[Drumlin]

> Also, it appears that statistically, single mothers are much more likely to vote Left than Right.

If you're married to the state, then you vote for more of the state. It's one of the many examples where liberty has been eroded in recent decades, but few talk about it because it's a sensitive topic.

[stephancoral]

Ah yes, the sweet liberty of being unable to provide for your children. Welfare is a pitifully small percent of the budget compared to military, health, and education not to mention the massive amounts of corporate welfare that happens ("I'll get those taxes down for you"). But you're right it's the left voting single moms that erode our liberty. What about the right-voting single moms? Are they "welfare queens" eroding our liberty too or are they just good people who had to make a tough choice?

[mvitorino]

That is a straw man argument. Saying that a lot more money is spent elsewhere does not refute the potential effects of welfare.

Also claiming that tax reduction is a form of welfare if very disingenuous since basically that would mean the State would be entitled to take all of your profit by default... meaning any amount of profit allowed would be welfare.

[nikdaheratik]

It's not a "straw man", it's more like reductio ad absurdum.

And if you'll remember the 1990s, the entire plan to cut welfare benefits was premised on the Earned Income Tax Credit taking up the slack. Which actually worked in some ways though, if anything, it makes it easier for single mothers to provide for a family by working a low wage job. Which has distorted the "marriage market" though in different ways from the welfare benefit.

[dominotw]

>Welfare is a pitifully small percent of the budget compared to military

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

[Drumlin]

You aren't looking this from a bigger picture. The more infrastructure that is put in place to protect single parents, the more infrastructure that gets in the way for standard families. Basic building blocks for society like marriage become less appealing because the state is too involved in the process.

It doesn't really matter how much welfare costs (obviously it should kept under control like military, health and education) and that's why I didn't mention that aspect. All I'm concerned about is the state becoming so involved in an individual's life, that it nannies them like a parent.

[Arizhel]

>The more infrastructure that is put in place to protect single parents, the more infrastructure that gets in the way for standard families. Basic building blocks for society like marriage become less appealing because the state is too involved in the process.

Huh? Marriage itself is a legal construct by the state, no different than a corporation. Is a corporation a "basic building block for society" too? Should it be? What makes you think marriage is such a great thing that society should be dependent upon it? Statistics show that it's a massive gamble, and you're more likely to lose with it than you are to benefit. On top of that, the risks are enormous: child support, alimony, and in many cases, bankruptcy.

>All I'm concerned about is the state becoming so involved in an individual's life, that it nannies them like a parent.

That's funny, coming from someone who obviously supports marriage, which is absolutely an example of the state nannying people and becoming involved in an individual's life. Try going through a contested divorce and tell me the state wasn't involved.

The simple fact is that your "standard familes" are a complete and utter failure. Society needs an all-new paradigm, because clinging to this archaic institution clearly isn't working.

[mvitorino]

Absolutely. For a country referred to as "the land of the free" you surely have a lot of "sensitive topics". As soon as I posted my comment, I started getting down-voted. I believe the post was quite factual, not offensive in any way or prejudicial, so I can only imagine it was affecting someone's sensitivity.

[Jill_the_Pill]

Why do you attribute it to welfare instead of the habitual villainization of single mothers by Republicans? I wouldn't vote for someone who disparages my life situation, particularly if it were a difficult one.

[mvitorino]

I'm not claiming that welfare is what it should be attributed to. Just saying that I think it should be part of the debate anytime anyone looks into these social issues like the article above does.

[stagbeetle]

> habitual villainization of single mothers by Republicans

This is the first I'm hearing of this. I know the right is against "leeches," but I've yet to see them single out single mothers.

Unless you're referring to undertones in their (Republicans') way of conduct. If so, then I wouldn't expect single mothers to be able to recognize the subtlety.

[467568985476]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen

That kind of language, in various forms, has been a dogwhistle of the right since Reagan started saying it at campaign rallies.

[stagbeetle]

I wasn't able to find a way to calculate the prevalence of "welfare queen," but off-hand that phrase doesn't come up too often in the mainstream.

[467568985476]

Here's a Google Trends link: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=welfare%...

[Jill_the_Pill]

"Could your comment possibly be any more obtuse and offensive?" asks this single mother with a PhD.

[curun1r]

Or, you know, given how wed conservatives have been to the Evangelicals, you tend not to vote for people that tell you you're a sinner and demonize your lifestyle. Homosexuals similarly vote more Left than Right.