If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Ever wonder what divorce and illegitimacy cost us taxpayers? Try over $112 billion.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/06/29/...-the-taxpayer/
David R. Usher $112-billion: What Divorce and Illegitimacy Costs the Taxpayer June 29, 2008 The Institute for American Values (IAV) has issued a major report titled "The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing", conservatively estimating the cost to taxpayers at $112 billion. This is a very conservative estimate because it either understates or does not include federal expenditures driving decisions to not marry or to have children for profit. Programs that stimulate marriage-absence include Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), and programs that are widely abused to abort marriage such as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), and the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA). The IAV understates the cost and impact of TANF, which gives states $16-billion annually in seed money to generate more child support orders under the guise of welfare. IAV values TANF at $5-billion - a significant understatement of the actual cost. Most Americans do not realize that TANF is not a tithe to help a few single mothers living in poverty. It formalizes the "man out of the house rule" and is nothing more than a loan to a woman to be collected from some guy as "child support". Both VAWA and VOCA contain provisions funding arbitrary and irresponsible destruction of marriage in the name of "choice" and "domestic violence". VAWA pegs in at $1-billion. I am not sure what portion of VOCA applies. Other costs to taxpayers are not included. A good portion of the home loan crises is strongly associated with divorce. Many loans were made to unqualified single parents. Divorcing families move into high-risk category because they have to support two households on the same income. Nobody yet knows what the home loan crisis will ultimately cost the taxpayer - but we do know it is a horrendous figure taking down banks, threatening the Federal Reserve system, and the value of the dollar on the world market. It is estimated that three-quarters of our massive national health care insurance problem would go away if mothers simply married the fathers of their children. We do not yet know what Congress will do to pass this off on the taxpayer. Most importantly, readers should understand the political meaning and purpose of the IAV report. Failed welfare reform policies of the 1990's evolved in an identical arena of concern about taxpayer burdens and blaming father-absence on men created by Blankenhorn. This report is a predecessor to some even nastier legislation they have in mind. David Blankenhorn's primary thesis still improperly blames father-absence on men "abdicating" their roles as fathers and husbands, while claiming that "father-absence is the greatest social problem we face". There is no study in existence supporting these notions. The vast body of studies prove the "Blankenhorn paradox" to be absolutely wrong. Nevertheless, the Blankenhorn paradox was the basis for welfare reform policies in the 1990's - which are failures because they propelled illegitimacy and non-marriage to new historic levels and made poverty a crime if one happens to be a poor father. How did Blankenhorn pull this off? Liberals love collecting child support and building bigger welfare states. Conservatives were absolutely addicted to Blankenorn's voluminous and brilliant writings on the "importance of marriage". Conservatives subsequently bought Blankenhorn's father-absence abdication theory without questioning the premises. Conservatives literally fell head-first into radical liberal policy in the name of "personal responsibility". If Blankenhorn's thesis is wrong, then what is right? Marriage-absence is the greatest social problem we face. Father-absence, poverty, and illegitimacy are the results of government programs that have aggressively undermined the marriage market since 1960. When we view our national problems from the correct heirarchical perspective, the disastrous impact on women, children, men, and marriage is quite simple to discern. The Heritage Foundation and Family Research Council are beginning to understand what went wrong, but there are still many stumbling blocks to be cleared. With time and conference calls, we will clear them and begin the second Republican revolution - this time founded on solid social policy agenda. I recommend we welcome IAV's report. but we should expect that IAV's policy recommendations will be wrong every time because it consistently analyzes the wrong problem from the wrong perspective. The use of misdirected anger about father-absence as a an emotional cover to push federal policies funding more divorce and illegitimacy, at the direct expense of marriage, must never be permitted again. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Ever wonder what divorce and illegitimacy cost us taxpayers? Try over $112 billion.
I just don't care anymore!
"Dusty" wrote in message ... http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/06/29/...-the-taxpayer/ David R. Usher $112-billion: What Divorce and Illegitimacy Costs the Taxpayer June 29, 2008 The Institute for American Values (IAV) has issued a major report titled "The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing", conservatively estimating the cost to taxpayers at $112 billion. This is a very conservative estimate because it either understates or does not include federal expenditures driving decisions to not marry or to have children for profit. Programs that stimulate marriage-absence include Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), and programs that are widely abused to abort marriage such as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), and the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA). The IAV understates the cost and impact of TANF, which gives states $16-billion annually in seed money to generate more child support orders under the guise of welfare. IAV values TANF at $5-billion - a significant understatement of the actual cost. Most Americans do not realize that TANF is not a tithe to help a few single mothers living in poverty. It formalizes the "man out of the house rule" and is nothing more than a loan to a woman to be collected from some guy as "child support". Both VAWA and VOCA contain provisions funding arbitrary and irresponsible destruction of marriage in the name of "choice" and "domestic violence". VAWA pegs in at $1-billion. I am not sure what portion of VOCA applies. Other costs to taxpayers are not included. A good portion of the home loan crises is strongly associated with divorce. Many loans were made to unqualified single parents. Divorcing families move into high-risk category because they have to support two households on the same income. Nobody yet knows what the home loan crisis will ultimately cost the taxpayer - but we do know it is a horrendous figure taking down banks, threatening the Federal Reserve system, and the value of the dollar on the world market. It is estimated that three-quarters of our massive national health care insurance problem would go away if mothers simply married the fathers of their children. We do not yet know what Congress will do to pass this off on the taxpayer. Most importantly, readers should understand the political meaning and purpose of the IAV report. Failed welfare reform policies of the 1990's evolved in an identical arena of concern about taxpayer burdens and blaming father-absence on men created by Blankenhorn. This report is a predecessor to some even nastier legislation they have in mind. David Blankenhorn's primary thesis still improperly blames father-absence on men "abdicating" their roles as fathers and husbands, while claiming that "father-absence is the greatest social problem we face". There is no study in existence supporting these notions. The vast body of studies prove the "Blankenhorn paradox" to be absolutely wrong. Nevertheless, the Blankenhorn paradox was the basis for welfare reform policies in the 1990's - which are failures because they propelled illegitimacy and non-marriage to new historic levels and made poverty a crime if one happens to be a poor father. How did Blankenhorn pull this off? Liberals love collecting child support and building bigger welfare states. Conservatives were absolutely addicted to Blankenorn's voluminous and brilliant writings on the "importance of marriage". Conservatives subsequently bought Blankenhorn's father-absence abdication theory without questioning the premises. Conservatives literally fell head-first into radical liberal policy in the name of "personal responsibility". If Blankenhorn's thesis is wrong, then what is right? Marriage-absence is the greatest social problem we face. Father-absence, poverty, and illegitimacy are the results of government programs that have aggressively undermined the marriage market since 1960. When we view our national problems from the correct heirarchical perspective, the disastrous impact on women, children, men, and marriage is quite simple to discern. The Heritage Foundation and Family Research Council are beginning to understand what went wrong, but there are still many stumbling blocks to be cleared. With time and conference calls, we will clear them and begin the second Republican revolution - this time founded on solid social policy agenda. I recommend we welcome IAV's report. but we should expect that IAV's policy recommendations will be wrong every time because it consistently analyzes the wrong problem from the wrong perspective. The use of misdirected anger about father-absence as a an emotional cover to push federal policies funding more divorce and illegitimacy, at the direct expense of marriage, must never be permitted again. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ever wonder what divorce and illegitimacy cost us taxpayers? Try over $112 billion.
"DB" wrote in message
... I just don't care anymore! Well I damned well do!! It's my bloody money they're screwin' around with!! (psst.. and yours too) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Ever wonder what divorce and illegitimacy cost us taxpayers? Try over $112 billion.
"Dusty" wrote in message ... "DB" wrote in message ... I just don't care anymore! Well I damned well do!! It's my bloody money they're screwin' around with!! (psst.. and yours too) Yea I know, I just watch them take more taxes, bank fees, extortionate CS rates, higher gas prices, and now tolls for using the same highways we have already paid for. Every control and interest group has their hands in my pockets along with charities wanting more too. IN this country you can't even take a **** without is being taxed and regulated. I'm at the point now where they can just take it all! All I ask is leave me a couple food tickets so I can get some macaroni and cheese and leave me the **** alone!!!!!! America, home of the Fee, land of the Lawyer. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
From the SCIENTIST: How Much Should Gardasil Cost? Merck's Net Income for 2006 ~ $4.5 BILLION Dollars | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 0 | April 27th 08 05:55 PM |
From the SCIENTIST: How Much Should Gardasil Cost? Merck's Net Income for 2006 ~ $4.5 BILLION Dollars | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 0 | March 30th 08 04:54 PM |
From the SCIENTIST: How Much Should Gardasil Cost? Merck's Net Income for 2006 ~ $4.5 BILLION Dollars | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 0 | March 25th 08 06:19 PM |
SCIENTIST: How Much Should Gardasil Cost? Merck's Net Income for 2006 ~ $4.5 BILLION Dollars | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 0 | February 16th 08 06:04 PM |
SCIENTIST: How Much Should Gardasil Cost? Merck's Net Income for 2006 ~ $4.5 BILLION Dollars | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 5 | February 12th 08 09:54 PM |