Heritage Fnd. says people are poor because they aren't married

[donsu]

so saith Jennifer Marshall of said Foundation on Wash. Journal this morning.

Heritage wants a big govt. program to get everyone married so nobody is poor anymore.

these people are supposedly intelligent. so what's the real reason for pushing for a get married program? Whose pocket would get filled with the program's money? the faith based cons?

[Vickers]

1. So, they are cool with the gay marriage thing now?

:eyes:

[I Have A Dream]

13. Thats's really good, Vickers!

Yeah, maybe that's an argument that might convince them!

[Yupster]

34. Nah, gays make more money than others

even being single.

[cantstandbush]

47. So, does that mean if I am married I should be rich?

Hmmm...where did I go wrong?

[ComerPerro]

56. More hypocrisy from the right wing

During the "marriage protection" debates over a year ago, the Republicans kept coming to the floor talking about how married people lead longer, fuller, happier lives. They brought up all these benefits of marriage.

It was all I could do to keep from screaming, "Then why are you trying to pass an amendment to prevent people from getting married!!"

Self-satisfied, hypocritical lying assholes.

[marmar]

2. They are some seriously scary folks...

:scared: :scared: :scared:

[varun]

3. so is the Heritage Foundation pro-gay marriage?

eom

[yellowcanine]

15. No they would rather have gays marry women and cheat on them with

their gay lovers. Protect the integrity of marriage, dontcha know?

[liberal N proud]

4. The financial hole is the one hole that a wedding ring will not plug

[electron_blue]

5. good question

How idiotic is it for the govt (who is pushing family agendas) to say people should get married so they get more money??


(even if it were true)

[Yupster]

35. Should not be a government program to promote mariage

But

There is an awful lot of evidence that married people on average have more money than single people, especially parents.

I'm sure there are many reasons for it, some causal and some casual.

I am a commission salesman. I am married and a father, and my wife doesn't work.

To some extent I can control how much money I make by how hard I work.

I'm pretty sure that I work harder and make more money because I have a wife and kid to feed.

If I were still single, I'd make plenty, but I don't think I'd work as hard as I do now or make as much as I make.

[electron_blue]

48. Yes, I can see that's true for you, as a commision salesman

I don't get paid more if I work more hours. I'm "salary" which means I get my yearly income, period. No bonuses, no merit pay, no commission. This is how everyone else in my family gets paid, too. I'm not saying it's how everyone in the world is paid, but I doubt that it's true that by working harder, people can get paid more. I think it really depends on what job field you are in and how high up the ladder you are.

My point was just that it really stinks for the govt to push marriage as a way to 'make more money'. And besides - how does it bring more money to a couple? After we married, my spouse and I owed noticably more taxes than before we married. The "marriage tax". Has that gone (totally) away yet? I have a friend whose elderly aunt & uncle divorced 2 years ago, but still live together, so they could get more money from the U.S. govt (social security benefits, I imagine, but I'm not positive).

Does the U.S. govt REALLY want to recommend divorce in instances where it could bring a couple more money?

[Yupster]

49. The marriage tax has not gone totally away, but

it is much reduced from what it was 5-10 years ago.

Also, though it is certainly not universally true, I think in general marriage does give people more reasons and even opportunities to make more money.

Just as one example, probably most of us know a guy who was "off-track" in his life who got married and ended up slowing down his wayward course to some extent. We can even look to our exhalted president for this as I think his marriage and kids were certainly responsible for slowing his drinking down,

....... and look at the amazing results.

Anyway, with all the eveidence of how much better kids in intact families do and that married people make more money, I think it is something we should not discourage, but the government shouldn't be in the business one way or the other.

[electron_blue]

51. yes, good points, but I still say

it's not that simple - especially the evidence that shows kids do better in intact families. That is a complicated subject. There's a major selection effect going on, with divorces. Typically, only unhappy couples divorce. And studies show that if all variables are equal, and you compare unhappy marriages to happier divorces, that the kids suffer, period, when their parents are unhappily married. However, as these often lead to divorce, that moves more kids in the divorced column than married column. Over time, more kids in married families will have been in happier families to begin with. Are you following me? I'm not sure I'm following me, ha ha.

Just wanted to also point out that the latest studies are showing what counts the most for kids is a good environment with happy parents and it doesn't matter whether the parents are married, or living together, as long as it's a functional family for the kids.

[Yupster]

52. I followed you

Or I think I did anyway. I especially liked the hinted comparison of Yuri Gugarin's flight with the Polish victory at the Gates of Vienna. Just kidding. You made good sense.

In Texas we have common law marriage, so when I talk marriage, I mean intact couples living together too, like you were talking about.

It just seems pretty self-evident to me that a kid growing up in an intact family with two parents will on the whole do better than a kid growing up with one parent.

That doesn't mean all the time or every kid, but it just means all other things being equal, you're better off with two parents than one. And I wouldn't think straight, gay, married or unmarried would make a major difference. It's the idea of two people who care that is important.

There would be so many reasons why. An extra person to keep an eye on you, an extra person to be home while the other is working, an extra person to help with your homework while the other is cooking, someone to be home while the other is shopping, a person to be home while the other travels on business, an extra person to care for the other adult when he/she is in bed with the flu, an extra person's life experiences to be told stories about, a person who can take over when the first one is so frustrated he/she has to lock herself in the bedroom for a while.

Then there's the extra money which doesn't hurt either.

I just think you can do a very good job with one, but in a perfect world, nearly everyone would want two.

[AllyCat]

6. So financial poverty is preferable over psychological poverty?

It's okay to be in an abusive or unhappy relationship as long as one has some cash?

The Heritage Foundation continually amazes me in how wingnut their views are... and yet they are considered a mainstream group.

Jeez...

[cassiepriam]

7. These people have never had a lot of mouths to feed have they?? nt

[ourbluenation]

8. I actually agree with part of it but would exchange "marriage" with

co-parenting. I could care less if the parents are married or not. Live together, co-parent, whatever...but a big government program? This is some bizarro world we are in - conservatives wanting big government and as aliberal I say no big government programs that stick there noses where they don't belong. This is kind of a provacy issue mixed in with a social issue..hmmmm?

No coffee yet so forgive my ramblings...

[sam sarrha]

17. BIG Gov Social Program... these guys are definately not Republican.!!

just fools looking for a grant from the Religious faction

[brainshrub]

9. Do you have a link?

[donsu]

21. go to the c-span site and Washington Journal - she was the last

guest and came on about 9:30

[TallahasseeGrannie]

10. If only it WERE that easy! n/t

[The Magistrate]

11. The Usual Ass-Backwards Approach Of The Right, Ma'am

People are not married because they are poor, mostly....

[Theres-a]

14. Precisely why we aren't married

We can't afford it.Once again,you have hit the nail on the head,sir.

[LiberalEsto]

12. The Heritage Found. is f*cked up because they are *ssholes

Oh yeah, and there's nothing like a big government program, is there? Just how do they propose to pay for this new program to get everyone married? They wouldn't dream of taxing the rich, so they must be planning to tax the poor. Which would make the poor even poorer, by taxing them for programs to tell them to get married so they won't be as poor.

Methinks the folks at the HF ought to let up on the oxycontin pills.

[The Doctor.]

16. That's right!

Doesn't everyone know that all married people are happy and rich?

When I was married all of my and my wife's debts disappeared, I suddenly had more clients than I could handle, and we're deliriously happy all the time!

In fact, getting married also cures cancer, prevents global warming, and ends world hunger!

Didn't you all know that?

[AllyCat]

27. Oh wonderful! I've been married for 3 weeks now...when do I get the $$??

I'm so excited! I didn't know all these things were coming down the pipeline! I'll email HF and see if they know when I can expect the big payout!

Thanks for the great news.

[Coyote_Bandit]

18. Maybe somebody should point out

to these frickin fascist fundies that Paul writes in ther Bible that it is better to be single than married. But then that doesn't exactly fit with the "Christian" family values agenda.

[obreaslan]

19. That's great! When is my check coming through?

I have been married for four years now. I am still poor, but I assume from this story my money is on the way! Happy days are here again! :bounce: :applause: :party: :bounce: :applause: :party: :bounce: :applause: :party: :bounce: :applause: :party: :bounce: :applause: :party: :bounce: :applause: :party:

[atommom]

54. I've been married eight. I suspect some meddling liberal slowed down

the disbursement of my big honkin' check, but it should be here any day now. I can't wait to start oppressing the poor!

:party:

[Igel]

20. There's a nice correlation.

Married men, all other things being equal, make more on average than unmarried men.

Children of married men (in the family, of course :-) ) are less likely to be in poverty than children of single parents. On the one hand, it may mean an extra mouth for the family income, but if it's a single-income family, then child care is 'in the family'. Or it's a two-income family and they pay for or otherwise find child care.

Marriages may be neither happy nor unhappy. We all want to be happy these days; 'contentedness' is, in some ways, a much easier goal (and in some ways, a harder one).

I've seen the claim that the analysis shows not just correlation, but that there's sufficient evidence for imputing causality. I haven't examined the evidence.

Of course, all these claims are highly controversial, if only because they bear a whiff of blaming the victim. And because it's those in an actual marriage commitment, not just being in a committed relationship, that usually has the highest correlation. I've heard some highly charged responses to some of these claims based on the mistaken assumption that the findings are personal attacks, or forgetting that the correlations are, obviously, statistical in nature, or on the very idea that one's behavior somehow is responsible, even in part, for one's condition.

But I highly doubt they want everybody married. Encourage or facilitate marriage by some, perhaps; or assist in preventing the disintegration of others, certainly.

[Wordie]

26. Another case of confused cause-and-effect? Which causes which?

And there are so many other variables that could be in operation here. Maybe marriage is more important to highly-driven types who are likely to earn more, and this would tilt the data. Maybe there is pressure in the workplace for those with higher-paying jobs to be married. Maybe the study ACTUALLY SHOWS discrimination in the workplace against those who are not married. (I'm sure the Heritage Foundation will get working on that right away! LOL)

and this...
<snip>
Children of married men (in the family, of course :-) ) are less likely to be in poverty than children of single parents.

...sounds like a GREAT argument for equal pay and childcare for all working women!

(My personal belief is that although it may be "better" for kids to grow up in a two-parent family, that in no way should cast blame on those who find themselves in single parent families for reasons beyond their control. I also believe the last thing we need is a bunch of RW fundies (OR the government) interferring in other people's families.)

Do you have any links that you could post to the report, or to the study that has been quoted? I'm curious.

[area51]

36. "...sounds like a GREAT argument for equal pay...."

Exactly. I believe this is called an example of republinazi "magical thinking", where they believe promoting something like marriage will cure all ills, no-one will need welfare, etc. (I believe this was mentioned by someone on an episode of PBS's Now, but I can't recall the speaker.) Such bullshit. We don't need to stigmatize the single & divorced; we need fscking equal pay!

[Wordie]

38. Statistics don't lie...it's all in the interpretation, & Heritage

will be able to come up with a conclusion that fits their agenda, no matter what the numbers really say.

[nvliberal]

44. Right-wing think tanks ALWAYS do this

because they aren't legitimate research institutions. They are nothing more than propaganda dispensers twisting research to fit their own predetermined conclusions.

[nvliberal]

45. That's because the vast majority of married households

have two wage earners, and these two wage earners make less than one wage earner did a generation ago.

And they are losing ground all the time.

The Heritage Foundation is full of shit.

[brainshrub]

22. Here's another fact: A lack of pirates causes global warming.

http://www.venganza.org/

[AntiCoup2K4]

32. Oh my God! You're right....

Well that does it. I'm going out right now to buy a parrot, an eye patch, and a jolly roger flag. And then if there are any boats in the Gulf of Mexico still seaworthy, I'll steal the biggest and best of them.

And since I'll be the pirate that prevents any more hurricanes, I'll be asking the Chimp for a no bid multi-billion dollar contract.

YAAARGH!

[One_of_8]

42. LOL!

Thank you for that very helpful graph.

How about lack of a good education, college education, or strong job skills, as an actual factor in the level of income per person? I'm a single mom, single income household, yet I earn as much as many double-income households in my area. It helps that I have a college degree and work in the legal field, where I can earn a decent income. As we all know though, many people have a hard enough time finishing high school. And those that do, are finding it increasingly difficult to afford college. Instead of pushing marriage down our throats, how about figuring out a way to make sure all Americans can afford a decent education. And while you're at it, decent, affordable health care!

[jackster]

23. another fault on this....

aren't many of these wingnuts pushing that marriage should only be for the sake of procreation?

Where does that little gem fit into the plan?

[Maine-ah]

24. HA!

I'm married. We're poor. I work two fucking jobs. Most of the married people I know are poor.

[marbuc]

25. TANF (the most recent welfare reform bill)

was an attempt to promote marriage. Once again, the Cons are over simplifying a real problem. It is true that a majority of chronic welfare recipients are poor single mothers, but this is not because they are not married. The problem is these mothers are not getting any support, not from their children's fathers, and certainly not from the government.

These people are stuck, they are typically undereducated, with no skills to get a "normal" job that will work with their parental responsibilities. They do not have access to quality childcare, and certainly none during untraditional hours. This limits the flexibility, and sometimes availability to find and hold good jobs. These grand training programs the government talks about are also not an option for the same reasons.

So no, marriage would not necessarily help these people. It's not like the father of their children are wealthy men just begging them to walk down the aisle. unless the HF is planning a program to match poor single mothers with sugar daddies?

[AllyCat]

28. I just emailed Jennifer Marshall

I asked her how long I have to wait until I am not poor. I just got married 3 weeks ago and am looking forward to not being poor! We want to buy a house so this news really helps me out!

[donsu]

30. kick

nt

[zbdent]

29. Do you mean to tell me that Bill Gates was really poor

until a few years ago, when he suddenly became rich after marrying his high-school girlfriend?

Wow. I have to rethink history. Must have been using MSHistory . . .

[noonwitch]

31. There is some truth in what she is saying, but not the way she presents it

Women make less money than men, so are more likely to be poor if they are single.

Men are more likely to be court-ordered to pay child support, and are thus more likely to not pay their child support, which leaves single mothers poorer than married mothers.

Basically, married couples are more likely to have more money. There are usually two incomes, if both are working. But it is an issue of gender inequality, not whether people are married or not.

[mandyky]

33. I turned the channel right after she started

that crap. People are poor because this economy is for rich people, not middle class or below.

[GayCanuck]

37. Seems that all my gay couple friends

that have no children, including me and my partner have no money worries.

[Yupster]

50. Yes, I have seen many stats that show that

gays are on average wealthier than straights.

Any suggestions for why that would be?

I guess far fewer kids would be one reason.

Two incomes and no dependant married couples would probably be comparitively similarly well off.

[GayCanuck]

53. The two incomes help

and I think that many gays are very creative, entrepreneurial and have their own businesses like my partner and I do. I'll admit that we are workaholics too! Not to stereotype at all though but our circle of friends both gay and straight loathe working for other people and therefore created their own businesses. We do well but we also know our societal obligation; we are big PETA supporters, Sierra Club and we volunteer at Eden House, a home for autistic children.

[Puregonzo1188]

39. So much for intelligent design (n/t)

[Dem2theMax]

40. I'd rather be poor than married!

(All apologies to the married folk around here.) :)

No one is going to make me get married. Over my dead body! :mad:

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

41. Does this mean that there aren't any married poor people?

That might come as a shock to some married couples...

[nvliberal]

43. What an ass.

People are poor because they don't have enough goddamned money to live on.

Marriage doesn't have a damned thing to do with it.

The Heritage Foundation pushes crap like this to keep people's minds off the fact that the people it represents are screwing them blind economically, thanks to policies heavily favoring the rich and corporations over everybody else.

It wants to push the lie that it's "our fault" we are poor. Bullshit.

[jmm]

46. Yet financial problems are the leading cause of divorce

So instead of wasting time and money on trying to get people married we ought to be focusing on making them more economically stable.

[atommom]

55. "Marriage: still the safest place for women and children"

They claim that women and children are in much greater danger from poverty and violence if they are not in an "intact family unit".

Here are their recommendations:

In legislation and social policy, the government should not penalize parents for marrying. Given the rising evidence that non-married mothers and their children are at greater risk of violent crime and abuse, government policy should not encourage--either directly or in unintended ways--single motherhood and cohabitation.

Yet that is what is being done in many of America's means-tested welfare programs. Because mothers and children are safest from harm within a married family, policymakers should begin the work of implementing policies to reduce the bias against marriage in welfare programs and to strengthen marriage as the primary institution for raising children.

Members of Congress should support President Bush's proposal to spend $300 million per year on efforts to rebuild marriage among the poor. It is the first serious proposal in this regard ever to come before Congress. His suggestions, if adopted into law, would begin the necessary work to reconstruct the institution of marriage, which failed welfare policies of the past have undermined. Now that the first stage of welfare reform--rebuilding an ethic of work--is well underway, Congress should support the President as he focuses on the second important stage: rebuilding a culture of marriage in American society.

Members of Congress should begin to reduce and eventually eliminate the penalty against marriage in most means-tested welfare programs. For example, they could issue a joint resolution indicating their intent to achieve this goal. Then they could request that the Department of Health and Human Services submit a list of options that would be good candidates for this reform.

More here: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg1732.cfm

[really annoyed]

57. Yeah, tell that to my parents

My parents have been married 35 years. My dad is self-employed. But at this moment, my family would classify as poor. Our bathtub is falling apart.

My sister is married. She works full-time. Her husband works full-time. They are still poor.

My mom and I were talking about money matters the other night. I mentioned to her that it might be a good idea if poor couples waited to have a family or did not have children. She told me that was not "responsible."

:shrug:

[AngryAmish]

58. What will they do about the unusually ugly?

Are they condemned to [overty forever? Or maybe they should just be brought to the factory to make soylent green.

[bluedawg12]

59. Match them up: NetBasedFaithBasedDating for PugUgRepugs

All liberals are beautiful!:toast:

[bluedawg12]

60. Hence, Fairness to Gays in Marriage

Pooling resources does confer benefits. Marriage does provide legal benefits as well as duties.

Sadly, the government cannot force people to live, love and unite.

Oh..woops...I forgot...that is the role of government in the eyes of
insensitive conservatives. Radical right wing social engineering- hey, didn't the Nazi's try this? Eugenics?

So they want everyone one to get married...but their way and their way only.