Is the Decline of the Traditional Family Promoting Poverty?

Those poor single parents. They try so hard, they are the ones that stick around to take care of their kids and they get this kind of stuff thrown in their face. And what about "do not live with both parents" households that LOST a parent from death or sold overseas to Afghanistan, where they have a high chance of dying?

my nephew lives with his life partner they are not married get $600 a month food stamps, a pele grant so she can go to school which gave her 5k, she gets free med for kids, free l;unches, free housing at onetime, they get frree food and help from church , they do not pay much in taxes she gets earned income credi t and gets a check back at the end of year they rolling in dough and having fun too so for them no

it is just that is not much reward on being a traditional family... the government should be able to eliminate tax cut for the wealthy and put a tax cut on traditional family

But shouldn't we ask why?

You want to increase poverty, have more kids. Too many people just can't connect sex with parenthood, and then can't deal with the fact that each one costs a LOT of money. They have more than they can pay for, so guess who picks up the slack. And those impoverished kids have a miserable life and turn to the only way they can figure out to get more money: illegal activities.

why can't the liberals allow everyone to live the American Dream? They need to stop Blatantly lying to people!!!!!!!!

That is the liberals plan to destroy the united states.

People are seeing this backwards. It is because of poverty that people are not getting married. Marriage costs money. couples fight over money and get a divorse. While single parent families are by no means good for the children involved, it is not the sole cause of poverty. However, poverty is a large cause of single parent families and untraditional families!

it actually doesn't cost much to get married, it is the big fairytale weddings everyone wants that are costing a fortune

If you have little to begin with, marriage does cost!
I went the cheapest route possible for a small wedding back in 1997, and even then it was a bit expensive for one who is living on a budget! My parents couldn't help. They were too poor. Wife's parents were in another country.

Poverty is the number one factor that causes divorse. It causes stress and it makes people chose between two or more important financial obligations. When there are two people trying to decide what is more important, because they are different people, they will almost always have a different idea than their marriage partner, and why should we have to decide on whether to pay water or gas? Those are important in today's world... both!

For thousands of years people have marry each other with out money, the notion you need money to be married is simply not true. Two can live more cheaply than one and if you really want to wed you can simply have a party for fiends and family were people bring a dish for the food or drinks and to toast the couple everybody puts what they can into a hat and the bride and groom use that to get married.

uuuuuuuhhh sitting at home doesn't do too much for your wallet true but unfortunately working has wonderful benefits!!!

I don't understand your comment.

I never said that people should sit on their lazy arses, but rarely do people actually do that. Those that give up after a long time of searching, may very well do so, but it is because they have given up on life in general. You cannot be lazy if are happy and energetic about life. It's just not what makes people happy for the most part.

True, there are things none of us wants to do, but to just be lazy, that is not something most people choose to do without more difficult situations or choices maybe affecting said behavior. Giving up on life... being one of them.

well you've obviously never seen inner city livelihoods! Your hint of motivation is true, but few care to better themselves and carry on in their own slothful way. In a way if the government is giving them everything why would they break that bond they have with the government. Hence a HUGE reason for many cities having a huge democratic surplus

I disagree, if women would treat their bodies with the respect they should by not sleeping around there would be not need for welfare or abortion clinics. Sex is a dangerous activity if you are not married and ready to have children. We are not animals no matter how much the Left would try to force that notion down our throats. We can choose when we will have sex or will not have sex,animals can't.

Unless we are speaking of the wealthy, it is as obvious as simple arithmetic, single parent families certainly have lower incomes?

It's become obvious.

obama is promoting poverty.

When GOD is thrown out and the government takes over all negitive adjustments take the
life out of a family, community, a nation. When the courts and judges ruled and said it was OK to murder the unborn, it brought evil upon this nation more crime, more individuals, and governments that are corrupt! YAHWAH (GOD) has taken HIS Blessings away, and has opened the doors to more corruption. Values and morals are out the door for individuals personal I want it my way mentallity instead of personal responsibility, to many want the government to make the decisions.

I hate when religious comments like this have nothing tangible in them. These types of comments come across to me as just a but obnoxious.

There was actually a really interesting chapter in Freakinomics which showed how crime reduced in countries where abortion was legalized. I think Romania or somewhere around there was the one that sparked the research. The crime didn't go down for about 15 years after it was legalized, as this was when those children would have reached the typical age at which one begins commtting crimes.

The point is, the reason anyone would want abortion is frequently intrinsically connected to the reason someone commits crimes. Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with God, or it would be much easier to solve!

To come back to the question. It's fairly logical that the answer is yes. Think of it like a business - shared living costs, sharing food bills, shared everything, but in theory the same income as two individuals. Result - higher disposable income. Add to this the more subjective variables such as having a father figure and it starts to add up (give or take the inevitable examples that go against this).

Education is also very important, but I notice this post is already far too long, so save that for another day.

Bottom line I'm trying to get to - poverty causes poverty.

You are missing something though. You see, you don't want to believe that God has anythign to do with life, so of course you want a different explanation for poverty. You see, God can make a difference. There will always be poverty, but how people view their situation is different when you feel like you have something to actually live for and to be a better person for!

Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean the explanation should just be thrown out. There are a lot of things that people have not known before that are becoming apparent, an di fyou looked back, religions told them not to do certain things long before science told us for example with drinking liguor and with smoking.

Recently, they have found things in Tea that are worse for you than in Cola, and for the longest time, people kept saying tea is good for you. If you missed this story, research as an example caffeine content of cola verses green tea!

There is something to religion regardless of what you might think.

Faith can have a positive impact on people, rich or poor. I agree with this idea - I just don't think it has anything to do with the question because I don't think God is at all responsible for the current poverty problems. Anyway this is just two people's opinion - Didn't mean to start any banter... we're all happy people in here! :-)

Okay.
I just hate it when people start saying that God cannot positively play a role because he most certainly can... but you are right. He is not directly responsible. Poverty has always existed as long as money has been in circulation. That's what gives money its power.

God and faith really just help people individually, not necessarily get more money, but to be happy or somewhat agreeable with where they are and not trying to squeeze a dry bank to death.

I do think that taking God out of the everyday lives of people and saying this is desireable is directly related to everything going on from people's financial poverty to people taking drugs or giving up on life. That is where I think God helps.

Buddy you are going to be very surprised postmordem. Anyways, God did begin the family relationship and He gives very good symbolism as to its purpose for humans.
Politically, we have fallen to where people require the government to bring in the money instead of the (sorry again for the biblical principles) way that God set up whereof because of the curse of man. He must provide for his family. People don't do that so with the New Deal of FDR as well as the spending frenzy of our current President toward social programs they tax the people heavily on good wholesome families because of the weird democrats and their love for taxing. These such families are taxed in many areas wheras those that care nothing about any family values who don't try to do their part of working take those same social programs that get paid by the taxpayers thus crumbling the taxpayer's family. SO yes, my friend it is because those that want quick money instead of laboring that cause poverty!

Values and morals do not need religion to have them.
And if disapprove the killing of unborn fetus, and the rest of your church group-why don't they give money to track down the fathers who hike tail and run away when their one-night stand turns into nine months? HUH? Is there something being done about that?

There's no doubt that the traditional American family is going into decline and two of the reasons are the rapid divorce rate and fewer people are getting married. Especially the Caucasian population.

No future workers, no future taxpayers. Simple enough.

Nowhere near as much as unemployment and idiotically defined and managed government programs.

If only 7% more of kids who grew up with 2 parents are in the top bracket than kids who only grew up with one, I'm not impressed. Yes, MORE kids remain in the bottom bracket. Maybe that has nothing to do with the number of parents but with OPPORTUNITY.

Whether people want to believe it or not, the statistics sure seem to prove it.

The decline of traditional values, no matter what the more liberal factions say, will result in the decline of many things, not the least of which is income and earning potential. The free love society of the 60's didn't count on a lot of devastating effects of their philosophy.

That's when America started to go in decline, in the 1960s.

That philosophy was pushed by communists and socialists, basically when this kind of immaturity and lack of standing stong against this kind or behaviour usually comes to
maturity!

The stability of the traditional family is being replaced by depravity and as a result, society is suffering for it.

Kids need to be raised by a mother and father figure, they need to see love between their parents and not be shoved around as a bargaining chip for divorced parents. Regardless of the orientation or gender of the parental figures, the kids need to feel loved and see a relationship between their parents or they will be hard-pressed to function in normal society. Maybe that means poverty because i feel like i went off on a major tangent here.

Yes. Especially for women. Then the men have to pay child support so they have a hard time, and it just keeps going right on down the line affecting everyone negatively. there is no more middle class. It's either have money or not have money. No happy medium. http://www.drewsmarketingminu...

Having one instead of two sources of income is of course going to contribute to difficulty raising children at the same standard of living.

The lefts efforts to tear down the traditional family AND the governments willingness to perpetuate poverty for votes are the two biggest reasons.

I heard a report on ABC NEWS radio two years ago that black poverty has been at it's biggest height since the Great Society programs of the 1960s; President Lyndon Johnson's war on poverty. Actually the Great Society did very little to end poverty.