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.