Families Matter
A 1990 study by the left-wing Progressive Policy Institute showed that, after controlling for single motherhood, the difference in black and white crime disappeared.
I recall a Fortune analysis that the correlation between business success and intact family was higher than family income or social standing. I am confident that the Obama example will have a very positive impact.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2009 at 0059 hrs
This study released last April by the Center for Marriage and Family Values is a great treatise on why fiscal conservatives must also be social conservatives. Family as a strong institution leads to less reliance on government….
Posted by Jo Egelhoff on January 20, 2009 at 0544 hrs
Yeah, this data is pretty significant. I read almsot the same thing in some economics book (I forget which one) last year. Actually the Freakonomics guys talked about it too in the chapter about abortion.
I’m suprised that you would link to a study that implicitly makes an argument for easier access to abortion.* Or at least to birth control. To me, this data suggests that we should take it a step further. We should be temporarily sterilizing recipients of welfare and certain criminals, two groups with drastically increased chances of being single mothers or deadbeat “fathers” respectively. It’s such an easy partial solution, I’m shocked that we haven’t started doing it yet. There’s nothing morally wrong with it because welfare recipients wouldn’t be “forced” to be sterilized, they would just have to trade that right for welfare benefits, which is not a right itself. And adding sterilization to a criminal’s extended supervision/parol isn’t any different than taking away the other rights that we take away from people on extended supervision/parol. Plus it could be done temporarily so these people could still have kids when they get their shit together if they wanted. This policy would have a drastic effect on poverty and crime rates if Coulter’s data is accurate, and I think it probably is.
*For the record, I am basically pro-life. I think abortion should be prohibited after about a month or two after conception and I’m moving closer and closer towards conception as I learn more about brain development.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2009 at 0927 hrs
jijawm - You and I agree completely on this on. Norplant, the new IUD they are touting - whatever. It gives these moms a 5-year timeline to get their act together while society is helping them get there. If they don’t want it, they don’t get the cash. I’d go even further and say that if they don’t want it, they lose their existing kids since they obviously can’t provide for them.
Too bad it will never fly - waaaaaayyyy too politically incorrect.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2009 at 1157 hrs
I’d go even further and say that if they don’t want it, they lose their existing kids since they obviously can’t provide for them.
Means testing to be able to have or keep kids?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2009 at 1235 hrs
Only if they are asking for permanent financial support from taxpayers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2009 at 1322 hrs
I’m envisioning a white, working class family whose breadwinner gets cancer or is laid off from a manufacturing job. When his wife is given this choice, how will you all feel then?
Posted by scott on January 20, 2009 at 1500 hrs
Scott, don’t be silly. Ann Coulter only likes the “wrathful God” side of Christianity, none of that soft, mushy, help thy neighbor, feed the poor nonsense from Jesus.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2009 at 1514 hrs
I think she’s a psychopath. I don’t mean that in a hyperbolic way, either.
Posted by scott on January 20, 2009 at 1517 hrs
“I’m envisioning a white, working class family whose breadwinner gets cancer or is laid off from a manufacturing job. When his wife is given this choice, how will you all feel then?”
I guess I don’t understand what you mean. Your hypothetical is incomplete. Are you asking how I would feel if this family needed public assistance due to cancer or a job loss but still wanted to have a child right when they are in big financial trouble? I think the prudent family would not think this to be a good time to have a child. If there was some other extenuating circumstance, (like maybe they want to have a kid together before the husband dies?), maybe there could be an appeal process or a “freezing” option. I’m guessing this situation would be exceedingly rare.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2009 at 1536 hrs
I also think Ann Coulter is a psychopath or a gifted actor/con-man.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2009 at 1537 hrs
Are you asking how I would feel if this family needed public assistance due to cancer or a job loss but still wanted to have a child right when they are in big financial trouble?
No. I’m asking about the indignity of having to report to a government clinic to be fitted with a norplant IUD so her family could eat.
Posted by scott on January 20, 2009 at 1543 hrs
Come on scott nothing statist about that.
Didn’t they try something like this in the PRC?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2009 at 1549 hrs
The theme here “single mothers”. Scott’s scenario of a sick Dad would be N/A. Nice way to try to deflect and distract tho’.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2009 at 1549 hrs
Okay, so dad dies in an accident or from an illness. Mom can’t support kids, needs to go to tech school for a couple of years or something. Making you feel comfortable that she needs to report for her IUD so everyone can eat?
Posted by scott on January 20, 2009 at 1551 hrs
Why would that be so bad Scott? It’s a medical procedure. What’s the big deal? And really, it doesn’t have to be an IUD. It could be a shot or a pill. Either way, it strikes me as coming with way less indignity than being on welfare in and of itself.
Would you support the program if it only came into affect after a person had been on welfare for 6 months or a year or something like that?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2009 at 1610 hrs
I’m not saying I’m against it in the first place. I’m only asking if it changes people’s feelings about it when you stop thinking about black ‘welfare queens.’
In principle it sounds great to me. You need assistance supporting children, we’ll help—but there must a good faith effort to have no more children until such time as you can support them unassisted. No problem for me at all.
I worry, though, that the application of it could get sticky. People get really funny about their right to reproduce and will likely be pretty reluctant to see the government coming in and dictating when and if they can do so.
Posted by scott on January 20, 2009 at 1616 hrs
“when you stop thinking about black ‘welfare queens.’ “
Wait, what? It’s not about race dude. Look at my first comment. It specifically identifies the characteristics I’m associating with crime and poverty—having parents that are criminals or in poverty. This is in the context of Owen’s post about single mothers, so you can throw that one in there too. The program would be to reduce the number of children born to single mothers, parents below the poverty line and parents that are criminals. I made this very clear. The fact that it made you picture “black welfare queens” says something about you, and actually sruprises me about you.
“You need assistance supporting children, we’ll help—but there must a good faith effort to have no more children until such time as you can support them unassisted.”
Very well stated. That’s what I’m going for.
“People get really funny about their right to reproduce”
For one thing, it’s not really a right. And for another, they’d be voluntarily giving it up in exchange for something that is most definately not a right.
“and will likely be pretty reluctant to see the government coming in and dictating when and if they can do so.”
The individual would be the one making the choice, not the government.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2009 at 1625 hrs
will likely be pretty reluctant to see the government coming in and dictating when and if they can do so
This shouldn’t be treated any different than any other intrusion into our private lives by government rules on personal behavior like where you can smoke, or wearing seatbelts or motorcycle helmets, or <insert nanny law here>. Also not comparable to the PRC in that it is temporary. It might do some good by allowing people to get on their feet before they have another kid.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2009 at 1628 hrs
The fact that it made you picture “black welfare queens” says something about you
You’ve got it backwards. I’m suspecting (no doubt falsely I’ll be told) that conservatives salivating at the idea of sterilizing welfare mothers are the ones envisioning those black, Cadillac-driving welfare queens. Not I.
Here’s a question. What about the potential health risks of the contraceptive methods?
Posted by scott on January 20, 2009 at 1635 hrs
It strikes me as ironic that the People’s Republic of China, home of forced abortions, is being held up here as some kind of exemplar for public policy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2009 at 1641 hrs
I think we can all agree that an intact family is good for children and that one should not have children unless capable financially and emotionally to raise them. I think we can also agree that government policies should encourage this. But, while driven by good intentions, it is clear that the welfare rules devised in the 60’s discouraged fathers from sticking around. It was a bad idea and led to multiple generations of dependency. I think that with Obama in charge, we have a chance to come to consensus on how we can not only provide an effective safety net, but also focus on the importance of personal responsibility.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2009 at 1643 hrs
“You’ve got it backwards. I’m suspecting (no doubt falsely I’ll be told) that conservatives salivating at the idea of sterilizing welfare mothers are the ones envisioning those black, Cadillac-driving welfare queens. Not I.”
I guess I don’t see a big difference in your assumptions.
“Here’s a question. What about the potential health risks of the contraceptive methods?”
There could be options for which method is used. Either way, those risks are minimal. They are way less than the risks associated with being really really poor or involved in [certain]criminal activity.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2009 at 1644 hrs
apc - how do you get “forced abortions” from “requiring birth control” to get government money to take care of your kids?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2009 at 1645 hrs
“It strikes me as ironic that the People’s Republic of China, home of forced abortions, is being held up here as some kind of exemplar for public policy.”
Nobody has mentioned China or forced abortions. If you can’t see the difference you are an idiot. We are talking about (1) Making certain public assistance contingent on the recipient not having any more children, and (2) Adding an element to parol/extended supervision for certain crimes that would forbid the criminal from having children just like he would be forbidden from voting or owning a gun during that time (both constitutional rights that we routinely take away from people convicted of crimes through due process of law0>
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2009 at 1647 hrs
“I think that with Obama in charge, we have a chance to come to consensus on how we can not only provide an effective safety net, but also focus on the importance of personal responsibility.”
Does he have a suggestion? Do you? I do.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2009 at 1649 hrs
jijawm, PRC, mentioned by several in this thread, stands for People’s Republic of China. It has been held up as an example of how public policy is done. No, nobody in this thread has mentioned forced abortions, but in the PRC (again, the People’s Republic of China), they have been a matter of public policy, thus the irony. But thanks for pointing out my idiocy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2009 at 1743 hrs
I’m not saying I’m against it in the first place. I’m only asking if it changes people’s feelings about it when you stop thinking about black ‘welfare queens.’
In principle it sounds great to me. You need assistance supporting children, we’ll help—but there must a good faith effort to have no more children until such time as you can support them unassisted. No problem for me at all.
I worry, though, that the application of it could get sticky. People get really funny about their right to reproduce and will likely be pretty reluctant to see the government coming in and dictating when and if they can do so.
I believe that we should be asking for accountability when it comes to our tax dollars being used.
The way I see it, there should be conditions and/or consequences for collecting welfare.
And if a condition is NO MORE CHILDREN while your on the public dole. So be it.
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on January 20, 2009 at 1755 hrs
Sorry, JJ, I missed your question. I wasn’t at all conflating the two. I’m sorry if I gave that impression. I just thought it was ironic that a group of generally pro-life people were holding up as an example a regime (PRC) that had forced abortions as a policy. Honestly, it was meant as an aside to the general discussion; I really didn’t think it would draw any comments.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2009 at 1755 hrs
And what of those whose religious beliefs do not allow for contraception?
You know that freedom of religion thing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2009 at 1916 hrs
This may quite possibly be the most disturbing comment thread ever. I mean, we’ve got conservatives who love abstinence-only sex ed now talking about shoving Norplant in women as a condition of participating in a program run by the federal government.
So teenagers who want to practice sex and avoid pregnancy have to ask their mommies and daddies for permission to get birth control, but once they get knocked up, we’re going to stick the needle in them ourselves as a condition of getting financial assistance.
That’s just f!@#ed up.
Oh, and by the way, you’ve got a huge gender discrimination lawsuit on your hands unless you’re willing to also force men to submit to chemical birth control as well. There’s not a court in America that would let you just do this to women and let men off scot free.
Some of you are way more messed up than I thought you were.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 20, 2009 at 1937 hrs
RS - OK, fair enough, we are all whacked. Got any ideas, or just tell us what won’t work?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2009 at 2033 hrs
Of course. I always have ideas.
First, we must recognize that the actual situation being discussed (single women having tons of kids) is a blip on the radar in the bigger picture. And while extremists love to focus on the outliers, it’s important to remember that these cases are, in fact, outliers.
The biggest single deterrent to unwanted pregnancies is making sure that women who are old enough to make consenting decisions about sex have readily available and affordable access to chemical birth control. I know that a small minority of people hate that idea for religious reasons. Others think it might encourage kids to have more sex.
Frankly, if it means more kids have sex and much more of it is responsible and doesn’t lead to unwanted pregnancies, I’m fine with that. This isn’t a “kids will be kids” argument. It’s a “teenagers in this day and age aren’t as naive as you think they are and can pretty much have sex if they want to because their parents leave them home alone all the time” argument.
I would rather subsidize birth control heavily and make it available without parental consent to any woman over the age of 14. Personally, I’d have no problem with just making it free. By the age of 14, a girl knows what sex is, how it works, and what the potential negative outcomes are. She will know that whether her parents want her to or not because sex is just such a prevalent part of our society now. That genie’s out of the bottle.
I would rather shield her (and taxpayers) from the most costly outcome of that decision. I would also argue that it would be way cheaper than providing financial assistance to all of these unwed mothers-to-be and their children.
In others instances, it’s simply a case of doing a better job of reaching into communities with a high number of unwanted pregnancies and letting women there know of services that are already available - whether it be through doctors that participate in Medicaid or through organizations like Planned Parenthood.
Make chemical forms of birth control widely available and free to all women who want it, whether they live in urban or rural communities. Combine that with a comprehensive public health campaign to inform women of how they can participate. Then let’s come back in five or ten years and see where we’re at.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 20, 2009 at 2313 hrs
apc, I know that PRC stands for. Nobody supporting this idea held up China as an exemplar for public policy. It was brough up by somebody mocking the idea and then distinguished by JJ. Your statement was false whether you use the name or the initialism.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2009 at 2317 hrs
RS,
I’m not a conservative and I think abstinence only sex ed is retarded. Quit making assumptions. Also, we’ve been talking about applying it to both sexes the entire time. Quit making assumptions. Seriously, what is wrong with you?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2009 at 2320 hrs
@JIJAWM: When you said that “We are talking about (1) Making certain public assistance contingent on the recipient not having any more children…” that seems to be addressing women and women alone very clearly. If I misunderstood your point it’s probably because your language wasn’t very clear.
You will never find a court anywhere that will rule to allow the government to mandate non-procreation as a condition of receiving government benefits. It’s just not going to happen. So we can sit here and have another ridiculous discussion that’s totally untethered to reality, or we could talk about things that we could actually do to reduce unwanted pregnancies that might have a chance in hell of surviving a court challenge.
Also, as best I know, there is no non-invasive, FDA-approved method to prevent men from procreating. So even if were to carry through on this absurdity, how would you suggest that we treat men and women equally? Are we giving the men vasectomies? For the record, that I’m asking you a follow-up question doesn’t mean that I’m giving your argument the least bit of credence. I’m just really curious as to what your approach with men would be.
The entirety of this discussion drifted so far from reality that I was reluctant to even bother wading in. Perhaps I should’ve just stayed on the sidelines and kept passing out tinfoil hats.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 20, 2009 at 2356 hrs
“@JIJAWM: When you said that “We are talking about (1) Making certain public assistance contingent on the recipient not having any more children…” that seems to be addressing women and women alone very clearly.”
“The recipient” is a gender neutral term. I think you’re prejudices are affecting your ability to read.
“You will never find a court anywhere that will rule to allow the government to mandate non-procreation as a condition of receiving government benefits.”
Based on what? Courts just can’t deem things icky. They have to use the constitution (state or federal) to strike down a law. What part of the constitution would this violate?
“Also, as best I know, there is no non-invasive, FDA-approved method to prevent men from procreating.”
First of all, you made up this bit about it having to be non-invasive. Second of all, getting rid of the FDA is a whole different argument. Third of all, yes there is: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3543478/
“So even if were to carry through on this absurdity, how would you suggest that we treat men and women equally?”
First, they would both have the same option of not accepting welfare benefits which they do not have a right to and are routinely distributed differently to people based on sex and rarely challenged on this ground. Second, they would both have a pill option, which would probably be the “least invasive.” Third, the constitution would only require that this law pass intermediate scrutiny, which means that it would have to involve an important governmental interest (reducing welfare spending, crime and poverty—check) and is furthered by substantially related means (the respective forms of birth control of the two sexes are substnatially related to this interest and the difference between the types of birth control for men and women is based on the differences between men and women—check. It’s not just arbitrary. Check out the Michael M. case for example.).
“Are we giving the men vasectomies?”
That could be an option. Or an IVCD. Or the male pill. Or not accepting wellfare benefits. Again, I want to make this clear. This program would not force anyone to do anything.
“For the record, that I’m asking you a follow-up question doesn’t mean that I’m giving your argument the least bit of credence.”
I’m well aware that you keep your fingers in your ears. Typical partisan.
“The entirety of this discussion drifted so far from reality that I was reluctant to even bother wading in.”
How so? What is unrealistic about it that I didn’t respond to satisfactorily? C’mon, take your fingers out.
“Perhaps I should’ve just stayed on the sidelines and kept passing out tinfoil hats.”
How is this idea deserving of a tinfoil hat comment? Doesn’t that usually apply when somebody is being paranoid? I presented an idea on how to reduce several problems, the idea is based on data and constructed to be constitutional. What is paranoid about it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 21, 2009 at 0937 hrs
“Recipient” is gender neutral but men cannot have children.
What part of the constitution would this violate? If women but not men, there could be an equal protection argument. There would be a argument surrounding the ninth amendment argument that the right to have children is an extension of the right to privacy that is already weil enshrined by the courts. That’s just a start. You seem to think that by suggesting the program is voluntary that you’ve got some magic bullet that cures all of the potential constitutional issues with it. That won’t fly in a court.
While I get the practical point of your argument, there’s still a strong whiff of eugenics to the whole thing as well - government policies that encourage/discourage certain segments of society from procreating is mighty Big Brotherish. Again, I understand your point that it’s technically voluntary, but the end result is still the same.
I’m not being partisan. I’m one of the least partisan folks who comments here. I just think this idea is completely unworkable, likely unconstitutional, and the kind of heavy-handed government coercion that makes people of all political stripes cringe. So why not find solutions that can actually be workable?
I saw the article you referred to before writing my response. Apparently something is soon on the way in the form of chemical birth control for men. As we know with science, soon can be two months or 10 years. If you want to hitch your wagon to science getting something done soon, be my guest.
And again, the tinfoil hat isn’t directed at you, but those around here would continue to blow minor outlying issues out or proportion - whether it’s welfare moms or voting fraud or any of the other things that are barely a blip on the radar but to those who think they can harness a particular image to political advantage. That, indeed, is paranoia.
The last word is yours, if you need it. Otherwise, I’m happy to simply disagree with your idea here and I will sleep soundly knowing that it’ll never come to pass in my country.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 21, 2009 at 1009 hrs
““Recipient” is gender neutral but men cannot have children.”
Yes they can. Owen has like three of them. To be clear, I would want the law to require ANY recipient of welfare, man or woman, to refrain from becoming a father or mother again while on welfare. Is that clear?
“There would be a argument surrounding the ninth amendment argument that the right to have children is an extension of the right to privacy that is already weil enshrined by the courts.”
Even though I’ll admit that it’s well enshrined in the courts, there is no right to privacy in the constitution, but that’s another debate. But this is the entire point:
“You seem to think that by suggesting the program is voluntary that you’ve got some magic bullet that cures all of the potential constitutional issues with it. That won’t fly in a court.”
It’s not a magic bullet, and just calling it that doesn’t defeat the truth. No person has a constitutional right to welfare. There is no reason a person can’t be asked to waive a right in order to obtain something they want. For example, people waive due process rights for plea deals all the time. Again, Courts can’t just deem something icky.
“While I get the practical point of your argument, there’s still a strong whiff of eugenics to the whole thing as well - government policies that encourage/discourage certain segments of society from procreating is mighty Big Brotherish. Again, I understand your point that it’s technically voluntary, but the end result is still the same.”
If I recall correctly, the end result would not be the same. The end result, if the data I’m basing this on is correct, would be a significant reduction in poverty and crime over the course of 20 years from implementation. I hate to tell you this, but 1984 is FICTION. So was Brave New World. You can’t just dismiss a policy idea because one time a writer thought something that slightly similar wouldn’t work within the fictitious universe he created in his head. The segments of society that are being discouraged would be the ones with the strongest correlation to crime and poverty based on data. It wouldn’t be about race or country of origin or religion or anything arbitrary.
“I’m not being partisan. I’m one of the least partisan folks who comments here. I just think this idea is completely unworkable, likely unconstitutional, and the kind of heavy-handed government coercion that makes people of all political stripes cringe.”
That’s why we need to start talking about it now. People need to be able to articulate thier problems with this sort of thing. I find that when I discuss it with most people, they all react like you did until they try and say what exactly their problems with it are. Once they really think about it, they usually come around.
“So why not find solutions that can actually be workable?”
The key is that the solution has to work. I’m all for increasing education about, and access to, birth control. I just think that even if every person knew everything there is to know about sex and birth control and had unlimited access to it, it would still not provide enough incentive for some people to use it all the time and wouldn’t have nearly the impact that my idea would.
Also, your comments in #33 and #38 about blips and outliers are completely unfounded and unsupported by data. The segment that you refer to as a blip is a rather substantial portion of the problem. Step one in any case would be to do a study as to how substantial.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 21, 2009 at 1047 hrs
Oh, one more comment, since we appear to be moving in the spirit of mutual understanding.
First, I took “having children” in the sense of “giving birth” rather than the sense of “having custody.” I think Owen has children in the latter sense but has not had them in the former (at least I think so…
). I guess one can have kids without having kids, if you know what I mean. But thanks for clarifying.Secondly, I’m not disagreeing with the outcome that you’re asserting (a reduction in poverty or crime). In fact, I’m pretty sure that if we implemented your idea, that’s probably what we would see.
What I’m questioning is whether government has such a overwhelming public interest in reducing poverty and crime that we can do it in a way that would require individuals to surrender rights that would likely be considered constitutional in order to participate in certain government programs.
I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to extrapolate all of this from Griswold. The Supreme Court invalidated Griswold on the grounds that a state ban on contraception violated “the right to marital privacy.” Whether or not to use contraception is a procreative decision that would almost certainly fall under this right to marital privacy. I also have no doubt that a court would read this right to apply to unmarried individuals as well as married individuals, per the 14th amendment.
I think it would be a huge stretch for any unit of government to assert that its interest in reducing poverty and/or crime should allow it to require citizens to surrender the right to procreate in order to receive certain benefits - even as I agree that not procreating in that situation would be the intelligent choice.
Yes, no person has a constitutional right to welfare. But the remaining question is whether, in this particular instance, the court would allow government to require a citizen to surrender this particular right in order to receive government assistance. My educated guess would be no.
So no, I guess I’m not coming around. Not because I can’t see the truth of the outcome in your scenario, but because I believe the method you’re proposing is unconstitutional.
I will also say that using science to support such policies is a slippery slope. Hypothetically, let’s say there are a few studies 20 years from now that prove that, when controlling for other variables, Hispanics are far more likely to remain in poverty or become violent criminals - far more likely than, say, kids with single parents. Should we then require any Hispanic to agree not to have kids in order to receive government benefits? Are we willing to consent to such requirements for behavioral but not genetic factors? What if the genetic factors were to be far greater?
My suggestion to make birth control free is an attempt to eliminate barriers to access that exist in some communities. I would hope that if you think we should mandate it in some instances, you would also agree that we should just do everything we can to encourage its use on the front side of the equation so that we can avoid some of these problems in the first place.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I must say that, even if I disagree with you, it’s nice to at least have this discussion without dragging bunch of religious dogma into the discussion.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 21, 2009 at 1809 hrs
Ha ha. I thought you were giving me the last word.
“What I’m questioning is whether government has such a overwhelming public interest in reducing poverty and crime that we can do it in a way that would require individuals to surrender rights that would likely be considered constitutional in order to participate in certain government programs.”
I think a better way to put is is whether the government has a public interest in reducing spending, including on welfare. If the government is GIVING people money, money that it’s citizens were forced to give to it, it most definately SHOULD tie a lot of strings to itt.
That’s just my opinion. Thanks for the debate. You came around a little bit, didn’t you? Just a little?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2009 at 1736 hrs
I never questioned the outcome of what you proposed. I also would agree that it’s a desirable outcome. As with everything, the devil is in the details…
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 22, 2009 at 1749 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134035
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 08:52 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 105
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 09:02 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).