Unwed mothers

Author: prefix
Family
WIC
taxpayer

Posts

Total: 168
#61
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@prefix
The question at hand is WHO OUGHT TO PAY

This is very much on topic because...

I think the answer really ought to be the same answer with the same onnus (or lack thereof) on the mother whether you consider her a "victim" or not. 

Therefore 

IF a person who is raped cannot be asked to be financially responsible (though perhaps physically responsible) AND if it is none of your business which women were raped THEN you must extend this courtesy to all women in order to assure that no persons who have been raped are held financially responsible.

Honestly it would be cheaper to just provide a fund to help with the raising of all children than to maintain the necessary bureaucracy to catch "cheaters" who "don't need the money". If your goal truly is one of fiscal responsibility the money savvy move here, the frugal thrifty thing to do, would be to just offer universal child care benefits. 

Your tax dollars would go further and do more good.
Topic's author
#62
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 542
3
4
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
provide data to support your belief.
#63
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@prefix
Do I need to sight a study to know that of we just took all the money we gave now and then added in all the money we spend on fraud prevention and split is between all recipients (all unwed mothers) then there would be more money available to give?
Topic's author
#64
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 542
3
4
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
second request

provide data to support your belief.

#65
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@prefix
After some effort I'm actually finding it very hard to find out how much the government spends preventing welfare fraud versus what it simply spends on welfare (which is a bit suspect in my opinion). So i guess I'll concede this point. Though I believe it would be more cost effective to the US as a whole I don't have the statistics to back this up.


So let's say for the sake of argument it wpuld cost the us government more than it currently spends when adjusted for overall economic benefit.


So long as you agree that 


A) a woman who has been raped should not be found financially responsible 


And 


B) no woman should be forced to prove they were raped before receiving benefits 


Then we still ought give benefits to all unwed mothers so that we don't risk missing one of those who should be included. 
Topic's author
#66
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 542
3
4
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
define "rape"
#67
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@prefix
In this context?

Can we agree to
Rape adj. To force through coercion or physical force to engage in sex acts one has not consented to
Topic's author
#68
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 542
3
4
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
No. We cannot agree.

Here is a Merriam Webster definition..

"rape
: unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person's will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception compare SEXUAL ASSAULT, STATUTORY RAPE

2
: an outrageous violation

3
: an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a person by force"


Further support of my position

"If you have conceived a child from being raped, and the man is convicted in criminal court of raping you, all of his rights to custody, visitation, or other contact with the child are terminated immediately upon being convicted for the rape in which the child was conceived.1 However, the rapist can still be ordered to pay child support (and the child may still be able to inherit from his estate upon his death)"








#69
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@prefix
unlawful sexual activity
I don't care about the law. When I say rape in this context I am talking about informed and preferably enthusiastic consent and only that. 

Otherwise I guess I don't object in principle to the definition if you have that big a problem with mine.
the rapist can still be ordered to pay child support
Ok two problems. 

Firstly pay child support? From prison? Or did you picture him being given a job rather than a prison sentence?

Secondly not all rapists are apprehended and therefore you are still left with the problem of who pays for those pregnancies where no one can be held directly responsible.

Isn't the actual problem that there are children who need support?

Unless... your real problem is literally that you personally may stand to pay more taxes for the good of children? May I ask if you consider your personal profit more import than the welfare of children? If so do you also consider your personal profit more important than the care of the elderly and the maintenance of infrastructure? Why or why not?
Topic's author
#70
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 542
3
4
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't care about the law
Obviously you care not for natural law, the law of logic and the law of unintended consequences ( note that this list is an example of a sampling of laws and is not to be taken as an exhaustive list).

The question is "who pays" not "all social problems all taken in one gestalt".

Firstly pay child support? From prison? Or did you picture him being given a job rather than a prison sentence?
Not all prisoners are destitute. Some are able to pay support. ( and yes some are not able ).  Also some prisoners have paid work duties in jail; others have work release.

Secondly not all rapists are apprehended and therefore you are still left with the problem of who pays for those pregnancies where no one can be held directly responsible.

You are clutching at a very small straw.."among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year." https://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(96)70141-2/fulltext#:~:text=RESULTS%3A%20The%20national%20rape%2Drelated,result%20from%20rape%20each%20year.

This is about  0.0134% of "unwed " pregnancies. It is essentially ZERO and need not be part of this discussion.

Isn't the actual problem that there are children who need support?
Yes. And an ancillary problem is people having children that they cannot afford to raise. ( Do not devolve this into a discussion of poverty, as that is a separate issue

Unless... your real problem is literally that you personally may stand to pay more taxes for the good of children
The issue is not ME ( as an individual ) paying more in taxes, but rather the issue is US  ( as a society ) paying more in taxes.

 May I ask if you consider your personal profit more import than the welfare of children? 
NO

 If so do you also consider your personal profit more important than the care of the elderly and the maintenance of infrastructure? Why or why not?

I feel that you are driven more by agenda than by logic.  My "personal profit" is what funds "welfare",  "care of the elderly", and "maintenance of infrastructure"

You have strayed far from the original topic.

You at one point felt that the "government"  should just pay for "everybody". Well here is the data you never learned about . The monthly amount of support for a government supported child is about one thousand dollars a month LESS than a "family supported" child receives. So you supposition that it would be  cheaper  to just support everybody misses by a factor of 400 to 500 percent.

If you have any further misunderstanding, just put them in your next post.

#71
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@prefix
an ancillary problem is people having children that they cannot afford to raise.
I get the feeling you want to discuss this specifically 

Or at least it is alarge part of what you feel is unfair about the whole thing?
Topic's author
#72
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 542
3
4
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
So discuss away......
#73
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@prefix
So discuss away......
Just wanted to make sure this is the underlying topic
an ancillary problem is people having children that they cannot afford to raise.
So we agree that this happens right and also we agree that the children should still be cared for.

Considering that their parents cannot afford to do so they are out of the running as a solution to this problem. So whom do you propose pay if not the taxpayers?
#74
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@prefix
Well here is the data you never learned about .
You did not provide the amount the government pays out to WFP&I counterbalanced against just providing benefits equally to every child care provider 
Topic's author
#75
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 542
3
4
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
You did not provide the amount the government pays out to WFP&I counterbalanced against just providing benefits equally to every child care provider 
And neither have you!!!!    Even though you first brought it up.

Let's save ME some time. I will give you the data, so I don't have to wait for you.

The investigation and prosecution of WFP&I   gives a "Strong return on investment, [and]  invaluable outcomes" says security company SAS ...in "Uncovering social service fraud saves millions, reinforces public trust" source https://www.sas.com/en_us/customers/la-county-dpss.html

And that is just in Los  Angeles County. 

And the cost of "providing benefits equally to every child care provider " is astronomical.

73,000,000 children X $15,000 per child = $1,095,000,000,000 or a 16% budget INCREASE over current spending, with a resultant deficit of $2.6 trillion, which would add to the $32 trillion US Debt. 

Can you say "broken table"?

Your mantra should be " You did the deed, now fill the need"
#76
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@prefix
Let's save ME some time. I will give you the data, so I don't have to wait for you.
If you can provide a source that would actually be very helpful. 
Your mantra should be " You did the deed, now fill the need"
We agree don't we that sometimes people have children who CANNOT afford to pay for them.

Do we also agree that these children should be cared for? Ought those children be taken care of in spite of their parents inability to do so?
#77
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@prefix
The investigation and prosecution of WFP&I gives a "Strong return on investment, [and] invaluable outcomes" says security company SAS ...in "Uncovering social service fraud saves millions, reinforces public trust"
This isn't what I'm looking fir. I just want a number on how much we spend on these efforts 
Topic's author
#78
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 542
3
4
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
If you can provide a source that would actually be very helpful. 
???????? source has been given ???????

Do we also agree that these children should be cared for?
Yes, I have ALWAYS asserted that. The question that you avoid is "who pays?".

 Ought those children be taken care of in spite of their parents inability to do so?
It is not that simple.  OCTO-MOM got assistance from  you and me ( well me anyway ) in her attempt to use children as a vehicle to stardom. 
Abuses abound, not just in monetary terms, but worse still, in attitudes.

Read "How Welfare Undermines Marriage and What to Do About It"  In it you will become aware that single mothers are six times more likely to live in poverty  when compared to married mothers. https://www.heritage.org/welfare/report/how-welfare-undermines-marriage-and-what-do-about-it

And....

"When the War on Poverty began, only a single welfare program—Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)—assisted single parents. Today, dozens of programs provide benefits to families with children, including the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) food program, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), food stamps, child nutrition programs, public housing and Section 8 housing, and Medicaid. Although married couples with children can also receive aid through these programs, the overwhelming majority of assistance to families with children goes to single-parent households."   https://www.heritage.org/welfare/report/how-welfare-undermines-marriage-and-what-do-about-it

Demographics, societal studies, and simple math indicate that women should be discouraged from being "unwed mothers" however our current system encourages them to some extent. Look at the rise in the numbers. Even as late as 1980, less than 18% of births were to unwed mothers. Today it is more than 40%. You can project that trend out to a total collapse by 2050.

And finally you said..

This isn't what I'm looking fir. I just want a number on how much we spend on these efforts 
You can look that up yourself. You won't like what you find.
#79
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
The question that you avoid is "who pays?".
Actually this was in one of very first posts. Perhaps we should collect a public fund maybe even codified into law. A sort of tax if you will. Perhaps since they are noble endeavors we could also use this fund to care for the elderly and support infrastructure. I think this plan has real potential so long as those who earn the most do not find legal loopholes with which to avoid paying a share that is commiserate with their larger earnings. 
Topic's author
#80
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 542
3
4
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
The law of unintended consequences states in part that if you fund something, you expand that thing.

A doubling of unwed births in 40 years would indicate that we are doing something wrong.

By monetizing  single parenthood, we are doing untold damage.

You misunderstand that I am not for cutting off aid. I am for educating and changing the behavior of a growing segment of society.

I am for increased law enforcement finding and extracting support from those responsible.

"You have the sex, you pay what's next"

" Less than half (45.9 percent) of custodial parents who were supposed to receive child support received full child support payments." and "The aggregate amount of child support that wassupposed to have been received in 2017 was$30.0 billion; 62.2 percent of that amount wasreceived, averaging $3,431 per custodial parentfor the year."

So taxpayers were on the hook for $11.5 billion. That is money that "dead beat dads" are stealing for us.

Stop the theft!
#81
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@prefix
A doubling of unwed births in 40 years would indicate that we are doing something wrong.
Well the alternative to paying is for children to go hungry and children ought not have to pay even if their parents refuse to. We must pick a goal. It is possible we cannot have financial justice on unwed mothers and deadbeat dads (even if we can figure out what justice would look like) and feed children. In that case which way are you saying we ought to go?

You misunderstand that I am not for cutting off aid. I am for educating and changing the behavior of a growing segment of society.
What exactly are you arguing for here? Better sex education and readily available women's reproductive health? 

Because I could get behind that.
That is money that "dead beat dads" are stealing for us.
Sorry but I thought thus was about what was best for hungry children not how to best punish people for daring to have sex.

Again choose which goal is most important because sometimes you cannot have both.
The law of unintended consequences
Let's say some lazy people do not become homeless and destitute and also do not have to work as an unintended side effect of making sure no children are hungry or homeless. As long as you do not become homeless or destitute as a result may I ask what would be so bad for you about that situation?

#82
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,942
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
...."8 guys in this country have more money than 4 billion people combined, but yeah, the mom buying grocieries with food stamps is the problem"..unknown

Unwed fathers

If the issue is sex, then address that issue with prevenative maintenance ex constraceptives and education etc

If issue is pregnancy than the above and pills to self-abort or doctors to do abortions

Some people need to get real i.e. drop abortion issues and keep their friggin noses out of pregnant womans bodily business, unless she gives her consent, other wise it is likened to virtual rape with their noses.
#83
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ebuc
...."8 guys in this country have more money than 4 billion people combined, but yeah, the mom buying grocieries with food stamps is the problem"..unknown

Unwed fathers

If the issue is sex, then address that issue with prevenative maintenance ex constraceptives and education etc

If issue is pregnancy than the above and pills to self-abort or doctors to do abortions

Some people need to get real i.e. drop abortion issues and keep their friggin noses out of pregnant womans bodily business, unless she gives her consent, other wise it is likened to virtual rape with their noses.
Very well stated. Stop being angry at people receiving benefits start being angry with those who do not pay their fair share into the fund.
Topic's author
#84
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 542
3
4
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
 those who do not pay their fair share into the fund.
you mean the deadbeat fathers " those who do not pay their fair share into the fund."

That's my point exactly.

We had a local case where a "deadbeat " was caught who had 8 children by 7 women, and had never paid child support.
Topic's author
#85
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 542
3
4
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
 children ought not have to pay even if their parents refuse to.
Your though process is about treating a symptom without addressing the disease.


#86
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@prefix
IF the parents cannot pay AND children still need to be cared fir THEN we must all shoulder the burden.
Fair is not a factor here. You cannot be being treated mote unfairly then the children in this scenario. Do kindly get over yourself.
#87
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
Your though process is about treating a symptom without addressing the disease.
Well we could talk about more comprehensive social reform but you did say not to make this about the poverty cycle.
Topic's author
#88
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 542
3
4
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
I would refer you the the HHS website.

Look at the Annual Performance Plan and Report.

Then look at the the Strategic Goals section. 

When you see the fatal flaw, get back with me.
#89
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@prefix
You asked a question. The question was if a child is not supported by their parents who ought to pay and if we agree that regardless of the sins of the father that someone or other ought to then the fairest solution is that each of us helps according to our means. 

Do you see a specific problem with that answer?
Topic's author
#90
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 542
3
4
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
the fairest solution is that each of us helps according to our means. 
NO The fairest solution is that the responsible parties pay. 

And your term "according to our means. " missed the rest of that statement. See if you can find it.

Do you see a specific problem with that answer?
YES, It has already been iterated. See if you can find it.