Alpha 1
Topic Author
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

$1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Sun Jan 18, 2004 9:25 am

Ok, I did not see a thread on this one, so if there is one point me to it.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/kpix/20040115/lo_kpix/8905

White House Wants to Promote Marriage
Wed Jan 14, 8:03 PM ET

Hank Plante

The White House wants to spend $1.5 billion to promote marriage, especially among low-income couples.

Details are sketchy, but sources say that President Bush (news - web sites) may use next week's State of the Union speech to outline them.

Rev. Ron Allen of San Francisco's Calvary Baptist Church has been teaching high school students about relationships, and adults about marriage, for 24 years. He said he would support the proposal.

"We need an emphasis on developing strong marriages," he said. "Statistics tell us half of all marriages end in divorce in America. I think that's tragic."

But others see the White House marriage proposal as a chance for Mr. Bush to shore up his base with conservative groups and evangelicals, particularly in light of the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling favoring gay marriage.

"I think we're at a point where the jig is finally up for the Bush administration, "said Kate Kendell, a lawyer with San Francisco's National Center for Lesbian Rights. "For a long time he's pretended to be this compassionate conservative, and what's really clear as he's heading into an election year is that he is a radical social conservative. He needs to appeal to that base in order to get reelected."

And even conservatives question whether the government has a role in promoting marriage, let along spending money on it.

"I personally would feel that we'd rather have that help come from our rabbi or priest or our pastor," Allen said. "I think there are better things we can do with out money... I believe that this is something that the church should take care of."

Kendell said, "You want to put that money into poor communities, into Head Start and education... then you're talking about helping families.'

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This sounds like something out of the New Deal. Spending $1.5 billion to promote marriage? What a joke. I don't want George Bush, nor the GOP, nor anyone in the Federal Government advising me or anyone on the sanctity of marriage, or how to promote it. That's the work of ministers and rabbis and imams, not politicians. So the government creeps further into our lives. Talk about a complete waste of taxpayers money.
 
Guest

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Sun Jan 18, 2004 10:03 am

"Statistics tell us half of all marriages end in divorce in America. I think that's tragic."

It is tragic. Marriage can use all the help it can get.

"He needs to appeal to that base in order to get reelected."

Look, I'm not exactly a Bush partisan, but the guy doesn't have to appeal to anyone to get reelected.

"For a long time he's pretended to be this compassionate conservative, and what's really clear as he's heading into an election year is that he is a radical social conservative."

How utterly hypocritical! They should consult the mirror to discover the true radicals!

"And even conservatives question whether the government has a role in promoting marriage, let along spending money on it."

Apparently the government has no problem with spending money on the myriad of other social programs. Why should this be any different?

If you asked me, I'd say that the erosion of the family unit is responsible for a host of social problems. You solve problems with marriages, and all of society benefits. I support this. (And not just to oppose Alpha 1, although that is a fringe benefit.)

-Normal
 
User avatar
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Sun Jan 18, 2004 10:35 am

It's so much better to have the un-wed mothers with the kids slung on their hips in the welfare line, huh a1..?

The Dems much prefer that.
 
Alpha 1
Topic Author
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Sun Jan 18, 2004 11:54 am

Guys, as usual, you miss the point. It isn't about unwed mothers, JeffM, or anything like that. It's the government trying to do the job that ministers of all faiths should be doing-and that's counseling people on marriage. I don't want a liberal or conservative in Congress or the White House setting any policy on marriage. That's traditionally something that is left to religions and to parents-and to the individuals themselves.

Conservatives have always said that throwing money at problems isn't the solution. And they've always maitained that less government is better. But here we have those same people applauding this boondoggle. This can't be solved by government, and, as most people know, when the government gets involved, it's usually a disaster wating to happen.

You do make society better, Normal Speed, with healthy marriages. I've been a very healthy one for going on 16 years now. But I don't see where throwing a billion and a half at it from the Feds will make a dent in the problem.
 
goboeing
Posts: 2430
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 5:31 am

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Sun Jan 18, 2004 12:24 pm

"Statistics tell us half of all marriages end in divorce in America. I think that's tragic."

I'm not being cynical here, but is it really that high of a divorce rate in the U.S.? That's really high! Half?!? I really can't think of anyone that I know of that is getting divorced. None of my parents friends, nobody in our family, etc. Does anyone else on this forum think that's high or does it seem about right?

Also I think this idea to promote marriage is stupid. I think the problem is people hastily getting married after a one year relationship and then they change their mind a few years down the road. I'm not saying that knowing someone for a year is not enough, but rather, people today are living to 80+ years old and getting married at 20 years old or so is a HUGE portion of your life to spend with just one person.

Nick
 
yanksn4
Posts: 1367
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 10:05 am

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Sun Jan 18, 2004 12:38 pm

I think this 1.5 billion should be spent on arming the heroic soldiers in Iraq to buy them better equipment like bulletvest, helmets, and etc. I know the administration wants to save marriage, but the way you do that is introducing and getting passed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
2013 Airports: EWR, JFK, LGA, LIS, AGP, DEN, GIG, RGN, BKK, LHR, FRA, LAX, SYD, PER, MEL, MCO, MIA, PEK, IAH
 
Alpha 1
Topic Author
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Sun Jan 18, 2004 12:47 pm

I know the administration wants to save marriage, but the way you do that is introducing and getting passed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Banning gay marriages, Yanksn4, will do NOTHING to save, promote, make healthier, traditional marriages. Nothing at all. Tell me, how will such an amendement strentghen heterosexual unions? Will it magically reduce the terribly high divorce rate? Uh, I don't think so. Will it magically solve the problem of domestic abuse-spousal or child-in heterosexual unions? I really don't think so. Will it stop people not ready for marriage from getting wed? Well, I highly doubt it. So, tell me, HOW will such an amendment strenghthen traditional unions? I'm really interested in knowing, because to me, such an amendment is government-sponsored discrimination, nothing more.

I do agree with you that the 1.5 billion could be spent elsewhere. I think our troops in Iraq are getting the full support of this government, so I don't agree that it should go there to be precise, but it could be spent more wisely.
 
yanksn4
Posts: 1367
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 10:05 am

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Sun Jan 18, 2004 12:58 pm

I think our troops in Iraq are getting the full support of this government, so I don't agree that it should go there to be precise, but it could be spent more wisely.

What are you talking about. Our troops over there do not have the best equipment they need to do there job done. If you had watched Scarborough Country (I'm not trying to promote it) you would have seen that the brave men and women don't have the right bullet vest and other stuff to protect them.

So, tell me, HOW will such an amendment strenghthen traditional unions?

How it streghtens it is by making sure marriage dosn't become something wrong. It makes sure that the rules are followed. Joining one man and one woman, not two men together, or two women together.
2013 Airports: EWR, JFK, LGA, LIS, AGP, DEN, GIG, RGN, BKK, LHR, FRA, LAX, SYD, PER, MEL, MCO, MIA, PEK, IAH
 
Alpha 1
Topic Author
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Sun Jan 18, 2004 1:08 pm

How it streghtens it is by making sure marriage dosn't become something wrong.

If two people love each other, Yanksn4, how is it wrong? We have damn little enough of love in this world, seems to me. It won't strengthen traditional man-woman marriages at all. It has no affect on it.

What has really hurt the idea of marriage are asshole shows like "The Bahcelor", and the like, where it makes marriage a money prize, after a guy or girl sleeps his way through "contestants", for the right to ge a million bucks-oh, and a spouse that you can divorce easily enough. It's stunts like Brittany Spears marrying that friend as a "joke", and then thinking it was great fun.

Those are the things trivializing marriage, not whether two gays happen to love each other. Whether I agree with that lifestyle or not, I don't see the correlation between the high divorce rate in this country and gay unions.

Again, you have not proven at all, how such an amendment will help marriages in the way I asked. Know why you didn't prove it-because you can't. It's state-sponsored discrimination, against a group of people that the present party in power cannot stand. Nothing more. And, sadly, neither stomping on gays, nor spending a billion and a half to promote marriage will make marriage any stronger.
 
SophieMaltese
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2001 2:08 pm

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Sun Jan 18, 2004 1:43 pm

I can't believe they'd spend that much money to try promote marriages when there are so many people without health insurance. Of course maybe I'm just bitter because I have been trying to get health insurance sincy July with a company that just refused me. Friggin' sucks I tell you.

oh yeah, and as far as promoting marriage, I have considering marrying my boyfriend because he can put me on his health insurance.

[Edited 2004-01-18 05:44:10]
 
david b.
Posts: 2894
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 7:18 pm

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Sun Jan 18, 2004 4:41 pm

Homophobia.............Typical GOP.
Teenage-know-it-alls should be shot on sight
 
seb146
Posts: 14060
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Mon Jan 19, 2004 3:48 am

I saw an editorial comment in The Oregonian yesterday that said something like:

Britney Spears can have a leagally binding marriage last 55 hours as a joke and no one bats an eye, yet a gay couple have been together 5, 10, or even 20 years and their union is not recognized by the government. This is sanctity of marriage?

GO CANUCKS!!
Patriotic and Proud Liberal
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Mon Jan 19, 2004 8:32 am

but the way you do that is introducing and getting passed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage

That makes tons of sense...

banning gay marriage (which, for all practical purposes, is still illegal already anyways) will help curb the trend of deteriorating straight marriage. Genius!  Insane  Insane
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
zak
Posts: 1926
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 12:17 pm

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Mon Jan 19, 2004 9:17 am

i think the issue is quite simple:
let church make whatever rules they want, its their business. such marriage is not recognized by the state, since the state has to be neutral towards religion.
if you want all the tax benefits, you have to go to the civil registry office and sign before the state. this has to be open for both hetero and homosexual pairs to avoid discrimination.
problem solved. let whoever wants marry under whatever obnoxious rules their religion does, but for state approval you have to "legally declare" yourself a couple at the civil registry office.
what speaks against this except religious sentiment?(which has no room in lawmaking anyway)
10=2
 
User avatar
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Mon Jan 19, 2004 9:34 am

No. It doesn't. It's not the "law according to Zak..."

 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Mon Jan 19, 2004 10:53 am

The $1.5 billion tax funded marriage promotion thing is a handout to the Family Research Council and other such organizations who are baying for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Of course, the bigots on the right (including their brethren on this forum) will never go in for a $ 1.5 billion marriage help act. What they want is to destroy homosexuals, and will never stop short of anything less than an outright ban on gay marriage. Its pure, undiluted homophobia, and nothing else.

I think Bush is trying to get out of a sticky situation. If nothing else, at least he isnt doing what the dimwitted bile-spewing right is doing - demanding a constitutional ban without attempting to "save" the institution of marriage by other means, an institution that has been "defiled" by the its heterosexual promoters.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
jhooper
Posts: 5560
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 8:27 pm

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Mon Jan 19, 2004 11:14 am

If healthy marriages build healthy families and reduce social problems, then by all means, spend money promoting marriage. I'm a product of a divorced family, and I can tell you it really sucked to go through. If my parents had better resources to work out their problems, maybe the family would still be together. Marriage means little in American society anymore, and I wish that would change.

As for banning gay marriage, that can be effectively done through existing laws. I personally believe that constitutional ammendments should be passed only to grant freedoms, not take them away. But anyway, whether or not such an ammendment is proposed, I don't believe there is sufficient support out there (2/3 of both chambers of congress, right?) to pass ratification. It's not like such an ammendment will stop one gay couple from "getting together", whether the country legally recognizes the relationship or not.
Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
 
LHMark
Posts: 7048
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 2:18 am

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Mon Jan 19, 2004 11:23 pm

Pardon me, but isn't it a bit strange that any money at all must be spent propping up a fundamental tradition in just about every culture? If marriage as social institution is dying, all the money in the world won't "save" it. People are going to do what they want. Goverment, shut up and stand aside.
"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller
 
KROC
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Mon Jan 19, 2004 11:25 pm

In the meantime LHMark stands with his handout waiting for his share as he makes his wedding plans.....  Big grin
 
LHMark
Posts: 7048
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 2:18 am

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Mon Jan 19, 2004 11:32 pm

Yeah, but that's just 'cuz my Fiancee makes twice as much money as myself!
"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller
 
KROC
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Mon Jan 19, 2004 11:34 pm

Yeah, but that's just 'cuz my Fiancee makes twice as much money as myself!

NOTHING wrong with that. Matter of fact, its about time. LHMark, doing things the way they should be done!
 
LHMark
Posts: 7048
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 2:18 am

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Mon Jan 19, 2004 11:51 pm

Does that make me sort of a reverse Sophiemaltese?
"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller
 
KROC
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Mon Jan 19, 2004 11:56 pm

Let's check the Sophie checklist.

Gold Shovel - Nope
Asinine stipulation that the person you date make at least 100K a year - Nope
Must carry an obnoxious little dog - Nope
Strange fascination with Ron Jeremy - Well, maybe on this one

Either way, its safe to say that you are the Anti-Sophie, and a purveyor of true relationships. Well done.
 
maxmax
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 7:21 pm

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Tue Jan 20, 2004 12:45 am

Well in the US getting married happens sort of like this:
Hey,What's up!
T's up!
what's your name?
Name
wanna have a cup coffee?
Yep!
wanna get married?
allright!

Just kidding

Max
 
An-225
Posts: 3859
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2000 2:55 am

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Tue Jan 20, 2004 1:03 am

Leave it to wankers like Yanksn4 to fill up the forum with absolutely ridiculous comments. I am just wonderhing where such bigotry, hate and closemindedness comes from? He's worse than JCS17 and he's younger... Hairyass would have been proud.

Alex.
Money does not bring you happiness. But it's better to cry in your own private limo than on a cold bus stop.
 
maxmax
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 7:21 pm

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Tue Jan 20, 2004 1:27 am

WOW!Yanksn4 MUST HAVE REALLY PISSED YOU OFF, AN-225
 
jhooper
Posts: 5560
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 8:27 pm

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Tue Jan 20, 2004 1:32 am

yea, give him a break. Remember when you were 13-15; everything was so black and white.
Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
 
KROC
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Tue Jan 20, 2004 1:37 am

"Hairyass" is still around, and the user Superfly was doubling as "Hairyass".
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Tue Jan 20, 2004 3:25 am

I don't believe what I am reading!  Wow!
Is Bush really this backwards? I know that man is eveil and is the lowest scumbag to occupy the White House, this is a new low for the Bushes!

This is complete government waste and is dipping it's nose whare it should never go!
Bring back the Concorde
 
An-225
Posts: 3859
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2000 2:55 am

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Tue Jan 20, 2004 3:31 am

Yanksn4 didn't really piss me off... but it's a rather sad fact that he calls people commies and traitors at such a young age... As for the main topic, it's ridiculous. Those who want to get married will do so, and those who don't, won't. Plain and simple, end of story.


Alex.
Money does not bring you happiness. But it's better to cry in your own private limo than on a cold bus stop.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Tue Jan 20, 2004 3:45 am

Government should just stop recognizing marrage althogther. If people want to do it, fine. If they don't, leave them alone about it.

Every woman has been bugged to death about when they are going to get married by there aunts, mothers, sisters, other girlfriends and co-workers. I am sure women get it worse than guys.
There is too much pressure from society as it is. Marriage is ALREADY promoted in many forms of advertising, TV shows movies and even laws and insurance policies. Why in the hell should my auto insurance company care if I am a married man or not?

This just takes the cake!

I guess Dubya feels that government has the solution to people's personal problems. Afterall, un-married people must have problems.  Insane  Yeah sure


Bring back the Concorde
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Tue Jan 20, 2004 3:53 am

Interesting how gays and lesbians are now the mainstream, and marriage proponents are now "radicals"  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Marriage is NOT only a religious issue. Here in Europe the norm is to have two separate marriages - a civil wedding at city hall (which is required) followed by a religious wedding at a church or wherever (the religious wedding is optional). The religious wedding means nothing at all to the state. The rights provided by marriage, such as inheritance, tax rates, etc. are based upon the civil marriage.

It is a well-proven fact that children raised in a home with both married parents present have a better chance than those brought up by single or divorced parents. Ideally, this would include one parent staying home to look after the kid, making sure homework is done, that he stays out of trouble, etc.. I know that sounds a bit like Leave it to Beaver, but those are the facts.

Given that poor upbringing is the root cause of much of the crime in the U.S., it makes sense that government should promote in every way it can the concept of marriage and, just as importantly, the undesirability of divorce.

I would support granting a drastically different tax regime which would segregate the married and divorced/Unmarried state, where, for example, If a single person at a certain level of income (never been married) pays 30%, a married person would pay 20%, and a divorced person would pay 40%. I might even suggest that people who get divorced twice or more should be penalized even more. This would provide a real incentive to stick to your spouse, even if sometimes the going gets tough. Divorces granted for real causes, such as physical beatings, could be exempted.

Let's face it, most of the time, divorces are granted for the most childish and selfish reasons. Today's culture has become one of gratification, preferably of the immediate sort, and as soon as "the magic has gone", or your spouse simply isn't as much fun any more, or you find a girl that gives better head, and off you go to a divorce lawyer. Where is the concept of commitment? Where has the concept of remaining faithful to your word gone? When you get married, you promised "till death do us part, for better or worse, for richer or poorer" etc. etc.. You made that promise to another person, and, if you are religious, you made that promise before God himself. If you are unable or unwilling to keep your solemn oaths, I say you are worthless. A man with no value in his word is not a man.

I'm a married man, and I cannot say that all has been roses. Our marriage has suffered in the loss of a child, through a couple of job losses, arguments, crazy in-laws, and some violent tempers. I wished to have another child, but my wife, unfortunately, is medically unable to have anymore. I have, I admit, thought at times that I might be happier divorcing my wife and starting my life afresh with someone else. But it always comes down to the fact that I made a promise, and I will stick to it whatever happens. I may not have the happiest, freshest and most exciting marriage in the world, but at least I have my self-respect, and will continue to have it. My word is my bond, and I will never give it lightly.

In the end, it is worth it. Our surviving daughter, who previously we thought would end up in a very bad way, is turning out well, and I am extremely pleased by that. That in itself has made a lot of the old arguments and fights (often over how to raise our daughter) moot, which in turn has lifted a lot of the strain that used to exist. Knowing that she (probably our lives' most important task) is OK allows my wife and I to enjoy our relationship more, quiet evenings, the feeling of never being left alone, and the knowledge that neither one of us will abandon the other, especially after all we've been through.

Such a feeling is unknown to those who marry and divorce on a whim. Hollywood types are famous for it. I think it's because they are rich and are so used to having everything the way they want the way they want it. You bored with the mansion? Buy another one. You bored with the Ferrari? Buy an Aston-Martin. Bored with the wife? Get another one (with bigger tits!). And we, the great unwashed public, read all about in the tabloids, or see it on TV, and over time it has sunk into our heads that it is OK to divorce when you longer have all the excitement of a newlywed.

As George Carlin once said, when he heard someone say "My needs aren't being met", he said, "Drop some of your needs". Marriage is a commitment, with great influence over the happiness of your children (for which YOU are responsible until adulthood - not the daycare center, not the school, etc.) If your kid spends all his spare time getting into trouble, keying cars, tagging walls, and eventually more serious mischief, it is YOUR fault. You need to handle that responsibility by making sure he has a proper home, with all the encouragement, support, discipline, education and love that he needs.

So I say, give people a good incentive to marry, and an even stronger incentive to stay married. The tax system would be a good starting point. Again, marriage and divorce are strongly tied with the health of the future generations, so I believe that government should do all it can to promote solid families.

Charles

[Edited 2004-01-19 19:55:16]
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Tue Jan 20, 2004 4:28 am

Cfalk:
Boy oh boy, whare should I begin with you.


Marriage is NOT only a religious issue.
The religious wedding means nothing at all to the state. The rights provided by marriage, such as inheritance, tax rates, etc. are based upon the civil marriage.


Exactly and that's why gays should be granted the right to marry.



It is a well-proven fact that children raised in a home with both married parents present have a better chance than those brought up by single or divorced parents. Ideally, this would include one parent staying home to look after the kid, making sure homework is done, that he stays out of trouble, etc..

OK, so let's stop allowing companies to export jobs overseas for cheap labor. Let working-class people be able to support there families so one parent can stay home and attend to the children. Stand up for workers rights and stop allow companies from nickel and diming there workers out of overtime pay, holiday pay, health benefits, etc.
Today is a national holiday here in the United States (MLK) and there are millions working today without holiday pay!
There are too many two parent families whare the both parents are holding down two jobs just to make ends meet.
Another problem is working class people being priced out of the area they work. There are too many service workers communting 2 hours each way to get to the hotels, restaurants and even schools they work at. They can't afford to live in the communities they serve.
What kind of crap is that?





Let's face it, most of the time, divorces are granted for the most childish and selfish reasons.

And many people get married for 'the most childish and selfish reasons'. Maybe we should slap around the parents that tell there 'precious' daughters to marry doctors and lawyers.





If a single person at a certain level of income (never been married) pays 30%, a married person would pay 20%, and a divorced person would pay 40%.

Sounds like social engineering through taxation. Hasn't that been tried before in other societies?






Such a feeling is unknown to those who marry and divorce on a whim. Hollywood types are famous for it. I think it's because they are rich and are so used to having everything the way they want the way they want it.

Very true, and don't let the CEO's off the hook either.







I'm a married man, and I cannot say that all has been roses. Our marriage has suffered in the loss of a child, through a couple of job losses, arguments, crazy in-laws, and some violent tempers. I wished to have another child, but my wife, unfortunately, is medically unable to have anymore. I have, I admit, thought at times that I might be happier divorcing my wife and starting my life afresh with someone else. But it always comes down to the fact that I made a promise, and I will stick to it whatever happens. I may not have the happiest, freshest and most exciting marriage in the world, but at least I have my self-respect, and will continue to have it. My word is my bond, and I will never give it lightly.

Cfalk, that's great and it has worked for you and your family. Don't think that will work for everyone. What if a marriage turns sour? What if one turns in to a wife-beater, alcohalic, drug user, gambler that waste familiy resources? Would you penalize them if there was a divorce?

I don't mean to go off on a tangent but what you need to realize is that marrage is a VERY complex issue. It would be wise for Bush to stay out of grown folks business.


BTW, are you a socialist Cfalk?  Smile
Bring back the Concorde
 
zak
Posts: 1926
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 12:17 pm

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Tue Jan 20, 2004 4:32 am

god forbid, i happen to agree with cfalk  Smile
except the tax issue, i think it is a better idea to emphasize the focus in education more onto values and social intelligence to avoid the further eroding of social values.
10=2
 
csavel
Posts: 1270
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 9:38 pm

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Tue Jan 20, 2004 5:00 am

I don't want George Bush, nor the GOP, nor anyone in the Federal Government advising me or anyone on the sanctity of marriage, or how to promote it. That's the work of ministers and rabbis and imams, not politicians. So the government creeps further into our lives. Talk about a complete waste of taxpayers money.

Bravo to Alpha 1 who explains why true *conservatives* should be for gay marriage and against this welfare/pork bill. Faux conservatives like Tom De Lay et al, who really espouse a form of morality statism/socialism and thus can rightly be called socialists, just don't get it.

Marriage should be not one whit the affairs of state. Hate to sound callous but it is an agreement and a contract, and if marriage was treated this way (hey, perhaps mandatory pre-nups!) perhaps people would enter into this arrangement with a little more forethought or at least with as much consideration as when signing any other contract.


JeffM When you say It's so much better to have the un-wed mothers with the kids slung on their hips in the welfare line, huh a1..?
I infer that to mean that these unwed mothers, if "encouraged" to marry their children's babies fathers would then have a breadwinner - and off welfare? How do you know you would not then have the entire family on welfare? Not to mention that it sort of reduces fatherhood to just paying the bills. Not that I'm advocating deadbeat parentage, because I am not, but I am questioning whether or not an unwed welfare mother, to use the stereotype, if married, would not be part of a poor welfare family. Stats anyone?

Cfalk, In this day and age, I do question whether or not it is the "marriage" part of the equation that is responsible for the observed facts you talk about or other economic, educational, social parts that are responsible. First, I don't know whether or not it *is* a proven fact, but since you are an economist, you are likely more privy to info on this subject than I am. But even if it is, could it not be that wealthier people are more likely to marry and the wealth is the reason, or more religious people who are more likely to marry and it is the religious belief?, or people who are more part of an extended clan (you get my drift - the old post hoc ergo propter hoc thing.)

Yanksn4
Well you are entitled to your opinions, if indeed they really are opinions or are you are saying something so provocative because you want to get a rise out of people? (I was your age too, you know) you need to answer this.

Your opinion is that a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage will save marriage. Since marriage is already illegal, why does marriage need saving? How would this law against homosexual marriage have any effect on heterosexual marriage? Are you implying that a great danger to marriage are all the married men and women who go out of the closet now that civil unions can be had in some states? Since rendering something illegal that is already illegal can't have an effect, what is the effect that would occur under a gay marriage ban?

To all who are against gay marriage, if you are against gay marriage, don't get married to someone of the same sex. Problem solved.
I may be ugly. I may be an American. But don't call me an ugly American.
 
jhooper
Posts: 5560
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 8:27 pm

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Tue Jan 20, 2004 5:10 am

To all who are against gay marriage, if you are against gay marriage, don't get married to someone of the same sex. Problem solved.

Proponents of the same-sex marriage ban aren't worried that they will get married to a gay person; they are worried that you will marry a gay person. I'm from Texas, a state that doesn't look upon the issue of gay marriage too favorably. People are saying that a federal ban is necessary so that Texas won't have to recognize the marriage that took place in Hawaii (under the full faith and credit clause).

With that said, I think a constitutional ammendment is going too far. Like I said, I only support ammendments which grant, not take away, freedoms. I look at this as a movement such as prohibition, an ammendment which never needed to be passed because it took another ammendment to repeal it. If the feds want to ban gay marriage, then do so through ordinary legislation and let the courts sort it out.
Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Tue Jan 20, 2004 5:21 am

BTW, are you a socialist Cfalk?

LOL!!!

Hell no! Marx did not invent the concept of social engineering. He simply thought he could engineer the perfect man - Communist Man (Like superman but without the cape).

Society does however have a responsibility to promote things that are good for society and to punish (or at least disincentivize) things that do society harm. This includes promoting forms of households which are proven to provide a better likelihood for a better formative environment for future generations. And Society's only manifestation powerful enough to do this on a large scale is a government. Just as society (through the government) will act to remove a child from a home where he is being sexually abused or beaten on a daily basis, the counterpart to that would be to reward families which stick together. The tax savings I proposed could go towards being able to afford a nice family holiday together (further strengthening the family).

Exactly and that's why gays should be granted the right to marry.

OK for civil unions that would carry many or all of the same rights, but don't call it marriage - there is too much baggage in that word. Anyway, that is the subject of another thread.

OK, so let's stop allowing companies to export jobs overseas for cheap labor.

I don't see how this is relevant. Exported jobs drive up unemployment, which bring down salary expectations, which make it possible for new companies and startups to launch where they might otherwise been unable to, driving down unemployment, raising salaries, etc. The unemployment market is a yoyo, Superfly - always has been, always will be. Drop your copy of Das Kapital and take a look at it.

Let working-class people be able to support there families so one parent can stay home and attend to the children....There are too many two parent families where the both parents are holding down two jobs just to make ends meet.

An unfortunate side effect of Women having generally equal rights and education, and finding themselves with even the desire to go out and make a career. This has flooded the labor market with double the potential workforce, which lowers labor's value. But unless you want women to all retire to the kitchen and bedroom, I think we will have to learn to live with it. Otherwise, there are some things society might do - such as, again, structuring the tax code so that a family of two adults with one source of income AND children would pay a significantly lower tax rate.

Stand up for workers rights and stop allow companies from nickel and diming there workers out of overtime pay, holiday pay, health benefits, etc.

You get what you contracted for. If you don't you take them to court.

Today is a national holiday here in the United States (MLK) and there are millions working today without holiday pay!

So who asked for today being a holiday? That was a bit short-sighted, wasn't it? And why should a company pay for a day on which nothing was sold or produced? They are not a charity. In any case, I would say that generally speaking the salaries and wages that are paid for fixed employees are in the expectation of a certain number of work days in the year - generally around 240.

Another problem is working class people being priced out of the area they work.

But if they are still going there, then it means that it is still worth it for them to go. The market in action. But if the hotel or restaurant one day has a problem hiring staff at that wage level, they will need to see about raising it.

And many people get married for 'the most childish and selfish reasons'. Maybe we should slap around the parents that tell there 'precious' daughters to marry doctors and lawyers.

One side of me agrees with you, another says that "at least the doctor or a lawyer can give you a decent life without you having to work your feet off in a restaurant."

Sounds like social engineering through taxation. Hasn't that been tried before in other societies?

And it's worked, where it was done correctly (i.e. without any quacky Marxist theories)

Very true, and don't let the CEO's off the hook either.

I agree entirely. I am sickened by the level of some CEO comp packages. I mean, OK, if he's doing a great job and the company is doing well, give him a few million. But anything over 10 is nuts. And I'm all for outlawing stock options as compensation. If the company is doing poorly, there should be a limitation of the possible compensation. A percent of operating margin, perhaps). Anyway, that's for another thread.

Cfalk, that's great and it has worked for you and your family. Don't think that will work for everyone. What if a marriage turns sour? What if one turns in to a wife-beater, alcohalic, drug user, gambler that waste familiy resources?

Like I said, some exceptions can be made for cases where one spouse went seriously off the deep end. My point is that people today tend to give up on a marriage way too easily. As soon as the grass looks greener elsewhere, they're off. It should be tougher than that. Divorce should be a cast-iron bitch to go through, unless one of the spouses did something bad enough to land him in prison (beatings, fraud, etc.)

don't mean to go off on a tangent but what you need to realize is that marrage is a VERY complex issue.

YOU are telling ME that? As I recall, I'm married and you are not.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Tue Jan 20, 2004 6:00 am

"As I recall, I'm married and you are not"

So, whats your point.
As I recall you're also not a US taxpayer, and the first of billions to be spent on "saving" marriage under this new bizarre proposal aren't coming out of your pocket.
Existing laws provide plenty of incentive for marriage. Religious institutions, marriage counselors, psychiatrists, etc, provide ample services to promote, take care of, and rescue marriages.

Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Tue Jan 20, 2004 6:06 am

Cfalk:
I don't see how this is relevant.

It's very relevant. I still don't see the value of exporting jobs, mainly manufacturing jobs. Less jobs for lower skilled workers make it tough for them to provide for there families.

Drop your copy of Das Kapital

I haven't read that book yet.  Smile



An unfortunate side effect of Women having generally equal rights and education, and finding themselves with even the desire to go out and make a career.

Is this the logic behind this awful legislation? I'd love to see W Bush run around the country selling this to some of the suburban soccer moms who voted for him.


You get what you contracted for. If you don't you take them to court.

Lawyers aren't cheap. These people are stuggling to make ends meet and don't have the time and money to set up an appointment and pay consultation fees to an attourney.

And why should a company pay for a day on which nothing was sold or produced?

Then why have people work on this day? Many who are working today and not getting compensated are still generating profits for there company. Holiday pay is granted on all days that are recognized as a Federal Holiday.


But if they are still going there, then it means that it is still worth it for them to go.

No, all the jobs at the local Wendys and Taco Bell are taken.



"at least the doctor or a lawyer can give you a decent life without you having to work your feet off in a restaurant."

True but money isn't everything. Wealth doesn't equal being a great husband and father. Keep in mind, many woman want the wealthy guy and he just may take up on these other women's offer and give just enough $$$ to keep there mouths shut so the wife at home doesn't find out.



As soon as the grass looks greener elsewhere, they're off.

Or in some guys case; if the grass is 'shaved', they're off!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy



Divorce should be a cast-iron bitch to go through

Isn't marrage like that already?
Just kidding. Big grin

Seriously, divorce isn't that easy. Your making it sound like getting a divorce is as easy as getting an oil change.
I am sure there are a few lawyers here in these forums who can tell first hand how some of there clients went through hell during the divorce.

YOU are telling ME that? As I recall, I'm married and you are not.

and I've been dodging the bullet for years.  Laugh out loud



Quit insinuating that I am pushing some Marxist ideal. I am just simply pointing out why many two parent households still aren't able to have one parent at home attending to the children. It's Bush's economic policies that force working class parents away from there children and having to work two jobs just to make ends meet.

Granted there are some Prima Donna upper-middle class mothers that work even though the father makes decent money but works just to support there materialistic lifestyle. You the kind that 'needs' a $60K BMW SUV to get the kids to school and the biggest house on the block just becasue....
I don't care about these people. Hey she scored the rich guy so they live perfect lives.  Yeah sure
Bring back the Concorde
 
L.1011
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:46 am

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Tue Jan 20, 2004 6:11 am

I am horrified. I agree with Alpha 1 and Superfly. *violent shudder* It seems to me that there are better ways to spend $1.5 billion. How bout Amtrak? Better yet (begin re-affirmation of Conservatism) give it back to the people. This sketchy proposal seems to be the President's random lying in bed trying to get to sleep idea that wasn't thought out before it became a law. But that's just me.

These Colors Still Don't Run.
Derek.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Tue Jan 20, 2004 6:45 am

L.1011:
No need to be horrified.  Smile
Your just maturing. Big grin

Sometimes I wish the whole W Bush presidency is just one bad dream that I haven't waken up from.
I just can't believe what I've read in this article.
W Bush needs to be locked up in an insane asylum and monitord 24 hours.
Bring back the Concorde
 
SophieMaltese
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2001 2:08 pm

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Tue Jan 20, 2004 11:01 am

Every woman has been bugged to death about when they are going to get married by there aunts, mothers, sisters, other girlfriends and co-workers. I am sure women get it worse than guys.
There is too much pressure from society as it is. Marriage is ALREADY promoted in many forms of advertising, TV shows movies and even laws and insurance policies. Why in the hell should my auto insurance company care if I am a married man or not?


This is the gist basically of what I just told my boyfriend when he said he thought it was a good idea to promote marriage with $1.5 billion because we need more morals. I said they should spend the money on helping people's mental health when they feel like less than a worthwhile person because they are single/divorced/gay/etc.

and if you want to talk about something that will never happen but I think would be a good way to spend the money. Make people be on some form of birth control, or hell, just tie their tubes if they are on welfare, drug addict, etc. Why in the hell should someone have a child if he/she can't take care of it and provide it a good home? There are tons of single parents who are excellent role models and then there are people who are married and have no business having a baby. I knew a guy who worked as an OB/GYN resident in a low-income hospital and he told me many times he was SOOO tempted to just tie some dumb teenage girl who just had baby number three's tubes. She'd never know and the world would be a better place. Kids are damned expensive and take an awful lot of time to take care of. Ignorance breeds ignorance. I don't think it matters if someone is married or not. If they have no business having a child they have no business having a child. Not that it would happen, but people should have to apply for a license to have a child. A child is the most important thing there is and yet I could have one right away if I wanted even though I can't afford it and have no time to spend with one. however, I can't get health insurance, I can't get a loan to buy a home, I would even get ripped off on a car loan right now because I ruined my credit due to "financing" my education. Okay, I'll shut up. Guess I'm just bitter that the "Amercian Dream" still hasn't come to me yet. Oh yeah, and I came from a "good family" of parents who were together from the age of 19 (married) and never have divorced.
 
zak
Posts: 1926
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 12:17 pm

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Tue Jan 20, 2004 11:37 am

"Make people be on some form of birth control, or hell, just tie their tubes if they are on welfare, drug addict, etc. Why in the hell should someone have a child if he/she can't take care of it and provide it a good home?"

"She'd never know and the world would be a better place."

" Not that it would happen, but people should have to apply for a license to have a child. "

gee we are not promoting the 4th reich here are we miss sophiemaltese?

" Ignorance breeds ignorance."
indeed.


"I'm just bitter that the "Amercian Dream" still hasn't come to me yet."
michael moore explains it well in his newest book why it hasnt come to you yet.



10=2
 
User avatar
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Tue Jan 20, 2004 11:41 am

Superfly...

all of us Republicans had the same nightmare...

his name was...well you know it well enough..  Smile
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Tue Jan 20, 2004 1:02 pm

Sophiemaltese:
Great post and I am glad to see a level-headed female weight in on this topic.
Although I disagree with the tubes tied while on public assistance, you raise some valid points.

I ruined my credit due to "financing" my education.


Conservative elements in this country don't want people like yourself who wasn't born in to money to have access to higher education.

Ignorance breeds ignorance. I don't think it matters if someone is married or not.

You can say that again! Just look at the garbage spewed in these boards from some of the kids that come from two parent households.


Guess I'm just bitter that the "Amercian Dream" still hasn't come to me yet.

That's because the President feels you should sit and wait for that Prince in shining armor to sweep you off your feet and 'provide' all of that for you.
No matter how hard you work Sophie because you are a woman certain conservative elements in our government feels that you will never measure up and still view you as a 2nd. class citizen because you are single and you wear makeup!  Pissed  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
(total sarcasm on my part there)


This is the gist basically of what I just told my boyfriend when he said he thought it was a good idea to promote marriage with $1.5 billion because we need more morals.

DUMP HIM! ! ! ! ! ! !  Smile
Bring back the Concorde
 
Guest

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Tue Jan 20, 2004 3:27 pm

Who would ever want the President to do something that might improve America? Fact is if more parents stay married we might have fewer crack heads out making even more welfare babies. I hate to back up a government pushing a moral agenda but I really think this is a good idea. Seriously.. what is the bad part of people getting and staying married? If not married in a similar permant committed relationship.

Think of how many people you know who were married and still are, Think of how many people you know that have been married at least once. Most adults I know have been in at least one marriage. In one case as many as 7. Compare that to your parents generation.. The decrease in lasting marriages is staggering.

Ok look at the kids of the few people that are still married and compare this with people who are divorced. This is just my observation but I find the kids who have married parents are far more well adjusted and in touch with society. The kids from divorced families are usually spoiled brats since they get whatever they want by playing one parent off the other. Ok who do you want leading America in the future?


I find it funny how in Alpha1s eyes the man can do no right. He spends money improving the world with a war, he is wrong. He spends what amounts to pocket change to improve our streets and neighborhoods 10 or 20 years from now and he is wrong. Oh and by the way unless things changed very recently there is a tax PENALTY for getting married.
 
jhooper
Posts: 5560
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 8:27 pm

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Tue Jan 20, 2004 4:27 pm

Oh and by the way unless things changed very recently there is a tax PENALTY for getting married.

Don't you have a choice as to whether you file an individual or joint tax return?
Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
 
SophieMaltese
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2001 2:08 pm

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Tue Jan 20, 2004 5:24 pm

michael moore explains it well in his newest book why it hasnt come to you yet.


I haven't read his latest book but I recall Roger and Me and something to do with a plant shutting down. I have never worked for a plant and went to school for over 12 years (after high school). I just know that growing up I always felt if I went to college and got a good education I'd do well. The more education means the better career. Hasn't worked that way so far. I'm interested in going back to law school but since the only law school in my area costs over $80,000 and the state attorneys make $30-40 (I'm guesing) I don't think I could handle paying back those loans.

I'm not promoting some 4th reich b.s. where people's tubes are tied because they can't afford a pot to piss in but I'm also not promoting spending over a billion dollars to try to get people to get married. You're a piece of sh*t if you're a piece of sh*t whether you are married or not.

Growing up I went to the most expensive private school in my city. Most of these kids came from "good homes." A VERY high percentage of them were absolute scummy ass*oles from married homes. Their kids will be scummy ass*holes from married homes and so on.
 
LHMark
Posts: 7048
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 2:18 am

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Tue Jan 20, 2004 10:23 pm

You're a piece of sh*t if you're a piece of sh*t whether you are married or not.

That pretty much sums it up. How can anyone expect the friggin' government to create morals in amoral people byt suggesting they get married? Isn't adultery supposed to be bad too? Expect a spike.
"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller
 
KROC
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: $1.5 Billion To "Promote" Marriage?

Tue Jan 20, 2004 11:02 pm

Define 'adultry'.

Signed, William Clinton

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests