Married to the state

Behind the rhetoric of “the war on women” and the “Julia” website is a strategy of Democrats to turn single women–sorry, unmarried women, I mean, “women on their own”–into the militant voting bloc that evangelicals are for Republicans.  While it is true that single mothers and divorced women are the most consistent  Democratic demographic, a funny thing happens when these very women get married:  They turn into Republicans.  So says Jessica Gavora in the Washington Post:

“The Life of Julia,” the Obama campaign’s new interactive Web ad, follows a cartoon everywoman, Julia, through the milestones of a middle-class American life: education, work, motherhood, retirement. One milestone is pointedly missing: marriage.

But, then again, why should Julia get married? She doesn’t need to. Like a growing number of single women with children, Julia is married to the state.

As a character drawn and focus-grouped by political consultants, Julia is designed to remind voters of the government programs President Obama champions and likely GOP nominee Mitt Romney is ostensibly intent on taking away. Julia goes to school (with help from Headstart and federal student loans), she works (thank you, Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and Small Business Administration), she has a son (free health screenings brought to her by Obamacare) and she retires (Social Security and Medicare pay the bills while she volunteers in a community garden).

But Julia is a more artful and nuanced creation than a simple tour guide to the utopia that awaits under a second Obama term. She is designed to appeal to a narrow but deep demographic: single women, especially single women with kids.

In 2007, the United States passed a significant demographic milestone, when the census reported that the majority of American households were headed by unmarried people. It was the crest of a wave that had been building for some time. Since 1960, the percentage of the population that is over age 15 and unmarried increased from 32 percent to 45 percent. If this trend continues, singles (including unmarried people who are cohabiting) will make up the majority of Americans in less than 15 years.

And in this nation of swinging singles, women are dominant. . . .

Until the 2000 presidential election, Democrats generally wrote off the single female vote as not worth the effort. But in that razor-thin contest, strategists noticed for the first time that 22 million members of their most reliable cohort of voters did not go to the polls. If single women had cast ballots in the same proportions as married women, Al Gore probably would have received the punched chads of an additional 6 million voters, more than enough to have won him the White House.

The Democratic Party’s answer to this missed opportunity has been to attempt to make singlehood cool and fresh and new in an attempt to court this demographic. When focus groups told them that unmarried women regard the word “single” as a depressing term, strategists renamed them simply “unmarried” or, even better, “women on their own.”. . .

Whereas government benefits were once the state’s compassionate response to women who had lost their husbands, in Julia’s world they are the unquestionable entitlement of women who never married. The decline of marriage and Democratic political opportunism have combined to transform what used to be a situation to be avoided — single motherhood — into a new and proud American demographic, citizens of Obama’s Hubby State.. . .

Strategists talk breathlessly of unmarried women becoming for the Democratic Party what evangelical Christians are for the Republicans: a large, awakened, reliable force for liberal social change.. . .

The Democratic project to coax single women to the polls is given urgency by an interesting political fact: Although single women vote overwhelmingly Democratic, their condition is not permanent. According to the work of University of Chicago demographer Tom Smith, once divorced people remarry, they start to vote like married people again. In 2004, George W. Bush had a 12-point advantage over John Kerry among married people. Kerry won divorced voters by three points and separated and never-married voters by 35 percent and 25 percent, respectively. But among remarried voters, Bush was back on top by 15 percent. It seems something about the institution of marriage makes people vote Republican.

via Obama’s ‘Julia’ ad and the new Hubby State – The Washington Post.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Michael B.

    Overall, however, more women vote Democrat than Republican. 53% of women voted for Obama (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls.main/).

    Certainly marriage can bring a certain amount of economic security for women. And our nation’s no-fault divorce and child-support laws help that even further. Thus, perhaps generous government programs might not appeal as much to married women. And most of the Republican’s enacted abortion laws don’t affect them much. The Republicans cut medical and abortion funding for poor women, or they try to get teenagers to get their parent’s permission to get an abortion. These laws don’t stop married women from getting abortions if they want. If Republicans try to stop abortion-rights for middle-class women, you can bet it’s going to be a much different story.

  • Michael B.

    Overall, however, more women vote Democrat than Republican. 53% of women voted for Obama (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls.main/).

    Certainly marriage can bring a certain amount of economic security for women. And our nation’s no-fault divorce and child-support laws help that even further. Thus, perhaps generous government programs might not appeal as much to married women. And most of the Republican’s enacted abortion laws don’t affect them much. The Republicans cut medical and abortion funding for poor women, or they try to get teenagers to get their parent’s permission to get an abortion. These laws don’t stop married women from getting abortions if they want. If Republicans try to stop abortion-rights for middle-class women, you can bet it’s going to be a much different story.

  • Pete

    One wonders whether this reflects poorly on the basic integrity of the average (or majority) voter – that people will vote for those policies and parties that more directly benefit them rather than for what they know to be best for society. Does “enlightened self-interest” mean that each of us votes for what will benefit us (individually) the most or does it mean that we vote for what we believe to be best for society (our brothers) even though it might not be best for us, personally.

  • Pete

    One wonders whether this reflects poorly on the basic integrity of the average (or majority) voter – that people will vote for those policies and parties that more directly benefit them rather than for what they know to be best for society. Does “enlightened self-interest” mean that each of us votes for what will benefit us (individually) the most or does it mean that we vote for what we believe to be best for society (our brothers) even though it might not be best for us, personally.

  • http://www.matthewcochran.net/blog Matt Cochran

    Well, strong independent women in charge of their own lives do heavily rely on the government…

  • http://www.matthewcochran.net/blog Matt Cochran

    Well, strong independent women in charge of their own lives do heavily rely on the government…

  • Tom Hering

    Yes, women ought to follow the example of strong, independent men in not relying heavily on the government. Men who who would never drive their pickup trucks on public roads, and would never hunt animal populations managed by bureaucracies.

  • Tom Hering

    Yes, women ought to follow the example of strong, independent men in not relying heavily on the government. Men who who would never drive their pickup trucks on public roads, and would never hunt animal populations managed by bureaucracies.

  • formerly just steve

    Well stated, Matt.

  • formerly just steve

    Well stated, Matt.

  • formerly just steve

    You don’t see a difference, Tom?

  • formerly just steve

    You don’t see a difference, Tom?

  • Tom Hering

    I see a difference in admitting a degree of dependence.

  • Tom Hering

    I see a difference in admitting a degree of dependence.

  • formerly just steve

    Tom, life is all about degrees. There’s a degree to which most things become more or less positive. I’m of the opinion that public roads and generational welfare dependence are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

  • formerly just steve

    Tom, life is all about degrees. There’s a degree to which most things become more or less positive. I’m of the opinion that public roads and generational welfare dependence are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

  • Tom Hering

    Steve, your life is as dependent on government providing you with roads, through taxes, as any recipient’s life is on their benefits. What part of your life doesn’t involve driving somewhere? You’re highly, extremely, completely dependent on something government does. (Please note I’m just talking about the myth of independence.)

  • Tom Hering

    Steve, your life is as dependent on government providing you with roads, through taxes, as any recipient’s life is on their benefits. What part of your life doesn’t involve driving somewhere? You’re highly, extremely, completely dependent on something government does. (Please note I’m just talking about the myth of independence.)

  • SKPeterson

    The fact that there are animal populations managed by bureaucracies, points more toward the state aggrandizing to itself, quite literally, ownership of everything that is not tied down within the borders of a state’s jurisdiction. The animal populations are “managed” by the state, because the state has assumed a right to ownership of those animals to the exclusion of private property owners.

    And do we really want to go down the rabbit hole of publicly financed infrastructure as the basis for all government? Public roads are not necessary, but they are extant and extensive. But just because public roads exist, they do not provide any basis for arguing that the state should provide any other service to the public. In fact, one can argue that the only portions of our national transportation infrastructure that are well-maintained and not falling apart are those portions that are privately owned or operated. Just because you declare something to be a “public” good, does not make it so. Degrees of dependence exist because certain politicians at certain times in our nation’s history have turned and commandeered the power of the state to satisfy their own peculiar wants and desires while spreading the costs to the general public. That is hardly an argument for the morality of government intrusion into every sphere of human life from cradle to grave.

  • SKPeterson

    The fact that there are animal populations managed by bureaucracies, points more toward the state aggrandizing to itself, quite literally, ownership of everything that is not tied down within the borders of a state’s jurisdiction. The animal populations are “managed” by the state, because the state has assumed a right to ownership of those animals to the exclusion of private property owners.

    And do we really want to go down the rabbit hole of publicly financed infrastructure as the basis for all government? Public roads are not necessary, but they are extant and extensive. But just because public roads exist, they do not provide any basis for arguing that the state should provide any other service to the public. In fact, one can argue that the only portions of our national transportation infrastructure that are well-maintained and not falling apart are those portions that are privately owned or operated. Just because you declare something to be a “public” good, does not make it so. Degrees of dependence exist because certain politicians at certain times in our nation’s history have turned and commandeered the power of the state to satisfy their own peculiar wants and desires while spreading the costs to the general public. That is hardly an argument for the morality of government intrusion into every sphere of human life from cradle to grave.

  • formerly just steve

    Tom, I’m not going to argue your point on independence because I don’t think any of us is wholly independent. What I will argue is that there is a degree of government dependence that becomes destructive to individuals, families, and communities. There’s a difference between creating an infrastructure that allows people to gather together in communities to interact and conduct commerce and creating a system that encourages over-dependence. In my county over 700,000 people, over a third of the population, is on some sort of government subsidy. This is over and beyond public roads, police, and fire services. And I live in a county with one of the countries highest rates of single-parent households. I don’t think those things are coincidental.

  • formerly just steve

    Tom, I’m not going to argue your point on independence because I don’t think any of us is wholly independent. What I will argue is that there is a degree of government dependence that becomes destructive to individuals, families, and communities. There’s a difference between creating an infrastructure that allows people to gather together in communities to interact and conduct commerce and creating a system that encourages over-dependence. In my county over 700,000 people, over a third of the population, is on some sort of government subsidy. This is over and beyond public roads, police, and fire services. And I live in a county with one of the countries highest rates of single-parent households. I don’t think those things are coincidental.

  • Cincinnatus

    In addition to the helpful comments made by SK and fjs, one might note in response to Tom Hering, apologist for the State, that there is a difference–at least of degree–between being indirectly dependent on various public or government goods (e.g., roads are not essential for my survival, but they make my survival easier) and being directly dependent on the state for the very means of subsistence (where would Julia be if she weren’t cut several redistributive checks per month from Father State? Starving on publicly-funded sidewalks, presumably). Julia is an unproductive, net-drain on resources. Thanks, Julia.

  • Cincinnatus

    In addition to the helpful comments made by SK and fjs, one might note in response to Tom Hering, apologist for the State, that there is a difference–at least of degree–between being indirectly dependent on various public or government goods (e.g., roads are not essential for my survival, but they make my survival easier) and being directly dependent on the state for the very means of subsistence (where would Julia be if she weren’t cut several redistributive checks per month from Father State? Starving on publicly-funded sidewalks, presumably). Julia is an unproductive, net-drain on resources. Thanks, Julia.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @#1 You do realize a significant chunk if not a majority of those middle class married women who vote Republican want all abortion banned?

    The more I hear the more I realize we have become the People’s Republic of Haven. 10 points if you get the reference without Googling it.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @#1 You do realize a significant chunk if not a majority of those middle class married women who vote Republican want all abortion banned?

    The more I hear the more I realize we have become the People’s Republic of Haven. 10 points if you get the reference without Googling it.

  • SKPeterson

    Julia however gets a vote. And if Julia and enough of her friends gather together they can elect Julia or several others like her to public office. They can then commandeer the apparatus of the state to provide for them “necessary” goods for free or at substantially reduced costs, by passing all, or most, of the burden for these “necessary” services onto others. Thus, Julia’s selfishness is manifested in public policy, usually excused by her excoriating those who object to subsidizing her lifestyle choices as necessary public expenditures as being greedy and selfish. Julia’s wants and desire now become manifested as policy preferences as they become part and parcel of the the system of dependency; Julia has now consigned herself willingly to be a ward of the state, supported by the tax dollars and debt commandeered from others by that state.

    Rome collapsed over a period of several centuries as it commandeered more of the productive assets and resources of its people and territories in order to subsidize the unproductive citizenry of the Empire who could subvert the powers of the state to do so. Eventually though the resources grew ever more scarce and the taxation ever more punitive; Rome then began the slow process of implosion and disintegration under the (mis)management of the Emperors and the bureaucrats. Instead of emperors issuing edicts however, we’ll simply have enough Julia’s to vote our way to the same end.

  • SKPeterson

    Julia however gets a vote. And if Julia and enough of her friends gather together they can elect Julia or several others like her to public office. They can then commandeer the apparatus of the state to provide for them “necessary” goods for free or at substantially reduced costs, by passing all, or most, of the burden for these “necessary” services onto others. Thus, Julia’s selfishness is manifested in public policy, usually excused by her excoriating those who object to subsidizing her lifestyle choices as necessary public expenditures as being greedy and selfish. Julia’s wants and desire now become manifested as policy preferences as they become part and parcel of the the system of dependency; Julia has now consigned herself willingly to be a ward of the state, supported by the tax dollars and debt commandeered from others by that state.

    Rome collapsed over a period of several centuries as it commandeered more of the productive assets and resources of its people and territories in order to subsidize the unproductive citizenry of the Empire who could subvert the powers of the state to do so. Eventually though the resources grew ever more scarce and the taxation ever more punitive; Rome then began the slow process of implosion and disintegration under the (mis)management of the Emperors and the bureaucrats. Instead of emperors issuing edicts however, we’ll simply have enough Julia’s to vote our way to the same end.

  • forty-two

    Cincinnatus @12: “Julia is an unproductive, net-drain on resources.”

    Seriously? She’s educated, she works, she raises a child, and she volunteers – she’s subsidized, but she’s hardly unproductive or not giving a return on the government’s investment (in the non-cynical sense, although she’s undoubtedly providing a return in the cynical, reliable-voting-bloc sense, too [sigh]).

    The latter is why I’m not a fan of centralized governmental subsidies in general, as well as the general inefficiencies and ability to effect sweeping social change, full of unintended consequences, with one ill-considered bill (and those consequences of course require yet another ill-thought-out bill, which will in turn require yet another and another and another…).

    Even as I rather selfishly appreciate Bush’s child tax credits, in which the government pays middle class parents like me to raise our kids [sigh]. It’s easier to make other people give up stuff than to give up stuff ourselves – and even easier to give other people stuff if they will give us stuff, so we can all be happy – until we go broke.

  • forty-two

    Cincinnatus @12: “Julia is an unproductive, net-drain on resources.”

    Seriously? She’s educated, she works, she raises a child, and she volunteers – she’s subsidized, but she’s hardly unproductive or not giving a return on the government’s investment (in the non-cynical sense, although she’s undoubtedly providing a return in the cynical, reliable-voting-bloc sense, too [sigh]).

    The latter is why I’m not a fan of centralized governmental subsidies in general, as well as the general inefficiencies and ability to effect sweeping social change, full of unintended consequences, with one ill-considered bill (and those consequences of course require yet another ill-thought-out bill, which will in turn require yet another and another and another…).

    Even as I rather selfishly appreciate Bush’s child tax credits, in which the government pays middle class parents like me to raise our kids [sigh]. It’s easier to make other people give up stuff than to give up stuff ourselves – and even easier to give other people stuff if they will give us stuff, so we can all be happy – until we go broke.

  • DonS

    I was all set, as I read the comments, to respond to Tom’s assertion that the traditional and proper governmental role of providing certain public infrastructure, for the equal benefit of everyone, and the current and overwhelmingly corrosive and destructive governmental tendency to transfer money from private parties it disfavors to private parties it favors are somehow equivalent.

    But, I see that job has already been very effectively done :-) .

  • DonS

    I was all set, as I read the comments, to respond to Tom’s assertion that the traditional and proper governmental role of providing certain public infrastructure, for the equal benefit of everyone, and the current and overwhelmingly corrosive and destructive governmental tendency to transfer money from private parties it disfavors to private parties it favors are somehow equivalent.

    But, I see that job has already been very effectively done :-) .

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @4

    There is a difference between dependency and cooperating to provide for the community. The men driving their pickups on public roads worked together to plan, pay for and build those roads. Now you cannot say that about the women who drive on those same roads. Same for game hunting. Women did not cooperate to preserve and manage hunting areas. Now, there is a teeny weeny itty bitty fraction of women marginally involved in these activities. They exist and are not essential to the design, provision or maintenance of either. I could go on.

    Women married to the state vote men’s incomes to themselves rather than honorably partner with a man to raise their kids.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @4

    There is a difference between dependency and cooperating to provide for the community. The men driving their pickups on public roads worked together to plan, pay for and build those roads. Now you cannot say that about the women who drive on those same roads. Same for game hunting. Women did not cooperate to preserve and manage hunting areas. Now, there is a teeny weeny itty bitty fraction of women marginally involved in these activities. They exist and are not essential to the design, provision or maintenance of either. I could go on.

    Women married to the state vote men’s incomes to themselves rather than honorably partner with a man to raise their kids.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “And if Julia and enough of her friends gather together they can elect Julia or several others like her to public office. They can then commandeer the apparatus of the state to provide for them “necessary” goods for free or at substantially reduced costs, by passing all, or most, of the burden for these “necessary” services onto others.”

    Julia and her friends aren’t gathering together to do anything. They aren’t self organizers. They are pawns. They are bribed and managed by those creating asymmetry in the system to take advantage of it for their own gain.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “And if Julia and enough of her friends gather together they can elect Julia or several others like her to public office. They can then commandeer the apparatus of the state to provide for them “necessary” goods for free or at substantially reduced costs, by passing all, or most, of the burden for these “necessary” services onto others.”

    Julia and her friends aren’t gathering together to do anything. They aren’t self organizers. They are pawns. They are bribed and managed by those creating asymmetry in the system to take advantage of it for their own gain.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    where would Julia be if she weren’t cut several redistributive checks per month from Father State?

    prostitution

    Women are most willing and able to provide, uh, companionship. It is their nature. This can be done honorably, or the other way. When the state redistributes wealth from well managed productive households, aka married people, to uh, players and their uh, women, it rewards bad behavior and punishes good behavior. The good men in society subsidize the irresponsible men, and the foolish women they were able to seduce.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    where would Julia be if she weren’t cut several redistributive checks per month from Father State?

    prostitution

    Women are most willing and able to provide, uh, companionship. It is their nature. This can be done honorably, or the other way. When the state redistributes wealth from well managed productive households, aka married people, to uh, players and their uh, women, it rewards bad behavior and punishes good behavior. The good men in society subsidize the irresponsible men, and the foolish women they were able to seduce.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    I’d like to point out to Tom, that those animal populations wouldn’t hardly be there if it wasn’t for those men who are hunting them, and therefore pay for the management of those animal populations with the fees they pay to hunt and the special taxes they put in place on sporting goods, not to mention the fundraisers they hold to buy habitat for those animals. And the “state” works pretty close with those hunters in many otherways to provide for that management to, relying on them to notice poaching, or turn in information on the animals harvested. So next time you see a Big horn sheep licking the salt leaking out from the wall of a dam, thank a hunter.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    I’d like to point out to Tom, that those animal populations wouldn’t hardly be there if it wasn’t for those men who are hunting them, and therefore pay for the management of those animal populations with the fees they pay to hunt and the special taxes they put in place on sporting goods, not to mention the fundraisers they hold to buy habitat for those animals. And the “state” works pretty close with those hunters in many otherways to provide for that management to, relying on them to notice poaching, or turn in information on the animals harvested. So next time you see a Big horn sheep licking the salt leaking out from the wall of a dam, thank a hunter.

  • scott

    Re: married to the state — some have dubbed this “bureaugamy”.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304743704577382360840908318.html

  • scott

    Re: married to the state — some have dubbed this “bureaugamy”.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304743704577382360840908318.html

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Women married to the state, I think Rome had some manner in which women, at least some of them, belonged to the state, but that makes them public property, and for some reason I don’t think that is a very advantageous position for a woman to be in.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Women married to the state, I think Rome had some manner in which women, at least some of them, belonged to the state, but that makes them public property, and for some reason I don’t think that is a very advantageous position for a woman to be in.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    I do notice the unspoken assumption that unmarried women/single mothers etc ALL rely on the state to get by. Where are the supporting stats?

    Also, are there comparitive stats for single dads?

    And how about the bastards who made those women single mothers in the fiirst place?

    Or are people just continuing blaming society’s ills on unmarried/single mothers alone, woithout reference to the other half of the equation, like Santorum did? No wonder the Christian right has the reputation it has…

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    I do notice the unspoken assumption that unmarried women/single mothers etc ALL rely on the state to get by. Where are the supporting stats?

    Also, are there comparitive stats for single dads?

    And how about the bastards who made those women single mothers in the fiirst place?

    Or are people just continuing blaming society’s ills on unmarried/single mothers alone, woithout reference to the other half of the equation, like Santorum did? No wonder the Christian right has the reputation it has…

  • SKPeterson

    KK – I don’t think we’re talking directly about the issues you raise, as important as they are. We are talking about the meme of Julias as presented by the Democrats in their campaign. In fact, it might be said that “the unspoken assumption that unmarried women/single mothers etc ALL rely on the state to get by” is expressly the message being actively promulgated by the Democrats.

  • SKPeterson

    KK – I don’t think we’re talking directly about the issues you raise, as important as they are. We are talking about the meme of Julias as presented by the Democrats in their campaign. In fact, it might be said that “the unspoken assumption that unmarried women/single mothers etc ALL rely on the state to get by” is expressly the message being actively promulgated by the Democrats.

  • formerly just steve

    KK, I noticed you framed the problem and assigned blame all on an unspoken assumption. If this assumption is unspoken is there a possibility that the only assumption here is yours alone? I certainly don’t see it. Might it be a better tactic to determine if this is truly the assumption held by posters here before assigning blame?

  • formerly just steve

    KK, I noticed you framed the problem and assigned blame all on an unspoken assumption. If this assumption is unspoken is there a possibility that the only assumption here is yours alone? I certainly don’t see it. Might it be a better tactic to determine if this is truly the assumption held by posters here before assigning blame?

  • Grace

    I don’t agree with this idea at all. I know too many women who are self sufficient, with outstanding careers, some are divorced and others are married. They don’t rely on anyone to pay their way.

    The idea that’s brought forth in this discussion hinges upon those who, for the most part collect welfare, have many children, most often without marriage. These same women most often never even graduated from high school.

    “While it is true that single mothers and divorced women are the most consistent Democratic demographic, a funny thing happens when these very women get married: They turn into Republicans. So says Jessica Gavora in the Washington Post:”

    I don’t agree with the comment above, as well. Women who don’t learn to work, relying on gov. handouts, free breakfast, lunches, health benefits, etc., are the majority of the state supported females.

  • Grace

    I don’t agree with this idea at all. I know too many women who are self sufficient, with outstanding careers, some are divorced and others are married. They don’t rely on anyone to pay their way.

    The idea that’s brought forth in this discussion hinges upon those who, for the most part collect welfare, have many children, most often without marriage. These same women most often never even graduated from high school.

    “While it is true that single mothers and divorced women are the most consistent Democratic demographic, a funny thing happens when these very women get married: They turn into Republicans. So says Jessica Gavora in the Washington Post:”

    I don’t agree with the comment above, as well. Women who don’t learn to work, relying on gov. handouts, free breakfast, lunches, health benefits, etc., are the majority of the state supported females.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Hey, Grace and I agree (by and large)!

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Hey, Grace and I agree (by and large)!

  • Grace

    We do on this one KK.

    You made some comments about men. I agree, too often, they get a free pass, all the time collecting unemployment, when they COULD work, collecting disability because they have a drug problem. All this, and not supporting their ex-wives and children, add to that the ex-wife, continues to work within her career, raising the children, putting up with an ex, who won’t ditch his habits, and lazy behavior. We see this all too often, while the majority of society turns a blind eye. I’m not talking about uneducated males.

  • Grace

    We do on this one KK.

    You made some comments about men. I agree, too often, they get a free pass, all the time collecting unemployment, when they COULD work, collecting disability because they have a drug problem. All this, and not supporting their ex-wives and children, add to that the ex-wife, continues to work within her career, raising the children, putting up with an ex, who won’t ditch his habits, and lazy behavior. We see this all too often, while the majority of society turns a blind eye. I’m not talking about uneducated males.

  • Tom Hering

    Bror @ 20, thanks for making the case that sport hunters are dependent on the state for their prey. Not entirely, no, but largely. As for conservation of animal populations, it’s aim is to provide sufficient prey for sport hunters. In other words, we keep species from going extinct (due to non-human causes) so we can kill them. But not all of them, so they can continue to breed in sufficient numbers, so we can kill more of them. For sport.

    I am, nonetheless, willing to listen to any theological justifications for sport hunting. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    Bror @ 20, thanks for making the case that sport hunters are dependent on the state for their prey. Not entirely, no, but largely. As for conservation of animal populations, it’s aim is to provide sufficient prey for sport hunters. In other words, we keep species from going extinct (due to non-human causes) so we can kill them. But not all of them, so they can continue to breed in sufficient numbers, so we can kill more of them. For sport.

    I am, nonetheless, willing to listen to any theological justifications for sport hunting. :-D

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I know too many women who are self sufficient, with outstanding careers, some are divorced and others are married.”

    Uh huh. Let’s not forget that employers cannot discriminate in favor of better employees. Consider doctors. Now a majority of people in med school are women. Women get the same or better shot than equally qualified men even though female doctors quit the profession at four times the rate men do, and disproportionally work part time. So, no, women on average are not as good employees, and they make more demands, want more time off yada, yada. But can employers consider any of that in employment? No, they can’t. So, the independent, educated, career woman gets breaks and advantages that men don’t get and don’t take the risks that men do and demand safety nets provided by men. So, on balance, only a fraction of employed women are actually contributors. They depress wages and cause the rise of household income inequality we have seen.

    Let’s not forget that male labor participation is about 60%. It was 95% in the 50′s. It isn’t that easy to have a family without gainful employment. So, more and more men are out of the marriage market altogether. They would get jobs, but the elites’ demand for equality puts women those jobs now. Convenient.

    Luckily for men, the difficult, dirty, risky, dangerous jobs that absolutely have to be done are still available which is why men are 13 times more likely to die on the job than women are.

    KK, stats for single dads are impressive. Their kids outperform the children of single mothers. Probably due to selection bias. Dads are less likely to get/want the custody, so those that do are the better dads. Also, women default on child support payments about twice as often as men do.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I know too many women who are self sufficient, with outstanding careers, some are divorced and others are married.”

    Uh huh. Let’s not forget that employers cannot discriminate in favor of better employees. Consider doctors. Now a majority of people in med school are women. Women get the same or better shot than equally qualified men even though female doctors quit the profession at four times the rate men do, and disproportionally work part time. So, no, women on average are not as good employees, and they make more demands, want more time off yada, yada. But can employers consider any of that in employment? No, they can’t. So, the independent, educated, career woman gets breaks and advantages that men don’t get and don’t take the risks that men do and demand safety nets provided by men. So, on balance, only a fraction of employed women are actually contributors. They depress wages and cause the rise of household income inequality we have seen.

    Let’s not forget that male labor participation is about 60%. It was 95% in the 50′s. It isn’t that easy to have a family without gainful employment. So, more and more men are out of the marriage market altogether. They would get jobs, but the elites’ demand for equality puts women those jobs now. Convenient.

    Luckily for men, the difficult, dirty, risky, dangerous jobs that absolutely have to be done are still available which is why men are 13 times more likely to die on the job than women are.

    KK, stats for single dads are impressive. Their kids outperform the children of single mothers. Probably due to selection bias. Dads are less likely to get/want the custody, so those that do are the better dads. Also, women default on child support payments about twice as often as men do.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I’m not talking about uneducated males.”

    Just for clarity, is this a reference to men who don’t graduate high school?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I’m not talking about uneducated males.”

    Just for clarity, is this a reference to men who don’t graduate high school?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg
  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg
  • Michael B.

    I think we’re all completely missing the point by focusing on adult women. A 25-year old woman (or man) can be completely subsidized by the government for very cheaply. You basically just need to give her shelter, food, and water. All very cheap. When it starts to get expensive is when women start having children. You basically have to start worrying about all education, child health-care, and the like. And the problem starts multiplying, because often the kids follow in their parent’s footsteps. So the question is do you punish the kids for the sins of their parents? Or option 2, do you just let these dead-beats keep having kid after kid, all subsidized on somebody else’s dime.

    I heard one person claim a good idea would be to require sterilization if you wanted to get government assistance.

  • Michael B.

    I think we’re all completely missing the point by focusing on adult women. A 25-year old woman (or man) can be completely subsidized by the government for very cheaply. You basically just need to give her shelter, food, and water. All very cheap. When it starts to get expensive is when women start having children. You basically have to start worrying about all education, child health-care, and the like. And the problem starts multiplying, because often the kids follow in their parent’s footsteps. So the question is do you punish the kids for the sins of their parents? Or option 2, do you just let these dead-beats keep having kid after kid, all subsidized on somebody else’s dime.

    I heard one person claim a good idea would be to require sterilization if you wanted to get government assistance.

  • formerly just steve

    Michael B. #33

    I don’t think it’s as cheap as you think but that’s beside the point. Subsidizing an able-bodied person is bad on many levels. It can’t be maintained on a very large scale–as we have seen–it take away from people who truly need assistance (i.e., disabled), and it’s demoralizing for the individual. Whether you believe people were designed to work or have evolved to work, there is no denying that people find their identities in work. Whether they are engaged in a trade or raise a family or whatever they do, that becomes a huge part of who they are. When they are subsidized for long periods of time this identity is taken away. Probably unlike some here, I personally believe a social safety net is not a bad thing but when it’s used it must be used sparingly and with the sole intention of bouncing the individual back into a productive member of society. Lastly, when the government supports you it owns you. It allows for all sorts of intrusive social programs and gives rise to inane ideas like sterilization.

  • formerly just steve

    Michael B. #33

    I don’t think it’s as cheap as you think but that’s beside the point. Subsidizing an able-bodied person is bad on many levels. It can’t be maintained on a very large scale–as we have seen–it take away from people who truly need assistance (i.e., disabled), and it’s demoralizing for the individual. Whether you believe people were designed to work or have evolved to work, there is no denying that people find their identities in work. Whether they are engaged in a trade or raise a family or whatever they do, that becomes a huge part of who they are. When they are subsidized for long periods of time this identity is taken away. Probably unlike some here, I personally believe a social safety net is not a bad thing but when it’s used it must be used sparingly and with the sole intention of bouncing the individual back into a productive member of society. Lastly, when the government supports you it owns you. It allows for all sorts of intrusive social programs and gives rise to inane ideas like sterilization.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Social safety nets that are too broad (99 weeks of unemployment) turn into jobs programs for those who administer them.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-why-job-market-will-continue-shrinking

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Social safety nets that are too broad (99 weeks of unemployment) turn into jobs programs for those who administer them.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-why-job-market-will-continue-shrinking

  • Grace

    Steve @ 34

    “Probably unlike some here, I personally believe a social safety net is not a bad thing but when it’s used it must be used sparingly and with the sole intention of bouncing the individual back into a productive member of society. Lastly, when the government supports you it owns you. It allows for all sorts of intrusive social programs and gives rise to inane ideas like sterilization.”

    I agree with you -

  • Grace

    Steve @ 34

    “Probably unlike some here, I personally believe a social safety net is not a bad thing but when it’s used it must be used sparingly and with the sole intention of bouncing the individual back into a productive member of society. Lastly, when the government supports you it owns you. It allows for all sorts of intrusive social programs and gives rise to inane ideas like sterilization.”

    I agree with you -

  • Michael B.

    On the other hand, a person who is hungry has absolutely nothing to lose by breaking the law. What exactly can the government threaten a person with who is going to starve? Prison?

    It’s in the people’s interest to provide at least some minimal safety net, even if they don’t care about the person themselves.

  • Michael B.

    On the other hand, a person who is hungry has absolutely nothing to lose by breaking the law. What exactly can the government threaten a person with who is going to starve? Prison?

    It’s in the people’s interest to provide at least some minimal safety net, even if they don’t care about the person themselves.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    What Steve said. Of course, there are a few cases (note – FEW), where the individual might need longer/permanent help, and family is not forthcoming. Think mentally and physically disabled (real, limiting disabilities) etc. Charities simply can’t deal with all these cases.

    Again though – exception, not rule. Careful management, not avuncular gift-giving and broad dependency.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    What Steve said. Of course, there are a few cases (note – FEW), where the individual might need longer/permanent help, and family is not forthcoming. Think mentally and physically disabled (real, limiting disabilities) etc. Charities simply can’t deal with all these cases.

    Again though – exception, not rule. Careful management, not avuncular gift-giving and broad dependency.

  • formerly just steve

    Having said what I said above, I will admit the difficulties. When government bureaucracies are created their unstated purpose quickly become self-survival. I always thought a good welfare system should be a system designed to constantly try to make itself obsolete. Unfortunately, that’s a bit of pie in the sky since these systems are made of people who want to keep their jobs. As sg said, they turn into jobs programs for those who administer them. Furthermore, once you start giving money away, there’s very little political motivation to stop.

  • formerly just steve

    Having said what I said above, I will admit the difficulties. When government bureaucracies are created their unstated purpose quickly become self-survival. I always thought a good welfare system should be a system designed to constantly try to make itself obsolete. Unfortunately, that’s a bit of pie in the sky since these systems are made of people who want to keep their jobs. As sg said, they turn into jobs programs for those who administer them. Furthermore, once you start giving money away, there’s very little political motivation to stop.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @38 That sounds like a surmise. Charity probably could deal with those cases. It is calculable because the number and cost of such cases is known as is the amount of charitable giving for the relief of such cases. It would take some digging but it could be done.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @38 That sounds like a surmise. Charity probably could deal with those cases. It is calculable because the number and cost of such cases is known as is the amount of charitable giving for the relief of such cases. It would take some digging but it could be done.

  • Patrick Kyle

    42@15 ‘Even as I rather selfishly appreciate Bush’s child tax credits, in which the government pays middle class parents like me to raise our kids [sigh]. ‘
    When we look at tax breaks as being ‘paid’ to us by the government, we are truly lost.

    My only consolation is that what is unsustainable will disappear. There will be huge changes in our not too distant future.

  • Patrick Kyle

    42@15 ‘Even as I rather selfishly appreciate Bush’s child tax credits, in which the government pays middle class parents like me to raise our kids [sigh]. ‘
    When we look at tax breaks as being ‘paid’ to us by the government, we are truly lost.

    My only consolation is that what is unsustainable will disappear. There will be huge changes in our not too distant future.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “On the other hand, a person who is hungry has absolutely nothing to lose by breaking the law.”

    He also has nothing to lose going to a food pantry or taking a low level job. There are tons of day labor agencies that will put you to work, so no real need to break the law unless you just want to.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “On the other hand, a person who is hungry has absolutely nothing to lose by breaking the law.”

    He also has nothing to lose going to a food pantry or taking a low level job. There are tons of day labor agencies that will put you to work, so no real need to break the law unless you just want to.

  • formerly just steve

    An addendum to #42, if I may

    …and no, prison is not better than starving.

  • formerly just steve

    An addendum to #42, if I may

    …and no, prison is not better than starving.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X