I dont agree with social conservatives on 99% of issues, but there is one major issue where liberalism has caused more poverty than anything i can think of, and social conservatives have it right. And that is having unplanned kids before marriage(or atleast a strongly committed relationship), Liberals/Democrats have made this acceptable, and they have subsidized it, and then they actually believe that handing out money through entitlements is somehow going to fix the fact that a single parent can not possibly take care of a kid in the same way that two parents can. And what inevitably ends up happening is irresponsible people have more kids then the responsible people, and then the whole system falls apart. My old man sat me down when i was going into highschool and just said look, here is the numbers, and here is how much it costs a month to support you kids, and here is how much you make at a minimum wage job, and if you have a kid you better goddamn well know that you will be taking care of it, and if i have to help whoever the woman is take you to court over it, I will, he taught me personal responsibility from an early age. Even if you tried You probably couldnt think of a better plan to create an impovershed community, than by subsidizing people to have kids out of wedlock, or when there is only going to be one parent in the picture, and telling them that is ok. There is always going to be people who are poor, but there wouldnt have to be nearly as many people who are poor, if liberals would just start preaching personal responsibility, and telling these people not to have kids out of wedlock, and quit teling poor people that it is acceptable to have kids without a father in the home, and quit subsidizing that behaviour. Maybe if poor people were forced to actually pay for their kids, then they would have less kids, if there was a single indicator that you could point to that would be the greatest indicator of whether or not a kid was going to succeed, or end up becoming a drain on society, it would probably be whether or not there was 2 parents in the mix as opposed to 1.
Fortunately, that phenomenon has been in significant decline. http://www.sexedlibrary.org/index.cfm?pageId=797 <img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/02/09/opinion/020912krugman1/020912krugman1-blog480.jpg">
Thats a chart for Teenage pregnancies, not single parent households. The number for single parent households, most certainly has not gone down since the 70's
Teenage pregnancy is so large a portion of "unplanned kids" that the two are nearly one and the same. Now, if what you were actually referring to was single parent households, we can look at that, but, bad news, it's not "the democrats that done it".
I never mentioned teenage pregnancies once in my previous post,(though that is also a gigantic part of the problem) i constantly stuck to single parent house holds, and yes, liberal/democratic thinking/legislation is most certainly responsible for that. You cant honestly think that conservatives/libertarians/conservative thinking is responsible for that do you?
Single parent households are on the rise worldwide, in nearly every type of society. Are the democrats responsible for that? Or is it the advance of scientism and retreat of religion? Ever read The Scarlett Letter? Will Mankind adapt to this new state of affairs, or is the two-parent-one-male-one female model absolutely necessary (I mean that strictly)?
YES!!!! A two parent household is absolutely beneficial to the kid in 99% of the cases, thasts the whole point. You have two parents to help the kid with his homework, 2 parents to monitor the kid, 2 parents to take the kid to his/her sporting events, 2 parents to offer advice, and most importantly, 2 parents to support the kid, the kid learns to understand the differences between adult males, and adult females.... etc..... Logically a single parent simply can not offer the same amount to a kid as 2 parents can, they simply cant be there enough for the kid.... I cant believe you would even argue that point....
In my 30's I was single and dated a few single mothers. I was amazed at the psychological effect of my presence on little kids. It's like they were born programmed knowing that unless both their mom and dad aren't living together something is terribly wrong. Invariable they see you as an unwelcome intruder and it isn't easy to convince them otherwise. I think it is very damaging and emotionally difficult for a child to be raised in a one parent household. Some turn out OK. A lot of them don't.
I understand exactly what you are saying, when i was 25 i dated a girl who was 7 years older than me, and she had a 16 year old kid whose dad wasnt involved in his life, who hated me, and i think the reason he didnt like me was because he had seen his mom break up with men so many times before.... I always felt sorry for the kid, cause he didnt get ANY of the stuff that i got when i was a kid, and he wasnt in any sports or anything, so i would buy him lots of stuff, and try to do as much as possible with him because i felt guilty, when i considered my life vs. his... Then when we broke up that all ended and she didnt want me to be apart of his life anymore,(even though i offered) so its no wonder he was always on guard, all of a sudden the guy always just disappears from their life, so why would he develop any kind of emotional bond, it was a defense mechanism. My parents divorced, when i was 12, and they both remarried, and all 4 parents were still heavily involved in my life, and i could tell they all cared about me, and i still felt horrendous at first, so i cant even imagine what it would be like to only have 1 parent.
Young women have kids for plenty of reasons. They want love, attention, emotional attachment to the father, acceptance from other girls (peers, which is odd but pregnant girls are no longer a threat to other girls).Young girls see that older girls who got pregnant at an early age, managed allright with their kids as single mothers (expectation are quite low on what they want in life). These unwed mother feel very "personally" responsible to take care of their kids and also fall for the line that the father will provide for them (even if he isn't working, etc). If we "preach' to them personal responsibility they don't even understand that concept, there is not any foundation in some cultures to learn by example. Schools should teach personal responsibility....little to none.Everyone gets an excused absence, no consequence of meaning.