Have a kid, get money from the government!

I get the heeby jeebies, Kickycan, as soon as I hear of governments talking family values, because it is code, usually, for all kinds of horrible conservative agenda - like homophobia etc.

However, like it or not, it is in all our interests to have happy, educated, well-adjusted children being grown. This takes many things - a big one of those things is sufficient money to feed, clothe and educate them - and, hopefully, a family not stressed to the limit by poverty.

Home is far more crucial to a child's well being than school, Kickycan - though a good school can ameliorate a little the effects of a bad home.

Just my knowledge based on years of working with kids, and all the research.

And - it isn't an either/or you know.

Deb
You're right. The cost of raising children is unreal.

Your whole reasoning is based on the fact that it costs so much money to raise kids. If it costs so much, how about you don't have 'em? Or make the financial sacrifice. Either way, I don't think it's the government's job to pay for your kids.

I am ashamed that people can call recipients of aid such vile names simply because these folk have not been able to get by without assistance. While it is true that deadbeats will seek this money too, you do not know each of them personally. To make such blanket statements is a disgusting practice. I had to accept welfare when growing up. I did not consider myself a deadbeat then and I know I have not been one since.

I want a jaguar. It costs a lot of money. Maybe the government should pay for my jaguar? Yeah, that would be cool.

edgar, I wasn't calling them all yahoos. Just the ones that are yahoos.

Okay, since nobody has really addressed the questions I asked earlier, here they are again.

It's interesting that governments feel the need to promote the idea of marriage and family, which, I believe this is. Is there any real scientific reason for this? Do they believe that "family" is somehow on the endangered list? And even if it is, where is the proof that this would automatically have negative effects for the society?

So then do you propose that we also cut medicare funding for the elderly?

No, because getting old is inevitable for everyone.

Well, then just remember that these kids that are coming into the world now are the ones who will be paying for your medicare ;-)

Montana, there is something incredibly sweet about you.

Awwww!!!!

Sigh. You have already acknowledged that, generally, your government does not pay people with children more. An exception for the military has been noted- which seems to be about keeping trained folk in - not about socially engineering for families.

YOUR government (I assume you are American?) is extremely conservative. Conservative governments generally promote "family values" - you will need to demonstrate to me how they are actually promoting the ideas of marriage and family in REALITY, as opposed to in rhetoric, before I can answer.

In point of fact, the "family" meaning the fairly new nuclear family, consisting of a man, a woman, and 2.5 kids, beloved of conservatives, which existed for a fairly brief time, is, indeed in "danger".

It has been since the pill, more economic independence for women (in my country, until the seventies, eg, a woman had to leava any form of government service as soon as she married) and easy divorce.

That is, nearly 50% of marriages end in divorce - meaning many kids are raised in single parent homes or homes with step-parents - women wait a lot longer to have kids, some choose not to (the birthrate in my country is almost at ZPG - dunno about yours?) - social stigma against single parents means that many more women choose to keep babies born out of wedlock -(they used to be adopted out, by and large, because of the stigma and the huge problems women, at much lower wages than men, had in supporting themselves and the baby).

Is this good or bad? Well, like it or not, research is suggesting that, EN MASSE, (meaning there are lots of exceptions) children raised by single parents do less well on a number of indicators - like educational success, offending behaviour etc.

Research is also suggesting that, EN MASSE (same rider) children of divorced parents do less well - that the divorces often do leave real scars.

Also, sadly, kids are more likely to be sexually abused by step-dads than by their own dads. Girls from step-families (or where a natural dad was not around for a significant time - the theory is that it is either the PRESENCE of the stepdad, or the ABSENCE of the natural dad which triggers it) seem more likely to have early puberty - which is statistically linked to more chance of becoming a single mum, less educational success etc.

This is the state of play as far as it is known at present. Of course, research is always subject to ongoing criticism and deconstruction. Today's hesitant truth is tomorrow's laughing stock.

Does this mean we should all wish for the past? Lots of folk do - but it ain't gonna happen. I hated the old arrangements, personally, by the way. I don't believe any government engineering would be effective.

What I DO think we need to do is acknowledge the reality - and put money into well-researched programs which support good parenting and the people doing it - whoever the smeg they are - (lots of grandparents are, by the way - often because their kids have disappeared into drug land - I forgot to mention drugs).

This benefits everyone - lots of early intervention programs (eg the Minnesota one) are beginning to show good results. Supporting parenting has the potential to cut crime, raise educational outcomes, make for happier folk - and hopefully happier kids in the new generation.

Edit: These are just a few discussion points, of course - it is a tiny part of the picture...

LOL! What Montana said! Your kidless reasoning is waaaay flawed , Kickycan.

Okay, you've brought out some interesting points now, dlowan. Unfortunately I have to go out, so I'll get back to you on this. Thanks for the reasoned response.

dlowan wrote


That's, why we got such laws here .... and still have them, although the social democrats tried to reduce that a bit (no change)

dlowan, you say the nuclear family is in danger. Here's part of an article I found in the Chicago Tribune that shows that the numbers don't bear that out.

Numbers may be dry, but interpretations aren't
By David Mendell
David Mendell is a Tribune staff reporter
July 15, 2001
Seemingly non-partisan researchers and high-minded journalistic institutions have come to wildly varying conclusions about everything from the direction of racial segregation to the state of the American family. Consider these headlines from two of the nation's leading newspapers, both on stories about new census data:

The Los Angeles Times on June 24: "A Comeback for Two Words: I Do. The Nuclear Family May No Longer Be Declining."

The New York Times on May 15: "For First Time, Nuclear
Families Drop Below 25% of Households."

Statistics long have been manipulated to further an agenda. But how census numbers are used by reporters, marketers and politicians is significant in modern society. These interpretations can determine how we view ourselves and how we set public policy on all levels for the next decade and beyond.

In some glaring instances, it's hard to conclude that the media, with its own relentless agenda to attract an audience, has done anything but bungle major segments of this story.

Take the so-called single-mother phenomenon.

Some media and interest groups played up the fact that the number of single mothers grew 27 percent in the 1990s.
Newsweek slapped a single mother and her daughter on its cover and featured a story supporting this "trend." The magazine paired that 27 percent growth with the New York Times' favorite statistic: In the 1990s, the number of nuclear family households in the country fell below 25 percent for the first time.

These media bites would make one wonder whether the nuclear family--Mom, Dad and at least one Junior--is going the way of the low-riding Buick station wagon.

But a deeper look into the data shows that the growth rate in the number of single moms leveled off in the 1990s compared with past decades--when it was as high as several hundred percent.

And even though the number of traditional family households fell below 25 percent for the first time, it was just 26 percent through the 1980s. Citing that statistic is like saying a baseball player whose batting average has fallen from .301 to .299 is no longer a .300 hitter. Technically, it's correct, but it gives a less-than-accurate view of a player's performance.

Looking at 2000 census data, "I don't see how you can come to anyother conclusion but that the single-mother growth phenomenon is reaching its end," said Martha Farnsworth Riche, a demographer and former Census Bureau director.
Most researchers will concede that somewhere between 60 percent and 70 percent of U.S. children live in a home with two married parents--which has changed little since the 1970s.

But who would believe this if you paid attention to the news?

"The decline of the nuclear family is a long-term demographic trend that we think has come to a halt and we've moved on to figuring out why," said Wendell Primus of the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington. Primus and colleague Allen Dupree recently issued a report arguing that families with lower incomes are more likely to be headed by a single mother but that this trend is abating, especially among blacks.

So you see, there is no need for the government to stick their noses in and "save" the nuclear family. Since you basically said you agree with this, I guess we have no argument, other than the point I have just illustrated above.

LOL!

Good conservatives would see that figure as a nightmare figure from hell! It is all in the interpretation, as you say.

It would be interesting to look at Oz figures - I have the impression you folk marry more than we do.

Do you support a flat tax type of system? Because everywhere you look in the tax code there are breaks and penalties given out for many different types of behavior. IMO you can't just argue against tax breaks for children without arguing against all the other breaks people get for different types of behavior.

Btw, having kids is a good thing for society in general. Not only because they may grow up to be the next Bill Gates or a productive tax paying human being, but because kids and family are important to the basic fabric of society.

Last, it costs me about $12K a year to take care of my 4 year old. The tax breaks aren't doing much for us and her life would not change with them or without them.