The explosion of illigitimacy should be no surprise. When you pay farmers to grow tobacco, we produce more cigarettes. When you pay people to reproduce, they respond enthusistically. Our goverment has established a large industry that produces children in fatherless homes. In fact, if an unmarried mother seeking aid tells the social worker the name of the childs father, she will get little assistance. If she says she has no idea who the father is, she will get a housing subsidy, Aid to Familys with Dependent Children, food stamps, welfare, WIC and free healthcare.

I'm not suggesting that support from fatherless children be withdrawn, just defining the root of the problem.

I don't come here to read Mul's rantings or to impress folks with my obvious brilliance or to be called a baby-killing, America-hating elitist. I come here for these kinds of discussion. I think we're not that far off in our hopes for society. Rodeo points out that overgeneralizations and criticisms are easy to spew, and that when it comes time to roll up our sleeves and actually design a program that moves us toward our shared vision, things don't look as simple as they did before. Criticisms are easi to assemble. Defenses are more difficult and implementations are murder.

My solution? Mandatory DNA paternity testing for all single mothers seeking public aid. All fathers will have child support deducted from wages automatically. If the fathers are unemployed, they will be given work by the county. (Yes, we need a new WPA.)

Mothers who are unable or unwilling to identify the fathers of their children will work for the county or be trained to provide daycare for other needy children while their mothers are at work.

No child should go without food, shelter and education. No aid should be provided to able bodied parents without compensatory work.

I wasn't suggesting that Moses wanted to cut off support for the woman (girl) in my example .... I'm interested in exploring where to draw the line between "unable" and "unwilling."

I agree that if someone is unwilling to do anything to help themselves, they are entitled to nothing from society. Let them do it themselves, since they are "able" to. But 2 issues arise:

1. How to define unwilling, and
2. what to do about the kids of the "unwilling"

Maybe that's a more accurate test of lib vs. conservative beliefs -- how one draws these lines. Maybe conservatives more readily label someone "unwilling," whereas libs believe more are "unable."

On Moses' note.
My brother in law recently had a family of three from the hurricane disaster area come live with them in Virginia. His local Catholic church was providng funds for them and Chris provided a room in his house. The man got a job as a cook at a local restaurant and I am not sure what the woman did, beyond care for her child. This lasted for about a month. In the end the man quit the job because he preferred spending time playing video games. There was friction between them and Chris's family and they moved out. It turns out the man is not the husband, she is not married. When asked why she isn't marrried, she replied that the benefits from the state are better that way. They are now in a hotel paid for by Red Cross.

We do need a better system. What that is, I don't know. Now we reward behavior that is detrimental to them and our society.

Sup,
I do not presume everything is determined. I believe in free will. It is just that someone's ability to exercise options under free will may be self limiting by innate traits. Environment may strengthen or weaken those traits.

And yes, you phrased my main concern about how we treat them quite well, thank you.

You need not despair! Your local WPA has a job for you! You'll get 6 weeks off after you deliver your baby like every other working mother, then it's back to work!

I think the WPA idea has some merit to it. There may be negative feedback from those whose jobs will be threatened. But I think society would be better off with a system that did not reward behavior that undermines the innate trait of humans to better themselves.

Moses, we posted at the same time, my immediate reaction to your plan is "bring money."

Very expensive program you just designed. The county will have to first identify, then find, then pay the father a lot of $$$ to support himself and the mother and the kids. The county will likely hire him over someone more qualified. Is that fair? Father a child, abandon the child, get a government job?

And how do I get that guy to actually work? What if he does not show up? What if he shows up but is useless? Jail?

If we can't find the father, we hire the mother. More $$$. Then we pay for her kids to get care while she works. Then we of course hire her over other applicants, or fire someone to make room for her ...

Sorry, I don't know any of these answers, but I raise the questions to show how complex these things are. There's a hundred more issues I have not raised.

Ths biggest problem with political thought in America today, in my view, is that people actually believe they can solve everything with a 3 minute phone call to a radio talk show. Just rant about how easy it would be if the politicians were not so stupid, corrupt, etc. etc.

Here is the difference between a conservative and "liberal". I put liberal in quotes as decades ago we aquired a skewed perceptive of the word. Anyway, you fel it is societies responsibility, I on teh other hand, feel it is the individuals responsibility. Not neccisarily though in need of help, but tose individuals capable of rendering it around them.

This one almost strike home in my case. My Dad never wento school for what he is doing now, just started and learned. My Grandad was one of the keys to Satelite TV, my Uncle is key to the GPS program. Trave it far enough, and you find German nobility pre 30 years war. (Gave it up rather then be responsible for more bloodshead betwen the protestants afterwards). I could however also find families that the oppsiite is true, that there was distinct change. Its not genetics, two clones can come out very differently. My older brother and I are very different. Genetics can help determine physical atributes, but they do not solely make up a person.

I cannot realy explain this, other then that I've come to notice that each set of parents reguardless of what the liberal or conservative would consider "success", set foth a "right/wrong" that was distinctive to their children, and raised them to do right regaurdless of the consequences. Some strayed away, others followed that advice.

Each one of us has a capiblity to exceed far what we are worth or ever deserve, most chose to refuse it. And spit on the opportunity given. I'm not talking financial here. Life in general. You can be rich and almost driven mad, and poor and almos driven mad, its your choice how you chose to deal with what has been given to you.

I'm getting to the age where I'm starting to look for a girl. I'm different, most look for likes/dislikes. I've come to realise that what is more important, is actions and reactions. How does on react to not being able to do something they wanted? Do they go on hapily, or do they ake time out to rant/pout? To me, the situations are not as important, as the reactions to them.

Oh, btw steve, I ahve worked in a "soup kitchen" handing out food in a very poor area of town before.

Everywhere "workfare" programs have been used, welfare enrollment drops dramatically. Money saved.

DNA testing is about $50. Money recaptured in first week of mandatory child support.

Daycare costs? Perhaps, but the labor is free, provided by other women requesting public assistance.

Father refuses to work? Labor camp. Very few would choose that option.

I'm with you in concept, but I think you will find in reality that its a lot more complex than you have laid out, I think so much so that it's unworkable. "Workfare," which I am in favor of, uses private employers for the most part. And workfare is not a perfect system by any stretch of the imagination.

If anyone wants to know what it is like at the very bottom of our society, at least in New York City, pick up a book called "Random Family." You cannot read that book, a chronicle of life in the South Bronx over a period of years, and believe that there are easy solutions to America's welfare/class problems.

So you propose to "stay the course" because solutions are too complex? I would suggest that solutions are in reality quite simple. Poverty is more widespread and more oppressive now than before president Johnson embarked on our 7 trillion dollar "Great Society" failure.

Goverment has made fathers obsolete. Having the father in the home places a poor family in serious financial jeopardy. Yeah, that makes sense.

The fundamental principles of public assistance should be extremely simple; 1) Paternity is an absolute and irrevocable financial commitment. 2) Public assistance should not be given to able citizens without compensatory labor. Pretty damn simple.

Scene from the year 2010, after the "Moses Workfare" plan takes effect.

The setting: a McDonalds in any city or town in America:

Man 1 (to a McDonald’s worker): Dude, why you working here?

Man 2: Couldn't find nothing better. It's a job, you know?

Man 1: Why don't you just leave your wife and kids, stop paying support?

Man 2: I'm not doin' that! They’re my family!

Man 1: You don't understand! If you leave her and stop paying support, the county will give you a job! A good job!

Man 2: Huh?

Man 1: Yea dude, its the new Moses welfare plan. If you don't support your kids, they give you a county job, and enough pay to not only support yourself but your wife and kids too! All you have to do is STOP SUPPORTING THEM for a while. They'll come get you and give you a job! A good one too! You don’t even have to work that hard.

Man 2; You’re crazy!

Man 1: I tried to get on the county payroll for years, no luck until I walked out on my girl and my kids! Look at me now!

Man 2: I quit!

:) :) :) :) :)

Rodeo, respectfully, if you really don't get it, it's because you don't want to. Have you never heard of the WPA?

Your "McDonalds" exchange is absurd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration

"The WPA built 650,000 miles of roads, 78,000 bridges, 125,000 buildings, and seven hundred miles of airport runways... It presented 225,000 concerts to audiences totalling 150 million, and produced almost 475,000 works of art. Even today, almost sixty years after it ceased to exist, there is no part of America that does not bear some mark of the WPA."

My humorous attempt to point out that your plan has a massive incentive, in the form of a government job (with benefits!), for anyone that refuses to support their kids. If you don't like the current economic incentive to have fatherless homes (I agree by the way), think about the incentives you are creating with your government employment plan.

The WPA was voluntary. It was for people that WANTED jobs, not people content with government handouts. To solve our welfare problem we need to address the people that would rather sit home all day and collect a government check, not the people that want jobs.

It was voluntary if you wanted to eat.

A WPA job would never compete with a private sector job. Not even McDonalds. It would offer only very basic assistance.

At this point we should be discussing if public assistance should be provided without obligation from the recipient. THAT is the question.

That would require a massive outlay of resources and money, because already you can't address in the general or through programs, each individual resolved to sit and collect a govt check. Addressing these individuals (to get them off welfare) has to be more of a one-on-one counseling session. Even then, there's no certainty that would work. Entire generations have been based on collecting welfare. It's like a drug addiction.

So how else might welfare get resolved? Easy. Dismantle it. Take the drug from the addict.

By all accounts, WPA is a great program as it empowers the individual to put themselves back on track. The only problem I see with it is that it is only a voluntary program. It should be mandatory. But I'm sure that will be argued as "unconstitutional."

Ok, I feel bad we took this discussion pretty far afield. That's the thing with policy, it's not simple. You can have simple concepts guiding you – assistance should come with obligations is a good guiding principle – but the actual design is work. Hard work. Not to mention the implementation of the policy once you decide what it is.

Making a government work is more than guiding principles. I bet 90% of us would agree on those. Putting to principles to work is where rubber meets the road :)

Bless you! Someone "gets it!"

Ok, maybe I'm dense. What's the difference between the WPA and, say, Microsoft? Both are sources of jobs for people that want jobs. In both cases, in order to become employed someone needs the incentive to get their kids taken care of and go apply for a job.

Are you suggesting that if we create a WPA all those people on welfare will suddenly be clamoring for a WPA job? How is a massive, new, voluntary public employment program going to solve the welfare issue?