Nearly half of American children living near poverty line

Ahlevah · Mar 7, 2016

Lursa said:
Thank God! And let's hope most dont have kids until they make more

Unfortunately, as I've already pointed out more than once, they don't.

The fact is if we want to reduce the number of children living in poverty then we better figure out a way to prevent women who can't afford them from having them. For starters, I'd stop paying them more money for each kid they pop, and society has an interest in protecting marriage as an institution.

Ahlevah · Mar 7, 2016

James972 said:
and stop the war on the American family!! liberal broken or never formed homes are the major source of poverty in America

There's definitely a strong link between culture and out-of-wedlock births. The phenomenon is almost unheard of in Confucian-based Asian cultures, which place a strong emphasis on marriage and family and a man's ability to support his wife and children. Even in the U.S., only 11% of Asian children are born out of wedlock, compared to 68% of blacks, 43 of Hispanics, and 26% of non-Hispanic whites.

Census Bureau Links Poverty With Out-of-Wedlock Births - US News

I on Singapore: Out-of-wedlock births and Big Government

polgara · Mar 7, 2016

Ahlevah said:
There's definitely a strong link between culture and out-of-wedlock births. The phenomenon is almost unheard of in Confucian-based Asian cultures, which place a strong emphasis on marriage and family and a man's ability to support his wife and children. Even in the U.S., only 11% of Asian children are born out of wedlock, compared to 68% of blacks, 43 of Hispanics, and 26% of non-Hispanic whites.

Census Bureau Links Poverty With Out-of-Wedlock Births - US News

I on Singapore: Out-of-wedlock births and Big Government

Greetings, Ahlevah. :2wave:

The culture is America has changed from what it used to be not too many years ago. I don't know if it's the movie industry that is setting the standard these days, but things have become decidedly more "permissive" than it used to be. All kinds of behaviors that would have once shocked people are now considered normal - women going to bars to meet their friends were once considered "easy," as an example. I find it ironic that parents in China are far stricter than parents in the US these days, so what happened along the way that changed our thinking?

Ahlevah · Mar 8, 2016

polgara said:
Greetings, Ahlevah. :2wave:

The culture is America has changed from what it used to be not too many years ago. I don't know if it's the movie industry that is setting the standard these days, but things have become decidedly more "permissive" than it used to be. All kinds of behaviors that would have once shocked people are now considered normal - women going to bars to meet their friends were once considered "easy," as an example. I find it ironic that parents in China are far stricter than parents in the US these days, so what happened along the way that changed our thinking?

Hello!

Good question. Yes, the culture has changed, but the odd thing is the higher you go up the income ladder the less it's changed. People who are affluent tend to finish school and marry late. They don't consider having children until the first two events are satisfied. Once married, they tend to stay married. They have higher levels of church attendance. They tend to work harder and longer hours. And so forth.

Another odd thing is wealthy people have lower fertility rates than the less affluent. Presumably, the people who could afford kids would have more of them while the ones who couldn't would have fewer, but the truth is just the opposite. (Maybe the wealthy are too busy getting educated or creating careers during those years when they're the most "fruitful." Or maybe they just don't need kids to feel validated and like hitting the slopes during winter vacation without having Little Johnny tethered to them. I just don't know.) In any case, what we're doing is setting up a situation in which we end up with more poor people, since the outcomes for kids raised in single-parent, less-affluent homes aren't as positive for kids raised in better circumstances. How do we fix that? I don't know, but I don't think beating up on churches or traditional family values is the answer.

James972 · Mar 8, 2016

polgara said:
Greetings, Ahlevah. :2wave:

The culture is America has changed from what it used to be not too many years ago. I don't know if it's the movie industry that is setting the standard these days, but things have become decidedly more "permissive" than it used to be. All kinds of behaviors that would have once shocked people are now considered normal - women going to bars to meet their friends were once considered "easy," as an example. I find it ironic that parents in China are far stricter than parents in the US these days, so what happened along the way that changed our thinking?

liberal welfare programs happened in the 1960's that paid the wife to kick the husband out and have more and more kids!!

"We could survive slavery, we could survive Jim Crow, but we could not survive liberalism."- Walter Williams Ph.D

Ahlevah · Mar 8, 2016

James972 said:
liberal welfare programs happened in the 1960's that paid the wife to kick the husband out and have more and more kids!!

I agree that the rise of the modern welfare state in one sense removed the dependency women felt on men as the principal "provider." Another factor, however, was that women entered the labor force for the first time in large numbers during WWII. While many of them reentered the domestic realm after the war, the idea that "A woman's place is in the home" was forever altered. As women began feeling empowered and entered the workforce once again beginning in the 1960s, they found that financial security wasn't always dependent on being married. Other contributors to the rise of out-of-wedlock births, I think, were the modern Women's Rights Movement, laws that made it easier to divorce, low-cost birth control, and safe and legal abortions. Basically, I view anything the lessened the cost or stigma of having a child out of wedlock as being a contributing factor to the rise of out-of-wedlock births. Somewhere along the way we evolved from women having "bastards" or children who were "illegitimate" to "love children."

James972 · Mar 8, 2016

Ahlevah said:
I agree that the rise of the modern welfare state in one sense removed the dependency women felt on men as the principal "provider."

not only that it was an attack on the very notion of family and love. It is not a lie to say that liberals killed love and family in America.

James972 · Mar 8, 2016

Ahlevah said:
I agree that the rise of the modern welfare state in one sense removed the dependency women felt on men as the principal "provider." Another factor, however, was that women entered the labor force for the first time in large numbers during WWII. While many of them reentered the domestic realm after the war, the idea that "A woman's place is in the home" was forever altered. As women began feeling empowered and entered the workforce once again beginning in the 1960s, they found that financial security wasn't always dependent on being married. Other contributors to the rise of out-of-wedlock births, I think, were the modern Women's Rights Movement, laws that made it easier to divorce, low-cost birth control, and safe and legal abortions. Basically, I view anything the lessened the cost or stigma of having a child out of wedlock as being a contributing factor to the rise of out-of-wedlock births. Somewhere along the way we evolved from women having "bastards" or children who were "illegitimate" to "love children."

yes 1) let's keep in mind liberals supported all the changes you described above

2) conservative intellectual culture was love the person with whom you have sex and love the child that results

3) liberal culture is, have meaningless sex with strangers and kill the child that results

Lafayette · Mar 19, 2016

polgara said:
I find it ironic that parents in China are far stricter than parents in the US these days, so what happened along the way that changed our thinking?

It is an evolution in mores that is happening around the world, and nothing specific to the US. China too is evolving towards less "family-affinity" to more mixed socializing.

The US is perhaps a bit faster in evolving because ours is a more "open" society. I can assure you, from what I observe here, that Europe is only half a decade or so behind the US. And in southern Europe, where the role of women advances far more slowly the evolution has also arrived there. (It is fastest in the Scandinavian countries where sexual mores were even more evolved than in the US.)

There are far more women at the heads of companies here in Europe than ever before. Britain had a woman Prime Minister years ago, even if the US has yet to take that step forward in equality of the sexes.

A woman (Angela Merkel) is undisputably the de-facto leader of the Europe Union - simply by her prodigious intelligence she has the capacity to lead whilst others (mostly men) accept to follow. Of course, Germany is Germany, economically the EU's most dynamic economy; which helps Angela enormously in meetings/discussions.

Of course, some countries are more hard-crusted than others. Since WW2 France has been led by a highly singular political group - Right or Left- that graduates from one central university called the Ecole National d'Administration. Meaning this: Imagine that the US were run by those who have a degree from, say, the JFK School of Public Administration at Harvard. The graduates of which tend to see (and debate) complex problems in complex ways that simply do not resolve the original problem. Which leads to stagnation, where decisive leadership is necessary.

The US is an opposite, changing its Executive every years instead of the longer-terms seen in Europe. This has its benefits (new thinking) and its drawbacks (incompetence in leadership) - but the doors are open to all-comers, which is perhaps goodness. Though, given the present advent of Trump, one has a right to wonder.

Unfortunately, Americans are not faithful voters - the history of voter turnout being much better in other developed countries. For that political fact, see the voter turnout data from the Pew Research Center here: U.S. voter turnout trails most developed countries.

You will find the US at the bottom ...

polgara · Mar 19, 2016

Lafayette said:
It is an evolution in mores that is happening around the world, and nothing specific to the US. China too is evolving towards less "family-affinity" to more mixed socializing.

The US is perhaps a bit faster in evolving because ours is a more "open" society. I can assure you, from what I observe here, that Europe is only half a decade or so behind the US. And in southern Europe, where the role of women advances far more slowly the evolution has also arrived there. (It is fastest in the Scandinavian countries where sexual mores were even more evolved than in the US.)

There are far more women at the heads of companies here in Europe than ever before. Britain had a woman Prime Minister years ago, even if the US has yet to take that step forward in equality of the sexes.

A woman (Angela Merkel) is undisputably the de-facto leader of the Europe Union - simply by her prodigious intelligence she has the capacity to lead whilst others (mostly men) accept to follow. Of course, Germany is Germany, economically the EU's most dynamic economy; which helps Angela enormously in meetings/discussions.

Of course, some countries are more hard-crusted than others. Since WW2 France has been led by a highly singular political group - Right or Left- that graduates from one central university called the Ecole National d'Administration. Meaning this: Imagine that the US were run by those who have a degree from, say, the JFK School of Public Administration at Harvard. The graduates of which tend to see (and debate) complex problems in complex ways that simply do not resolve the original problem. Which leads to stagnation, where decisive leadership is necessary.

The US is an opposite, changing its Executive every years instead of the longer-terms seen in Europe. This has its benefits (new thinking) and its drawbacks (incompetence in leadership) - but the doors are open to all-comers, which is perhaps goodness. Though, given the present advent of Trump, one has a right to wonder.

Unfortunately, Americans are not faithful voters - the history of voter turnout being much better in other developed countries. For that political fact, see the voter turnout data from the Pew Research Center here: U.S. voter turnout trails most developed countries.

You will find the US at the bottom ...

Greetings, Lafayette. :2wave:

Very interesting and informative post! :thumbs: I note that you are new here, so I bid you welcome!

Lafayette · Mar 19, 2016

polgara said:
Greetings, Lafayette. :2wave:

Very interesting and informative post! :thumbs: I note that you are new here, so I bid you welcome!

Thank you for your welcome!

With regards ...

James972 · Mar 19, 2016

polgara said:
, so what happened along the way that changed our thinking?

the liberal social agenda happened. It was primarily directed against blacks and amounted to a near genocide!!

If we are to go by evidence of social retrogression, liberals have wreaked more havoc on blacks than the supposed “legacy of slavery” they talk about. Liberals should heed the title of Jason Riley’s insightful new book, Please Stop Helping Us.

From Walter E Williams: "History is not going to be kind to liberals. With their mindless programs, they've managed to do to Black Americans what slavery, Reconstruction, and rank racism found impossible: destroy their family and work ethic."