Obama cancels abstinence education programs, and riles up everyone

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by jammies

I don't see how the original quote can be construed as anything other than that naughty little teens must be punished by, and I quote, "you're on your own girl!"

Not punished. Again, taking away a priviledge is not a punishment.

The quote was meant (and I think it was clear) as:

"you're on your own girl!"

Sincerely, your government.

Originally Posted by jammies

And what if they don't have parents, or have as a parent someone who is already poor? Or what if the parents DON'T step up?

Charities. People can help whoever their want and support any irresponsible teen activity they want - with their own money.

Originally Posted by jammies

And that's why libertarianism fails - it confuses economics with morality. Which is how you end up advocating children being punished for the bad choices of their parents and calling it "moral".

Again, who's punished? I think you are throwing this term around quite loosely. The kid is entitled to my tax money? Why, how?

[Azure]

The idea of taking my tax money to pay for someone else being stupid doesn't jive with me either.

People should learn to be responsible, and if they're not....they pay on their own dime.

If anything, there should be a bigger drive by charities to set up teen pregnancy centers.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Not really, I am as surprised as you are that I posted so often in this thread I don't have an agenda here, US domestic policies don't affect me.



Well, the cycle continues if my idea doesn't work, and I don't think it has been proven it cannot work. Financial incentives are very powerful and very clear to see.

I've read (non-english source, so no link) that countries battling illiteracy in their population (or a part of their population) started taking away child support from parents who allowed their kids to bag school. School attendance skyrocketed immediately.



Well then I guess we disagree. I believe no one is entlitled to be supported anyway. Financial support is a priviledge, not a right. (cue in the entitled generation thread)

And let's not make it sound like this will cause child poverty of epic proportions in the US (western world). Parents in underdeveloped countries work for endless hours and yet their families enjoy standards of living well bellow American (Canadian, British, ...) knocked up prom queen.



I don't know if it automatically fixes things, but I think it does offer incentive to fix the problem by taking away a priviledge (not a right), rather than another endless "do this don't do this" talk to bored teens in a classroom. Do what you want, but you're on your own with the consequences of your actions.

Actually it's only a 'financial incentive' if you're giving them something. Not if you're taking it away. Then you're just cold, lol.



incentive (noun) something that incites or tends to incite to action or greater effort, as a reward offered for increased productivity.



Like the experiments they did with smokers who were pregnant (not saying it's a good idea, just using it as an example), giving them increasingly larger amounts with each week they were clean from smoke. It had a percentage of effectiveness in the high 80's. You're right, financial incentives DO work very well.

Unfortunately, I don't believe the opposite is true. And that's what you're proposing. Look at the States, they have a very high level of teen pregnancy with a very low level of support (on a Western world basis anyway).

Here's a site I found that has them ranked 1st per capita. Canada is ranked 9th and has less than half the rate. This kinda shoots your argument in the foot. I guess we don't know what a country with NO assistance would look like, but less assistance isn't helping people make better choices. In fact, it does look like it's just adding to the cycle.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/he...ncy-per-capita

Not coming up with assistance is not a 'financial incentive'. Yes it's a financial decision, but incentives are pluses or rewards, not a system which is the status quo or removal of that system.

I completely get your libertarian take on not wanting to help (or at least not being forced to, which I assume is the real issue) people who made mistakes and while I don't agree with it, I understand it. We do want things to be fair, and we do want to keep our share of the pie especially if we have worked hard to get it and have not done things wrong that others have.

However I do think it's fairly foolish to assume it would really change the behaviour of teens (or people). It's just going to add to the problems and help the cycle.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Azure

The idea of taking my tax money to pay for someone else being stupid doesn't jive with me either.

People should learn to be responsible, and if they're not....they pay on their own dime.

If anything, there should be a bigger drive by charities to set up teen pregnancy centers.

Unfortunately it's the kids who pay the most, and they did nothing to deserve it.

The theory is, if you help someone, they may be able to help themselves later and not make the same mistake, or teach others (or their kids) not to.

However if you don't, you could have a larger problem.

Yeah it sucks having to fix someone else problem, but in not doing so, you could be creating a larger problem. Pretty soon you can add increased homelessness and crime to the list.

I guess you'd say, 'well we don't have to help those people either, it's still their problem'.

Only, eventually, it will become your problem. Whether you did all the right things or not. Eventually you'll be paying somewhere in society. Probably with your taxes, and maybe with your lifestyle, depending on how bad it gets.

Why not pay a little in the beginning instead of a lot later on down the road?

Even if you really don't care about anyone else (which I'm sure you do) a libertarian can at least see the sense in that.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Actually it's only a 'financial incentive' if you're giving them something. Not if you're taking it away. Then you're just cold, lol.



incentive (noun) something that incites or tends to incite to action or greater effort, as a reward offered for increased productivity.



Like the experiments they did with smokers who were pregnant (not saying it's a good idea, just using it as an example), giving them increasingly larger amounts with each week they were clean from smoke. It had a percentage of effectiveness in the high 80's. You're right, financial incentives DO work very well.

Haha yeah, I know. But I didnt know what else to call it. A discentive? Financial (de)motivator?

Originally Posted by Daradon

Unfortunately, I don't believe the opposite is true. And that's what you're proposing. Look at the States, they have a very high level of teen pregnancy with a very low level of support (on a Western world basis anyway).

Here's a site I found that has them ranked 1st per capita. Canada is ranked 9th and has less than half the rate. This kinda shoots your argument in the foot. I guess we don't know what a country with NO assistance would look like, but less assistance isn't helping people make better choices. In fact, it does look like it's just adding to the cycle.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/he...ncy-per-capita

Not coming up with assistance is not a 'financial incentive'. Yes it's a financial decision, but incentives are pluses or rewards, not a system which is the status quo or removal of that system.

I don't think you are looking at the chart the right way. You can't compare USA to Canada to Zimbabwe.

You can compare USA (no support) to USA (little support) to USA (a lot of support).

I say that USA (lot of support) gets the highest % of teen pregnancies and USA (no support) lowest. Disagree?

BTW My country ranks 2nd on that list

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Haha yeah, I know. But I didnt know what else to call it. A discentive? Financial (de)motivator?



I don't think you are looking at the chart the right way. You can't compare USA to Canada to Zimbabwe.

You can compare USA (no support) to USA (little support) to USA (a lot of support).

I say that USA (lot of support) gets the highest % of teen pregnancies and USA (no support) lowest. Disagree?

BTW My country ranks 2nd on that list

Just to answer your question I'd have to say, I would probably disagree with your statement. I admit I am not an expert and could probably look at the issue far more in depth, as you mentioned you didn't expect to post so much and neither did I. But even the small amount of research I did just now, coupled with what I've known (been taught) from the past seems to suggest I'm on the right path.

I believe it (the rate) would probably be the same to a little bit less as you increase support (to a certain level of course, not to the point where it makes sense to have babies to earn money). I would suggest that where there is support, you are less likely to have a poverty situation that might encourage a repeat in the cycle. Which has been the main part of my thesis the whole time.

It only makes logical sense that if you have children in a poverty situation, they are more likely to make bigger mistakes, including getting pregnant themselves. I don't see how that's a huge stretch.

I'll admit I don't have any more info to support that right now (though I think the chart might be a start) and it's just my feeling on the matter.

I'm not sure why you wouldn't be able to compare Canada to the States. Our culture and laws (in a world sense) are near identical. I would argue it would be the best example without looking entirely within a nation. Zimbabwe may be a stretch yeah, but you'll notice I didn't say anything about them (or even Japan).

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

The quote was meant (and I think it was clear)

I'd say, judging from the reactions of not just myself, the clarity was certainly there but not for the meaning you suggest.

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Again, who's punished? I think you are throwing this term around quite loosely. The kid is entitled to my (emphasis added by jammies) tax money? Why, how?

Again you are retrofitting your argument onto your original rant. If you had said "NO ONE deserves child benefits, including these teen-age mothers, and maybe that would help with the number of pregnancies", that would be one thing. But you didn't. You specifically argued that teens be the ones to lose their benefits, and only teens. Now you're arguing a different proposition with a different justification and trying to pass it off as a mere elaboration on your original argument.

Also, it's not YOUR money once the government has it. It's the government's money. The government shouldn't waste it, but that has nothing to do with where it got the money - if I didn't pay any tax at all, that wouldn't mean I'd be ok with my government spending what money it had on hookers and blow just because I didn't have some mythical stake in its operations.

The government is beholden to the voters, not to the voter's - or anybody else's - money. I don't like paying taxes any more than you do, but if there is a better alternative, it certainly doesn't lie in some free-market dystopia hearkening back to the frontier days of robber barons, shady bankers and philanthropic societies of the smug and patronizing rich.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I'm not sure why you wouldn't be able to compare Canada to the States.

Because it disproves what he wishes to believe.

Two more culturally similar and economically developed countries can't be found, but anytime the statistics favour Canadian policies, that's due to some unknown and mysterious factor, but if they favour the USA, it's because the free-market/American/anti-government way is better.

To be fair, there's plenty of people that do the opposite, in that if it's an American value, it's automatically suspect and almost undoubtedly bad. Personally, I *try* to be unbiased, unless of course it's the Chinese, who can and should be demonized at all opportunities.

(For one, now that I think of it, illicit conception in China doesn't lose you benefits, it can land you in prison! See how evil they are! And I thought I was mostly kidding!)

[Azure]

I'm not saying leave these teens in the cold.

There are a LOT, and I mean a LOT of charity organizations out there that do a great job with this kind of stuff. And the American people are MORE than willing to donate a lot of money to support them.

THAT is the way to look after someone who is irresponsible and makes a mistake.

[peter12]

I think it's a sad sign of our culture's spiritual decay when things like charity, love and hope are replaced by bureaucrats and politically-motivated welfare schemes. Even worse is that people defend it.

[jammies]

[Daradon]

peter12: 'I think it's a sad sign of our culture's spiritual decay when things like charity, love and hope are replaced by bureaucrats and politically-motivated welfare schemes. Even worse is that people defend it.'

Yup, all support programs are politically motivated. They have nothing to do with trying to improve society or even just make the best of a bad or undesirable situation. Nothing at all with the vision of a country and how to deal with it's problems. Trying to come up with solutions to complex probelms even though ideas and values differ. It's all politics.

What a silly thing to say. Yeah, situations like that are used politically, but only because those situations already existed.

I'm not sure there would be enough love and charity to go around without them. Maybe there would be, and I'd like to hope so, but I'm not so sure. Either way I don't mind if my taxes go that road.

And don't even get me started on he spiritual decay comment. I don't even know how that makes sense for your point, never mind the fact that your point is already taking a complex situation and boiling it down to hyperbole to fit YOUR politics.

Speaking of politics... lol

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Unfortunately it's the kids who pay the most, and they did nothing to deserve it.

The theory is, if you help someone, they may be able to help themselves later and not make the same mistake, or teach others (or their kids) not to.

However if you don't, you could have a larger problem.

Yeah it sucks having to fix someone else problem, but in not doing so, you could be creating a larger problem. Pretty soon you can add increased homelessness and crime to the list.

I guess you'd say, 'well we don't have to help those people either, it's still their problem'.

Only, eventually, it will become your problem. Whether you did all the right things or not. Eventually you'll be paying somewhere in society. Probably with your taxes, and maybe with your lifestyle, depending on how bad it gets.

Why not pay a little in the beginning instead of a lot later on down the road?

Even if you really don't care about anyone else (which I'm sure you do) a libertarian can at least see the sense in that.

Unfortunately, what happens to a large degree here in the states is that we help (financially) but don't help the kids either. There is an entire subculture of this country that multiplies in order to receive more government benefits. Some say we have to help them financially. The problem is, that money doesn't help anyone. It's pissed away.

This is a very real and maybe the single biggest problem in the US today.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Unfortunately, what happens to a large degree here in the states is that we help (financially) but don't help the kids either. There is an entire subculture of this country that multiplies in order to receive more government benefits. Some say we have to help them financially. The problem is, that money doesn't help anyone. It's pissed away.

This is a very real and maybe the single biggest problem in the US today.

Yeah, I've definitely seen/heard of situations like that. I assume you're talking of situations where the parents misuse the money.

I don't know what the answer would be, maybe more program based? Definitely not saying the system isn't broken somehow. Was most just replying to the idea that going the 'tough love/no support' route would decrease the pregnancies. Which I would disagree with.

Obviously there is a problem for a reason in the States and I don't think taking away what little support is left is going to fix it. Exactly what is causing the problem and what would decrease the rate is definitely up for debate for sure.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Yeah, I've definitely seen/heard of situations like that. I assume you're talking of situations where the parents misuse the money.

I don't know what the answer would be, maybe more program based? Definitely not saying the system isn't broken somehow. Was most just replying to the idea that going the 'tough love/no support' route would decrease the pregnancies. Which I would disagree with.

Obviously there is a problem for a reason in the States and I don't think taking away what little support is left is going to fix it. Exactly what is causing the problem and what would decrease the rate is definitely up for debate for sure.

I know what you were getting at.

Situations isn't the appropriate phrase to describe the prevalence of this kind of thing. I'm telling you from personal experience, the number of children born in the US in order to get more government money is staggering. It's actually taught, generation to generation. This is kind of off topic though, because teens are not the prevailing demographic.

It's scary. What's the solution? I sure as hell don't know. It's a downward spiral with reprecussions that expand exponentially.

[Azure]

You're saying that parents are intentionally having kids to receive more child aid from the government?

Not that it sounds that crazy.....because once people know they can suck off the government's teet, they'll probably do anything to get more money.

Which is exactly why I'm saying that it should be charity organizations doing this kind of work.

"I'm from the government, I'm here to help" is an oxymoron almost. Everything the government does is politically motivated.

These teen-aid programs need to be just that....programed based. Not a blank check to irresponsible parents and let them use the money whichever way they see fit.

I would also like a bigger push to support young mothers who are willing to HAVE their baby, but give it up for adoption.

It shouldn't be so easy to abort a baby just because someone was irresponsible and doesn't want to deal with the consequences of their actions.

Might be their choice.....but there should be a strong push to keep the babies, and adopt them into loving homes.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

You're saying that parents are intentionally having kids to receive more child aid from the government?

.

Absolutely. In staggering numbers.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I know what you were getting at.

Situations isn't the appropriate phrase to describe the prevalence of this kind of thing. I'm telling you from personal experience, the number of children born in the US in order to get more government money is staggering. It's actually taught, generation to generation. This is kind of off topic though, because teens are not the prevailing demographic.

It's scary. What's the solution? I sure as hell don't know. It's a downward spiral with reprecussions that expand exponentially.

Yeah, we've got families like that too, and as you said, it's not just the kids. Some people are just like that.

It's weird that (at least in the teen demographic anyway) we're about 2 1/2 less the rate than you per capita (at least according to that one site)

So what causes that type of thinking in a family? Weird. As mentioned, the cultural differences between the two countries are small at best.

I can't think of a situation besides poverty that would actually encourage that. When you're living in poverty, it's worth it to have more kids to increase the amount of money you get, even if it means your continuing the cycle.

Plus if you're in poverty you're probably less educated and it makes the situation not only more likely, but more desirable. At least by the fact that it's easier to get a cheque by having a child, than it is to get a job

And I would assume you would agree that it's usually families that are in poverty that make that decision. I don't know if it's un PC to say that, but I would imagine most people would agree.

Being in poverty in the States is probably harder than being in poverty in Canada (as an average anyway) and might be part of the problem? IE there is more of a saftey net for you here so you don't have to resort to having children for money as you mentioned is prevalent thinking in some places in the States.

Course, then the situation isn't fixable unless you completely overhaul the system, which probably isn't going to happen.

Just thoughts though, no real info to back that up. If you can find a hole in that line of thinking have at it. Just kinda jumping from stone to stone here as best I can...

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Daradon

peter12: 'I think it's a sad sign of our culture's spiritual decay when things like charity, love and hope are replaced by bureaucrats and politically-motivated welfare schemes. Even worse is that people defend it.'

Yup, all support programs are politically motivated. They have nothing to do with trying to improve society or even just make the best of a bad or undesirable situation. Nothing at all with the vision of a country and how to deal with it's problems. Trying to come up with solutions to complex probelms even though ideas and values differ. It's all politics.

What a silly thing to say. Yeah, situations like that are used politically, but only because those situations already existed.

I'm not sure there would be enough love and charity to go around without them. Maybe there would be, and I'd like to hope so, but I'm not so sure. Either way I don't mind if my taxes go that road.

And don't even get me started on he spiritual decay comment. I don't even know how that makes sense for your point, never mind the fact that your point is already taking a complex situation and boiling it down to hyperbole to fit YOUR politics.

Speaking of politics... lol

Sort of my case in point. If you believe that the only purpose of freedom is to be free of ALL responsibilities, then why do you believe that government official's motives are any different than yours. I've had first hand experience dealing with government welfare services on behalf of new refugees in Canada and let me tell you, even though the service is there, the humanity and personal touch is not. You have no idea how many people fall through the vast cracks of our welfare system with no one to help pick them up.

Maybe you should lose some of your smugness and take some time to engage in some human charity. The paucity of government humanity would hopefully shock you.

Yup, all support programs are politically motivated. They have nothing to do with trying to improve society or even just make the best of a bad or undesirable situation. Nothing at all with the vision of a country and how to deal with it's problems. Trying to come up with solutions to complex probelms even though ideas and values differ. It's all politics.


Spiritual decay doesn't have anything to do with religion but with the common vision that citizens of a nation share. As Canadians, we would truly have none if the majority shared your view.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Sort of my case in point. If you believe that the only purpose of freedom is to be free of ALL responsibilities, then why do you believe that government official's motives are any different than yours. I've had first hand experience dealing with government welfare services on behalf of new refugees in Canada and let me tell you, even though the service is there, the humanity and personal touch is not. You have no idea how many people fall through the vast cracks of our welfare system with no one to help pick them up.

Maybe you should lose some of your smugness and take some time to engage in some human charity. The paucity of government humanity would hopefully shock you.

Yup, all support programs are politically motivated. They have nothing to do with trying to improve society or even just make the best of a bad or undesirable situation. Nothing at all with the vision of a country and how to deal with it's problems. Trying to come up with solutions to complex probelms even though ideas and values differ. It's all politics.


Spiritual decay doesn't have anything to do with religion but with the common vision that citizens of a nation share. As Canadians, we would truly have none if the majority shared your view.

When I have ever argued that freedom means being free of responsibilities? In all of my posts on anything, I usually argue the exact opposite. That responsibility to mankind is what keeps a free society working and that as humans we are responsible to our neighbor and our planet.

I was simply saying in this thread, that even if you are a libertarian, you could probably justify spending some on social programs just so you wouldn't have to spend more later. That it makes moral sense AS WELL as financial sense to have a certain level of social support.

As for charity, I've helped out with several things. I can't claim to have any experience with the government sector as you do, but your assessment of how I might spend my free time is completely off.

And I agree, the government can screw somethings up, but surely something is better than nothing. And just because some people are doing it for the wrong reasons doesn't mean everyone is.

Perhaps it's just your experience with the government programs that has made your bitter to them. Which is fine. I'm sure there are many problems with the system as it is. But I can't paint everyone with the same brush and say it's 100% politically motivated like you did.

As for smugness I was simply replying to your original post, which wasn't exactly smug free.

As for spirituality, you are right, that has nothing to do with religion and I usually argue that point too. However your first post was so obtuse I'm still not sure why you decided to throw that in there, it didn't really seem to fit with anything.

I would argue that spirituality has nothing to do with vision that a country shares though. Spirituality is a very personal thing and it's based on how you feel you fit into the world. The answer to questions such as 'who am I? how did I get here? what is the meaning of life?' That's spirituality.

So you can see why I'd be confused if you suddenly want to equate it to shared values based on a country. That would be more like... national moral identity.