Total posts: 542
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The answer to all is in the various links that I have sent to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
So what you are saying is that the "poors" shouldn't have children
Those that are poor in responsibility should not have children.
When they do they should be made to become responsible.
Being made to be responsible is called by many names....civilization, society, kindness, good parenting, etc
Remaining irresponsible is called "the state of affairs that no one should be allowed to be in".
And when I said "why should the remaining 6% catch a break?" I was referring to the deadbeats and not to the children.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Your arguments demonstrate a lack of focus.
"Corporate welfare" and "make the rich pay their fair share" have nothing to do with this discussion.
I mean why not bring up "climate change" and "student debt forgiveness" and "the war in Ukraine" and "what pronouns are required".
More to the point are "welfare for deadbeats" and "make the deadbeats pay their fair share"
You need to understand that if 14 out of 15 children are cared for in a more or less traditional manner, why should the remaining 6% catch a break?
Too many sparkle ponies?
Sometimes despite being reproductively responsible you still get/make someone pregnant.
So then you need to become financially responsible. 94% do......
Now are we done, or is there some endangered species that you somehow want to throw into the mix?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
OKAy
So we are NOT done yet.......
I thought you said we could not find the father? So which is it? Can we find him or not?
The question is not can we find him but rather do we find him. In too many cases we do not. The system is broken.
Some nonzero number of people get pregnant through no fault of their own.
Biology disagrees.
you would like to see the degree to which the community steps up to be reduced if not eliminated entirely.
Yes that is and should be the goal. Period.
there may be a more practical solution that could benefit the average tax payer greatly.
Yes that is and should be the goal. Period.
What specifically am I calling for that is extra?
On July 27 you wrote ..."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. "
That is certainly "something extra".
Don't YOU read YOUR OWN posts?
Now are we done.....or are there more shallow thoughts yet to come?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
the father cannot be the answer to this question.
NO The father is the question to this answer.
Some nonzero number of children through no fault of their's are without family support
Talking about the children's fault is misleading your thinking. It is the biological mom and dad who are at fault.
the alternative to stepping up is starving children.
Talking about the community stepping up is misleading your thinking
I already showed that the community is stepping up ( supporting the 203,000 children per year where the dad is stealing from the community).
that the question is how to support children.
The children are being supported currently, as I stated earlier. You seem to misunderstand the question at hand, which has already been answered.
If programs already exist it seems like I'm not calling for anything extra
Yes you are calling for something extra. Don't you read your own posts?
As a side note read "'Deadbeat' Dad Owes $560,000 in Child Support, Arrested After 20 Years"
Are we done done?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Unless you know something I don't the fairest way to handle this is for everyone to control a common fund according to their means.
Apparently what I know that you don't is the definition of the "fairest way".
Fairest way is
those that do the deed
fill the need
Those the don't
pay not and won't.
for everyone to control a common fund according to their means.
Get real. "Everyone" will not control the fund. A bureaucrat will. That's how government works, and they work without efficiency.
Before we set up a new agency, let's look at the problem.
In 2021 there were 3.7 million births in the USA. Most of these children (60%) are cared for by the married couple.
1.47 million were to "unwed mothers". Most of these children (63%)are cared for by a non traditional extended family.
550,000 need support and most of these (67%) get non governmental child support from families of bio dads.
Leaving about 203,000 cases where the "deadbeat father" is stealing from us. Theft and non support are crimes.
Existing programs with existing funding already handles these cases.
My question, and the reason for this Forum Post, was about these deadbeats.
A review of your comments reveals that you contributed little in addressing these issues, other than calling for more government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok fine it is what it is bbutbut if the discussion isn't around "what do we do about kids who aren't being supported" then maybe be a little clearer.
My VERY FIRST POST HERE was "06.20.2023 08:20PM
If an unwed mother seeks assistance from the county ( or other governmental agency ) and a father cannot be found, who pays?"
I was seeking information about how the process works.
How hard does the government look for the bio father? Et Cetera.
Little information has come though, mainly just a bunch of off topic whining.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Just because it "feels like the old bait and switch" to you that does not make it real.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Put that in quotes so it will not be considered that you are claiming credit for the work of others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Some children do not receive financial support.Do you agree or disagree woth this comment?
Yes I agree. But the topic is not "Some children do not receive financial support." but rather from whom?
I feel like we are having a different conversation to one another.
As do I.
Some nonzero number of children do not receive financial support and the parents cannot be easily identified l, considered financially responsible or both.Do you agree or disagree with this comment?
I cannot or disagree with an incoherent statement.
Perhaps you wish to rephrase?
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Every post from you is a waste of time
Thus proving my original position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Thus proving my point.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Thus proving my point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@Average_Person
What would be the goal of this? If ppl are acting up, wouldn't it obvious ?
If it were obvious, the independent psychological group would not be needed.
It is obviously not obvious to the persons in need of the independent psychological group.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
The idea that this forum could afford to pay independent psychological experts to perform psychological reviews here is utterly laughable
Would that laugh be such that would require a psychological review?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Hey, thats not a nice thing to say. You are mean.
Descriptive reality is not nice by its very nature.
And I am not mean....I am observational.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
This may be the dumbest idea I have ever heard of. Lol
And why do you feel that way?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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
: 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)"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
second request
provide data to support your belief.
Created:
Maybe the rationality of the comments on DebateArt would improve if members were held to a higher psychological quotient ( PQ ) .
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Look
the question at hand is "WHO PAYS?"
Your comments are both tangential and off topic.
We already treat rape victims differently anyway, so what is the value of your last comment?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
No woman should be held responsible for getting pregnant if they were raped.
read my lips......
I already made the exception that you are pointing out
here it is
look it up
The bio father and bio mother are equally responsible and NO ONE ELSE! ( assuming here the absence of some abnormal circumstance (( e. g. rape )).
and again
( assuming here the absence of some abnormal circumstance (( e. g. rape )).
and again
You have contributed NO INFORMATION in regard to the issue at hand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm not sure we can really call rape abnormal
Then get sure!!!
The rest of your statement seems off topic.
I am seeking information about certain procedures regarding unwed mothers. You have contributed NO INFORMATION in regard to the issue at hand. Instead you have embarked on series of tangential topics of little value.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Dylan said it best "NO NO NO it ain't me babe"
Do you not know basic biology?
When a young lady becomes pregnant whom is most "at fault"?
The bio father and bio mother are equally responsible and NO ONE ELSE! ( assuming here the absence of some abnormal circumstance (( e. g. rape )).
The "at fault" idea is too loaded for you to use here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well if there is even a difference why not tell us both along with your reasoning for why they are the responsible party?
Are you serious?
Have you tried to look this up?
Obviously not, so here goes....
involving important duties, independent decision-making, or control over others.
having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one's job or role."
definition of "responsible" per Oxford Languages.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What do you mean by responsible?
About which are you asking?
Physically responsible
or
Financially responsible
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
perhaps we could start with your expectations of a fair amd equitable solution.
The RESPONSIBLE parties should be held RESPONSIBLE.
There is a bio father and bio mother. These two are primarily RESPONSIBLE both FACTUALLY and FINANCIALLY.
There are few situations where the bios cannot pay, but many where they do not.
If they cannot pay, then should be excluded from the pool of those who can.
Children should not be a source of income.
The original past was "If an unwed mother seeks assistance from the county ( or other governmental agency ) and a father cannot be found, who pays?"
The answer is "We all do" under current law. That is inequitable and unacceptable.
This monetizing of the system has made that system self perpetuating and expansive and expensive.
We need a better way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
My comment is both clear and can stand alone.
Reams follow:
The US Department of State
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
The Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Supreme Court
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act
National Immigration Law Center
Texas Attorney General
Federation for American Immigration Reform
The National Geographic Society
McCarran-Walter Act
Et Cetera
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Is it unclear to you?
Cite one point that you feel needs clarified.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I can speak from a situation that I am close to, but not involved.
Woman A, has child by Man #1. #1 pays support, then takes complete custody. Cost to the public was minimal as at least one involved party paid the bill.
Woman A has child by #2. #2 pays support, then takes complete custody. . Cost to the public was minimal as at least one involved party paid the bill.
Woman A has child by #3. #3 is destitute, cannot pay, cannot take custody. Cost to the public will probably be a recurring cost month after month and year after year, paid by people who had no part in the situation.
It is rumored that Woman A is pregnant yet again.
And this can be multiplied 24,000,000 times.
What is going on?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
If they really wanted to prevent people from drowning they would build a bridge across the river. But there priority is keeping migrants away from the border, not preventing drowning of children or any other migrants.
And your priority is to allow the status quo. Let them drown. Let them die in the semi trailer. Let them die walking across the desert.
My solution is to ENFORCE already existing laws.
I could cite reams of sources in support of my position ( i.e. support LEGAL immigration ), but I fear you will disregard the facts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Do you think modify the trail means - block it off? Most people would think it means fix the trail, right?
When people are DYING or DROWNING the situation becomes an EMERGENCY.
By all means BLOCK OFF ACCESS to the danger. YES YES YES. That's what you do in an emergency ( unless those lives have no meaning to you)
Then FIX the issue ( which has not been done at the border )
The humane thing to do is
#1 BLOCK OFF ACCESS
#2 FIX the issue
We haven't even gotten to #1 yet.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I don't blame "hormones".
I blame the failure of the US educational system.
Here is a good example:
A local news outlet reported on a story. The story did not make any sense. They missed reporting on the cause that was at the root of the story. So I contacted them and they "updated" their report.
How did the story get released without being complete?
Created:
Instead of a leaderboard, DebateArt should have an independent psychological group rate members on their behavior.
I have noticed a number of members who seem to be borderline irrational in their comments.
It may be better to drop the leaderboard, and replace it with an independent analysis of their comments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Why didn’t they modify the trail to make it safe? That likely would have been the best course of action if everyone concerned.
Do you mean make it safe by placing a barrier to prevent people from using the dangerous route? Do you mean make it safe by closing the access to the danger?
That’s kinda like saying if you deny contraception to teens you prevent them from having sex. Of course that’s ridiculous, all you’ll do is increase the likelihood of an unwanted pregnancy.
This is a non congruent argument. Are the immigrants the teens? They can't have sex in Mexico? And just who is getting screwed?
Ya, everyone who tries to come to this country is brought by a coyote. (sarcasm)
Here is what NPR says "Though specific statistics are hard to confirm, it is believed that a large percentage of immigrants illegally crossing the border into the U.S. have done so with the help of what's commonly known as a coyote ..." https://www.npr.org/2012/04/19/150973748/inside-the-hidden-world-of-immigrant-smuggling
Now you need to understand the economics at play when aiding illegal immigration becomes a source of income. The illegal acts become more and more prominent.
Or, or, hear me out, if there was an adequate legal way to enter the country, not just one for wealthy and educated people, there wouldn’t be any illegal immigration, because people would use the legal method.
"....adequate legal way" ????? It already exists.
See "U.S. Immigration, Explained
A step-by-step guide to the U.S. immigration process."
https://www.boundless.com/immigration-resources/us-immigration-explained/
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I can see that you do not understand the issue at all. We are not dealing with the CAUSE of illegal immigration, but rather with the resultant loss of life from it.
If the only entry from Mexico to the USA was though LEGAL CHANNELS, would the number of people drowning ( e.g.) not drop?
And as you need a narrow model of reality, I am speaking here of drownings related to persons attempting a dangerous river crossing ( e.g. ).
In the National Park near me there was a trail that turned out to be too dangerous to travel. So what did the NPS do? Did they blame the Republicans? NO.
Did they ask for understanding that the injured persons were just "trying for a better hike"? NO.
The NPS securely CLOSED THE PATH. Injuries went away.
If the ONLY way in to the USA was through LEGAL CHANNELS, the coyotes would close up shop, and deaths would decline.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I posted "If you want to stop the deaths....stop ILLEGAL immigration."
You then posted
That won’t stop the deaths, just the location where they die
Kindly explain that comment. Where would they die?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Republicans are .... willing to kill children trying to come across the border.
Children have been dying crossing the Rio. even without your political and divisive comment.
Death knows no party.
If you want to stop the deaths....stop ILLEGAL immigration.
"Four migrants, including an infant, drowned in the Rio Grande River over 3-day period, official says...The drownings come just days before Texas officials are expected to begin establishing a floating water barrier along parts of the Rio Grande in an attempt to deter illegal border crossings....In recent years, migrants have resorted to increasingly risky – and often fatal – paths to evade detection and enter the US. Near Eagle Pass in March, a migrant was found dead among a dozen people stowed away in a train car.
2022 was the deadliest year so far for migrants crossing the US-Mexico border, with at least 748 people dying at the border, CNN has reported." ( emphasis mine so readers do not miss the key points)
Maybe you mean that those who are against stopping illegal immigration are "willing to kill children trying to come across the border."
Created: