Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: NUKE on August 29, 2003, 03:08:54 AM
-
was surfing net, O'Reilly on in background....me sitting in a Comfort INN ( looks just like Flossy's :))
Then O'Reilly states " 70% of African American babies are born out of wedlock. WTH? that can't be true.
-
That does seem like a lot. Perhaps there's a proviso to that stat.
-
I work with a 23 year old black lady who has 3 kids and isnt married. Shes on maternity leave right now.
Not trying to stereotype black people, just showing my disgust for fat cows who have lots of kids.
-
Come on david, tell us how you really feel
Daniel
-
One must be weary of O'Reilly's "No Truth...err Spin Zone" statistics.
ack-ack
-
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"
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
One must be weary of O'Reilly's "No Truth...err Spin Zone" statistics.
ack-ack
O'Reilly is a windbag, but his statistics are correct in this case. The Great Society programs succeeded in just about tripling out-of-wedlock birthrates in America. You probably won't hear that on CNN.
ra
-
You know the old joke .
whats the deffinition of mass confussion?
fathers day in black town.
My point is you can't blame the african american women .
I think the blame must lie on the dudes that get them pregnate then haul prettythang.
-
You have to tell who the father is here in Ma. or you cannot collect any assistance. But I don't see what this has to do with african Americans.
-
My point is you can't blame the african american women .
Why not? Did someone force them to spread their legs?
-
I feel a coming on.
-
I'm in!!! :D
-
In before Lock!!!
:D
-
So what's more disturbing to y'all...the fact O'Reilly made a good point with valid data....or that the data is accurate?
Some of ya seem to be shooting the messenger.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
You have to tell who the father is here in Ma. or you cannot collect any assistance. But I don't see what this has to do with african Americans.
the majority of them "on assistance" are AA females
if they were required to raise them on their own dime, maybe they would be less likely to have them in the first place
-
Originally posted by LePaul
So what's more disturbing to y'all...the fact O'Reilly made a good point with valid data....or that the data is accurate?
Some of ya seem to be shooting the messenger.
I have never had a problem with O'Reilly, especially after having to deal with Brokaw, Jennings and Rather for the last umpteen years.
I find the data disturbing, but not surprising. It's amazing how much this is out there for all to see but when it is brought up into a discussion, the screams from the other side are as such that the whole thing is a racist slant on the problem. Granted, what I would like to see is the number of out of wedlock babies born to younger females now as compared to just 10 years ago (thanks Clinton! :D). Seems like everywhere I turn I see some young thang pushing a baby buggy...by herself.
-
In before lock...
Dr. Skuzzy..paging Dr. Skuzzy
-
The statistic is accurate, at least according to this (http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/p23-197.pdf) Census Bureau report from 1995. What it doesn't contain is evidence of this conjecture that "welfare mothers" drive the disparity in premarital birthrates.
They even offer an interesting, rudimentary logistic regression analysis at the end of the article. I'm baffled, however, by a number of methodological shortcomings in their analysis.
First, they use a 90-percent confidence level for statistical analysis when a 95-percent confidence level is standard for social science work. 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.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
In before lock...
Dr. Skuzzy..paging Dr. Skuzzy
why?
because facts are not PC friendly? sorry facts are facts
-
Originally posted by Eagler
the majority of them "on assistance" are AA females
What assistance are you talking about? The majority of people receiving Food Stamp assistance are white (41% in 2002).
-
Originally posted by LePaul
So what's more disturbing to y'all...the fact O'Reilly made a good point with valid data....or that the data is accurate?
Some of ya seem to be shooting the messenger.
I just don't think there is a need to single out a race. I mean, alot of us Irish, Italian, etc., were also minorities when we came to this country. And we were discriminated against. 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. Don't get me wrong, i'm not for racial quotas or anything like that, I think it is reverse discrimination(or should I just say discrimination?). But don't show me a stat about African Americans that has been tainted by history. Especially with MLK in the news. I just don't think it's appropriate.
That's all from me, i'm outta this one.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
One must be weary of O'Reilly's "No Truth...err Spin Zone" statistics.
ack-ack
You're right Ack Ack. I like Fox news and I used to like O'reilly, but then after watching him for a while, I began to realise how he quickly glosses over points that reveal weaknesses in his arguments.
now Hannity and Combs is a good show....I like the debates on that one.
-
In before the lock
My 2 Cent is same as said above.
They use it as a job money money for ever kid!@
Then you seem them driving around in there cadillac escilade
And the ***** dont have a JOB.
Her JOB is spiting out kids (thats her yearly pay increase)
:confused: :mad:
-
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.
-
im pro gun...
im pro abortion....
Im votn for ArnolD!!...leave my guns alone
please feel free to not have so many frikn babies...with no real means of support..
real support meaning,,IF YOU CANT PAY FOR YOUR Golly-gee BABY FACTORY!!!!
Love
BiGB
xoxox
"baby free and lovn it" i thank the scientist almighty for birth control pills:D
-
Nothing wrong with valid statistics, unless invalid conclusions are reached with them.
So the real question is why is this relevant and does it really have anything to do with race?
-
Originally posted by boxboy28
In before the lock
My 2 Cent is same as said above.
They use it as a job money money for ever kid!@
Then you seem them driving around in there cadillac escilade
And the ***** dont have a JOB.
Her JOB is spiting out kids (thats her yearly pay increase)
:confused: :mad:
Who exactly is "THEY" ?
-
You know MT, "Them"...;)
-
Originally posted by boxboy28
In before the lock
My 2 Cent is same as said above.
They use it as a job money money for ever kid!@
Then you seem them driving around in there cadillac escilade
And the ***** dont have a JOB.
Her JOB is spiting out kids (thats her yearly pay increase)
:confused: :mad:
If people react stupid and spew garbage or even hatred in reaction to a statistic that was posted here, to heck with those people.....those are the kind of people that lack judgement and possibly shouldn't be here.
I posted because I genuinly believed that statistic to be extremely unbelievable. If that stat is true, something is very badly broken in our system and needs to be fixed.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Nothing wrong with valid statistics, unless invalid conclusions are reached with them.
So the real question is why is this relevant and does it really have anything to do with race?
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
According to the latest census figures, there has also been a 60% increase in the use of the phrases "baby daddy" and "baby momma"
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
:(
-
Poor Skuzzy... he can't even take some hours off... :(
Daniel
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
Poor Skuzzy... he can't even take some hours off... :(
Daniel
So far I think this discussion is very civilized
-
Except perhaps for a couple of remarks...
-
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf (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.
-
*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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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 $$. YOU are ignorant about the subject.
ra
-
RA... For one get on the same page before you post your opinion.
Then prove that these women are on welfare. This thread had nothing to do with welfare when it started. That was the assumption of a few of our respected community members. Let see...
thread: 70% of black babies are born out of wedlock...
some community members: its for the welfare...
thats ignorant
then here you come jumping in with: Up to then, they were most definitely having children for the extra welfare $$. 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.
-
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.
-
do poor people ever hear of RUBBERS?
-
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.
-
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...
-
In before lock! :p
Personally, I blame it all on the Hip Hop.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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"
-
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.)
-
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
-
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.
-
The only stat that matters is what is acceptable and what is not, I guess.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
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
The problem with statistics in a case like this is where you measure. If you go to a black ghetto, then your going to look around and say the city is not desegregatred.
If we reduce sampling geography down to a 1.5 ft radius circle around moi, then every single social study since August 12, 1964 is all about me, Damned Mac, and how we can all work together to improve the quality of my life.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
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.
I meant that government subsidies are paid by those that pay taxes, not the government. It is not free money.
-
Give me a ****ing break. The federal, state, and local governments in the United States give away FAR more money to corporations (and guess who reaps the benefits of that?) in the form of tax breaks and subsidizing than they will EVER give to private citizens.
Although, you rabid folks do have a good point. In fact, I think there should be a new sport. We can murder women who get pregnent out of wedlock. Or maybe we can just murder their kids. What do you guys think? After all, it isn't like people have an obligation to even TRY to help out those who may not have been born as wealthy as they were, right?