Ping to a Republican-American Editorial.
If you want on or off this list, let me know.
This wouldn’t be the case if BOTH parents were required to both support and raise the child (hands-on, not long distance), regardless of marital status.
LBJ’s Great Society - the gift that keeps on taking and taking and ....
I paid for my kids education but after age 21 they were on their own.
For cryin’ out loud will someone go ahead and cue up Master of the Obvious....
But we can’t talk about abstinence or say a word to discourage divorce or infidelity.
The costs, as calculated by Mr. Scafidi, included increased direct expenses for assistance such as Medicaid ($27.9 billion a year) and indirect expenses such as lost tax revenue ($22.3 billion).
What are these indirect expenses? Lost tax revenue? From who? For what? Are we talking about all children living with only parent, or only those situations where parents are poor off financially consuming tax dollars via Medicaid, food stamps, WIC...?
Did somebody come up with a formula showing that divorced families collectively start qualifying to pay fewer taxes after splitting, so the government is getting screwed? Are we required to arrange our lives so as to maximize the revenue government extracts form us? Maybe that's part of the authors' point here. Maybe it isn't. Who can tell?
by the time those checks arrive, children born out of wedlock or left stranded by a divorce will already have cost an average $861.54 per return. In other words, even with the stimulus money, single filers are $261.54 behind.
$861.54? Are you sure it isn't $861.543948594? Once again, who are we talking about here? Are we talking about children born out of wedlock or stranded by divorce, then left dependent on tax payers for direct support? Or are Bruce and Demi's kids too?
It would be a whole lot easier to judge if the authors should be indigent, if they offered some clue what they were indignant about.
My experience has been that most single mothers will do anything they can to avoid working, or otherwise helping to cover the cost of rearing their children. If they do take a job, it will be something part-time and easy that doesn’t interfere with their social life.
When the system is set up to extort large amounts of money from the taxpayers or from the sperm donor, and societal stigmas regarding bastard children are all but gone, there is little incentive for women to take steps to avoid having children out of wedlock in the first place. Any way you cut it, their irresponsible behavior gets them something for nothing.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I work with a lot of Indians and other Asians. I am amazed at how well arranged marriages work in Indian society. They always seem to have happy, contented marriages. The other asians, while not in arranged marriages, never seem to get divorced either. Only the Americans in the company are completely messed up, about 80% of us are divorced.
ping
“One mechanism for reducing those costs is already in place. All that is required is the legislative will to mandate that an absent parent contribute to a child’s upkeep through the same sort of automatic withholding already enforced on everybody else to subsidize that parent’s child.”
Apparently this author has never heard of the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, or know that Congress passed several laws granting them authority to garnish wages for child support, or that in fact most child support is paid for through this system. If a woman has a Court Order for child support, money is collected through this system, and states are remibursed the cost of collecting the child support and paid an incentive payment. Fathers are seldom allowed to send money directly to the mother because the state would losse their incentive payments. And thoes are some big tax payer bucks.
bump