Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In China, children of single mothers do not have access to various benefits.

As a result, single motherhood in China is virtually nonexistent!

Fool.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_China#:~:text=Abortion%20in%20China%20is%20generally,and%20make%20it%20easily%20accessible.

"Abortion in China is generally legal and accessible nationwide.[1][2][3][4] Abortions are available to most women through China's family planning programme, public hospitals, private hospitals, and clinics nationwide.[4] China was one of the first developing countries to legalize abortion and make it easily accessible.[4]

It's even paid for by the state!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In China, children of single mothers do not have access to various benefits.

As a result, single motherhood in China is virtually nonexistent!

Fool.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_China#:~:text=Abortion%20in%20China%20is%20generally,and%20make%20it%20easily%20accessible.

"Abortion in China is generally legal and accessible nationwide.[1][2][3][4] Abortions are available to most women through China's family planning programme, public hospitals, private hospitals, and clinics nationwide.[4] China was one of the first developing countries to legalize abortion and make it easily accessible.[4]

It's even paid for by the state!

Anonymous wrote:In China, children of single mothers do not have access to various benefits.

As a result, single motherhood in China is virtually nonexistent!

Anonymous wrote:In China, children of single mothers do not have access to various benefits.

As a result, single motherhood in China is virtually nonexistent!

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Maybe some women prefer to be single parents?

PP, this legislation is not about promoting two-parent, stable households (which I agree tends to provide children with better chances at success in life). There are limitations on who can qualify for the tax benefit. "In order to qualify for the tax benefit, couples need to be: heterosexual, never divorced, and their children born or adopted after their date of marriage."

So who doesn't qualify?
*LGBTQ couples
*single parents
*divorced parents
*unmarried couples with children born or adopted outside of marriage

How can everyone not see this as anti-LGBTQ, anti "living in sin," anti-divorce, anti blended families, and anti "out of wedlock" children. Basically, all things that religion preaches against.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course, none of you hysterics will acknowledge that it is only ONE person who proposed this bill - and it isn’t even law. But don’t let facts get in your way!

Shhhhhhh

Don’t interrupt the nutpicking

Exactly, there are stupid bills getting proposed all the time in many states by both Repubs and Dems. They never see the light of day for a reason. But certainly they serve their entertainment purpose and getting people taking and fluffing up their feathers. Then they disappear into oblivion and everyone forgets it.

+1
What would liberals do all day without being outraged by... everything? I firmly believe they enjoy the drama and outrage and would be lost without it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course, none of you hysterics will acknowledge that it is only ONE person who proposed this bill - and it isn’t even law. But don’t let facts get in your way!

I believe your ilk used to say the same thing about abortion. So… no one listens to you anymore when you in your deep misogyny try to tell us we’re crazy.

“My ilk”? You mean people who actually want all the facts first before spiraling into an endless cycle of outrage - like YOUR ilk? Oh.

Yes, your ilk. The fact is that this has been proposed as a bill. An American lawmaker introduced this. Maybe in whatever second rate country you sprang from this kind of bill is okay, but it isn’t here.

Go spiral into a finite cycle of outrage about Teletubbies or Dr Seuss or a tan suit. You’re a troll.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course, none of you hysterics will acknowledge that it is only ONE person who proposed this bill - and it isn’t even law. But don’t let facts get in your way!

I believe your ilk used to say the same thing about abortion. So… no one listens to you anymore when you in your deep misogyny try to tell us we’re crazy.

“My ilk”? You mean people who actually want all the facts first before spiraling into an endless cycle of outrage - like YOUR ilk? Oh.

Yes, your ilk. The fact is that this has been proposed as a bill. An American lawmaker introduced this. Maybe in whatever second rate country you sprang from this kind of bill is okay, but it isn’t here.

Go spiral into a finite cycle of outrage about Teletubbies or Dr Seuss or a tan suit. You’re a troll.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course, none of you hysterics will acknowledge that it is only ONE person who proposed this bill - and it isn’t even law. But don’t let facts get in your way!

Shhhhhhh

Don’t interrupt the nutpicking

Exactly, there are stupid bills getting proposed all the time in many states by both Repubs and Dems. They never see the light of day for a reason. But certainly they serve their entertainment purpose and getting people taking and fluffing up their feathers. Then they disappear into oblivion and everyone forgets it.

Anonymous wrote:This is going to be great for the highly educated, elite liberals in Austin and Houston, who tend to marry later and stay married for life. Probably not so much for Cletus in Hill Country who beat his missus one too many times and who left him when money got tight, not like he ever had much to save in taxes anyway.