Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Social Mobility

Do you want a 98% chance of not being poor? Do these three things:

$ Complete high school
$ Get a full-time job
$ Wait until you're married to have children

America's sterling record of social mobility had taken some dings over the past few decades. It hard to measure precisely, and country to country comparisons are not easy due to differences in measurements and methodologies from nation to nation.

Isabel Sawhill and Ron Haskins have done some excellent research on poverty in America on behalf of Brookings Institution.  Their work is the most often cited when climbing the ladder is discussed:
Recent research shows that in the Nordic countries and in the United Kingdom, children born into a lower-income family have a greater chance than those in the United States of forming a substantially higher-income family by the time they're adults. (Five Myths)
Some would try to convince us that “the system” in the United states stacks the deck against the poor, but there is absolutely no evidence of that. Immigrants who literally come here with nothing, for example, fare quite well…
The United States is exceptional, however, in the opportunity it offers to immigrants, who tend to do comparatively well here. Their wages are much higher than what they might have earned in their home countries. And even if their pay is initially low by American standards, their children advance quite rapidly. (Five Myths)
Social ills are to blame. We have more single parenthood, divorce and societal dysfunction than do the countries researchers compare us against:
A more important reason for our lack of progress against poverty and our growing inequality is a dramatic change in American family life.
Almost 30 percent of children now live in single-parent families, up from 12 percent in 1968. Since poverty rates in single-parent households are roughly five times as high as in two-parent households, this shift has helped keep the poverty rate up; it climbed to 13.2 percent last year.
If we had the same fraction of single-parent families today as we had in 1970, the child poverty rate would probably be about 30 percent lower than it is today.
Among women under age 30, more than half of all births now occur outside marriage, driving up poverty and leading to more intellectual, emotional and social problems among children.
In addition, we have seen a growing tendency among well-educated men and women to marry each other, exacerbating income disparities. (Five Myths)
How does a poor person climb the ladder?
Our research shows that if you want to avoid poverty and join the middle class in the United States, you need to complete high school (at a minimum), work full time and marry before you have children. If you do all three, your chances of being poor fall from 12 percent to 2 percent, and your chances of joining the middle class or above rise from 56 to 74 percent. (Five Myths)
Liberals got all hissy last time I raised this issue, accusing me of blaming and shaming single parents.  That's not the point.  We should be teaching our kids based upon this data.  Sex is not to be taken lightly, nor is marriage.  School is important.  Keep things in their proper place and in the right order, and you can grow up to be a self-sufficient adult in control of your own life.

See also:  Western Hero - Child Poverty and Single Parenthood

82 comments:

Hack said...

AMEN.

I think Neal Boortz put it best when he said, "The poor are poor because they keep doing the things that make them poor and keep them poor. Ditto for the rich!"

It all reverts back to social issues. This is something I think libertarians don't quite understand. The social issues are the soul AND economy of the nation.

Silverfiddle said...

Yeah Hack, but bring it up the way and you're accused of blaming the poor...

Well, if someone is doing something that isn't working, which is the charitable thing to do? Pat them on the head and tell them it's ok? Or give them a better roadmap?

-FJ said...

Thanks to "progressive" liberalism, America is now leaving Belmont, with its' next stop, Fishtown!

-FJ said...

...and I think that SF undervalues "religisoity" as a CORE requirement for staying on the "good" side of the Belmont to Fishtown "tipping point"....

What is the critical mass of the religious core needed if religion is to play the role that it has historically played? On the face of it, having about 25 of the entire population actively engaged in their church or synagogue plus most of the rest of the community paying lip service—the situation that still existed nationwide in the first half of the 1970s—would seem to be plenty. I cannot judge whether the reduction in the religious core in Belmont from 31 percent in 1972–76 to 22 percent in 2006–10 made a big difference. But Fishtown’s reduction from 22 percent to 12 percent during the same period seems significant from any perspective. Such a small figure leaves the religious core not as a substantial minority that is still large enough to be a major force in the community, but as a one-out-of-eight group of people who are increasingly seen as oddballs.

Silverfiddle said...

FJ: I think religion is very important, but many irreligious people live in Belmont.

What these same studies have found is that there are people who attend no church or synagogue and basically don't spend much time on God, but nonetheless live their lives (unconsciously or otherwise) according to Judeo-Christian morals or hard work, keeping their noses clean and getting and staying married, and raising their kids with the same values.

So an atheist or agnostic would look at that and say you don't need God.

Fredd said...

FJ:

It's not that Americans consciously decide, based on all the facts, to leave Belmont for a modest but subsidized flat in Fishtown.

Obama and his liberal ilk are enticing them to leave Belmont, with freebies in exchange for votes.

If we can't change this dynamic (by electing as many conservatives to congress as possible), in the fullness of time Fishtown will be bursting at the seams with fat, dumb and happy former Belmontians.

Always On Watch said...

Those three things are true the vast majority of the time.

However, a catastrophic illness or accident is a game changer -- and those factors do not apply only to those who are older.

Of course, now "get a job" can be easier said that done. And so many jobs DEMAND something completely unnecessary: a college degree.

For example, there is no way in the world that an insurance adjuster NEEDS a college degree. But getting an entry-level job in any insurance business almost always requires a college degree (2 year or 4 year). Ludicrous! Some specialized training is required to become such an adjuster. But not much because of the Information Age.

Hell, pretty soon the powers that be will DEMAND that hair dressers have a college degree. Ugh.

conservativesonfire said...

Amazing that it took Brookings, a liberal think tank, all these years to prove the obvious.

Finntann said...

@It all reverts back to social issues. This is something I think libertarians don't quite understand.

HUH?

-FJ said...

So an atheist or agnostic would look at that and say you don't need God.

...and I would agree with them to a certain extent, but what we REALLY don't need is their anti-religious SNARK. It's their SNARK that turns Belmont into Fishtown... cuz ALL of that SNARK is merely a BOOJUM!

FreeThinke said...

There hasn't been a thing said in either the article or the comments that I could take exception to -- so far. ;-)

AOW is right, however, in bringing human frailty as an important factor into these determinations.

People are ANYTHING BUT "equal." Some are smarter, stronger, brighter and better looking than others. Some have stronger, more durable genetic makeup and are, therefore, less prone to disease. Some have a healthy optimistic, hopeful, eager outlook, and others are burdened with neuroses -- not all of which are "imaginary."

And much as we might like to deny it, LUCK has great deal to do with determining the course of many lives.

So do the traditions that accompany ethnicity and religious background -- or lack thereof.

When all is said and done learning how to be a COMPETENT, SELF-RELIANT human being is THE prerequisite for living a sane, pleasant, productive, fulfilled existence.

"Blessed are the merciful, for the shall obtain mercy."

Have a lovely day!'

~ FreeThinke

-FJ said...

The irreligious Snark sows discontent and causes the less intellectual amongst the faithful to question and likely discard the very values which made them successful. Snark w/o real community values reinforcement is a recipe for Fishtown.

Z said...

SF...Romney's speaking to the NAACP and I am listening via CNN. He carefully mentioned your stat about poverty bringing brought on by the unwed...handled it very well.
The funny thing is that he said he'd repeal Obamacare and the crowd booed, and CNN's banner across the screen ROMNEY BOOED AT NAACP came up before the last word he said as if they had it preprinted! :-)
CNN neglected to say how surprisingly much they applauded and even cheered.
He spoke with no teleprompter but just notes which he looked down to only to look at the next subject...
By the way, when they did boo his hope of repealing Obamacare, he hesitated, waited for it to die down, and continued quite strongly and got applause for things he said he'd do instead of Obamacare...
pretty good.

FreeThinke said...

May I take it that "Belmont" is a symbol for high-class and upper-middle-class values and lifestyle?

If so, there's no question that the Marxist-Communist-Socialist-Liberal-Progressive elements have done and continue t do everything in their power to denigrate, disparage and discourage the kind of ambition that might help to acquire the trappings of wealth, luxury, advanced creature comforts and -- possibly -- cultural refinement.

The Marxists may no fully realize it, but their goals, if fully achieved, God forbid! would doubtless put the vast majority of Americans into the moral equivalent of Section Eight Housing -- or worse -- FEMA-style Trailer Parks -- while phasing out the existence of fine homes in upper-class neighborhoods.

The Marxists will certainly be able to accomplish this dastardly goal by making all forms of taxation and the cost of goods and services so inordinately high, that even "the rich" will be forced to abandon their homes and live in markedly degraded conditions.

Naturally, his will not happen to The Oligarchs who are so immensely rich and powerful that THEY -- and they ALONE -- can continue to ride high -- and run roughshod -- over all the rest of humanity which will in short order be forced into servitude to The Masters.

THAT, my friends, whether you choose to believe it or not, is The Ultimate AIM of The GREAT GAME.

Disbelieve this at your peril.

~ FreeThinke

Shaw Kenawe said...

FJ: "Obama and his liberal ilk are enticing them to leave Belmont, with freebies in exchange for votes."

Mr. Obama and his family are the epitome of "Belmonters" [BTW, I was actually in Belmont last night at the home of a friend who lives next door to the Romneys.]

I digress.

The Obamas are well educated, Christian, happily married, and are devoted, loving parents.

And you actually believe Mr. Obama, against everything he believes and stands for [and has actually lived], is "enticing" people to reject his standards for "Fishtown?"

Your illogic is surpassed only by your cynicism.


BTW, I am of Mr. Obama's "ilk." My children are educated, married, and raising their children to be honest, caring, and responsible citizens. They are happy, well-adjusted families who, like their parents, do not subscribe to any religion.

Z said...

The speech is over and all CNN is focusing on is the 10 seconds of booing :) "this is the worst reaction we've seen to any Romney speech in our coverage of his campaign...."
"No question about it, this was a very negative reaction to what Romney had to say..."
BUT Frederica Whitfield on CNN is...to her credit..interviewing a woman who's saying she thought he did an excellent job with such a tough crowd. Donna Brazile's there now lying her head off about everything Romney, but what else is new?
Signed,
Your Cub Reporter :-)

Z said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
-FJ said...

And you actually believe Mr. Obama, against everything he believes and stands for [and has actually lived], is "enticing" people to reject his standards for "Fishtown?"

Mr. Obama preaches something "other" than what he practices. He is all SNARK about the values that GOT him to into Belmont. Taking handouts is something ENTIRELY different than offering handouts. The "strong" do the one, the "weak", the other.

It's one thing to "take" benefits when you're "down and out". It's quite ANOTHER to turn "taking benefits" into a lifestyle. I admire Mr. Obama's desire to provide a safety net, but am dismayed at his encouragement of others to "perpetually lie in it like a hammock."

-FJ said...

Freethinking should be encouraged among intellectuals. Amongst the 50% of Americans who are of "below average" intelligence.... not so much. "Choices" for them (like morning after pills) can be a REAL disastrous "life altering" mistake. When the "freedom" to make mistakes is over-valued, the poor and less intelligent, suffer.

Silverfiddle said...

@ Z: The funny thing is that he said he'd repeal Obamacare and the crowd booed, and CNN's banner across the screen ROMNEY BOOED AT NAACP came up before the last word he said as if they had it preprinted! :-)

I'm sure they did have their "Romney received badly" storyline all planned out ahead of time.

I don't know why conservatives waste their time there, especially ones that are "too white" like Romney...

Shaw Kenawe said...

FJ: "Mr. Obama preaches something "other" than what he practices. He is all SNARK about the values that GOT him to into Belmont."


And your evidence of this "snark," other than your imagination, is...?

Have you actually read or heard President Obama mocking American and Christian values? Have you any evidence at all that proves Mr. Obama encourages people NOT to work and do well in school? NOT to achieve the best they can? Those are among the values he has followed and believes in and has encouraged other to do the same. The very same values Silverfiddle talks about in this post.

I would really like to know where and when you've heard him "snark" about the hard work his mother demanded of him when he was a young student--or any of his values.

Without actual quotes where Mr. Obama makes fun of his own standards and achievements, your assertion is nothing more than partisan disinformation, which is to be dismissed for being worthless.





"I admire Mr. Obama's desire to provide a safety net, but am dismayed at his encouragement of others to 'perpetually lie in it like a hammock.' "

Is that a direct quote from one of Mr. Obama's speeches to a group of people? I can't find it, but you've put quotation marks around it as though President Obama gave that directive to people in need.

Have you evidence of any speech Mr. Obama gave where he tells people to never work hard and to stay on welfare?

You claim such things in your comments. I'm curious to know if you actually have evidence of such statements, or if, again, they are statements you just imagine he's made.

Steve said...

Bucking social norms always brings the negative wrath, of those who set the norms.
Not married, must be a freak, or gay, certainly not one of "us." Not worth hiring, or even knowing.
No children, must be a freak, anti-social, certainly not one of "us" and certainly don't need a good job, or a raise since you don't have to support a wife and children.
Your a little behind the times, one must have a college degree even for the most unworthy positions available today. Adults with a degree and children are working minimum wage jobs and won't be considered for a higher position.
Lets not forget the other social norm in the workforce, if you have a medical problem a company will not hire you, to expensive.
Society makes these nonsense, irrelevant social norms, to protect what they see as acceptable to civil society. Hogwash.
Ignore the reality that life is more than a bunch of rules set by those who perceive themselves as better than others, or you.
Ignore the reality that many successful people have been poor, failed a few times, don't have a college degree, don't have children, and are not married. No, they are just the exception to the rule and somehow (can't imagine how they succeeded without being married, highly schooled, or have children) they made it.
Not judged on hard work and ideas, but only if they fit social norms.
Not accepted into the social clubs because they don't meet the requirements. Like blacks being banned from the "civil" society of norms that don't include diversity.
Like the whites turned away from private clubs because they don't meet social norms, they aren't good enough.
This is the kind of crap we should leave in the 18th century.
Have we done so well having the elite (college grad, married with children) running government, or business? The facts of where we are as a society, don't prove those social norms are adding anything to bettering our progression.
This social norm crap, is intrinsically anti American, which is supposed to judge people by performance, not marital status, the ability to have children, or to be able to regurgitate the useless garbage taught in schools, which barely contribute to the real traits of being successful.
A banker sees a smaller risk in those with social norms (married, school, children) as if they have more to fight for, than just a good idea for an investment and wanting to succeed.
It's discrimination. Maybe not in a legal sense, but in a closed minded sense. Those without accepted social norms (married, children, school) are just worthless and cannot possibly add anything worthwhile to society.
What garbage.

Jersey McJones said...

One of the leading causes of family strife, like divorce and children's misbehavior, is money, or the lack of.

We once had a growing middle class in which the family united consisted of one working parent and one who stayed at home to raise the children. That was a pillar of the middle class dream.

Now, thanks to Free Trade, the destruction of labor movement, predatory lending and profiteering from healthcare and education, and other mostly right-wing initiatives, the middle class family has been under assault for almost two generations now.

And you blame "social ills?"

Chickens and eggs.

Europe enjoys more upward social mobility because they do not cannibalize themselves the way we do.

JMJ

Z said...

SOrry, JMJ "Europe enjoys more upward social mobility because they do not cannibalize themselves the way we do."
But this is REALLY funny. I have a commenter at my place who's French and left because there's no upward mobility in the business world...
I lived in Paris and know a LOT of young entrepreneurs who've left for the USA or Canada or other countries to make it.
Germany...Social mobility? It doesn't happen. I'm sorry; it just doesn't. Not for 99% of the people.

-FJ said...

Have you actually read or heard President Obama mocking American and Christian values? Have you any evidence at all that proves Mr. Obama encourages people NOT to work and do well in school? NOT to achieve the best they can?

Acta non verba - the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says... "Don't worry about medical costs non-earners. We've got your back!"

-FJ said...

Have you actually read or heard President Obama mocking American and Christian values? How many years did he sit in a pew at Rev Wright's Church nodding his head in agreement to "G_D DAMN America?" What did it take for Michelle Obama to finally declare that for the very first time in her life, she was "proud of America"?

-FJ said...

We once had a growing middle class in which the family united consisted of one working parent and one who stayed at home to raise the children. That was a pillar of the middle class dream.

Until the feminists declared that staying at home and raising children wasn't something "worth" a REAL woman's time....

Steve said...

Destroyed by the fiscal policies of the Republicans, which forced mothers to go to work to be able to pay the bills.
Women haven't turned away from their children. Just the opposite, they had to work to make sure their children could meet the "social norms" of the elite, to get along in "their" society.

Silverfiddle said...

Steve, you are arguing with statistics, not me.

There are high percentage roads and low percentage roads to success.


Jersey: So lack of money causes people to have children out of wedlock and not get a job???

-FJ said...

Destroyed by the fiscal policies of the Republicans, which forced mothers to go to work to be able to pay the bills.

To pay the bills for a 4,000 sq ft house instead of a paltry 1,600 sq ft one... and a Private School for Jr. because the Democrats had filled the local public school with AFT and NEA shop stewards...

-FJ said...

...after all, somebody has to teach second graders that two daddy's are better than one, and that every banana should wear a condom.

Steve said...

Those statistics are based on false traits of success. It's time we judged on true traits of success.

Jersey McJones said...

Yes, Silver. The wealth of the family you are lucky or unlucky enough to be born into will tell you more about the future of a child than almost anything else.

JMJ

Ducky's here said...

I don't imagine you'll get much disagreement, Silverfiddle.

However, remember that the rules for mobility can change ans in fact are.

Shaw Kenawe said...

FJ: "How many years did he sit in a pew at Rev Wright's Church nodding his head in agreement to "G_D DAMN America?"

My goodness! You saw Mr. Obama "nodding his head in agreement?" What on earth were YOU doing in that church? BTW, being in the church doesn't mean Obama agreed with Wright. I have Catholic relatives who attend the same church that covered up and protected child rapists. They stayed in the church because of God, not the pastor.


FJ: "What did it take for Michelle Obama to finally declare that for the very first time in her life, she was "proud of America"?

First of all, that's a misquote. Second of all, it's a dead horse you people continue to beat. This all came out 4 years ago, and the American people said they didn't care a fig about it by overwhelmingly voting for Mr. Obama.

FJ: "Acta non verba - - the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says... "Don't worry about medical costs non-earners. We've got your back!"

“Whatever you did for the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” Jesus Christ

Got a problem with that? Take it up with God/Jesus, someone the blog host, and a lot of his followers, admires.


FJ: "Until the feminists declared that staying at home and raising children wasn't something "worth" a REAL woman's time...."


FJ, can you come up with statements that are NOT tired and inaccurate cliches?

Z said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYY73RO_egw

Right, the quote is she is finally "proud of her country"

Shaw Kenawe said...

Here is the entire quote in context for those of you still beating this dead horse to death:

February 18,2008


"Speaking in Milwaukee, Wisconsin today, would-be First Lady Michelle Obama said, "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."

Then in Madison, she said, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."

As I stated, the American people didn't care a whit about this. Why do you still bring it up?

Finntann said...

@“Whatever you did for the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” Jesus Christ

Got a problem with that? Take it up with God/Jesus, someone the blog host, and a lot of his followers, admires.

WOW? The liberal tosses separation of church and state out the window... what's next? A balanced budget?

I'm sorry, but god is not damn near 16 Trillion in debt and spending like a drunken sailor.

Ducky's here said...

True Finntann, true.

But that is no excuse for letting Libertarians use this as a cheap cop out without any analysis of where the money went.

Don't expect people to fall for that bullshit sleight of hand.

Finntann said...

@"Yes, Silver. The wealth of the family you are lucky or unlucky enough to be born into will tell you more about the future of a child than almost anything else"


BULLSHIT

And upward mobility in Europe? Really? That crap might work with those who've never set foot outside the US, it doesn't work with those of us who've lived there.

Funny how most people in the UK are born, raised, live, and die in the same place and pretty much the same circumstances as their parents. The UK has the lowest intergenerational vertical social mobility of all the developed nations.

Miles Corak "Cross Country Comparison of Generational Earnings Mobility"

Finntann said...

Ducky, I'm still waiting for your explanation as to why you believe anyone is entitled to the fruit of anyone else's labor.

Cheers!

Ducky's here said...

A snippet from SLATE.

In 2001, Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index ranked the United States as the 16th least-corrupt country. By last year, the nation had fallen to 24th place. The World Bank also reports a weakening of corruption controls in the United States since the late 1990s, so that it is falling behind most other developed nations.

-----

Now I know this is just liberal bullshit but is there even the remotest possibility that this issue may have more relevance than the fringe right is willing to admit.
Or is it still just blame the poor and leave the "productive ones" alone.

Everything is such a simply answer in fringe right world. Well delineated good and evil and the Manichee is always watching.

-FJ said...

Why do you still bring it up?...

---

Have you actually read or heard President Obama mocking American and Christian values?

---

Apparently, to provide evidence is all about "beating dead horses".

Silverfiddle said...

Post some simple advice on how to increase your odds in this life and the lefties go nuts...

-FJ said...

You saw Mr. Obama "nodding his head in agreement?"

The church was teaching "liberation theology". You don't sit in the pews listenning to "liberation theology" listening to your "spiritual advisor" preach, and NOT agree with the words he's preaching.

-FJ said...

I have Catholic relatives who attend the same church that covered up and protected child rapists. They stayed in the church because of God, not the pastor.

You can bet that the priests (Catholic Churches don't HAVE pastors) weren't preaching the "Joys of Sex w/ Young Boys" either... because had the acta and verba lined up, they would have NEVER sat down in the pews to begin with. But Jeremiah Wright was Practicing his Preachings... so if he didn't AGREEE with Wright, how do you square Obama's continued presence AND support?

Steve said...

You advice is discriminatory BS.

Ducky's here said...

They don't go nuts. There's not any serious disagreement over the advice but are there other critical reason social mobility has been blocked in America?

Ducky's here said...

FJ: "How many years did he sit in a pew at Rev Wright's Church nodding his head in agreement to "G_D DAMN America?"

-----

Well FT why don't you listen to Glenn beck and find out. You'll eat anything he puts on the plate.

If you haven't figured it out, Obama probably didn't go very often. If anything he is amoral and he was working on his image even then.

Harvard made him white enough and Wright made him black enough to get along in Chicago.
He's just another pol. Like Romney or Bush or Clinton who would sell your ass out in a New York minute.

Thersites said...

He was working on his image? Then the President is a cynic, ducky? And if THAT is true, then how is Glenn Beck wrong?

Silverfiddle said...

@ Ducky: If you haven't figured it out, Obama probably didn't go very often. If anything he is amoral and he was working on his image even then.

Harvard made him white enough and Wright made him black enough to get along in Chicago.
He's just another pol. Like Romney or Bush or Clinton who would sell your ass out in a New York minute.


We disagree so much, Ducky, that it is a special delight when I can agree with you. This is one of those times.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"WOW? The liberal tosses separation of church and state out the window... what's next? A balanced budget?"

Expecting people who profess that they follow the teachings of Jesus and Christianity has nothing whatsoever to do with separation of church and state.

Taking care of those who cannot afford to take care of themselves is a basic Christian value.

I wondered why people are reluctant to put their money where their piety is.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"@ Ducky: If you haven't figured it out, Obama probably didn't go very often. If anything he is amoral and he was working on his image even then.

Harvard made him white enough and Wright made him black enough to get along in Chicago.
He's just another pol. Like Romney or Bush or Clinton who would sell your ass out in a New York minute.

We disagree so much, Ducky, that it is a special delight when I can agree with you. This is one of those times."


You both deserve the Oscar Wilde statuette for cynicism. It's a small award because neither of you can measure up to his wit. Here's his definitio of a cynic:

A man who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Silverfiddle said...

Taking care of those who cannot afford to take care of themselves is a basic Christian value.

Yes it is...

Shaking people down upon pain of jail and laundering the money through a bloated bureaucracy that sucks in dollars and spits out pennies to the needy is not...

Silverfiddle said...

Shaw: I can't believe a woman of your intelligence is so naive. All politicians are bastards. The higher they go the bigger the bastard, and we enable it.

Diane Feinstein feasts on the votes of anti-war liberals even as she and her husband profit handsomely off of our wars.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Shaking people down upon pain of jail and laundering the money through a bloated bureaucracy that sucks in dollars and spits out pennies to the needy is not..."

So you're talking about Wall Street and the banksters here?

PS. Not all politicians are bastids. I've not gone over to the dark side where people believe this.

Yet.

Jack Camwell said...

It would be interesting to see how many of these single-parent households were already poor before the parents got divorced.

I know a lot of people who grew up in split homes. Hell, I'm divorced. And the funny thing is that all the people I knew in single parent homes didn't grow up poor.

My kids certainly aren't growing up poor.

So there's something behind it other than just "see what happens when you get divorced."

beamish said...

Immigrants who literally come here with nothing, for example, fare quite well…

Especially if they're handed an all-expenses paid house, a car, and 10 years of free money to start out with...

(re: Bosnian refugees airdropped on St. Louis, MO)

-FJ said...

ps- Some more tired and inaccurate cliches for feminists to ponder...

Betty Friedan, "The Femine Mystique"

“I want something more than my husband and my children and my home.”

"The problem is always being the children’s mommy, or the minister’s wife and never being myself."

“To make one half the human race consume its energies in the functions of housekeeper, wife and mother is a monstrous waste of the most precious material God ever made.”

"It is better for a woman to compete impersonally in society, as men do, than to compete for dominance in her own home with her husband, compete with her neighbors for empty status, and so smother her son that he cannot compete at all."


Gloria Steinem:

"A liberated woman is one who has sex before marriage and a job after."

"Some of us are becoming the men we wanted to marry."

"What has the women's movement learned from Geraldine Ferraro's candidacy for vice president? Never get married."

Silverfiddle said...

Jack: Go read a little closer. It didn't say 100%...

Finntann said...

@" Taking care of those who cannot afford to take care of themselves is a basic Christian value." So? What does that have to do with a supposedly secular government?

I wondered why people are reluctant to put their money where their piety is.

I'll thank you to keep your Christian values and piety out of my government. What's next the 10 commandments in courthouses?

You can't pick and choose which Christian values you wish to insert in government and which you don't. It is separation of church and state or it is not. In other words you can't have your cake and eat it too.

As to the Bible, I am not aware of the saying "Render unto your neighbor". I am not opposed to charity, but taking my money and giving it to someone else is not charity. Charity is a personal act. I pick and choose carefully who and what I give my money to, whereas the politicians throws handfuls of it up in the air yelling "vote for me".

@"So you're talking about Wall Street and the banksters here?"

No, you are under no compulsion to buy stock, bonds, or take out loans on unfavorable terms. (perhaps given the recent ruling of the Supremes, I should add "YET").

Cheers!

Joe Conservative said...

Flashback 1970. Liberals "valuing" stay at home moms...

Silverfiddle said...

@ Shaw: So you're talking about Wall Street and the banksters here?

That was lame. I know you don't visit here often, but I rail often against the vampiric banksters. You thought I would take offense?

Shaw Kenawe said...

"I'll thank you to keep your Christian values and piety out of my government. What's next the 10 commandments in courthouses?"

I'm not a Christian. I follow no religion, but on every conservative blog I visit I read that their desire is to return America to its Judeo-Christian values, so I wondered why those values did not hold where it concerned the weakest and sickest.

"No, you are under no compulsion to buy stock, bonds, or take out loans on unfavorable terms. (perhaps given the recent ruling of the Supremes, I should add "YET")."


You actually believe that Wall Street and the banksters, domestic and international, have nothing to do with manipulating our economy and/or the cost of lending money?

FJ,

You've given us quotes by TWO feminists. Wow! That's underwhelming and indicative of nothing.

Silverfiddle said...

Joe: Thanks for that timely flashback!

Betty Friedan and her ilk's "mystique" can stay mysterious as far as I'm concerned.

FreeThinke said...

If she anything at all other than a pushy, obnoxious female lout, Betty Friedan was The Feminine MYSTAQUE

A true HOB if ever there was one.

~ FreeThinke

-FJ said...

Need more quotes? Okay.

Robin Morgan is known for her feminist activism and writing. She is a poet, a novelist, and has also written non-fiction. Several of her anthologies are classics of feminism, including Sisterhood Is Powerful.

Robin Morgan served as an editor of Ms. Magazine 1990-1993 after serving as a contributing editor for many years.

"Sexism is NOT the fault of women -- kill your fathers, not your mothers."

"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage."

"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire."

"I feel that "man-hating" is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."

"Although every organized religion works overtime to contribute its own brand of misogyny to the myth of woman-hate, woman-fear, and woman-evil, the Roman Catholic church also carries the immense power of very directly affecting women's lives everywhere by its stand against birth control and abortion, and by its use of skillful and wealthy lobbies to prevent legislative change. It is an obscenity -- an all-male hierarchy, celibate or not, that presumes to rule on the lives and bodies of millions of women."


We can do this all day, Shaw.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Sure you can, but it means nothing. What are you trying to prove?

-FJ said...

That you are an idiot, of course.

“Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership.”- Andrea Dworkin

“The legal rights of access that married partners have to each other’s persons, property, and lives makes it all but impossible for a spouse to defend herself (or himself), or to be protected against torture, rape, battery, stalking, mayhem, or murder by the other spouse. . . . Legal marriage thus enlists state support for conditions conducive to murder and mayhem.”- Claudia Card

“Male society has sold us the idea of marriage . . . . Now we know it is the institution that has failed us and we must work to destroy it. . . . The end of the institution of marriage is the necessary condition for the liberation of women.”- Helen Sullinger , 1973.

“Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women. . . . We must work to destroy it. . . . The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men. . . . All of history must be rewritten in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft.”- Helen Sullinger , 1973.

“We have to abolish and reform the institution of marriage. . . . By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God. . . . We must understand what we are attempting is a revolution, not a public relations movement.”- Gloria Steinem , March 1973.

“The complete destruction of traditional marriage and the nuclear family is the ‘revolutionary or utopian’ goal of feminism.”- Kate Millett

“If women are to effect a significant amelioration in their condition, it seems obvious that they must refuse to marry. . . . The plight of mothers is more desperate than that of other women, and the more numerous the children the more hopeless the situation seems to be. . . . Most women . . . would shrink at the notion of leaving husband and children, but this is precisely the case in which brutally clear rethinking must be undertaken.”- Germaine Greer

“Like prostitution, marriage is an institution that is extremely oppressive and dangerous for women.”- Andrea Dworkin

“The institution of marriage is the chief vehicle for the perpetuation of the oppression of women; it is through the role of wife that the subjugation of women is maintained.”- Marlene Dixon

“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.”- Shelia Cronin

-FJ said...

Liberal "Snark"... now proved Boojum!

Shaw Kenawe said...

Shaw Kenawe said...
SK: "Sure you can, but it means nothing. What are you trying to prove?

7/11/12 7:32 PM



-FJ said...
That you are an idiot, of course."


Very clever, FJ.

When you can't present a winning argument and have only pages of other people's quotes, you can always resort to name-calling.

This is a tactic youngsters use all the time when they have nothing else.

Excuse me for thinking I was engaging an adult.

Lisa said...

'This is a tactic youngsters use all the time when they have nothing else'

Or they call you a racist.

Finntann said...

@ "so I wondered why those values did not hold where it concerned the weakest and sickest."

Those values do not hold where government is concerned.

They may influence your personal position on issues and may even influence your voting, but 'God said' has no place in a political discussion.

There are not only many religions, there are many interpretations within each one. Even Judeo-Christians can't agree on what 'God said'.

I keep my religion out of my politics, and you will not find me resorting to biblical justification for anything.

As far as Wall Street and Banksters, wherever it can be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that they violated the law they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible. If they operated within the law and you don't like it, too damn bad. Don't like the law, persuade the majority of your representatives to change it.

If you ask me, I'll say more regulation isn't the answer. The minimal amount of clear and concise regulation that accomplishes our goals is. Thousands of pages of regulations in legalese serve no ones interests but the lawyers.

Cheers!

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Mind if I throw "don't smoke" on to the list. In CT, a 2 pack a day habit'll run ya' around $5,400 bucks a year. After a couple of years, that'll end up being some serious money.

-FJ said...

You've given us quotes by TWO feminists. Wow! That's underwhelming and indicative of nothing.

followed by....

When you can't present a winning argument and have only pages of other people's quotes, you can always resort to name-calling.

Two, not enough, ten, immature.

Make up your mind, Shaw. You claim to have one, but the evidence has yet to be presented substantiating the fact.

Shaw Kenawe said...

FJ, you seem not to be able to read comments accurately.

I called you immature for calling me an "idiot."

Get it?

I have no interest in engaging with people who do that.

-FJ said...

I have no interest in engaging with people who do that.

Then maybe you should go back to the Daily Kos, Democratic Underground or the Huffington Post, drink more Kool Aid and sing kumbaya's to Obama...

Shaw Kenawe said...

FJ, you are an easy target. I can't resist pointing out to you that your comment confirms your puerile attitude and inability to understand the printed word.

I said I wouldn't engage with commenters who use childish name-calling in place of a discussion.

And your answer?

That I should go back to the Daily Kos, DU or HP.

Good comeback dude! Because there I don't encounter immature name-callers like you?



Heck, this isn't shooting fish in a barrel, it's more like grenading barnacles in a barrel.

*shakes head and walks away*

Silverfiddle said...

Shaw: Shooting fish in a barrel?

You threw down this challenge:

FJ, can you come up with statements that are NOT tired and inaccurate cliches?

And FJ answered it, pages and pages worth.

Yeah, he was shooting fish in a barrel. You got owned. Nothing like having your side's words thrown back at you...

-FJ said...

I said I wouldn't engage with commenters who use childish name-calling in place of a discussion.
---
...immature name-callers like you?

...your puerile attitude and inability to understand the printed word.

...Your illogic is surpassed only by your cynicism

... you can always resort to name-calling.


Pot, meet kettle.

Teresa said...

That's because progressives have promoted government in place of the father or a two parent household. Progressives have encouraged the destruction of the family unit for years because it benefits them politically to have people dependent on government social programs.

FreeThinke said...

To quote the immortal Tarzan:

PROGRESSIVISM BAD -- CONSERVATISM GOOD -- PERIOD!!!

Nothing else needs to be said.

Cheerio!

~ FreeThinke