http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/04...s.ap/index.html
Caught my eye.
The one group is aligned with Focus on the Family (I say this in the interest of full disclosure.)
Sort of lends SOME credence to the Family unit argument. Husband/Wife, Male/Female type of family unit.
Full Version: Single Parents Cost Taxpayers Billions
Why does it matter that the relationship be male/female or evening married for that matter?
And this is a pretty big assumption to work with...
And this is a pretty big assumption to work with...
QUOTE
Scafidi's calculations were based on the assumption that households headed by a single female have relatively high poverty rates, leading to higher spending on welfare, health care, criminal justice and education for those raised in the disadvantaged homes. The $112 billion estimate includes the cost of federal, state and local government programs, and lost tax revenue at all levels of government.
I was speaking from a traditionalists view of marriage.
That is why I said Interesting, but suspect.
That is why I said Interesting, but suspect.
But the study basically looks at whether there are two incomes in the family, not whether the two incomes come from Mom/Dad or Dad/Dad, right? So, this study shows people of any sexual orientation should get together to form dual income, stable homes for children.
I'm not willing to make that leap, based on who some of the groups were that are connected to the "study".
I don't neccessarily think it's "single" tax payers as much as lower income tax payers in general. Every wonder why, when you pay in, say - $8,000 in federal tax, you only get back around $3,000 or $4,000??? Yet, someone who is in a lower tax bracket, makes less money, but keep in mind - PAYS IN less money, gets BACK more than they paid in??? Why is that? I guess that's where all my extra money goes... It makes me mad. I work just as hard. I'm not saying they should get back anything - but not more than they actually paid in. Then, just maybe - I could get back a bit more of what I actually earned... JMO
I take exception to the term "disadvantaged homes". 
My parents are divorced. That SOB never paid a damn dime of child support to my mother. Like thousands of other single moms, she worked, owned her own home in a nice neighborhood, adopted a son, retired and is living in a nice retirement community with a substantial nest-egg. ALL ON HER OWN.
My childhood would have only been "disadvantaged" if she had allowed that wife-beating sperm-doner to continue to live with her.
I do agree that a 2-parent family (of whatever sex) is probably less of a drain on the pocket-book of the "system", but un-wed mothers and divorce are certainly not the ONLY reason for 1-parent homes. The POTUS is, in MY opinion, personally responsible for MANY, MANY 1-parent homes in the United States, and it's not because he's bopping women and leaving them pregnant and alone.
My parents are divorced. That SOB never paid a damn dime of child support to my mother. Like thousands of other single moms, she worked, owned her own home in a nice neighborhood, adopted a son, retired and is living in a nice retirement community with a substantial nest-egg. ALL ON HER OWN.
My childhood would have only been "disadvantaged" if she had allowed that wife-beating sperm-doner to continue to live with her.
I do agree that a 2-parent family (of whatever sex) is probably less of a drain on the pocket-book of the "system", but un-wed mothers and divorce are certainly not the ONLY reason for 1-parent homes. The POTUS is, in MY opinion, personally responsible for MANY, MANY 1-parent homes in the United States, and it's not because he's bopping women and leaving them pregnant and alone.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.