I dont agree with social conservatives on 99% of issues, but there is one major issue where liberalism has caused more poverty than anything i can think of, and social conservatives have it right.
And that is having unplanned kids before marriage(or atleast a strongly committed relationship), Liberals/Democrats have made this acceptable, and they have subsidized it, and then they actually believe that handing out money through entitlements is somehow going to fix the fact that a single parent can not possibly take care of a kid in the same way that two parents can. And what inevitably ends up happening is irresponsible people have more kids then the responsible people, and then the whole system falls apart.
My old man sat me down when i was going into highschool and just said look, here is the numbers, and here is how much it costs a month to support you kids, and here is how much you make at a minimum wage job, and if you have a kid you better goddamn well know that you will be taking care of it, and if i have to help whoever the woman is take you to court over it, I will, he taught me personal responsibility from an early age.
Even if you tried You probably couldnt think of a better plan to create an impovershed community, than by subsidizing people to have kids out of wedlock, or when there is only going to be one parent in the picture, and telling them that is ok.
There is always going to be people who are poor, but there wouldnt have to be nearly as many people who are poor, if liberals would just start preaching personal responsibility, and telling these people not to have kids out of wedlock, and quit teling poor people that it is acceptable to have kids without a father in the home, and quit subsidizing that behaviour.
Maybe if poor people were forced to actually pay for their kids, then they would have less kids, if there was a single indicator that you could point to that would be the greatest indicator of whether or not a kid was going to succeed, or end up becoming a drain on society, it would probably be whether or not there was 2 parents in the mix as opposed to 1.
And that is having unplanned kids before marriage(or atleast a strongly committed relationship), Liberals/Democrats have made this acceptable, and they have subsidized it, and then they actually believe that handing out money through entitlements is somehow going to fix the fact that a single parent can not possibly take care of a kid in the same way that two parents can. And what inevitably ends up happening is irresponsible people have more kids then the responsible people, and then the whole system falls apart.
My old man sat me down when i was going into highschool and just said look, here is the numbers, and here is how much it costs a month to support you kids, and here is how much you make at a minimum wage job, and if you have a kid you better goddamn well know that you will be taking care of it, and if i have to help whoever the woman is take you to court over it, I will, he taught me personal responsibility from an early age.
Even if you tried You probably couldnt think of a better plan to create an impovershed community, than by subsidizing people to have kids out of wedlock, or when there is only going to be one parent in the picture, and telling them that is ok.
There is always going to be people who are poor, but there wouldnt have to be nearly as many people who are poor, if liberals would just start preaching personal responsibility, and telling these people not to have kids out of wedlock, and quit teling poor people that it is acceptable to have kids without a father in the home, and quit subsidizing that behaviour.
Maybe if poor people were forced to actually pay for their kids, then they would have less kids, if there was a single indicator that you could point to that would be the greatest indicator of whether or not a kid was going to succeed, or end up becoming a drain on society, it would probably be whether or not there was 2 parents in the mix as opposed to 1.