- November 15, 2017 at 10:56 am #1652351
lilith7MemberMember since: April 9, 2017
I don’t believe so Halycon – why would you think that? We’ve always had solo parents,perhaps due to the wars we keep having,yet somehow solo parents manage to bring up kids whether in poor conditions or otherwise.
Probably the reason these days at least here, is more likely to be the low wage/low benefit levels together with high prices.November 15, 2017 at 11:55 am #1652359
joybelMemberMember since: November 2, 2006
Well a widow with children would be eligible for a widows benefit. With a bit of luck a mother whose husband has walked out on his family is receiving money from said husband while he could be supporting another family. Then a young lass who became pregnant while in a defacto relationship does not even have to name the father if the new Govt. has its way, and could become in clover with a State house and possibly another one or two babies. Way to go it would seem. They appear to not be called upon for responsibility for theirs and said babies plight. Are they perhaps not very bright or very smart ? In all cases it appears that mum is always left “holding the baby” So sad.
“November 15, 2017 at 12:54 pm #1652368
I am not surprised, critic –
Jens I am speechless because you don´t make sense usually, but you seem to make an extra effort in that field when you either try to change the subject or get a tad infantile while trying to tell us how to blow eggs.
While I can sympathize with you having a god that is easily produced like money … I do think you need to come to terms with the real laws of physics (you clearly do not understand) one of which goes something like ….
The world (“DOES NOT” revolve around the dollar, It) revolves around the Sun.
What this means jens is that if the monetary system that is currently being propped up with piles of do do´s, suddenly came to an end….
Life will go on The planet will still revolve around the sun and we will still breed like rabbits
Would it surprise you to learn that the planet does not revolve around capitalism?
🙂November 15, 2017 at 2:34 pm #1652393
Yes critic – life goes on as it happened after the end of WW2, and the Soviet Union….
through invigorated capitalism, because too much of the capital owned by the losers was consumed…
You are quite right in that the physical world and planets do not not revolve around capitalism – but as already has been explained somewhere, where life is concerned which does not receive its energy directly from nature , everything – survival and growth – depends on capitalism, beginning from birth with the food reserves (e.g. egg-white) saved for feeding the new life in the form of the egg yolk.
Did you not know that either – or explain why you think it might be wrong or irrelevant ?
And the dollar is not capitalism, it is only a means to make capitalism and human survival and interdependence more simple and efficient.
Even the young Soviet Union gave up on the theory of “cash-less” communism (as perhaps feasible within a small family) very soon.November 15, 2017 at 6:10 pm #1652432
halcyonMemberMember since: May 4, 2014
Lilith7 you ask ” why would you think that?” The answer is two fold.<b></b><i></i><u></u>
a) research shows that the percentage single parent households who live in poverty is great than two parent households.
b) from personal experience. My first wife and I had two girls, age about 11 and 8, when our marriage fell over. At that time we were both working and had a comfortable middle class lifestyle .We had lived in our house for a good number of years and the mortgage payments were minimal. After the split my ex-wife remain remained in the house and all the furniture. The only thing was that she did not have a car. I took the car and had the expense of setting up again, all second hand furniture for a one bedroom flat.
Even though I made weekly payments to support our girls her standard of living was greatly reduced. As was mine. Remember, if nothing else we had two homes to maintain.
As I look around I see many others in the same situation. This is not a criticism of single parent families, but a reason that contributes to children living in poverty.November 15, 2017 at 8:33 pm #1652472
where life is concerned which does not receive its energy directly from nature , everything – survival and growth – depends on capitalism, beginning from birth with the food reserves (e.g. egg-white) saved for feeding the new life in the form of the egg yolk.
I am becoming more and more sure you are “hitting the bottle” or taking some sort of mind bending drugs or intoxicants and unfortunately that’s about all I can make of your post unless I joined you- (don’t reckon I could handle that sorry)… you have a good one though jens and just hang in there …
🙂November 15, 2017 at 8:55 pm #1652481
“In vino veritas” – can you accept and appreciate the truth only when “hitting the bottle”, critic ?November 15, 2017 at 10:38 pm #1652502
“In vino veritas” – can you accept and appreciate the truth only when “hitting the bottle”, critic ?
I can accept and embrace the truth all the time jens does that make you feel like a bit of an egg for asking?
Its a lot easier when you tell the truth clearly with reliable evidence rather than repeated sentences.
One can repeat an opinion all day and it still will not necessarily be the truth… you could do with learning the difference.November 16, 2017 at 8:55 am #1652509
Well critic – the evidence that wealth can be created only by saving and not consuming hand-to-mouth all your income or products of your labor is this:
When you – critic – receive or earn or create with your labor an income in kind or money and eat it all, you remain just as poor as you were before.
But if you save something of your income, you could eventually be not poor, but wealthy enough to live for a period without working at all !
Can you understand that without the need to “hit the bottle” as you solemnly stated?
Furthermore, if you invest your savings in something useful or productive (e.g. like a digger to increase your capacity of shoveling) then – if there is demand by others for your shoveling capacity – you can even create jobs and incomes for those poorer than you to operate your digger – and earn an income from your savings or capital – and be not as poor as you were before you had not saved nor invested anything.
There will be an urgent social need to repeat and explain this again and again as long as you don’t acknowledge that truth or prove it with evidence that it is an irrelevant and not a basic universal truth.
And once you accept it – then critic and and all concerned –
we know the primary cause and nature of poverty and can discuss and think about the fairest and most effective ways on preventing and eliminating poverty with the best chances of permanent success.November 16, 2017 at 10:25 am #1652539
halcyonMemberMember since: May 4, 2014
I note that Venezuela has defaulted on a loan repayment to the International Monetary Fund. This country has good oil reserves and has a socialistic government. Unfortunately they can not keep spending money that they do not have.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.