"I’m not the 1 spouting a “men are all causing evil” line. The reverse IS a predictable trend STARTED by men,..."
Susan B. Anthony
Posted on 02/08/2008 12:52:43 AM PST by a_chronic_whiner
Two trends bedevil America. One is taxes. The second, more important, is marriage.
Those who pay no taxes have no check on their appetite for services. If somebody else is paying, nothing’s unaffordable.
At the federal level, 41 percent of the U.S. population is totally outside the income tax system, according to the Washington-based Tax Foundation. Since 2000, the number of filers with no tax liability, zero, has increased from 29 million to 42 million in 2005. Of 132.6 million returns filed in 2005, only 90.6 million paid taxes. The rest got back all they’d paid in — and more.
The second and more important concern, largely because of its impact on children, is the rise of single-parent households. Over the past 25 years, the percentage has grown from a quarter to a third. In Georgia, 35 percent of children live in single-parent homes and 39.2 percent of births in 2004 were to unmarried women, according to the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Almost 70 percent of black children, almost half of Hispanic and a quarter of white children are born to unmarried women.
The liberal polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research singled out unmarried women and their potential impact on future elections. What it found should chill the spines of those who wish to reverse, or even slow, the growth of government — not so much because of its cost, but because Big Government steals the initiative and enterprise and independence of its wards.
“Because of the often stark economic reality of a single-income family, they [unmarried women] support an active government that will give all Americans a chance to get ahead, not just the affluent,” the organization reported.
As the nation discovered decades ago with welfare policies that pushed men out of the lives of poor women, except for procreation, women who previously found security in marriage turned instead to government. As Greenberg Quinlan Rosner find, unmarried women are a rich vein to be mined by Democrats. From its findings:
• “Marital status is playing an increasingly defining role in elections. For the 2006 congressional elections, the ‘marriage gap’ was 32 points, far bigger than the gender gap, which was just 9 points. Among women, the marriage gap was an even bigger 36 points … unmarried women tend to vote like other unmarried women, regardless of other powerful demographic variables such as age, income and education.”
• “Unmarried women are easily the largest segment of the Democratic base — bigger than Hispanics and African Americans combined.” And the second most loyal, second only to blacks. They favor Democrats over Republicans by a 70-24 margin, and Hillary Clinton over Rudy Giuliani by 66-30.
• “From 1960 to 2006, the percentage of the voting age population that was unmarried grew from 27 to 45 percent … If this trend continues, the unmarried will be a majority of the population within 15 years.”
• Their top economic concern is health care. “This group strongly supports fundamental reform to provide universal coverage that can never be taken away.”
• “In total, there are over 53 million unmarried women of voting age, a number that dwarfs the percentage of seniors, people of color and even union members.” Of those who voted in 2006, two-thirds chose Democrats. Some 20 million, however, did not vote. That’s 41 percent of the unmarrieds. Among the married, it was 29 percent. But “2008 could be very different if progressives see the opportunity before them.” Unmarried women “emerge as the largest contributor to the Democratic vote in 2008.”
Greenberg Quinlan Rosner views them as the “Democrats’ evangelicals.” opining that “if progressives turn them out, unmarried women can be as important to Democrats in 2008 as evangelicals were to Republicans in 2004.”
Combine the two: fewer people who pay taxes and a growing bloc of women who rely on government for their financial security and their household’s well-being.
The challenge for the nation is to rebuild the traditional two-parent family — primarily for the sake of children, but also as a balance to more and bigger government.
A bunch of stupid bimbos who can’t keep their knees together, and are looking for someone else to bear the costs of their irresponsible behavior. Great.
But as long as you’re not cynical and bitter, I guess that’s all that matters, right?
Thanks Allegra, but not as nice as yours....... :-)
Awww, that's sweet. Does Hallmark make a card with that expression?
Now there's an idea. Maybe a little truth to the card will make them irate enough to get off their duffs and go to work and rely on their actions instead of their sex.
I looked. Nope, not bad at all.
Thanks najida, but I can’t see you in yours though...
I think I’m going to start an unofficial FReepers Singles thread closer to Valentine’s Day....
NO ONE ever got the milk for free with me, I can assure you. I have saved myself for God’s man for me, and am still waiting (no, I’m not a freak or weird), even though I am a single homeschooling mother of four adopted siblings. One day God will bring us a man who doesn’t think I’m just looking for a Daddy for my children, and who will value who I am and what I have to offer him, which is a valuable & special gift, worthy of his attention and commitment.
One kind of a man might look at us, and see a Momma looking for a caretaker and provider — another will see a precious family who would love to share their life with him in every way, and who would bless HIS life in so many ways as well. I will know the difference, and the FIRST kind of man can just keep walking.
That’s too cliche and a little dangerous. It’s easy to be “lonely” when everyone is getting hearts, candy, and flowers. Lonely wears off.
That is absolutely wonderful. God bless you!! :-)
Good for you. Keep it up.
You know, my father asked my mother to marry him just 3 mos after they met - with 2 children and all. (She was divorced from an abusive seedy rat - and she didn’t want the money, she was happy to keep him out of their lives, period.) They married in another 2. He thus adopted my “half-siblings” at the ages of 6 and 7 (they asked him if they could call him “Daddy” when they knew Mom would be married). I didn’t come along until 3 years later.
There HAVE to be men out there, even today, like that.
If God wants it, you’re right, He’ll have it His way.
The scary thing on these threads is, I think we ALL have much more in common (including the gist of thought-processes) than is obvious. If we all could even more easily talk it out, in person, we’d find we really agree on everything deep down.
Everyone just likes to gripe about men/women sometimes. Unfortunately, when we get the opportunity, sometimes it comes off as nothing but misogyny/misandropy. Partly because the posters are generalizing and some take it personally.
I myself generally “like” men more than women based on my own experiences (outside even political trends); but I guess I take umbrage from “woman-bashing” exactly because I myself AM a woman! I take it personally, if you will. It’s hard not to. I think usually I am pretty objective, though. I also think it’s mostly a matter of tone, and the tone I get is often not pretty. That’s where I really take umbrage!
Sorry, in my experience here on FR, it is true. Perhaps I just haven’t run into the threads where the article is based on “men issues”.
“Say Adam, let’s go get that fruit from the tree. C’Mon! If you LOVE me!!!” ;-)
I read the line. I also see a thred about the problems presented by single women that quickly turned into the men who are ultimately responsible. Is that how you see it?
And I would support your comments especially in light of my post number one. It was a poor post and it deserved to be challenged.
I agree with your comments here. And I do understand why you took offense to my first thoughtless post.
It was nice of you to respond with this post. I appreciate it.
BTW, where do you get “33 million”? Sorry, I cannot find it in the article, and I’m not now going to go calculate to see how it was derived.
Besides, are you talking about “single women”, or about “single MOTHERS” (i.e., I presume, never-married breeders).
Because the gist of this story sure seemed to focus on welfare queens, even if they dare not say it as such.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.