Anonymous wrote:This legislation is bizarre on many levels.

While I can see promoting families, this is stupid.

History shows that there are many good marriages (both hetero AND non-hetero) so there's a discriminatory aspect right there. But there are also many marriages which are toxic, where abused spouses find it hard to escape... why make it even harder?

This is the usual flimsy naive crap that Republicans peddle without actually understanding what it is that they are selling.

Anonymous wrote:FTR, I’m a lifelong Dem.

My FT job has related to antipoverty work for decades.

The most common poverty indicator is a single parent. It transcends race and other demographics.

There are decades of studies backing this up.

And ICYMI: the Feds have thrown money at this problem for a long time. But investing in ngo-led efforts to promote marriage and coupled-parenting only goes so far.

The research seems to indicate subcultural norms that frustrate marriage.

If you are interested in learning more, google the research or visit one of the many reputable think tanks with decades of research and recommendations (they exist on both sides of the aisle).

Anyway, incentives like money have worked in a number of efforts to change behavior. I’d keep an open mind. A federal tax credit that incentivizes marriage for parents rather than a marriage penalty could work if properly communicated to those at the lowest end of the spectrum. But ultimately it takes a lot more to change subcultural norms.

I think everyone realizes that two incomes are better than one, right? And delaying parenthood until you have a healthy relationship and sufficient wages and housing makes life better for your family, right? It also decreases poverty rates, instability, stressors, community resources such as police/courts/public assistance, etc.

BIPOC single-parenting rates dramatically outpace those of whites. Perhaps the biggest end result is more stability and money in the two-parent white households which has prompted better outcomes for whites for generations. Bipoc families with two-parent HHs have similar outcomes. In short: there’s legit data backing up the (very obvious) reality that HHs with two parents are better than those with just one.

Note: data would support gay married parents as well. No need to draw that distinction.

Anonymous wrote:FTR, I’m a lifelong Dem.

My FT job has related to antipoverty work for decades.

The most common poverty indicator is a single parent. It transcends race and other demographics.

There are decades of studies backing this up.

And ICYMI: the Feds have thrown money at this problem for a long time. But investing in ngo-led efforts to promote marriage and coupled-parenting only goes so far.

The research seems to indicate subcultural norms that frustrate marriage.

If you are interested in learning more, google the research or visit one of the many reputable think tanks with decades of research and recommendations (they exist on both sides of the aisle).

Anyway, incentives like money have worked in a number of efforts to change behavior. I’d keep an open mind. A federal tax credit that incentivizes marriage for parents rather than a marriage penalty could work if properly communicated to those at the lowest end of the spectrum. But ultimately it takes a lot more to change subcultural norms.

I think everyone realizes that two incomes are better than one, right? And delaying parenthood until you have a healthy relationship and sufficient wages and housing makes life better for your family, right? It also decreases poverty rates, instability, stressors, community resources such as police/courts/public assistance, etc.

BIPOC single-parenting rates dramatically outpace those of whites. Perhaps the biggest end result is more stability and money in the two-parent white households which has prompted better outcomes for whites for generations. Bipoc families with two-parent HHs have similar outcomes. In short: there’s legit data backing up the (very obvious) reality that HHs with two parents are better than those with just one.

Note: data would support gay married parents as well. No need to draw that distinction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based

Please elaborate.

Its based AND redpilled.

Anonymous wrote:FTR, I’m a lifelong Dem.

My FT job has related to antipoverty work for decades.

The most common poverty indicator is a single parent. It transcends race and other demographics.

There are decades of studies backing this up.

And ICYMI: the Feds have thrown money at this problem for a long time. But investing in ngo-led efforts to promote marriage and coupled-parenting only goes so far.

The research seems to indicate subcultural norms that frustrate marriage.

If you are interested in learning more, google the research or visit one of the many reputable think tanks with decades of research and recommendations (they exist on both sides of the aisle).

Anyway, incentives like money have worked in a number of efforts to change behavior. I’d keep an open mind. A federal tax credit that incentivizes marriage for parents rather than a marriage penalty could work if properly communicated to those at the lowest end of the spectrum. But ultimately it takes a lot more to change subcultural norms.

I think everyone realizes that two incomes are better than one, right? And delaying parenthood until you have a healthy relationship and sufficient wages and housing makes life better for your family, right? It also decreases poverty rates, instability, stressors, community resources such as police/courts/public assistance, etc.

BIPOC single-parenting rates dramatically outpace those of whites. Perhaps the biggest end result is more stability and money in the two-parent white households which has prompted better outcomes for whites for generations. Bipoc families with two-parent HHs have similar outcomes. In short: there’s legit data backing up the (very obvious) reality that HHs with two parents are better than those with just one.

Note: data would support gay married parents as well. No need to draw that distinction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ha ha, most republicans I know have been divorced.

LOL

Family values!

Regardless: society benefits when kids are raised in dual-income homes.

Divorcing once kids are launched doesn’t impact the gains made during the formative years.

A robust incentive for married parents of kids up to age 21 or even 25 would be interesting to track—particularly in low to moderate income families.

Circling back to underscore the conundrum in the antipoverty arena:

How can you incentivize behavior related to parenthood/marriage without promoting increased childbearing?

You don’t want a per kid credit or incentive because the end result could be more babies.

A flat rate for married couples of minor children would be the best way to go.

Anonymous wrote:FTR, I’m a lifelong Dem.

My FT job has related to antipoverty work for decades.

The most common poverty indicator is a single parent. It transcends race and other demographics.

There are decades of studies backing this up.

And ICYMI: the Feds have thrown money at this problem for a long time. But investing in ngo-led efforts to promote marriage and coupled-parenting only goes so far.

The research seems to indicate subcultural norms that frustrate marriage.

If you are interested in learning more, google the research or visit one of the many reputable think tanks with decades of research and recommendations (they exist on both sides of the aisle).

Anyway, incentives like money have worked in a number of efforts to change behavior. I’d keep an open mind. A federal tax credit that incentivizes marriage for parents rather than a marriage penalty could work if properly communicated to those at the lowest end of the spectrum. But ultimately it takes a lot more to change subcultural norms.

I think everyone realizes that two incomes are better than one, right? And delaying parenthood until you have a healthy relationship and sufficient wages and housing makes life better for your family, right? It also decreases poverty rates, instability, stressors, community resources such as police/courts/public assistance, etc.

BIPOC single-parenting rates dramatically outpace those of whites. Perhaps the biggest end result is more stability and money in the two-parent white households which has prompted better outcomes for whites for generations. Bipoc families with two-parent HHs have similar outcomes. In short: there’s legit data backing up the (very obvious) reality that HHs with two parents are better than those with just one.

Note: data would support gay married parents as well. No need to draw that distinction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ha ha, most republicans I know have been divorced.

LOL

Family values!

Regardless: society benefits when kids are raised in dual-income homes.

Divorcing once kids are launched doesn’t impact the gains made during the formative years.

A robust incentive for married parents of kids up to age 21 or even 25 would be interesting to track—particularly in low to moderate income families.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ha ha, most republicans I know have been divorced.

LOL

Family values!

Anonymous wrote:Ha ha, most republicans I know have been divorced.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FTR, I’m a lifelong Dem.

My FT job has related to antipoverty work for decades.

The most common poverty indicator is a single parent. It transcends race and other demographics.

There are decades of studies backing this up.

And ICYMI: the Feds have thrown money at this problem for a long time. But investing in ngo-led efforts to promote marriage and coupled-parenting only goes so far.

The research seems to indicate subcultural norms that frustrate marriage.

If you are interested in learning more, google the research or visit one of the many reputable think tanks with decades of research and recommendations (they exist on both sides of the aisle).

Anyway, incentives like money have worked in a number of efforts to change behavior. I’d keep an open mind. A federal tax credit that incentivizes marriage for parents rather than a marriage penalty could work if properly communicated to those at the lowest end of the spectrum. But ultimately it takes a lot more to change subcultural norms.

I think everyone realizes that two incomes are better than one, right? And delaying parenthood until you have a healthy relationship and sufficient wages and housing makes life better for your family, right? It also decreases poverty rates, instability, stressors, community resources such as police/courts/public assistance, etc.

BIPOC single-parenting rates dramatically outpace those of whites. Perhaps the biggest end result is more stability and money in the two-parent white households which has prompted better outcomes for whites for generations. Bipoc families with two-parent HHs have similar outcomes. In short: there’s legit data backing up the (very obvious) reality that HHs with two parents are better than those with just one.

Note: data would support gay married parents as well. No need to draw that distinction.

History also reminds is that black families were destroyed and torn apart for generations because of white-created slavery, segregation, lynching, and racism. Generational trauma is a thing. So how does society repair what it ripped apart?

Anonymous wrote:FTR, I’m a lifelong Dem.

My FT job has related to antipoverty work for decades.

The most common poverty indicator is a single parent. It transcends race and other demographics.

There are decades of studies backing this up.

And ICYMI: the Feds have thrown money at this problem for a long time. But investing in ngo-led efforts to promote marriage and coupled-parenting only goes so far.

The research seems to indicate subcultural norms that frustrate marriage.

If you are interested in learning more, google the research or visit one of the many reputable think tanks with decades of research and recommendations (they exist on both sides of the aisle).

Anyway, incentives like money have worked in a number of efforts to change behavior. I’d keep an open mind. A federal tax credit that incentivizes marriage for parents rather than a marriage penalty could work if properly communicated to those at the lowest end of the spectrum. But ultimately it takes a lot more to change subcultural norms.

I think everyone realizes that two incomes are better than one, right? And delaying parenthood until you have a healthy relationship and sufficient wages and housing makes life better for your family, right? It also decreases poverty rates, instability, stressors, community resources such as police/courts/public assistance, etc.

BIPOC single-parenting rates dramatically outpace those of whites. Perhaps the biggest end result is more stability and money in the two-parent white households which has prompted better outcomes for whites for generations. Bipoc families with two-parent HHs have similar outcomes. In short: there’s legit data backing up the (very obvious) reality that HHs with two parents are better than those with just one.

Note: data would support gay married parents as well. No need to draw that distinction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if Biden wanted to send a $10,000 check to every LGBT American. Republicans would be so mad but they think it's okay to openly discriminate against people that are queer, people that are single parents, and people that have had a divorce. They're trying to create The Handmaid's Tale one law at a time.

Well yes of course. You incentivize things you like and punish things you don't like. That's governing 101.

Republicans should promote intact heterosexual families because they are the foundation of the nation. Democrats support anything that undermines a healthy society, so they subsidize LGTBQP+ people, single parents, divorcees, criminals, etc...