Helping the Kids

As President Obama heads for a nice vacation in Martha's Vineyard, a place of wealth, I want him to work on a simple math calculation. One of the major themes of the President's administration is that there is a tremendous problem of "income inequality" in this nation and it must be addressed.

Mr. Obama's solution is to redistribute income using seizure tactics. His plan is to have the federal government provide subsidies for those with low incomes by taking money from the affluent and business. The problem is that high taxation restrains economic expansion and inhibits the country from creating new avenues of wealth. If the affluent spend less and business invests less in expansion and development, wages for workers stagnate because there is heavy competition for jobs.

The President does not seem to understand that.

But the core problem of "income inequality" stems from failure to seize opportunity. If an American is ill-educated and does not develop useful skills, he or she will not be able to earn much money in the marketplace. And little is being done about that.

So here's the math deal, Mr. President. Right now 48% of American children living in female-headed households are poor. That's compared with a poverty rate of 11% for kids living in a married couple situation.

The out-of-wedlock birth rate for African-Americans is close to 73%. For Hispanics it's 53%, for whites 29%. And, sadly, most of those children are growing up without fathers in the home.

So where is the national campaign to discourage women from having babies out-of-wedlock? Is the Department of Education doing anything about that? The media? Anyone?

Back in 1992, then Vice-President Dan Quayle derided a TV character named Murphy Brown (played by Candace Bergen) for doing episodes about having a baby outside of marriage. Quayle was mocked unmercifully by the elite media and the salon set.

But Dan Quayle was right. According to the U. S. Census, 34% of unwed mothers do not work and that is driving abject poverty.

America offers the most amount of people the best opportunity to pursue happiness on the planet. That's why millions of illegal immigrants have poured into the country – most of them poor. They believe they have a shot to improve themselves economically.

But children living in poverty without fathers to guide them are at a strong disadvantage in our competitive society. Mr. Obama's solution is to throw as much money as he can into programs to help those kids. But that will never work.

The traditional American family has always been the foundation for success in America. But now it is being destroyed in some precincts. Welfare programs and public schooling will never overcome disadvantage on the home front. It is time for President Obama to lead. The way to improve "income equality" is to encourage traditional upbringings and discipline.

Simply do the math, Mr. President.

  • Wheels55

    Liberals do promote lower rates of births – indirectly. They fully support free birth control and late-term abortions. It appears that not enough liberals take advantage of these programs.
    However, nothing replaces the responsibility of parents. I know several single parents that do a great job raising their kids. But they sacrifice so much more than two-parent households do.
    I agree that it is a cultural type issue. But it seems more likely to come from parents that were not brought up correctly themselves – no matter the culture.

  • DonaldYoungsRevenge

    I saw Charles Krauthammer tell Bill O’Reilly that it was a cultural issue and that Bill O’Reilly will be long dead and erased from people’s memories before a culture that took decades to produce to change. The only preaching that has any chance of changing that sin filled culture is the “gospel of Jesus Christ” being preached from every pulpit in every urban center across America. The gospel changes a person’s heart and soul. Once a person has that life changing experience of putting one’s complete trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as his personal Savior you now have some fertile ground to work with. Unless that happens, NOTHING will ever change their circumstances. All I can say, the “body of Christ” in those satanic ghettos have their work cut out for them.

    • Josh

      Black people are amongst the most religious in America. Even though most vote Democrat, they hold true to their religious beliefs and tend to vote against things like gay marriage. And, anyway, Jesus wanted people to give up all their things and go walking, didn’t he? I’m not overly familiar with the Gospels, but didn’t he morph food items and extend them? Much like an entitlement policy?

      I think what will help any poor community isn’t more religion in their lives. That’s a separate issue. What people need is more drive to succeed.

      Capitalism didn’t fall from the sky on all the Main Streets across the America. That “little man” wasn’t something delivered from a spaceship. People taking initiative and building businesses, and subsequently their communities, is what gave rise to all the huge corporations we have today. Every area was nothing but land before the people on that land built something more.

      Poorer communities need to get away from the idea of outside assistance just a tad and begin to grow their own communities. A privately-owned strip mall will be looked after far more than taxpayer-funded programs shoveled into neighborhoods as a handout.

      • Brian Fr Langley

        Actually your quite wrong about the foundations of capitalism. It derives from the concept of a human being owning their own labor, and thus the private property they may derive from exchanging it. That is, people work for an exchange (money) and then trade it for other goods or services. (that they then own, even having the right of ownship to pass their property onto their heirs) The foundation of this ethic is based on the ancient Judeo-Christian ethic. Note the commandment, “Thou shalt not steal” In order to have a rule about theft, you need the right to private property ownership in the first place. Capitalism is simply an extension of private property rights. Which is why it, (and the Judeo-Christian ethic) are so despised by the left.

        • Josh

          What’d I say? I didn’t mention any “foundations” of Capitalism. I said capitalism didn’t fall from the sky; prosperity was earned by people who worked to build their communities who brought prosperity to themselves. It wasn’t given to them; it was earned.

          It wasn’t people continuously voting for more entitlements and screaming that they need more assistance from on high because they weren’t succeeding. Success in America came from doers, not from those expecting others to do for them.

          Where am I going wrong?

          I seem to only be “quite wrong” in not attributing something to a specific faith. And I have no interest in arguing with religious people about things which they insist their faith ushered into the world.

          They’re separate issues.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            I disagree, Capitalism is based on the idea of a transendent right and wrong. That is, man doesn’t make the rules. A higher power does. (an idea by the way entrenched in the U.S. bill of rights) If your rights and freedoms flow only from man made laws, then how do you fault perverse societies that murder their own citizens? (Nazi’s commies, etc) Where you’re going wrong, is that without the idea of a transendent right and wrong, there is no civilization, there is only a strong man (dictator) or a mob. And both are decidedly unAmerican.

          • Josh

            Would be more believable to me if we didn’t actually exist and survive for 200,000 years, in tribes and early civilizations, without any doctrine illustrating universal moral standards.

            Christianity, the religion I’m assuming you subscribe to, is fairly new to mankind. And that goes for many of today’s popular religions which subscribe to a higher power. Private ownership and commodities and economies were in existence long before. Even native peoples of America had economies which had strong elements of capitalism long before settlers starting converting them.

            There is no reason to believe they operated within the parameters of such systems due to worshiping anything.

            Capitalism is quite literally based on capital assets, not on a higher power. It’s not some static, stagnant thing. It doesn’t have inherent rules which would be considered “moral”; it molds based on the people implementing it. It’s an economic system with infinite nuance in practice. There is no reason to believe that people not believing in a higher power and transcendent morality just run roughshod over everyone robbing, killing and stealing what they will.

            This all seems incredibly confusing.

            I don’t know how to answer the Nazi and commies question, because I don’t understand the question.

            You seem to want to induce an argument about absolute morality divinely placed in people that, when rejected, leads to Hitler and Stalin.

            *makes confused face and posts comment…

          • Brian Fr Langley

            You need to read a little more history. Capitalism can not exist unless you philosophically agree that individuals have the RIGHT to acquire and own private property. Further you have to agree philosophically, individuals have the right to own the labor of their own bodies. Which means they can earn (and then own) capital. With which, (in addition to their labor) they can invest. You take for granted this is how societies always worked. Not so. In most societies a King (or other strong man) and his close friends controlled (owned) the resources. The inhabitants of their lands were simply their servants (or slaves). What made America great (and why it’s often called a shining light on a hill) is it took specific elements of the Judeo-Christian ethic to their logical conclusion. 1st, since “all men are created equal” , all men own their labor of their own bodies. (which then they could trade for other goods and services) This means their labor does not belong to the King, or the state (as Marxists claim) 2nd, these rights are NOT given by man, but given by God. The import of this can not be over stated. If your rights are man given, then men can take them back. (as Marxists claim) If a society like America decided to pass a law to re-instate slavery who’s to call it wrong? (if a majority of Americans voted to do it). If rights come from men (whether a King or a majority) they can be taken back by men. America’s bill of rights is based on the philosophy of “inalienable rights” That is God given rights, that no man can diminish. 3rd The Judeo-Christian ethic is an ethic of conscience. It doesn’t seek to convert by the sword. Thereby allowing America’s founders to create a true flowering of religious freedom. (the right to your own belief system). Societies without these three ideas are ruled either by strong men (dictators) or mobs. Neither are condusive to liberty. (the right to own the fruits of your own labor, or even the fruit of your own body, your progeny)

          • Josh

            That one person must be seen as a person free from state or rule, and that it was only a particular religion that gave this to man, isn’t “history” as much as it is cherry-picking known outcomes.

            It’s like scrambling eggs at 7 a.m. and then insisting at noon that was the only way to cook them.

            We know that America’s early European inhabitants were Christians. We know this was a time in human history where a higher power was the only possible explanation for anything. We know that some countries used this to insert one supreme leader to rule over everyone. We know that settlers in colonies balked against oppressive rule by way of Kings and fought for their independence to form America. We know that America would go on to become the world’s greatest super power.

            We know that some other countries have different systems of government (and some with similar systems are not nearly as affluent as America, so…).

            What does any of that have to do with anything I’m talking about? It’s like there’s two separate discussions going on here. Mine, where all I said initially was that people need to do more for themselves to build their communities, and yours, where glory be to God for all things freedom and prosperity.

            Not trying to be difficult. It’s just extremely confusing the point you’re trying to make. Without God we’re poor slaves?

            Yes, some places in the world relied on dictators, and still do. These places would not be very capitalistic at all if personal property doesn’t exist. And, ironically, many of these places used the same religion to oppress, taking a more literal approach to scripture.

            But the history of capitalism is not a history of America. Capitalism can be found further back. And elements of capitalism, as in the ownership and trading of commodities, can be found back thousands of years.

            So, forgive me, but I just don’t have the slightest idea of the point you’re trying to make.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            The point is, the idea of personal INDIVIDUAL rights and liberties, were foundational to America. And America was uniquely founded on this principal. (there are no other societies in history, that carried the idea of all humans having specific individual rights to the apogee of America) Further, America at its founding, considered these rights transcendent. That is, they were not man made, they were God given. (thus they can’t be taken away) Without this basic idea, America would NOT be America. That is, the country I presume you love, would not actually exist as the great free nation it is, without the founders believing in a supreme transcendent being. (read the declaration of Independence, if you’re still confused). The kind of capitalism America practises (in which all Americans can participate) is predicated upon the principal of (all) individual (s) rights to own private property. A principal founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic. And yes historically this was (is) extremely unique.

          • Josh

            It’s a very long way to say that you attribute the success of America entirely to your religion.

            I do not.

            It’s ironic. What makes our country so unique is that it doesn’t require worship. It doesn’t require one to adhere to specific values. But yet some want to claim the only reason we’re a good nation is that we do adhere to a specific set of religious values.

            Maybe you’d have to look from the outside in to see why that’s so terribly confusing.

            (Though the Islamic world was actually ahead of the curve on this in the 8th century until, surprise, religious fanaticism ruined it. It was a free land making great progress in economics, science and mathematics. But people wanted to return to Islamic values. Funny how it all works.)

            I do not agree with American capitalism becoming so prevalent due to one specific type of religious values. But as we’re talking about a time in history where some type of religion was the overwhelming consensus, I can’t argue that a “higher power” was the prevailing wisdom. “Science” was lightning and a kite string or burning different fats for lamps. Deism, in believing that there had to be some higher power, isn’t the same as worshiping a specific religion.

            America is very unique. It is perhaps the freest nation to ever exist. But to attribute that to one specific religion flies directly in the face of what specific religions teach. They teach a specific route or suffering for eternity. America institutes no such ultimatum. So it’s contradictory to claim specific religious values and then liberty, freedom and private rights.

            Still not sure how this became the argument from my initial statement that people need to rely less on entitlements and do more to build up their own communities. But it wouldn’t be the Internet otherwise.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Sorry I’m late, (been out of town) I would guess you’re not aware that ideas like capitalism, and personal liberty, flow from a philosophical foundation. That some how these ideas, and way of living, are simply the natural order of things? It would not have been obvious to our anscestors (who warred with each other endlessly) that we were (actually) all brothers in a shared humanity. Nor has it occured to a single historical civilization that all men are created equal. Nor has it occured to a single historical civilization that all men have a right to the procreate and a right to own their own labor. These ideas are BIBLICAL. That is, they flow directly from the Judeo-Christian ethic. While you may or may not agree with the Bible, discounting it as the source of these ideas is simply fallacious. And just because these ideas are true doesn’t mean you have to embrace the religion that founded them.

          • Josh

            I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, until you attempt to tie it in with a specific religion. That’s where you lose me.

            Picked-and-chosen Judeo-Christian values are not the values of the Bible. They’re not. It can be shown unequivocally that, by itself, “the Bible” is not the root of these values.

            And that’s because the Bible has to be taken as a whole if you want to make a “values” argument. It’s all or nothing with religion; that’s how religion works. Like people today eating shellfish while decrying homosexuality. Hypocrisy; it’s not a “value.” It’s ignorance of the pages and doing what one wants to do despite religious doctrine.

            Picking out some things one may like about the Bible, leaving the rest aside, is extremely anti-Bible! It’s a self-defeating argument. Plus it’s assuming that no one else could have ever conceived of “equality” or “rights” without a specific god giving its word. It’s just a losing argument that has no factual basis. What can you show to back it up? A specific Bible verse? A specific founder who was Christian? For every good verse, there’s a bad one. For every Christian founder, there was a non-Christian. It’s a losing argument. For every person who has done something “good” while touting Judeo-Christian values, there’s another who has done “bad” by espousing values they believe to be those same values.

            The religious text itself is open to wide interpretation and has been used in multiple ways since it spread. Case in point: Early settler Christians going on literal witch-hunts, thinking they were “Christian” values! What type of debate is this? It’s so mind-numbing.

            Now, if you want to argue that certain people interpreted certain things from the Bible, leaving the violence and inequality on the pages and adopting a much nicer take, then your argument has legs. But to keep insisting that these values are inherently Christian/Biblical, and that a religion is the reason for America, that’s just not true.

            It was the people. It was not the religion. And, logically, if it’s people, then it’s not religion. Religion is inert by itself. Words on paper. The founders who put together this nation did so based on their life experience of living under tyranny and wanting to break free. They did so while living in true inequality. That’s what molded their lives and brought about their stance. If it was the religion responsible, we would have seen an America-like nation arise a thousand years before.

            I realize that it’s important for you to attribute these things to your religion. And I’m not busting your chops over that. It’s mostly expected from the devout. There’s just no logic in that stance. There are a thousand gaping holes in the reasoning.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            First there is no such religion as Judeo-Christianity. There is one religion called Judaism and another called Christianity. What they share is a basic ethic. An ethic that strongly underpinned the foundation of American civilization. (and the other Nations that then followed suit, which we now call western civilization) That this in not speculation, can be found in the U.S declaration of Independence. “It is self evident that all men are CREATED equal, and thus are ENDOWED by their CREATOR with certain INALIENABLE rights”. That is the founders proclaimed human rights actually transcend humans. (creating a nation of laws, NOT a nation of majorities, that is, the U.S. is NOT a democracy, it’s a republic). Further evidence is found printed on U.S. money. “In God we trust”, the implication couldn’t be clearer. Money, which is the fount of temporal happiness, is not what is claimed as trustworthy, but rather once again what is trustworthy transcends humans and even their highest prize. (Their money). That humans have used the Bible to rationalize their evil deeds, doesn’t mean it’s not the fount of modern western civilization.

          • Josh

            I’m obviously a little late here, as I thought this discussion was long gone.

            If Christians want to keep contending that we were founded on Christianity, then so be it. But the case you’re personally presenting is not logical.

            “Created,” “endowed,” “creator,” “inalienable” — these words could be attributed to any religion with any deity.

            The language wouldn’t have to be decoded from vagueness to purpose if these highly-intelligent men truly used the Bible as reference. They would have used the Ten Commandments in whole. “Inspired” also doesn’t mean it was inspired directly from Christianity!

            There is no evidence put forth to even remotely suggest that. It’s only spun after the fact by Christians who claim America has always been a Christian nation.

            Remember, a universe from BBT and evolution are theories which arose WAY after America’s founding. Prior to it, we’re talking about thousands upon thousands of different gods worshiped at the ONLY potential solution to a universe. So, yes, EVERYONE believed man was “created” and had a “creator.”

            What do those words have to do with Christianity? That seems to be the vanity of a religious worshiper who believes his religion is the only right religion and that every other religion isn’t even worthy of being considered.

            Deism and Christianity are wholly separate things.

            “In God we Trust,” “Under God,” etc, would have been things the founding fathers WOULD NOT HAVE WANTED! How do we know? They would have instituted “God” within their language. Don’t treat them like they were stupid posthumously just to further a case.

            These are things which arose many years later, when Christians in government decided unilaterally “Hey, we’re a Christian nation.”

            That was NOT the founders’ doing.

            Now, if one wants to make the case that not killing, being kind, etc, are Christian values that became American values, okay. But don’t let the vanity of worship cover the facts. Those “Christian” values can also be found in other religions which predate Christianity. So it’s not like the Bible was the first book to ever speak of bits and pieces of things we might say are objectively good.

            Again: If Christianity is the reason for America, we would have had a nation like America well before America. It took getting away from Christianity to build America. That some values of religious worshipers–not religion itself–may have carried over is evident. But it has little to do with the religion itself, as in being a “Christian” nation.

  • Skip in VA

    I see a promiscuity among black women that is nurtured by the nanny state. I have seen first hand black women having half white babies out of wedlock and bragging about it. To them this is a way to get a “pay increase” from Uncle Sugar. The more babies the bigger the welfare check and food stamps. To correct this situation will take generations of responsible black leaders talking about the problem and then doing something about it. What can these leaders do? I honestly don’t know. I think the situation is completely out of control and may never revert back.

    • Brian Fr Langley

      Unhappily, there are no stats that might indicate one particular community of Americans is any more sexually active than any other. That is, the rates of promiscuity are just as high in the black community as the white or hispanic. But, fatherless girls are the most likely to give birth to fatherless children. They are typically less educated, endure higher levels of poverty, and start sexual activities (and having babies) earlier. The point is fatherlessness, leads to more fatherlessness. Despite the current stats showing a disparity among races, the more they go up, the faster they go up. (That’s why the differences appear some what stark). Additionally there are some very specific and powerful demographics at work that specifically disadvantage the black community. 1. Due to the fact, men will marry women much younger than themselves, while the converse is less true, as we age, marriageable age women, begin to significantly outnumber marriageable age men. 2. Black men marry outside their race at significantly higher rates than black women. (or white men) Again creating a dearth of marriageable men in the black community. Fatherlessness also leads to far higher incarceration rates (again a bigger impact in the black community who have more fatherless children). The solution is simple. Remain chaste, and DON’T have babies until you’re married.

  • Brian Fr Langley

    While I couldn’t agree with you more, I still don’t understand why every body mentions marriage before babies but NO ONE mentions CHASTITY before marriage. Whether 29%, 53% or 73%, the question is why are these numbers so high? It’s not your wife or husband who in the end will be the beneficiary of your chaste behavior. It’s your children. It ain’t rocket science???