Value of Marriage Deemed Unimportant by Many
A federal study done by the National Center for Health Statistics revealed that 40% of all births in the US were to unmarried woman. The number of births to unwed mothers has more than doubled from what it was in the 1980’s.
“If you see 10 babies in the room, four them were born to women who were not married,” said Stephanie J. Ventura, who led the analysis of birth certificate data nationwide. “It’s been a huge increase — a dramatic increase. It’s quite striking.”
Although the report did not examine the reasons for the increase, Ventura and other experts said the trend has been driven by a combination of factors, including the lessening of the social stigma associated with unmarried motherhood, an increase in couples delaying or forgoing marriage, and growing numbers of financially independent women and older and single women who decide to have children on their own after delaying childbearing.
“It’s many factors,” Ventura said. “Certainly the social disapproval factor has diminished.
the trend is disturbing because studies have shown that children generally tend to fare better when they grow up in stable households with two parents.
“We know that babies and children do best with committed, stable adult parents — preferably married,” said Sarah Brown of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. “That tends to be the arrangement that produces the best outcome for children. I look at this and say, ‘Maybe this trend is what young adults want or stumble into, but it’s not in the best interest of children.’”
The rates increased for all races, but they remained highest and rose fastest for Hispanics and blacks. There were 106 births to every 1,000 unmarried Hispanic women, 72 per 1,000 blacks, 32 per 1,000 whites and 26 per 1,000 Asians, the report showed.
… the percentage of babies born to unmarried women is about 66 percent in Iceland, about 55 percent in Sweden, about 50 percent in France and about 44 percent in the United Kingdom.
In many of those countries couples are living together instead of getting married, which is also the case in the United States, Ventura noted. Previous research indicates about 40 percent of births to unmarried women occur in households where couples are cohabitating, she said.
Good Intentions vs Reality - The Risks of a One Parent Family
American society has dramatically changed its value structure from what it was a generation ago. The above report on children born out of wedlock suggests that perhaps half of these children will have both parents raising them - the parents simply chose not to be married. The more important question is, for those born out of wedlock, and raised by only one parent, what is the long term impact on the children of being raised in a one parent family? Since our children are the future of our Country, the question is important. Some thoughts and studies on this matter for further consideration follow.
———————————————
-Not all children living in one parent families will have lived with their absent parent. However, for those whose parents were living together there is now a large amount of research showing the effects of family breakdown on children.
The results of a survey based on pooled data from 80,000 adults suggest that parental divorce has an adverse effect on children’s lives Compared with those raised in intact two-parent families, adults who experienced a parental divorce had lower psychological well-being, more behavioural problems, less education, lower job status, a lower standard of living, lower marital satisfaction, a heightened risk of divorce, a heightened risk of being a single parent, and poorer physical health.
The view that children adapt readily to divorce and show no lingering negative consequences is clearly inconsistent with the cumulative research in this area.
———————————————–
-Single parent families are at a higher risk of poverty than couple families, and on average single mothers have poorer health than couple mothers.[2]
Single parenting is strongly associated with an increased risk of a number of negative social, behavioral and emotional outcomes for children. However while the association is strong, on balance the effect size and the actual numbers affected are modest. Most children from single parent families do well. Many factors influence how children develop in single-parent families: the parent’s age, education level, and occupation; the family’s income, and the family’s support network of friends and extended family members (including the non-resident parent, if available). Disadvantages in these factors that often accompany single parenting appear to cause most of this association rather than single parenting itself.[14] [15]
A variety of viewpoints do exist, with different readings of the research possible. The Institute for the Study of Civil Society reports that children of single parents, after controlling for other variables like family income, are more likely to have problems.[17] There are impacts of sole parenting on children, however the weight of the evidence does not appear to support a view that sole parents are a major cause of societal ills and are doing irreparable damage to their children.[15]
Having Both Parents Matters
The research and common sense tell us that it is better for a child to be raised in a two parent household. The reasons are profound but all the research seems to lead to similar conclusions.
—————————————————
-The two categories that have seen the most dramatic rise over the period shown and the two that account for the rise in single-parent households are divorced parents (rising 422%) and those who have never married (rising 3,026%).
Many popular books like Barbara Dafoe Whitehead’s The Divorce Culture: Rethinking Our Commitments to Marriage and Family, present a stark picture of the negative impact that divorce has on the children in the families being separated. The question now being raised frequently is: “Should you stay together for the kids?”
Further fueling these discussions have been the sad results of several studies done on the outcomes of children raised in single-parent families. On average, the economic and social well-being of children being raised by a single parent was shown to be lower than that of children being raised in two-parent households. To many, these findings would seem self-evident. It is simply harder for one person to do the same work that two people working together are able to do.
The poverty rate for children living in single-parent homes is five times greater than for children living in two-parent homes. This fact has focused the political debate surrounding welfare reform squarely on the subject of marriage. In 1996, after many false starts, the Personal Responsibility Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) was signed into law. Under this law the focus of welfare shifted from cash assistance for women and their children to an emphasis on self-sufficiency through work and enhanced financial support and involvement by fathers. One clearly stated intention of this legislation is to reduce out-of-wedlock births and encourage the formation of two-parent families.
Read more: “The Family - Single-parent Households” - http://social.jrank.org/pages/891/Family-Single-Parent-Households.html#ixzz0FRdypSWI&A
Some recent commentary worth the read:
-Democratic share of voters with post grad degrees reaches 60% - what’s going on here? Is this another major blow to conservatism? - The Decline of The Conservative Intellectual
-Beyond the battle for the intellectual voter, how did the white, rich and poor vote? What are the implications? - How Did White People Vote? How Did Rich and Poor People Vote?
-You can’t give something to many without hurting some - Obama’s Dividend and Capital Gains Tax Hike Would Hurt Seniors
Let’s not lose our sense of humor
Social Security System Overhauled to Provide “Early-Death Incentives”
WASHINGTON, DC—Overwhelmed by a dearth of funds and a glut of recipients, the Social Security Administration unveiled a new “Early-Death Incentives Plan” Monday. Under the terms of the program, senior citizens willing to sacrifice additional years of life will be eligible for larger payouts.
“As the Baby Boomers approach retirement age and U.S. life-expectancy continues to rise, we are forced to distribute Social Security funds to an ever-widening pool of recipients,” said Social Security Administration commissioner Kenneth S. Apfel, announcing the radical reform program. “But with Early-Death Incentives, rather than force millions of retirees to eke out a meager subsistence on a small stipend for years, we can offer them a few years of high living, followed by guaranteed, permanent relief from being a burden on the American taxpayer.”
Under the Early-Death Incentives Plan, retirees can double their monthly Social Security payouts by signing an agreement to perish within five years, or quadruple their payouts by dying within three. Those eligible can also opt for a six-month Accelerated Mortality Program, which pays $4,000 a month over a half-year period, provided the person ceases living at the conclusion of the agreed-upon term.
Nation Ready To Be Lied To About The Economy Again
WASHINGTON—After nearly four months of frank, honest, and open dialogue about the failing economy, a weary U.S. populace announced this week that it is once again ready to be lied to about the current state of the financial system.
Tired of hearing the grim truth about their economic future, Americans demanded that the bald-faced lies resume immediately, particularly whenever politicians feel the need to divulge another terrifying problem with Wall Street, the housing market, or any one of a hundred other ticking time bombs everyone was better off not knowing about.
In addition, citizens are requesting that the phrase, “It will only get worse before it gets better,” be permanently replaced with, “Things are going great. Enjoy yourselves.”
“I thought I wanted a new era of transparency and accountability, but honestly, I just can’t handle it,” Ohio resident Nathan Pletcher said. “All I ever hear about now is how my retirement has been pushed back 15 years and how I won’t be able to afford my daughter’s tuition when she grows up.”
“From now on, just tell me the bullshit I want to hear,” Pletcher added. “Tell me my savings are okay, everybody has a job, and we’re No. 1 again. Please, just lie to my face.”
Some Thoughts On The Wealth Of A Nation
With a democratic super majority now ruling the country with visions of sharing the wealth, is it possible or wise to attempt to make all people “equal”? Endeavors to create total economic equality have never been successful in human history - would such an attempt now represent an extreme arrogance that results in less liberty for all?
In a stimulating discussion of the proper role of government, Cris Sheridan of Financial Sense raises the following issues.
If we could distill political science and economics down to a single main goal it would really be one thing: how to achieve the most efficient allocation of resources to a society. How does a society do this?
Utilitarianism is often understood as the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Since, in economic terms, “good” refers to prosperity or wealth, it is often argued that there is an inefficient allocation of resources when someone has a dramatically higher income than another in society, especially when the latter is severely poor and doesn’t have access to the same resources like health care.
The biggest problem with utilitarianism is that it will only work in the short-run for the following reasons: 1) high income earners will work less as their incentive for working is reduced, 2) they will have less income reserved for savings and investment, which is used as financial capital for the economy, and 3) they will often find means of either hiding or removing their wealth from the state and move all or part of their capital to a more tax-friendly environment.
So what is the alternative to the utilitarian approach then? Well, as the quote from F.A. Hayek says, “there is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal.”
Negotiating the balance between the rights of an individual and not attempting to obstruct the free-market forces that allow for the proportionate allocation of resources falls into a discussion of two main categories: 1) differences in what distinguishes a right from a privilege and 2) what is considered proportionate. This, I must admit, is really what the debate is all about.
The question I leave with you today is, will the government become so overwhelmed by its liabilities and demand a burden so great from its future citizens that private property and personal liberty fall from a discussion of the latter category into the former. When that happens, and will if we don’t change our course, our Constitution and the pillars of what made this great nation are collapsed.
Entire article is worth the read .
33 percent of Americans under age 30 prefer socialism and 30 percent are undecided - (these are the guys who slept in history class and still don’t know about the economic collapse of the USSR).
SNL Expose on Bank Stress Tests
Nothing drives home the point more than humor. There have been many news articles detailing the lax standards used by the government in the bank “stress tests”. Now that we all know how safe our banking system is, we can feel free to laugh off our worries - courtesy of Saturday Night Live.
For some historical perspective on our current problems.
Chicago Tribune - 1934
1934
Designed By :
