$1.5 Billion for Marriage?

[Soxy]

It's the same with a lot of social issues. If we are spending XX on treatment, prisons, etc. and could save $X+1 by spending $X-1 isn't that a good deal? Intervention instead of prison? The problem comes in analyzing the cost/benefit ratio. It is difficult to say that Joe Doe would have gone to prison if it was not for this job training program which cost us $1billion.

Very good point Tex. My main concern here is WHAT marriage values will be taught here. I'm leary of Bush's track record with women's issues here. He's notorious for cutting Budgets for battered women's shelter's, rape crisis lines, and other stuff like that, and for closing centers. I'm really scared that this money his is alternative to the care we provide at those kinds of places... So, I'm sort of wondering exactly if this will be a little bit of Tammy Wynette kind of stuff or what?

[Steff]

I'm leary of Bush's track record with women's issues here. He's notorious for cutting Budgets for battered women's shelter's, rape crisis lines, and other stuff like that, and for closing centers. I'm really scared that this money his is alternative to the care we provide at those kinds of places... So, I'm sort of wondering exactly if this will be a little bit of Tammy Wynette kind of stuff or what?

Maybe he could call Kevin Cline for some advice in this area... he did a great job saving shelters in the movie "Dave"..

[Texsox]

Very good point Tex. My main concern here is WHAT marriage values will be taught here. I'm leary of Bush's track record with women's issues here. He's notorious for cutting Budgets for battered women's shelter's, rape crisis lines, and other stuff like that, and for closing centers. I'm really scared that this money his is alternative to the care we provide at those kinds of places... So, I'm sort of wondering exactly if this will be a little bit of Tammy Wynette kind of stuff or what?

My guess is some/a lot of this will be faith based. I am not too certain I agree or disagree. I believe for some people a vow to God means a lot more than a yes to a Judge. There are many existing marriage encounter type programs that could use additional funding. That makes more sense to me than creating new programs.

 

Most marriage counseling is expensive, not covered by private insurance, and thus out of reach for the majority of couples. Some faith based programs, while using less trained and credentialed counselors may be more cost effective.

 

Stand by your man? I agree with your sentiment and fear. But in many cases saving a marriage is based on standing by your spouse. That goes both ways. I was faced with just such a scenario and voted to stand by my wife. Best decision I've made.

 

Should the US government be in the business of saving marriages? I'm not sure and lean towards no.

 

Should the US government look to ways to save money? Yes.

 

Sometimes two ideals will collide.

[Wong & Owens]

If Bush was so f***ing concerned about the stability of the "lower-classes," then why not pour that $1.5 billion into proper education and facilities at the ground level--schools, after-school programs, etc.? Does he really think that, after a lifetime of learning the "wrong way" people will be able to sustain a happy marriage after some bulls*** marriage course at the YMCA? Give me a f***ing break, it's an insult to anyone with half a brain. Why not provide these lower-class children with a more stable environment to grow in? Spend money on improving neighborhoods, more educational programs, better park district programs, little league/softball programs, etc. Give these people an overall better life experience, and they won't have as many problems with "interpersonal relations." Give them the resources and attention necessary to build a solid base for their lives, and THEN they can propegate a healthy family environment. Or, if they choose not to, then they can help in the raising of the community's children--coaches, teachers, volunteers, etc. You think only married people have f***ing influence over a kid's life? Bush and friends can't see the forest for the trees. f*** him, f*** Cheney and all the aloof silver-spoon ignoramuses--SEND THEM ALL TO f***ING MARS!

Even for Republicans--a vote for Bush/Cheney is a vote against human decency and equality.

[Texsox]

If Bush was so f***ing concerned about the stability of the "lower-classes,"  then why not pour that $1.5 billion into proper education and facilities at the ground level--schools, after-school programs, etc.?  Does he really think that, after a lifetime of learning the "wrong way" people will be able to sustain a happy marriage after some bulls*** marriage course at the YMCA?  Give me a f***ing break, it's an insult to anyone with half a brain.  Why not provide these lower-class children with a more stable environment to grow in?  Spend money on improving neighborhoods, more educational programs, better park district programs, little league/softball programs, etc.  Give these people an overall better life experience, and they won't have as many problems with "interpersonal relations."  Give them the resources and attention necessary to build a solid base for their lives, and THEN they can propegate a healthy family environment.  Or, if they choose not to, then they can help in the raising of the community's children--coaches, teachers, volunteers, etc.  You think only married people have f***ing influence over a kid's life?  Bush and friends can't see the forest for the trees.  f*** him, f*** Cheney and all the aloof silver-spoon ignoramuses--SEND THEM ALL TO f***ING MARS!

Even for Republicans--a vote for Bush/Cheney is a vote against human decency and equality.

I would counter that the family is the building block of our society. Kids do not spend all their time in parks and in schools. The family is the single biggest influence.

 

Also, we are already spending a lot of money on those types of programs. Should we decide that, for example, schools are the #1 priority and we are going to shut down every other program and just concentrate on education? If we ever get that right then we will spend money on parks? When we get that right we will move on to something else?

 

We have the capacity to work on multiple problems from multiple directions at the same time. That's the beauty of our abundance.

 

One threat to families is poverty and underemployement. Financial stress is identified by many divorcing couples as the #1 problem. Sad thing is moms with kids almost always have lower standards of living after the marriage breaks up.

[Wong & Owens]

I would counter that the family is the building block of our society. Kids do not spend all their time in parks and in schools. The family is the single biggest influence.

 

Also, we are already spending a lot of money on those types of programs. Should we decide that, for example, schools are the #1 priority and we are going to shut down every other program and just concentrate on education? If we ever get that right then we will spend money on parks? When we get that right we will move on to something else?

 

We have the capacity to work on multiple problems from multiple directions at the same time. That's the beauty of our abundance.

 

One threat to families is poverty and underemployement. Financial stress is identified by many divorcing couples as the #1 problem. Sad thing is moms with kids almost always have lower standards of living after the marriage breaks up.

Kids spend more waking hours in school than they do at home, and I'm not saying they spend all their time at parks/schools. My point was you can't take people living in the ghetto, with garbage resources, garbage opportunities, garbage influences, and expect them to break out of it courtesy of some half-assed "interpersonal relations" classes. You can't seriously believe a program like that would have ANY effect at all on the state of things, can you?

 

 

We are obviously not spending enough on things like parks, schools, et al, and you'd see that if you spent any time in any large city. I'm not saying shut down other programs, but spending billions on Mars and more billions on "promoting" marriage does not strike me as "addressing multiple problems from multiple directions." The abundance of which you speak is obviously not being spread out evenly, and if that isn't the purpose of government, then I don't know what is.

 

I agree that poverty/unemploiyment adversly affects the family, and I agree that single moms have lower standards of living after a divorce, and that again illustrates why government should be spending money on "foundational" programs, so these people have something to fall back on(like a degree maybe) if their marriage fails--or give them a reason to think they don't have to get married out of fear they'll be left with no way to fend for themselves. Provide for the individual to be self-sufficient, and healthy relationships and communities can grow from that. Housing projects haven't worked, welfare hasn't worked, and neither will "interpersonal relations" programs.

[Texsox]

There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed. And I agree with all of those that you've pointed out.

 

When times are tough in a marriage there are conflict management techniques that can help a couple work through it. If all the couple has seen are broken marriages what behavior do you expect? Not everyone is equiped to deal with a marriage in the high stress environment you've described.

 

If fixing the environment is all that is necessary, than why does anyone in Kenilworth get divorced?

 

One thing that should be addressed is using property taxes to fund schools. As a society we spend a lot of money on education but it isn't distributed in any sort of equitable manner. The poor schools remain poor and the rich schools have an abundance of resources. Better schools equal higher housing prices and more money to spend while poor schools equal lower demand for housing and the schools get worse. Highland Park, Texas required a Ph.D. for the H.S. Science teacher they hired in 2002. How many schools in the inner city could afford a PhD?

[Gene Honda Civic]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I just noticed the PhD talk from tex...

 

A friend of mine went to ND to be a teacher, After graduation, he is in Mississippi, 50th in pretty much everything education wise in the US, on a program that provided a teacher spend 3 years in thier system, they got the masters education for free. The hope was that they would get good teachers initially, and may be able to retain a few of them...