In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status: 



	Rex Ballard - Director of Electronic Distribution
	http://cnj.digex.net/~rballard


> Only one major point missing.
> 
> Welfare is the transfer of about $360 Billion from mostly men to mostly
> women.  So when you say "liberal" you might mean "women".  Men want to end
> welfare because they are the ones paying probably 90% of it (they
> constitute almost 60% of the workforce, they earn an average of 42% more
> than women, and the graduated income tax puts men in a higher tax
> bracket).

The interesting thing is that 

> Women want to continue to receive welfare because they receive
> more than 90% of it (men don't 'qualify' for welfare because 92% of
> single-parent households are single-mother households, and having kids
> around a single-mother household is the primary qualification for getting
> welfare).

How many  single-father households receive welfare?  They don't qualify 
for WIC, AFDC, or most of the other programs designed to aid 
single-mother families.  The assumption is that if the father is 
able-bodied and capable of working, that is his first responsibility.

I don't know the figures, but I believe that most men who attempt to 
apply for welfare (including widowers), often find social-services 
threatening to put their children in a "foster home".  The assumption is 
that a man who gets welfare is either a drunk or a bum, and shouldn't be 
raising children.

Women of course, are Never drunks or bums, if worse comes to worse they 
can be hookers, as long as they don't get the kids involved in the sexual 
acts.  A woman's morality cannot be used as a basis for taking her 
children from her (including in custody battles in most states).

> Women make up 52% of voters, or more.  Why should they vote to end this 
> transfer to them of more wealth than we spend for defense when they don't 

Fortunately, women do not vote as a unified block.   There are wives of 
NCPs, working mothers who see that they are not paid as much because they 
don't have child-support to pay, and women who feel that women should be 
working.  There are also those who believe that women should stay married 
if they want the economic benefits of a marriage.

Politicians who would want to create a coalition can't say "automatic 
custody to fathers" or "dead-beat-dads can walk".  What they can do is 
advocate laws that are targeted to relieve the burdon on honest men:

	Flat Tax, Tax Limits, and Budget Reductions all benefit not only 
	NCPs, who pay the highest rates of all, but also married couples 
	(effectively eliminates the marriage-penalty)... We wouldn't have
	to pay the IRS so much to extort our money from us.

	Full-day and Year-round school.  Not only gets children out of 
	environments which give the message "why work when you can get 
	welfare/child-support", and "why work, you'll just loose it all in 
	child-support".  The kids can be more carefully supervised, can be 
	supported by a working single-parent (gives fathers a much better chance 
	at custody), and can have them fully educated (College Graduate 
	Equivilancy) by the time they are 16, at 1/2 the cost of the existing 
	public school system.

	Alternatives to prison - rather than put men in prison for 
	non-violent crimes, there are things such as monitored supervision, 
	community service, and "service opportunities".  This could be an 
	effective counter to the feminists who want to put men into prison for 
	not paying the check.

	Emphasising "Family" - as in two parent families that stay married 
	"for the duration".  What sort of laws would encourage men and women 
	to stay married (fault assigned to both partners - full evidence 
	required, no assurance of custody to either parent, living arrangements 
	to be decided by NCP, accounting and receipts to the NCP required for 
	reembursement - with limits).

	Advocating "Sexual Responsibility" - very different from advocating 
	abstinence.  Celebacy, Abstinance, and Chastity are choices which 
	must be supported by a structure (don't date, be in a room alone 
	with a member of the opposite sex, pet, kiss, bathe,...) - the choice 
	must be willingly made by the child, right down to the clothes and 
	make-up.

	Rewarding "Fidelity, Chastity, Celebacy, and Marriage" by not 
	rewarding women for getting divorces, not allowing men to commit felony 
	assaults under the cloak of marriage, not allowing women to commit 
	felony purgery under the cloak of "battered wife".  In other words, 
	when charges are raised, JURIES decide the fates of both parties.

	Legal Accountability.  Persons wrongfully convicted or aquitted would
	be able to sue the level of government that prosecuted them.  This would 
	make sure that District Attourneys cross-examine their own witnesses BEFORE 
	the warrants are issued.  Civil attourneys would have a vested 
	interest in WINNING the aquittal and/or appeal.

	Welfare Reform.  Both welfare reform, and child-support reform 
	should be focused on the following goal:
		To move someone from dependency upon others to a viable, 
		functional, economically independent family.  This independence
		can be achieved through marriage, education/employment, or 
		self-employment.

> have to work for it, they can claim "independence" from those "abusive" 
> men, they can raise pathological children in fatherless homes, and they 
> don't even get shunned by society any longer?

	They can even "turn tricks" with the kids locked in the back 
	bedroom, and no one can touch them.

> Sincerely,
> John Knight

> >      America's watching, Mr. President. 


From rballard@cnj.digex.net Wed Feb 28 02:27:16 1996