Bush to Spend $1 Billion Over 5 Years to Encourage Marriage

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Why should our government use taxpayer funds to promote marriage? Thoughts?

FoxNews.com - Marriage Promoted as Cure to Social Woes

Two simple words may not only increase family income, but ensure that children have the best shot at happy, healthy lives.

"I do" can really help domestic stability, according to most, if not all, research conducted over the last decade on the effects of marriage.

That research has helped prompt support for the Bush administration's proposal to spend more than $200 million annually over five years ? half in the form of matching state grants ? to encourage couples to reverse the decades-old decline in marriage.

"Everyone who studies this issue knows that the breakup of the family is the major cause of welfare dependency and child poverty," said Robert Rector, a child and family researcher for the Heritage Foundation.

"We must support the institution of marriage and help parents build stronger families," President Bush said in his October proclamation for Marriage Protection Week 2003.

The Senate is expected to act this session on the $1 billion pro-marriage initiatives as part of its reauthorization of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (search), also known as welfare reform. A similar bill passed the House on a partisan vote in February.

The bill includes funds for marriage education in schools and for adults as well as divorce reduction programs. It also earmarks cash to help states reduce disincentives for marriage in means-tested assistance programs. Currently, welfare payments, food stamps and health benefits for children are largely reduced after a woman legally marries.

The package stems from the Bush administration?s Healthy Marriage Initiative (search), untested at the national level but supported in family research fields as the first public foray into promoting marriage as an institution.

"It is a bold step forward," said Rector, who asked why money should not be spent on strengthening whole families as well as aiding those that are broken. "Either you pick up Humpty-Dumpty after he falls off the wall or try to prevent him from falling in the first place."

Detractors say government should spend more time and money on helping people get education and employment rather than rushing them into marriage.

"It's a gimmick to make a political statement," said Tom Coleman, lawyer and founder of Unmarried America, a civil rights organization for singles and domestic partners. "This whole idea of pressuring people to marry is going to backfire."

"I don't have any quarrel with the research. The problem I have with the government's approach is it is not treating this as a complex issue," said Ron Walters, director of the African-American Leadership Institute at the University of Maryland. Walters said much of his problem with the proposal centers on its failure to address other challenges facing men and women in low-income and minority communities.

According to 2000 census data, the rate of married households in the United States declined by nearly 30 percent since 1950. Married couples now make up an estimated 50 percent of households.

Meanwhile, the number of unmarried partners living together has risen from 523,000 in 1970 to approximately 4.9 million in 2000.

Nearly one-third of all children today are born outside of marriage, and more than half of U.S. children will spend all or part of their childhood in a broken family, according to statistics.

The percentage of children living with mothers who have never married increased to 36 percent in 1996 from 7 percent in 1970, said Mary Parke, a researcher at the Center for Law and Social Policy.

Rector added that a child raised by a mother who has never married is seven times more likely to live in poverty than a child raised by his biological parents in an intact marriage.

Many researchers agree that married couples have a better chance not only of staying together, but of providing a stable home for children.

"The hardship is less in the case of married couples," said Robert Lerman, a researcher with the Urban Institute who has studied financial hardships on two nearly identical, low-income families, one married, the other with two cohabitating adults.

"I think there is a body of pretty persuasive evidence that the tendency to marry, itself, provides some enhancement to economic well-being," he said.

But not everyone falls into the neat package of what qualifies for a legally married couple, critics point out. Many homosexuals, for example, are fighting for the right to marry and want to start families, either with biological children from a previous union or adoption. The administration?s initiative does not cover those partnerships.

Mark Shields, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign (search), which promotes the legalization of civil unions for same-sex couples, of which there is an estimated 594,000 in the U.S. today, calls this hypocrisy.

"Our take on it is the rest of the country has a choice ? to be married or remain single. For gay people, there is no choice. In the eyes of the law, they are strangers," Shields said.

In addition, marriage rates have plummeted far more among black men and women than whites. The percentage of black women who are married dropped from 62 percent to 36 percent between 1950 and 2000, according to the census, while the percentage of married white women went from 67 percent to 57 percent in the same period.

"Looking at the statistics, we are the least likely group in America to get married, and we have a higher divorce rate,? said Carlis Williams, regional director of the Aid to Children and Families division of the Department of Health and Human Services, which has planned a series of Healthy Marriage Forums in U.S. cities to air issues unique to African-American families.

Critics say the administration's proposal is not necessarily the key to resolving the African-American community's problems. Adding to the decline in marriage an increase in higher poverty and lower education rates for African-Americans, a triple threat hovers over the vibrancy of this community.

?This is not an easy problem; a whole series of things have happened to damage the quality of the black male pool in regards to marriage,? said Walters, who added that like many women, black women look for financial stability in a potential husband, a quality that is hard to come by in low-income communities.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,960
6,802
126
Capitalism, the media, and advertising have destroyed the American mind. People have been brainwashed into the feeling that things are what makes people happy. We have been trained to think I, me, me mine. Because we are now psychotic there is little we can do. Every attempt at change contains our psychosis too. We need to create a system that functions to create healthy people who are happy to be alive, who love life for the sake of living rather than acquisition. We need a world in which children can grow up with trust and joy. Only such people can create meaningful lasting relationships not based on neurotic self protection. The answer is systemic cure, not bandages placed of symptoms. Don't hold your breath that anything real will happen. Once the water in that old toilet bowl starts spinning it don't take a lot of brains to figure the outcome. Mites in a cheese always collapse the cheese.
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76
You know what Georgy?

A good economy, not trying to constitutionally ban gay marriage, and not screwing the middle class would promote marriage.
 

tallest1

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2001
3,474
0
0
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
You know what Georgy?

A good economy, not trying to constitutionally ban gay marriage, and not screwing the middle class would promote marriage.

Bingo!
 

Crimson

Banned
Oct 11, 1999
3,809
0
0
Wow! The hypocrits are out in force again today! You guys make my point better than I ever could. If you are asking yourself why the government should be paying to promote marriage, can you also ask yourself why the government pays to promote art? Or welfare? Or abortion? Anti-smoking campaigns? Anti-drug campaigns? Why are you singling out one of the hundreds of billions of dollars we waste and not the others? (DING! I'd like to solve the puzzle Pat!) Could it be because you hate everything George Bush does? Could it be that you only want to point out things which disagree with your political ideology? (Woohoo! I AM A WINNER!)

Fact is, you guys will always point out this bull**** when you disagree with it.. but never when it goes against your own beliefs, even though its the same type of spending. Besides.. promoting marriage? OH MY GOD!! How can we possibly go on as a country if the government is doing something to promote stable families?! The horror! Bush should be impeached!! HOW DARE HE! I bet if there was a poll asking American's if they think the government should promote marriage, the results would be 90%+ in favor. Yet, if you would ask if the government should promote controversal art programs, it wouldn't be anywhere near that level of support. Yet, the 90% of Americans who think this is a good idea should be bound to a political minority who feels they should force their own immorality on the rest of us. Marriage is a good thing.. we SHOULD promote it. If you don't think we should spend the money on it, then maybe you should be looking for things we spend money on in other places as well..but you won't, since you can't be intellectually honest. If Bush passed a spending bill which spent $1 billion on promoting gay marriage, you wouldn't be saying a WORD in here about it.
 

Genesys

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2003
1,536
0
0
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
You know what Georgy?

A good economy, not trying to constitutionally ban gay marriage, and not screwing the middle class would promote marriage.


the economy is good [thank you Bushy!]
i dont believe in gay marriage, so if its banned, thats fine by me
he hasnt screwed the middle calss, his tax cuts gave you more spending money and put the economy back on track [from what i can see anyway]

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,960
6,802
126
Republicans are pro marriage. Isn't that nice. There's a lot of dead husbands in Iraq though.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Crimson
Wow! The hypocrits are out in force again today! You guys make my point better than I ever could. If you are asking yourself why the government should be paying to promote marriage, can you also ask yourself why the government pays to promote art? Or welfare? Or abortion? Anti-smoking campaigns? Anti-drug campaigns? Why are you singling out one of the hundreds of billions of dollars we waste and not the others? (DING! I'd like to solve the puzzle Pat!) Could it be because you hate everything George Bush does? Could it be that you only want to point out things which disagree with your political ideology? (Woohoo! I AM A WINNER!)

Fact is, you guys will always point out this bull**** when you disagree with it.. but never when it goes against your own beliefs, even though its the same type of spending. Besides.. promoting marriage? OH MY GOD!! How can we possibly go on as a country if the government is doing something to promote stable families?! The horror! Bush should be impeached!! HOW DARE HE! I bet if there was a poll asking American's if they think the government should promote marriage, the results would be 90%+ in favor. Yet, if you would ask if the government should promote controversal art programs, it wouldn't be anywhere near that level of support. Yet, the 90% of Americans who think this is a good idea should be bound to a political minority who feels they should force their own immorality on the rest of us. Marriage is a good thing.. we SHOULD promote it. If you don't think we should spend the money on it, then maybe you should be looking for things we spend money on in other places as well..but you won't, since you can't be intellectually honest. If Bush passed a spending bill which spent $1 billion on promoting gay marriage, you wouldn't be saying a WORD in here about it.

Personally, I think it's a waste of time as well as a waste of $. Marriage can promote itself just fine, it doesn't need a government campaign to do so. Moreover, eliminating the "marriage tax" would probably have a larger impact.
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
So you think it's good to have children yanked from one parent on the weekend and sent to another for a few hours then sent back?
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: XZeroII
So you think it's good to have children yanked from one parent on the weekend and sent to another for a few hours then sent back?

Who me? Why would I think that? And more importantly, how would the government stop that?
 

rjain

Golden Member
May 1, 2003
1,475
0
0
Yeah, let's spend money on supporting marriage while making it illegal for certain people to get married.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: XZeroII
So you think it's good to have children yanked from one parent on the weekend and sent to another for a few hours then sent back?
I think the money would be better spent making sure Deadbeat fathers pay all their child support instead of spending money trying to keep loveless marrages together which don't benefit the child.

Oh Crimson, the money spent on the War Against Drugs is also a huge waste.

 

Crimson

Banned
Oct 11, 1999
3,809
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Crimson
Wow! The hypocrits are out in force again today! You guys make my point better than I ever could. If you are asking yourself why the government should be paying to promote marriage, can you also ask yourself why the government pays to promote art? Or welfare? Or abortion? Anti-smoking campaigns? Anti-drug campaigns? Why are you singling out one of the hundreds of billions of dollars we waste and not the others? (DING! I'd like to solve the puzzle Pat!) Could it be because you hate everything George Bush does? Could it be that you only want to point out things which disagree with your political ideology? (Woohoo! I AM A WINNER!)

Fact is, you guys will always point out this bull**** when you disagree with it.. but never when it goes against your own beliefs, even though its the same type of spending. Besides.. promoting marriage? OH MY GOD!! How can we possibly go on as a country if the government is doing something to promote stable families?! The horror! Bush should be impeached!! HOW DARE HE! I bet if there was a poll asking American's if they think the government should promote marriage, the results would be 90%+ in favor. Yet, if you would ask if the government should promote controversal art programs, it wouldn't be anywhere near that level of support. Yet, the 90% of Americans who think this is a good idea should be bound to a political minority who feels they should force their own immorality on the rest of us. Marriage is a good thing.. we SHOULD promote it. If you don't think we should spend the money on it, then maybe you should be looking for things we spend money on in other places as well..but you won't, since you can't be intellectually honest. If Bush passed a spending bill which spent $1 billion on promoting gay marriage, you wouldn't be saying a WORD in here about it.

Personally, I think it's a waste of time as well as a waste of $. Marriage can promote itself just fine, it doesn't need a government campaign to do so. Moreover, eliminating the "marriage tax" would probably have a larger impact.

But then you would complain he's increasing the deficit!
 

Crimson

Banned
Oct 11, 1999
3,809
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Republicans are pro marriage. Isn't that nice. There's a lot of dead husbands in Iraq though.

Some dead wives too.. contrary to popular belief there are many women who defend our country.. they are not all waiting at the doors of abortion clinics as liberals would like to have us believe.

(Yeah, off topic, but I had to take the shot at Moonie's blatent sexist statement)
 

Crimson

Banned
Oct 11, 1999
3,809
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: XZeroII
So you think it's good to have children yanked from one parent on the weekend and sent to another for a few hours then sent back?
I think the money would be better spent making sure Deadbeat fathers pay all their child support instead of spending money trying to keep loveless marrages together which don't benefit the child.

Oh Crimson, the money spent on the War Against Drugs is also a huge waste.

Then why don't you complain about that? Because it doesn't fit your agenda?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: rjain
Yeah, let's spend money on supporting marriage while making it illegal for certain people to get married.

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: XZeroII
So you think it's good to have children yanked from one parent on the weekend and sent to another for a few hours then sent back?
I think the money would be better spent making sure Deadbeat fathers pay all their child support instead of spending money trying to keep loveless marrages together which don't benefit the child.

Oh Crimson, the money spent on the War Against Drugs is also a huge waste.

Now I know the Forum database must've gotten corrupt, looks like two posts in a row that we agreed on something.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Crimson
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: XZeroII
So you think it's good to have children yanked from one parent on the weekend and sent to another for a few hours then sent back?
I think the money would be better spent making sure Deadbeat fathers pay all their child support instead of spending money trying to keep loveless marrages together which don't benefit the child.

Oh Crimson, the money spent on the War Against Drugs is also a huge waste.

Then why don't you complain about that? Because it doesn't fit your agenda?
What agenda is that Crimson?

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,960
6,802
126
Originally posted by: Crimson
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Republicans are pro marriage. Isn't that nice. There's a lot of dead husbands in Iraq though.

Some dead wives too.. contrary to popular belief there are many women who defend our country.. they are not all waiting at the doors of abortion clinics as liberals would like to have us believe.

(Yeah, off topic, but I had to take the shot at Moonie's blatent sexist statement)

Holy Cow, Crimson. I was talking about the Iraqi soldiers we done killed, not the civilian overblast collateral change we done in. The Iraqis are the sexists, not me. They won't allow their women to go to war. We didn't kill our soldiers on purpose. We killed theirs, husbands and all.
 

konichiwa

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,077
2
0
Originally posted by: XZeroII
So you think it's good to have children yanked from one parent on the weekend and sent to another for a few hours then sent back?

I think in general the idea of "parental visitation" is a horrible one. Either both parents are competent and capable of rearing their child, in which case the custody should be divided, or one parent is incompetent, in which case he or she should get no rights to his child. Simple enough.

Besides, advocating marriage isn't going to get rid of divorce. You do, after all, have to be married to be divorced.
rolleye.gif
 

dirtboy

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,745
1
81
Maybe we should just give out 1 billion to unwed welfare mothers for each additional kid they have during the next 5 years instead.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
"Everyone who studies this issue knows that the breakup of the family is the major cause of welfare dependency and child poverty," said Robert Rector, a child and family researcher for the Heritage Foundation.

It's amazing this twit actually calls himself a "researcher". It is the absence of an initial family unit that is the major cause of welfare dependency and child poverty. Of course, old school welfare laws actually punished recipients for living with their baby's daddy.