It always astounds me why people so quickly discredit decades of research, and seem to simply want to ignore the status of our current society. Examine the info below for yourself and see if you can figure out why our so-called President and his cronies don’t want to preserve marriage, or help people really get out of poverty.
I mean, he doesn’t want to preserve any of our other rights and liberties, so it’s not surprising that he doesn’t care about preserving marriage either. Marriage and all it stands for and does for society is so contrary to what Obamination is trying to accomplish. If you haven’t noticed yet, then you should start to look around at the insane policies he’s trying to pass. Obama and his cohorts want American’s currently in poverty to remain there, and those who aren’t, well, he’s certainly helping us on our way. Poverty = reliance on the government, and a loss of freedom. The more people the government has to take care of, the larger it needs to be; theoretically speaking. Obama’s administration is trying very hard to make sure that marriages don’t succeed and that people “need” the government. Everyone’s probably heard the statistic that says that the number one reason for divorce is money. Well, forcing economic hardship and stress on to practically every American family is certainly a way to destroy them. Very clever Obama…..
The Heritage Foundation examined the relationship between poverty and marriage and has drafted up a little memo to our President. Here are some highlights from their Memo:
The decline of marriage is a major cause of child poverty. Roughly two-thirds of poor children live in single-parent homes. Marital collapse is also a major contributor to welfare dependence: Each year, government spends over $250 billion for means-tested welfare benefits for single parents.
When compared to similar children raised by two married biological parents, children raised in single-parent homes are more likely to fail in school, abuse drugs or alcohol, commit crimes, become pregnant as teens, and suffer from emotional and behavioral problems. Such children are also more likely to end up on welfare or in jails when they become adults.
So, the President’s goal, being that he is a communist dictator and at the very least, a progressive, who thinks that social programs are a must-have in this country, doesn’t this make perfect sense for why he doesn’t support marriage? Divorce can = poverty, and a greater dependence on the government for everything. Look at that quote above – 1) Failing school = children who are uneducated and reliant on the system because they can’t qualify for or advance in a job, 2). drug and alcohol abuse = people who again can’t get or keep a job, people who have children that they can’t take care of, so the government again, comes in to rescue these people, 3). criminals = crowded jails and more people the government gets to take care of (and if you’ve heard of Obama’s latest idea, he wants to let the jailed criminals work for ACORN doing social projects and whatever, just want we don’t need running our streets), 4). pregnant teens = more abortions, more unwed mothers, more girls who don’t finish school, more people who can’t get or keep a good paying job, more people who can’t take care of their own children, more dependence on the government, 5). emotional and behavioral problems = children who have a hard time in school, children who don’t finish school so they either can’t get or keep a job, or they are reliant on more government programs….. So, of course these children are more likely to end up on welfare or in jails….right where the current administration wants them!
Think about it folks!!!Marriage and healthy families and children are the backbone of society, and a threat to Obama’s plan for “change.” That is exactly what the government doesn’t want, a strong society. Strong educated people who can stand up and revolt against them, and people who understand the rights written into the Constitution… why they’d all be out of a job.
Revitalized marriage can have a powerful impact in reducing poverty in low-income communities. For example, if poor women who have children out of wedlock were married to the actual fathers of their children, nearly two-thirds would be lifted out of poverty immediately. Because the decline in marriage is linked to many other social problems, an increase in healthy marriage would to lead to a long-term drop in those problems as well.
The Memo goes on to talk about how certain policies could help strengthen marriage and reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies. But these policies must be effective, and in order to be, they must be based on facts. Here are a few tidbits from the Memo’s Facts:
Fact: Half of the women who have children out of wedlock are cohabiting with the father at the time of birth; 75 percent are in a romantic relationship with the father. Policymakers seeking to reduce out-of-wedlock births must look far beyond teen pregnancy.
Fact: To a significant degree, the decision to have a child outside of marriage is a deliberate choice for these women.
Fact: Lack of access to birth control is not a significant factor contributing to “unintended pregnancy” or non-marital births. A recent survey of low-income women who had had a non-marital pregnancy found that only 1 percent reported that lack of access to birth control played a role in the pregnancy.
Doesn’t the Obamination Administration want us to believe that we need more planned parenthood services, we need more access to birth control and more sex education in our public schools?
Fact: Out-of-wedlock childbearing is concentrated among low-income, less educated men and women. In general, the women most likely to have a child without being married are those who have the least ability to support a family by themselves.
And that’s exactly the way our current government wants it to be. They are focusing their “birth control” campaign to the women who aren’t really the bulk of the problem, thus allowing the real problem, unwed women (in their 20’s) ,to perpetuate even further, which keeps the welfare-recipient/reliance-on-the-government total growing.
If the government really has to have social policies, most of which are total crap and ineffective, why not try something like this:
Government should help low-income couples to move toward more prosperous lives by providing such men and women with education that increases their understanding of the strong link between marriage and better life outcomes and that equips them to make critical life decisions concerning childbearing and family formation more wisely.
In the “Audacity of Hope,” Obama writes:
Again, you are right. Given the private and social benefits of marriage, it is absurd for the welfare industry to penalize marriage. Yet that is exactly what welfare does.
Obama’s policies on taxes, health care, and stimulus money are also detrimental to marriage and our freedoms. But the welfare state is just as much so:
Specifically, welfare programs create disincentives to marriage because benefits are reduced as a family’s income rises. A mother will receive far more from welfare if she is single than if she has an employed husband in the home. For many low-income couples, marriage means a reduction in government assistance and an overall decline in the couple’s joint income. Marriage penalties occur in many means-tested programs such as food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, day care, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. The welfare system should be overhauled to reduce such counterproductive incentives.
If the President was to really support marriage, and the policies and issues that would strengthen and promote marriage, then perhaps society would see a great change. However, that’s not his plan. Marriage is contrary to what Obama’s administration is trying to accomplish, which is the destruction of marriage, family, the Constitution and eliminating all of our freedoms.
I would love to hear what you think. Leave a comment below. Thanks for reading.