Look (pause )... it is notIn this case though, it is a cause. Besides other causes you have correctly named. I know Europeans who have done the same. The father did not want to take responsibility and the mother did not tell the government who the father is. Therefore she got more money.
and to be very frank about this, this argument is the key to both our ideologies.
Because while you are arguing, that this is mainly because of a decline based in 'ethics' or 'family values' - I'm saying, make your argument for what ever small percentage of 'badly behaved' single mothers on welfare you can find -- but the reason why we got welfare is because of a bigger change than that.
Regardless of if your father figure of choice always told you, that people 'should just get jobs', and the issue for 'anti social behavior' was inpropper family values - because I can see that, thats a 'logic' system in its own. But its not 'why we got welfare, and it also isnt what will break wellfare ('abuse of that'). Maybe there is a percentage of abusers in young women mothers, but you are missing the entire bigger point.
--
Now let me move forward a little in my argument.
If declining family structures are a consequence of declining wages (both parents have to work now). And if declining wages are a consequence of globalization (globalized supply chains).
Answer me this riddle - why is every Magahead being sold cheap merchandise made in china, while Trump makes free trade agreements with india and south east asia?
Thats by definition, making families worse off in america - for accumulation of personal wealth.
Now there are several ways to argue for that. Maybe the first one - we need to. Our 'organisation' needs funds, to be able to act politically, to be able to make all better, .. etc...
But there is also another way to see this.
You tap in into peoples emotions on how to get the 'better life back - when families meant something'. You have no clue how to do it. You funnel in donations via the gift of the gab, and then you sell out to financial interests that gladly take whatever gifts you give them, but do nothing at all to change globalization (maybe change partners around a little). You get rich in the process - everyone gets shafted - EXCEPT, the people that were with you early on, because drive to power, the first ones being able to sell a new ideology always get more than the rest of the movement.
But the issue still remains, you have no idea how to solve the thing that actually caused your followers to become mad.
You then say, its because of the people abusing welfare, or because of those foreigners, or because of a lack of family values - but it isnt, isnt it?
Its because today both parents have to work, for a family to make a decent living. (Except if you are rich. )
If you get that - it should somewhat break your believe system.. So start small, one step at a time. Try to find the logic error in my argument.
Last edited by notimp,