Posted on 12/23/2010 6:39:48 AM PST by redstateone
Here’s what we know: The two-parent family is the best "anti-poverty program" ever conceived. Why? Well, for the painfully obvious reason that two incomes are twice as much as one...
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
There is no better way to get people dependent on socialist power than to create single parent households.
I’m not sure two incomes is better than one is the reason for family stability; before the 1970’s, most homes had single wage earner status (the father), and that was the case for centuries. Dual incomes is relatively new, and by no means conclusive proof. It’s much deeper than economic; it has to do with commitment, sacrifice, etc. those “virtues” which are not held in high esteem or taught to young people for the past 40 years. I also think religious practice has a lot to do with it as well, however you’ll never see that mentioned in any study.
People aren't stupid - if there's a way to 'game' the system to their own benefit, they (we?) will do it. This is just another manifestation of selfishness and greed.
The difference is that when we do it to avoid paying taxes, we receive the praise of men. When a lower-class single mother does it to help her 'get along', she gets excoriated in the court of public opinion.
I'm just sayin...
“But in purely economic terms, one beaming ray of hope exists for those striving to drastically reduce childhood poverty in America. In fact, as Juan Williams pointed out in his powerful book, “Enough,” there exists a formula that is so effective at combating poverty that researchers have created something akin to a “magic pill” for escaping poverty’s grasp. The formula goes like this: graduate high school, get and keep a job, get married after finishing school and getting a job, and then, after age 21, begin creating your family. The poverty rate for any black man or woman who follows that formula is 5.8 percent. For whites it’s slightly less effective (7.8 percent)”
Gee, now why would the government, who is constantly preaching about ending poverty, miss such a simple yet important fact?
Hmm, maybe because they’re just blowing hot air to disguise the fact their desire is more power at any cost?
Honestly, the truth about economic prosperity is so obvious that it might as well be a frying pan hitting you in the face; the problem is that, like Ayn Rand once said, the looters in charge don’t want to live life, they just want to avoid death.
I’m not sure two incomes is better than one...”
“I also think religious practice has.....”
_________________________________________________
Bingo. Even conservatives have been tainted by “progress”, and have fully participated in getting mothers out of the home and institutionalizing child care. American parents have fallen under the yoke of labor in exchange for family, in truer sense of the word, and have been distracted to a point of orchestrated cultural exhaustion, wherein they are too pooped to raise kids, attend church, fight the schools, etc., etc. Perfect concession by us to the marxists.
The article’s point was merely that two incomes are twice as much as one. And therefore, if childhood poverty is a problem worth solving, we have three options: 1) make you and me work more hours and spend less time with our families so government can “spread the wealth around” 2) have one of the child’s parents work more hours or 3) have both of the child’s parents work (even at Wal-Mart) to bring the family income above the $22K mark established by the federal government.
Either way, someone has to work more hours to bring the “poor” family up over the childhood poverty mark. As Thomas Sowell says, “In economics, there are no solutions, only trade-offs.”
Which do you prefer? You spending less time with your family and more hours working to fund someone else’s kids? Or that parent(s) economically taking care of the children they created?
You choose.
The ‘two income’ reason for financial success is a narrow conclusion. I am in a church which is quite conservative. More than 60% of the families are single income families and none of them are on welfare.
Some are cutting costs by having one car, clipping coupons, making meals (from scratch), shopping bargains, seasonal gardens, and budgeting their income. They do not have day-care costs, or after school expenses. They don’t have the additional expense of clothes for work or gasoline for travel back and forth to a job.
What a blessing it is to live in a free land.
Good analysis.
Poverty is first and above all, a state of mind and a condition of the soul.
No child with two loving parents will ever be “poor” - even if they live on the streets of Calcutta
The catalyst for the demise of the family unit is the economy run amok with consumerism, our only industry btw,
dumping our worship, and exchanged “stuff” for having children, which opened the door to deconstructing the family.
We have all contributed to this demise, because conservatives are cafeteria conservatives, picking and choosing what it is and where it can be found. When we were more pious and actually engaging in our faith, we were home having more children, who were thought of as a blessing and not a curse, and would go to war over any threat to that lifestyle. Over time even we have engaged in “progress” and don’t know how to turn it back, but on a wing and a prayer. Short of a sea change and “re-education”, 50% of our country no longer know what we’re even talking about.
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.