Fathers disappear from households across America

Search

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,003
Tokens
Nicole Hawkins‘ three daughters have matching glittery boots, but none has the same father. Each has uniquely colored ties in her hair, but none has a dad present in her life.


As another single mother on Sumner Road decked her row-house stoop with Christmas lights and a plastic Santa, Ms. Hawkins recalled that her middle child’s father has never spent a holiday or birthday with her. In her neighborhood in Southeast Washington, 1 in 10 children live with both parents, and 84 percent live with only their mother.


In every state, the portion of families where children have two parents, rather than one, has dropped significantly over the past decade. Even as the country added 160,000 families with children, the number of two-parent households decreased by 1.2 million. Fifteen million U.S. children, or 1 in 3, live without a father, and nearly 5 million live without a mother. In 1960, just 11 percent of American children lived in homes without fathers.


America is awash in poverty, crime, drugs and other problems, but more than perhaps anything else, it all comes down to this, said Vincent DiCaro, vice president of the National Fatherhood Initiative: Deal with absent fathers, and the rest follows.
People “look at a child in need, in poverty or failing in school, and ask, ‘What can we do to help?’ But what we do is ask, ‘Why does that child need help in the first place?’ And the answer is often it’s because [the child lacks] a responsible and involved father,” he said.

The spiral continues each year. Married couples with children have an average income of $80,000, compared with $24,000 for single mothers.
“We have one class that thinks marriage and fatherhood is important, and another which doesn’t, and it’s causing that gap, income inequality, to get wider,” Mr. DiCaro said.
The predilection among men to walk away from their babies is concentrated in the inner cities. In Baltimore, 38 percent of families have two parents, and in St. Louis the portion is 40 percent.
The near-total absence of male role models has ripped a hole the size of half the population in urban areas.


Tiny selfless deeds trickle in to fill that hole as the natural human desire for intimacy is fulfilled: One afternoon last week as a girl hoisted a half-eaten ice cream sandwich high over her pigtailed head, Larry McManus, the father of the girl’s sister, bent down to eat out of her hands as he picked up the girls from school.


“I know dads that say they ain’t their kids. I see dads being disrespectful of the mothers. And I see ones who take other men’s kids to football games because they know their fathers aren’t around,” said Mr. McManus, an ex-felon who said he is “trying to make a lot of changes right now.”

Asked his daughter’s age, he consults with her sister.
“Five. She’s in pre-K,” the girl answered.
“She’s 5,” he echoed. “Mmm, that was good,” he said gently of the ice cream sandwich. “Can I have another bite, please?”
Story Continues →




Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...from-households-across-america/#ixzz2GDnJHlrV
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,003
Tokens
this is why we have growing poverty, this is the single biggest reason for violent crimes, this is why we have so many high school drop outs

and this is how the libtards grow their base

this is the libtards "great society", no joke

and then they suggest we have to change to reach these people. their cluelessness is boundless

carry on
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
Lol! What the fuck has happened to Willie? For some reason he thinks all liberals are minorities without fathers, lol.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
44,996
Tokens
Spot on Willie.

Libtards have no clue that the break-down of the traditional family is devastating to this country.
 

Member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
39,464
Tokens
Very sad statistics.

I find that when two parents are together I'm actually surprised.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
9,282
Tokens
100% spot on problem here Wullie. If you cant connect these dots leading to a gigantic problem in this country you are either profiting from it or just dumb, deaf and blind.
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
Typical Willie. He points out a real problem, and then tries to assign it to "libtards" or whatever his insulting word of the day/week is, wanting it to be that way, instead of offering any realistic solutions. Guess what. Liberals, Conservatives, Dems, Republicans, Libertarians realize it's a problem genius. One everyone wants to solve.
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,003
Tokens
Typical Willie. He points out a real problem, and then tries to assign it to "libtards" or whatever his insulting word of the day/week is, wanting it to be that way, instead of offering any realistic solutions. Guess what. Liberals, Conservatives, Dems, Republicans, Libertarians realize it's a problem genius. One everyone wants to solve.


I'm going to be disrespectful, I'm just acting accordingly

and it is the Democrat's "Great Society" initiated by LBJ that is leading to the decay of the inner-city, that's just an undeniable correlation. And then the democrats use promises of more of the same and fear mongering of republican policies to keep the impoverished inner-city folk they created in line. On election day, that impoverished, uneducated and criminally violent demographic turn out in large numbers and 96% of them vote for the 'Great Society" to continue

Libtard fingerprints are everywhere. They planted the seed, they fertilized, watered and nurtured their crop and created an abundance of democratic voters

just another fact of life
 

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
I thought this would all stop when Chris Rock told them to put the dick down.
 

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
18,212
Tokens
Acorn planted the seeds and Obama was a community planner and knows how to reap what they have sown. This is all about destroying the middle class. There will always be rich people but it is the working class that keeps the engine turning. We are literally returning to the same things that brought this nation to it's knees during the civil war and this time it will be class warfare instead of slavery. When you throw around catch phrases like "pay your fair share" eventually they stick. Look at Europe and that is where Obama wants to go. Look at California closer to home. Obama is all about power if you haven't figured that one out yet keep in mind you haven't seen anything yet. They have figured out how to get the uniformed voters to the polls so they think they have a mandate. And yes the deteriorization of the family structure and the balance of having both parents takes it's toll. We are now the Obamaphone nation. Inner cities are corrupt and we have Chicago written all over the WH. Obama wants to do away with suburban living, he wants all his eggs in a row.
 

Defender of the Faith
Joined
Aug 13, 2005
Messages
5,680
Tokens
December 25, 2012, 6:00 am111 Comments
A Conservative Case for the Welfare State

By BRUCE BARTLETT
bruce-bartlett.jpg

Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul. He is the author of “The Benefit and the Burden: Tax Reform – Why We Need It and What It Will Take.”
At the root of much of the dispute between Democrats and Republicans over the so-called fiscal cliff is a deep disagreement over the welfare state. Republicans continue to fight a long-running war against Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and many other social-welfare programs that most Americans support overwhelmingly and oppose cutting.
Today’s Economist

Perspectives from expert contributors.


Republicans in Congress opposed the New Deal and the Great Society, but Republican presidents from Dwight D. Eisenhower through George H.W. Bush accepted the legitimacy of the welfare state and sought to manage it properly and fund it adequately. When Republicans regained control of Congress in 1994 they nevertheless sought to repeal the New Deal and Great Society programs they had always opposed.

Energized by their success in abolishing the principal federal welfare program, Aid to Families With Dependent Children, in 1996, Republicans tried to abolish Social Security as well, through partial privatization during the George W. Bush administration, and they more recently have attempted to change Medicaid into a block grant program with funds going to the states and to turn Medicare into a voucher program.

In the 40th anniversary edition of his book, “Capitalism and Freedom,” Milton Friedman advised conservatives to use crises as opportunities to advance their agenda. “Only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change,” he contended.

Thus Republicans are now using the fiscal impasse to try to raise the age for Medicare and reduce Social Security benefits by changing the index used to adjust them for inflation. They know that such programs will be easier to abolish in the future if the number of people who qualify can be reduced and benefits are cut so that privatization becomes more attractive.

This is foolish and reactionary. Moreover, there are sound reasons why a conservative would support a welfare state. Historically, it has been conservatives like the 19th century chancellor of Germany, Otto von Bismarck, who established the welfare state in Europe. They did so because masses of poor people create social instability and become breeding grounds for radical movements.

In postwar Europe, conservative parties were the principal supporters of welfare-state policies in order to counter efforts by socialists and communists to abolish capitalism altogether. The welfare state was devised to shave off the rough edges of capitalism and make it sustainable. Indeed, the conservative icon Winston Churchill was among the founders of the British welfare state.

American conservatives, being far more libertarian than their continental counterparts, reject the welfare state for both moral and efficiency reasons. It creates unhappiness, they believe, and inevitably becomes bloated, undermining incentives and economic growth.

One problem with this conservative view is its lack of an empirical foundation. Research by Peter H. Lindert of the University of California, Davis, shows clearly that the welfare state is not incompatible with growth while providing a superior quality of life to many of those left to sink or swim in America.

In a new paper for the New America Foundation, Professor Lindert summarizes his findings. He points out that there are huge efficiencies in providing pensions and health care publicly rather than privately. A main reason is that in a properly run welfare state, benefits are nearly universal, which eliminates vast amounts of administrative overhead necessary to decide who is entitled to benefits and who isn’t, as is the case in America, and eliminates the disincentives to work resulting from benefit phase-outs.

A 2003 study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that Canada’s single-payer health system had less than a third of the per-capita administrative cost of the United States system, with its many private insurance companies and overlapping government programs – $307 per year in Canada versus $1,059 in the United States. And although American conservatives are fond of pointing to cases where Canadians come to the United States for treatment, a 2009 Harris poll found that 82 percent of Canadians favor their health system over the American one.

Americans believe that their health system is the best in the world, but in fact it is not. According to the Commonwealth Fund, many countries achieve superior health quality at much lower cost than paid by Americans. A detailed study of the United States and England in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 2011 found that over a lifetime the English have better health than Americans at a fraction of the cost.

The one area where the United States tops all other countries in terms of health is cost. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States spent more than any other country – 17.4 percent of gross domestic product on health in 2009, 8.3 percent through government programs such as Medicare and 9.1 percent privately. By contrast, Britain spent only 9.8 percent of G.D.P. on health, 8.2 percent publicly and 1.6 privately.

Thus, for no more than the United States already spends through government, we could have a national health-insurance system equal to that in Britain. The 7.6 percent of G.D.P. difference between American and British total health spending is about equal to the revenue raised by the Social Security tax. So, in effect, having a single-payer health system like Britain’s could theoretically give Americans 7.6 percent of G.D.P. to spend on something else – equivalent to abolishing the payroll tax.

This is a powerful conservative argument for national health insurance. There are many other ways, as well, in which what the conservatives call bloated European welfare states are actually very efficient. This fact is disguised in commonly cited data for spending as a share of G.D.P. because so much social spending in the United States takes the form of tax expenditures, which are de facto spending.

The O.E.C.D. recently calculated net social spending in its member countries, taking account of tax expenditures and outlays that individuals are forced to make to compensate for the lack of commonly available public programs. On a gross basis, the United States ranks 23rd of 27 countries in the study, with social spending at 17.4 percent of G.D.P. versus an average of 22.4 percent. But based on adjusted data that accounts for tax expenditures, United States social spending rises to 27.5 percent of G.D.P., putting us in fifth place, well above the average of 22.2 percent.

American conservatives routinely assert that the people of Europe live in virtual destitution because of their swollen welfare states. But according to a commonly accepted index of life satisfaction, many heavily taxed European countries rank well above the United States, including the Netherlands (where total taxes were 38.7 percent of G.D.P. in 2010 compared with 24.8 percent in the United States), Norway (42.9 percent), Sweden (45.5 percent) and Denmark (47.6 percent).
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,003
Tokens
social security, love to discuss that

what Republicans want is for everyone to have is what so many libtards enjoy today. That's right, privatization of retirement benefits.

Teachers and government employees, two very large libtard demographics, they do not participate in social security and guess what, their retirement benefits are several times better than those on SSA. Yet these very same people will kick and scream and tell you republicans want to starve the elderly simply because we want everyone to enjoy the benefits they enjoy

another fine example of libtardism, the dumbest most uninformed people on earth
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
social security, love to discuss that

what Republicans want is for everyone to have is what so many libtards enjoy today. That's right, privatization of retirement benefits.

Teachers and government employees, two very large libtard demographics, they do not participate in social security and guess what, their retirement benefits are several times better than those on SSA. Yet these very same people will kick and scream and tell you republicans want to starve the elderly simply because we want everyone to enjoy the benefits they enjoy

another fine example of libtardism, the dumbest most uninformed people on earth

As usual, Willie is 100% WRONG in a political post. Every day that ends with "day" you can count on that being the case. Federal Government employees have been participating in the Social security system since 1984. It was a key provision in the bipartisan plan back then to keep Social Security solvent. I thought his one area of expertise was economics and taxes, and he doesn't even know that. What a pathetic, arrogant, buffoon. A perfect example of a clueless, cliche ridden, Fox News mind controlled zombie, the dumbest, most uninformed people on earth. Maybe there's another area that he actually does "know", but it's yet to be demonstrated in this forum. The best part is even with this proof, Willie will not admit he's wrong, and will try and paint it that 2+2 =3 yet again.
http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/fedgovees.htm
 

Member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
39,464
Tokens
As usual, Willie is 100% WRONG in a political post. Every day that ends with "day" you can count on that being the case. Federal Government employees have been participating in the Social security system since 1984. It was a key provision in the bipartisan plan back then to keep Social Security solvent. I thought his one area of expertise was economics and taxes, and he doesn't even know that. What a pathetic, arrogant, buffoon. A perfect example of a clueless, cliche ridden, Fox News mind controlled zombie, the dumbest, most uninformed people on earth. Maybe there's another area that he actually does "know", but it's yet to be demonstrated in this forum. The best part is even with this proof, Willie will not admit he's wrong, and will try and paint it that 2+2 =3 yet again.
http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/fedgovees.htm

He said teachers and government employees meaning state government employees. Teachers don't participate in social security. What is wrong about what he said?
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
He said teachers and government employees meaning state government employees. Teachers don't participate in social security. What is wrong about what he said?

He said Government employees. The Vast majority of even state and local Government employees are covered by Social Security. And all Federal employees hired since 1984 are. Most teachers are also. There are about 14 states that still have private Pensions for teachers. 94% of all American workers are covered by Social security. As usual, the guy was spouting off on a topic, and acted like he knew it all, but he actually knew nothing. Will he admit it, say he was wrong, apologize for attempting to mislead, and move on? No is favored at -1000000000.
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,003
Tokens
teachers don't participate in social security, as well as 30% or more of all government employees. Especially those protected by the unions. Google postal workers pensions for example

I prepare over 600 tax returns a year, I know who receives what and think it's funny some libtard actually thinks he can teach me something on the topic. I'm speaking from first hand experience, that word fratfraud despises, yet again.

and federal employees participating in the federal employees retirement system receive substantially greater benefits than those of us stuck in social security, that's just a stone cold fact

teachers have programs like those provided by TIAA - CREF, they retire with benefits 3x better than everyone else and can retire as young as age 55 without having the income restrictions imposed upon them in order to receive benefits before age 66

what we have here is a great example of a libtard evidently reading a spin piece written by some libtard author and published by some libtard news source and he thinks he gotz game, too funny
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,003
Tokens

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,003
Tokens
love me some "great society"

but shouldn't a "great society" eliminate violent crimes as opposed to being the epicenter for such?
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
teachers don't participate in social security, as well as 30% or more of all government employees. Especially those protected by the unions. Google postal workers pensions for example

I prepare over 600 tax returns a year, I know who receives what and think it's funny some libtard actually thinks he can teach me something on the topic. I'm speaking from first hand experience, that word fratfraud despises, yet again.

and federal employees participating in the federal employees retirement system receive substantially greater benefits than those of us stuck in social security, that's just a stone cold fact

teachers have programs like those provided by TIAA - CREF, they retire with benefits 3x better than everyone else and can retire as young as age 55 without having the income restrictions imposed upon them in order to receive benefits before age 66

what we have here is a great example of a libtard evidently reading a spin piece written by some libtard author and published by some libtard news source and he thinks he gotz game, too funny

Cash the Willie 100% wrong/Willie refusinfg to admit he's wrong Exacta yet again. As always, it's a lock. This idiot is now calling SSA's own website a "libtrad news source". He's dead wrong about his figures, as proven, and he's so locked into his bubble, where locally teachers in CT aren't in Social Security that he thinks it's true nationwide. Typical arrogant spouting about somerthing he just doesn't know about. Fool said Governement employees don't particiapte in Social Secutity. Now he's sasying they get more than those who participate in Social Security. Moron, THEY participate in Social Security, and get more because of their own 401K/Thrift Plan, which they contribute to just like those in most private jobs. Postal workers are covereed by Social Security since 1984 just like other Federal workers, but the clueless idiot tries to say they're not, because they're covered by a union????? Willie is just a know nothing Fox News Cliche spouter. I'm shocked someone who claims to be in the tax/financial field can actually be so ignorant about these topics, which even a layman can find accurate info about. That calls into question whether he's even actaully in the field. I guess one can pretend to be anything over the internet, until he stumbles into a field someone else knows a little something about, spouts off about that field and gets exposed as the fraud he is.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,244
Messages
13,565,889
Members
100,774
Latest member
carlottakrajcik44
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com