Author Topic: just heard on O'Reilly  (Read 2040 times)

Offline Gadfly

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1364
just heard on O'Reilly
« Reply #30 on: August 29, 2003, 10:55:36 AM »
Nuke, it is also possible that being born out of wedlock carries no stigma, and never has for blacks.  That would partially explain why in the 1930s, when only 6% of whites were born OOW, over 30% of blacks were.  It is not a race thing, or a money thing, it is a culture thing.  And it would appear that in our current U.S. culture, white and black, the stigma is going away.

Offline CptTrips

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8619
just heard on O'Reilly
« Reply #31 on: August 29, 2003, 10:57:02 AM »
Quote
if they were required to raise them on their own dime, maybe they would be less likely to have them in the first place


Ignoring the race issue....

Its a basic truth of human behavior and economics:

You always get more of what you subsidize.

Wab
Toxic, psychotic, self-aggrandizing drama queens simply aren't worth me spending my time on.

Offline muckmaw

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3874
just heard on O'Reilly
« Reply #32 on: August 29, 2003, 11:01:31 AM »
Could it also be traced all the way back to American Slavery?

Just thinking out loud here, but slave families were routinly torn apart, and lacking a strong father figure could have began a tragic cycle in which some AA males fell victim.

No matter what their race, all people in this country need to start taking responisibilty for their actions.

Offline Raubvogel

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3882
just heard on O'Reilly
« Reply #33 on: August 29, 2003, 11:10:50 AM »
According to the latest census figures, there has also been a 60% increase in the use of the phrases "baby daddy" and "baby momma"

Offline miko2d

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
Re: just heard on O'Reilly
« Reply #34 on: August 29, 2003, 11:53:51 AM »
Dead Man Flying: Second, they exclude income as an independent variable when I feel it probably explains the greatest amount of variance of anything else they included. Income is probably important enough to bias race results by its exclusion.

 Absolutely! According to the comprehensive studies that factor out all but one parameter (SES or IQ), Socio-Economic Status is almost one third as important as the average intelligence level. That's quite a lot.


Sixpence: But in time we blended in well. But the African Americans, because they looked so different, didn't blend in. They still had separate bathrooms in the 60's? I'de say 90% in the "poor" bracket? It's gonna take some time for them to catch up.

 The trends in may areas indicate they are not catching up but that their situation is getting worse - in absolute numbers and relative to other ethnicities.


Gadfly: Going by that census report, white women have had the greatest Increase in out of wedlock births since the 1930s, from 6% to 30%, while blacks have merely doubled the number of out of wedlock births.

 70% of the white children are legitimate compared to 94% in the 30% - a drop by 26%.
 30% of AA children are legitimate compared to 65% before - a drop by 54% from a much worse start. Their families were getting destroyed twice as fast.

 By the way, how are hispanics factored into those statistics? In many government statistics, like crime reports, hispanics are counted as whites as criminals but as non-whites as victims. IS it the same in family statistics?


Gadfly: It is not a race thing, or a money thing, it is a culture thing. And it would appear that in our current U.S. culture, white and black, the stigma is going away.

 And some government programs like public housing accelerates the destruction of culture.
 Instead of helping poor families with rent money and have one single mother live among many normal families providing example and environment for her and her kids, why not concentrate them all together in one area that become a blight, with no positive example, no jobs nearby, etc...


muckmaw: Could it also be traced all the way back to American Slavery?

 The racial relations in US were at their worst in the period of 1890-1920 - president Wilson actually re-segregated White House Staff!

 Still, by many criteria the blacks were improving since the end of slavery and by practically all of them since the 1920s.
 The decline started in 1960s-70s, 140 years after slavery anded but exactly when the "Great Society" and "War on Poverty" (subcidy of the illegitimacy) began.
 Coincidence?

 miko

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
just heard on O'Reilly
« Reply #35 on: August 29, 2003, 12:10:56 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Mini D
Why do I get the feeling we could sit down and discuss this for hours?  I think you and I might have particular commonalities that give us some insight that others posting in this thread have no clue about.

It's not a shocking statistic.  It's also something most people could take for face value and form virtually any conclusion from.

MiniD


Not knowing what those commonalities might be, it would be a good discussion over a Porter at McMinnimons (sp?).

My frame of reference has been stated many times. My family is of mixed race, 2 black sons, 2 white daughters.

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
just heard on O'Reilly
« Reply #36 on: August 29, 2003, 12:12:29 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Mickey1992
What assistance are you talking about?  The majority of people receiving Food Stamp assistance are white (41% in 2002).


Just a statistical nitpick.... 41% is a minority.

It could be the largest minority, in which case it would be a plurality, not a majority.
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline Jack55

  • Parolee
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 297
just heard on O'Reilly
« Reply #37 on: August 29, 2003, 12:16:51 PM »
:(

Offline CyranoAH

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
just heard on O'Reilly
« Reply #38 on: August 29, 2003, 01:36:03 PM »
Poor Skuzzy... he can't even take some hours off... :(

Daniel

Offline Trell

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 693
just heard on O'Reilly
« Reply #39 on: August 29, 2003, 02:35:18 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by CyranoAH
Poor Skuzzy... he can't even take some hours off... :(

Daniel


So far I think this discussion is very civilized

Offline CyranoAH

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
just heard on O'Reilly
« Reply #40 on: August 29, 2003, 03:20:09 PM »
Except perhaps for a couple of remarks...

Offline SaburoS

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2986
just heard on O'Reilly
« Reply #41 on: August 29, 2003, 03:57:51 PM »
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf

Are they taking into account of a single unwed mother having multiple babies and counting that case as one woman?
Or is it total births to the total mothers count?

I wonder how it the figures would look if we took econimic considerations into account.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. ... Bertrand Russell

Offline Twist

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
just heard on O'Reilly
« Reply #42 on: August 29, 2003, 06:01:02 PM »
*slides in to the sounds of Bob Segar*

As long as our system continues to provide for these folks the behavior will continue. When the money stops the legs will start coming together a lot more.

Ok Skuzzmeister, do your stuff. :D
Razer

Hellcat FG

"They porked the Hellcat? Why did they do that?"

Offline jamusta

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
just heard on O'Reilly
« Reply #43 on: August 29, 2003, 07:59:59 PM »
Ahhhh once again an interesting subject has allowed some of our community members to bring out their sheets.

This is nothing new. The percentage of unwed black mothers has been above 60% since around 1990.

How this turned into a welfare issue I can only guess. Some of your views are warped and twisted. To say these black women are having kids to collect monthly welfare is just plane ignorant.

Some of you seem to believe that minorities are the only ones who receive welfare. Up until a few years ago when the welfare reform was coming into play white people were the majority receiving welfare. Although black people are now the majority white people are not to far behind. I believe the numbers are 38% black 32% white.

Can someone prove that these single black mothers are all on welfare and are riding around in expensive cars? Is it possible that some of these women actually work? Have any of you done any type of reserch to back you claims? Probably not just throwing out your racist views just to be heard.

Offline Eagler

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18786
for a twist
« Reply #44 on: August 29, 2003, 08:08:41 PM »
wonder how many hollywood stars have children out of wedlock? pop singers, other public figures?

nope, it ain't a race issue by any means - why bother getting married anyway, that has to do with that God thing anyways .. who cares bout that now? feels good do it .. worry about it later
"Masters of the Air" Scenario - JG27


Intel Core i7-13700KF | GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS Elite AX | 64GB G.Skill DDR5 | 16GB GIGABYTE RTX 4070 Ti Super | 850 watt ps | pimax Crystal Light | Warthog stick | TM1600 throttle | VKB Mk.V Rudder