Liberalism Destroys Families?

[St Leo]

Families are overrated. At least in my personal experience, free association of individuals is much more pleasant and constructive than the mandatory family.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


If that's true, I would like to know how this great void we call "outer space" exists.



That's just more BAM and tired cliche.

Own goal. Space is anything but a void and even darkest most empty space still has matter and energy.


BAM now applies to immutable laws of thermodynamics. Good one UR.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by St Leo
Families are overrated. At least in my personal experience, free association of individuals is much more pleasant and constructive than the mandatory family.

You'll learn.

[Sandman]

And where in that quote from my OP did I say all those mommies were or would be at home cuddling their kids all the time? Children are better off with 2 parents and an extended family, and children are better off when those parents stay together until the kids have sufficiently grown emotionally so any divorce doesn't hurt them as bad. And children are better off when at least 1 parent is there most of the time as opposed to both parents off at work.

Do y'all agree?

Then policies that induce more out of wedlock births and more divorce have negative consequences, true?

Inducing more out of wedlock births is a negative consequence which outweighed by the positives. Not that I that I believe that 'liberal' policies induce them, but let's pretend, okay?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap

Generous welfare payments were around for all of about 15 years. BY the time Reagan came into power most generous anti-poverty programs were gutted. If 15 years of generous welfare was somehow so terrible as to crush the family, one would think 25 years after of "welfare reform" could have done something.

When did families "collapse"? ie. what do you claim the timeline is?

Daniel Moynihan's study (which was published in 1965 iirc) came to the conclusion that the collapse was imminent based on trends in the data over the previous 7-10 years or so. This was before the "War on Poverty" could have had any effect. Moynihan posited that provisions of AFDC (the program most associated with the term "welfare") had discouraged recipients from getting married as it was aimed mainly at single women who were raising children alone. I am in no postion to substantiate or prove his hypothesis, but it does seem likely that it played some role.

The "lock 'em up and throw away the key" philosophy typically associated with the Reagan administration (though amazingly broadly based politically) conversely didn't really get rolling until the 1980s where it ran into the crack cocaine epidemic to produce an enormous upsurge in incarceration rates for everyone, but particularly young African American males. One of the common explanations for the rise in criminality of that time was in fact the (already) high percentage of African American families headed by single females.

The trend line for out of wedlock births rose from the 1940s to the present, and not only amongst African Americans. Assigning any particular date for the collapse of the inner-city family is difficult, as the trend is a very long-standing one.

[Dr Strangelove]

If you were old enough to remember the passage of AFDC then you'd know that the reason that AFDC is primarily given to single parent familieis is because Congress didn't want to give welfare to men able to work. However I still don't buy the line that welfare encourages out of wedlock births to a significant degree. Our current culture is what encourages sexual carelessness, which is tha primary cause of out of wedlock babaies.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Affirmative action for idiots is your solution?

It's worked for George Bush Jr. and J. Danforth Quayle .

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
If you were old enough to remember the passage of AFDC then you'd know that the reason that AFDC is primarily given to single parent familieis is because Congress didn't want to give welfare to men able to work. However I still don't buy the line that welfare encourages out of wedlock births to a significant degree. Our current culture is what encourages sexual carelessness, which is tha primary cause of out of wedlock babaies.

I don't think anyone who posts here is old enough to remember that as the program started in the 1930s. You are of course correct about the reason the program was limited. When it started it did not even provide relief for the mother.

[Odin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Liberalism Destroys Families?

Originally posted by molly bloom

I've always felt too that 'rights' are championed at the expense of responsibility- responsibility to each other, our community, the world at large and the environment.

Yep. The Libertarians are so obsessed with thier "right" to be greedy asses that they forget thier responsibility to the society that kept them safe, educated them, etc. They are the ultimate freeloaders. The Libertarians and thier anti-community ideology is what is destuctive to families; this country is so obsessed with "rugged individualism," THAT is what is distroying the family.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You'll learn.

Blood is thicker than my brain. I can outsmart it.^-^

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Own goal. Space is anything but a void and even darkest most empty space still has matter and energy.

Perhaps you should re-read what I quoted from your message.

If you can find a harder vacuum than outer space, let me know. In fact, let all the physicists know.

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
BAM now applies to immutable laws of thermodynamics. Good one UR.

This clearly indicates you don't understand the first thing about thermodynamics.

[Berzerker]

this country is so obsessed with "rugged individualism," THAT is what is distroying the family.

Get a clue! Slave families were routinely broken up when either one of the parents or their offspring were sold. This was common practice.

I said black families were never broken up under slavery? Nope, that's your "interpretation". I said slavery did not destroy the black family and the proof is in how well it rebounded, but there is no rebound from liberalism.

Inducing more out of wedlock births is a negative consequence which outweighed by the positives. Not that I that I believe that 'liberal' policies induce them, but let's pretend, okay?

Dont you mean you have faith liberal policies dont induce out of wedlock births? Since you've offered nothing to refute me, you're relying on something other than facts. So lets "pretend", a %70 out of wedlock rate among blacks, %30 among whites, and all the negative consequences associated with those numbers is outweighed by what?

Also as Gepap already pointed out the high incarceration rate experienced by black men is the leading cause for black families becoming single parent homes.

Where is Gepap's proof? A jailed man of any color isn't out there fathering more kids so that would theoretically reduce out of wedlock births, and not many married black fathers go to jail compared to the single men or deadbeats in jail be3cause they are much less likely to commit crimes and do time. Did Gepap offer a stat showing how many black men in jail were married with children when they committed their crime?

People have spent two pages explaining why your OP just doesn't stact up to facts or to reality but you keep repeating the same baseless accusations. You've been listening to Rush to much and your brain is rotting away. Snap out of it before you get sucked into the Nediverse.

Liberals are just about as oblivious to the consequences of their policies as conservatives are to their drug war. But its no coincidence liberals are constantly harping about how the definition of "family" must account for "alternative lifestyles", they've done such a wonderful job breaking up families now the broken pieces have become families.

[Sandman]

Dont you mean you have faith liberal policies dont induce out of wedlock births? Since you've offered nothing to refute me, you're relying on something other than facts.

Why does America have such a high teenage pregnacy rate compared to the rest of the developed world? It's ten times the rate in the Netherlands or Sweden. Is that down to liberal policies encouraging 'out of wedlock' births?

In any case, you're being selective about 'liberal' policies. Sex education in schools, easily available contraception and access to abortion all reduce the 'out of wedlock' birth rate.

So lets "pretend", a %70 out of wedlock rate among blacks, %30 among whites, and all the negative consequences associated with those numbers is outweighed by what?

Outweighed by upholding people's right to not be trapped in abusive or loveless marriages, the elimination of the stigma attached to alternative family structures and the benefit to the economy by allowing women have children without seeing their job prospects evaporate.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sandman
Why does America have such a high teenage pregnacy rate compared to the rest of the developed world? It's ten times the rate in the Netherlands or Sweden. Is that down to liberal policies encouraging 'out of wedlock' births?

America has a lot of really stupid people. It's the same reason why our education system is so ****ed up. The girls who have babies when they can't support them or knock up these girls up are the same ones who fail school.

[:) Smiley]

Additionally, the feedback loop makes the situation worse over time.