Why is Obama spending $5,000,000 to buy ads to promote (heterosexual) marriage?

Do you have a link to this?

Don’t know, but good for him. OK liberals start the flames now!

So you hate people more than taxes?

1. It is not “Obama;” it is the federal government.

2. It is a campaign promoting the benefits of marriage generally not heterosexual marriage as opposed to any other type.

Here is the link from USA Today.

Here is an excerpt:
”“We’re not telling people ‘Get married’ but ‘Don’t underestimate the benefits of marriage,’ ” says Paul Amato, a Pennsylvania State University sociologist and adviser to the National Healthy Marriage Resource Center, which is spearheading the campaign.

The resource center, a federally funded virtual clearinghouse, works under an agreement with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families.

Research suggests a bevy of benefits for those who marry, including better health, greater wealth and more happiness for the couple, and improved well-being for children.”

I did’t know PRESIDENT Obama had $5 million.

Does anybody else remember the conservative pundits lecturing the rest of us about showing respect for the former president Bush as a sign of respect for the office. Ah well, a change of president, a change of protocol, I guess.

The government has decided to be in the business of marriage. I don’t understand why they should care, but they’re the ones who get to set the rules. And apparently they want more people to get married. Probably so we can then get a mortgage and help the housing market.

Is it just me or in this time of extreme economic crisis does it seem insane for any government agency to be buying advertising space in any venue?

Does this only apply to one-mother-one-father marriages? If I’m an Indian immigrant, can I marry more than one person? If I’m gay, can I marry someone of the same sex? Does the marriage have to be a Christian marriage? Does it have to be in a church? Does the government choose the colors of the flowers or bridesmaid dresses?

This is completely ridiculous.

My grandmother would be all for this, because she wants great-grandkids lol

Married people generally live longer happier lives… or so studies have shown.

Btko is saying it right. Studies I can’t quote have also shown that homes with 2 adults in them tend to be more prosperous and stable, though obviously in certain cases it would be a bad, bad idea to hold onto a union.
Another element to this thinking is that if people wait to find a good person to have kids with, they’re less likely to have to raise the kids in a relatively impoverished situation, both emotionally and materially, or pass the kids on to their aging parents to raise.

Five mil these days is chump change.

Yeah except that those “happy families” are getting taxed at an alarming rate because the government has spending diarrhea. Advertising like this is a colossal waste of our taxed money

They want happy families? Let us keep more of our paychecks.

I mean- think about it- does anyone really think that someone will read this advertising and have an epiphany? “Oh Wow! That is a good idea! I better go get married!”

Well. Because our government (which is the group actually doing the work) enjoys spending money on trivial matters. our government has a way with doing completely random things in order to better life in this country. sadly, though, it rarely works. and it really is outrageous, and probably will offend many liberals who voted for obama because they actually believed in change. though matrimony is a wonderful thing, i doubt that advertising marriage will actually do any good. and if anyone decides to marry in the hype of the advertising, i’m sure it’ll be in haste and end sadly.

@btko & susanc: Don’t you think the vast majority of those studies would be concerning heterosexual marriages? Oh, BTW I agree about the chump change, but 5M and 5M there, it will soon add up.

The Federal government is so huge, you can not possibly imagine it. It spends trillions of dollars. 5 million is a drop in the bucket and it means nothing.

If, indeed, research shows that marriage has a lot of benefits, including better health and longer lives, and if a mere 5 million actually persuades a few hundred couples to marry, the 5 million could easily be a money-maker (in terms of cost vs benefit).

The federal government supports a lot of research. More than any other organization in the world. There is a lot of speculative research that it supports. Contrary to popular belief, it is not obvious what will be important in the future. If we only support researc that looks like an obvious winner, our society will go down the tubes really fast.

In case it isn’t obvious, I hate these unthinking, uninformed, kneejerk reactions to sensationalize headlines. I wish people would take a little time to get informed before going off half-cocked. Then their objections might make some sense. Better yet, people should not go off half-cocked at all. Fully cock your weapons, or don’t shoot at all!

@daloon Exactly!!!

YES THIS IS HORRIBLE!

but, the article that marina posted states that “the media campaign has a budget of $1.25 million a year for four years; the campaign is part of the federal Healthy Marriage Initiative, a Bush administration effort under the Administration for Children & Families.”

so these were laws that bush got passed in congress, not obama (surprise, no).

also, it is not true that married people are “happier.” first of all there are all kinds of problems when we try to quantify happiness to measure it (as if it is a tangible measurable item).

once we lay down the “happiness” criteria, you must ask if unmarried people feel they are unhappy because society expects them to be married, so if they haven’t reached that “achievement” they think less of themselves and therefore are “less happy”

on top of all that studies have shown that married men are very happy, while married women are less happy.

one study shows that happiness is highest at the begining of the marriage and then declines. “doctoral candidate Shane Worner of Australian National University observed a U-shaped curve of satisfaction levels exists around the time of marriage for both genders. Individuals are less happy the year or two before marriage, very happy around the time of the marriage, and then realize another decline in happiness after marriage.”

i could go on and on, but to make a long story short, why the fuck is the government telling us one kind of lifestyle (married life) is better and more valuable than a different kind of lifestyle. (and as usual leaving all the gays out… cuz hey! we don’t care about their happiness levels!)

@alive: Sure happiness is hard to measure directly, but, as you probably know, you can certainly measure it’s impact using structural equation modeling. It’s just another latent variable.

As to the other studies you mention, it is considered courteous to provide links when citing things here.

As to your last paragraph, it seems to me that the government should be telling people what might help them do better. Do you have a problem with the government publicizing information about the effects of tobacco use? Of course, I’d rather the government spread out good information, but if they are doing this in good faith, I don’t have a problem with it. If they are misusing bad science for ideological purposes, I have a big problem.

Finally, as to homosexuals, it seems to me that if marriage is good, then that’s an argument in favor of giving homosexuals the right to marry. No?

It bothered me when they spent 150 mil on his parties and balls too. Yet we have starving children in our country?

i don’t understand the idea of promoting something that is already done rather often? is there a link? or an example of these promotions? is it like a buy one get one free sort of deal? i’m puzzled.

@daloon. so assuming we can measure happiness (as if it is a steady number that does not fluctuate depending on a million different circumstances) doesn’t it then make more sense to measure happiness of people in a marriage vs. people who have made a consciousnesses decision to not be married and still be in a committed, monogamous relationship for life?

instead of singles (most of who are likely to want to be married eventually) v. people who found someone they wanted to marry?

in other words there is a hierarchy in our society that assumes marriage is the pinnacle of any romantic relationship. but people who reject marriage don’t buy into the hierarchy and thus don’t feel like they should be married “someday.”

it seems then they are “misusing bad science for ideological purposes,” as you put it so eloquently. (i mean frankly if i were a historian writing about the bush admin. that would be the thesis)

…if any of that was not clear i will gladly clarify. im trying to fit a big idea into a tiny answer.

@alive: I think you have it, and I think you are correct. If I recall correctly, the Bushies were using bad science to show this result. I’m not sure, though. Again, citations would be very useful.

In any case, that’s how you’d do it. You’d use a random sample to collect data from happiness surveys from people of all different kinds of marital and/or relationship statuses, and then you’d build a model that can analyze latent variables, and see what happened.

It’s purely descriptive. The results are what they are. If someone else can duplicate them, you have a good start at proving it.

Your questions are good, though. What time in life was the data collected? What categories of coupledom status did they include? Was the study done over time?

However, if you were an historian, would you look at survey data, or the analysis of such data. Or would you look at different sources entirely? Written descriptions and accounts of couples? How would you decide which couples’ stories to include? How would you analyze these data? (I’ve recruited a historian to participate in an exercise in which I hope they will answer some of these questions).

@dragonflyfaith I paid the money for the parties, not you. The funds were raised by a committee and Democratic donors carried most of the weight, Of course there were security expenses but at least the Obama balls were all in close proximity, not spread all over town like the Bush parties.

I am sick of uninformed right-wing revisionsts spreading unfounded rumors and half truths beginning “Why is Obama spending_______?” There was a round of questions about the use of the Presidental helicopter on Faux News recently. What do they think the President should do, take a shuttle to the airport and fly standby? The president, for security reasons, lives a very different lifestyle. The military and Secret Service set the standards and all presidents leave it to the experts.

People who don’t know the facts should do a little research or stop watching the hysterical right wing media.

It doesn’t matter who paid for it or where they were. In fact, I said “they” not Obama. From what I understand, more money was spent on his parties than any other in history “during these hard economic times”. If I were starting out as President, I would say “You know, our country is having a difficult time, use the money to feed some kids and tone these parties down.”

The fact is that the money could be better spent.

By the way, my affiliation is not your business.

When money is donated for a specific purposelegally it must be used for that purpose. That’s why the money from the church building fund can’t be used for choir robes.

Incidentally what you ‘understand” (that is heard from a right wing talking head) is wrong because inflation wasn’t taken into account.

BTW The money you paid for your computer, your car or any strictly nonessential expense probably could have been donated to the local food bank, but I’m not the kind of person who tells others how to spend their money unless they ask me. lol

So in short, you donated your money for a party rather than for a charity that actually helps people. But my computer (that my husband uses for work) and our car (that he uses to get to work) is nonessential? Because parties and dances are so much more important than feeding my family.

Come now, you couldn’t have bought a less expensive computer or car? You don’t ever buy something you don’t need to survive? Remember vegetarian pasta is cheaper and probably better for you. But far be it from me to tell YOU how to spend your money. You might want to give the rest of us the courtesy of not telling us how to spend ours.

Beside the small donation to the inauguration fund, I donated to Al Franken even though Minnesota is 2,000 miles away and after the campaign I donated to pay on Hillary Clinton’s debt. I donate a month’s gross pay every year to education related causes. Not a dime to organized religion or animal causes or the arts. See it’s completely my choice.

Of course it is your choice. I just think it’s a lot of money for a party. Is it your fault that there are hungry children? No. Could our country find better ways of spending money sometimes? Yes.

I don’t care how you spend your money that is up to you. Personally though, I can’t understand spending 150 million dollars on one night. I’m sure there are many questions on here relating to “What would do if you won a million dollars” and I’m sure they weren’t all based on one party.

As far as how I spend my money. Unless I had bought a car that did not run, no I couldn’t have spent less money. My husband and I are very careful with our spending. I spent around $150 on groceries every month. We are very frugal. I wouldn’t spend $100 on a party for myself. We buy just what we need so that we can afford for me to stay home with our son and take care of my own medical needs.

If you have found what I have since to be offensive, I’m sorry especially since my original comment was not directed to you. I just hate to see our country complain about money one minute and then blow it the next.

I’m not saying that whatever the reasoning for this was right but perhaps there is some sort of underlying reason for this advertisement. Even though many times it can be difficult to trust our government because they’ve failed at so many things, perhaps this was done for a reason. Just an example of a questionable thing done by government which in the end served a purpose:

In 1994, Rudy Guiliani took the Mayor seat in NY. It just so happens that at this time NY was also considered the most dangerous large city in America. With I believe around 2400 homicides that year alone Rudy pulled some solutions to the problem literally out of his butt. They installed the broken window act, which required broken windows in the city to be fixed within a certain period of time. The reasoning: Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it’s unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside. Rudy also decided to hire subway cleaners so that everyday when the NY subway began carrying people to their jobs, no grafitti was seen on the trains. They also employed a larger police force in the subways to stop the gate jumpers and to take them to jail (People argued that police had bigger things to worry about rather than someone stealing a $0.60 ride on the subway. Little did the poeple realize that the people jumping the gates were the same thugs causing all the problems in NY). He also employed a larger police force to stop window washers. The problem with the window washers was in essence extortion. They would wash your windows and then do something awful to your car if you didn’t pay them. The reason behind this story is that even though all of these things being somewhat minute in cost, they were all questionable resolutions to indirect problems. People said that NY had a big problem and they needed a big solution. Well after Giuliani’s 8 years of service the homicide rate had dropped from over 2000 to just over 600.

The point of this is that perhaps there is something with these ads that we are missing. Maybe the minimal cost of these ads will have profound effects on people considering divorce or people on the fence to whether they want to get married. Maybe it is a way to get 2 adults to purchase a brand new house with a mortgage to help stimulate the economy. Maybe this is a small resolution to some larger problem?

Just food for thought.