Though provoking fiction before the election...

[Wes]

Men who have 30 children with 10 or more different women are more of a problem than the individual women bearing them.

[shanbaum]

Men who have 30 children with 10 or more different women are more of a problem than the individual women bearing them.

Wes, how often do you think that happens, and on what do you base your estimate?

[Wes]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobile...n_1528850.html

Just one example. I googled "men with many children".

[shanbaum]

So, your answer is, "two" (there's a second mentioned in the article)?

[Wes]

I didnt say it was an estimate. Its a worst case scenario. Please discuss what I say, not what you pretend I say. You're engaging in the straw-man argument.

[MikeAurelius]

Men who have 30 children with 10 or more different women are more of a problem than the individual women bearing them.

How is it a "problem" if the problem really doesn't exist in any large numbers?

[MikeAurelius]

Or is this like the "problem" of voter fraud?

[Steve Machol]

Just a reminder to keep things civil. Name-calling is not allowed and never results in a healthy dialog.

[Spexvet]

The Decade of Prosperity

The economy overall grew by 37% during the 1950s. At the end of the decade, the median American family had 30% more purchasing power than at the beginning. Inflation, which had wreaked havoc on the economy immediately after World War II, was minimal, in part because of Eisenhower's persistent efforts to balance the federal budget. Except for a mild recession in 1954 and a more serious one in 1958, unemployment remained low, bottoming at less than 4.5% in the middle of the decade.

http://www.shmoop.com/1950s/economy.html

The tax rate in the fifties was over 90%
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/histor...ividual-1.html

The national debt was being paid off, due to budget surpluses
http://zfacts.com/zfacts.com/metaPag...Revolution.gif

[shanbaum]

I didnt say it was an estimate. Its a worst case scenario. Please discuss what I say, not what you pretend I say. You're engaging in the straw-man argument.

OK. I asked for an estimate, and you responded with that link; what that suggests to me is that you really don't know the magnitude of the problem you brought up in the first place (men having lots of kids by many women). I don't either. We also don't know whether this guy was getting any public assistance, though we know he was seeking some.

We probably agree, don't we, that it's proper for the state to require this guy to pay child support? That it might be good public policy to increase the severity and enforcement of that kind of thing?

[Wes]

Wes, how often do you think that happens, and on what do you base your estimate?

I really only brought the scenario up because of Judy's post suggesting that I was only talking about women. Men are definitely part of the problem.

So, your answer is, "two" (there's a second mentioned in the article)?

So there was.

How is it a "problem" if the problem really doesn't exist in any large numbers?

While men with 30 children are probably rare, men with many children with various women are not rare at all. One only need spend a week in an optical shop to see the many instances of a family of four or five with as many different surnames.

Or is this like the "problem" of voter fraud?

It would seem that election fraud has raised it's head in Florida again. It just happens to be the GOP involved in the scandal.

Please feel free to continue nitpicking to death everything I say. If you wish to mire yourselves in minutiae instead of discussing the larger concepts, you're welcome to do so.

Here's an observation for you. Republicans live in a bubble. They believe what they want to believe, and they watch whatever tells them what they want to hear. Democrats do the same thing. Neither party is seriously grounded in reality. Yesterday I subjected myself to six hours of "news", from both Fox and MSNBC. The coverage contrasted so drasticaly that it seemed as if I might have been in different countries.
While Fox focused on nothing but Obama's incompetent handling of world affairs (which in this case I agree with them for the most part) MSNBC focused on ridiculous minutiae and attacking Romney any way they could. Of course, when the criminal GW Bush was in office the opposite was the case.
There really is no discussing politics with most anymore, because we don't agree on facts.

[Wes]

OK. I asked for an estimate, and you responded with that link; what that suggests to me is that you really don't know the magnitude of the problem you brought up in the first place (men having lots of kids by many women). I don't either. We also don't know whether this guy was getting any public assistance, though we know he was seeking some.

We probably agree, don't we, that it's proper for the state to require this guy to pay child support? That it might be good public policy to increase the severity and enforcement of that kind of thing?

I would agree with all of those assertions except for the discussion of the magnitude, which, anecdotally, seems significant and is becoming worse.

[MikeAurelius]

At what point do we say enough is enough tho?

I totally agree that 30 children among 11 women is waaaay over the top, and that "something" should be done with this guy. But, in the big picture, he's the exception rather than the rule.

Do we make a law based on a small infintesimally small percentage of wrong-doing, or do we punish the offender and make an example out of him. I much prefer the 2nd option.

Here in Minnesota, there is a ballot initiative that will appear on the November ballot asking voters to approve an amendment to the state Constitution to force Voter ID. There are no specifics to the initiative, nothing has been hammered out how it will be done, who will pay for it (although it does state that the ID's themselves will be free to those who cannot afford them) and who will enforce them. All this is being done to "protect the integrity" of the election system in the State of Minnesota from election fraud, even though there have been precisely zero instances of voter fraud in Minnesota in the past 20 years.

You can't legislate stupidity OR morality. You can only punish it.

[MikeAurelius]

And btw, the type of Repugnant voter fraud in both Florida and Colorado wouldn't be caught by Voter ID initiatives.

[shanbaum]

There really is no discussing politics with most anymore, because we don't agree on facts.

True, if one or both sides are certain that "their facts" are true. You seem to believe that all members of both parties are in such a "bubble." Maybe so, but one possible point of discussing politics, even with those with whom you disagree, could be to ensure that your claim to being grounded in reality (I infer that from your observation that neither party is so grounded - how else could you know?) continues to be reasonable.

I asked you for an estimate of the magnitude of this particular problem, and we've come around to your believing that it is sizable (though I don't really know what that means) because of the characteristics of the clientele at your place of business. OK, that's an observation, albeit anecdotal. Do you think we should base public policy on those kinds of observations? Or is this phenomenon something that maybe can be (or has been) measured?

Because if it has been measured, we should be able to find out some possibly more dependable facts than what you've deduced from your observations in your optical shop.

[Wes]

As to voter ID laws, I support them. Someone so disconnected from society that they have no identification is someone who doesn't understand any of the issues. Elections should be about more than a popularity contest or a vote-buying exercise that uses the public treasury to reward loyal voters. The latter situation has always resulted in the downfall of every civilization that allowed the practice.
It is my belief that if immigrants have to pass a civics exam in order to become naturalized, then Americans should have to pass one in order to vote. We need an informed electorate, not a stupid one. Again, incentivisation.

[Wes]

True, if one or both sides are certain that "their facts" are true. You seem to believe that all members of both parties are in such a "bubble." Maybe so, but one possible point of discussing politics, even with those with whom you disagree, could be to ensure that your claim to being grounded in reality (I infer that from your observation that neither party is so grounded - how else could you know?) continues to be reasonable.

I asked you for an estimate of the magnitude of this particular problem, and we've come around to your believing that it is sizable (though I don't really know what that means) because of the characteristics of the clientele at your place of business. OK, that's an observation, albeit anecdotal. Do you think we should base public policy on those kinds of observations? Or is this phenomenon something that maybe can be (or has been) measured?

Because if it has been measured, we should be able to find out some possibly more dependable facts than what you've deduced from your observations in your optical shop.

Of course public policy should not be based on anecdotal observations, and I identified them as such. This phenomenon should be able to be measured, and most likely has been, at least on a state level. Child support enforcement offices should have a good bit of data on the subject. This isn't the courtroom, Robert. Stop playing lawyer on me.

[Spexvet]

As to voter ID laws, I support them. Someone so disconnected from society that they have no identification is someone who doesn't understand any of the issues. Elections should be about more than a popularity contest or a vote-buying exercise that uses the public treasury to reward loyal voters. The latter situation has always resulted in the downfall of every civilization that allowed the practice.
It is my belief that if immigrants have to pass a civics exam in order to become naturalized, then Americans should have to pass one in order to vote. We need an informed electorate, not a stupid one. Again, incentivisation.

If you make voters pay for their ID, it amounts to a poll tax, which is prohibited by the 24th ammendment. If the government gives them an ID, it's just wasteful spending. Voter fraud is not a significant issue.

There's nothing in the constitution that says a voter must be educated.

[MikeAurelius]

As to voter ID laws, I support them. Someone so disconnected from society that they have no identification is someone who doesn't understand any of the issues.

Do you know how many elderly, currently living in care facilities, do not have ID but vote in every single election? I seem to recall an informal survey that indicated somewhere around 40% of the populations of these care facilities are in that condition. That's a huge, traditionally Repugnant block, that would be disenfranchised by Voter ID. They watch TV, they follow politics, they vote IN EVERY ELECTION. Yet you claim they don't understand the issues. That they are disconnected from society. All because they gave up their drivers license. Hmmmmm....

The rest, I more or less agree upon, and add one more:

In order to be eligble to run for any elected office higher than local politics (ie City Council or School Board), a comprehensive Civics exam, including a lengthy section on the US Constitution and its amendments, particularly the 1st and 14th, should be required.

[shanbaum]

Of course public policy should not be based on anecdotal observations, and I identified them as such. This phenomenon should be able to be measured, and most likely has been, at least on a state level. Child support enforcement offices should have a good bit of data on the subject. This isn't the courtroom, Robert. Stop playing lawyer on me.

I am neither making straw man arguments, or "playing lawyer" (is that a board game?); I am just asking questions, and it appears that we agree, do we not, that the sensible thing to do before getting very excited about this social phenomenon you've brought up would be to collect some actual information, which might confirm, or might disprove, the conclusions that we draw from your anecdotal experience? Oops... another question!

[Judy Canty]

Do you know how many elderly, currently living in care facilities, do not have ID but vote in every single election? I seem to recall an informal survey that indicated somewhere around 40% of the populations of these care facilities are in that condition.

Sorry, just got back from visiting with my Mom in the SNF (Skilled Nursing Facility) down the street and I find this. It virtually impossible to be admitted to such a facility without ID. Period. Just became involved in the process on Friday. Fact. I am working on the process to get her an absentee ballot, since she has not missed voting in any election, local, state and national since she has been eligible. She's 85. Fact. She is very well versed in the current political gamesmanship and will cast her vote according to her beliefs. Fact.

Once upon a time, we were required to take Civics in school. It disappeared and the general public became fair game for any pundit willing to sit in a chair and pontificate. We have met the enemy and he is us.

The terms "dimocrat" and "Repugnant" are NOT helpful.

[Wes]

You are excessively focused on this "social phenomenon" that I brought up only as a clarification of someone else's questions. You keep dragging the conversation off the main topic, attempting to continue asking leading question after leading question in an attempt to trip me up in some small way so that you can pounce on me. That's playing lawyer. You obviously don't care for my positions, and you're attempting to twist my words in order to make me look a fool. That's your straw man attack. Perhaps it's such a part of your nature that you don't realize that you're doing it, but I don't think so. The goal of a good debater is to keep the other guy off balance with endless questions, forcing the conversation in a direction you wish and onto topics you feel comfortable with, that the other guy is unprepared for. You're obviously very good at this. You are a professional wordsmith and debater, trained to win arguments, whether based on facts or trickery, and I am not. You have done well. While I doubt I'd win many arguments with a lawyer in a public forum, whether my position were sound or not, I'm certain I can't do it from a cellphone while distracted with work. You'll have to go inflict your social justice agenda and your snarky remarks on someone else. I'm done with this.

[gmc]

Don't know the scale of problems such as this, but this happened with someone I worked with a few years ago.

Single parent, 3 kids, head of household, EIC, participated in several other government programs. Lived with her baby daddy (her term). Didn't get married because to do so would have raised their income to the point where she wouldn't have qualified for some of the government assistance.

These things can and do happen. The current administration wants people to become more and more dependent on the government. Look at the explosion of the number of people on food stamps. Obama wants us to become a nation of Julias, dependent on the government at every stage of our lives. That assures them of guaranteed votes.

http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia/

[shanbaum]

You are excessively focused on this "social phenomenon" that I brought up only as a clarification of someone else's questions. You keep dragging the conversation off the main topic, attempting to continue asking leading question after leading question in an attempt to trip me up in some small way so that you can pounce on me. That's playing lawyer. You obviously don't care for my positions, and you're attempting to twist my words in order to make me look a fool. That's your straw man attack. Perhaps it's such a part of your nature that you don't realize that you're doing it, but I don't think so. The goal of a good debater is to keep the other guy off balance with endless questions, forcing the conversation in a direction you wish and onto topics you feel comfortable with, that the other guy is unprepared for. You're obviously very good at this. You are a professional wordsmith and debater, trained to win arguments, whether based on facts or trickery, and I am not. You have done well. While I doubt I'd win many arguments with a lawyer in a public forum, whether my position were sound or not, I'm certain I can't do it from a cellphone while distracted with work. You'll have to go inflict your social justice agenda and your snarky remarks on someone else. I'm done with this.

Sheesh! What did I say?

I really wasn't trying to pounce on you. If anything, I was trying to find points on which I could agree with you. I may have a social justice agenda (not really sure, because I don't know what that means to you), but that doesn't mean we can't discuss things.

You're typing on a cellphone? Good job!

[Judy Canty]

I suppose perspective is everything. What would you change in the "Julia" narrative?