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?

Of course, many social ills are generational.  Patterns that repeat from parent to child.  So what?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Of course, many social ills are generational.  Patterns that repeat from parent to child.  So what?

That is the problem you cannot solve. You can't force people to change. The only way people change is if they have an incentive to change. Throwing people, education, or money at this issue won't solve anything. The man and woman both have to be willing to change.

Short of women withholding sex until marriage, the men have no incentive to change. They can be a deadbeat and still have women who don't care, so they have no reason to change. Women also don't care about having a kid because it improves their government funding and even more without the man around.

You can't force the societal change but you can cut off the funding and make it beneficial if the parents live together. Then hopefully it becomes the requirement that women demand from men, so then the men can't go around fathering a bunch of kids because both women won't get the money. Then after 10-20 years, although may take longer to build back up as it's quicker to destroy things, maybe the default has become to get married and have a family.


It won't ever happen, though, because the government is only interested in providing for the consequences. If they instead solved the action that caused the consequences, then you wouldn't need the government's money anymore.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

Of course, many social ills are generational.  Patterns that repeat from parent to child.  So what?

That is the problem you cannot solve. You can't force people to change. The only way people change is if they have an incentive to change. Throwing people, education, or money at this issue won't solve anything. The man and woman both have to be willing to change.

Short of women withholding sex until marriage, the men have no incentive to change. They can be a deadbeat and still have women who don't care, so they have no reason to change. Women also don't care about having a kid because it improves their government funding and even more without the man around.

You can't force the societal change but you can cut off the funding and make it beneficial if the parents live together. Then hopefully it becomes the requirement that women demand from men, so then the men can't go around fathering a bunch of kids because both women won't get the money. Then after 10-20 years, although may take longer to build back up as it's quicker to destroy things, maybe the default has become to get married and have a family.


It won't ever happen, though, because the government is only interested in providing for the consequences. If they instead solved the action that caused the consequences, then you wouldn't need the government's money anymore.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

So you agree that it's foolish to blame today's Democratic Party for problems like these.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So you agree that it's foolish to blame today's Democratic Party for problems like these.

No because the party is the same as the ones who started and they continue the downward spiral.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

That is the problem you cannot solve. You can't force people to change. The only way people change is if they have an incentive to change. Throwing people, education, or money at this issue won't solve anything. The man and woman both have to be willing to change.

Short of women withholding sex until marriage, the men have no incentive to change. They can be a deadbeat and still have women who don't care, so they have no reason to change. Women also don't care about having a kid because it improves their government funding and even more without the man around.

You can't force the societal change but you can cut off the funding and make it beneficial if the parents live together. Then hopefully it becomes the requirement that women demand from men, so then the men can't go around fathering a bunch of kids because both women won't get the money. Then after 10-20 years, although may take longer to build back up as it's quicker to destroy things, maybe the default has become to get married and have a family.


It won't ever happen, though, because the government is only interested in providing for the consequences. If they instead solved the action that caused the consequences, then you wouldn't need the government's money anymore.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

So you agree that it's foolish to blame today's Democratic Party for problems like these.

My, what a clever attempt to expand your general defense of the current Democratic leadership.  I think he's smarter than that.

The Democratic party has been exacerbating the underlying problems for decades, and the policies of today's administration are worse than ever.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

That is the problem you cannot solve. You can't force people to change. The only way people change is if they have an incentive to change. Throwing people, education, or money at this issue won't solve anything. The man and woman both have to be willing to change.

Short of women withholding sex until marriage, the men have no incentive to change. They can be a deadbeat and still have women who don't care, so they have no reason to change. Women also don't care about having a kid because it improves their government funding and even more without the man around.

You can't force the societal change but you can cut off the funding and make it beneficial if the parents live together. Then hopefully it becomes the requirement that women demand from men, so then the men can't go around fathering a bunch of kids because both women won't get the money. Then after 10-20 years, although may take longer to build back up as it's quicker to destroy things, maybe the default has become to get married and have a family.


It won't ever happen, though, because the government is only interested in providing for the consequences. If they instead solved the action that caused the consequences, then you wouldn't need the government's money anymore.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

So you agree that it's foolish to blame today's Democratic Party for problems like these.

Mike, this problem was already largely solved in the US. The Moynihan Report was a call to action for the country to help black families who were only at a 26 percent out of wedlock child rate back then, which was considered terrible. Then democrats installed a racist welfare policy and the bottom fell out. It's preposterous for you to try to sidestep this issue. It continues today in the form of critical theory practices implemented by the left. Why? Because they don't believe in the nuclear family as a bedrock of society. White families now have children out of wedlock at a 26 percent clip. 

This falls directly on the policies of the left. It's straight out of the philosophies of the left. I wish you were half as well versed on these subjects as you think you are.

---

So you agree that it's foolish to blame today's Democratic Party for problems like these.

Mike, this problem was already largely solved in the US. The Moynihan Report was a call to action for the country to help black families who were only at a 26 percent out of wedlock child rate back then, which was considered terrible. Then democrats installed a racist welfare policy and the bottom fell out. It's preposterous for you to try to sidestep this issue. It continues today in the form of critical theory practices implemented by the left. Why? Because they don't believe in the nuclear family as a bedrock of society. White families now have children out of wedlock at a 26 percent clip. 

This falls directly on the policies of the left. It's straight out of the philosophies of the left. I wish you were half as well versed on these subjects as you think you are.

Even if I agreed with everything you just said, that's all in the past.
P rushing admitted, above, that any plausible new government will not fix these problems.
Why should consideration of these problems change my vote one way or the other if government can't solve them?

---

So you agree that it's foolish to blame today's Democratic Party for problems like these.

My, what a clever attempt to expand your general defense of the current Democratic leadership.  I think he's smarter than that.

The Democratic party has been exacerbating the underlying problems for decades, and the policies of today's administration are worse than ever.

Suppose I agreed with that.  Which Republicans have done anything to heal the underlying problems?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Mike, this problem was already largely solved in the US. The Moynihan Report was a call to action for the country to help black families who were only at a 26 percent out of wedlock child rate back then, which was considered terrible. Then democrats installed a racist welfare policy and the bottom fell out. It's preposterous for you to try to sidestep this issue. It continues today in the form of critical theory practices implemented by the left. Why? Because they don't believe in the nuclear family as a bedrock of society. White families now have children out of wedlock at a 26 percent clip. 

This falls directly on the policies of the left. It's straight out of the philosophies of the left. I wish you were half as well versed on these subjects as you think you are.

Even if I agreed with everything you just said, that's all in the past.
P rushing admitted, above, that any plausible new government will not fix these problems.
Why should consideration of these problems change my vote one way or the other if government can't solve them?

---

My, what a clever attempt to expand your general defense of the current Democratic leadership.  I think he's smarter than that.

The Democratic party has been exacerbating the underlying problems for decades, and the policies of today's administration are worse than ever.

Suppose I agreed with that.  Which Republicans have done anything to heal the underlying problems?

Lol. You're logic is so [BLEEP].

---

Mike, this problem was already largely solved in the US. The Moynihan Report was a call to action for the country to help black families who were only at a 26 percent out of wedlock child rate back then, which was considered terrible. Then democrats installed a racist welfare policy and the bottom fell out. It's preposterous for you to try to sidestep this issue. It continues today in the form of critical theory practices implemented by the left. Why? Because they don't believe in the nuclear family as a bedrock of society. White families now have children out of wedlock at a 26 percent clip. 

This falls directly on the policies of the left. It's straight out of the philosophies of the left. I wish you were half as well versed on these subjects as you think you are.

Even if I agreed with everything you just said, that's all in the past.
P rushing admitted, above, that any plausible new government will not fix these problems.
Why should consideration of these problems change my vote one way or the other if government can't solve them?

---

My, what a clever attempt to expand your general defense of the current Democratic leadership.  I think he's smarter than that.

The Democratic party has been exacerbating the underlying problems for decades, and the policies of today's administration are worse than ever.

Suppose I agreed with that.  Which Republicans have done anything to heal the underlying problems?

A Republican government will let you keep your guns.....................and you're going to need them!


Let's start with law enforcement policies.  Forget about incarceration ratios and percentages by race.  Black, white, brown or yellow doesn't matter, if you do the crime, you do the time.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Even if I agreed with everything you just said, that's all in the past.
P rushing admitted, above, that any plausible new government will not fix these problems.
Why should consideration of these problems change my vote one way or the other if government can't solve them?

---

Suppose I agreed with that.  Which Republicans have done anything to heal the underlying problems?

A Republican government will let you keep your guns.....................and you're going to need them!


Let's start with law enforcement policies.  Forget about incarceration ratios and percentages by race.  Black, white, brown or yellow doesn't matter, if you do the crime, you do the time.

OK but how long are you going to lock a guy up for stealing white claws from CVS? Are you going to help him find a job after he gets out?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

A Republican government will let you keep your guns.....................and you're going to need them!


Let's start with law enforcement policies.  Forget about incarceration ratios and percentages by race.  Black, white, brown or yellow doesn't matter, if you do the crime, you do the time.

OK but how long are you going to lock a guy up for stealing white claws from CVS? Are you going to help him find a job after he gets out?

The problem extends far beyond petty theft at a CVS, it's the complete lack of respect for law and order.  I'll lock him up for as long as it takes him to understand that.  

Don't you understand the difference between one individual taking a $3 item and an organized mob charging in, ransacking and looting?  If store employees or customers are assaulted during the theft, doesn't that raise the stakes dramatically?  How would you feel if your wife and kids were in the store, caught in the middle, when it happened?

I'll give him a job in prison before he gets out.  No work, no privileges.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

A problem to be sure, but a completely different problem, without correlation to the looting in DC.

Drifter stated looting is a result of bad parenting.  Looting is a subset of crime, to which murder is also a subset of crime.  If one is to blame looting on bad parenting, I'd have to think gang banging, killing, and other such crimes would fall into that same category.  Personally, I don't place the full blame on bad parenting but rather a lawless Government

If you are raised to believe that murder is wrong, then it seems pretty likely that you aren't going to commit murder regardless of how lawless the government is.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

OK but how long are you going to lock a guy up for stealing white claws from CVS? Are you going to help him find a job after he gets out?

The problem extends far beyond petty theft at a CVS, it's the complete lack of respect for law and order.  I'll lock him up for as long as it takes him to understand that.  

Don't you understand the difference between one individual taking a $3 item and an organized mob charging in, ransacking and looting?  If store employees or customers are assaulted during the theft, doesn't that raise the stakes dramatically?  How would you feel if your wife and kids were in the store, caught in the middle, when it happened?

I'll give him a job in prison before he gets out.  No work, no privileges.

Dear God man that's not how criminal justice works... there are maximum sentences.   
And you'll "give him a job"? Doing what? For whom? With what money? Is any place doing this already? Is any prominent politician calling for these policies? Or are you just spitballing?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

OK but how long are you going to lock a guy up for stealing white claws from CVS? Are you going to help him find a job after he gets out?

It's called consequences. You make the punishment harsh enough that you don't commit the crime. If there is no fear of the punishment, then there is no reason to change and no longer do something.

I didn't say you can't change society with government, the democrats already have proven that many times. I said that you can't force someone to change, they still have free will. The government could make it where a single mother was worse off than if the man had no job but still lived there. Over time the expectation would be that a man lives with the mother of his children and then those kids benefit from it. It would naturally cut down on the number of women having kids with multiple men and vice versa. Over a decade or 2, although could take 2+ generations, society would have changed to where almost all families lived together and the government wouldn't need to enforce any rules then.

It just takes longer to fix something that the democrats previously broke unless there is some catalyst action that causes people to change abruptly.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

OK but how long are you going to lock a guy up for stealing white claws from CVS? Are you going to help him find a job after he gets out?

It's called consequences. You make the punishment harsh enough that you don't commit the crime. If there is no fear of the punishment, then there is no reason to change and no longer do something.

I didn't say you can't change society with government, the democrats already have proven that many times. I said that you can't force someone to change, they still have free will. The government could make it where a single mother was worse off than if the man had no job but still lived there. Over time the expectation would be that a man lives with the mother of his children and then those kids benefit from it. It would naturally cut down on the number of women having kids with multiple men and vice versa. Over a decade or 2, although could take 2+ generations, society would have changed to where almost all families lived together and the government wouldn't need to enforce any rules then.

It just takes longer to fix something that the democrats previously broke unless there is some catalyst action that causes people to change abruptly.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

That's a plausible argument, but today's Republican party isn't making any proposals like this.
This discussion should not affect our vote until that changes.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The problem extends far beyond petty theft at a CVS, it's the complete lack of respect for law and order.  I'll lock him up for as long as it takes him to understand that.  

Don't you understand the difference between one individual taking a $3 item and an organized mob charging in, ransacking and looting?  If store employees or customers are assaulted during the theft, doesn't that raise the stakes dramatically?  How would you feel if your wife and kids were in the store, caught in the middle, when it happened?

I'll give him a job in prison before he gets out.  No work, no privileges.

Dear God man that's not how criminal justice works... there are maximum sentences.   
And you'll "give him a job"? Doing what? For whom? With what money?  Is any place doing this already? Is any prominent politician calling for these policies? Or are you just spitballing?

I'm aware of how our criminal justice system works theoretically, thanks.  Unlike you however, I'm not blind to its failure in reality.  The problem is not with maximum sentences, but with minimum, or the lack thereof.  If the likelihood of being caught is minimal and the penalty, if any, is a joke, where is the deterrent?   

Yes, there are already work release programs in effect for low-risk inmates.  As for the others, haven't you ever seen "Cool Hand Luke"?

Are you really indifferent to the prospect of your family out shopping, then suddenly surrounded by a mob of looters?  What is an appropriate minimum sentence for this crime?

When the DA publicly announces that certain crimes won't be prosecuted, here's the message it sends to the offender.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Dear God man that's not how criminal justice works... there are maximum sentences.   
And you'll "give him a job"? Doing what? For whom? With what money?  Is any place doing this already? Is any prominent politician calling for these policies? Or are you just spitballing?

I'm aware of how our criminal justice system works theoretically, thanks.  Unlike you however, I'm not blind to its failure in reality.  The problem is not with maximum sentences, but with minimum, or the lack thereof.  If the likelihood of being caught is minimal and the penalty, if any, is a joke, where is the deterrent?   

Yes, there are already work release programs in effect for low-risk inmates.  As for the others, haven't you ever seen "Cool Hand Luke"?

Are you really indifferent to the prospect of your family out shopping, then suddenly surrounded by a mob of looters?  What is an appropriate minimum sentence for this crime?

When the DA publicly announces that certain crimes won't be prosecuted, here's the message it sends to the offender.

You literally wrote that a convict should remain in jail until they've learned their lesson.  Two problems with that.  Obvious ones.  One, no one can know if they've learned their lesson, and two, there is a maximum sentence.  There is a limit on how long a person can be held for a given crime. 

Don't flail at me with more red herrings.  Don't imply or infer that I voted for or supported any of these silly "soft on crime" DA's.  Don't refer to 50 year old movies as if they represent today's reality when they didn't even represent reality then. 

Deal with the fact that the unemployment rate is insanely high among ex-cons.  Deal with the fact that many prisons are already overcrowded. Deal with your own ugly stupidity and pipe down until you do.  Reality is your problem, man, not me.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

What have democrats made better in your opinion, Mikey. Not nebulous concepts... actual data. You seem to forget we started with a baseline. That has been deteriorating. You can't throw your hands up and challenge Republicans to offer solutions to problems created by democrats.

---

What have democrats made better in your opinion, Mikey. Not nebulous concepts... actual data. You seem to forget we started with a baseline. That has been deteriorating. You can't throw your hands up and challenge Republicans to offer solutions to problems created by democrats.

Our votes should be based on the character of the candidates and the potential for their proposals to make the future better.  Those are opinions of course and they will vary from person to person but each person should make them.

A vote should never be based on assigning blame or credit for a social change that occurred decades ago.  Don't worry about the past.  

When I look at high crime urban areas I see a need to make our justice system more responsive, and hire more cops, but also hire more social workers and figure out a way to get ex cons some real job opportunities. I don't care which party does it.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So nothing.

---