Backwards Assed Poverty Argument

[ThomWV]

I'm watching a panel discussion on C-span in which an argument is being made that marriage lifts couples out of poverty and so is a desirable thing.

Backwards assed thinking.

It isn't marriage that raises people out of poverty, it is rising out of poverty that lets marriages work. The failure of the Republican argument in favor of marriage as an anti poverty measure is that it allows them to ignore the poverty of anyone who is not married.

Those bastards.

[ComerPerro]

1. so why block a significant percentage of the population from marriage?

[ThomWV]

4. If You Mean Gay-marriage, Then I Agree It Is Desirable Too

But not as an anti poverty measure. I support gay marriage because it is a matter of equality, no more and certainly nothing less.

[ComerPerro]

7. Yeah, but that's my standard response whenever I hear

a Repiglican talk about "the virtues of marriage".

They don't really mean it.

If they really thought marriage was so helpful, why would they deny it?

[benny05]

2. Agree

Marriage tax penalty is still in play, especially if you don't own a home.

[bryant69]

3. I don't know the context in which this is being discussed

I would say however, that to be fair, Marriage is not and should not be the provence of the United States Goverment. On the other hand alleviating poverty through appropriate measures is the provence of the United States Government.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Jed Dilligan]

5. I assume

they've brought forward piles and piles of peer-reviewed studies to support this....

:sarcasm:

[ThomWV]

8. Actually The Counterargument Is Well Supported

There are a couple of people on the panel that are telling it like it is and have statistics to back their points.

[Jed Dilligan]

18. Of course

I guess I should've used my sarcasm tag.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

6. Assed Backwards

they're morons who've never been really poor. The kind who thought they were 'poor' back in college because they had to eat ramen once in a while.



on edit: tuned in. The Brookings Institute, who'da thunk? :sarcasm:

Initially centrist, the Institution took its first step rightwards during the depression, in response to the New Deal. In the 1960s, it was linked to the conservative wing of the Democratic party, backing Keynsian economics. From the mid-70s it cemented a close relationship with the Republican party. Since the 1990s it has taken steps further towards the right in parallel with the increasing influence of right-wing think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation.


Wasn't Keynes the author of the economic theory behind the Bretton Woods Agreement? that was a good thing, when Nixon got rid of it, wage disparity started climbing again, and capitol gains overtook trade flows. :shrug:

[sinkingfeeling]

9. Republicans were so sure that families only needed to be married that

their welfare laws...WIC and food stamp requirements were set up so that women did better without a male in the household. I don't know if this has changed since the great 'reforms' went through, but before that the 'rules' caused the split up of many families.

[Finder]

11. I disagree with a lot of the welfare rules and feel it keeps people...

in poverty at times.

[Finder]

10. I believe this to be true...

to an extent. I do not think marriage is the answer but cohabitation of two or more individuals makes things easier for sure. Single women with children still have the hardest time, imo.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

21. Yes, but it doesn't reflect the reality of life today

Certainly pooling incomes helps, particularly with housing. But the exodus of well-paying manufacturing jobs overseas, coupled with high incarceration rates of males in certain demographics lessens the mating prospects of poor women. Marriage stats show that people with college degrees are more likely to marry than those without.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

12. back to back with the AEI on poverty

fer crying out loud.

[Dora]

13. Since we've been married

Our gross income has dropped by 30%, and our expenses have increased by 20%.

Marriage makes us richer, to be sure, but not in the wallet.

[Finder]

22. How did that happen? Did you change jobs? n/t

[Dora]

27. Layoffs.

Blame it on the The Great Wave of Layoffs of 2003. My husband was laid off from his position (the whole unit was shut down), and the only other available work at the time was part-time. That was okay (he's a musician and that brings in additional income), but the next year our property taxes skyrocketed - raising our monthly escrow payment $350.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

14. It is true that two income homes do better

But why do the fucking Republicans insist that two-income homes be from two married people? Why can't we all just co-habitate? Why is some archaic religious construct, originally used to create property of women and children, still being used, and why does the govt control the process?

I that's right, I forgot, Jesus will send us to an eternal, burning torment in hell if we live with someone we're not married to.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

20. And don't forget....

It's not a REAL wedding if it's not in a church with the bride wearing an expensive gown with a long train and a reception with an ice sculpture afterwards. And isn't that big rock on her finger worth 3 months salary to you? :sarcasm:

[EvolveOrConvolve]

23. It's funny you should point that out

When my wife and I got married, we were dirt poor, so we bought small silver chains for each other to wear around our necks. They cost about 50 bucks each, and they mean more to us than any goddamn over-priced rock will ever mean. I could afford to buy my wife a HUGE diamond ring now, but neither of us wants that.

We also skipped the $25,000 wedding and got married in my parent's big backyard. The reception was picnic style with grilled burgers, hot dogs, potato salad, and music. Later on we went and had cocktails at a friends only "reception" at a local hotel (my parents wouldn't allow alcohol at their house). It was actually fun, was easy to plan, and we have fond memories of it.

These overpriced weddings today are being perpetuated by large corporations who make an absolute fucking mint off of the desires of a woman for her wedding to be "perfect".

[mrreowwr_kittty]

24. Amen to that!

I've been to weddings that cost 10s of thousands and it just seems so wasteful. And these weren't wealthy people by any means. Seems to me that money would have been far better spent as a down payment on a house or socked away as a nest egg. It's people bowing to the pressure of family, peers, and the wedding industry. It's total crap and the weddings are usually boring as hell. Yours looks like it was a lot more fun and relaxed.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

25. That's a great idea

Instead of running up 10's of thousands of dollars in debt to have a "picture perfect" wedding, why not spend the money on housing, a college fund for the future kids, etc.? It just seems like such a waste when these weddings usually end up boring, stress-filled, and agonizingly long.

I had a friend who had a small wedding (like ours in a backyard), requested cash only gifts, then donated the money to the local homeless shelter. It was very very cool.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

15. this guy is way off

the skinny smug one

[Viva_La_Revolution]

19. okay, I'll say it, he's a delusional dickwad

says the rampant obesity among the poor is not for 'nutritional want' <smirk> and he has 'statistics' to back that up. and he's so f*cking arrogant!

[Igel]

16. It's a recurring problem.

Correlation certainly doesn't equal causation. But which is the chicken and which is the egg is a bit of a quandary, since you basically have to design controlled experiments into a pre-existing set of real-world data.

Control for background, income, and all the rest, the men who get married will have a greater total gross income after 10 years. Control for family income and check back in 10 years, and the men who stay in a family will have earned more than the man that didn't. And both will likely have earned more than a single man with the same income, but who wasn't married. There's something about being married that makes for greater income, but whether that's primarly or derived is the question.

It may be that the men who are in stable families, low income notwithstanding, are more psychologically equipped to earn more in the long-run. It may be that they're better motivated to stay with jobs that are unpleasant. It may be that being in the family provides emotional support that enables the men--or primary wage earner, it doesn't actually have to be a man--garner more skills, put in for promotions, and the like. As of a few years ago it was an unresolved question.

Cohabiting couples do *not* have the same outcome, however. Better than single, but not like married. This isn't theory; this is reality, work from the '90s.

In any event, the amount of money spent is trivial, and if it works, it works. Then we can all sit around and try to figure out why it worked. Or not.

[Finder]

26. Although it is not pc to say it, married men tend to be more productive...

compared to other demographics. For that reason they tend to make higher wages and have more job stability.

Businesses see them as an investment. They are usually willing to work upwards of 60hrs a week and are loyal and dependable. For this reason marriage and family are supported.

Marriage is good for corporations.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

17. It's a chicken/egg situation

Are people not in poverty because they are married or are people married because they are not in poverty? I'm tending to go with the latter. When you are struggling just to feed yourself and scrape together some kind of shelter, wedding planning is probably not on the top of your agenda.

When these pro-marriage social conservatives make their case, I can't help but think they must have never experienced poverty or know any poor people. Where, pray tell, do they think struggling single moms in poor neighborhoods are supposed to meet these men with good jobs? Shall they just pop on over to the country club and stand by the golf course with a mint julep in hand?

[kentuck]

28. You're right...

and it let's them continue to blame the poor for their own misfortune. Their lifestyles, etc...