Are the Democrats back on track?

It seems to me that on the right lies gain greater traction than reason.

The right wing pundits lie and the followers just accept the lies

The right wing politicians lie and the followers repeat them

And anyone or anything that seems to contradict the lies must be disregarded or accused of left wing bias.

The thing is that if these were complicated lies that were fiendishly hard to expose then you might have some understanding as to why the followers fall for them, but they are not complicated lies they are often very easy lies to that are easy to refute, half an hour or less of study would put them to bed, but it seems the followers are just too lazy to do even that.

It is a lot easier to be a follower than a thinker.

 

Even when the lies and intellectual duplicity is veiled in supposed respectability it is usually easy to spot with a little research.

For example 6 cites for his views on the detrimental effects of single parentage on society and its link to crime on a deeply flawed opinion piece from the Heritage Foundation.

I do not know why but a lot of people seem to believe that such ‘think tanks’ are free thinking and independent organisations that recognise problems and present solutions for the benefit of society as a whole.

And some might, but money corrupts and the reality for those like the Heritage Foundation is that it is just a propaganda mouthpiece set up by wealth to push the interests of wealth.

The Heritage Foundation was set up with inherited wealth by the right wing Joseph Coors of the brewing fortune and the right wing Richard Mellon Scaife, heir of the Mellon banking, oil, and aluminium fortune. The foundation has also received large contribution from other wealthy foundations and individuals including the right wing Koch brothers.

So it shouldn’t be a surprise that it lobbies for right wing ideas that would be advantageous to the investors amongst other things deregulation and cuts in benefits to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy.

To just accept that what such faux ‘institutes’ and ‘foundations’ say as unbiased advise would be like claiming that you believe Budweiser is the best larger on the market and citing as proof a Budweiser advert that was paid for by the brewers.

But people do that.

So how do you educate people who believe that anything that doesn’t fit in with their views is hostile and are unwilling to do any research beyond that which just reaffirms their beliefs?

 

Why are you bringing up homicide? I was talking about crime in general. I said children with single parents were more likely to go into a life of crime, not homicide. Pay attention.

And yes, children who are brought up by single parent households (especially boys) ARE more likely to lead a life of crime, and grow up in poverty.


– Children in father-absent homes are almost four times more likely to be poor. In 2011, 12 percent of children in married-couple families were living in poverty, compared to 44 percent of children in mother-only families.

– Adolescents living in intact families are less likely to engage in delinquency than their peers living in non-intact families. Compared to peers in intact families, adolescents in single-parent families and stepfamilies were more likely to engage in delinquency. This relationship appeared to be operating through differences in family processes—parental involvement, supervision, monitoring, and parentchild closeness—between intact and non-intact families.

The Consequences of Fatherlessness | National Center for Fathering

With this being said, why don't these social services REWARD marriage rather than penalize it?

• An estimated 24.7 million children (33%) live absent their biological father.
  Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, “Living Arrangements of Children under 18 Years/1 and Marital Status of Parents by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin/2 and Selected Characteristics of the Child for all Children 2010.” Table C3. Internet Release Date November, 2010.

• Of students in grades 1 through 12, 39 percent (17.7 million) live in homes absent their biological fathers.
  Source: Nord, Christine Winquist, and Jerry West. Fathers’ and Mothers’ Involvement in their Children’s Schools by Family Type and Resident Status. Table 1. (NCES 2001-032). Washington, DC: U.S. Dept of Education, National Center of Education Statistics, 2001.

• 57.6% of black children, 31.2% of Hispanic children, and 20.7% of white children are living absent their biological fathers.
  Source: Family Structure and Children’s Living Arrangements 2012. Current Population Report. U.S. Census Bureau July 1, 2012.

• According to 72.2 % of the U.S. population, fatherlessness is the most significant family or social problem facing America.
  Source: National Center for Fathering, Fathering in America Poll, January, 1999.

Growing Up Fatherless | Support Group | Statistics | Help | Find Father





I don't understand why you, as a father, would be challenging this narrative. Lets say you're a loving and supportive father as I assume you might be. If that's true, then if you were to abandon your family and be absent from your children's lives, they are most certainly at a disadvantage by not having a supportive father like you in their lives, when compared to their peers who have both parents.

 

6

LOL you saying homicide isn’t a crime?

Sorry but your reply doesn’t address what I was saying.

If there is a definite link between crime rates then that should be reflected in homicide rates so the UK homicide rates should be larger than the US and the American rates should be on a par with Denmark’s.

The point been that crime rates should be higher in places like Denmark which these days has much higher rates of single parentage than the US.

Level of Crime

Denmark – 23.44

US – 55.84

Single parentage rates

Denmark (in 2017) 30%

US – 24%

Poverty rates

Denmark – 5.4

US – 17.9

Child Poverty Rates

Denmark – 2.7

US – 20.9

In 2014 – Percentage lacking health insurance

Denmark – 0

US - 10.4

Welfare Expenditure (as percentage of GDP in 2011)

Denmark – 30

US - 19

Welfare Expenditure aimed at helping family’s (including single parent families)

Denmark – 4

US – 0.7

*

There are a lot of socio-economic influences involved that can lessen or harden the effects of single parentage within society.

It is going to affect different groups differently depending on support structure and circumstance.

The more advantaged are going to feel the effects of single parentage much less than those who are disadvantaged, the ill effect that can come from single parentage is going to be less for the disadvantaged in places with well-funded Social Services and welfare systems.

The argument that some neoliberals seem to be advancing is all about cutting welfare - that it can be cut to single parents so as to force them into marriage or remain in a marriage with the outcome that welfare can be reduced – in all events welfare is cut.

This is not about caring for people or about reducing crime this is all about trying to reduce welfare so that the money saved can be given in tax cuts to the wealthy

 

6

Yes I’m a father I also try my best to be supportive and loving and that extends beyond my own family to others that may not have as fortunate a life as me.

I think people that find themselves in hardship should be help, I don’t believe that their lives should be made harder just to serve the interests of the kind of people that use there millions to lobby to make others’ lives more miserable so they can receive tax cuts.

 

I couldnt resist -

 

Is she really planning on running? Again?

 

Are benefits increased if the parents have more children while they are on welfare? I can't find an answer to that.

 

Bump
because this warms my heart



The future yall

 

Mel

Nice photo but do you notice the blonde woman doing the ‘cutting the throat gesture’ after they passed, I wonder if that's a Republican LOL

 

Thing is I’d guess there would have to be an increase but you would then need to work out if there is a connection between the two and why.

For example across the board Sweden has the smallest average household size in the OECD and this seems to go for single parent families as well this in a society where benefits are much more generous than in the US.

Same with teenage pregnancy rates many right wingers claim that girls get pregnant so they can claim benefits - yet teenage pregnancy rates in Sweden with its very generous benefits system has a teenage pregnancy rate of only around 4% while it is some 22% in the US with its much less generous benefits system.

It would seem to me that if the right wing view were correct then it should be the other way around.

 

The Clinton Admistration's Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 put an end to most of the benefits for extra kids in the U.S.. There now seem to be only two federal programs that provide benefits per kid: WIC, that provides food money for children under 5; and TANF, that provides temporary assistance for poor families while the parent is seeking employment.
In the U.S., many states have cap policies on welfare that deny additional benefits or reduce benefitst to families who have additional children while on assistance.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/welfare-reform-family-cap-policies.aspx
The notion that women have more babies to increase their benefits is therefore highly questionable.
https://blogs.elon.edu/voicesofwelf...children-increased-benefits-isnt-one-of-them/
--As is the idea that welfare is “insidious attack on the institution of the family” because the best way to hold the family together is to impoverish women so they are forced to stay in unhappy marriages based on financial dependency.Single Mothers Are Not America’s Real Welfare Queens
--As is the idea that caps on welfare and welfare to work policies have positive instead of negative results.
Welfare Caps: More Harm than Good?
How Welfare and Work Policies Affect Children
Why Welfare Reform Is Keeping Poor, Single Moms From Getting College Degrees - The Atlantic
New welfare reforms put extra pressure on single parents to enter paid work
--As is the "man in the house" taboo that discourages marriage, which seems to be a myth.
https://www.theroot.com/welfare-fathers-and-those-persistent-myths-1790864434
Aspects of welfare that discourage fathers are largely the result of conservative/libertarian attitudes that welfare recipients are leaches and "deadbeat dads" must be excluded from the programs. How Anti-Poverty Programs Marginalize Fathers - The Atlantic

 

I just wouldn't increase the benefit for additional children, I wouldn't cut it any. No point in rewarding irresponsibility.

 

Manolo Blahnik's? Niiiiiice!

And only $400. Per shoe.

 

The parents have halved the amount of food available to each child.

 

I don't know... I guess my feeling is that if you have more kids, you should get more assistance; but at the same time overpopulation is a really bad and looming problem. There must be some way to provide incentive to not have more than one child. We talked about it in sociology. If memory serves, the books suggest that certain instances of childbirth arise because (aside from the obvious.. har har) of a lack of education in the parents. They don't realize the consequences because no one has taken the time to explain it to them - that children will inevitably result from unprotected sex, that it will cost lots of money to raise them, etc. So education is one possible response. I suggested a tax based incentive to have only one child during said discussion. I don't know tax code though, so I don't have any idea how that might work.

I hope I'm talking about the same thing as what you guys were. Am I in the same neighborhood at least?