Bush pushing for couples to get married??

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

NFS4

No Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
72,640
8
81
Originally posted by: ThunderGirl
Originally posted by: etech
2) If the "baby's daddy" is deadbeat low life scum, I wouldn't want his ass anywhere near a kid
If the baby's daddy is deadbeat low life scum then momma should have kept her legs closed.
You don't always know they are going to become a dead beat after a kid or two.. and married not married a dad can still be a dead beat. Or for that matter a Mom.. it is not always just dads that up and leave their kids.
Good point!
 

ThunderGirl

Senior member
Aug 17, 2001
606
0
0
edit: dang it it didn't post my msg.. grrrrr

I agree with some things said here but marriage is not a fail proof answer. Just because you marry then have kids doesn't mean one spouse will not just up and leave and not be there finacially or emotionally for their child/children or spouse.

I think Bush doing this is pretty hypocrytical (sp?) as if you are low income and show proof you can get filing fees for divorce and costs waived. So yeah lets push marriage and when it doesn't work lets have the gov't give more money and help them divorce.

I would personally be lost w/o a lot of the gov't programs available. WIC, Medical, Food Stamps. Don't have welfare where I was from so I don't believe in it. Wisconsin was the first to do the Works program and I think it is great.

There are circumstances that a mom/ dad just can't control that leave them needing help at one time or another.

The problem is these programs are designed to be temporary to help people get back on their feet and TOO many people have decided it is a acceptable lifestyle.

Just my .02
 

LordMaul

Lifer
Nov 16, 2000
15,168
1
0
Excellent work, guys...a little mmore of this fighting and flaming, and this issue will be completely taken care of and changed on a national level!
 

tm37

Lifer
Jan 24, 2001
12,436
1
0
Originally posted by: her209
There's lots of reasons to get married. For example, sex. :p
[foxworthy]getting married for sex is like buying a 747 for the free peanuts[/foxworthy]
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
As I see it....

There is a general lack of effort required to just grow up in today's America.

Most of our parents grew up in poverty or near poverty. Te effort of climbing the ladder made them better people than we are overall.

In today's world it seems no one is responsible for their own actions. They want damn near everything given to them. Afterall it is a 'right' to have affordable housing, medical care, food.....and include sex with no responsibility of outcome.

Marriage requires an unselfish devotion to another person. It requires REAL work and DEVOTION! Those words sadly lack in meaning in today's world.

It is undeniable that Social Welfare has enslaved many blacks in the US. We have literally PAID for unwed mothers to have MORE babies. They get more from not being married than can reasonably be earned and so the father just walks away. Why, because walking away is EASY! Staying and surviving takes WORK!

You can argue against marriage all you want, but there are no credible studies showing children born to unwed mothers do anything but cause more problems for society.

Life is a mixture of problems. It's outcome can only be determined by the individual and not some over-funded Government program!

The Government has been encourageing behavior since the first tax was collected.

By encourageing marriage Bush seeks to strengthen the FAMILY at it's very roots! The FAMILY is THE CORE of our very existence and the ability to succeed as a society.

Some marriages fail, so don't get married is the only argument I see in this thread. Some here are just defending their own lifestyles.

Bush is promoting FAMILY values and the most important of those is marriage. When two people say 'I do!' they are supposed to put their own selfish wants and desires aside and work for the greater good of the family unit. Very few marriages are perfect and it is the devotion to working things out and surviving life and it's hardships that build character.

Bush and I disagree on a lot of subjects, but at least he is honest and not afraid to try new approaches to old and expensive problems.

We are going to reduce our dependence on government programs or fail as a Representative Republic.
 

WyteWatt

Banned
Jun 8, 2001
6,255
0
0
NFS4 i can only see the divorce rate rising too in the future. I think what some adults are wondering or scared of is how will this generation of parents be with their kids ? I know i am part of this generation but i really never felt like i was ever but thats fine. But being a parent is a full time job. (24/7)
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
The only reason GWB is not an abject failure, cycling in and out of detox is b/c his parents were decent people with mad cheddar. One parent would have been hard pressed to reign in the imbecile. In the face of all his advantages Bush still required 3+ decades to straighten up. Bush is not inherently honest or honorable . . . he's just simple. And his simple mind says marriage is better than the majority of the alternatives. The problem with being a simpleton is competing with reality. Successful marriages are probably the best possible outcome for developing and maintaining the family unit. Bush grew up in a nice one and apparently his wife has tolerated the present one. In Bush's pea-sized cerebrum that's enough evidence to make policy.

Now of course two successful parents isn't enough to keep your children from violating drug (Jeb's children) and alcohol (W's kids) laws.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: NFS4
With the divorce rate at 50%, I don't think you should be pushing anyone into marriage


http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/article.do?id=18974§ion=NEWS&year=2003&month=1&day=3

"Marriage Coalition director Sandra Bender described her group as "a nonprofit organization of inter-religious clergy, mental-health professionals and individuals dedicated to reducing the divorce rate and birth to unmarried parents through education." "

Perhaps I'm old fashioned by I still think that a father and a mother are the best way to raise children. I don't think that encouraging young single women to have children is a good thing. If this program helps to reduce the divorce rate or the rate of single women having children and then expecting the government to take care of them, then it's an idea worth trying.
Promoting Abortion for pregnant Single women would also reduce the rate of single women having children and then expecting the government to take care of them too.
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
BaliBabyDoc...I see the ice has thawed over your scum covered pool....a temporary condition...:Q
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
I agree 100%, the federal welfare system (direct financial aid) has been a total failure. On a related note, do a web search for Neil Bush and Silverado S&L. The Bush family is quite big on welfare . . . they just prefer 10-figure numbers.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The only reason GWB is not an abject failure, cycling in and out of detox is b/c his parents were decent people with mad cheddar. One parent would have been hard pressed to reign in the imbecile. In the face of all his advantages Bush still required 3+ decades to straighten up. Bush is not inherently honest or honorable . . . he's just simple. And his simple mind says marriage is better than the majority of the alternatives. The problem with being a simpleton is competing with reality. Successful marriages are probably the best possible outcome for developing and maintaining the family unit. Bush grew up in a nice one and apparently his wife has tolerated the present one. In Bush's pea-sized cerebrum that's enough evidence to make policy.

Now of course two successful parents isn't enough to keep your children from violating drug (Jeb's children) and alcohol (W's kids) laws.
If you don't like your posts to be called rhetoric, then don't post BS such as that.


The question is whether children as a whole grow up better and have better lives if they come from a stable two parent family. I don't think that you can find a study that does not support that.
The welfare system that has encouraged single parent families has been counter-productive. This one small program is not going to turn the society that has grown up with a dependency attitude on the government around but it is a small step in the right direction in my opinion.

From the responses of some in this thread I am worried that we have gone to far and the values of personal responsibility have all but disappeared from a generation. That does not bode well for the future.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The only reason GWB is not an abject failure, cycling in and out of detox is b/c his parents were decent people with mad cheddar. One parent would have been hard pressed to reign in the imbecile. In the face of all his advantages Bush still required 3+ decades to straighten up. Bush is not inherently honest or honorable . . . he's just simple. And his simple mind says marriage is better than the majority of the alternatives. The problem with being a simpleton is competing with reality. Successful marriages are probably the best possible outcome for developing and maintaining the family unit. Bush grew up in a nice one and apparently his wife has tolerated the present one. In Bush's pea-sized cerebrum that's enough evidence to make policy.

Now of course two successful parents isn't enough to keep your children from violating drug (Jeb's children) and alcohol (W's kids) laws.
If you don't like your posts to be called rhetoric, then don't post BS such as that.


The question is whether children as a whole grow up better and have better lives if they come from a stable two parent family. I don't think that you can find a study that does not support that.
The welfare system that has encouraged single parent families has been counter-productive. This one small program is not going to turn the society that has grown up with a dependency attitude on the government around but it is a small step in the right direction in my opinion.

From the responses of some in this thread I am worried that we have gone to far and the values of personal responsibility have all but disappeared from a generation. That does not bode well for the future.
What do you suggest we do then?

 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Reconfigure the government programs to encourage two parent families vs. single parent. Go after the fathers of these children and make them pay child support. Some states now have programs where you can't get a driver's license if you are not paying it. I think that is a good idea.

For the total answer, I don't know. This problem did not start overnight but has grown for years. The government programs that set up underage girls in their own apartments did not help. Yes, there has to be a safety net for the small percentage of women that get pregnent or get into abusive relationships. I have never said otherwise. The programs though should not encourage or make single parenting easier and the perfered choice though.

I see the program that was proposed as a start. It is better then doing nothing and continuing in the status quo and yet there are people arguing against it. I wonder if it is only because Pres. Bush?s administration proposed it is the main reason they are opposed?
 

Skyclad1uhm1

Lifer
Aug 10, 2001
11,383
87
91
Originally posted by: etech
I don't agree that promoting marriage, when the government is having to pay for the consequnces of people not getting married, is anything at all like the other examples you cited.

Wink all you want, they are not the same.

Living arrangements of single-mother families: Variations, transitions,

Children in single-mother families are increasingly in the public policy spotlight due, among other things, to their high rates of poverty and welfare use. In 1998, for example, almost half (46%) of all children living in female-headed families were poor. In contrast, only 9% of children who lived in married-couple families were poor in that year (Child Trends 1999).
And addressing the problem of poverty instead is out of the question of course, as that might mean you'd pay more taxes and couldn't afford your ninth Ferrari.

Let's just give the death penalty to all assholes and deadbeats, that will prevent girls from marrying them in the first place. And to make sure all the girls still get married, and the divorce rates go down we can then allow a maximum of four wifes, and leave the decision on whether or not they can divorce solely with the man. Hmm, sounds somewhat familiar :p

The government should educate people on stuff, but if they want to get divorced anyway they shouldn't whine. There are enough good reasons for divorces, and not only abusive partners. (Cheating, partners who no longer love eachother, etc) Staying together after the relationship died is in most cases a bad idea.
 

Geekbabe

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 16, 1999
32,059
2,094
126
www.theshoppinqueen.com
You can force the payment of money but you cannot force love or emotional involvement however much you may wish to.In some cases,forcing the payment of money can lead to even worse emotional consequences to the kid involved.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: Geekbabe
You can force the payment of money but you cannot force love or emotional involvement however much you may wish to.In some cases,forcing the payment of money can lead to even worse emotional consequences to the kid involved.

You can keep listing the small exceptions to the majority but I ask this again. Are children that grow up in a two parent family more or less likely to do better than children that grow up in a single parent family?

 

Geekbabe

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 16, 1999
32,059
2,094
126
www.theshoppinqueen.com
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Geekbabe
You can force the payment of money but you cannot force love or emotional involvement however much you may wish to.In some cases,forcing the payment of money can lead to even worse emotional consequences to the kid involved.

You can keep listing the small exceptions to the majority but I ask this again. Are children that grow up in a two parent family more or less likely to do better than children that grow up in a single parent family?

Growing up with people who love and believe in you is,imho the most important thing.I'm not going to get drawn into too personal a convo here but will tell you that if you don't get that it doesn't matter how damn much money and things your parents throw at you.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Geekbabe
You can force the payment of money but you cannot force love or emotional involvement however much you may wish to.In some cases,forcing the payment of money can lead to even worse emotional consequences to the kid involved.

You can keep listing the small exceptions to the majority but I ask this again. Are children that grow up in a two parent family more or less likely to do better than children that grow up in a single parent family?

Growing up with people who love and believe in you is,imho the most important thing.I'm not going to get drawn into too personal a convo here but will tell you that if you don't get that it doesn't matter how damn much money and things your parents throw at you.
Nice way of not answering the question, but thank you for your contribution. I agree with it by the way. I also think that if people had to pay a little more in consequences they would be more careful about the mates that they choose to wed till death do them part. Or has that part been taken out of the marriage vows?

 

Geekbabe

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 16, 1999
32,059
2,094
126
www.theshoppinqueen.com
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Geekbabe
You can force the payment of money but you cannot force love or emotional involvement however much you may wish to.In some cases,forcing the payment of money can lead to even worse emotional consequences to the kid involved.

You can keep listing the small exceptions to the majority but I ask this again. Are children that grow up in a two parent family more or less likely to do better than children that grow up in a single parent family?

Growing up with people who love and believe in you is,imho the most important thing.I'm not going to get drawn into too personal a convo here but will tell you that if you don't get that it doesn't matter how damn much money and things your parents throw at you.
Nice way of not answering the question, but thank you for your contribution. I agree with it by the way. I also think that if people had to pay a little more in consequences they would be more careful about the mates that they choose to wed till death do them part. Or has that part been taken out of the marriage vows?


The people who "pay the consequences" are the kids,not the parents

I grew up with the words "You were the biggest mistake I ever made in my life" ringing in my ears... did wonders for me,very character building
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Geekbabe
You can force the payment of money but you cannot force love or emotional involvement however much you may wish to.In some cases,forcing the payment of money can lead to even worse emotional consequences to the kid involved.

You can keep listing the small exceptions to the majority but I ask this again. Are children that grow up in a two parent family more or less likely to do better than children that grow up in a single parent family?

Growing up with people who love and believe in you is,imho the most important thing.I'm not going to get drawn into too personal a convo here but will tell you that if you don't get that it doesn't matter how damn much money and things your parents throw at you.
Nice way of not answering the question, but thank you for your contribution. I agree with it by the way. I also think that if people had to pay a little more in consequences they would be more careful about the mates that they choose to wed till death do them part. Or has that part been taken out of the marriage vows?
I doubt it. Also, your idea of taking away services to women who have children out of wedlock not only hurts the women but the child, who BTW, had nothing to do with his/her mothers decision to have sex with the deadbeat father.

Of course I know that you winning this debate is more important to you than talking about reality.

 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
That is a separate issue from this thread isn't it? This is about whether the majority of children would do better in a two-parent family than a single parent family and whether the government should work to reverse that trend.

The issue of whether some people should have children is separate and an even thornier one but one I feel the government can't address.

Did I misunderstand your post?
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Red
I doubt it. Also, your idea of taking away services to women who have children out of wedlock not only hurts the women but the child, who BTW, had nothing to do with his/her mothers decision to have sex with the deadbeat father.

Of course I know that you winning this debate is more important to you than talking about reality.
Red, before you starting throwing your typical insults you asked what my solution to the problem is. I'm going to return the favor and ask you the same question. What is the answer to the huge increase in single parent families or do you even see that as a problem?
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
The issue here is not exactly if kids are better of in a two parent family or one parent family. The issue is are the kids better off in a happy or a unhappy family, regardless if there are one or two parents.
This is the row how I see it, best to worst
Two parent happy family
One parent happy family
One parent unhappy family
Two parent unhappy family
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY