Posted on 01/13/2014 6:57:56 AM PST by Petrosius
If President Obama wants to reduce income inequality, he should focus less on redistributing income and more on fighting a major cause of modern poverty: the breakdown of the family. A man mostly raised by a single mother and his grandparents who defied the odds to become president of the United States is just the person to take up the cause.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Not any more...
Obamacare requires Divorce for Income Equality.
The ‘un-married’ poverty % is self-imposed. If you get married you lose the government goodies. Where’s the incentive?
Be careful!
Starting to make sense!
This article is typical of the constant conjunction fallacy.
Yes, if you are the sort of person who plans ahead, and thinks before acting, you are likely to marry, and you are likely to avoid poverty. But there is not necessarily a causal link.
We made the same mistake with college education. Since college grads have higher lifetime earnings, does it follow that if we send every illiterate fool to college and give him a degree, that everyone will have higher earnings?
Oh sure, blame the victims :Single Moms.
Yesterday Karen Finny on her MSNBC show Disrupt actually did a Disruptor award for a single Mom who actually complained that her child was going hungry because of cutbacks to his school free lunch program.
She got the Karen Finny award for that this week.
Losing the goodies is the catch 22 of how the poverty income rate is made to look so bad. Ya see, when they compute income to predict the poverty levels, they do not consider benefits and entitlements. So, it works in favor of people not increasing their family wage income because to do so comes at the loss of benefits which are tax free to boot.
What a country.
“Single Moms” aren’t “victims”.
We’ve got a name for the next generation, though!
Generation “B”
(B is for bastard)
You’re correct. I’d add that much of the disparity is simply because many benefits are not measured and much of the income is unreported. Many of those “unmarried” have in fact been common law couples; they retain the unmarried status for benefits.
When we've got far enough in the relationship to ask them why, they all explain the severe financial penalties they would incur from the government if they got married. Almost without exception, they tell us they would really like to get married, but the incentives for income assistance and other freebies they get from shacking up on paper are too big to ignore.
A friend of ours who rents houses and apartments to these type of couples tells us the same thing.
The Democrat war on the middle class must necessarily include a war on marriage because a stable marriage is the most valuable tool out there for entry into and membership in the middle class.
This assumes that soetoro is somehow reasonable, which he isn’t, and that he’s not an enemy islamist, which he by all means is.
I’m afraid the only kind of marriage this POTUS is interested in is really not marriage at all.
The war on marriage and the family is Satanic in origin.
They left just thinks they’re doing their own work, whatever goals they have - stated or otherwise.
The incentive to get married is certainly not tied to the incentive to get sexual satiation. That sort of thing goes on all the time without benefit of matrimony.
What marriage does confer is physical well-being, a built-ion psychological safety net, and increased economic opportunity. There is a division of labor, that a team can accomplish much more easily than one person working alone, just try hanging wallpaper sometime.
Well, maybe bad example. But it is clearly more simple and more effective if each member of the team can provide a hand and suggestions to solving a problem of mutual concern.
Some 95% of the personal woe in this world is self-induced.
It is possible that is a flaw in the study. On the other hand, it “makes sense” that a married couple will be less likely to be poor, because there are two adults who can provide labor for the family unit, either they can both work, or one can work and one can do things around the house that might otherwise have to be paid for.
In addition, the extra adult means you have someone to do things with, which can cut down on expenses for entertainment, either because you don’t have to pay for expensive dates, or you do things together instead of being alone and going out spending money.
There is also still a bit of societal pressure, although that is nearly gone unfortunately — if you are married, you may feel an obligation to “provide” for the family, to prove your worth. A single mom is told constantly that government will take care of them, so they have little incentive to work really hard to make themselves better. And a single man has “no obligations”, while the married man feels he needs to care for his wife and children.
Yes it is. And the leadership of the Democrat party has chosen the God which they will serve.
Poverty is a construct of the welfare state. Do you really need that much money to ‘live’? Ask the billions of people who would say they were happy, but who have never seen a stupid reality TV show, or spent their equivalent of a month’s salary watching actors pretend to be somebody else in a movie theatre.
Instead of spending hundreds of dollars sitting in a seat cheering other people on, poor people can actually go out and PLAY the sports for almost nothing.
The problem is that we assume we need everything that can be purchased, and then we feel “poor” when we can’t afford it all.
When the Duck Dynasty guy said that the poor blacks he knew growing up were happier, this is what he really meant. They found happiness in their relationship with God, with their community of fellow believers and fellow-workers, with the joy of being alive and having fellowship with each other. Put a roof over your head, and some food on the table.
Look at the Waltons, the fictional family that is — they were happy, they were dirt poor, they didn’t have TV or cell phones or PDAs or a car or a boat or get perms and wear fancy clothes.
Are you happy if you can take a week off on a vacation where you are cut off from the world? I know I really enjoyed being at boy scout camp, and that was a cheap week of living, like $100.
Where are ANY of the black “leaders” calling for marriage, education, accountability among blacks? Tigger, Ofrah, Beyonsaye, Sharpton, obama and the rest. What are they doingto fix any minorities problems? Nothing except whining and complaining about “inequality and fairness.”
This is in the U.S. Tax Code:
\
Oct 24, 2013 - EITC, the EARNED INCOME Tax Credit, sometimes called EIC is a tax credit to help you keep more of WHAT YOU EARNED.
THIS AIN`T in the U.S. Tax Code:
\
:
INCOME INEQUALITY
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.