How to Make People Rely on the Government

Originally posted by normbenign
I don't mean to make light of the difficulty of raising kids for single parents. It might be a good idea not to be one in the first place, but that aside, everyone has a hard life.

Grandparents, aunt and uncles are resources. Often single parents team up with other single parents. There are solutions if one tries to find them. I'll guarantee the s ...[text shortened]... . Most of us do what we really want to do, and make excuses for the things we say are too hard.

A very cynical post Norm, I am surprised at you.

Originally posted by normbenign
A lot more than yours.

So the principle that applies for you is that it matters not what total bllks is spoken as long as it is spoken by someone on your side of the great ideological divide. 'It may be rubbish but it's our rubbish'.

Originally posted by Eladar
In a generation the number of aunts, uncles and grandparents will drop as more and more single parents raise children. As the family safety net drops, the government will be there to make things right!

It is not a sure thing. It is rational that societies develop institutions that support their well-being. The institution of the extended family and the institution of the stay-at-home spouse have been part of the fabric of society, having benefits and costs in the rearing of children. In a democratic society with an intelligent, educated citizenry having common goals, if these institutions wane, the people will develop replacements that deliver the benefits at tolerable costs. Since government is itself an institution used to organize such efforts, it will probably be involved, as will private business interests.

Originally posted by Eladar
In a generation the number of aunts, uncles and grandparents will drop as more and more single parents raise children. As the family safety net drops, the government will be there to make things right!

On that we agree, and the problem to be solved is allowing more dependency. People must be shown that they really don't benefit by becoming wards of the State.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
A very cynical post Norm, I am surprised at you.

Elaborate. Do you think single parenthood is a desirable thing? I pointed out positive solutions other than dependency.

Originally posted by finnegan
So the principle that applies for you is that it matters not what total bllks is spoken as long as it is spoken by someone on your side of the great ideological divide. 'It may be rubbish but it's our rubbish'.

There is no overriding principal here. I just agree more with whodey's position than yours, in this case.

Originally posted by normbenign
On that we agree, and the problem to be solved is allowing more dependency. People must be shown that they really don't benefit by becoming wards of the State.

How do you suppose you can convince people who are given a free lunch that receiving the free lunch doesn't benefit them?

Originally posted by JS357
It is not a sure thing. It is rational that societies develop institutions that support their well-being. The institution of the extended family and the institution of the stay-at-home spouse have been part of the fabric of society, having benefits and costs in the rearing of children. In a democratic society with an intelligent, educated citizenry having com ...[text shortened]... used to organize such efforts, it will probably be involved, as will private business interests.

Rational societies realize that you get what you subsidize and you diminish what you tax.

Originally posted by Eladar
How do you suppose you can convince people who are given a free lunch that receiving the free lunch doesn't benefit them?

Of course if you are hungry, a free lunch makes you feel better. For those receiving that free lunch, two questions ought to be asked of themselves.

1. Will there always be someone to provide the free lunch?

2. Would I feel better yet, and have a better lunch if I made it myself?

Originally posted by normbenign
Of course if you are hungry, a free lunch makes you feel better. For those receiving that free lunch, two questions ought to be asked of themselves.

1. Will there always be someone to provide the free lunch?

2. Would I feel better yet, and have a better lunch if I made it myself?

1.The government can never run out of money and as long as I can put into place people who will give me free stuff I'm set.

2. Why should I work and make about the same amount of money I'd get if I didn't work? Anyone would choose the most reward for the least effort.

Being irresponsible is much more fun than being responsible. Why not have fun and let the government pick up the bill?

Originally posted by Eladar
Rational societies realize that you get what you subsidize and you diminish what you tax.

Say what you will, if customs that support child rearing such as extended families and stay-home spouses go away and the result is deleterious, a rational society will find a way to replace them, and government may be part of the solution. You are assuming the costs will not be apportioned fairly.

Originally posted by JS357
Say what you will, if customs that support child rearing such as extended families and stay-home spouses go away and the result is deleterious, a rational society will find a way to replace them, and government may be part of the solution. You are assuming the costs will not be apportioned fairly.

If they go away it will be due to government policies that enable people to survive without them.

Originally posted by Eladar
If they go away it will be due to government policies that enable people to survive without them.

Stay-home parenting and extended family support such as live-in grandmothers and neighborhood proximity of relatives have been in decline for decades.

Private activities such as corporate day care centers (my company had one in the 70s) can play a role too, not to mention private neighborhood day care centers.

Government tends to play catch-up. My wife's public university had day-care for children of employees and students when she went to finish her degree. It was subsidized to some extent by the state university system although there was a fee.

I'd say the major influence was economic/education/job opportunity brought about by the women's movement and which was only grudgingly supported by government policy if we look at the long term.

Originally posted by Eladar
1.The government can never run out of money and as long as I can put into place people who will give me free stuff I'm set.

2. Why should I work and make about the same amount of money I'd get if I didn't work? Anyone would choose the most reward for the least effort.

Being irresponsible is much more fun than being responsible. Why not have fun and let the government pick up the bill?

You're right except that governments can and do run out of money, or the money they print ends up being worthless in buying power.

Originally posted by JS357
Stay-home parenting and extended family support such as live-in grandmothers and neighborhood proximity of relatives have been in decline for decades.

Private activities such as corporate day care centers (my company had one in the 70s) can play a role too, not to mention private neighborhood day care centers.

Government tends to play catch-up. My wife's ...[text shortened]... vement and which was only grudgingly supported by government policy if we look at the long term.

I'm not saying that the women's movement was a major factor in people becoming reliant on the government.