E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSGRUNDY CENTER, Iowa -- Presidential hopeful Rick Santorum claimed here there are incentives to remain single, and ramped up his rhetoric on the importance of family.
"At the time of the birth of the child of a mother having a child out of wedlock, 90% of the mothers are in a relationship with the father,” Santorum said, citing a Princeton University professor. Within a year after birth, he adds, “10% are in a relationship.”
"We shouldn't have incentives for people not to be married,” the former Pennsylvania senator continued. Santorum, who remains low in national polls, added that he also believes couples choose to cohabitate rather than marry, because it is cheaper.
But, as MSN Money reports: "The reality is that marriage has plenty of legal and financial benefits, including tax benefits. Even before Congress changed tax rules in 2001 to deal with the so-called marriage penalty, more married couples got a tax bonus from being married than paid a tax penalty."
He also told the group gathered at a Johnny Ray’s restaurant here: “Only 6% of families where there's a mom and dad and the children in the home are below the poverty line. The percentage of single-parent families below the poverty line is 32%.”
These numbers are slightly off. According to Columbia University’s National Center for Children in Poverty, 5% of married family households were poor at some point during the past 12 months as opposed to 28.8% of single-parent family households.
Just over half of the U.S. population will experience at least one spell of poverty before they reach the age of 65, the center also finds.
Of course, the poverty figures could be the result of sheer mathematics, rather than values. Households today are more dependent on two incomes than a generation ago. When there aren't two incomes to draw from, it stands to reason that more would be in poverty. Even if a two-parent household relies just on one income, there is less strain on child care, for example.
Speaking of poverty, MSN Money writes, "The people who faced the most egregious penalties, as a portion of their income, were the working poor."
"We need to strengthen the family," said Santorum, wearing a wristband with the acronym F.A.M.I.L.Y on it. It stands for: “Forget About Me, I Love You.”
"We need to have a president who goes out and talks about the importance of marriage, the importance of fathers being committed to their children, the importance of moral values in this country," Santorum, author of “It Takes a Family,” said.
He also said he believes increasing marriage will boost the economy.
"You don't talk about the family, you don't talk about strong marriages and mothers and fathers helping to raise children, you can't have a strong economy," Santorum said.
Leave a Comment:
What a GIANT step up from Tommy's Ham House! lol
This freak talking family values is comparable to listening to Casey Anthony on parenting advice!
Santorum said
"We need to have a president who goes out and talks about the importance of marriage, the importance of fathers being committed to their children, the importance of moral values in this country," Santorum, author of “It Takes a Family,
Sanatorum is so out of touch with reality.
FYI: Santorum,
President Talks Fatherhood, Coaching Daughter's Basketball Team (VIDEO)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/18/obama-weekly-address-pres_n_879703.html
Tea baggers just make sh!t up; See?
Since when is morality a big issue in our country?
I see American Morality in the same place as our government.
IN THE TOILET!
Where is the Tidy Bowl man when you need him?
Another stupid comment by a another stupid arrogant a$$!
"We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo by Walt Kelly
All that Rick lacks is that stunted mustache.
He already has the 'cross' to bear.
And a myopic grasp of reality.
Cheaper to be single?
Take it from me, it's not. No way, no how.
And if this episode of sheer and utter stupidity and shocking disconnectedness doesn't finally undo Santorum's chances, then there really is no God.
Anna
I agree with you.
Two people are two people, whether you're married or not. He'll have to show me how with pencil and paper.
Anywho.....he won't be the nominee. That'll be Romney.
I don't know AM - Ms. Spanky went on a shopping excursion this weekend. Oh man it was definately not cheap.
Ms Spanky's idea of discount shopping tends to be Nordstoms, but she prefers Neimans.
I do got to hand it to her - she takes me to "lunch" first, plys me with alcohol then goes to town.
Or comparable to listening to Obama talking about the economy...
Personally, I think you're giving it away too cheap, Spanky. ;-)
AM---I think Santorum might actually believe what he is saying. Not sure which is worse---to be so cynical as to say this kind of stuff and not mean it or to believe it.
That's what they said about Prohibition. It will solve ALL our problems. Giving families a tax credit per child, giving married people a tax break over single people -- this is redistribution of wealth conservatives say they are against. Nothing is ever gained by legislating morality and praying away the gay -- Hey, how about fathers like Joe Walsh providing for his children, huh? How about creating jobs so families can thrive? Not to mention taking care of the poor, the elderly, and the planet. Bachmann, Santorum -- these fundamentalists who want a theocracy and Christian Sharia Law are NOT the answer, and aren't even true Christians.
The current resident of the White House is a perfect example of a committed father!! Obama walks the walk and talks the talk, encouraging parents to get involved with their children's lives and schools! Don't think we need a lecture from Mr. Santorum!
@ Steeler Fan -- It's a toss-up.
@ TP -- I wonder why it is that, every time I read a post about Santorum, I feel like I need hand sanitizer.
Off topic, but current.
An interview that Fox would prefer you don't see.
http://www.observer.com/2011/10/exclusive-occupy-wall-street-activist-slams-fox-news-anchor-in-un-aired-interview-video/
Two can live as cheap as one,....only half as long....;-)
Anybody that thinks it is cheaper to be married, probably has never been married.
So according to the author , it is cheaper to feed two people than 1, cheaper to pay two health insurance premiums than 1, 2 cars compared to one. The author and the others that think it is cheaper to be married, would argue with any republican that said the sun is hot.
I just celebrated 32 years of marraige last week. It's a full time job with benefits! ;-)
What a crock Santorum's selling. It costs as much for one to put a roof over his/her head as it does for two, need a refrigerator, stove, furniture whether for one or two. It is, however, more expensive to raise a family than to not raise one.
"We shouldn't have incentives for people not to be married." - Just dripping with irony.
If Mr. Santorum thinks a father being committed to his children is so important maybe he can go have a talk with Congressman Walsh.
Better use of his time, Da Noid, than taking shots at a President who is himself a role model for fatherhood and who has stressed the roles of parents in many speeches and articles.
For more on the push for a Theocracy in this country, this episode of Fresh air is a real eye opener!
Terry Gross interviews C. Peter Wagner, leading apostle and prophet of the New Apostolic Reformation.
http://nprfreshair.tumblr.com/
My S.O. and I would save a few hundred bucks if we could file married after 17 years, but when that 1st hospital bill hits only one of us will have to file bankruptcy after all our stuff is transferred into the other's name.
Why does Scrotorum continue speaking? No one wants to hear the frothy mix of whatever and fecal matter that comes out of his mouth.
Yeah, move along, nothing to see here.
Liberal social policies begun in the 1960s have worked wonders in keeping families intact, and in lowering the number of unwed mothers...right?
Welfare policies have succeeded in encouraging self reliance, and family, right?
You can see the wonderful results in the inner cities, ruled for decades by liberalism.
How dare Santorum question the brilliant liberal social policies....
President Obama sets a great example, by taking such good care of his extended family, specifically his aunt and uncle....hmmm
Santorum, as with many of his ilk, assign causality and blame to suit their prejudices and flavor-of-the-day soapbox. People who are in a relationship do not decide their future solely on the tax code nor do women who have a child out of wedlock always do so in order to game the system. The rewards are hardly worth the trouble. It is obviously true that if you are supporting a child by yourself, you are more likely to be poor. Yet instead of supporting and extending access to family planning services, yahoos like him want to cut funding for Planned Parenthood, often the only resource of family planning and birth control pills for single/poor women. And why do many insurance plans cover Viagra but not the Pill? Again with Santorum and other "conservatives"--let's blame the victim for societal failures.
If poverty is near unversal experience, then why aren't thing like minimum wages and havingmore support?
The asweris when poplem ove out ofpoverty by social mobility they forget the expeirence andnever look behind at those who are still suck in it. They say "that's not me "and refuse to identify with the expeience , and are more likey to consider poverty the subject of shame because somehow they were enabledt o be up lifted;andthey focus instead on those things that uplifed them -like education ,church , or politcal connections-as tools, rahter than theconditionof poverty itself.
Thosewho never experien ceuplifting have noreference point to understand..
Rick never allows facts and reality to stand in the way of his stupid comments. But then --- he's a 21st century Republican so what else should we expect?
Rick, face facts. The ONLY time marriage is more expensive is when you decide that you can't stand it any more and you have to end it. Then, it costs you big time...Our President is a great example of a father to his children. The Santorums have no right to criticize anyone's parenting styles when they have incidents like this going on.
So, Rick, please keep the government out of our family and/or our single lives. The next thing you know, they won't let us take our dead kids home and sleep with them.
So is it the fact that Santorum is making the statements or the message? Are you progressives saying that having incentives in any government program, tax, welfare or whatever that subsidizes behaviorial choices is a good thing? The hate and personal attack for anything called GOP seems to color any real ability to critically think. Obama cant be criticized for his family and he is definitely a great role model for fathers and marriages especially with the job he has and its time commitments. Is it really bad to discuss the poverty statistics related to single motherhood, teenage pregnancy and other behaviorial choices? Should the government be creating any incentives assistance that encourages bad behaviorial choices? I think those are legitimate issues to discuss. You guys are always railing against government incentives that you dont like but dont say anything about those you do like but a subsidy is just welfare under a different name so I dont understand why you guys are so hateful on this discussion.
Kirk,
Us "progressives" do not like phonies. Nor do we like the government, under the direction of Rick Santorum, or any other GOP moron, telling us how to manage our personal lives, especially when their own personal lives are so creepy.
The GOP is against government interference unless it involves telling everyone who and how they can get married to, how to raise their children.
The GOP needs to fix the roads, bridges, and infrastructure, and stay out of our bedrooms, and quit trying to legislate their own view of morality. Marriage is a religious ceremony. Having children is a personal choice. Government should have no part of promoting either or discouraging either.
MkeMke, I agree with you and dont like Santorum or the GOP social policy platform although I am a fiscal conservative and dont like the current democratic financial policies. I assume you also dont like phonies when it comes to finances either right? So any politician preaching or asking for a fiscal policy that they dont practice in their personal lives would count too right? I also assume when you say you dont want government telling someone how to live in their private life, that also means how they spend their hard earned money, what educational, professional and other financial behaviorial choices someone makes right? You dont want the government to be mandating that someone actually have to buy insurance I assume, or pay for someone elses bad behaviorial choices right? You wouldnt advocate government putting their hands in someone's pockets to steal their hard earned income would you? I assume you dont want to legislate gun ownership either? Shouldnt be promoting or discouraging investment in green energy or bailing out union automakers or interfering in companies right to do business in certain states or choosing whether to be in a union or not?
I assume you are all for government interference when it comes to regulating financial matters for individuals and against choice but your against any type of nonfinancial interference. Unfortunately there is the rub that is dividing this country. One side views self reliance and personal accountability for ones behaviorial choices in life with appropriate safety nets and the other side thinks the government should create an entitlement state and ignore self reliance with no personal accountability for our financial behaviorial choices and income inequality is a bad thing regardless. I consider morality to be a financial issue beyond your bedroom issues and the government should have no part promoting or discouraging financial welfare.
Government financial policies and personal finances are two different things. Governments can deficit spend when needed, individuals cannot, at least not over the long haul. Personal finances are to satisfy one person or one family. Government finances must satisfy a majority of the public.
If I'm being asked to pay the unpaid bills of people that don't have insurance, which I am through taxes, and government support of hospitals, then I don't mind requiring people to have health insurance, anymore than I don't mind requiring them to have auto insurance if they want to drive on the same roads that I drive on.
Paying your fair share of taxes is not the same as the government stealing from you. In fact, if you're not paying your fair share, you're stealing from the rest of us. Those who have benefitted the most from our wonderful form of government should expect to pay more in taxes and not whine about it.
I think gun owners should have to carry their weapons in plain sight, on holsters. That way, the rest of us have an opportunity to avoid them, not hire them, and not put ourselves or our children at risk by being around them if we choose not to. Is anything more than a six shooter really necessary to protect yourself??? If you want to act crazy, at least be man enough to put it out there for everyone to see.
I'll go along with free markets as long as you're honest about it. Adding the costs of the Iraq/ Afghanistan wars, and maintaining a Middle East military presence, to the price of gas would be a start. $5.00/gallon gas would have encouraged green energy years ago, without the government.
The idea that you either support total unfettered freedoms or an entitlement state is bogus. Try building your own roads next time you want to go somewhere. Or your own sewage system next time you just want to go.
I also support more money for education, so that people like yourself can properly use "your"and "you're". Lack of education is our biggest problem and the biggest boon for the Republican Party.
MkeMke those are straw man arguments but fundamentally no different than the type of arguments the social conservatives make. Government financial policies are linked to personal finances because we fund the government financial policies. You cant have one without the other. Just like a person who believes abortion is murder (I am pro choice by the way) cant be marginalized by you when you say keep government out of the bedroom or people's individual lives. In general, the real issues are much more grey and nuanced than the progressives make it on here. In general, I agree with your overall conclusions but just how they are applied because your opinions are not the facts we are facing today or have been stretched past their logical conclusion. Not in all cases but in some.
1) your auto insurance comparison doesnt make sense as you arent forced to buy, own or drive a car and if not you dont have to have car insurance. Further, that is a states rights issue not a federal mandate. However, I personally dont have a problem with the individual mandate
2) I agree paying your fair share is not the same as stealing but the vast majority of people based on your test of who is benefiting the most are not paying their fair share or basically anything at all. Give me what you think is a fair share? For example, if your a working comfortably wealthy small business owner, doctor p or whatever making over $250,000 (certainly not ultra rich) your already paying almost 50% in total in federal income, payroll, state income tax and soon to be 3.4% obamacare tax. Are you going to tell me thats not fair share? Because a few ultra rich who get their money in municpal bonds or capital gains the progressives want to make this fair share Buffett tax issue which flies in the face of reality. The wealthy pay all the federal and state income tax in this country. Now the middle class and lower income class pay into their retirement for social security but they will get that back and these people also use the interstates (most infrastructure, parks, police, fire etc is paid and used at the state and local level so I am trying to find federal benefits) and benefit greatly from this most wonderful form of government but given very little if anything back so they are never giving their fair share right? When is that supposed to happen? The rich are paying more in tax. That said, I am all for a simpler fair progressive tax code in which we all pay more and get rid of all loopholes, subisidies and welfare in the code.
3) no issue on your gun proposal
4)No problem with the gas issue and wars too. I agree, if gas gets high enough we will encourage green energy without government welfare that doesnt work
5) roads and sewers have nothing to do with the issue as those are paid for at the state and local level. You are totally ignoring the spending side of things and thats just a huge problem for fiscal conservatives like me. The government has to get control of spending before any revenue increases are contemplated otherwise given the government's history they arent credible. You totally missed that issue or my poing
6) Education increases have been vast and I apologize if I use stream of consiousness typing that doesnt meet your spell test but trust me I can write and I have been very fortunate with my education. My mom, sister and wife were or are teachers. I have been fortunate to attend a great private institution and grad school. My kids have had the same good fortune. But its not money or the teachers in my mind that have been the issue as we have thrown billions at education. Its the lack of willingness on the teachers unions and the democrats to embrace any real education reform over the last 20 years (athough Obama has done some good things to challenge his base) and parents. Your not going to solve our education issues with parental involvement and quit blaming it all on teachers.
Kirk, (as they used to say on Saturday Night Live) you ignorant slut,
Government financial policies are determined by the government. That's all of us. If the majority of us want deficit spending to prime the economy and create jobs, we should have it. If the majority of us want balanced budgets on the backs of the middle and lower classes, and bigger tax breaks and loopholes for the wealthy and corporations, we should have it. Your side does not have a majority and if there is a God, you never will. Learn how to compromise or you will be toast. Personal finances are different. You cannot print and circulate your own money. You cannot control interest rates. You cannot spend more than you have for very long. You cannot start unfunded wars. You cannot give yourself tax breaks and loopholes.
1) In my state, it is illegal to drive without insurance. I like it that way. I pay less in insurance because of that law. My expenses for uninsured and underinsured motorist insurance are less than yours. You are paying for those careless, inconsiderate uninsured jackasses every month when you pay your higher premiums. It's the same with health care. If you don't require health insurance, there will be a certain % of the population that will run around without it (currently about 30%), expecting the rest of us to pick up their bills when they can't or don't pay them. I don't see any reason to require people to act responsibly when they fail to on their own. That's what our whole system of laws is all about. I feel safer because we are a country of laws and not of men.
2) 400 people control over 50% of the wealth in this country. I'll repeat it again, because you either didn't hear it or get it the first time. Those that benefit the most from this wonderful country should be prepared to pay for those benefits in higher taxes and tax rates. Since 1980, 88% of the increase in wealth has gone to 11% of the US population. Most families are working harder and longer than they were in 1980. Yet they have had no increase in income. In fact, in my state, it was just reported that the average working family lost 15% of their income in the last decade. Meanwhile, Exxon pays no federal income taxes. We've given billions in tax breaks, tax deferrals, and TIF districts to corporations, and we've cut higher income tax rates. The rich are not paying more in taxes than they were and every study proves it. Get your facts straight.
3) Gun control-you brought it up. "I assume you wouldn't want to legislate gun ownership either?"
Hell, yes I want to legislate it. For the same reason as auto and health insurance. Too many morons can't act responsibly. The proliferation of handguns and semi-automatic weapons is the biggest danger we face. Bigger than terrorism. Regulating them is the only way to curb that. If you think that most people support concealed carry, carry yours in public in plain view and see what kind of reactions you get. Try to interview for a job with a gun in your holster. The gun lobby has bought and paid for this insanity.
4) You said, "Roads and sewers are paid for by state and local governments." False. Look at how many grants are given by the federal government for not only interstate highway maintenance, but for local public works programs. All those things make our lives better because we don't have to walk around in raw sewage and our cars don't get stuck in the mud all the time. Think back, at one time we did. Fiscal Conservatives like you just don't like anybody else's progress. If you have yours, you could care less about anyone else. Think about what it's like to live in a world where there is no public education, no roads, no water supply, no sewers. If that's what you still want, then move to Khrghistan. Civilization dictates that we not only satisfy ourselves, but that we look out for the other guy, too. Just because you don't like a program or benefit from a government program, doesn't mean that nobody else does. In fact, most government money eventually goes to businesses and the wealthy. You don't argue against those, only the ones that help the poor and middle class. You're selfish, which is the whole problem with the GOP. They refuse to see the other side.
5) Parental involvement alone will not solve our education problems. If that were the case, home schoolers would have turned out the necessary scientists, technicians, and people that can distinguish between your and you're. In fact, homeschoolers score lower on all college entrance exams than anyone. Try teaching your kid Calculus or Trigonometry. We're losing out to other countries while your people cut teacher salaries and consistently reduce spending on schools in order to give tax breaks to the wealthy. If we don't have qualified teachers, we're as good as done. But people don't want to work for .33/day with no benefits, like they do in China. If we're in a race to get our manufacturing jobs back, with reduced wages and benefits, like the GOP continually suggests, then it is a race to the bottom, not the top.
In short, I don't like wasting money either. I don't think anyone does. But don't assume because you are a fiscal Conservative that anything you don't support or need is a waste to everyone else. Democrats and Republicans voted for every program that currently exists. Those were there because somebody wanted them. Periodic review is a good thing, but when you take revenue increases off the table as a method of solving our problems then you force everyone benefitting from government programs, including yourself, to bear the burden at the expense of the wealthy.
MkeMke--where did you get your views? So much is just plain wrong factually and you seem to have this chip on your shoulder based on success envy that is the basis of what is wrong with this country at the moment. I can start at the bottom because its easiest. I got news for you, its not even close that a majority of people want deficit spending by the government to create jobs. By far a majority of people want incentives for the private sector to create jobs and they want people to better themselves through self reliance and personal accountability and responsibility rather than permenant handouts from the government. The majority doesnt want a nanny state and quasi socialism like europe where the middle class in that continent lives less with less financially than the classified poor in this country. You sound like a person that doesnt understand that this is an ownership society and that the government is funded by us the taxpayers so its directly connected to personal finances. Its our money who contributed--sounds like you dont contribute which is why you are envious--so we should have a say in how its spent. Remember we used to reward success not punish it. Do you really hate Steve Jobs that much? Do you really think he isnt a job creator and worth every penny he made but you think you know better how to spend his money. Give me a break.
1) I never mentioned home schoolers but lets talk real facts. Education spending and how much as gone to teacher's salaries have far outpaced inflation over the last 30 years. The GOP has never cut nor reduced spending on schools and none of it for tax breaks to the wealthy. What a stupid comment. Your local property taxes support your school and find me anywhere in the country outside California that has reduced property taxes. The federal government has provided education subsidies that have only increased in a very dramatic fashion under both Clinton and even more under Bush so what have you been smoking? But its not money that has done very little if anything at all to eliminate the education gap, its the democrats and the teachers unions that have stopped and prevented all types of education reform, whether it be merit pay, getting rid of bad teachers, charter schools, testing etc. Obama has definitely done better than previous democrats in trying to embrace reform but come on man get real on this issue.
2) My state requires auto insurance too--but my state doesnt require me to drive or own a car does yours? You also forgot to mention--it was your state that mandated not the federal government. So explain to me how the individual mandate is the same. Just like your state, can I opt out of health care as I can opt out of driving?
3) Well I guess we differ on gun control as I am for reasonable restrictions but to ignore the fact that there are already 250 million guns in individual hands is just plain ignoring common sense. Outlawing guns in cities just makes it more dangerous because the criminals will always have them.
4) Yes the feds bail out the states with roads and other infrastructure money but thats bail out money and besides interstates, virtually all roads, police and fire etc are state and local money. Sorry just the way it is. And explain to me how all these balanced budgets are balanced on the backs of the middle class? Since the middle class and poor pay very little if any federal income tax, they get back their social security contributions and more and then receive 900 billion annually in welfare subsidies and use the roads and infrastructure and educational system no different than someone like Steve Jobs, small business owner, doctor etc who has succeeded in this great country, all funded by these wealthy working people, how is it even remotely possible that you could say balanced on the backs of people who take more out than contribute? What nonsense are you talking aout in terms of education roads etc-the wealthy pay for all that too in terms of state and local taxes and use them just the same as the middle and poor. Most government money does not go to business and wealthy what drugs do you smoke? I am not selfish, I just think that government spending cant go up 80% over the last three years and expect taxpayers to basically double their tax burden over that same time frame. Its ridiculous. Thats not selfish thats fiscal sanity.
As for your last comment, I have no problem with government programs and its not a matter of taking revenue off the table. Government spending has to be reined in. Nothing is being cut in fact quite the opposite, in a 1.4 trillion deficit, the current Senate couldnt find 1.5 billion in cuts to fund FEMA. Come on, when all government programs have been growing at speeds faster than light? MkeMke, you need to quit making this a GOP versus democrat issue and get yourself educated on basic financial and economic policies within your government.
Obviously Santorum is too rich to realize it's not that way. When couples are married they get extra tax deductions. They split housing costs such as a mortgage, utilities, etc. They get cheaper group rates on car insurance because of multi-car discounts. The same goes with family insurance. On phone charges they can get family plans which are much cheaper per person. You don't have to worry about food going bad as easily because when you cook for one person the meal size normally goes bad before 1 person can use it all up. Married couples can sometimes carpool to work. Obviously Santorum has never been poor and single. I think the real reason the GOP is trying to push that it's cheaper to be single is they're trying to state that gays and lesbians aren't at a disadvantage by not being able to marry in most states and by not being able to get federal marriage tax deductions.
It IS certainly less expensive to remain single. The financial incentives for marriage are trivial by comparison to the costs!
Enough people are procreating - most of whom shouldn't - that there is no concern over world 'underpopulation'.
Quite the contrary.
More and more 'educated' singles have figured this out.
Amazing to see commentary on Repubs that are running, seems as if nobody likes any of them, and understandably.
How about Donald Rump though? He loves the front runner of the week, whoever is making news. What a butt dumpling!
I think what is going on is press is allowing people a better insight into all of these jerks. Not that they, press, are without sin, but might just be doing us a favor this time.
Emil
As a married person, I could never hope to receive financial aid for school, (in fact my kids don't qualify), and as a married person, I will never get free or subsidized rent, WIC coupons, Food Stamps, LINK card, Medicaid.....free innoculations, free eye exams, free dental care.......those are penalties for being married too. I don't get to have my children babysat for a $1 per hour while I go to classes....I had to pay a couple hundred dollars per week so I could go to work when my kids were smaller....This goes well beyond the supposed marriage penalty of taxation. We have made being a single parent a career choice which only requires the ability to have dependent children. Unfortunately, there is no firing the parent for doing a poor job and taking away their income. And as far as saving money on car insurance????, well the savings is lost when you consider I have to pay additional to cover me for those who have no insurance or are underinsured....like the hit and run driver who cost me $1700 to have my car repaired when they rear ended me at a stop light and then took off around me as soon as the light changed... Savings on phone packages....what planet are you on...by the time you pay all the extra dings for things like texting, or apps, or internet pkgs...I am paying more than the person with their little pay as you go phone (try buying a telephone that doesn't require the separate data plans now...I just did and the choices are virtually non-existent) Oh yeah, and why is it that somebody who can't afford food can afford a car and gasoline to run it? I can remember when my husband and I were first married, we shared one used car between us and often one of us would be walking, taking the bus, or using a bike...the car didn't go out of the driveway except for work and the grocery store and you always had to combine trips. If two people who are married and both working can make those compromises, why don't the singles have to do likewise?
yes it is cheaper for a single person to live better because on some of the single issues we as taxpayers are taking care of them welfare , section 8 , food stamps , and now telephones who would not jump on the wagon of free everything , and now me being umployed with a certain amout of income from unemployement with me and my son i still don't qualifty for free nothing only in america uh , and look at all of the families i have taken care of and now i need help and i cannot get it , only in america i was once told that it would be better for me to let unemplyemnet go for free everything but i have some pride so i will contuine to recieve unemployement until i find another job