(10-09-2023, 09:36 AM)Sneakers Wrote:

(10-09-2023, 07:15 AM)mikesez Wrote: Idea 1 is interesting but it probably won't do anything.  Today we see mothers hiding the fact that a man lives with them from the government to get more assistance.   After we try this idea, some women will lie saying a man does live with them and their kids when he in fact does not.

Idea 2, we already do that.  It's called child support.

As for your last paragraph, that's pretty sexist.  It takes two to stay and one to leave, in every case.  A woman might believe the father of her children is going to stay, doesn't mean he will. A woman can't make a man stay any more than a man can make a woman stay.

Agreed that #1 would throw money into a program prime for deception.  Verification would be a nightmare and growing the government is the last thing we need.  

# 2 already doesn't work because it diminishes the woman's financial incentive to keep the relationship intact.

I think the last paragraph was not sexist, but rather, a biological reference.  The ultimate decision to have a child or not, is made by the woman.


You asked earlier what the solution might be.  If we accept the premise that fatherless households produce more problem children, what now absent or diminished benefits, does a father figure bring into a two-parent living situation?  Financial, disciplinary, role model, leadership?  Is it possible that a high percentage of those (male and female) who have children under very casual circumstances, already have problems themselves and their children are predisposed to follow?