IT TAKES A TWO PARENT FAMILY TO RAISE A CHILD

28 comments

Posted on 31st January 2013 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , , , , ,

It doesn’t take a village to raise a child. Hillary Clinton is a liberal power hungry control freak. Liberals like to spew gibberish like this because their welfare state policies have destroyed the family unit and they want the all powerful government to assume even more control over our lives to fix the problem they created. The disintegration of America began with LBJ’s War on Poverty entitlement state solutions to a problems we didn’t have. West Philly is a ghetto because black men have abdicated their role of being a father to the government. The spiral continues and the liberal solution is more food stamps, more welfare, more dependency, and less self responsibility. The state will fix all of our societies ills. Just give them some more money.

Family disintegration has hurt America

Monday, January 28,2013

COMMUNITY LEADERS across the U.S. find themselves struggling with rampant tardiness, high truancy rates, high dropout rates, low educational attainment, widespread drug addiction, crime, a degraded work force and more.

It’s as if society is disintegrating.

That’s because many poor American families have.

Some social scientists contend that War on Poverty programs intended to help the poor actually led to what they call “family disintegration” instead.

“The core feature of the U.S. welfare system, and its central problem, is that it subsidizes and thus promotes self-destructive behavior,” the Heritage Foundation said in a 1995 briefing paper. “Specifically, the welfare system promotes: non-work, illegitimacy and divorce.”

The current system “transformed marriage from a legal institution designed to protect and nurture children into an institution that financially penalizes nearly all low-income parents who enter into it,” the foundation said.

In 2011, almost 41 percent of children born in the United States were born to unmarried women.

This has consequences.
“Welfare insidiously creates its own clientele; by undermining work ethic and family structure, the welfare state generates a growing population in ‘need of aid.’”

The Heritage Foundation again: There is “material poverty,” which measures income, and “behavioral poverty,” which “refers to a breakdown in the values and conduct which lead to the formation of healthy families, stable personalities, and self-sufficiency.”

BEHAVIORAL POVERTY “incorporates a cluster of severe social pathologies including: eroded work ethic and dependency, lack of educational aspiration and achievement, inability or unwillingness to control one’s children, increased single parenthood and illegitimacy, criminal activity, and drug and alcohol abuse,” the foundation said.

That’s what U.S. law enforcement, criminal justice, public school and court systems wrestle with every day.

ALL THESE problems would be lessened if society were to address the cause of family disintegration – welfare that is more rewarding than work – rather than the consequences of family breakdown.

Society, it turns out, makes a very poor substitute for strong families.

— The Charleston (W.Va.) Daily Mail

28 Comments
  1. Eddie says:

    Grandparents are helpful too. Wish my kids had some. It’s the curse of long generations.

    The very idea that social programs can replace family is sheer idiocy of the most specious nature.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0

    31st January 2013 at 12:38 pm

  2. BUCKHED says:

    Added in the is the “War On Men”. This war was started by feminists who insisted that women don’t need men. Men are only needed to provide sperm and financial support…everything is can be done by a single mother .

    The Brooking Institute did a study ( I can’t believe I I agreed with them on this ) that said three factors can eliminate 95% of the poverty in America:

    1) Graduate from High School

    2) Have a full time job

    3 ) Get married before having a family

    Pretty easy stuff huh ?

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1

    31st January 2013 at 12:59 pm

  3. KaD says:

    Kids without a father in the home suffer for life: http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/facts_on_fatherless_kids.html

    More Statistics

    63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)
    90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes
    85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)
    80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.)
    71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)
    75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Source: Rainbows for all God`s Children.)
    70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
    85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

    31st January 2013 at 2:36 pm

  4. Muck About says:

    The reason the family is not-so-slowly being destroyed is that the family is being paid more to be dysfunctional (single Mom, multiple bastards by a few different men) than they could get paid working full time even with pre-paid kiddie keepers to sit on the offspring.

    The Feds and the States PAY (and hence encourage) dysfunctional family structures so that’s what we get more of..

    Here in Florida, between Federal, State and local government aid, each bastard kid is worth a cool $934.00 a month is direct payments plus SNAP, food banks run by the best intentioned ignorant people. ON top of that, free Medicaid, SSDI (if the female is smart enough to magically develop magicmegalloping heebiejeebies ) and there are about 30 independent agencies encouraging her to sign up now (the assholes even advertise in the newspaper, TV and put out those tacky signs at intersections to bring in customers.

    Now, with a Daddy around, the take is cut by 2/3 if he’s working at all. Benefits drop away like blow flies on hot meat and with four bastard kids and no hubby, the take is well on the high side of $40,000 plus medical care and whatever else they can scam.

    Who’d want to work with that kind of tax free income — oh, I forgot, in their wisdom, Florida has decided that in this day and age, a cell phone and internet access in a necessity so it’s a laptop plus cell phone plus internet access all paid for by taxpayers (or Federal funny money).

    How to start restyling the American family? Stop paying for dysfunctional ones. If necessary, pay a reverse bounty on little bastards. One bastard gets more money than two. Three gets less than two. Over three and you’re into the three hots and a cot and no payments whatsoever.

    Watch how fast things would change.

    Will it happen… Ha! Ha! Why should it when it is a goobermint goal to have ALL OF US dependent on said goobermint and so we’ll be easily controlled (right into the gulags, work camps and mass graves).

    MA

    Now. Immediately. Three hots and a cot for Mom and the bastards. Issue Mom monthly packets of condoms or if the kid count is three kids or more, a complimentary tube-tie job.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0

    31st January 2013 at 2:46 pm

  5. Muck About says:

    Word Press fucks donkeys while it scrambles perfectly ordinary text..

    MA

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

    31st January 2013 at 2:48 pm

  6. Cynical30 says:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/article/entitlement-america-head-household-making-minimum-wage-has-more-disposable-income-family-mak?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    31st January 2013 at 3:04 pm

  7. Pete says:

    The process started way before LBJ. The early proponents of government education aka ‘public schools’, made it clear that the idea was to undermine the influence of the family and create compliant citizens that would look to the State for direction and meaning.

    Elwood P. Cubberley, American educator, former Dean of the Stanford University School of Education (1868-1941):

    “Only a system of state-controlled schools can be free to teach whatever the welfare of the State may demand.”

    John Dewey, American educator, philosopher (1859-1952):

    “The children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone would be interdependent.”

    Friedrich Engels, co-author of Communist Manifesto (1820-1895):

    “The education of all children, from the moment that they can get along without a mother’s care, shall be in state institutions at state expense.” – “Principles of Communism” (1847) – draft of what became the Communist Manifesto

    “Parent choice” proceeds from the belief that the purpose of education is to provide individual students with an education. In fact, educating the individual is but a means to the true end of education, which is to create a viable social order to which individuals contribute and by which they are sustained. “Family choice” is, therefore, basically selfish and anti-social in that it focuses on the “wants” of a single family rather than the “needs” of society.
    -Association of California School Administrators
    Source: (ACSA, October 1979) Ref: Policy Issues for the 1990s, By Ray C. Rist, page 738

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

    31st January 2013 at 3:10 pm

  8. matt says:

    It takes a 2 parent family to raise children poperly, it takes a village (taxpayer) to take care of the kids from broken homes.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0

    31st January 2013 at 3:15 pm

  9. KaD says:

    Muck: your take on this makes good sense. Studies show that the cost of raising subsequent children is substantially less than the first because many of the things the kid needs are simply handed down. There should be NO increase in payments for subsequent children. This country is making welfare way too comfortable for those who make poor choices.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

    31st January 2013 at 4:51 pm

  10. underfire says:

    No doubt Muck is right.

    Dysfunctional families sponsored and propagated by the state, no supervision, no role models other than thugs, no jobs, no hope, largely inner city.

    Than, among what part of society is gun and other types of violence up and away most prevalent. How come no one is connecting the dots? As usual, truth and reality are swept off the table for political correctness.

    What an overwhelming blight social engineering and political correctness has become for our country.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

    31st January 2013 at 6:46 pm

  11. AWD says:

    Great post, Muckster.

    They even have a fucking T.V. show called “baby daddy”

    250px-Baby_Daddy.jpg

    This country is fucked up beyond comprehension

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

    31st January 2013 at 6:53 pm

  12. fool on the hill says:

    Most Army families had four kids in the sixties.

    Allotments stopped increasing at four.

    It worked then.

    Welfare should stop at ONE so we might hope to have Zero Parasite Growth.

    Also no Welfare without disclosure of the sire which can be verified by DNA tests today.

    If the momma doesn’t know then screen all the suspects and give her a free ligation.

    And, in the interest of sexual equality vasectomies for the suspects.

    Or make them choir boys.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

    31st January 2013 at 8:27 pm

  13. Pirate Jo says:

    What if we told each 18-year-old, on the day they became an adult, ‘Okay, as long as you don’t reproduce, the taxpayers will support you. You can spend your entire life on the dole, never work, and we’ll cover your food and housing. As long as you never have any kids.’

    The lazy people who just want a free ride would totally take that, and we’d have to support them, but we already are anyway, and at least this way eventually they would die and never add more people like themselves to the population. The people who really and truly want kids would have to apply themselves and find a way to pay for it, which is fine because they would have kids who learned a work ethic.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

    31st January 2013 at 10:46 am

  14. Christopher Harrison says:

    Two parent families are a recent creation in human societies. The notion that only a two parent family can raise decent children is historical revisionism at its worst, because for the vast majority of human existence on this planet (the entire time up to the Neolithic Revolution), most children were raised communally by the entire village/tribe/clan. And due to the complete absence of notions of “marriage” or even monogamy, most children did not know who their biological fathers were. None of this mattered back then, because ALL of the adult men in the village served as mentors and role-models to the children in their group.

    Additionally, I have come across PLENTY of affluent two-parent households that did not raise decent children — often because the parents were more concerned with career advancement, accumulating status symbols, their own lives — than they were with the kids.

    The fact of the matter is that children do best when they are raised in EXTENDED FAMILIES where they get to interact with a wider range of age levels and life experiences. I fucking hate every time people bash the notion of “it takes a village” because of the false equivalency of anything communitarian with “government”. I hate it that Hillary Clinton helped sow that confusion in the first place, and I hate it when “libertarians” continue to spread it. The fact is that children are raised best when they ARE raised by a village — by an extended family and neighbors joined together by networks of mutually-shared obligations. I know that I benefited tremendously from growing up about 200 yards away from my maternal grandparents, and I think that it had at least as much to do with my upbringing as did the fact that I had a mother and father who were both very present in my life. I very much lament that my own kids are not able to have that kind of experience of their own. In the end, I think it’s much more about having exposure to a number of different mentors growing up and having a relatively STABLE home, than it is about having the mother and father present.

    The idea of the nuclear two-parent household as the pinnacle of family life is largely one that came from Victorian upper-middle class sensibilities, and it deserves to be cast into the rubbish bin with the other hare-brained ideas from that period.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3

    31st January 2013 at 10:48 am

  15. Administrator says:

    Christopher

    Libertarians are describing West Philly and the other urban kill zones created by Democratic welfare policies that pay lowlife animals to father 10 kids with 10 different whores and then suck off the teat of state for all eternity.

    It’s complete and utter bullshit that the state can raise kids better than two parents.

    Facts are inconvenient.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

    31st January 2013 at 10:56 am

  16. Eddie says:

    I agree that a two parent family is probably inferior to growing up in a tribal culture where every mom is a mom to you and every dad is a dad to you. (Sounds like you’ve read Sex at Dawn, which is a very intriguing book, imho).

    But a single parent family is much less likely to raise successful funcional adults than is a two parent family. The data is pretty clear on that.

    There are always exceptions and outliers. Cream always rises. Nature often trumps nurture.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    31st January 2013 at 11:00 am

  17. Eddie says:

    And poor typing is not a sign of low intelligence

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    31st January 2013 at 11:02 am

  18. Christopher Harrison says:

    Admin,

    Please point out to me where I ever said the state could raise children better than families. I’ll even offer to help you out — I NEVER SAID IT. You are the one creating a false dichotomy where anything communitarian is incorrectly identified as belonging to the state — where in reality the state has often killed genuine communitarianism.

    You say that facts are inconvenient. Apparently reading comprehension is too.

    I did say this:
    “The fact is that children are raised best when they ARE raised by a village — by an extended family and neighbors joined together by networks of mutually-shared obligations.”

    Please note that the state is NOWHERE to be found in this arrangement. In fact, if anything the state and market cooperated to DESTROY this kind of arrangement.

    You’re ultimately creating a strawman to support your veneration of the two-parent household, a phenomenon that has really only existed for a little more than 100 years. As a thought experiment, I’d ask you to consider the two following scenarios and tell me which one is more likely to result in a child growing into a well-adjusted, productive adult:

    1. Child A is in a two-parent household. Both his mother and father have demanding, fast-paced careers. They both regularly work 12 hour days and commute 2 hours round-trip to the city. When weekends come around the parents regularly go out for nights on the town. The child spends most of his time outside of school with a live-in nanny. The parents lavish gifts on him to compensate for the lack of time they spend with him. He has minimal responsibility around home and is enrolled in several “after-school activities” to take up his free time.

    2. Child B lives with his unmarried mother who had him as a teenager and decided to raise him. His grandparents live 2 houses down the road, and there are several uncles and aunts within a reasonable walk or short drive as well. They don’t have much in the way of material wealth and mom has to work 2 jobs to make ends meet, but the child spends a lot of time with his grandparents and those aunts, uncles and cousins when she’s at work. When mom is at home, much of the time is spent with the extended family — both in communal meals and work projects that everybody participates in.

    I stand by my original statement 100%. The STABILITY of a home (which is often buttressed by the redundancy/resilience of an extended family) is more important than the number of parents at home. I also agree that statist welfare policies (that largely displaced the internal agency of the black community through the church before the Great Society) are a corrosive influence. I just don’t think that the two-parent, nuclear household represents the panacea that you seem to.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

    31st January 2013 at 11:13 am

  19. Christopher Harrison says:

    Eddie,

    I didn’t read Sex at Dawn — but I did listen to an extended interview with the author on the Extraenvironmentalist podcast. Fascinating stuff.

    I agree with you on the CORRELATION between single parent vs. two-parent households and functional adults. My point is that correlation is not strict causation. There are usually a lot of other elements at play in those dynamics that either push the situation in the direction of the single-parent family, and many of those are at LEAST as influential as the number of parents at home. I’d place the amount of time that a parent is genuinely present with the child (not only physically there but also not watching TV or playing with their smart phone) as one of the prime factors on how the kids turn out.

    What really chafed me in the original article is the equation of “village” with “state”. I hate it when liberals make that false equivalence, and I hate it when libertarians do as well — even if their motivations are often opposite. It reminds me of the way that the traditional yeoman ideal that prevailed throughout the pre Civil War South was tossed out in the postbellum period because of its association with the institution of slavery — when it actually was one of the last instances of the “unhurried life” in American History.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

    31st January 2013 at 11:18 am

  20. Leobeer says:

    Pirate Jo, 2 things wrong with your suggestion.

    1) Proving whether someone is a father or not is difficult. Too many will cheat.
    2) You would be rewarding people for being gay.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    31st January 2013 at 11:25 am

  21. Eddie says:

    I take your point CH.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    31st January 2013 at 11:27 am

  22. Administrator says:

    Hillary Clinton meant STATE.

    Obama means STATE

    Democrats mean STATE

    VILLAGE = STATE for liberal control freaks who know what’s best for Americans

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

    31st January 2013 at 11:33 am

  23. Christopher Harrison says:

    Admin,

    I know that’s what THEY mean. Why are you compelled to legitimize that same false meme by repeating it?

    In almost all areas of human activity — governance, child rearing, economy, stewardship of resources — the village is the most stable social unit, bar none. Civilizations rise out of village life, and when they fall the people left simply return to village life. I defend the notion of the village because I think that when we abandoned it we created many of the predicaments we find ourselves in now.

    I also note that you did not respond to any of my counterpoints about the history, primacy and importance of the two-parent household.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

    31st January 2013 at 11:42 am

  24. Administrator says:

    Christopher

    I have a job and can’t write a treatise responding to your 5 paragraphs. So Solly.

    You win.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    31st January 2013 at 11:51 am

  25. underfire says:

    Christopher Harrison says: … “Civilizations rise out of village life, and when they fall the people left simply return to village life.”

    I can agree with that, as in the possibility of the US devolving into a tribal, warlord system similar to those in Afghanistan, Rhodesia, Inner city USA. But I doubt that is what Hillary was envisioning. And herein lies the fly in the liberal ointment, a detachment from reality.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    31st January 2013 at 12:23 pm

  26. Christopher Harrison says:

    Underfire, much of the violent nature of the examples you cite is due to a lot of meddling from outside powers. Afghanistan was much more stable prior to the Soviet intervention (and US counter-intervention) than it is today. Rhodesia is a mess since colonization. The Inner City USA isn’t village life, so I’m not sure why you included it. I’m not trying to paint an overly idyllic picture of village life, but the notion that it can only be a system founded on violence and run by warlords is not at all accurate, even as I readily acknowledge that decentralization of violence can certainly have some less-than-desirable effects.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

    31st January 2013 at 1:01 pm

  27. elby says:

    You can’t have a middle class without middle class morality.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

    31st January 2013 at 1:08 pm

  28. Erasmus says:

    58715606

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    31st January 2013 at 2:45 am

Leave a comment

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.