dice wrote:but since common sense doesn't cut it for, you here are the numbers. percentage of GDP devoted to poverty reduction and resultant poverty reduction percentage:
2.3 26.4 USA
4.3 57.7 italy
5.5 44.1 ireland
5.8 46.0 canada
7.1 60.1 UK
7.3 70.5 germany
7.4 75.8 austria
9.3 76.9 belgium
9.6 65.2 netherlands
10.9 69.7 finland
11.6 77.4 sweden
modest expenditure on welfare in the good ole USA results in modest reduction in poverty.
shocking. of course, that causes those opposed to welfare to throw up their hands and say "see, welfare doesn't work!" disingenuous bums
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare%27s_effect_on_poverty
More people have been lifted out of poverty ESPECIALLY the black community than ever before because of the fact that the US is STILL the largest producing economy in the world because of our steadfast belief in capitalism and free market ideals. The expansion of the world economy has decreased poverty, not welfare.
The Poverty rate was 21.3% in 1950. Now it is 10.9%. This parallels the reduction of the poverty rate in the black community as well by dropping from 36% to 24-25%. Of note, the one group in the US who has seen their poverty rate increase is whites.
It is also somewhat humorous to see someone make the claim that corellation does not equal causation when your claim does the exact same thing.
In fact, welfare does not decrease poverty. It actually, may increase it.
Read on:
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/gborjas/files/re2016.pdfI mean if you believe those libtards over at Harvard. Maybe we don't. Fascists.
that would suggest that less abortions would decreases the rate of single motherhood. which is ass-backwards. classic case of correlation not being causation
again, roe does not increase single motherhood rates. what DOES is the cultural acceptance of being a single mother. particularly in the black community. full stop
[aside]
By the way, when did "Full Stop" become this phrase that suddenly you are in the appearance of "dropping the mic" on that apparently means requires zero retort. Kudos? Good job? The point should stand on its own without such a phrase. Since it does not more often than not, it is merely an indicator that your viewpoint on such an issue is completely impermeable that you are showing more of your colors than you truly understand. It just seems like a stupid expression.
[/aside]
As to the question of would less access to abortion decrease single motherhood, I do not know. We only have data from when it was limited versus when it expanded in the US. The only way to see if it is overturned and individual states begin the regulate it as they see fit and then seeing how it impacts single motherhood within those states.
The point of bringing up Roe was not to create a direct causatory link between it and single motherhood directly, but rather linking several complex components together of how we should review increased access to abortion and social welfare expansion has not decreased violent crime in the black community, but rather how it has peretuated the expulsion of the father of the home. To say otherwise fails to appreciate what social policies have been implemented that have changed some of the fundamental concepts of marriage and responsibility in society.
This as a matter of social experimentation has been an utter failure.
No one has deconstructed my original claim. Fatherless homes produce more crime.
It would see then that the opposite would be a preferable outcome. Yet, not many of our social policies reflect this.
So, my comment is this. You can find a compelling argument that refutes the claim (that I would be interested to here) and then present a counter perspective.
Less fathers = more poverty
Less fathers = more crime
We as a society need to reflect on what we do from a social policy to perpetuate single motherhood.
the expansion of social welfare in the USA has been quite tiny in comparison to other nations. the only discussion necessary is why the richest nation on earth is so stingy when it comes to the aiding poor and suffering
As was discussed, we've cut the poverty rate in half over the last 70 years and exclusively for minorities. That is not conjecture. That is just a fact.
The reason why we have a stronger economy than most of the Western world is because we are in the business of letting American citizens produce wealth. That's how the game is set.
In fact, the rules of the game are relatively straight forward and it focuses on behavior. Those who understand what behaviors generate the best outcomes typically reap the rewards of engaging in those behaviors.
The reason why many are unsuccessful has to do with the inability to value those behaviors that generate the most beneficial outcomes.
I, for one, do not want to live in a society that promotes a safety net for bad behavior. If you want better, you must do better. This is not revelation.
My grandrather immigrated from Greece (did not speak english until later). Started a business running a general store. He met his wife here (who immigrated from Ireland). That marriage produced my father who was the first to go to college. Worked two jobs. Met my mom. Made me and my sister. Still worked two jobs. Got his MBA. Then traded his blue collar for a white collar. We had a decent middle class life. Now here I am. How is that privilege?
The recipe for success is baked into every inch of my family's story.
Tell me, why is this out of reach for others? My family came over with nothing. Had no benefit of welfare. They had eachother and worked and created opportunity.
you have made no attempt to honestly investigate the data. the single motherhood rate is way too high? of course. less assistance is certainly not the answer. education is
If you honestly believe that only education is necessary to prevent single motherhood, then I do not sense this discussion going anywhere. I also find it humorous that the claim is that I have not investigated the data when what I do (pretty much daily) is do as such. The problem is that the data is often reflective of telling others a lot of what is rather inconvenient.
As to the main topic at hand. What do we do instead? What incentive do we create? I am open to ideas.
Whatever it is, it needs to start with bringing fathers into the lives of their children.
This directly means reducing the divorce rate or at the very least change how the courts handle custody in divorce. This also means reducing the amount of children produced OUT of wedlock.
Otherwise, we should start with the broken concept of the child support system that fathers unduly burden.
https://dadsdivorce.com/articles/federal-incentives-exist-to-make-children-fatherless/In addition, the states share in a nearly $500 million incentive reward pool based on whatever the state collects. The states can get a waiver to spend this bonus money anyway they choose. However, most of the child support owed by welfare-class fathers is uncollectable. Most of them are either unemployed or have annual incomes less than $10,000. So, in order to cash in on federal bonus money, build their bureaucracies and brag about successful child-support enforcement, the states began bringing into the government system middle-class fathers with jobs who were never (and probably would never be) on welfare.
These non-welfare families have grown to represent 83 percent of child-support cases and 92 percent of the money collected, creating a windfall of federal money flowing to the states. The federal incentives drive the system. The more divorces, and the higher the child-support guidelines are set and enforced (no matter how unreasonable), the more money state bureaucracies collect from the federal government.
Those making less than 10,000 (dead beats) are non viable, thus are not obligated to pay child support. Who is left to pick up the bill? 92% of the money collected comes from the middle class child support orders.
Can we acknowledge that this system needs review when it creates incentives for states to propegate welfare distribution from divorced fathers?
The General Accounting Office reported that in 2002 that states were holding $657 million in undistributed child support.
The system is broken. The divorce court system is broken. Looks like a good place to start.
The rest seems to be cultural. Those with significant religious or traditional unbringings are less likely to have children out of wedlock, more likely to marry, and less likely to get divorced.
Less government seems to be the answer.
