Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Child Poverty: Married, committed parents the key

Posted 1 year ago on Dec. 10, 2012, 10:39 a.m. EST by BurmesePython (-66)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Children of married parents have 1 in 10 chance of growing up in poverty while children growing ip in a single parent home have 6 in 10 chance.

Why do people continue to have babies outside of marriage? Its so damaging.

92 Comments

92 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (20525) 1 year ago

No, actually jobs that pay a living wage are the key.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Not the whole enchilada - but yes - a very huge KEY.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

That would help, but a welfare system that forces the breakup of the married unit is insane.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20525) 1 year ago

If the married unit was real and true no amount of money or lack of it could break it up.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

No. There are many benefits, funds and housing, that are not available for two-parent families.

[-] -1 points by BurmesePython (-66) 1 year ago

Thats certainly a help for everything, but i dont see how a father abandoning a child he helped create can be solely blamed on money. The paternal bond of knowing you brought a wonderful new life shouldnt matter to how much money you make.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20525) 1 year ago

Children can be raised quite well with one loving parent or even just one loving guardian. This has been proven.

You raise a very good question, though, about our society. Do you think fathers abandon their children (oh, and mothers do this sometimes too) because they want to, because they are callous? Nah. It is more likely that they have economic and social problems probably due to the lousy education system and really exploitative economic system we have.

[-] -1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

Proven by "experts"? Ha, ha, ha.

[-] -3 points by BurmesePython (-66) 1 year ago

Steven Jobs and Barack Obama are proof of that.

I completely disagree with your contention that its somehow the fault of an exploitative economic system. Money problems surely tax a marriage, but that seems a very huge and distasteful cop out to a father or mother dropping out of the life of their own flesh and blood. Very distasteful. The role of parenting exists in and of itself.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20525) 1 year ago

You are very holier than thou. People have all kinds of reasons for screwing up in life. Marriage sure is no panacea and I know plenty of f'd up people who grew up in homes with married parents.

[-] -2 points by BurmesePython (-66) 1 year ago

Quite true. But the odds are far more favorable for children of committted parents.

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (20525) 1 year ago

Parents do not have to be married to be committed to their children.

Broader questions: How do we get committed parents when we live in a society that puts ME first? that cares little about real knowledge and sharing that with their children? that cares even less about ethics and compassion and teaching that to their children? How do we get parents to care about raising human beings when what they focus most on is ME-ness and consumerism? How are the long hours parents have to work in order to earn a meager living good for children? How can parents raise children when all they do is work?

We need a big huge societal shift that focuses on things that are more meaningful. I think many American parents, and not just "single" parents end up regretting the way they worked through their childrens' lives and barely spent any real meaningful time with them. It's very sad really. Our children suffer the rat race we are in more than anyone.

[-] -1 points by Coyote88 (-24) 1 year ago

It would have to be a cultural shift. And that isn't going to happen.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Culture is shifting Daily - Constantly - that is why it needs Care/Tending so that it remains healthy and does not become degenerate through bad practices and inattention.

[-] 0 points by Coyote88 (-24) 1 year ago

But who is to tend it?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

The public - and that means guiding government - as much as it means reaching out to each other for help and support.

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (20525) 1 year ago

The shift is going to come. I think it is inevitable. People will come to see that our materialistic and consumer driven society leads to nowhere. This will all be part of the shift toward a new economic and political system to work with the technological change and global forces that we now face.

[-] -1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

You can't really rationalize any of this.

Most of working and middle class America is now demanding that wives stay home to care for children; attempting to raise children as single, especially if grandparents are not available for pseudo parenting is a very foolish proposition. With all our dystopia, the world is wholly inhospitable to the parent-less child - mothers need to be home.

And this is where rationality fails... because we are so inconsistent in our cultural view.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20525) 1 year ago

"Most of working and middle class America is now demanding that wives stay home to care for children" They do? Are they out in the streets protesting for higher wages so they can afford to have only one parent work or for both to work fewer hours? No. Instead, their children are in latchkey until 6 pm or home alone.

[-] -1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Well, let me ask you something: what kind of mother would leave her kids home alone to go out in the street to protest?

This is not what's occurring - wives are staying home to care for children because there is no other option in light of all the current moral dystopia.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20525) 1 year ago

You have problems. Who said anything about leaving children home alone to protest?

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

They do? Are they out in the streets protesting for higher wages so they can afford to have only one parent work or for both to work fewer hours? No. Instead, their children are in latchkey until 6 pm or home alone.

Would you care to restate this in some manner that I might understand? I'm saying "latchkey" is old school. I know of no one that is leaving their children for others to care for. In fact, even the single parent is a rarity in my circle.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20525) 1 year ago

You say a lot without saying anything at all. Get better reading comprehension skills, please.

[-] -1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Perhaps you could work on your writing skills?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

How about the father stays home if the wife is better qualified to earn a better living?

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

I happen to believe that's doable, too.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Good.

[+] -4 points by BurmesePython (-66) 1 year ago

The issues you raised cant be legislated. Those values come from within. Religion certainly stressed those values.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20525) 1 year ago

Oh, sure they can. You think you live in a democracy, but you don't. You live in a plutocracy and the wealthy and corporations who have bought your government and your media control the way most Americans think.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

They certainly do their DAMNEDEST trying don't they?

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (20525) 1 year ago

Unfortunately, they've been very successful.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yep - to this point in time all too successful all too much unopposed.

Things are beginning to change - this last year saw a great growth in awareness and education.

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (20525) 1 year ago

True, but it's just the beginning.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yep - the very beginning - funny though with constant attention and effort momentum and speed can grow rapidly.

Why do you think the powers that be are shitting bricks over the birth of the Occupy movements? Why have they been so determined to shut it down and block all news or information?

They are afraid of the day when it goes viral.

[-] -3 points by BurmesePython (-66) 1 year ago

You make no sense, at all.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20525) 1 year ago

Really. I think you make no sense. We do not need religion to teach us morals.

[-] -1 points by BurmesePython (-66) 1 year ago

I dont know that that is true. As religion has declined, so has morality. Or perhaps its vice versa. I would say overall ethics is much lower now than ever. Why?

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20525) 1 year ago

I disagree. Humans do not need religion to be moral. The two are not inter-dependent at all.

[-] 0 points by BurmesePython (-66) 1 year ago

I think morality is learned. I have read that social cooperation and self sacrifice might be instinctive, from the extensive readings on social biology i have read, but morality is a learned trait. Why would there have been any need for a ten commandments if morality was instinctual?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20525) 1 year ago

Morality may very well be learned but we sure don't need religion to learn it. There was no "need" for the ten commandments. LOL.

One book you could read is "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, or if you like conservatives read Hitchens' "God is Not Great."

[-] -3 points by BurmesePython (-66) 1 year ago

I am not as sure as you. There are good people and bad people, and i have always judged evil to be stronger. Not everyone has an internal strong moral compass. I know that the Catholic Church was corrupt 100s of years ago, but its hard to argue against the beauty of the Church today.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20525) 1 year ago

LOL. You actually really made me laugh out loud. Listen, there is beauty in all things really, even all religions, but they do not own morality. Morality is innate in human beings, they have it before they know anything about any particular religion.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Business teachings, CorpoRAT Mass Media, Prevalence of negative propaganda - designed to break down community/fellowship/family/scruples.

[-] 0 points by BurmesePython (-66) 1 year ago

Which is why i started this topic. We can tax the rich, try to redistribute wealth, but poorly raised children will be dysfunctional adults. Thats is foregone.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

It is an ill of society caused by bad business practices ( Greed running wild ) - are a major factor which effects one or more things in an individuals life and things that effect society on a larger whole - cause has an effect that effect/cause has an effect and so on dominoes seemingly unrelated to each other get knocked over by an un-foreseen relation. 6 degrees of separation is a good reference in following cause and effect.

[-] -1 points by BurmesePython (-66) 1 year ago

I do think kids without strong family rules can be influenced by media. However, i can imagine a chicken or egg slant to this. Kids and then the grownups they become look for representations of themsrlves in the media and then the media satisfies them by feedimg them back what they grew up with, so they feel more normal. Leave ItTo Beaver and The Andy Griffith Show would still be on the air in some form, if people would watch it. Instead they watch the Kardashians or Two half Men.

[-] -1 points by BurmesePython (-66) 1 year ago

I totally believe that parents have great influence on their kids. I dont see what you are getting at though.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You had at least one parent - who through what ever circumstances found or had time for you. That is a diminishing/vanishing thing for kids growing up today.

[-] -1 points by BurmesePython (-66) 1 year ago

Personally, my mom had a lot of influence on me. She very honest, and I always feel her near me when I make decisions. When i was a teen i let my friends influence me, but i moved thru that phase, and try to do what my mom would.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

See? You were fortunate to not only have a mom but apparently a good mom who took the time to be with you in your learning of good things. Not everyone has that - for one reason or another - but you were fortunate. If you had not had your mom's support - how much more do you think you would have been shaped by outside influences?

[-] -2 points by BurmesePython (-66) 1 year ago

So you are saying that even if parents teach their kids honesty, the mass media, which is mostly left wing, is actively trying to corrupt youth. I see the reverse. Morality is breakng down within society, and we want to watch and listen to what reflects our dysfunction.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Are you gonna tell me that you have never been influenced by your friends or others outside of your family? And what if your family is not all that tight to begin with?

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

I don't know about your examples. Barack Obama seems to me to be a fragile narcissist, acting out in compensation. Steve Jobs was famous for his disturbed, difficult personality.

A boy growing up without the close attention of an involved father will grow up angry and confused, just as sure as water flows downhill.

[-] 2 points by elf3 (2439) 1 year ago

How about you raise up women's meager pay and then they won't have to rely on a man to survive ? (That might fix child poverty as well - ignoramus)

[-] -3 points by BurmesePython (-66) 1 year ago

Thats might be the most frightening post ever on this forum. An ignoramus is someone who believes children can be raised as effectively by one parent as well as 2 parents, and that it is money and not the prescence of a father that is most important.

Please seek help, you post was horrific.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Igoramus= Someone who can't understand spellcheck and has trouble forming sentences.

How many parents did it take for you to do that?

[-] -3 points by BurmesePython (-66) 1 year ago

Please stay out of my posts. You are a cruel, vile, hateful person.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

How can you do that? I mean you R talking to yourself - Right? Besides even if you are asking one of your personalities to stay away - you really can't as this is an open forum. Perhaps you should just stick to private messages to your self?

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I happen to like elf. I don't always agree with her either, but I don't call her names, nor insinuate the kinds of things you just did.

I mean, what is that?

If that's a problem for you. Welp. I guess it is.

[-] 1 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 1 year ago

Your statistics might be correct but this is a line you don't want to cross. In short your getting into people's personal lives. You also give a simple clean line of logic as if that's how the world works. When in fact it's a muddy and sometimes ugly decision making process. Everyone has their own cross to bear, and make the best decision they can at the time .

ask yourself this question "what don't you know?" your answer should "I don't know" which means you don't know what you don't know

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Poverty of values then.

How Heritage Foundation like.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

people like sex. i think that is the reason most of us are here.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 1 year ago

the best solutions is for one parent to work and the other stay home with the children, this rarely can result in them being a home owner, so I am an advocate of them living in a trailer and tow it from place to place so that all the money they make they can keep for their family instead of giving it away to rich bankers, government, utility companies, and such. (I did this for a couple years and saved up 20k cash.

[-] -2 points by BurmesePython (-66) 1 year ago

That doesnt address the issue. Couples that stay married have far better chance of raising well adapted children, and also far better economic future than either divorced parents or uncommitted parents with children.

[-] 2 points by elf3 (2439) 1 year ago

biggest cause of divorce = money problems - how about that raise now python?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

It is one of the current illnesses of society and is fed by the media. We should celebrate family and community - not being single and running around shirking responsibility.

[-] 2 points by elf3 (2439) 1 year ago

good then we can all agree that Wall Street is a home-wrecker sending jobs offshore, freezing wages, cutting staff, tearing apart families with stress... all while their profits soar. A stable foundation starts with a stable good paying job. When that degrades - all the rest goes sliding right down with it.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28250) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yes - they are the enabler facilitator cheerleader instigator etc of much of the worlds ills - all for the love/greed of money. They are the massive and very visible tip of one huge monster iceberg that they have fed and grown.

[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 1 year ago

true in vagueness, but my plan addresses the specific economic reality that parents face with significance placed upon only one working parent vs. dual. When one parent works it is better for teaching the children to be good people, whereas dual working parents may have nicer things but cant say much for how the children grow up.

[-] 2 points by elf3 (2439) 1 year ago

yes - with both parents spinning their wheels to catch up to inflation (and save for their kid's college) it's not one parent raising a child - it's neither (they are being raised by a daycare center) Personally I'd rather not have children than have someone else raise them.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Then get out there and force people to get married and stay married and make sure they don't play doctor until they are!!!!

In fact........chastity belts for all your friends......male and female!!!.

It's the perfect Christmas gift for you, your family and all your friends that want to succeed!

You're guaranteed to be rich!!!!

So strap one on today!!

Excrement flaps not included. They are available for a nominal fee.

Some assembly required.

[-] 0 points by BurmesePython (-66) 1 year ago

Why would you (or anyone for that matter) not recognize this as one if the reasins we have a stagnant or even growing underclass?

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Haven't we unionized States given enough money to Mississippi yet?

For all the religion, conse(R)vatism and federal funding you'd think they wouldn't be so far ahead in out of wedlock babies.

They're screwing our unions all over the place, and THAT's just ONE of the major things they've done to bring on what you're bitching about.

Reagan's no fault divorce laws aren't helping anything either. It just makes for lazier lawyers and judges even further removed from the realities of the populace.

[-] 0 points by BurmesePython (-66) 1 year ago

Not exactly sure how you connect Reagan and Republicans to not being concerned about poor kids not having fathwrs, but OK.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Divorce laws create lots and lots of single parent families, generally making it harder for them to earn as well.

Now what about the rest of what I said?

[-] 0 points by conservatroll (159) 1 year ago

Divorce laws are pretty moot when almost 1/2 the children born in this country are bron out of wedlock.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

A lot of the things Reagan did have become moot.

How many remember that he killed innocent Americans in his rush to destroy the working man?

You still haven't responded to conditions in Mississippi.

now why is that?

[-] 0 points by conservatroll (159) 1 year ago

Conditions in MS???? You must have me confused with someone else.

By the same token, you did not in any way address my statement that nearly half the babies born these days are born out of wedlock.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You're the snake person too?

I didn't know.

Well you can scroll around and see that I DID answer those questions and then some.

This isn't FLAKESnews, you can do it. I know you can. .

[-] -2 points by BurmesePython (-66) 1 year ago

I dont see it like you. Divorce laws make it easier to divorce, but they dont cause divorces. divorces are caused by individual personal choice.

I completely do not understand your connection about unions and out of wedlock babies. I see no connection at all.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

OIC, babies are all you're concerning yourself with.

You have issues joining them to the entire web of life?

Perhaps if we made them illegal?

Your thoughts on divorce are so confusing, I don't where to begin. Just re-read what I already said.

The NUMBER ONE cause of divorce is financial issues, so unions, making it easier to earn a proper amount of money and benefits are a GOOD THING. Having a voice in your workplace, and heck, just having someone to bitch to without getting fired, is another wonderful plus of a union.

Reagan ushered in the GOP/libe(R)tarian efforts to CRUSH and LIMIT any unions ability to bargain, if not destroy them outright.

He killed some people, just to throw a little FEAR into the propaganda mix

That "crushing" of unions has limited the common mans and even MORE SO, WOMENS ability to earn.

So fuck all of the union crushing motherfuckers!!!!

If those ASSHOLES in business and on WALLSTREET, would PAY US, they would still be rich, but they wouldn't have all that extra to gamble with all over the World, and we wouldn't be in the state we're in.

That's one scenario.

Have you ever heard it before, just like that?

If so, exactly where.

[-] 0 points by BurmesePython (-66) 1 year ago

According to what i have read, falling out of love is the number cause of divorce, followed by infidelity. Certainly money can also be a cause, but i cant see how money causes fathers to abandon their flesh and blood.

http://www.themortonreport.com/home-away/life/the-new-leading-cause-of-divorce-is/

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

England, huh?

Quoted on the Morton, based on an article in MAIL.

Couldn't find a link to an actual study. Welp. Try Again.

Check the charts and compare.

As unionization went down, so did earnings and benefits. there is an equal and opposite spike for divorce.

Then there's the rest of what I said, conveniently ignored by you.

[-] 0 points by BurmesePython (-66) 1 year ago

The rest of your posts was a hateful rant and not worthy of a reply. Money is certainly an issue but rich people get divorced too. I dont see the correlation of unions, sorry.

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You just don't want to admit to what the charts show.

You know I'm correct and so is the correlation.

Yeah, asking you to compare a couple of charts, is a real rant.......LOL

The Reagan no fault divorce. was signed initially into law for his Hollywood buddies. Rich people don't have the same economic issues created by divorce that they have on people that can't go make another movie, or sign another business deal that can get them out from under the payments.

On the subject of divorce. rich people, poor people = apples and oranges.

[-] -1 points by BurmesePython (-66) 1 year ago

I just checked. Reagan signed no fault divorce for California but not The whole USA. Second, the American Association of Women Lawyers started the no fault divorce movement. Reagan had nothing to do with it, and certainly as governor of California had zero to do with 49 additional states adopting NFD. Go ahead and blame Reagan, but thats just intellectually dishonest.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Reagan?

You probably don't believe he killed innocent unsuspecting Americans either, but he did.

[-] -1 points by BurmesePython (-66) 1 year ago

Goodbye

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You're taking your lies and leaving?

That's nice. Have fun at the CATO forum...........................:)

Or teabagge(R)z R us, or wherever you get these crazy ideas from.

[-] -1 points by BurmesePython (-66) 1 year ago

I dont know if he did or not. That isnt the issue. Why are you changing topics? Its very difficult to have productive discussions if we dont stay on topic. If you want to discuss Reagan and his involvement in killings, please start another Thread.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Gosh.......

Because it's a stupid, leading question, bordering on being sexist and racist.

Why don't you just get to the point Edith?

What is it you're insinuating by this thread?

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Money.

A screwed up divorce system.

Religious BS.

But primarily, it's because they have sex.