Sunday, October 22, 2006

Question Of The Week, 10/22/06

Good morning. I mean to tell you, finding this weeks question was not easy. I just couldn't find anything that I could find an interesting question in. So I went to my local news paper, the St. Joseph News-Press. I'd post a link but it wouldn't help, you have to be a paid subscriber to read the on-line version. One of the News-Press sections is called It's Your Call. Readers can call in and leave a short comment and don't have to give their name. I found something that I thought was interesting there. The caller has a solution to the Deadbeat Father/Mother problem.

From the St. Joseph News-Press

"Custody to breadwinner

Let's stop putting so-called deadbeat fathers and mothers in jail, in fact the government should do away with child support and quit supporting single parents all together. The government could pay off the national debt in a year's time if the government didn't have to support single parents and their children. I think the court systems should give custody to the parent who has a good enough job to raise the children without the government's help. Why would any loving parent want to raise their children on welfare? In fact, why would any judge give children to a parent who he knows will end up raising the children on welfare? Let's just straighten up the mess of single parents. Pay off the national debt with the savings and stop draining the taxpayers' money on welfare and single parents and give legal custody to the parent who can raise the children and keep them off welfare."

So what do you think, is the caller on to something here? This weeks Question Of The Week is. Will the callers solution solve the deadbeat dad/mom/child custody problem or do you see some problems with the solution? I'll post my answer in the Comment Section Monday night.

God Bless America, God Save The Republic.


Blogger Stephanie said...

Oooo, I get to be the priviledge first...ironic considering I've been gone so long.

"Will the callers solution solve the deadbeat dad/mom/child custody problem or do you see some problems with the solution?"

I do NOT think the caller's solution is valid. It will cause many more problems than it will solve (not to mention that he/she seems to have no idea just how big the nation's debt is). There's so many flies in this individual's logic ointment I'll make a list, and still miss a bunch.

1) Wealth doesn't make a person a good parent.

Look at GWB. Irregardless of how you feel about him as a president, he had a "troubled" childhood/early adulthood, despite having all the "good" things that money can buy being handed to him on a silver platter. His is not the only example, just the first that popped into my mind.

2) Many such custody cases do not have an option of a self-sustaining parent, versus a dependent parent.

What does a child with no parent who can "support" him get? Does that child get shoved into the already over-burdened foster care/adoption system?

3) That the government gets to decide at all which parent is worthy of their child is a disgrace, doing so solely on money is an outrage.

Unless a parent is abusive or criminal, how can the government claim to know what the child's "best interests" are?

4) Money does not mean responsibility!

Having money or making money does not mean a parent will be responsible for the care of a child. Nor, does it mean the parent loves the child.

Well, I could go on, but that's the most significant arugments I can come up with right now. Parenting is about taking responsibility for a child, nurturing a child, loving a child, teaching a child, and caring for a child. Money helps, but it is not indicative of good parenting.

4:32 AM  
Blogger Elizabeth said...

The national debt comment was silly, since I think the national debt is like $1 trillion and even when more people were on welfare, prior to the welfare reform of the 1990s, that much money wasn't being spent on welfare.

The parent who is least likely to abuse or neglect the child should get the child.

4:42 AM  
Blogger Praguetwin said...

The national debt now stands at over 8.5 trillion dollars so yes, that is a very silly comment by the caller.

There is so much here I think it would be hard to address all of the issues.

First of all, in the case of young children, the parent that has the good job does not have time for children, and vica-verca. That is why there is child support. The idea that one parent goes out and works and the other stays with the kids: it makes sense to me.

In the case of welfare, that means that the other parent isn't making enough to pay child support, so if you cut that off then you get single mothers in the street begging for money with the kids. Ever been to Mexico? Yea, like that.

Cutting off welfare for parents with dependent children has to be about the most cold blodded thing that can be done. It would lead to a host of other problems. Crime is the obvious result that comes to mind first, but let's add uninsured emergency room visits for sick kids whose parents couldn't afford preventative care, for example.

I think the welfare system needs serious reforms, but cutting off aid to poor families with children will not pay down the national debt (by a long shot) but it will create a host of new problems some of which can not even been predicted.

5:43 AM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

Althought having a good job doesn't necessarily make a good parent, having that good job usually means better education. Typically, educated parents are better parents.

However, other factors also need to be considered--among them any criminal record.

So many children who are reared at the expense of the government turn out poorly later. I think that aspect also needs consideration. We tend to focus on the successes of those reared under the welfare system, but the failures far outnumber those successes.

6:14 AM  
Blogger FreeCyprus said...

Hopefully the best, most loving parent is raising the child, regardless of their financial situation.

David, thanks for stopping by my blog. Seems there are still some Pattons out there after all:

"U.S. Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcons, U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles and U.S. Marine Corps F/A-18Cs provided close-air support to troops in contact with anti-Iraqi forces near Baghdad."

Other air support missions today:

"In Iraq, U.S. Marine Corps AV-8Bs conducted a strike against anti-Iraqi forces near Ramadi. The AV-8Bs fired cannon rounds on enemy targets.

U.S. Air Force F-16s provided close-air support to troops in contact with anti-Iraqi forces near Al Musayyib and Tikrit.

U.S. Air Force F-15Es provided close-air support to troops in contact with anti-Iraqi forces near Qal'at Rashid ar Rawt.

In total, coalition aircraft flew 38 close-air support missions for Operation Iraqi Freedom. They included support to coalition troops, infrastructure protection, reconstruction activities and operations to deter and disrupt terrorist activities. "

8:00 PM  
Blogger American Crusader said...

Stephanie makes some excellent points as do your other readers. What hasn't been brought up yet, is what happens when neither parents are financially responsible?

10:00 AM  
Blogger David Schantz said...

I want to thank all of you for stopping by to answer this weeks question.You all made some good points. No, the callers solution will not solve the deadbeat parent problem( or pay off the national debt). Yes I do see a problem with the solution. I'm sure you have all read about people that have addictions, you might even know someone that has one. It could be drugs, alcohol, gambling or a countless number of other things. It doesn't make them bad it just means they have a problem. A lot of times that problem is the cause of their divorce. There are people that suffer from addictions that have good paying jobs. It doesn't matter how much they make a week the addiction prevents them from making it home or to the bank with that check. The addiction doesn't just cost them their cash, it also eats up a lot of their time. Time that could be spent with their child. I don't think someone with an active addiction should be given custody of their children. The addiction prevents them from being able to be a good parent.

Now that I said that I want to clear something up. I don't want to run the risk of offending someone. Notice I did say having an addiction does not make someone a bad person, it just means they have a problem. I also said that I didn't think someone with an active addiction should be given custody of their children. I've known people that had addiction problems that got help and kept the problem under control. They did manage to raise their children, and did a good job of it. The addiction problem was an every day battle, one that they would lose the second they forgot who they were. I have a friend that is a drug and alcohol counselor, she would be proud of me for adding that.

God Bless America, God Save The Republic

12:59 AM  
Blogger Stephanie said...

I had an uncle like that. When he was clean he was great. He was a great father. He'd go to bat for his step kids every time. However, when he wasn't...

And he lost it all, because he didn't stay clean. He got divorced because he didn't stay clean. And now, he's living with my Dad (his big brother) and trying again.

But, when my big brother was living there, it was difficult for my brother to stay clean. It gets very messy when those drugs take over your life, as they inevitably seem to do.

2:54 AM  
Blogger Katherine Thayer said...

Good stuff. Thanks for the share. Keep up the good work. Better to click

4:45 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home