Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've thought about this controversial issue for quite sometime.
I'm a black American woman that simply can not understand why so many poor urban women continue to have children, without any male support. Obviously, the overall rapid decay of vast urban communities, seem to prove that single parent homes are ineffective. Sadly, the children almost always end up either dead or in jail.
Given the grim circumstances, why do urban women continue to have out of wedlock children, without any male assistance or help from their male partners?
I'm neither black nor male, yet I understand why. Surprised that you have no clue.
I don't agree with your conclusion about variables, first being born in poverty is the greatest predictor of adulthood poverty or bad outcomes as an adult. So the issue truly is childhood poverty no matter the relationship status of that child's parents.
Also when stats are used for outcomes for children of single parents it is a comparison statistic. It doesn't tell you that the majority of children born to single parents have bad outcomes.
It tells you in comparison to children born to two parent households children of single parents have statistically significant worse outcomes. This is an important distinction because the majority of children born to single parents are not criminals or drug addicts, violent, etc.
I am not creating false outrage, what I pointed out is that there are many ways as a society we could group bad societal outcomes for children based on the circumstances of their parents.
We don't do that to those parents, but we do it to single parents. I think the difference is based on one of moral judgement where in fact as a society, we seek to punish single parents and their children to not encourage more of that immoral behavior, which of course contributes to the worse outcomes statistically for those children. It is a very strange thing.
Indeed. Socioeconomic status matters - but we never want to talk about that.
Of course they have bad outcomes. A life on welfare handouts, government dependency is in itself a bad outcome.
The rate of welfare dependency is growing at incredible rates. In many parts of the country many more babies are now born to welfare dependent households than are born to taxpaying parents.
It's not sustainable.
Your whole post if just flat out false. Welfare, which was renamed TANF in 1996 has significantly shrunk. There are far fewer families receiving direct cash payments than in the 1990's.
Also, there is a 60 month lifetime maximum to receive TANF, there is also a work requirement that must be met to receive TANF. You are just wrong on the basic facts.
Also, the vast overwhelming majority of single parents whose households have received TANF cash, have worked in the past and work after TANF.
I drove through a big stretch of the bad bad hood in Philly yesterday, and my husband used to fix a lot of housing in those hoods until the complete lack of caring on both sides got to him and he couldn't stomach it anymore.
The thing is it's nice to have this fantasy that women who live there are high on the hog living the high life because they have kids. And maybe they do get somewhat adequate means when you add it all up (though I doubt it). But the empty buildings and burnt out houses block after block, the desperate ugliness of the environment, the overall feeling of empty nothing that is palpable is the real issue. Some people are born on those blocks and have never gone further than a mile their whole lives.
It's like being on the planet after the Zombie Apocolyse has been and gone. It's so friggin hopeless feeling.
The children there need mentors. Not critism from Internet warriors.
If the usual subjects put half the effort IRL with the kids as they do complaining endlessly here, something might shift in perception for the young ones. I hope you'll all consider it.
Your whole post if just flat out false. Welfare, which was renamed TANF in 1996 has significantly shrunk. There are far fewer families receiving direct cash payments than in the 1990's.
Also, there is a 60 month lifetime maximum to receive TANF, there is also a work requirement that must be met to receive TANF. You are just wrong on the basic facts.
Also, the vast overwhelming majority of single parents whose households have received TANF cash, have worked in the past and work after TANF.
All in the definition. You define welfare as only one program, the cash handouts given to reward women for having babies they can never afford.
I define welfare as ANY government handout that the recipients never had to pay a dime of taxes to get. That would include free government housing, food stamps, Medicaid, WIC, SSI, SSDI, TANF, free meals at schools, and much much more.
Most of the welfare handouts have no 5 year limit, but I also see absolutely no purpose in enticing women with cash handouts to have babies.
I drove through a big stretch of the bad bad hood in Philly yesterday, and my husband used to fix a lot of housing in those hoods until the complete lack of caring on both sides got to him and he couldn't stomach it anymore.
The thing is it's nice to have this fantasy that women who live there are high on the hog living the high life because they have kids. And maybe they do get somewhat adequate means when you add it all up (though I doubt it). But the empty buildings and burnt out houses block after block, the desperate ugliness of the environment, the overall feeling of empty nothing that is palpable is the real issue. Some people are born on those blocks and have never gone further than a mile their whole lives.
It's like being on the planet after the Zombie Apocolyse has been and gone. It's so friggin hopeless feeling.
The children there need mentors. Not critism from Internet warriors.
If the usual subjects put half the effort IRL with the kids as they do complaining endlessly here, something might shift in perception for the young ones. I hope you'll all consider it.
The children need two PARENTS.
My children don't need mentors. It's just another example of why the government should not be encouraging women to have babies they can't afford and who they will raise alone.
Children have needs. Very often an involved father can provide at least half of the child's needs. No one can mentor a child better than the child's own parents.
All in the definition. You define welfare as only one program, the cash handouts given to reward women for having babies they can never afford.
I define welfare as ANY government handout that the recipients never had to pay a dime of taxes to get. That would include free government housing, food stamps, Medicaid, WIC, SSI, SSDI, TANF, free meals at schools, and much much more.
Most of the welfare handouts have no 5 year limit, but I also see absolutely no purpose in enticing women with cash handouts to have babies.
Enticing them? What else ya got, instead? Going to do something positive to "entice" kids who have zero resources to make a better future?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.