Comments on: Now we Know, Marriage is Cost-Effective

By: amfortas

amfortas — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 11:46:39 +0000

Hard, cold, accountants facts. Hot potatos that will have water thrown over them by mendacious social destroyers who will likey point to the ‘employment opportunities’ that go to all the rent-seeking scum that such ‘programs’ sustain – jobs which won’t be offshored.

Not that I am at all sure about that either. The Divorce Industry is a destruction line where ‘procedures’ have replaced thinking and Judgement. So much paperwork is already processed by ‘cost-effective’ outsource workers in India that I am sure the successor to Wade Horn, (former director of the federal Administration for Children and Families) will find a way to save a few dollars and have the Divorce Industry offshored in time.

Divorce may soon be done on-line with back-up queries dealt with on Skype by a 22 y/o woman in Mumbai called Indra who hasn’t a clue where you are.

By: Elusive Wapiti

Elusive Wapiti — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:52:15 +0000

Someone asked if abortions actually reduce welfare spending. The question makes sense; and is a reasonable one in response to an article focused on government / taxpayer costs.”

Apparently Bill Bennet also claimed, via citing a 1991 study by Donohue and Levitt, that abortions, by reducing the black population, served to reduce crime.

Obviously the study’s finding is controversial. Social researchers such as John Lott have questioned its methodology and conclusions.

By: Robert Stevens

Robert Stevens — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:06:17 +0000

Why if we made marriage an enforceable contract ie held women , who incidently break up most of the marriages, accountable. If we punished women and the government thugs who back their “little acts of rebellion”
We could save billions, that’s billions with a “b”. The only problem the “government thugs” have with this savings is that the moneywill stay in our pockets and they would have to get a real job.
In fact, not only would they have to get a real job, when people started to realize that the problems subsided and in some cases disappeared completely, there would be an investigation. People , not being stupid like the government thinks they are, would quickly figure out that it was not only a good idea to fire these “terrorist bastards” , but it might also be a good idea to prosecute some them. A good charge might be “high treason” and in the case of the “child support terrorist” those evil bastards could be charged under 18 U. S .C ie the “antipeonage law”. Since inefect child support is not even legal under our system and it has imposed slavery, which is what peonage is , on millions of people.
When we convict the bastards, we give the little peons, twenty year at hard labor, just for giggles and we give the big wigs , life without parole and for the really evil bastards at the top, the Saddam Hussein treatment, ie death by hanging. Now they are going to whine and kick and scream, because in their “warped little brains” they will never admit that what they did was wrong and the punishment is well deserved! ( I imagine that when they get to hell, the devils is going to laugh at them and say”sorry, folk, but wrong is still wrong, no matter how you dress it up or how ” politically correct” you try and make it , so ‘welcome to hell. It’ll be a pleasure to have you.)

By: Roger F. Gay

Roger F. Gay — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:55:19 +0000

The report involved David Blankenhorn and Ron Haskins. They have traditionally been openly anti-father and never saw an anti-family policy they didn’t like. Their job is to put a conservative pro-family spin on pork and arbitrary government intrusion.

By: Roger F. Gay

Roger F. Gay — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:34:12 +0000

I understand where you’re coming from, but wonder if cause and effect is reversed w.r.t. incomes of married men. I know I made quite a bit more money as a single man, because I had more time to spend working and focusing my attention on work. It could be that the correlation is because men of means are in a better position to get married; not that marriage increases their incomes.

Also, I posted your article on freerepublic. Someone asked if abortions actually reduce welfare spending. The question makes sense; and is a reasonable one in response to an article focused on government / taxpayer costs.

By: KRS

KRS — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:00:35 +0000

You frequently hear feminists claim that when you compare a woman’s per capita income during marriage versus after divorce, that the woman’s per capita income goes down.

The stat I like…which is more relevant for men and which very few analysts ever cite…. is comparing the per capita income of men prior to marriage, versus the per capita income of men after divorce.

By: Jim Untershine

Jim Untershine — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:02:51 +0000

Well stated and presented Carey

The term ‘taxpayer money’ has a new meaning these days. Used in the conventional sense it meant: “Money that the Treasury Dept collected as income tax and was available to pay for government programs”. Every dime that is collected as income tax is distributed as interest on the Federal Debt and the Treasury Dept must borrow money at interest to pay for government programs. Now ‘taxpayer money’ means: “The exorbitant bill that is being put on our children’s tab”.

“Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits.” (1920 – Josiah Stamp, former director of the Bank of England)