Cause or effect?"Cannot afford to get married?"Is that because they want to spend $$$$$ on a fancy dress and big party, or
because they do not want to cut off welfare benefits for "single
moms."?A wedding can cost almost nothing for a civil ceremony,
and then a husband and wife living together have one household of expenses, not
two. Prudent couples then delay having children until they can afford to raise
them. Thus the marriage rate declining among the poor may be more indicative
that those who make bad choices and don't bother with marriage, or self
discipline tend to be poor than that those who do not marry are doomed to a life
of poverty.Really, folks, We don;t need billion dollar government
programs to fix poverty. Just force every kid to listen to Dr. Laura
Scheslinger and Dave Ramsey for 2 hours a day and warn them that is they make
bad choices that their expenses will be their problem, not to be paid by
taxpayers or necessarily by parents.Anyone can donate to charities
to help others, but don't tax people who work hard and live by the rules.
Our society places an inordinate value on weddings. Young women in particular
look forward to the wedding as their once-in-a-lifetime chance to live the
opulent life of a princess. Turns out that a day of royal treatment requires a
royal fortune. Not only is it impractical for most couples to throw that much
money at a one-time event, it's often downright irresponsible. If marriage
is important, let's work to reshape expectations for weddings. If ever
there was a time for sensibility, this is it.
Wedding for a woman:* focus of attention * does this guy have
money?* hope he doesn't like football.* how can I change
him?* love his muscles* my wedding dress* my diamond ring* is he better then my old boy friend?Marriage can reduce poverty
if both are in love and would give their life up for each other.
No worf, that's a wedding for a little girl. Women are smarter than that.
Of course we didn't get married as soon as we could either.
Worf:Hope he doesn't like football??? What kind of women do you
Education is the key to decreasing poverty. Marriage can be a factor but in and
of itself doesn't reduce poverty.Non-marriage is often a result
of poverty and economic insecurity rather than the other way around.The
quality and stability of marriages matters. Prodding couples into matrimony
without helping them solve problems that make relationships precarious could
leave them worse off.Two-parent families are not immune from the economic
stresses that put children at risk. More than one third of all impoverished
young children in the U.S. today live with two parents.Single parenthood
does not inevitably lead to poverty. In countries with a more adequate social
safety net than the United States, single parent families are much less likely
to live in poverty. Even within the United States, single mothers with high
levels of education fare relatively well.
Truthseeker,Marriage increases the motivation for learning. Like many men, I would never had finished college without the influence
of my good wife.In my opinion, poverty increases as marriages
If you are going to live together with or without kids you don't need the
"big party" just a small get together with a few close friends and
family and a justice of the peace to perform the ceremony. It costs a lot less
and the love is still strong. maybe after 5 years go on that honeymoon.The wedding isn't a party the reception is and it's just something
that lasts about 15 minutes unless your I believe catholic then it could take up
to an hour. You end up with a marriage and that is a lifetime commitment that
needs to be worked on every day.
When entitlement programs started their big push 40-50 years ago, children saw
their parents work around the system and get cars, homes and even household
goods when they didn't even work to get those, except to show up at the
unemployment office. Over those years, the situation didn't work for what
people got. Wal-Mart and other stores have taken advantage of those people
using tax payers through the systems to get their non-durable goods. Those same
stores knew that plenty of food money came through those same hands of the
government to the entitled people and Wal-Mart and other stores then started
providing food goods in their stores in the 1970s and 1980s. Grocery stores in
the 1970s started the non-durable goods movement to take advantage of the same
tax payer system to provide non-food items that was not included in food stamp
issues.Businesses start up to take advantage of the government
system but those are service industries and not production businesses.
Washington is full of those types of businesses and government workers who make
high end salaries. Span and control requires the government to have many
employees not producing economy.
Our welfare and tax system provide tremendous financial reasons for couples NOT
to marry. Some couples don't marry because their disability benefits
would get cut. Even more disturbing: I am aware of several couples
who essentially commit welfare and tax fraud while living together. The man has
a high-paying job. The woman works part-time and has a few children, perhaps
involving a deadbeat dad who's not in the picture. Despite sizable
household income, she collects all kinds of state aid and gets food stamps. The
man claims one of the kids, uses head of household status on his tax return, and
gets a tax break with that filing status. The woman gets earned income tax
credit (fraudulently, because household income is not disclosed). She knows just
how much to make in her job to maximize the credit. All of this
together is worth tens of thousands of dollars a year to each couple. With this
kind of economic incentive and the unlikelihood of getting caught in their
fraud, they have absolutely no reason to marry, since they would lose all of
those benefits.This kind of fraud is common. The system is broken.
The claim about not having enough money to get married is just an excuse.The real problem is that people don't want to commit, because
someone better might be just around the corner. Why claim only one cow when you
might have a shot at the herd?People want all the perks of marriage
(i.e. sex) without all of the effort. That's "poor thinking," in
every sense of the definition.That's also the definition of
immorality, and we've been told for decades it's what will destroy our
I know I am in the minority here, but I think couples should be given a test to
see if they understand the responsibilities of marriage and what resources are
available if their marriage runs into trouble in order to get the license. There
is too much fantasy about what marriage is, especially for young adults and too
many don't know where to turn when problems arise. Education is always a
good thing. It would help them appreciate and value more the marriage status
bequeathed to them by the state and hopefully help them have successful
Unfortunately the tax structure benefits those who live together but do not
marry. I suspect that is at least part of the reason people feel "they
cannot afford to get married." I also find that for many people today
"getting married" means they have decided to have children, which in
today's society is a costly venture. There may be other reasons why
marriage is beneficial, but I'm not sure it is a cure for poverty.
@worf....my observation over the last 60 years says you're spot on about
80% of the time.
When I got married in 1976, I bought a long white dress at a sidewalk sale and
borrowed my sister's veil. My future husband and I paid $150 for the rings
and the food for the reception was paid for by my in-laws since my parents
traveled 2,000 miles to be there. I sang "Far from the Home I Love" to
my sweetheart and were told by many of those who attended that it was the most
moving wedding they had ever attended. We didn't go into debt, but started
off our marriage on firm ground because the true meaning and reason to get
married were valued above all else. Our marriage is stronger now than ever
before because that has been our priority and focus. An expensive party would
have done nothing to improve on that.
Re;LongDXFoodstamp recipients are required to disclose household
income. If you know fraud is occuring you ought to report them, just as you
would with any other crime.
In East St. Louis, Illinois, next to Belleville, where we lived for 9 years,
people got hooked on welfare in the 1960s as Illinois was one of the highest
rates for welfare. People came from everywhere to seige on that city, which was
similar to Provo city at the time. The city went down over the past 40 - 50
years and even though the people came for welfare, they ended up with broken
families, a city that was corrupted in private and public lives. It was not
safe at night and the State took over managing the city and police force. They
city had built a lot of high rise low income housing that was beautiful to start
with but ended up in shambles and closed due to the type of living it made for
people. These families learned that they could make more on welfare if the
father's lived separate from the family. Some families had multiple
fathers and children from these various unions. Drugs entered into full force,
schools suffered, families were distraught, whether married or not. Gambling
then came into town and that brought business but not what is good for families.
Marriage helps society succeed.
Lentzeh,Fantastic! My wife and I were married in 1976, and we had a
$150 open house. Today we're out of debt, and happy.--good for you too.
Truthseeker, that is also true of any needs-based assistance program. Anyone on
them knows that, and is also required to report changes. Also, I noticed no
mention in this article of people who were Medicaid-eligible for disabilities
and on SSI, who would marry if they had access to continuing medical care, but
who may not be eligible on their potential spouse's medical insurance, or
whose insurance would be so costly as to prohibit coverage if they were. This
will, in effect, convince the couple in question to not marry in order to
preserve the medical care for the vulnerable potential spouse. The Medicaid,
were it continued for these people, would answer this problem, as would
continuing a reduced SSI payment if they couple is low-income. There are more
sides here than some have considered, and all should be looked at.
Some of the respondents on the thread seem to confuse poverty with being on
welfare. Many employed and hard working people are nonetheless poor, even
without costly addictions, and others, especially fraudulent claimants, may
actually do quite well on welfare.Having got that out of the way I
find it remarkable that, having destroyed traditional marriage pretty
effectively "institutions of higher learning" seem to be interested in
solving the problem they have greatly helped to create in their irreligious an
promiscuous society.We should be encouraging traditional values that
include marrying before intimacy, not teaching those despised working class
supposed "inferiors" how to get and use contraceptive devices and get
cheap abortions. We ought, on the contrary, to be extolling
marriage and increasing personal exemptions to income tax for married couples.
We ought, in short, to be rewarding virtue instead of punishing it. If we
cannot teach abstinence in our schools or at least warning of the impossibility
of guaranteeing that a succession of casual partners will be free from
STD's, we ought to leave instruction to churches, parents. good nighborly
advice or private philanthropy.
@kargirl - here's the scoop on disabled spouse on medicaid - the "able
bodied" spouse IS NOT counted as a member of the family towards the spouses
medicaid benefit providing that the spouse is unemployed BUT once the spouse
goes to work the spend down goes way up as that person all of a sudden becomes a
member of the family because of its income. I know this as it has happened to
me and my better half. When I worked his spend down has gone up to over $600 a
month and I could only be making $1000 a month. And at the same time I
don't qualify for regular medicaid but my income can be used towards his
spend down. I don't know of anyone on SSI whose check was
reduced because the spouse worked.
Addendum to my previous post:Of course Hollywood set an impossibly
high cost of marriage in that disagreeable movie "Father of the Bride",
although it seems to have been made clear even in that flick that the couple
themselves would have been happy with an elopement.It costs only a
small amount to marry, I think it was about $30 or so last time I checked, in
Salt Lake County I believe. It is unnecessary even to purchase a wedding ring
to be legally wed, and an engagement ring is optional. No ceremony at a church
or elsewhere is mandatory and no formal dress can be legally required especially
an extravagant outfit that will often only be worn once. Expensive weddings do
not make marriages last any longer; arguably they set marriags up for failure in
some cases by starting off in debt.As has been mentioned wedding
(verb) can actually save couples money and, if based on a well matched and
mutually caring couple, a legal wedded relationship may create emotional
stability. Having said that I'm afraid earlier generations were led to
expect Ward and June Cleaver and were served up Mr and Mrs Roseanne Barr.
As I've read this article and the one about poverty being passed down from
1 generation to offspring, I sit here flabbergasted. Times when I've needed
the system, it was there to help me for my children. I dont see the sense of
blame or finger pointing for being poor. As far as marriage, it's $75 for a
marriage license and dresses can be found at the D.I. or Salvation Army for less
than $100. As far as punishing single parents by giving them less because they
are single-FOR SHAME for thinking that way. I did not ask to be single, as
I'm sure many other did not due to serious circumstances. I'd love to
find a loving, hard-working, good. kind, responsible man to be a part of me and
my children. There are no easy answers for the problems in our culture/society
but the solution is in unity, the giving, and the knowing what to give and when,
graciously receiving, working hard at raising the children and/or providing for
them, to reach a position to then give in return. (my heart n' hands are in
the right place.)
Why the sudden fixation about poverty at Deseret News?
I think that question is backward. Can poverty ruin a marriage. I think that
is a lot easier to answer.
Someday we will look back on this and be ashamed of how we allowed society to
become so self absorbed that women would place a fancy wedding above the futures
of their children.
People living in poverty do not marry because marriage would reduce their access
to government programs and entittlements. A single woman with a number of
children gets far more entittlments then a married couple. Our own government
encourages unwed parenting and living together.
They are asking the wrong question. The real question is why are the poor
choosing not to get married, or get separated or lie about not knowing the name
of father of their children?The reason is money, and lots of it.
Utah has the most generous welfare and richest poor people of the nation. Those
in poverty and on welfare are the richest residents in the state of Utah.A married woman with children can't get welfare or health care for
their children, but a single mother with fatherless children and resident boy
friend (father) can make a killing off of welfare, $50,000+/yr on fraudulent
claims in addition to their working income and multi billion dollar Romney/Obama
health care scam Utah spearheads. Being poor in Utah is a billion dollar high
income job funded by the tax payers.Getting married cancels all this
wealth the poor have in state benefits. And its a closely guarded poor class
collaboration scam involving news media, state government, education, business
benefits (subsidized labor), illegal foreign nationals, and Mexico's cheap
labor suppliers. Remember the 1300 illegals committing fraud and ID theft
exposed and covered up by all government agents?
Oh please. These couples who can't "afford" to get married are
having sex out of wedlock, right? Cry me a river! If they think they can afford
to fornicate, instead of getting married, they'd better think again. This
reminds me of a Catholic coworker who insisted that he and his "fiance"
were going to marry, but that they wanted a big wedding, so they were waiting
until they could "afford" it. I figured he didn't want to marry the
girl, just sleep with her, and that at some point he would break of his
so-called "engagement" and move on to the next idiotic girl who would be
stupid enough to fornicate. I was right. He eventually dumped the girl and moved
on. By the way, he makes a good living and there was no reason for him to
refrain from marriage other than he prefers fornication.
A Catholic coworker who was determined to fornicate under the excuse that he was
saving enough money for a wedding also used that old trite expression
"it's just a piece of paper." I tried to talk to him about the
holiness of matrimony, seeing as he is Catholic, but he just brushed me off
with, "I know that." Yeah. He knows what God expects and he went against
God anyway. There's one person I will not be surprised at all to see in
hell. Eyebrows raised at the stark reality? How could I mention hell? Well,
everyone knows that the Lord will not be mocked. And He won't.