Shag, I happen to know a lot about this – it is something I have given my time and my skills to for a long time. No one says that overall illegitimacy is less now then it was 12 years ago, No one. That is why that was a red flag.
But she didn't state "
overall" illegitimacy. Here is what she said:
The 1996 Welfare Reform bill marked the first time any government entitlement had ever been rolled back. Despite liberal howling and foot-stomping, not subsidizing illegitimacy led, like night into day, to less illegitimacy.
Welfare recipients got jobs, as the hard-core unemployables were coaxed away from their TV sets and into the workforce. For the first time in decades, the ever-increasing illegitimacy rate stopped spiraling upward.
It is not so clear weather she was talking about overall illegitimacy or just illegitimacy rates for women on welfare.
A distinction should also be made between simply single mom's and illegitimacy. A single mom may be divorced or widowed but that doesn't mean that the kid she has was born out of wedlock. measuring single moms distorts the picture. An effort should be made to to only look at illegitimacy rates and not single moms.
Coulter also seemed to be talking about the "ever-increasing" illegitimacy rate which stopped due to the 1996 Welfare reform. Does
that check out in some fashion?
You probably need to get agreement on what the definition of "illegitimacy" is that she is using as well as how she is defining a "drop" in illegitimacy rates. Otherwise any argument is open to the claim of being a loaded statement because it assumes a definition that your opponent might not agree uppon.
She could have stated teenage pregnancy is decreasing, but, she didn’t. And I believe CDC is the only location where the birth mother’s marital status is kept – it is where I have gone the entire time I have been working with this subject, which is since the Clinton administration. It is also where people who do research into single motherhood, rates, race, economic breakdowns go. I bet she went there when researching her newest book, but maybe not, mostly she was concerned with single mothers and their children who are in prison and working strip joints – the CDC doesn’t have those statistics.
You
believe the CDC is the only location for that info? Not a very strong argument; I assume it to be true so it is true.
As you can from here (based on CDC data), the upward trend
did seem to level off in general from 1996 on and only gradually started to grow, in line with what Coulter said. In the black community, the community that by far was the hardest hit by the creation of the welfare state, after 1996, illegitimacy seemed to actually drop off (though it is slowly rising again). Something had to cause that and the point seems centered on 1996 which was the year the welfare reform was inacted.
So, since you are the arbitrator of all source, tell me where I can find other source on this, I haven’t a clue, and I have been working with this problem, as an advocate for placing women back into the workplace and off welfare rolls for over 15 years. No one other than CDC, as far as I know, keeps numbers like this.
You don't think the government agencies that issue foodstamps, distribute welfare, WIC, whatever would probably have info on the demographics for various years?
What about the
Census Bureau? The
Bureau of Economic Analysis?
Fedstats is a real good source. The
University of Michigan?
Those last four, especially fedstats are
real good sources for statistical information.
How insensate Shag. You ‘judge’ them without even knowing their circumstances… You know, I don’t know your circumstances. Why at 29 are you still in college? Some would say that you were lazy, and that you are just a perpetual student living off student loans. They would judge you as you are judging those women, on one known fact. I would never assume to know why you are in college at 29, and I would never judge you on that fact alone. You could have had to go to work right out of high school to help out at home. You could have decided somewhere down the line that you wanted something better for yourself. You may have never taken out a student loan. I can’t judge you, I don’t know you or your circumstances.
Well, my circumstances are irrelevant to this discussion, so how about we stay on topic.
You don't seem to realize that in criticizing me for "judging" these single moms,
you are judging me. Double standard?
Judging is something everyone does. It is simply human nature. The only question is weather or not the judgement is
accurate. A person's actions are probably the best indicator of their true character.
Having kids out of wedlock and ending up on welfare are very rarely unrelated. Those facts together suggest that the person in those circumstances are generally irresponsible and lazy, as compared to the rest of society. While there may be some unique circumstances, those are exceptions to the rule and not the rule. In general, most mothers with children born out of wedlock and on welfare tend to be irresponsible and lazy.
This is due to the lack of incentive to get off of welfare since the 1960's when the welfare state was created.
Michael Tanner in a testimony before the Senate Finance Committee in 1995 said it best:
In 1960 only 5.3 percent of births were out of wedlock. Today nearly 30 percent of births are illegitimate. Among blacks, the illegitimacy rate is nearly two-thirds. Among whites, it tops 22 percent. There is strong evidence that links the availability of welfare with the increase in out-of-wedlock births.
Having a child out of wedlock often means a lifetime in poverty. Approximately 30 percent of all welfare recipients start because they have an out-of-wedlock birth. The trend is even worse among teenage mothers. Half of all unwed teen mothers go on welfare within one year of the birth of their first child; 77 percent are on welfare within five years of the child's birth.
More than half of AFDC, Medicaid, and food stamp expenditures are attributable to families begun by a teen birth.
The non-economic consequences of the increase in out of wedlock births are equally stark. There is strong evidence that the absence of a father increases the probability that a child will use drugs and engage in criminal activity. Nearly 70 percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes.
Social scientists may dispute the degree of linkage between welfare and illegitimacy, but the vast majority agree that there is some connection. Even William Galston, President Clinton's Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs, says that the welfare system is responsible for at least 15 to 20 percent of the family disintegration in America. Others, such as Charles Murray, attribute as much as 50 percent of illegitimacy to welfare. I believe that any objective look at the available literature on this topic indicates a strong correlation between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births.
Of course women do not get pregnant just to get welfare benefits. It is also true that a wide array of other social factors has contributed to the growth in out-of-wedlock births. But, by removing the economic consequences of a out-of-wedlock birth, welfare has removed a major incentive to avoid such pregnancies. A teenager looking around at her friends and neighbors is liable to see several who have given birth out-of- wedlock. When she sees that they have suffered few visible consequences (the very real consequences of such behavior are often not immediately apparent), she is less inclined to modify her own behavior to prevent pregnancy.
Proof of this can be found in a study by Professor Ellen Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania, who surveyed black, never-pregnant females age 17 or younger. Only 40% of those surveyed said that they thought becoming pregnant in the next year "would make their situation worse." Likewise, a study by Professor Laurie Schwab Zabin for the Journal of Research on Adolescence found that: "in a sample of inner-city black teens presenting for pregnancy tests, we reported that more than 31 percent of those who elected to carry their pregnancy to term told us, before their pregnancy was diagnosed, that they believed a baby would present a problem..." In other words, 69 percent either did not believe having a baby out-of-wedlock would present a problem or were unsure.
Until teenage girls, particularly those living in relative poverty, can be made to see real consequences from pregnancy, it will be impossible to gain control over the problem of out-of- wedlock births. By disguising those consequences, welfare makes it easier for these girls to make the decisions that will lead to unwed motherhood.
Current welfare policies seem to be designed with an appallingly lack of concern for their impact on out-of-wedlock births. Indeed, Medicaid programs in 11 states actually provide infertility treatments to single women on welfare.
However, you feel quite righteous in judging unemployed single moms, without knowing anything of their circumstances, their lives, their problems, their past. Well… isn’t that special.
I know their actions that got them pregnant and onto welfare. That is enough to draw a general conclusion about their attitude and how strong of a work ethic they don't have.
Do you have any clue how 1996 changed welfare? The head of the household has to be employed within 2 years of the start of receiving funds. They have to get job training, and they are only allowed 60 months in total over their lifetime (in most states – I believe in 5 states there isn’t a limit, and in about 15 states the limits vary, but are less than 60 months).
Yep and look at the consequences of that action. You was a dramatic drop in the rate at which illegitimacy rates were rising and even a drop in the rate among the black community, which was hardest hit by the creation of the welfare state.
What do you think would happen if we phased out welfare all together? You think that 20 years from now the black population would still largely be living in (or near) poverty?
Yep, it provides you an excuse not to help. People like to sit in their little safe houses and not do anything. And if they didn't have that excuse, they would find another.
While the people who sold it didn't want to say so at the time, government welfare was
created to be an excuse for society.
There have been studies that show that when taxes drop charitable donations increase. Seems to suggest that what you say is wrong.
When people don't have the excuse of government welfare, they give more (because they have more to give) and can appriciate the results. They get more of a sense of pride in what they do. Government welfare destroys all that. That has been the trend historically.
If you care, you do it whether or not there is involvement with government funds.
Correction, if you care and
have the time and money you will help out in your community.
Welfare takes away peoples money and time (used to earn that money) to distribute the help as they see fit. Someone isn't embarassed to take a government handout and has no incentive to get off the welfare. If it is left to the local level, they are helped by the people they no, and are indebted to them. That is a huge motivator to get back on their feet that
cannot be there in a federal system and that a federal system effectively abolishes.
I worked hard in Clinton’s administration to change welfare – my ‘bleeding heart’ approach is practical and realistic. If you worked with these women you would have some idea of what is involved.
Now see, you are assuming that I don't know any single women on welfare. You don't know my circumstances; how dare you judge me.
Shag, I work with unemployed, underemployed women all the time, I give my time and my skills to help them. I know their problems and the reasons.
I don't care about the reasons they giver; those tend to be self-serving, illogical rationalizations to shift the blame off of themselves in some way. I care about the actions they take. That says more then anything that could ever come out of their mouth.
Many times it is because they have been lazy, or just want to ‘live on the dole’. But, you know, just stopping giving them money does very little. I have seen that. Welfare now runs out in 60 months in this state (most states). They quit being leeches on the state, and become leeches elsewhere – I know. And unless you have taught those women skills, and I mean basic skills like how to get up in the morning and get to work. How to punch a time clock, how to manage money, how you pay your rent, how you go home and stay with your kids instead of drinking, they stay unemployed. People on welfare now have to get this type of training. However, you know there are plenty that just find another way to get money once welfare runs out. Selling drugs, selling themselves, scams, begging. They do fall through the system, but now the government will only continue providing for them once they end up in jail.
The "system" should never have assumed this responsibility. It only creates a worse problem. The welfare state has created a subculture that leeches off society in some fashion. The
only way to change that is to cut off their incentive. It is effectively an addiction and withdrawl will be hard for them, but they made the circumstances for themselves.
Did you know though there are many who come to need help because they have left abusive situations. Go ahead and judge these women because they asked for it. Or, some guy knocked them up in high school and they never got to finish school,and that boy is long gone. Blame the girls for that too. Many times they have a sick child that has become a strain on both their finances and their ability to work a full time job. And guess what - the Dad has skipped town, is nowhere to be found, and hasn't paid child support in 2 years. But, he probably has a good reason. If you aren’t realistic and give these women help – and a chance to be better, they too will become hardcore unemployed.
Taxpayers should not be forced to take responsibility for someone's bad judgement.
You can cite as many incedental examples as you like, but they are only exceptions to the rule at best. Most of them can be tied back to bad judgement. That bad judgement is a result of the welfare state removing the negative consequences and re-enforcing those bad decisions.
Again, remember what Herbert Spencer said:
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
The only way to reverse those trends is to take away whatever shields those people from the negative consequences. Of course they are going to whine and fight it, but is has to be done.
I give my time for a private, smaller community based charity, and there is no way, without government assistance that these women can enter or re-enter the workforce and continue on with their lives in a meaningful and productive way.
You are putting the cart before the horse. You are citing the massive scale of people in need of help as justification for the welfare state. You don't seem to realize that it is the welfare state that
created that massive need. Remember, In 1960 (before the welfare state) only 5.3 percent of births were out of wedlock. In 1995, nearly 30 percent of births are illegitimate.
You remove welfare and many of these people will be forced to find a way to cope without that welfare.
