lerman, "Unwed Fathers: Who Are They?" The American Enterprise, September/October 1993.
"From Home Life to Prison Life: The Roots of American Crime," Rockford Institute Center on the Family in America, Vol. 3, no. 4, April 1994.
Wright, Green, and Warren.
See, for example, David Blankenhorn, Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem (New York: Basic Books, 1995), pp. 26-32.
See, Michael Tanner, "Ending Welfare as We Know It," Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 212, July 7, 1994.
Notice the sources cited in this article. Forgive me for not taking time to use government sources to document the obvious, two parents tend to do a better job then one. Builder has a point that two people should not stay together simply for the childrens sake, but 16 year olds having children out of wedlock should definitely be discouraged. A upper income family that gets divorced can use other resources and, of course, the non-custodial parent can remain a strong influence in a child's life. Currently our government subsidizes the bastardization of America. That needs to stop.
Testimony of
Michael Tanner
Director of Health and Welfare Studies
The Cato Institute
Before the:
Senate Judiciary Committee
Subcommittee on Youth Violence
June 7, 1995
Last year, the Maryland NAACP released a report concluding that "the ready access to a lifetime of welfare and free social service programs is a major contributory factor to the crime problems we face today."(1) Their conclusion appears to be confirmed by academic research. For example, research by Dr. June O'Neill's and Anne Hill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showed that a 50 percent increase in the monthly value of combined AFDC and food stamp benefits led to a 117 percent increase in the crime rate among young black men.(2)
Welfare contributes to crime in several ways. First, children from single-parent families are more likely to become involved in criminal activity. According to one study, children raised in single-parent families are one-third more likely to exhibit anti-social behavior.(3) Moreover, O'Neill found that, holding other variables constant, black children from single- parent households are twice as likely to commit crimes as black children from a family where the father is present. Nearly 70 percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes, as do 43 percent of prison inmates.(4) Research indicates a direct correlation between crime rates and the number of single-parent families in a neighborhood.(5)
As Barbara Dafoe Whitehead noted in her seminal article for The Atlantic Monthly:
The relationship [between single-parent families and crime] is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature. The nation's mayors, as well as police officers, social workers, probation officers, and court officials, consistently point to family break up as the most important source of rising rates of crime.(6)
At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O'Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)
The same results can be seen from welfare systems in other countries. For example, a recent study of the impact of Canada's social-welfare system on family structure concluded that "providing additional benefits to single parents encourages births of children to unwed women."(9)
Until teenage girls, particularly those living in relative poverty, can be made to see real consequences from pregnancy, it will be impossible to gain control over the problem of out-of- wedlock births. By disguising those consequences, welfare makes it easier for these girls to make the decisions that will lead to unwed motherhood.
Current welfare policies seem to be designed with an appallingly lack of concern for their impact on out-of-wedlock births. Indeed, Medicaid programs in 11 states actually provide infertility treatments to single women on welfare.(12)
I should also point out that, once the child is born, welfare also appears to discourage the mother from marrying in the future. Research by Robert Hutchins of Cornell University shows that a 10 percent increase in AFDC benefits leads to an eight percent decrease in the marriage rate of single mothers.(13)
As welfare contributes to the rise in out-of-wedlock births and single-parent families, it concomitantly contributes to the associated increase in criminal activity.
Secondly, welfare leads to increased crime by contributing to the marginalization of young black men in society. There are certainly many factors contributing to the increasing alienation and marginalization of young black men, including racism, poverty, and the failure of our educational system. However, welfare contributes as well. The welfare culture tells the man he is not a necessary part of the family. They are in effect cuckolded by the state. Their role of father and breadwinner is supplanted by the welfare check.
The role of marriage and family as a civilizing influence on young men has long been discussed. Whether or not strict causation can be proven, it is certainly true that unwed fathers are more likely to use drugs and become involved in criminal behavior.(14) Indeed, single men are five times more likely to commit violent crimes than married men.(15)
Finally, in areas where there is a high concentration of welfare, there may be an almost total lack of male role models. This can lead to crime in two ways. First, as the Maryland NAACP puts it, "A child whose parents draw a welfare check without going to work does not understand that in this society at least one parent is expected to rise five days of each week to go to some type of job."(16)
Second, boys growing up in mother only families naturally seek male influences. Unfortunately, in many inner city neighborhoods, those male role models may not exist. As George Gilder, author of Wealth and Poverty, has noted, the typical inner-city today is "almost a matriarchy. The women receive all the income, dominate the social-worker classes, and most of the schools." Thus, the boy in search of male guidance and companionship may end up in the company of gangs or other undesirable influences.(17)
Notes
John L. Wright, Marge Green, and Leroy Warren, Jr., "An Assessment of Crime in Maryland Today," Maryland State Conference of Branches, NAACP, February 1994, "Executive Summary," p. 7.
M. Anne Hill and June O'Neill, "Underclass Behaviors in the United States: Measurement and Analysis of Determinants," Barcuch College, City University of New York, March 1990.
Deborah Dawson, MD, "Family Structure and Children's Health and Well-Being: Data From the 1988 Interview Survey on Child Health," paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, May 1990.
William Barr, "Crime, Poverty, and Family," Heritage Foundation Lectures, July 29, 1992, citing statistics from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
See, for example, Douglas Smith and G. Roger Jarjoura, "Social structure and Criminal Victimization," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, February 1988; William Niskanen, "Crime, Police, and Root Causes," Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 218, November 14, 1994.
Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, "Dan Quayle Was Right, Atlantic Monthly, April 1993.
Hill and O'Neill.
Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick, "Adolescent Premarital Childbearing: Do Opportunity Costs Matter?" Population Association of America, May 1990.
Douglas Allen, "Welfare and the Family: The Canadian Experience," Journal of Labor Economics, January 1993.
Ellen Freeman, Karl Rickles, et. al., "Adolescent Contraceptive Use: Comparisons of Male and Female Attitudes and Information," American Journal of Public Health, August 1980.
Laurie Schwab Zabin, Nan Marie Astone, and Mark Emerson, "Do Adolescents Want Babies? The Relationship Between Attitudes and Behavior," Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1993. Professor Zabin reports that among those teens who chose an abortion, fully 78 percent believed that having a baby would pose a problem. But, as Douglas Besharov of the American Enterprise Institute points out "that is exactly the point: the more inconvenient unwed parenthood seems to a teenager, the less likely it is that she will become a mother. Douglas Besharov, letter to the editor, Wall Street Journal, April 27, 1994.
Hawaii, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. "The Infertility Trap," Newsweek, April 4, 1994.
Robert Hutchins, "Welfare, Remarriage and Marital Search," American Economic Review, June 1989.
Robert Lerman, "Unwed Fathers: Who Are They?" The American Enterprise, September/October 1993.
"From Home Life to Prison Life: The Roots of American Crime," Rockford Institute Center on the Family in America, Vol. 3, no. 4, April 1994.
Wright, Green, and Warren.
See, for example, David Blankenhorn, Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem (New York: Basic Books, 1995), pp. 26-32.
See, Michael Tanner, "Ending Welfare as We Know It," Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 212, July 7, 1994.
Notice the sources cited in this article. Forgive me for not taking time to use government sources to document the obvious, two parents tend to do a better job then one. Builder has a point that two people should not stay together simply for the childrens sake, but 16 year olds having children out of wedlock should definitely be discouraged. A upper income family that gets divorced can use other resources and, of course, the non-custodial parent can remain a strong influence in a child's life. Currently our government subsidizes the bastardization of America. That needs to stop.
builder
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2005
Your ten year old report focusses on negroes and welfare recipients, Hugo.
Your closing statement focusses on 16 year-old kids giving birth to kids and being supported by the gov.
Do you have a group in mind, or are you seeking back-up from all and any source?
Your closing statement focusses on 16 year-old kids giving birth to kids and being supported by the gov.
Do you have a group in mind, or are you seeking back-up from all and any source?
TheJenn88
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
Hugo, your argument would have ten times the credibility if you seriously considered one factor that you're missing.
Socioeconomic status & environment versus the actuality of just a single parent.
Problems in child-behaviour is not because of the number of parents they do or don't have. Here, let me point out to you some very simple connections to be made:
Single-parent + bad environment = messed kid
Single-parent + good environment = good kid
Two-parent + bad environment = messed kid
Two-parent + good environment = good kid
Now, to draw conclusions, you can see that the only common factor in "messed" kids is a bad environment (which may encompass wealth/lack of, education, bad parenting, whichever).
I'm all for you saying that bad socioeconomic status is a leading cause in early pregnancies, or nonmarital pregnancies. Well, not so much a cause, but a common factor, because it is true. The less fortunate an environment seems to be, the more negative things people produce from it. However, what you are arguing is that because a kid is raised by a single parent, they are a messed kid.
"Nonmarital childbearing" isn't really an issue so much as the environment it is taking place in. It's true that just because a good environment is in place, that's not to say that a bad apple won't turn out, but work with me. I'm generalizing the issue.
Hugo, I agree that single-parenting is a problem, but only because it is most likely to occur in environments that are less than favourable.
Socioeconomic status & environment versus the actuality of just a single parent.
Problems in child-behaviour is not because of the number of parents they do or don't have. Here, let me point out to you some very simple connections to be made:
Single-parent + bad environment = messed kid
Single-parent + good environment = good kid
Two-parent + bad environment = messed kid
Two-parent + good environment = good kid
Now, to draw conclusions, you can see that the only common factor in "messed" kids is a bad environment (which may encompass wealth/lack of, education, bad parenting, whichever).
I'm all for you saying that bad socioeconomic status is a leading cause in early pregnancies, or nonmarital pregnancies. Well, not so much a cause, but a common factor, because it is true. The less fortunate an environment seems to be, the more negative things people produce from it. However, what you are arguing is that because a kid is raised by a single parent, they are a messed kid.
"Nonmarital childbearing" isn't really an issue so much as the environment it is taking place in. It's true that just because a good environment is in place, that's not to say that a bad apple won't turn out, but work with me. I'm generalizing the issue.
Hugo, I agree that single-parenting is a problem, but only because it is most likely to occur in environments that are less than favourable.
RoyalOrleans
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
Hugo, do us all a favor! Punch out and go home.
Cogito Ergo Sum
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
hugo said:
Hmm...
Put this rant in context with your beloved "Signature"...
You wish to interfere don't you? hugo said:
Cogito Ergo Sum
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
builder said:I'm not so sure he "wishes to interfere" CES. I think he's creating more strawmen for the sake of distraction.
I trust hugo-a-gogo about as far as I could drop-kick a sack of spuds.
LMAO.
So, you diggers seeing the news about our self-delusional King George the First who thinks it's "Okay" to violate the United States Constitution in the pursuit of "National Security"?
Truly, as one who voted for this idiot, twice, not because I wanted him, but because I thought the other guy was worse, I formally apologize to the WORLD for all of his stupid actions. If it were in my power to remove the guy from office, I would, yesterday.
builder
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2005
Hmmm, I wasn't actually going there, but if you insist, I am most impressed with congress vetoing shrub's push for extending anti-towel head legislation, and cheney's push to have the CIA exempted from torture legislation. About ****ing time they woke up to the ruse.
hugo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2005
TheJenn88 said:
You are actually half right. What you are missing is the vicious cycle. Children being born out of wedlock, particularly to those in lower income classes, propagates poverty, misery and crime. What we also need to ask is why the rate of illegitimacy has tripled since the late Senator Moynihan's famous report on the destruction of the negro family. It seems to me that LBJ's war on poverty simply created more poverty.
The only thing I have argued is that children from single parent families are more likely to be messed up kids, not that they will be. Obviously, the ideal situation is to be part of a happy family. Sadly, we don't live in an ideal world.
Cause and effect are intertwined here. If illegitimacy was simply the result of economic conditions illegitimacy would not have nearly tripled since the '60's.
hugo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2005
Cogito Ergo Sum said:Hmm...
Put this rant in context with your beloved "Signature"...
Yep, sure can. It is government taking money from responsible peaople and giving it to irresponsible people that propagates illegitimacy and poverty. I wish government to stay out of the issue completely. The free market will adequately punish the irresponsible.
Wanna reduce poverty...stop paying people to have kids they can't support. Basic rule in economics: subsidize something you get more of it.
Cogito Ergo Sum
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
hugo said:
Really, where? How so?
Hugo said:
Really. How does the government pay people to have kids they cannot support? Obviously you have no clue as to the welfare reforms that went into effect YEARS ago. You love to shoot of your mouth don't you? Not to mention you thrash about more than a fish out of water. First you're blaming single mothers, then the government, then the welfare system which no longer exists in the guise you think it does. If you were not so damn stupid and lazy and had bothered to check this out, you might have saved us all the experience of your ignorance once again.
But then again, given your penchant for one dimensional thought, with your logic, the government should eliminate the tax deductions for children because then they are subsidizing more mouths to feed and this is WRONG. Right? Afterall, if you want to have children, why should I have to pay for it in the form of tax breaks to you? What a crock of ****!
Funny, they only thing I see being subsidized here are your cheap ass and bullshit comments. What's the matter Hugo, can't cough up the $12 bucks to be a supporter of GF and help support the soapbox you love to stand on? Cheapskate *******!
Oh, and one last thing...you need to change your location from "Houston, Tx death penalty capital of the world" to "Houston, TX - Tittie Bar and Couch Club Capital of the World" Afterall, you do live in the biggest den of iniquity in the USA but then you knew that Houston has more strip/couch clubs than even Las Vegas, right? Hell, I bet you're having a sandwich and a beer at Rick's Cabaret right now!
TheJenn88
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
hugo said:
Actually, since you seemed to have missed my whole post, I'll reiterate.
Bad environment = spawning of bad kid.
Here, let me loop it for you.
Bad environment = bad kid = bad kid creating bad environment for others = bad environment = bad kid = bad kid creating bad environment for others need I go on?
You see, I touched on the viscious cycle issue. Fortunately, it doesn't take a half-assed idiot to understand the concept of the "ripple" effect, or cause and effect, etc. etc. You seem to know the concept, just don't miss it
eisanbt
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
hugo said:
They've been not-supporting african familys in poverty for years now, thats sure is working isn't it? I don't think there is ANY starving children in Africa or anycases of over population, rape or poor living conditions for the many nuclear familys in Sudan. Luckly the market killed off all the people who choose not to be sulf-sustaining and leeched off the good systems that was feeding their greed/illigtimate babies
Oh laisez-faire capitalism, how effective you are. (Please note the total lack of sarcasim in this post, including this very comment)
hugo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2005
TheJenn88 said:Actually, since you seemed to have missed my whole post, I'll reiterate.
Bad environment = spawning of bad kid.
Here, let me loop it for you.
Bad environment = bad kid = bad kid creating bad environment for others = bad environment = bad kid = bad kid creating bad environment for others need I go on?
You see, I touched on the viscious cycle issue. Fortunately, it doesn't take a half-assed idiot to understand the concept of the "ripple" effect, or cause and effect, etc. etc. You seem to know the concept, just don't miss it
It is quite clear you are an idiot. Let me explain this...two good parents help their child overcome a bad environment. In every environment you have success stories.
