Liberalism Destroys Families?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Molly

You pick 1 year out of 300? I could pick at least 20. Britain was under a series of monarchs, that's authoritarian.

Well that covers 1550-1640, and another brief period around 1670-1686, but I think you'll find that from then onwards that Parliament was the power.

But, of course, Parliament still imposed taxation, so it's still a brutal authoritarian country, right?

[chequita guevara]

At the time of the American Revolution, 1/3rd of all children were born out of wedlock.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Quick, what's the single biggest factor contributing to the rise of the two-income household?

Here's a hint: it's not women's lib.

Here's another: it's strongly associated with both Reagan and Thatcher.

Give up? It's the aggressive, 30-year campaign by Big Business and their conservative lapdogs to crush organized labor. That, more than any single thing, has pushed women who'd rather stay at home into the workforce, by eliminating the ability of working-class men to earn enough money on which to raise a whole family.

Anytime you want to start the "Does Capitalism Destroy Families?" thread, just let me know...

I agree with you on this one.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Quick, what's the single biggest factor contributing to the rise of the two-income household?

Here's a hint: it's not women's lib.

Here's another: it's strongly associated with both Reagan and Thatcher.

Give up? It's the aggressive, 30-year campaign by Big Business and their conservative lapdogs to crush organized labor. That, more than any single thing, has pushed women who'd rather stay at home into the workforce, by eliminating the ability of working-class men to earn enough money on which to raise a whole family.

Anytime you want to start the "Does Capitalism Destroy Families?" thread, just let me know...

First of all, it's a myth that mommies spent all their time home cuddling the offsprings. That might have been true for the rich part but no else. For the rest, it was farming works, serving in rich households, and as cheap labour in early industrialization.

Here (Denmark) there was only a short fall in the 1950'ies because of governmental incentives for some pop booming.

Secondly, unions is pretty strong here, well, we may not have many BB's here, actually there is a saying that the unions has "victoried themselves to hell" meaning their members has so good incomes, working conditions etc that they have become a little superfluous.

Third, two-income households here may do it to "survive", but that "survival" is at a wealth level that are so high that earlier generations couldn't even dream about it.

Funny enough this is accomplished under severe conditions such as free healthcare, social security, free education and other horrible atrocities such as high taxes.

Oh, in case you are heating up your flamethrower - I think the OP is BS

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


He was wrong. The Ottoman Empire was destroyed by free trade.

The Ottoman Empire's decline was mostly to do with the lack of rule of law and arbitrary taxation plicies which meant the tax man might come once a year or up to five times per year depending upon how much money the Sultan needed. Such arbitrary policies made it impossible for most people to figure out how much money ot save so they could pay their taxes. Who wants to invest in enterprises like manufacturing when everything can be taken away on a whim? Instead rich turks were nefarious for moving all of their money overseas so the Sultan's greedy fingures couldn't get to it.

How much different would the Ottoman's history be if those people instead invested in enterprises at home the way Europeans did?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Berzerker

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport5/0802.htm

That graph shows a 15% jump in just 20 years.

Now try to be a bit honest and show it as a percentage of total births which occur. The population as a whole rose very rapidly in the last 20 years due to immigration and natural population growth. Not to mention that the number of births per woman has been rising steadily.

Both you and the people who did that graph know this though, don't you? That's the reason you try to hide behind crap numbers which don't show the number of single mothers compared to total births. Then you come up with the final logical falacy and claim, completely unsupported by any facts, that some how the government is to blame.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Berzerker
We aren't talking about classical liberalism. Here's a question for our resident expert: have the number of housewives increased proportionally to population over the last 40 years? I'll bet it has gone down...

Okay, let's talk about the last 40 years. I'm 42. 40 years ago, my dad worked and my mom stayed at home. My dad didn't have a great education -- he went to a commuter college on teh GI Bill after Korea -- and he didn't have a great job -- he was a supervisor in a factory. But he owned, outright, a three bedroom house in a good suburban school district (where our neighbors included a garbageman and a construction worker, both unionized); he sent both his kids to private universities on his own dime; he bought new cars -- one luxury, one family -- every seven years, and paid cash; and he never had any consumer debt.

We lived that life right up through the early 80s; so did everyone else in our suburb. But that life -- the idea that one guy with a so-so job could support a family of four that well -- isn't even imagineable anymore. When did it go away? Not during the last years of liberalism's ascendency (1965-1978), but throughout the 25-year rise of conservativism. Corporations downsized to boost the price of their stocks, good union jobs got shipped overseas, and suddenly the life I led as a child vanished. If you think feminism played any role in that, you're crazy. It's pure economics; it's the logic of capitalism. Its'pure GOP.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
... Not during the last years of liberalism's ascendency (1965-1978), but throughout the 25-year rise of conservativism. Corporations downsized to boost the price of their stocks, good union jobs got shipped overseas, and suddenly the life I led as a child vanished. If you think feminism played any role in that, you're crazy. It's pure economics; it's the logic of capitalism. Its'pure GOP.

Really, don't blame outsourcing of fall in income. Oh, yes you are right if your claim is that status quo must not be touched, but that is rediciously - actually it is the sure path to decline in income and wealth. That model is very fine when there are centuries between major changes but that has nothing to do with the way the world are today. Ok, you may try to maintain such an eudamonic society, but please tell me how long you expect it to survive.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Doc

Doesn't absolve liberalism of the negative consequences. When that welfare creates more divorce, more out of wedlock births, and generational welfare, etc, someone screwed up big time.

I think I've already covered the idea that welfare creates more divorce and out of wedlock kids. Cruelty and abuse are the major causes of divorce. People beat each other up because they're drunk, on drugs, lack good impulse control, or are just plain selfish. People have out of wedlock kids because the "me generation" libertarianish philosophy doesn't compel them to own up to the consequences of theri actions. I won't say that none of them are thinking that they can let Uncle Sugar pick up the bill, but very few of them bother to think that far ahead.

I've known couples with children who split up to get welfare. And one reason they dont give it a second thought is because doing away with certains kinds of shame is part of the liberal ideology. Fifty years ago it would have been dis-honorable, shameful to walk away from the girl you impregnated.

Trust me Berz, I know thousands more people on welfare than you do, and I have to formally interview them everytime I see them. The number who go out and get a divorce because welfare will pick up the tab are very few. There are a significant number of people who have escaped abusive relationships because they knew thery could fall back on welfare to tide them over. That's one positive effect of welfare - women don't have to let themselves be used as punching bags because they have no means of supporting themselves and their kids if they leave the husband.

And do you consider all the taxes people pay a "bill"? And there you go again with the libertarianism, high taxes are not libertarian, they are liberal, All these programs that induce families to break up are liberal, not libertarian. And you just denied equating libertarianism with libertinism and you did it again. Walking out on your woman and child is not a libertarian attitude, its a libertine attitude. There are plenty of fathers who divorce or refuse to marry because of welfare programs. Thats one reason why out of wedlock birthrates are so high...

I'm not buying your line that the programs induce people to break up, though they do provide a way out of insuffrerable conditions for some people. I didn't deny equating libertarianism with libertinism - I never mentioned libertinism.

And the members of those communities, unless slaves etc, volunteered to live by those standards - that is individualism. What is individualistic about an ideological program that seeks to make the rest of us responsible for the out of wedlock births of irresponsible people ( a behavior that has increased dramatically during the ~40 years of welfare preceded by the liberation of old folks under SS)?

You're not old enough to remember this era when conformity was an established value. You didn't volunteer to live by those standards, you lived by them or faced a wide variety of "informal sanctions" conducted by your friends and neighbors. [/QUOTE]


So you blame libertarianism for the welfare state because conservatives are hypocrites?
[/QUOTE]

[Odin]

Originally posted by BlackCat


First of all, it's a myth that mommies spent all their time home cuddling the offsprings. That might have been true for the rich part but no else. For the rest, it was farming works, serving in rich households, and as cheap labour in early industrialization.

Here (Denmark) there was only a short fall in the 1950'ies because of governmental incentives for some pop booming.

Secondly, unions is pretty strong here, well, we may not have many BB's here, actually there is a saying that the unions has "victoried themselves to hell" meaning their members has so good incomes, working conditions etc that they have become a little superfluous.

Third, two-income households here may do it to "survive", but that "survival" is at a wealth level that are so high that earlier generations couldn't even dream about it.

Funny enough this is accomplished under severe conditions such as free healthcare, social security, free education and other horrible atrocities such as high taxes.

Oh, in case you are heating up your flamethrower - I think the OP is BS

I wished I lived in Scandinavia.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Not necessarily.



Feel free to elaborate on this.

It's hard to be free when you are dependent on people who want to control you. What kind of elaboration do you need? If you depend on your family then there will be pressure on you to conform to the person that they want you to be.

[Kidlicious]

Berz,

Divorcing to get welfare would be a stupid thing to do. The man has to pay child support to the state in such a case.

[Berzerker]

Black Cat

Nice stat, but all it says is that at the time of birth, the mother wasn't married. It doesn't say that all these childrens are raised by a single parent. It doesn't say anything about father and mother got married later or if they just live together as a family.

Do you agree the stat show a large increase in out of wedlock births? Now, do you think all those couples who had a child out of wedlock married soon after conception? Of course not, therefore that stat also shows an increase in single parent households. And with a welfare state playing the role of provider, many more "fathers" could and did walk away.

First of all, it's a myth that mommies spent all their time home cuddling the offsprings.

Oh Jeez, thanks for telling us about this myth. Now, who said all these mommies spent all their time cuddling their kiddies.

Oerdin

Now try to be a bit honest and show it as a percentage of total births which occur.

So now I'm a conspirator to propaganda in the government's graph making division? Did the population more than double from 1980-2000? Out of wedlock births did according to this graph you think is bogus.

The population as a whole rose very rapidly in the last 20 years due to immigration and natural population growth. Not to mention that the number of births per woman has been rising steadily.

Well thank God, someone tell the SS administration that a new baby boom is on the way to save SS.

Both you and the people who did that graph know this though, don't you?

Do we know population has been increasing? Yes. Do I know the graphmakers conspired to put out mis-information? No, so FU. And prove their data false, I dont see squat so far.

That's the reason you try to hide behind crap numbers which don't show the number of single mothers compared to total births.

I dont see you posting this "vital" stat, why is that? What about (1) in the table? It shows (1) Births to unmarried women per 1,000 unmarried women aged 15-44 years. More people doesn't negate that stat unless these additional people are prone to more or less out of wedlock births. New immigrants bring with them values acquired in their homeland, its their children and grandchildren who've been "americanised" that start adopting liberal values. So, when you're looking for your stat, find one comparing out of wedlock births between recent immigrants and their americanised progeny. So how are they decieving anyone? Lots of stats are based on a set number of people, be it 1,000 or 100,000.

Then you come up with the final logical falacy and claim, completely unsupported by any facts, that some how the government is to blame.

Those graphs dont support the fact out of wedlock births have increased? Um...kay...

Lazarus

Well that covers 1550-1640, and another brief period around 1670-1686, but I think you'll find that from then onwards that Parliament was the power.

But, of course, Parliament still imposed taxation, so it's still a brutal authoritarian country, right?

You guys are nuts if you think the Brits were not brutal and authoritarian. This is ******* amazing! Tell that to the Irish and a couple dozen peoples around the globe. I thought liberals love to point to Dickens to show how brutal " british capitalism" was... That was Britain's caste system...

chegitz

At the time of the American Revolution, 1/3rd of all children were born out of wedlock.

Again you guys are pointing to worse situations to argue that liberalism is not complicit, thats like arguing Castros Cuba is great because N Korea sucks. Dont compare today with 200 years ago, compare the decades before the welfare state and the decades since.

[Berzerker]

kid

Berz,

Divorcing to get welfare would be a stupid thing to do. The man has to pay child support to the state in such a case.

And yet it happens inspite of your opinion. Many just never marry...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
kid

And yet it happens inspite of your opinion. Many just never marry...

So what. If they don't want to get married. That's their business.