Comments about ‘'Divorce culture' is costing taxpayers, study says’

I heard on the radio the other day that divorce rates were actually dropping, that they were down to the level of 1970 or 1980. I did not see the statistics or research, I just heard it on the radio. If that is so, it is a good sign.

That being said, it is also true that divorce carries with it a tremendous cost; it is interesting to see it try to be quantified.

I also agree with some of what Bob G said (I don't say that too often), that there are many abusing the welfare system.

I think, but I'm not sure, that the census bureau does not count as fatherless, children living in families where the parents co-habitate, but are not married. Either way, they constitute a family. A father and mother (only one of each) married to each other with children constitute a family and provides the best situation for all involved.

I compare a shack-up family to a thin-walled, floorless tent with rips in the side and roof and a married-parent family to a solid brick home. Both the tent and the house constitute shelter, but the house provides better shelter.

It's easy to lie with statistics.
Just because divorce rates are down doesn't mean we are better off. Why are the rates down? Is is because more people are not getting married? Is that the group that would have been more likely to divorce? I say yes.
Is it true that drinking soda helps prevent colds? After all more soda is consumed in the summer during which people experience less colds. Just because there is a correlation doesn't mean there is a cause and effect.
The right questions need to be asked, so wrong conclusions are not made.
What percentage of people get married today vs. married when there was higher divorce rates?

Maybe if women got equal pay for their work some female headed households would not live in poverty. Universal health care and a strong Union movement, after school programs, paid family leave and affordable, reliable childcare would probably alleviate this problem as well. I think there is an assumption in the article that single women want to be single or set out to be single parents.

Here are some interesting facts:

Did you know that the countries with the highest standard of living are: 1. Norway, 2. Sweden, 3. Canada, 4. Belgium, 5 Australia.

Out of the top 10, 5 are Scandinavian countries - these countries are Socialist Democratic governments. About 1/2 if not more of the legislators in Sweden are women. Women have equal pay, they have good day care for their children, they have good education (they learn 3 languages). The water is clean, they streets are clean, and they don't have a problem with homeless people.

Stockholm has over 1 million residents, yet less than 1000 homeless people.

You can walk around Copenhagen at night along and not worry about getting killed, mugged, or rape - crime is virtually non-existent.

I'm not saying that everything is perfect, they have their challenges too, but I've been there and it seems that people are happier and healthier.

Something to think about and even check into and see if I'm wrong.

I think the reason there are so few homeless in Stockholm is they all freeze to death.

I would be curoius about the tax rates in the countries Y Martinez mentions.