The Most Effective Anti-Poverty Program Ever Created?

[Southpaw]

According to Canton, Ohio health statistics, 65 of the 490 female students at Timken High School are pregnant and 104 of the 586 babies born to Canton residents had mothers between the ages of 11 and 19. And so the cycle of poverty and victimhood begins -- or perhaps it is more accurate to say the cycle continues.

The statistics are not new to us. So familiar are they that we can recite them in our sleep: 69 percent of black children are born out of wedlock. Over 50 percent of black families are headed by a single parent, the overwhelming majority of whom are women. The marriage rate in the black community is 35 percent. The figures are so ingrained in our consciousness that the collapse of the black family has become standard cocktail party conversation.

The problem is that too often the discussion is conducted in the abstract. What do we mean by family? The single mothers of Canton will be families with their children, will they not? We couch our discussions in the generalized rhetoric of “loving parenthood” because we are reluctant to make the value judgment that traditional marriage is preferable! Yet without clarity, all the discussions and statistics become little more than barbershop intellectualizing. So, to be clear: when I talk about strengthening the family, I mean the traditional two-parent family with fathers in the home.

With so many single parent homes, divorced parents, stepparent and step-stepparent combinations, suggesting that the traditional two-parent family ought to be held up as the ideal to which we aspire will not win many friends. Yet, as Bill Cosby travels the country conducting his call-outs, it is just this kind muddy morality he is imploring us to reject and the type of frank talk he is insisting that we have.

Over the last 40 years, our society has been awash in cultural liberalism. Traditional mores have given way to the notion of freedom as the refusal to be bound by anything greater than individual desire -- “if it feels good, do it.” What we are witnessing in the black community is the impact of this loss of moral footing, of exchanging the idea of family principles for family values -- “Different strokes for different folks.” We have made divorce too easy, glorified single parenthood and when it all began to fall apart, looked not to reason and principle but to the administrative state to solve our problems. The result is Canton, Ohio.

There are very valid reasons for replacing the almost heroic status of single mothers with an embrace of abstinence and marriage. Strengthening the marital institution provides stability and safety for women and children, and it socializes men and encourages them to live responsible lives.

Marriage is the most effective anti-poverty program ever created! If a child finishes high school, marries before having children and marries after the age of 20, there is only an eight percent chance of ending up impoverished. Study after study shows that children raised in homes without fathers are more prone to sexual and physical abuse and are more likely to experiment with drugs and sex at an early age. Married women also suffer fewer instances of physical and sexual abuse. Studies also show that married men have lower rates of almost every social ill on which statistics are kept: criminal behavior, crime victimization, unemployment, drug addiction and suicide.

The solution to breaking the cycle may not be easy, but it is not all that complicated. It must certainly begin with a readjustment of our cultural sense and the outright rejection of the relativist ideology that separates sex from love and love from marriage that has hijacked the principle of family and turned it into “whatever floats your boat.”

http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/sayitloud/phillips1011

 

[Temujin]

Interesting article.
I think there has definetly been a shift from the traditional family in the black community. Today a single parent household is the norm. Though we tend to focus on the affects the lack of marriage has on the children it stems from the mindset of the parents and it affects the parents lives as much as it affects the child

In my opinion the lack of marriage comes from an overall lack of discipline in our culture but specifically in our black men. Being married and having a family requires discipline, it requires the willingness to sacrifice your own wants for the needs of your family. It requires sacrificing your time and energy in the betterment of the unit. Being married and having a family means being an adult. You can no longer be selfish you must put your family first.

This is counter typical American selfish society. This is counter our current cultural stance which puts individualism in the forefront. We no longer look at people as human beings we look at them as objects for our pleasure. People manipulate people on every level of there existence to get what they want. This is childish behavior that has filtered down to the interactions between black men and women. Men and women no longer unite to create a common vision of the future together. Relationships are no longer mutual they are dominate and submissive. Relationships are not built on mutual respect they are based on mutual need. Once the need is gone the relationship follows.

We as a culture have to begin to look at life differently. We focus our energy's on these transient material things with little thought to our family that will survive all these material things. We need to grow up as a culture and focus on what is really important.

Once an individual has a child he or she can no longer live exclusively for themselves. They must care for that child. Their life now means something to someone other than themself. This is the point a person should be able to discipline themselves enough to put down the trappings of individualism and focus on the child because wheter it is one parent or two you now have a family.

We must realize that the family experiences we give our children will last longer than our own lives. They will exist in the mind of that child way beyond our death. They will affect his interactions with his own children and their children for generations to come. The power to change lives for the betterment of ones family is more powerful than any selfish goals we may have.

If we were able to do this as individuals and become more discplined we would see a rejuvenation of the black family and a renewed strength in our culture. Its sad to me that getting a new car is a goal for many brothers but having a strong family is not a goal at all.

 

[Fuckallyall]

Here is my 2cents. First, Nobody should automatically entitled to any monies they haven't earned. I feel that it is high time we stop subsidizing dysfuntion and taxing production. It has been shown that you can stop needless welfare and the underlying cause diminishes. Case in point, the state of New Jersey stopped increasing welfare payments whenever the recipient had more children. The result, over the first two year period, the teenage birth rate (which constiuted a large part of the initial recipients) dropped by 50 %. The abortion rate did rise at the same rate ( I think it only rose by 20 % the first year and then went back down by a certain percentage I do not recall right now). That shows that teens did not get pregnant at the same rate as they did before.

It is high time the government stops this failed system. And it fails black people disproprtionately.

I do not blame "liberalism" for the problems we face as much as many of my stances may suggest. When those beliefs have a free pass to may efforts (which is

 

[Temujin]

Here is my 2cents. First, Nobody should automatically entitled to any monies they haven't earned. I feel that it is high time we stop subsidizing dysfuntion and taxing production. It has been shown that you can stop needless welfare and the underlying cause diminishes. Case in point, the state of New Jersey stopped increasing welfare payments whenever the recipient had more children. The result, over the first two year period, the teenage birth rate (which constiuted a large part of the initial recipients) dropped by 50 %. The abortion rate did rise at the same rate ( I think it only rose by 20 % the first year and then went back down by a certain percentage I do not recall right now). That shows that teens did not get pregnant at the same rate as they did before.

It is high time the government stops this failed system. And it fails black people disproprtionately.

I do not blame "liberalism" for the problems we face as much as many of my stances may suggest. When those beliefs have a free pass to may efforts (which is

I find it difficult to draw any correlation betwee reduction in welfare and reduction in teenage birthrates. It assumes teenagers decide weather to have or abort a child based on their ability to get more welfare. The presumption is racist and quite frankly silly. It assumes children to black families are nothing more than a means to get a welfare check. As if you could adequatly raise a child on the welfare system. I think the reduction (assuming there was one) could be more adequatly attributed to a well funded awarness and education program.

This is the problem I have with most conservatives when it comes to self determination. Most want to force self-determination down the throats of poor black people by removing societies safety net. They want to remove the complicity the American economic and corporate system has in the creation of the so-called welfare state.

I agree the welfare system is flawed. We should focus more on education of the poor. We should not just give them fish we should teach them to fish. But if we don't give them fish or teach them how to fish you will have starving people who will eventually erupt.

 

[Fuckallyall]

I find it difficult to draw any correlation betwee reduction in welfare and reduction in teenage birthrates.

The facts are the facts, whether you believe them or not. I was quite shocked at that statistic, considering the fact that no one gets rich off of welfare. Unless your a fraud.

It assumes teenagers decide weather to have or abort a child based on their ability to get more welfare. The presumption is racist and quite frankly silly.

Please read what I stated again. I clearly stated that there was no corresponding jump in the abortion rate, and the rise that did occur leveled out quickly.

This is the problem I have with most conservatives when it comes to self determination. Most want to force self-determination down the throats of poor black people by removing societies safety net. They want to remove the complicity the American economic and corporate system has in the creation of the so-called welfare state.

I,as well as many other conservatives, have no interest in forcing anything on anyone. It is some liberals who want to force one person to pay for another and calling that taking of money the "safety net".

Now I have a question for you, or anyone else. If I am voluntarally (sic) offering my money to somebody else, why should I not ask something of that person in return ?

And that whole chunk of nonsence about peolpe "erupting" is nothing but extortion, especially if I had nothing to do with causing thier suffering.

 

[Temujin]

The facts are the facts, whether you believe them or not. I was quite shocked at that statistic, considering the fact that no one gets rich off of welfare. Unless your a fraud.


Please read what I stated again. I clearly stated that there was no corresponding jump in the abortion rate, and the rise that did occur leveled out quickly.


I,as well as many other conservatives, have no interest in forcing anything on anyone. It is some liberals who want to force one person to pay for another and calling that taking of money the "safety net".

Now I have a question for you, or anyone else. If I am voluntarally (sic) offering my money to somebody else, why should I not ask something of that person in return ?

And that whole chunk of nonsence about peolpe "erupting" is nothing but extortion, especially if I had nothing to do with causing thier suffering.

I can't believe you honestly think a decrease in welfare payments to out of work mothers with multiple children somehow influences other mothers to decide not to have a child. Do you really think poor people contemplate there level of welfare reimbursment when they decide to have unprotected sex. Forget disease, lack of education, social and cultural influences in your mind the determining factor in unwanted pregnancies is the level of welfare payments. WOW.

If you do not believe people in a society have a responsibility to help those that have trouble succeeding in this system we are all a part of I don't see how we can be considered a society at all. If you do not believe we owe the less fortunate a safety net then you probably don't agree with helping disaster victims, helping the disabled or shit any public road that you don't personally use. Our society is full of safety nets for everyone. Your tax dollars bail out billion dollar corporations however conservatives are more interested in the small fraction of their tax dollars that go to the poor. If you want to remove safety nets remove everyones eliminate bankruptcy laws stop government education subsidies, fuck foreign aid whatever it takes so consevatives can keep more of their money.

Poor people erupting is a fact. Every society that has neglected yet exploited their poor has faced an uprising since the begining of time. You cannot escape it. This is why if you look historically its hard to believe the conservative argument that welfare enables poverty. Societies with no welfare programs do not have less poverty. Poverty is not caused by welfare and welfare does not eliminate poverty. It is ridiculous to blame societal ills on welfare. These problems existed before welfare they will exist after welfare and they exist in the abscence of welfare. Poverty is a product of a competitive capitalist society period.

 

[Fuckallyall]

Whew, you are WAY out there. Let's see how.

1. First of all, I never stated anything about a decrease of payment, but a lack of an increase. Second, what you do and do not believe is irrelevant in the face of fact.

2. I do find it interesting that you think poor people do not think, and that they are nothing but products of thier society, forgetting (or just ignoring) the fact that over 80 % of all millionaires are first generation millionaires.

3. As for your statement regarding a "societal" responsibilty to the less fortunate, I agree with you 100% that charity (and that is what it is) should be in one's heart. Where I disagree, however, is the belief that I am indebted to the less fortunate somehow, and that it is up to folks like you to take my money from me and distribute it how you and your ilk sees fit. What makes you think that you are any better at it than me? By agreeing with current policy, you are saying that I am good enought to earn it, but not spend it, and those who did not earn it were goos enough to spend it. That shit is ludicrous, and tyrannical.

Also, in your rant, I don't think you realize that much of what you said is in the process. The U.N. commissioned a report pretty much stating that it's current foreign aid policy is a failure, the credit card companies successfully lobbied for a sweeping change in bankruptcy laws, and NCLB leaves correction of public schools up to the states. I do not agree with some of those policies, and I have stated my opinions in posts on this board that you ahave participated in. Please refamiliarize yourself with them, or ask me my opinion on them again.

3. If you take a closer look at history, the poor reupted not just because they were poor, IT WAS BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT WAS KEEPING THEM POOR THROUGH GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN THIER LIVES. That is what is supposed to be different in this country. And the more government stopped meddiling in peoples lives, the better off they became.

4. You are right, welfare did not create poverty. And welfare does not eliminate poverty. So why have it the way that it is ?

Poverty is a product of a competitive capitalist society period.

Then why has it existed before capitalism (even though we are not in a capitalist model), and has been worse in all other forms of government than the one the US has, post segregation ? And also, why do free markets do so much better that socialist ones ? Socialism is a nice idea, but a very childish one. We may be born equal, but we do not stay that way. Different people have different abilities.

Now, onto my statement, as opposed to replying to yours. I do not blame welfare for societal ills, nor do I think that personal welfare programs are our biggest problem. I do heavily disagree with corporate welfare, and other pork projects. I do not want to control others, but i do want to control myself, and my property. My money is my property, period. I think it is genius to provide for the common defence, and GENERAL welfare (not individual), such as roads, streets, sewers and the like. But do not expect me to fund your life. If I wish to be charitable, I will be. Stop telling me you can live my life better than I can, which is exactly what you are saying when you pass laws that intefere with me doiing my thing.

And before you start, I also belive that my rights end at other peoples bodies and property, the same way thiers ends at mine.

 

[QueEx]

<font size="3">

69 percent of black children are born out of wedlock. Over 50 percent of black families are headed by a single parent, the overwhelming majority of whom are women. The marriage rate in the black community is 35 percent. The figures are so ingrained in our consciousness that the collapse of the black family has become standard cocktail party conversation.

Marriage is the most effective anti-poverty program ever created! If a child finishes high school, marries before having children and marries after the age of 20, there is only an eight percent chance of ending up impoverished. Study after study shows that children raised in homes without fathers are more prone to sexual and physical abuse and are more likely to experiment with drugs and sex at an early age. Married women also suffer fewer instances of physical and sexual abuse. Studies also show that married men have lower rates of almost every social ill on which statistics are kept: criminal behavior, crime victimization, unemployment, drug addiction and suicide. </font size>

This from the 2005 article above sounds eerily similar to the current debate.

QueEx

 

[Greed]

Can Marriage Cure Poverty?

Can Marriage Cure Poverty?
By ANNIE LOWREY
FEB. 4, 2014

Imagine a late-night television commercial aimed at Washington’s wonks: Tired of your same old tax credits and grant proposals? Ever dreamed of a policy tool that improved children’s health, bolstered income and eradicated poverty — all without costing the government a penny? Then, a smash cut to a wedding scene.

With Democrats and Republicans pitted against one another in a vicious election-year battle over how to alleviate poverty, marriage is the policy solution du jour. Take a speech given by Senator Marco Rubio last month on the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty, Lyndon B. Johnson’s governmental campaign to boost the opportunity and incomes of the poor. When it started, “93 percent of children born in the United States were born to married parents. By 2010 that number had plummeted to 60 percent,” Rubio said, calling marriage “the greatest tool to lift children and families from poverty.”

Rubio did not just pull the notion out of thin air — or, for that matter, Corinthians. Economists have done studies showing that if you snapped your fingers and suddenly all the country’s poor, unmarried partners were hitched — including gay and lesbian couples legally precluded from marrying in most states — the poverty rate would drop. With social trends pushing partners apart, why shouldn’t the government push them together — and help end poverty and improve the lot of children while we’re at it? It’s a rare policy solution that data-crunching geeks and Bible-thumping crusaders can agree on — albeit for very different reasons. Unfortunately, there might not be much that Washington can actually do about it.

Nobody doubts that where marriage is, poverty tends not to be; the statistics are stark. Almost no marriages in which both partners work full time fall below the poverty line; about one-third of households headed by a single mother are poor. One in eight children with two married parents lives below the poverty line; five in 10 living with a single mother do. And income aside, children raised by two parents are less likely to have behavioral problems, be asthmatic or hungry; they are more likely to achieve at school and so on. The effects are perhaps even larger than researchers had previously grasped. In a new study, the economist Raj Chetty and his co-authors found that, in terms of income mobility, nothing matters more for a low-income child than the family structures she sees in her community — not neighborhood segregation, school quality or a host of other factors.

Giving all this evidence some urgency is the fact that so many children are born out of wedlock today, and so many couples decide to divorce or not to marry at all. As Rubio pointed out, by now, about four in 10 children are born to an unmarried mother. For poor children, that proportion is higher.

It’s not as if Washington just became aware of this correlation either. Back in the ’90s, Bill Clinton’s welfare overhaul allowed states to spend federal funds on marriage promotion. The George W. Bush administration continued this strategy, seeding state-level programs that persuaded couples to marry or helped them stay married. Some of the government’s programs seem to have had an effect on the low-income folks they targeted: Couples who participated in an Oklahoma initiative called Family Expectations were about 20 percent more likely to stay together for three years than couples in a control group, for instance. But over all, Uncle Sam tends to make a poor Cupid. The preponderance of evidence is that Washington instead has, over the years, wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on relationship counseling — laugh with your partner! Talk it out! — to no real effect on marriage rates or child poverty or anything else.

While culture warriors might focus too naïvely on matters of the heart, wonks have their own strategies for promoting marriage, and they’re all left-brain. For example, some low-income married women who go back to work after having children face steep, steep tax rates. Imagine a working husband making $25,000 a year whose wife decides to take a job for $25,000 a year. Melissa S. Kearney, the director of the Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution, and a co-author have estimated that the couple would keep only about 30 percent of the wife’s earnings, after you factor in the loss of breaks like the earned-income tax credit. Statistics like that, along with the sky-high cost of child care, help explain why so many women choose not to work — or not to marry. By removing these disincentives, the rather dispassionate logic goes, more Americans would take the plunge.

But even if Washington got rid of all its dumb and ineffective policies to promote marriage and implemented a number of smart ones to do so, it might all be for naught. Some researchers think that marriage — or a lack thereof — is not the real problem facing poor parents; being poor is. “It isn’t that having a lasting and successful marriage is a cure for living in poverty,” says Kristi Williams of Ohio State University. “Living in poverty is a barrier to having a lasting and successful marriage.”

To understand why, it is worth looking at the economic fortunes of the poor in isolation — marriage rates and childbearing out of wedlock aside. Globalization, the decline of labor unions, technological change and other tidal economic forces have battered the poor, with years of economic growth failing to lift their prospects. These forces have inevitably affected young people’s choices, researchers think.

In an economy that offers so little promise to those at the bottom, family planning in the name of upward mobility doesn’t make much sense. “Engaging in family formation by accident rather than by design, you get a story of low-opportunity costs,” says Kathryn Edin, the poverty researcher at Johns Hopkins. “We’ve created the situation where pregnancy is not the worst thing that can happen to you. It can be seen as a path to redemption in an otherwise violent, unpredictable, hopeless world.”

Similar forces might also spur some young couples not to get married, even if they want to. Many poor women opt not to marry the poor men in their lives, for instance, to avoid bringing more economic chaos into their homes. And the poor women who do marry tend to have unstable marriages — often to ill effect. One study, for instance, found that single mothers who married and later divorced were worse off economically than those who did not marry at all. “These women revere marriage, they want to get married,” Williams says. “They aren’t making an irrational choice not to marry.”

The success or failure of any given marriage depends on so many minute, hardly tangible factors. But from an economist’s perspective, our collective allergy to matrimony might be a macroeconomic issue: In order to save marriage, we’d have to end poverty. Creating good jobs with growing wages at the bottom of the income scale might be the best, if hardest, way to encourage young couples to wed. “Marriage is an emotional institution, a child-rearing institution and an economic institution,” says W. Bradford Wilcox, the director of the National Marriage Project. “Unless we improve the fortunes of poor working people, particularly poor working men, we aren’t going to see marriage coming back.” And then we wouldn’t need policy wonks and politicians peddling marriage as a salve for poverty. How romantic!

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/magazine/can-marriage-cure-poverty.html?ref=us&_r=1&referrer=