Trouble in the nanny state

[gatornana]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

It has been accepted as the norm in certain circles of todays society and in there is the problem. It is generations deep and has permeated to perhaps the point of no return. Unless it become vilified like smoking has, there is no hope.

Our society used to vilify young moms....it led to exploitation, abuse and forcing young mothers to put their child up for adoption.

We may have swung too far in the opposite direction, but to go back isn't the answer either.

Following your train of thought here, should society vilify young men and their behavior?

[vangator1]

Well said moc.

[VAg8r1]

The government was, in part, responsible, for increased illegitimacy and dependence, however the problem preceded in Johnson's War on Poverty by at least in decade. In 1965, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan published a paper entitled "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action,” also referred to as the Moynihan Report. According to Moynihan the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program was largely responsible for the increased illegitimacy report. Moynihan used data from the late '50s and early '60s, prior to the War in Poverty. AFDC contributed to illegitimacy and family breakup by actually prohibiting intact families from receiving aid. Liberals condemned the Moynihan Report as racist. Conservatives on the other hand praised the conclusions of the report while rejecting all of Moynihan's recommendations which included replacing AFDC with an assistance program that provided aid to intact families and making the government the employer of last resort. To some extent things have changed very little in the last forty years. Conservatives are still condemning illegitimacy while opposing solutions to ameliorating the problem including comprehensive sex education (very effective in Europe), subsidized contraception and the funding of Planned Parenthood.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by gatornana

Our society used to vilify young moms....it led to exploitation, abuse and forcing young mothers to put their child up for adoption.

We may have swung too far in the opposite direction, but to go back isn't the answer either.

Following your train of thought here, should society vilify young men and their behavior?

And look what happened when it became widely accepted.

[gatornana]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

And look what happened when it became widely accepted.

Are you suggesting that, because we have some single moms on gov assistance, we vilify them and go back to exploitation, abuse and forced adoption? Is that the only answer to this?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by gatornana

Are you suggesting that, because we have some single moms on gov assistance, we vilify them and go back to exploitation, abuse and forced adoption? Is that the only answer to this?

It's more than that, it's that because it became accepted as "normal" it has permeated society and is destroying the family unit. If you want to destroy a country do it from within with societal decay.

[egator1245]

Originally Posted by gatornana

Are you suggesting that, because we have some single moms on gov assistance, we vilify them and go back to exploitation, abuse and forced adoption? Is that the only answer to this?

Some,
_some single Moms, are you serious?

[gatornana]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

It's more than that, it's that because it became accepted as "normal" it has permeated society and is destroying the family unit. If you want to destroy a country do it from within with societal decay.

How does having babies outside of marriage destroy the family unit, cause society's decay?

Aren't there other factors in play here.....first being the lack of responsibility of fathers?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by gatornana

How does having babies outside of marriage destroy the family unit, cause society's decay?

Aren't there other factors in play here.....first being the lack of responsibility of fathers?

I'm not alleviating any responsibilities of the fathers and they of course need to be held accountable. A healthy family unit has always been a mother, father and children. Yes there are exceptions of dysfunctional family units but thats more of the exception than the rule. You can't deny that with a healthy family unit, the child(ren)'s chance of success in life dramatically increases. Having childen out of wedlock should be stigmatized period.

[gator85jd]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

This would be the Family Research Council that recently was targeted for an act of political terrorism by someone who, unlike a Loughner or Holmes, appeared not to be suffering any mental illness, who recently plead guilty. Apropos of nothing, just felt like a reminder.

Their position that we need to reintroduce the concept of shame back into our social interactions has nothing to do with out rights. Liberals try to shame gunowners and SUV owners and smokers, white people merely for existing, etc, all the time. Promiscuity has no net beneficial effects to society. Trying to reestablish a social norm against it is a way to try to curb it without having to rely on tyranny.

Very true. Liberals are very good shame mongers. The religion of liberals is big government. Curbing promiscuity would lead to fewer bastards -- not good for big government.

[PITBOSS]

Originally Posted by channingcrowderhungry

This is the only real solution I've ever been able to come up with. Shame. .....

look at some of these types on the far right wing. want to go thru life judging others and make a public mockery of others. This is their ‘solution’.

Not sure your religion and you might be atheist and have no idea of its teachings – but Christianity has a very strong belief/and many lessons of not judging others. This is still a good lesson for all. If you ever get a chance maybe read some of The Bible. You might be surprised how much you can learn.

[rivergator]

Just fyi, from what I've read, the unmarried birth rate in Sweden has gone way up in recent years, but the difference is that the mother and father stay together. they're just not married.

[mocgator]

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

If this is a big part of the problem what is/are the solution(s)?

We can start by not having government subsidize the bad behavior and choices.

[gatornana]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

I'm not alleviating any responsibilities of the fathers and they of course need to be held accountable. A healthy family unit has always been a mother, father and children. Yes there are exceptions of dysfunctional family units but thats more of the exception than the rule. You can't deny that with a healthy family unit, the child(ren)'s chance of success in life dramatically increases. Having childen out of wedlock should be stigmatized period.

The key thing here is "healthy".......a non-traditional family can be as healthy or healthier than an intact, traditional family. Love, support and good parenting can come from a single parent.

Dysfunction can be found in single mom or traditional families. We've lost sight of that in the effort these days to bash and blame single moms for the ills of our society.

[channingcrowderhungry]

Originally Posted by PITBOSS

look at some of these types on the far right wing. want to go thru life judging others and make a public mockery of others. This is their ‘solution’.

Not sure your religion and you might be atheist and have no idea of its teachings – but Christianity has a very strong belief/and many lessons of not judging others. This is still a good lesson for all. If you ever get a chance maybe read some of The Bible. You might be surprised how much you can learn.

Oh the sweet irony of a post judging me, yet extolling the virtues of Christianity for not judging others. Classic.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by gatornana

The key thing here is "healthy".......a non-traditional family can be as healthy or healthier than an intact, traditional family. Love, support and good parenting can come from a single parent.

Dysfunction can be found in single mom or traditional families. We've lost sight of that in the effort these days to bash and blame single moms for the ills of our society.

Can be, yes. Likely, no. The percentages are against it. The likelihood that the child grows up in poverty increases dramatically.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by rivergator

Just fyi, from what I've read, the unmarried birth rate in Sweden has gone way up in recent years, but the difference is that the mother and father stay together. they're just not married.

Once people see that parents and families not staying together is basically an economic problem, and not really anything else, people will get it. We're too caught up in BS side issues that are basically an outgrowths of the economic issues of families being displaced, treating that as the disease rather than the symptom.

[gatordowneast]

Way too much rationalization going on by libbies on the board. No one needs to vilify anyone. Just cut off the money. Give them 2 years to get training and find a job and they are done. And do like several states have attempted to do. No more than 5 years of government aid in your lifetime....PERIOD. Quit providing outs. Quit making excuses.

If a woman spreads her legs and gives it up, she is responsible unless she is raped or coerced and if so she needs to call the police. (seems to happen to our football players). Women need to gain some respect for themselves and realize you are not going to get a man by sleeping with him on the first date. You might catch a disease but will not catch a man because a real man who is responsible, respectful and will support you will not try to get in your pants on the first date. An immature boy will but not a real man.

As for men, they need to be held financially responsible for their actions also. But how do you force some street hood to pay who has no income other than selling drugs? How do you force a man to pay who can't pay his own rent?

[T3goalie]

Originally Posted by mocgator

We can start by not having government subsidize the bad behavior and choices.

Bite your tongue moc. These poor innocent sluts, I mean poor innocent souls, are victims of a cruel and cynical cast system of impoverished schools and homes.

They were merely exploring their emotions, bodies and sexuality. They had no idea they could get pregnant and be "punished with a baby". Do you expect them to pay their own way and be responsible for their actions? Do you expect them to be responsible for their own heirs? That is your job.

Get in the game moc, this is not 1950 anymore. Have a heart and compassion for these poor, ignorant, uneducated Hoes, i mean beings. You have a moral responsibility to care and love these children, feed them, put a roof over their head, pay for their school, lunches, health care, and even get them a phone when they turn 7. They have need and their need is claim on you and all mankind.

But, alas, don't worry, you don't have to lift a finger... The Gov't will merely take 39% of your earnings and use part of it to make sure to subsidize these people in a fashion that their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren live in the same sh!thole, meager, subsidized existence 50 years from now. All the while proclaiming their love and reminding you that their need is a mortgage on you, your children and your grandchildren. Sacrifice a little moc and be a good lamb.

I hope that clears up your naive 1950s thinking.

[dynogator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

It has been accepted as the norm in certain circles of todays society and in there is the problem. It is generations deep and has permeated to perhaps the point of no return. Unless it become vilified like smoking has, there is no hope.

Actually, there have been quite a few reforms enacted regarding welfare, the big ones in 1996. Recipients have to work 20-30 hours per week to receive benefits, for example. Welfare is administered at the state level, using federal grants. And far from generational, there are lifetime caps in 40 out of the 50 states.

States with 60-Month Limits

"There are 32 states that have 60-month lifetime limits on transitional assistance benefits. Once the 60-month limit is reached, the state either closes the assistance case or removes the adult from the assistance program. Those states are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina and South Dakota. The District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico also follow the 60-month limit."

States with 48-Month Time Limits

"The states of Florida and Georgia have 48-month lifetime limits for welfare assistance. As in most states, if an individual becomes noncompliant, their welfare assistance case is automatically closed. When that happens, the case has to be totally reopened and reviewed by the state welfare board."

States with 24-Month Time Limits

"The state of Arkansas has the most aggressive welfare reform program in the United States. Arkansas is the only state with a 24-month lifetime limit. After the 24-month limit expires, the individual has to reapply for benefits through the state welfare commission and start a new case file, a process that can range from one to three months."

States with No Time Limits

"Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska and Oregon have no lifetime limits for individuals receiving welfare assistance. In the state of Oregon, a time limit can be imposed on noncompliant cases. However, these four states have developed flexible programs concerning workforce development and they use a portion of welfare funding and benefits for business and economic development."

Read more: Which States Have Welfare Time Limits? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_7723411_sta...#ixzz2NfE6uYRn