According to new research, a third of women would. Well, at least a third of women polled. The women that I’ve spoken to over the last few days claim that they wouldn’t, so I either know women of “high moral fiber,” or I know more liars than I originally thought, you know?
A frequently-used coupon website in the UK polled its users and found that approximately 33% would, indeed, take up with a spouse in exchange for financial security. And I’m actually kind of surprised by that number, but even more surprised that I’m surprised, as we live in the day and age of Kardashians, where 72-day marriages and whirlwind courtships with buckets of cash fly freely. If you’re not surprised by the 33% stat, check this out further – of the women who claimed they’d marry for money, 22% stated …
Their M.O. is to make themselves sound like an average citizen struggling to get by, and John Q. Minimum Wage has no idea that most of the Tea Partiers are extremely wealthy. They collect the votes of people with legitimate financial struggles in order to put plans in place that will protect their fortunes, often at the cost of us low or middle class citizens.
Which is why I’m always kind of excited when Tea Partiers are caught with their financial pants down. It gives me hope that the misguided people following them in droves will see the light.
Congressman Joe Walsh of Illinois, he who has accused Barack Obama of “spending like a drunken sailor”, allegedly owes well over $100,000 in back child support.
There’s an old adage about money being the root of all evil, and this is arguably true in terms of budding relationships. When you’re getting to know someone, it’s not like you want to say, “I’m in ridiculous debt … but I’m wicked cute!” Still, there’s the question of fairness—do you owe a potential boyfriend or girlfriend full disclosure in terms of your financial sitch?
Student loans in particular are often easily written off as just another bill, but when you look at the total amount when you figure in interest, the numbers are frankly scary as heck.
Ms. Eastman said she had told him early on in their relationship that she had over $100,000 of debt. But, she said, even she didn’t know what the true balance was; like a car buyer who focuses on only the monthly payment, she wrote 12 checks a year for about $1,100 each, the minimum possible. She didn’t focus on the bottom line, she said, because it was so profoundly depressing.
There’s a stereotypical image of a woman with two grade-schoolers trailing behind her while she holds a toddler’s hand and balances a baby on her hip using food stamps at a grocery store (and an even greater caricature of her buying a carton of cigarettes at the same time). Although this image may be unfair, it’s an unquestionable fact that low-income women receive the lion’s share of SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) benefits (the PC way of saying “food stamps”) … and recent decisions made by the Senate are going to hit these women very hard.
The Senate has voted to cut funding for SNAP, formerly known as food stamps. Over 40 million Americans receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. In 2014, the assistance for a family of three will drop by about $50 a month. This is going to hit low-income women hard.
SNAP statistics don’t break down recipients by gender, but we can connect the dots. It’s no secret that poverty is a women’s issue. Thirteen percent of U.S. women were living in poverty in 2008, compared to 9.6 percent of men, according to the National Women’s Law Center, and a similar poverty gap exists in every state in the country. Overall, more than 15 million American women live in poverty.