# Question Raised?



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Two sentences from an earlier thread continue to puzzle me;

"--- marry a man she loved if she chooses to rather than needing a provider. Her children in turn would have better health care and food,"

Does this imply that modern women bear children out of wedlock and wind up needing a provider? I know that happens, but it has always been my impression that the norm was as stated in the quote. "Mary a man she loves" and THEN have children. That has worked reasonably well for ages---certainly as well or better than alternatives.


"The birth rate is dropping here in the US but I doubt it will be that big of a problem since our government pays poor women to have babies (indirectly but yes)." 

I think that most of us are aware of cases where baby mamas will not marry because it would reduce their welfare checks. The guard at the State building where my agency rented an office once pointed out a pimp car letting out the stable so that they could go inside and get their welfare checks. My police friends inform me that most such women have children, usually raised by Grandma.

Would it not be better for the country if the women bearing children were the most intelligent, successful, healthy and enterprising of our women rather than the dregs of society? I have long been in favor of a mother's stipend for married women , day care at work and maternal leave. Those should encourage child-bearing and the strengthening of families. Disincentives for unmarried procreation, notably absolute responsibility for the father, would help. Tolerance for socially destructive behavior brings on more destructive behavior.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Dregs of society. This should go well.

Only married women should get a stipend. Another thought that should go well.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I have learned, early in life, there is what is right, and there is what is.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Dregs of society. This should go well.
> 
> Only married women should get a stipend. Another thought that should go well.


So you hold those young ladies getting out of the pimp car in high esteem?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> So you hold those young ladies getting out of the pimp car in high esteem?


A ridiculous assumption about my post.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Another delusion...…..birth rates are not down,...abortions are up.

If the general information pool was at even 20 percent facts we might get some decent info, problem is,...…………………... it ain`t and most do not really care.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> A ridiculous assumption about my post.


So you do not hold the young ladies stepping out of the pimps's car in high esteem, maybe some might even say "dregs".


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

shawnlee said:


> Another delusion...…..birth rates are not down,...abortions are up.
> 
> If the general information pool was at even 20 percent facts we might get some decent info, problem is,...…………………... it ain`t and most do not really care.


That isn’t true.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-abortion-rate-drops-to-lowest-level-since-1973-11568827339


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Ladies; my thinking about the "married women getting mothers' stipends" has to do with incentive. It would serve no purpose to pay stipends to unwed mothers; to do so would compound the problem we have now.

What do you think of day care at work and maternal leave? Paternal leave? These Ideas seem to be gaining traction in some parts of the country. 

What do you think of absolute responsibility for fathers? Cannot be avoided, cannot be dismissed and arrears must be collected. If father is unskilled and cannot pay he goes into a government work program full time as a laborer-trainee until he has a paying skill of some kind. No exceptions.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

I think maternal/paternal leave is great. I think day care at work is a great idea if a company provides it. I don’t think people who aren’t able to support themselves or children should be having them on the taxpayers dime. But how to do that? No one wants people to be on mandatory birth control if they receive benefits? Though I’d be more for it if men were subject to it to.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Oxankle said:


> Ladies; my thinking about the "married women getting mothers' stipends" has to do with incentive. It would serve no purpose to pay stipends to unwed mothers; to do so would compound the problem we have now.
> 
> What do you think of day care at work and maternal leave? Paternal leave? These Ideas seem to be gaining traction in some parts of the country.
> 
> What do you think of absolute responsibility for fathers? Cannot be avoided, cannot be dismissed and arrears must be collected. If father is unskilled and cannot pay he goes into a government work program full time as a laborer-trainee until he has a paying skill of some kind. No exceptions.


I think not dismissing some rears is how we got this problem,


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

There are many single parent s that do far better raising children than married couples. Marriage does not equate with the perfect or even best environment for raising children. Using marriage as the carrot for stipends or help is really not a good direction.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

Most of the young Mothers I have known, married or not, are both working too hard and broke. 

I have no solution: I am just chiming in


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Child support of any type should be for children. And be separated from their parents condition. After all you can’t blame the kids for their parent’s stupidity


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

Oxankle
Out of curiosity, what is the amount of the stipend?
Just what amount would incentivize the most intelligent and successful women to bear children.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I recall about 15 years ago listening to several women in the apartment of a public housing complex discussing the amount of rental assistance increase they would receive for their next child. Bragging about "moving up" from $684 rent assistance to $827 would seem to qualify, to these particular ladies, as being paid to have children.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

Running a household with 4 kids is pretty much a full time job, labor wise. My folks had 6, which was more or less equal to a 60 hour work week for my Mom with the addition of being woken up every night when the smallest baby cried

Women who have large families work very, very hard


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Terri said:


> Running a household with 4 kids is pretty much a full time job, labor wise. My folks had 6, which was more or less equal to a 60 hour work week for my Mom with the addition of being woken up every night when the smallest baby cried
> 
> Women who have large families work very, very hard


Yes they do. Beyond that, I can't think of a job that potentially adds more value.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

I'm with Rider on that.

Doozie; I've not got enough information for a figure. Some European countries are trying stipends, but I have no idea what they pay.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Oxankle said:


> Two sentences from an earlier thread continue to puzzle me;
> 
> "--- marry a man she loved if she chooses to rather than needing a provider. Her children in turn would have better health care and food,"
> 
> ...


You’re making some pretty big assumptions here. Namely that married women are somehow automatically the “most intelligent, successful, healthy and enterprising” women while unmarried women are the “dregs of society”. A marriage certificate does not magically make anyone, male or female, a good parent. Nor do married parents automatically make the best environment for raising children. Many marriages are train wrecks and the children are better off when their parents live separately.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

But would they be better with two lousy parents in stead of just one ?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> But would they be better with two lousy parents in stead of just one ?


Might be twice the damage.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Might be twice the damage.


Maybe twice the number actually paying for them.
How many kids do you have?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Maybe twice the number actually paying for them.
> How many kids do you have?


Why would being married be more people paying for them? If there are two parents then they are both responsible married or not. Marriage does not change that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Why would being married be more people paying for them?


It increases the likelihood of responsibility, and eliminates the handouts.
How many kids do you have?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It increases the likelihood of responsibility, and eliminates the handouts.
> How many kids do you have?


It does not increase the likelihood. A marriage license does not mean someone is more responsible or have a better earning ability.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It increases the likelihood of responsibility, and eliminates the handouts.
> How many kids do you have?


Why do you ask?

The number of children that a woman has is not necessary for this discussion. For example, I can tell you about the work load of having 6 kids because I have 5 siblings and I grew up knowing these things. However I only have 2 children myself


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

SLFarmMI said:


> Nor do married parents automatically make the best environment for raising children. Many marriages are train wrecks and the children are better off when their parents live separately.


There are very few absolutes in life. A married mom and dad in the same household raising their kids together is "generally", meaning more often than not, better than the alternatives. The alternatives are still considered exceptions to the rule.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> There are very few absolutes in life. A married mom and dad in the same household raising their kids together is "generally", meaning more often than not, better than the alternatives. The alternatives are still considered exceptions to the rule.


Exception is the rule


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

*SLFarmMI*
Read it again; What I said was that it might be better if we bred children from the best women in the country rather than from the poorest. Read it again.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

I believe the USA average is 1.87 children per woman. The US population is being supported by immigration

France and the Scandinavian countries do slightly better, and daycare in those countries is easy to get

I do not know of any government that has been able to encourage the more successful people to have more kids.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Terri said:


> I believe the USA average is 1.87 children per woman. The US population is being *supported by immigration *
> 
> France and the Scandinavian countries do slightly better, and daycare in those countries is easy to get


They are not so happy about it either


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Involved loving parents and family members is what is best for children. They don't have to be in the same home or financially well off.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Terri said:


> Why do you ask?


I like to know if those offering advice have actual experience of the subjects.



Terri said:


> The number of children that a woman has is not necessary for this discussion.


It's actually the basis of the discussion, since more kids equal more welfare benefits, especially if there is no husband.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I like to know if those offering advice have actual experience of the subjects.
> 
> 
> It's actually the basis of the discussion, since more kids equal more welfare benefits, especially if there is no husband.


 So what are your qualifications? How many kids do you have and how long have you spent on welfare?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> How many kids do you have


One of my own and one step child.



AmericanStand said:


> how long have you spent on welfare?


I got a single book of food stamps one time back in the mid 70's.

I had a job but couldn't work due to weather conditions.
I was single and didn't own anything other than a 1970 Chevy van.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> It does not increase the likelihood.


You're entitled to your *opinion.*



painterswife said:


> A marriage license does not mean someone is more responsible or have a better earning ability.


It means they won't be getting the handouts and there is another *named* person legally responsible, as opposed to an unknown "Baby-Daddy"


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It means they won't be getting the handouts and there is another named person legally responsible, as opposed to an "unknown Baby-Daddy"


Not true either. Many married parents get hand outs. Many unmarried parents are legally responsible.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Not true either.


You already said that.

How many kids do you have?


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's actually the basis of the discussion, since more kids equal more welfare benefits, especially if there is no husband.


you are assuming that every child in America is on welfare?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You already said that.
> 
> How many kids do you have?


How many baby goats I have is not germane to this conversation.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Terri said:


> you are assuming that every child in America is on welfare?


I never said any such thing. I'm referring to what was mentioned in the OP:



Oxankle said:


> I think that most of us are aware of cases where *baby mamas will not marry because it would reduce their welfare checks*.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> How many baby goats I have is not germane to this conversation.


Silly word games is the best you have to offer.
As usual, it's pointless to attempt any discussion with you, so I will stop for now.
I'm sure you won't though.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Silly word games is the best you have to offer.


It is as germane to this thread as is the personal question you keep asking me.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> It is as germane to this thread as is the personal question you keep asking me.


The one you keep dodging.
See my previous reply if you need more.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The one you keep dodging.
> See my previous reply if you need more.


Great. Maybe you will stop making things about me personally in the future. I can only hope.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Terri said:


> For example, I can tell you about the work load of having 6 kids because I have 5 siblings and I grew up knowing these things. However I only *have 2 children myself*


That gives you more credibility when it comes to parenting advice.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Oxankle said:


> *SLFarmMI*
> Read it again; What I said was that it might be better if we bred children from the best women in the country rather than from the poorest. Read it again.


Actually, you made the statement about the “best” women vs the “dregs” and immediately followed it up with a sentence about married vs unmarried mothers thereby making the implication that married mothers are somehow better than unmarried mothers. 

A marriage license says absolutely nothing about the type of parent one is or about the level of responsibility one has. I have seen both married and single parents who are amazing as well as married and single parents who should not be allowed to raise so much as a kitten.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Good grief; this was not intended to be a contentious subject. It is a serious matter and deserving of a serious discussion.

When there was no "relief" or "Welfare" women were expected to use some judgement in selecting a mate. We all know that there were horrible mistakes but the taxpayer was not expected to pick up the mess. Now the taxpayer is on the hook for mistakes and choices made mostly by people who pay little or no tax. It is not unreasonable to want to look for solutions.

And yes, I did suggest that it would be better for the country if the most intelligent, enterprising and healthy women were producing children rather than the poorest of the lot, including the dregs of society. I believe that is a fair statement. 

As for marriage; it has been pretty well shown that children from stable marriages outperform those raised by single mothers or divorced families. Individuals vary, but on the whole the evidence is pretty clear I believe.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

Oxankle said:


> I'm with Rider on that.
> 
> Doozie; I've not got enough information for a figure. Some European countries are trying stipends, but I have no idea what they pay.


What I'm reading/finding are benefits for the care of children in other countries, with no mention of the parents marital status.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Terri said:


> you are assuming that every child in America is on welfare?


That is an incorrect assumption. Primarily it is the children of irresponsible parents that are on welfare. People that learn the skills required to provide for their kids before having them seldom find themselves in need of public assistance.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

The more Govt assistance, the more unwed births:

*https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/out-wedlock-births-rise-worldwide
*
"*Out-of-wedlock childbirths have become more common worldwide* since the 1960s, but with wide variations among and within countries. Inreasing economic independence and education combined with modern birth control methods have given women more control over family planning. 

In about 25 countries, including China, India and much of Africa, the proportion of such births is typically around 1 percent, explains Joseph Chamie, a demographer and a former director of the United Nations Population Division. 

*In another 25 countries, mostly in Latin America, more than 60 percent of births are out-of-wedlock, a big jump from just 50 years ago. *

*The rates of such births often coincide with public responses which range from severe punishments and stigmatization of children to celebrations and government assistance. *

*In most countries, marriage still provides extra economic protection for parents and children, and governments struggle on how to respond to the trends. *

“Marriage has become less necessary for women’s financial survival, social interaction and personal wellbeing, and government policies have been slow to keep pace,” Chamie notes. “Like it or not, out-of-wedlock births are in transition worldwide and create challenges for many societies.” – YaleGlobal"


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

painterswife said:


> *There are many single parent s that do far better raising children than married couples. *Marriage does not equate with the perfect or even best environment for raising children. Using marriage as the carrot for stipends or help is really not a good direction.


But they are still a small percentage of single parents. Statistics prove children of single parents generally do worse than those of 2 parent homes. I think it is likely because a single parent, especially one who works, doesn't have time to provide a child the proper supervision and guidance.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

poppy said:


> But they are still a small percentage of single parents. Statistics prove children of single parents generally do worse than those of 2 parent homes. I think it is likely because a single parent, especially one who works, doesn't have time to provide a child the proper supervision and guidance.


I would add that quite often the single parent in charge of the child isn't interested in what's best for the children.


----------



## geo in mi (Nov 14, 2008)

Last time I checked, it takes a male and a female to produce a child. Yet, most of the time we put shame and scorn on the "unwed" mother who is saddled with the responsibility of raising them, while the "unwed" father gets a pass.

geo


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Oxankle said:


> Two sentences from an earlier thread continue to puzzle me;
> 
> "--- marry a man she loved if she chooses to rather than needing a provider. Her children in turn would have better health care and food,"
> 
> ...


Agenda-Bender...

What makes you think she doesn't pick someone of means 'BEFORE' she has kids?
She could just as easy wind up with someone that has no means of support, no inclination to work, and can't keep a job if his life depended on it...

Besides, 
Most people mistake lust for love, what do you get in a few years when the hormones wear off?
Actual love is trust built over time, and actually liking the person after the hormones wear off, not hot pants on weekends & holidays...

The woman would have to be exceptional in every way for me to consider the baggage of 'The Ex' and raising someone else's kids...
The term a friend uses is 'Divorced & Desperate'.

Never married and towing kids? Too stupid to figure out birth control?
Not in a million years...


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Terri said:


> you are assuming that every child in America is on welfare?


For various reasons, 51.7% seems to be a significant number.
https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/...households-getting-government-assistance-drop


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

JeepHammer said:


> Agenda-Bender...


A few hypotheticals but nothing here that answers any questions.
Oxankle's thread seems to have failed to filter out those who can answer his questions honestly without fear of veering from their ideological totem pole or who just struggle with understanding opposing thought. First they have to be willing.
He has asked folks to reread his statements and it might help the discussion a bit if some did.


----------



## reneedarley (Jun 11, 2014)

A very interesting thread. I don't often reply to such topics, mainly because I use my real name instead of a "nom de plume". I wonder if there would be less hatred online if we could not hide our identities.
A few thoughts. I have worked for forty years in a Scandinavian country, nearly always with very socially deprived children. I know nothing about conditions in the U.S.A. but suspect there are ares much worse than anything I have experienced. I was an expert in my field, asked to write essays and give lectures about my methods. I declined as I used my own empathy as my tool -how could I teach others this?
I learnt a few things. Less than 1 % of mothers do not want the best for their children. But in this age of declining moral standards , Socially retarded adults do not know what is best for their child. I had one case where the mother wanted her child to be the best thief. Generations of criminality meant that the mother literally did not know it was wrong to take what you wanted. That family was ahard nut to crack. But there were economic resources from the government to pay my wage to change that family's life, What did that save the system financially over the coming years.
Deprived children grow up to be deprived adults if there is not an enormous effort to change the curve. I am often amazed at experienced educators who expect socially weak grown-ups to behave like -well- responsible grown-ups. It just does not happen this way .
I now live in Sweden . Parents have one year parential leave pr. child and can choose to share between parents. There are adequate care facilities and many parents choose not to work full time so as to have more time with their children. 6 weeks holiday pr. year and first day of child's sickness paid by the employer.
Holy cow, the tax we pay. It means that people do not like working overtime as the extra would go in tax. Most families are not rich but they are comfortable.
As to hard work having 6 children, there is a lady in the village who has 13. She says it got easier after nr 7.
P.S. She has a very high I.Q. (and a Husband)


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bravo @reneedarley 

Please speak up more often


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

In ref to a previous post, I doubt that anyone in this discussion can remember when there was no welfare.
the statement that only intelligent well to do women should have babies.. Hitler tried that..
the Nazi's had camps for children being raised by Nazi's.
In wisconsin, all children are wards of the state.
look it up.. so why shouldn't the state help support them?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

@Oxankle I do believe @reneedarley explained very well why unqualified people should not become parents, in support of your basic premise.

That said, no societal agreement will ever prevent bad parents, and the state, either at birth, or later as a adults, will have an ever larger role in housing and feeding, and general care of the products of "bad" parents.


----------



## reneedarley (Jun 11, 2014)

Chuckle, Everyone can turn a post to their own benefit. Now I will bury my head in the sand again.( Looking outside,) I mean snow.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

reneedarley said:


> Chuckle, Everyone can turn a post to their own benefit. Now I will bury my head in the sand again.( Looking outside,) I mean snow.


Feel free to correct my misunderstanding


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Nothing is going to change anytime soon. Iv'e been in or around the rental home business since I was 12. The easiest way in some minds is to let someone else pay for it....


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

"It got easier after 7" 

LOL, ReneeDarley: It does get easier. By the time number 7 comes around numbers one and two can take over some of the baby sitting, diapering and looking-out-for, and they WILL do that. As a matter of fact, it will be hard to keep them from doing so.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> the statement that only intelligent well to do women should have babies.. *Hitler tried that*..
> the Nazi's had camps for children being raised by Nazi's.


There's a big difference in stating that opinion and attempting to force it on others.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

"the statement that only intelligent well to do women should have babies.."
`Stach=--I did not see that, and I certainly did not say that. What I said and meant was that the country would be better served if the children were born to the best of our women, not the worse. Of course you will not slow down the worse, but we might improve the performance of the best. 

Part of that improvement, I think, would begin with improving the performance of our men. Good men who earn decent wages can attract and support women willing to bear children. I don't mean good millionaires, I mean decent, faithful, sober, hard working, honest men in the whole range from janitor to CEO. 

Nature made man a dominant creature, but that dominance is earned; when he debases himself he can forget dominance---no self-respecting woman will submit and place her long-range faith in him.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

I think that the sticking point is that evrrybody has a different definition of "best" and "worse" 

Well, that and the fact that whenever governments have tried to improve the humans the results have been horrid.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Terri said:


> whenever governments have tried to improve the humans the results have been horrid.


The data shows subsidizing single parents causes more of them, not fewer.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

I was not talking about subsidizing people. I was talking about governments trying to improve the human race. The results have never been good


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The data shows that basing help on marriage status leads to fewer marriages among those that need help.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Oxankle said:


> "the statement that only intelligent well to do women should have babies.."
> `Stach=--I did not see that, and I certainly did not say that. What I said and meant was that the country would be better served if the children were born to the best of our women, not the worse. Of course you will not slow down the worse, but we might improve the performance of the best.
> 
> Part of that improvement, I think, would begin with improving the performance of our men.* Good men who earn decent wages can attract and support women willing to bear children. * I don't mean good millionaires, I mean decent, faithful, sober, hard working, honest men in the whole range from janitor to CEO.
> ...


You do realize that we women can support ourselves, right? We don’t need to go looking for men to support us.


----------



## reneedarley (Jun 11, 2014)

SLFarmMI said:


> You do realize that we women can support ourselves, right? We don’t need to go looking for men to support us.


Bravo. Again, living in Scandinavia, I have one daughter. I would never have dreamed of marrying her father, or asking him for support had he not wanted to give it, or asking the government for help.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

Oxankle believes that how he grew up is the best of all possible worlds. I prefer the greater opportunities that women have now

We are both entitled to our opinion as to the most desirable was to live


----------



## Twp.Tom (Dec 29, 2010)

HDRider said:


> Bravo @reneedarley
> 
> Please speak up more often


My Wife is pretty clever,and She is a Saint too!


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

A woman can indeed support 
herself, and it has been done since time began. However, with a good man beside her she can and will rear more children, children whose chances of success in life are greater.

Tom; From where i sit, I suspect you are right. Your are certainly smart to say so. That kind of thing cannot help but earn points.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> The data shows that basing help on marriage status *leads to fewer marriages* among those that need help.


That's what I said.



Bearfootfarm said:


> The data shows subsidizing single parents causes more of them, not fewer.





SLFarmMI said:


> You do realize that we *women can support ourselves*, right? We don’t need to go looking for men to support us.


The ones on welfare aren't doing that.
They are having more babies to get more money.
Those are the ones being discussed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Terri said:


> We are both entitled to our opinion as to the most desirable was to live


Choosing to live on welfare isn't "desirable" in any way.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

Again you take a few words out of context to make it appear like I said something wierd


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I'm not sure this is an all or nothing thing. It's easy to say all single mothers have sketchy morals and make poor mothers and just as easy to say that all two parent homes are safe and loving environments.

I'm of the opinion that welfare should be a temporary and not a lifestyle and perhaps a better solution than punishing decent, hardworking single mothers, a review of the welfare system would be wiser. 

In Canada, you need to provide birth certificates to register a child for welfare benefits. If there is no child support in place, Social Services is happy to arrange a court date for dad to make those arrangements and if dad refuses to pay, Maintenance Enforcement has more teeth than Revenue Canada and they will find them. If welfare has been paid out and Maintenance Enforcement collects owed child support, that child support is repaid to welfare first.

Those mothers who stay on welfare are strongly encouraged to attend meal planning/nutrition, budgeting and addiction treatment if required. If the school or a concerned neighbour makes a call, those become mandatory. 

Canada discourages long term welfare by encouraging people to work and they're allowed to make slightly more than their welfare cheque, while still keeping their benefits and welfare will cover child care costs for those who work. 

Welfare will help recipients get their high school education and some 2 year certificate programs, which is in keeping with the idea that by the time an infant is 2, they can go into daycare and mom can go to work. There are exceptions that allow someone to collect longer but not many.


----------



## reneedarley (Jun 11, 2014)

Along the same lines as over here


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Terri said:


> Again you take a few words out of context to make it appear like I said something wierd


Nothing was "out of context" about what I said.
Implying people can't easily determine what is *more* "desirable" *is* a little "weird" though.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

BFF, twice in this thread you have taken words out of context to change the meaning of my statement. Fine. There are plenty of other people here who are interested in discussing the topic instead of playing word games


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Terri said:


> BFF, twice in this thread you have taken words out of context to change the meaning of my statement. Fine. There are plenty of other people here who are interested in discussing the topic instead of playing word games


I don't think I did that at all.

The "context" of my comments is single parents on welfare being subsidized by the Govt.
I'm pretty sure that's what is in the OP too.
I think you've simply misunderstood.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

As I recall, the OP was wanting to discuss how to increase the number of children born to the most capable members of our society: presumably without the government perpetuating horrors upon its citizens. To that end I will repeat what I said about most young Mothers being both broke and working too hard. The only solution that I have come up with is making it easier for young Mothers to have childcare businesses. That would mean that a young Mother could stay home while taking care of her child/children plus just a couple of other kids. 

Right now, child care for 1 child costs about $1000? dollars per month, and quality places have waiting lists. Because of this a good deal of a Mother's income is eaten up by child care costs. I believe that a lot of Mothers would rather stay home while giving high quality care for a neighbor's child

I realize that the Nation's Fathers are just as responsible as the Mother's. However more often than not it is the Mother who is paid less, and therefor it would be the Mother who would stay home with the child plus in addition provide care for the neighbor's child for a second income

In the mean time, with a birth rate of just 1.86? children born for every American woman, we need all of the kids that are born. Because when we get too old to work we will need a younger generation to do the necessary work


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Terri said:


> As I recall, the OP was wanting to discuss how to increase the number of children born to the most capable members of our society


The best answer is to stop subsidizing the less capable for having more.
Data has shown what happens when that is done.



Terri said:


> Because when we get too old to work we will need a younger generation to do the necessary work


If all they know is how to live off welfare, they won't be much help.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

I have no idea about the numbers, or who twisted them for their own purposes, but I actually don't care how many lower income kids get food and basic medical services.
USA first, charity begins at home and all that jazz.

While the average 'Middle Class' family pays about $36 a year for welfare, WIC, all that, we pay about $5,700 a year for corporate welfare and pork...
Subsidizing the most profitable companies ever to exist like big oil & big pharma, banking, insurance, etc.

I don't much care about of a woman marries someone of means before she has kids so the kids are covered,
Or get kids before she marries, doesn't matter to me one bit since I won't have anything to do with either.

Either way, I'm not buying someone else's discarded baggage, and if a woman can't support herself, picked someone that won't support their kids, then she makes bad choices, and she's dead weight that has to be cared for also.

If a 35 year old guy in a wheelchair can educate himself, start a business and support himself without welfare, then anyone & everyone can do it.
I'll help anyone that helps themselves and hits hard luck, but I'm not about to throw good money/time after bad, it's a bottomless pit.

YOU can believe anything YOU want to, that's just the way I see things.
Kids getting a few meals and basic health care doesn't bother me one bit, it gives them a chance... If they pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get with it, money well spent.
If they don't, we had to give them the chance...


----------



## 101pigs (Sep 18, 2018)

Y


wr said:


> I'm not sure this is an all or nothing thing. It's easy to say all single mothers have sketchy morals and make poor mothers and just as easy to say that all two parent homes are safe and loving environments.
> 
> I'm of the opinion that welfare should be a temporary and not a lifestyle and perhaps a better solution than punishing decent, hardworking single mothers, a review of the welfare system would be wiser.
> 
> ...


You have a different type of government in Canada, Sweden and a lot of other countries in Europe. I worked in Canada years ago as a design engineer. While there i got my health care taken care of along with my teeth. a company in Canada needed what i could do for them in the engineering field. Mostly piping design for offshore drilling rigs and platforms. My pay was very good for working there also so much pay for being away from home. If i didn't have a lot of property in the U.S. i would have stayed in Canada. That was on the west coast of Canada. I went to Mc Gill U in Canada also when young. Very nice education in Canada. Went to McGill U in Canada.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Some enlightening comments re the structure of welfare. I agree with much of what Jeep says, and I vary a bit from some other ofher comments, but basically he's right. We have some moral obligation to see that children in this country are cared for. He's right to when he says that if a wheel-chair bound man can educate himself and make a living others can too. ANYONE IN THIS COUNTRY CAN IMPROVE HIS/HER LOT IF WILLING TO WORK. I have no sympathy for whiners.

Unfortunately many men will share his opinion about "someone else's discarded baggage". This is a very strong argument against young women's choices to shack up before marriage or to marry men with an aversion to work. An ignorant, untutored young woman with a child or three is not a very appealing choice to a man who is looking for a mate. More likely she will remain alone or shack up with a baby daddy. 

I do like the reported system of child support collection in Canada. That puts the responsibility for fatherhood where it belongs. I would go further and provide forced work for men who claim no income. Let them pick up trash three days a week, train for better jobs three days a week until they can hold a job that pays to support their children.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> One of my own and one step child.
> 
> 
> I got a single book of food stamps one time back in the mid 70's.
> ...


 Thank you


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Oxankle said:


> Some enlightening comments re the structure of welfare. I agree with much of what Jeep says, and I vary a bit from some other ofher comments, but basically he's right. We have some moral obligation to see that children in this country are cared for. He's right to when he says that if a wheel-chair bound man can educate himself and make a living others can too. ANYONE IN THIS COUNTRY CAN IMPROVE HIS/HER LOT IF WILLING TO WORK. I have no sympathy for whiners.
> 
> Unfortunately many men will share his opinion about "someone else's discarded baggage". This is a very strong argument against young women's choices to shack up before marriage or to marry men with an aversion to work. An ignorant, untutored young woman with a child or three is not a very appealing choice to a man who is looking for a mate. More likely she will remain alone or shack up with a baby daddy.
> 
> I do like the reported system of child support collection in Canada. That puts the responsibility for fatherhood where it belongs. I would go further and provide forced work for men who claim no income. Let them pick up trash three days a week, train for better jobs three days a week until they can hold a job that pays to support their children.


I'm sure there are women with children doing all the correct things, self supporting, keeps a job, raises the child/children correctly, etc.
Unfortunately, I live WAY out in the 'Boondocks' and I don't see those women...

What I see are UNSUITABLE to be a lifetime mate.
I simply don't confuse AVAILABILITY with SUITABILITY.

What I saw in the military was what could be described by several derogatory names I won't use,
What I see locally is welfare/assistance housing dwellers with dirty, undisciplined lives & children.
AND, I don't blame then directly for the lack of discipline/education, I blame their parents.
The 'ME' generation that didn't raise their kids, then defend the actions of those kids...

Your character is built into you by direct education from your parents, usually in the early teen years, so it's entirely the parests' fault.
No work ethic because parents would rather ignore/spoil kids than raise/teach them.
Blames the lack of socially acceptable skills on 'Bad Crowds' when it's entirely the position of the parent to keep track of, and vet/approve anyone the kid is allowed to spend time with.
Just plain lazy when the parent doesn't sit monitor the child's actions, day and night, which is entirely the job of someone that has kids.

*IF* a kid just has a head full of bad wiring, an attentive, engaged parent would *Should* be the first to detect that, and seek help for that kid...
It was just easier for the 'ME' generation to let the kids do what they wanted, entirely selfish motives.

They sowed the wind, now they real the whirlwind... 
But want to blame it on someone else because the 'ME!' generation won't take responsibility for anything...

Available doesn't mean Suitable, but it took 35 years to find a suitable partner.
I'm just glad my parents/grandparents talked straight to me, raised me to NOT be ignorant of the difference, and I didn't fall into some hormone induced trap before I became fully adult.
Birth control, for both male & female exist so they have a CHANCE to become Men & Women.
The fact that so many are educated that birth control exist (can't claim ignorance) and still get unplanned/unwanted children proves once again the difference between ignorant and stupid.

*IF* the kid had been raised correctly, fathers would STILL support the unplanned child, and I don't mean a few bucks a week,
And the mother would STILL seek an education, reasonable employment, support the child, and again, I don't mean a few bucks a week...

Let the streets and idiot friends raise your kids and you get what we have now, this situation, like all others we argue about constantly on this forum, were started by, and entirely the fault of the 'ME!' generation, 
'Boomers' or kids born/spoiled/ignored by the children born slightly before, or after WWII.
Nothing anyone can do about the 'ME!' generation, it's history, and they aren't about to take blame or make any sort of correction/compensation...
It doesn't benefit/entertain them so they simply aren't going to participate.

The question is, how are the kids born since 2,000 going to correct the mistakes of the past?
Would they adopt a moral/ethical code that shaded/exiled the ideas they got from the past 3 or 4 generations?
It's going to be interesting to see, but I won't be around, so all I can do is shoot straight with them and NOT make the situation worse, and wish them luck & strength.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeepHammer said:


> Available doesn't mean Suitable, but it took *35 years to find a suitable partner*.


Are you saying you've been married 25 years now?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

JeepHammer said:


> Your character is built into you by direct education from your parents, usually in the early teen years, so it's entirely the parests' fault.


If you would have put a period after the twelfth word, you might have made a valid point.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

According to the psychology classes that I took for my teaching degree, character is set before age six. From my experience, I agree... to a point. Teenage years and experience can modify this somewhat.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> According to the psychology classes that I took for my teaching degree, character is set before age six. From my experience, I agree... to a point. Teenage years and experience can modify this somewhat.


To what extent would you attribute parenting with the molding of the child? 50% or less, over 80%, or how much?


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

That varies. A solid family seriously reduces social influence of public schools and social media. 

There are SO many factors that there is no way to quantify it.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> That varies. A solid family seriously reduces social influence of public schools and social media.
> 
> There are SO many factors that there is no way to quantify it.


I have no training in physiology, but that is what I would have thought. It always pains me when someone lays the behavior of a child 100% at the feet of the parents.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

Terri said:


> Running a household with 4 kids is pretty much a full time job, labor wise. My folks had 6, which was more or less equal to a 60 hour work week for my Mom with the addition of being woken up every night when the smallest baby cried
> 
> Women who have large families work very, very hard


...................................................................
................They DO , if they truly love their children , but welfare mothers are as much about making babies for increasing their disposable income while they sit on their lazy rears as any thing else !


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

fordy said:


> welfare mothers are as much about making babies for increasing their disposable income while they sit on their lazy rears as any thing else !


Some start an a very early age also.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Oxankle said:


> Part of that improvement, I think, would begin with improving the performance of our men.


Yes indeed!


Oxankle said:


> Good men who earn decent wages can attract and support women willing to bear children. I don't mean good millionaires, I mean decent, faithful, sober, hard working, honest men in the whole range from janitor to CEO.
> 
> Nature made man a dominant creature, but that dominance is earned; when he debases himself he can forget dominance---no self-respecting woman will submit and place her long-range faith in him.


 Lol now that’s funny.
Have you ever noticed seems to be the type of women that will have the most kids are attracted to the bad boys

Well at least until after they’ve had the kids and Are trying to support them?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

fordy said:


> ...................................................................
> ................They DO , if they truly love their children , but welfare mothers are as much about making babies for increasing their disposable income while they sit on their lazy rears as any thing else !


 What percentage of welfare mothers do you think those are? Have you got any proof of any sort to back that up? Or is it just something that makes you feel better about your anti-welfare status


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Terri said:


> In the mean time, with a birth rate of just 1.86? children born for every American woman, we need all of the kids that are born. Because when we get too old to work we will need a younger generation to do the necessary work


 What makes you think we will need more kids don’t you think the robots will be able to keep up?


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> What makes you think we will need more kids don’t you think the robots will be able to keep up?


You are entirely free to trust a robot to treat your heart attack if you wish too! LOL!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I’ve heard that robotic surgery is better.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> I’ve heard that robotic surgery is better.


be my guest!


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Terri: Just how many of those baby mamas are going to raise heart surgeons? I contend that there will be SOME, but the odds are that most heart surgeons come from a better background.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> What percentage of welfare mothers do you think those are? Have you got any proof of any sort to back that up? Or is it just something that makes you feel better about your anti-welfare status


I'm not sure anybody is anti welfare but I'd be interested in knowing if the US has a time limit on collecting welfare benefits and what is done to ensure those baby daddies are paying support for their children?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wr said:


> I'm not sure anybody is anti welfare but I'd be interested in knowing if the US has a time limit on collecting welfare benefits and what is done to ensure those baby daddies are paying support for their children?


Yes there are set time limits here. Five years total if memory serves. However that is usually enough to time to get shifted over to title 19 social security disability benefits. To my knowledge no restrictions on that.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Yes indeed!
> 
> 
> Lol now that’s funny.
> ...


Women date bad boys and marry good boys. The key is to be somewhere in between.

Not any different than men in that respect.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Who wants a woman who has been running (and sleeping ) with bad boys. These are the "discarded baggage" that was mentioned previously. Let the bad boys keep these women.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

wr said:


> I'm not sure anybody is anti welfare but I'd be interested in knowing if the US has a time limit on collecting welfare benefits and what is done to ensure those baby daddies are paying support for their children?


It has become generational. low income housing and so forth. A person learns to live during the off periods.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

wr said:


> I'm not sure anybody is anti welfare but I'd be interested in knowing if the US has a time limit on collecting welfare benefits and what is done to ensure those baby daddies are paying support for their children?


Honestly, everyone should be anti welfare, but not from a contempt of the poor.
Welfare has proven to be long term addictive and destructive to families.
Welfare should be at the end of the line behind, spouse, family, church, charity, employment, insurance and on.
Then comes welfare. 
Welfare is and should be after the failure of all of the above.


----------



## dyrne (Feb 22, 2015)

Welfare could be a positive force if it were instead directed towards intact families only. Something like Hungary's birth incentive https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/11/hav...ary-and-youll-pay-no-income-tax-for-life.html for instance but possibly with some additional standards in place so the best of us benefit. Even a stipend instead of just a tax break. A mortgage program that gets paid off on child x or something. There are a lot of people out there that I admire (better folks than me) that would make great parents but that postpone marriage and child birth until their 30s and even 40s... This is something a woman, a family should have an option to do in their early 20s and not have it economically cripple them for life. 

It's still top-down sure but I think that boat has already sailed.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

Oxankle said:


> Terri: Just how many of those baby mamas are going to raise heart surgeons? I contend that there will be SOME, but the odds are that most heart surgeons come from a better background.


Poor families raise outstanding kids all of the time. I have worked with women who have had assistance, and they did not STAY on assistance. 

I will say it again: the young Mothers I have known have been both broke and working too hard. That means that they are barely scraping by, and if/when life kicks them in the teeth they have nothing to fall back on except benefits.

Of the three women who come quickly to mind, 2 of them were married and their husbands were working almost as hard as the ladies were. It is HARD when you have children and both parents are earning just above minimum wage. 

And, that is one reason why the US birthrate s dropping.

As for poor people not raising heart surgeons, the world also needs store clerks and mechanics and construction workers and such. MOST people who are on welfare do not STAY on welfare, though the state will continue to feed the kids.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Gee; I wonder how it was during the great depression, when people had to live within their means. If people choose to be store clerks, mechanics and construction workers they must learn to live within the money that earns. Mechanics and construction workers are well paid. I had an a/c and heat man out yesterday who lives as well as I do, certainly has a better fishing boat. Any poor-boy can aspire to such a job, a well-paid and respectable choice. Even so, a boy from a solid, secure, two-parent family has a better chance at becoming a good mechanic, A/c repairman, or anything else.

I agree, we are bound morally to help our fellow man, but most of us would feel less put-upon if our fellow man would help himself and use some common sense. If people have only minimum-wage skills, why are importing illegals to take minimum wage jobs and further depress wages?

Why are these "poor folk" not learning skills that pay more than Minimum wages? I started out earning seventy five cents per hour in a fish house. (That was by no means my first work, but it was the first that reported wages)
That was unsatisfactory, so I learned to do better BEFORE I MARRIED.

LOL; edit to add: Consider what my choice of women might have been had I decided to marry while working in the fish-house for $0.75 per hour? Field widened a bit after I learned to make a living.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

Oxankle said:


> Gee; I wonder how it was during the great depression, when people had to live within their means.



They didn't. My Grandfather had a small store, ad he allowed hungry locals to buy groceries "on account". Mostly those debts were never repaid.


Oxankle said:


> If people have only minimum-wage skills, why are importing illegals to take minimum wage jobs and further depress wages?


I don't know.Why are we? I do know that some of the larger vegetable farms were paying less than minimum wage. Few IMMIGRANT workers complained.


Oxankle said:


> Why are these "poor folk" not learning skills that pay more than Minimum wages? I started out earning seventy five cents per hour in a fish house. (That was by no means my first work, but it was the first that reported wages)
> That was unsatisfactory, so I learned to do better BEFORE I MARRIED.
> 
> LOL; edit to add: Consider what my choice of women might have been had I decided to marry while working in the fish-house for $0.75 per hour? Field widened a bit after I learned to make a living.


In other words you delayed having children. That is one reason why the birth rate among responsible people is dropping. Pay is lower than it was pre-recession, and so folks are putting off having kids and they are having fewer kids


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> I’ve heard that robotic surgery is better.


Dr's control the robots.
They are "better" because they can be more precise in their movements, but they aren't autonomous.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Bearfoot; They are also smaller and can go places where hands cannot go without a lot of cutting.


----------



## 101pigs (Sep 18, 2018)

Oxankle said:


> Bearfoot; They are also smaller and can go places where hands cannot go without a lot of cutting.


I had a split in heart that was hard to get to. Dr. used a tool and went in between my rib and repair it. Took about 5 week before i could be released and go home.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Dr's control the robots.
> They are "better" because they can be more precise in their movements, but they aren't autonomous.


My son's lung surgery was done that way. To this day, I find it incredibly amusing that his doctor likely honed his surgical skills on Playstation.


----------



## reneedarley (Jun 11, 2014)

Oxankle said:


> Terri: Just how many of those baby mamas are going to raise heart surgeons? I contend that there will be SOME, but the odds are that most heart surgeons come from a better background.


That post woke me up. No way can I compare myself with a heart surgeon - or my mother with the unfortunate women we are talking about. But I was born lower working class, with my parents scraping a living in the country side after the second world war in England.
Had it not been for Government screening to give poor kids like me educational grats, I would not have had the possibility to help others as I have all my life (so far). Giving my good fortune forward.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

wr said:


> My son's lung surgery was done that way. To this day, I find it incredibly amusing that his doctor likely honed his surgical skills on Playstation.


Not only doctors may have started with play station. A friend's son was so video game addicted that he flunked out of high school and his father "that's it. I'm moving him to the basement and taking his room as my den if I have to support him until I die."

After he got done telling me of the kid flunking out two weeks before and he was up in his room "playing some war game on the computer" , I asked if I could go up and talk to the kid before he and I continued our discussion about the kid and his future.

After seeing the gaming system and peripheral controllers the kid had used his burger flipping pay to get, I went back down and asked his father if I could take the kid on a tour of the military contractor company I worked at to see if I could help him set the kid's path in a better direction.

After a tour of our simulator production area and lunch , I had the kid understanding that if he studied enough to GED enter college for a couple years at least in a computer cell controller course with his talent in online gaming, he stood a good shot of entering the Air Force for drone piloting training.

Last I heard the kid had a college degree and was re-enlisting for a second hitch flying drones via satellite link up from somewhere outside of the combat zone and his father was happy as a pig at the feed trough.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wr said:


> To this day, I find it incredibly amusing that his doctor likely honed his surgical skills on Playstation.


That also applies to military drone pilots.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Reneedarley: You simply bear out my contention that ANYONE, no matter how poor or disadvantaged, can improve their lot in life. Even so, you seem to have started with both parents at home---I simply stated that kids from two-parent homes have a better chance at success than those from broken homes or no-home-at-all.

The kids from the baby-mama factories have much less going for them than those from good two-parent homes. I know that there are dysfunctional two-parent homes, but in general kids from two-parent homes start life with better odds than those who have no such home.

I don't know much about England, but it has been my impression that unless you make pretty good marks in the lower grades you do not have the chance to move into the advanced studies. Here in the US even a high school dropout has the chance to become a scientist or senator if He/She decides to turn their life in a better direction.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Along those lines: In TOWNHALL TODAY there is an article by Mona Charen concerning the death of Gertrude Himmelfarb, both highly intelligent women. Both Himmelfarb and Charen maintain that the basic virtues of life are inviolate and that the common sense of common mankind holds to that principle, rich or poor.

In short, if you insist on looking for misery, depart from the straight and narrow.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That also applies to military drone pilots.


My son's flight instructor indicated that they're easier to train for their private pilot's licence as well.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Oxankle said:


> Reneedarley: You simply bear out my contention that ANYONE, no matter how poor or disadvantaged, can improve their lot in life. Even so, you seem to have started with both parents at home---I simply stated that kids from two-parent homes have a better chance at success than those from broken homes or no-home-at-all.
> 
> The kids from the baby-mama factories have much less going for them than those from good two-parent homes. I know that there are dysfunctional two-parent homes, but in general kids from two-parent homes start life with better odds than those who have no such home.
> 
> I don't know much about England, but it has been my impression that unless you make pretty good marks in the lower grades you do not have the chance to move into the advanced studies. Here in the US even a high school dropout has the chance to become a scientist or senator if He/She decides to turn their life in a better direction.


The best way to end the welfare cycle is through education. Alberta allows women with dependents two years on welfare. 

I lived on an extremely tight budget when I was raising my kids and without the drafty old farmhouse and 20 acres, I don't feel I could have afforded to upgrade my education. I worked full time and invested substantial time in my kids so it took me 3 years to complete a 2 year program. 

It's easier now because most 2 year programs can be done remotely and I'm of the opinion that if someone is all home minding their children, it wouldn't be impossible for them to get their GED or a marketable skill in that time. 

I'd rather see my tax dollars spent in a way that welfare recipients can move forward than to keep them in an endless cycle of poverty.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

wr said:


> The best way to end the welfare cycle is through education. Alberta allows women with dependents two years on welfare.
> 
> I lived on an extremely tight budget when I was raising my kids and without the drafty old farmhouse and 20 acres, I don't feel I could have afforded to upgrade my education. I worked full time and invested substantial time in my kids so it took me 3 years to complete a 2 year program.
> 
> ...


If only everyone could see it that way.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

'If only everyone could see it that way.'
If every baby-mama saw it that way we'd soon run out of welfare moms. Problem is, for every such mother there is a man who has some responsibility he is not meeting. I see poor families every week here in town; FAMILIES, a husband, wife and children, but they are together and their children seem happy. I look at the grocery carts and know that they are pinching pennies, but their children will prosper. And then I see some of the other kind, and I read of them in the local paper.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Oxankle said:


> 'If only everyone could see it that way.'
> If every baby-mama saw it that way we'd soon run out of welfare moms. Problem is, for every such mother there is a man who has some responsibility he is not meeting. I see poor families every week here in town; FAMILIES, a husband, wife and children, but they are together and their children seem happy. I look at the grocery carts and know that they are pinching pennies, but their children will prosper. And then I see some of the other kind, and I read of them in the local paper.


There are plenty of dead beat fathers yes.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mreynolds said:


> There are plenty of dead beat fathers yes.


 Most of which were chosen by irresponsible women for breeding.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

I disagree, American Stand. Some of them, yes, but I suspect far more were blinded by first love, the idea that the man would change or simply by the man's insistence that he would be a good husband even though ignorant of any means of making a living for a family. I am away of three such cases; in the first the woman was nineteen, a college graduate with top of the line grades, no experience with men. She married a man from a solid family, excellent in-laws, but one who soon became a drunken bum. Always in debt, often out with his buddies but seldom home while she had to field the phone calls from bill collectors. The second married a man from what appeared to be a solid family but soon found that he was a narcissist who thought of no one but himself, and thought of her only as a household appliance. The third, a teacher, married a man who had a degree in law, went off with him to S. America on a govt. program of some sort and soon found that he was to be a drug addict. She raised two boys by herself.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Oxankle said:


> I disagree, American Stand. Some of them, yes, but I suspect far more were blinded by first love, the idea that the man would change or simply by the man's insistence that he would be a good husband even though ignorant of any means of making a living for a family. I am away of three such cases; in the first the woman was nineteen, a college graduate with top of the line grades, no experience with men. She married a man from a solid family, excellent in-laws, but one who soon became a drunken bum. Always in debt, often out with his buddies but seldom home while she had to field the phone calls from bill collectors. The second married a man from what appeared to be a solid family but soon found that he was a narcissist who thought of no one but himself, and thought of her only as a household appliance. The third, a teacher, married a man who had a degree in law, went off with him to S. America on a govt. program of some sort and soon found that he was to be a drug addict. She raised two boys by herself.


 Lol didn’t you just define irresponsible?
I doubt if three Stories defined the entire group.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

The thing is, irresponsible men lie. And young women often believe them, because what young woman has enough experience to be wise? When my sister was 20 she married such a man. Because they were both college students and she believed what he was telling her. 

She eventually divorced him and married a good man, and they have been very happy.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Good points!
Who isn’t teaching these women that men lie and look better with their clothes on ?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Terri said:


> The thing is, irresponsible men lie. And young women often believe them, because what young woman has enough experience to be wise? When my sister was 20 she married such a man. Because they were both college students and she believed what he was telling her.
> 
> She eventually divorced him and married a good man, and they have been very happy.


Exactly. It takes experience to spot an ass. Male or female. 

I had a friend that was dating a girl. She was so nice and did nice things for him. She even had a nice job. Once they got married and had a kid she was totally different. Quit working and did absolutely nothing around the house. When he got home from work she started yelling for him to cook supper after she had been asleep all day. 

Some people are like a 2 story house on the market. It's one story when you are trying to sell it then a completely different one after it sold.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I think most cases like that but not all of coarse would be discovered with a slightly longer courting time. 
I courted my wife for 12 years and I highly recommend it.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> I think most cases like that but not all of coarse would be discovered with a slightly longer courting time.
> I courted my wife for 12 years and I highly recommend it.


And she still married you?


----------

