Author Topic: just heard on O'Reilly (Read 2157 times)

ra · « **Reply #45 on:** August 29, 2003, 08:34:03 PM »

Quote

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

Take off your blinders. The Great Society programs, which have cost us trillions of dollars, were in part justified by the fact that black out-of-wedlock rates in the early 60's were a whopping 26%. It was believed that funneling money to poor single mothers would allow them to do a better job of raising their kids and break the "cycle of poverty." Instead, it became easier to be a poor single mother, so now single motherhood is becoming the norm. If you give technocrats the authority to tamper with human nature, you get this kind of disaster. Of course, technocrats are never held accountable for their screw-ups, so we tell ourselves that this is just inevitable cultural evolution.

If the black out-of-wedlock birthrates had dropped as advertised, these genius technocrats would be awarding each other Nobel Peace prizes. Instead, they just slink away and look for other things to toy with.

ra

ra · « **Reply #46 on:** August 29, 2003, 08:36:18 PM »

Quote

To say these black women are having kids to collect monthly welfare is just plane ignorant.

True. Poor women, black or not, stopped having children to collect more welfare when the welfare laws were changed. Up to then, they were most definitely having children for the extra welfare $$. YOU are ignorant about the subject.

ra

jamusta · « **Reply #47 on:** August 29, 2003, 09:01:33 PM »

RA... For one get on the same page before you post your opinion.

Then prove that these women are on welfare. This thread had nothing to do with welfare when it started. That was the assumption of a few of our respected community members. Let see...

thread: 70% of black babies are born out of wedlock...
some community members: its for the welfare...

thats ignorant

then here you come jumping in with: Up to then, they were most definitely having children for the extra welfare $$. YOU are ignorant about the subject.

So prove your statement...

Not saying there were/are no cases of abuse but you ignorance is telling you all were cases of abuse.

Dega · « **Reply #48 on:** August 29, 2003, 09:39:21 PM »

Quote

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

*Salutes that one*

That single idea alone, if followed, would eliminate the great majority of problems our country and society are dealing with these days.

rc51 · « **Reply #49 on:** August 29, 2003, 11:14:08 PM »

do poor people ever hear of RUBBERS?

SaburoS · « **Reply #50 on:** August 29, 2003, 11:21:09 PM »

Maybe they're too poor to afford to carry them on a daily basis.
STDs are spread by too many folk rich or poor who didn't plan ahead or just didn't care enough of the consequences.

jamusta · « **Reply #51 on:** August 29, 2003, 11:32:40 PM »

Or heres an idea.... maybe alot of them arent poor and just wanna have kids... We are still getting the thread mixed up with welfare...Maybe out of that 68% who have kids out of wedlock only say 50% on on welfare...

rpm · « **Reply #52 on:** August 29, 2003, 11:44:23 PM »

In before lock!

Personally, I blame it all on the Hip Hop.

Karnak · « **Reply #53 on:** August 30, 2003, 02:09:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
why not?

most of them get an increase in their monthly income for every one they squeeze out

great system we have here in "Land of Opportunity"

Care to spout any more blatant lies, Eagler?

For your info, most women on welfare are white and the majority of all women on welfare have less than three children.

So your blantly racist claim that "most of them" (mean most black women) are having multiple babies on welfare to get more money while living the high life is a very common and outrageous Conservative/racist lie that many, many people subscribe to without thinking. It has, in fact, bucome "common knowedge" while being completely incorrect.

Lazerus · « **Reply #54 on:** August 30, 2003, 02:22:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Care to spout any more blatant lies and racism, Eagler?

What'd you do, miss your KKK meeting and needed a place to froth?

I see no racism in his quote that you posted, or lies for that matter.

Them is ambiguous, and recipients of government (read taxpayer) subsidation do get an increase for more kids.

Just hopped in at the end of the thread, feel free to quote ten paragraphs of quotes from him that prove me wrong.

jamusta · « **Reply #55 on:** August 30, 2003, 02:33:58 AM »

You are correct to say that welfare recipients receive more money although its like 60 or 70 dollars. The comments that were made were geared toward black women not women on welfare in general.

Eagler · « **Reply #56 on:** August 30, 2003, 07:45:51 AM »

Karnack - nice edit:)
never said anyone on welfare lives "the high life". that is part of the problem also, lack of a drive to want more and do better and to do it yourself. self estem issue of sorts...

sorry if my statements sound a KKK comment to some ... that is not the intention

the wedlock problem goes deeper than race or social status - it is just another signal of the moral decay of our country and world. As these children grow and try to have a "family", this will become evident.

as for the white/black numbers on welfare, I think you need to clarify what is "white" in those numbers while looking at per capita numbers. sorry if this sounds racist - if you think I am - you truely do not know me

society today makes it too easy and accepted for a woman black,white/whatever to have children without serious thought of the childs future with big daddy gov ready to hand them a check and society tell them "its ok, it's really not your fault"

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #57 on:** August 30, 2003, 09:46:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lazerus
.....recipients of government (read taxpayer) subsidation.....

Hate to keep picking nits, but recipients of government subsidation are (in most cases) not taxpayers.

Your average taxpayer makes too much money to qualify for subsidation programs. Those who qualify for programs, do not pay much tax.

(Please do not jump on this with farm price supports, and corporate "welfare", I understand those points, I am just talking about the average Joe and Josephine, paying taxes through witholding.)

Ripsnort · « **Reply #58 on:** August 30, 2003, 10:05:35 AM »

Quote

To understand the class implications of that news, begin with a number: 33. That is the percentage of all American children born out of wedlock in 1999, the most recent year for which figures are available. Now another number: 69. That is the percentage of black children born out of wedlock in 1999

http://reason.com/rauch/01_05_19.shtml

SaburoS · « **Reply #59 on:** August 30, 2003, 03:09:24 PM »

Births to unmarried women:

Total in year 2000:

White: 866,355

Black: 426,649

********************
How many additional births were not shown because of abortion?
How many would have been added to the above if abortion were not available?
How many of the above wanted an abortion but could not get one?
How would the figures look like then?
********************
How many of the above are planned pregnancies?
Non-planned?
How would the figures look like then?
********************
What is the break down figures of the above if it included economic, education, and parental-guardian influences.
Of the above, how many of the babies are born into poverty?
********************
BTW, some men here seem so easy to blame the women for the pregnancies, but it takes two to make babies.
How many teenage boys and young adult men have said anything, promised anything to the girls/women to have sex?
How many of the above did they actually use protection but it failed?
Only abstinence is 100% effective.

We're missing the really important stats to make any valid conclusion. All we can do is guess.