Jeb Bush In 1995: Unwed Mothers Should Be Publicly Shamed

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti

originally posted by: Cuervo

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Regardless of who said it, I agree with this particular point. It seems living off the taxpayer is the "in" thing to do these days.

Isn't that exactly what Jeb Bush does? Live off the taxpayers?

I give up... does he?

No of couse not.

Most of the Bush fortune has come from war profiteering since WW2!

a reply to: crazyewok

What did Jeb Bush say in 1975

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
You have no idea how much it pains me to say I agree with Jeb Bush on anything, but he's right.
Our sense of morality has collapsed and along with it the family unit.
If you disagree you're probably younger than 50 and this is the world you grew up in - the new normal.
The old way was hard on many, no doubt but public shame has been around since the first 2 cave families decided to share a hole in the rocks.
It was part of the glue that gave us social cohesion.
Look around and see how much cohesion we have now as Americans.

There has been far more harm committed by people who cry about social decays and try to implement their own authoritarian fixes than any harm social decay has ever brought about.

Food for thought, the people of the 1940's and 1950's that you're idolizing here as a time of upstanding morals were thought to be a time of extensive decay, lack of family, and loose morals by those who grew up in the 1900's.

originally posted by: DiggerDogg
Well, being an unwed mother is shameful, so I don't see why public shaming would be a bad thing. Maybe it would teach them some responsibility.

What type of responsibility? Like now that they're a single unwed mother they should shack up with the first guy that comes along in order to lose that stigma?

...because that's healthy, and leads to putting themselves and their children into good situations.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
It depends on the situation, no? How many permutations of this scenario can we think of?

Is a two-parent home where the parents hate each other and fight all the time better than a one-parent home that is peaceful?

Many kids today have three or four parents and two homes.

I'm speaking in general terms. Looking at the big picture.

If you want to argue that 2 parent homes are worse than 1 parent homes, then that is your right, thought I find the assumption foolish to even consider.

Seriously? You cant see thart a happy single parent home is better than a 2 parent homw where the parents argue and hate each othger? Wow...

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: crazyewok

What did Jeb Bush say in 1975

I dont know.

And to be honest I put zero stock in what politicians say . Most the time they talk in riddles inflated with bull#.

I judge via there actions.


Unlesd jeb denounces his father and brother action and there warprofitering family money he can go to hell.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: crazyewok

What did Jeb Bush say in 1975

Don't know, but I have insider evidence he said in 1963 "down with the man!"

Who here doesn't think that morality affects behavior? Who here thinks that a young single mother is a great thing to see? Who here doesn't think that the break down of family values and the lack of parent involvement directly leads to single mother situations? The fear of disappointing your parents can be a strong influence good or bad, but maybe in the case of a young girl/woman who thinks twice about protection or abstinence until it is right is not a bad thing...

originally posted by: Willtell
Yeah diggerdog went far out on a limbic system

Seriously folks, where too far gone to going back to 19th century Victorian morals

Forget about it... Bush is just talking trash to religious people

What is also clear.......if they took the profit out of having multiple children, out of wedlock, the rate of same births would drop fairly quickly. Most working people cant even afford more than two kids.

originally posted by: daryllyn
a reply to: beezzer

No.

There are objective truths.

People needing oxygen to live is an objective truth.

Subjective truths are only true to you/some, while objective truths, are true for all.

Well ok. Objective truth someone has to pay kids housing, healthcare ect and ect. Truth is some pay for their own and pay for others through tax redistribution. Folks that get the government to do it have a nice little built in subjective cushion against criticism from the people that are really paying for it.

What people won't tell you that grew up in the 50's and 60's, girls got pregnant all the time. It was kept secret, like abuse in the home was suppose to be kept a secret. Most had forced weddings. I saw guys throw up at the alter. Supposedly, nerves. Sure. My husband and I were beaming the day we got married. Then, there were the catholic homes where girls were sent to visit aunt so and so for the summer. Some never came back. Then there were the back alley abortions, where an ER visit always resulted. The good old days.

Can we please stop the BS about where your tax dollar goes?



This is about shaming unwed mothers, intentionally or not, out of ignorance or not, not unwed mothers on assistance. And it's about irresponsible politicians.

a reply to: MOMof3


So today we have the unwed mother industry. Maybe they should limit aid to one child only. After that no more excuses and better get your act together a bit.

a reply to: Xtrozero

The fear of disappointing your parents can be a strong influence good or bad, but maybe in the case of a young girl/woman who thinks twice about protection or abstinence until it is right is not a bad thing...

Sooooo..... Pregnancy prevention rests solely on the woman? Even though she could not possibly get pregnant without a man?

Why are men absolved of responsibility in the aspect of birth control? They play an equal role in conception, why aren't they under scrutiny here?

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: MOMof3


So today we have the unwed mother industry. Maybe they should limit aid to one child only. After that no more excuses and better get your act together a bit.

Do you support abortion? Just curious.

Shaming the Poor: It's the American Way

There are already policies aimed to deter unwed mothers from having more children. Sixteen states currently have family caps in place for their welfare programs; benefits stop increasing after a certain number of children.

The caps sprang from a Republican proposal in the 1994 Contract with America explicitly aimed at stopping poor and single mothers from having more children. As Jamelle Bouie has written, they were meant to “discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers and denying increased [benefits] for additional children while on welfare … to promote individual personal responsibility.” A federal requirement to institute caps never passed, but states were allowed to implement their own.

There is no evidence that they work, however, and no evidence that they’re even addressing a real problem. A 2001 Government Accountability Office report couldn’t conclude one way or the other whether the caps have any impact on birth rates. Meanwhile, people on public assistance have about the same family size as people who don’t receive assistance. What caps do end up doing is pushing people further into poverty while painting poor women as sexually promiscuous and irresponsible. The caps aim to shame these women out of making decisions about their own family sizes that those with more means are free to make without the same scrutiny.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Can we please stop the BS about where your tax dollar goes?



This is about shaming unwed mothers, intentionally or not, out of ignorance or not, not unwed mothers on assistance. And it's about irresponsible politicians.

Well its easy to cloud up the issue by including it in the larger tax expenditure picture. But when isolated, which is what a responsible person would do it doesn't look so hot. Cant stand the heat on its own. Its right up there with some of the more notable tax money spending scams.

a reply to: Logarock

Are you for abortion? If the answer is no, why do you want to punish the children for being alive?

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: MOMof3


So today we have the unwed mother industry. Maybe they should limit aid to one child only. After that no more excuses and better get your act together a bit.

Yes because women living on welfare are sleeping on stacks of cash.

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti

Bush's ideas about public shaming extended beyond unwed parents. He said American schools and the welfare system could use a healthy dose of shame as well. “For many, it is more shameful to work than to take public assistance -- that is how backward shame has become!” he wrote, adding that the juvenile criminal justice system also "seems to be lacking in humiliation."

Regardless of who said it, I agree with this particular point. It seems living off the taxpayer is the "in" thing to do these days.

What a way to generalize everyone on assistance!!

You do know that the majority of people on assistance ARE tax payers themselves?!!! It's very hard to live off the system and survive! The programs they have are hard to get especially when you want anything other than food assistance. It requires home visits, community service and constant interviews. Sure some people play the system but the majority are hard working people!

I recently became a single mother. I don't get assistance and I work my butt off! Would some assistance be nice? Hell yea. It would be so I could get back on my feet. Did I plan on being a single mother? No! I was married to a man who mad great money but he was also a liar and someone I grew unable go trust. So I should be shamed for wanting better for my son and I?

Wow no wonder this country is messed up. People are too worried about what others do! You know we send more welfare money overseas than we do to our own people yet nobody complains about that.

[post]originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti

Regardless of who said it, I agree with this particular point. It seems living off the taxpayer is the "in" thing to do these days.

What a way to generalize everyone on assistance!!

You do know that the majority of people on assistance ARE tax payers themselves?!!! It's very hard to live off the system and survive! The programs they have are hard to get especially when you want anything other than food assistance. It requires home visits, community service and constant interviews. Sure some people play the system but the majority are hard working people!

I recently became a single mother. I don't get assistance and I work my butt off! Would some assistance be nice? Hell yea. It would be so I could get back on my feet. Did I plan on being a single mother? No! I was married to a man who mad great money but he was also a liar and someone I grew unable go trust. So I should be shamed for wanting better for my son and I?

Wow no wonder this country is messed up. People are too worried about what others do! You know we send more welfare money overseas than we do to our own people yet nobody complains about that.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

There are already policies aimed to deter unwed mothers from having more children. Sixteen states currently have family caps in place for their welfare programs; benefits stop increasing after a certain number of children.



There is no evidence that they work, however, and no evidence that they’re even addressing a real problem. A 2001 Government Accountability Office report couldn’t conclude one way or the other whether the caps have any impact on birth rates. Meanwhile, people on public assistance have about the same family size as people who don’t receive assistance. What caps do end up doing is pushing people further into poverty while painting poor women as sexually promiscuous and irresponsible. The caps aim to shame these women out of making decisions about their own family sizes that those with more means are free to make without the same scrutiny.

Folks with more means should be able to make those decisions without scrutiny. Its only the corrupt liberal mind that dreams up the sort on bull as expressed in the above. But they are telling us that one parent, in this case a woman, should be able to set around a plan a family based on the dole she would be eligible for, without any scrutiny, while the family up the road that pays for these dream families must also face the very real world financial realities when family planning.

Caps push folks into further poverty? This is nothing but tripe drooling from the minds of uncle sugars sweet tax redistribution, unwed mother industry advocates. Social drivel. In many cases these women have more kids to stay on the drip. One baby is good fro 18 years of housing, food stamps ect, ect. Then when the kids are all grown up and can no longer be used to launder money the moms can really forced into a poverty situation.