Trump's Final 100 days

Quote: beachbumbabs

Deleted again.

Really, Romes?

???

Quote: Mission146

As far as single-mother households is concerned, I'll admit that it may not be ideal and that the numbers often seem to back up what you say. That's also most true if the father has little to no involvement with the kids at all. These are also the type of women, I would argue, that you would WANT to get back in school (or in school in the first place) if they show the natural academic aptitude so that they can get out of poverty.

Assume for a second that they will be in poverty without higher education regardless of the extent of social safety nets supporting them, because they will, does it not make sense to get the more promising ones educated so that they may become teachers, nurses, etc. and you have fewer children who grow up in poverty? If they pull that off, not only do tax dollars cease to be spent directly on that child, but she may well earn enough to pay tax dollars right back into the system.

"Back in school" is not the answer. Not having kids out of wedlock is the answer. Teach them to wait for marriage, then we don't have to pay. Incentives are not going to do the trick, because in this day and age, if a woman lets herself get pregnant then she wanted to have a baby. You cannot fight biological urge. Well, you can, but you will lose.

Quote:

Anyway, there are so many practices and reasons for employment decisions that would be patently illegal, if directly stated, and right-to-work, as it is called, just makes it easier to do all of those things...so there you go. Without RTW, the employer would give a reason and you could theoretically prove that they were either wrong or lying, now they don't even have to give the person a reason.

Right-to-Work is about prohibiting compelled union membership. I think you mean, "At-Will." Here is the thing. The harder you make it to fire someone, the few people that will be hired.

Quote:

I don't know anything about the specific jobs you're talking about, and with all respect, I don't think that the group, "Feminists," would ever appoint you as their personal representative to speak for what they want. What I understand is that they want equal pay for working the same position as a male and they want an equal opportunity to get that position to begin with.

It is called "Comparable Worth." And what they want is equal pay, period, job not mattering.

Quote:

My statement on that could not be more simple: Trump has made comments that could be interpreted as racist comments; it is easy to not make a comment that can be interpreted as a racist comment. My conclusion is he is either a racist or does not always phrase his thoughts very well. WE already know the second one is definitely true, so I accept and appreciate the possibility that the first is not true.

We are in a hypersensitive time where we have people just waiting to be offended and the word "racist" is used by one side of the aisle when they cannot intellectually make their point. Trump showed some inconvenient truths about immigration. The liberals cannot say, "WE LOVE OPEN BORDERS AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION!" So they say, "Racist!"

Quote:

What? If you already had to have had a job of a certain type to interview for a new job, then nobody would ever be able to work in a position that they had not previously worked. In three-four generations, nobody would be qualified to work anywhere as none of them had ever done it before, following your logic.

Head coach is a promotion. You need a good football background to get it. There are no females with this background. Now, women could really not play. But let some coach at lower levels, prove themselves, then if they make the higher levels then one might qualify to be a NFL head coach. But today none do.

Why is some trump underling giving a press release for MS-13?
They must be loving it.

Quote: AZDuffman

"Back in school" is not the answer. Not having kids out of wedlock is the answer. Teach them to wait for marriage, then we don't have to pay. Incentives are not going to do the trick, because in this day and age, if a woman lets herself get pregnant then she wanted to have a baby. You cannot fight biological urge. Well, you can, but you will lose.

Good idea. Those Abstinence-Only educations always work out really well. The only reason you have a greater degree of illegitimacy is because there is not necessarily a societal/familial expectation of marriage as a result of pregnancy, by the way.

What do you mean, "A woman lets herself get pregnant?" Did the man not also, "Let himself impregnate her?" As a result, did the man not also, "Want to have a baby?"

Look, if you fundamentally don't believe that both people are responsible for the creation of a child, just say so. It will save us a lot of time and typing.

Quote:

Right-to-Work is about prohibiting compelled union membership. I think you mean, "At-Will." Here is the thing. The harder you make it to fire someone, the few people that will be hired.

It doesn't have to be hard to fire someone provided they do something not in accordance to whatever an employer's written guidelines are.

Quote:

And what they want is equal pay, period, job not mattering.

That says that the job does matter, in terms of the position's value to the employer. I don't agree with the notion of, "Comparable Worth," though, so that's a view we share. Some jobs pay more than others and certain physical-labor type jobs have a kind of built-in, "Risk incentive," to the wage. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with a woman who would qualify to be a construction worker not getting a construction job because she is a woman, but as long as she has the equal opportunity to get said construction job, then that is fine with me.

Quote:

We are in a hypersensitive time where we have people just waiting to be offended and the word "racist" is used by one side of the aisle when they cannot intellectually make their point. Trump showed some inconvenient truths about immigration. The liberals cannot say, "WE LOVE OPEN BORDERS AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION!" So they say, "Racist!"

Yeah, when you categorically accuse the majority of an illegal immigrant subset of being rapists and whatever else he said, that's going to be interpreted as racism.

Quote:

Head coach is a promotion. You need a good football background to get it. There are no females with this background. Now, women could really not play. But let some coach at lower levels, prove themselves, then if they make the higher levels then one might qualify to be a NFL head coach. But today none do.

Maybe they do not have the background because they are being kept out of even lower-level football-related jobs than that. I think most of it honestly is that women don't have much interest in doing it, though.

Quote: Mission146

Good idea. Those Abstinence-Only educations always work out really well. The only reason you have a greater degree of illegitimacy is because there is not necessarily a societal/familial expectation of marriage as a result of pregnancy, by the way.

That and more welfare available. But the expectation you speak of is part of the making single mom's "heroes" I speak of.

Quote:

What do you mean, "A woman lets herself get pregnant?" Did the man not also, "Let himself impregnate her?" As a result, did the man not also, "Want to have a baby?"

Look, if you fundamentally don't believe that both people are responsible for the creation of a child, just say so. It will save us a lot of time and typing.

The only method of birth control available to men is both the least effective and most prone to failure. It is "her body, her choice" as we are told, that makes it "her responsibility" first and foremost. Of course, every man should use a condom because more than one woman has "forgot" to take the pill or do whatever else she said she was doing. Letting oneself get pregnant to trap a man is probably as old as time.

IOW, lots of stupid guys fall into the trap of leaving it on her. But in the end a woman has to take responsibility if she does not want a child.

Quote:

That says that the job does matter, in terms of the position's value to the employer. I don't agree with the notion of, "Comparable Worth," though, so that's a view we share. Some jobs pay more than others and certain physical-labor type jobs have a kind of built-in, "Risk incentive," to the wage. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with a woman who would qualify to be a construction worker not getting a construction job because she is a woman, but as long as she has the equal opportunity to get said construction job, then that is fine with me.

The "value" thing is a, I hate to reuse the word, a value judgment. As I said before, it is not "value" but supply/demand. You need fewer people in the office jobs, and said jobs get more applicants. As to "if they are qualified" we get the problem of lowering standards. One example is firefighting. Women could not handle doing the "fireman carry" so they lowered standards to let them drag someone, on the idea that O2 is lower to the floor. Uh huh. My dad told me of a woman got a diesel mechanic job. She demanded that someone help her lift the heads off the engine. Guy said, "You have to do that on your own. I charge $5 each head, off or on." I assume she left. I have worked at places where "the girls" didn't have to do certain jobs.

Quote:

Yeah, when you categorically accuse the majority of an illegal immigrant subset of being rapists and whatever else he said, that's going to be interpreted as racism.

Yet illegal immigrants are over-represented in the prison system. So he is not totally off base.

Quote:

Maybe they do not have the background because they are being kept out of even lower-level football-related jobs than that. I think most of it honestly is that women don't have much interest in doing it, though.

I am sure they do not. Same thing happens in auto mechanics. I have helped women with cars over the years. Most when you tell them what you did listen just to be polite. In college we had a marketing case study of IIRC Firestone trying to market to women. They researched it and they found that even the most liberated woman found a man to go with them or just sent him to buy.

"Even the most liberated woman"

Stuck in the sixties, again?

Quote: AZDuffman

That and more welfare available. But the expectation you speak of is part of the making single mom's "heroes" I speak of.

Again, if you take away the social safety nets, then you're back to wanting the kids born but not caring about what happens to them after that. And, I am back to, "Pick one." I think that the one thing that we can agree on is that it is better for any person (man or woman) not to produce children that they cannot afford to support on their own. The question is: How do we go about making that less likely to happen?

The social safety nets are also cheaper than making the kids, "State custody." Studies provided if needed.

Quote:

The only method of birth control available to men is both the least effective and most prone to failure. It is "her body, her choice" as we are told, that makes it "her responsibility" first and foremost. Of course, every man should use a condom because more than one woman has "forgot" to take the pill or do whatever else she said she was doing. Letting oneself get pregnant to trap a man is probably as old as time.

If you have no problem with abortion, then I have little problem, perhaps not agreeing with you, but at least allowing that thought to pass unchallenged. As far as, "Trapping a man," is concerned, that's because it takes two to tango. It's really as simple as that. If the man does not have sex with the woman to begin with, protection or not, then she could not possibly get pregnant. Ergo, I consider the responsibility equal.

Quote:

IOW, lots of stupid guys fall into the trap of leaving it on her. But in the end a woman has to take responsibility if she does not want a child.

Another argument in favor of legalized abortion and ease of access. Thanks. It's easy to debate when the other person is pointing out things that help your side of the argument.

Quote:

The "value" thing is a, I hate to reuse the word, a value judgment. As I said before, it is not "value" but supply/demand. You need fewer people in the office jobs, and said jobs get more applicants. As to "if they are qualified" we get the problem of lowering standards. One example is firefighting. Women could not handle doing the "fireman carry" so they lowered standards to let them drag someone, on the idea that O2 is lower to the floor. Uh huh. My dad told me of a woman got a diesel mechanic job. She demanded that someone help her lift the heads off the engine. Guy said, "You have to do that on your own. I charge $5 each head, off or on." I assume she left. I have worked at places where "the girls" didn't have to do certain jobs.

I don't fundamentally disagree with your first point, different jobs have different pay scales that exist for a wide variety of reasons. Not least of which is the nature of the job itself.

When it comes to qualifications, again, I have no problem with women being subject to the same qualifications as men for a given position. That's what equality is. If you have certain physical tests that are required to qualify for a given position, then anyone from either gender should be required to be able to pass the test to get the job. Again, I have no problem with that. My only problem is discriminating against a person of a given gender who has passed said test.

In other words, I do not favor not giving a man a clerical job simply because he is a man nor do I favor not giving a woman a physical job because she is a woman. I favor hiring whichever candidate has both applied and is best qualified for the position in all instances. That's essentially my definition of equality. You, as an individual (not as a gender) can either do the job or not do the job. Some guys could not be firemen due to physical limitations, some women could because some women are not physically limited in that sense. That's all there is to it.

Quote:

Yet illegal immigrants are over-represented in the prison system. So he is not totally off base.

Even if I accept the above statement as true, just for the sake of argument, the problem is in the phrasing. Again, I didn't say, "He made racist statements," I said, "He made statements that could be interpreted as racist," those are two totally different things.

Quote:

I am sure they do not. Same thing happens in auto mechanics. I have helped women with cars over the years. Most when you tell them what you did listen just to be polite. In college we had a marketing case study of IIRC Firestone trying to market to women. They researched it and they found that even the most liberated woman found a man to go with them or just sent him to buy.

A woman is either qualified to be a mechanic, and has the desire to do so, or she does not. It's really that simple. I am advocating for not keeping qualified women out with the justification of, "It's a man's job." I am not advocating giving jobs to any person, of either gender, who is not qualified. You're either qualified or you are not.

What qualifies someone to coach football? Football knowledge, first and foremost. There are certainly coaches who never played the game at a professional level, and I am sure I could scrounge up someone who didn't play at the collegiate level, but they are apparently still qualified to coach. Playing the game at a high level lends the experience that would make it easier to coach, I'll stipulate that, but it's not strictly necessary.

Quote: Mission146

Again, if you take away the social safety nets, then you're back to wanting the kids born but not caring about what happens to them after that. And, I am back to, "Pick one." I think that the one thing that we can agree on is that it is better for any person (man or woman) not to produce children that they cannot afford to support on their own. The question is: How do we go about making that less likely to happen?

If you have no problem with abortion, then I have little problem, perhaps not agreeing with you, but at least allowing that thought to pass unchallenged. As far as, "Trapping a man," is concerned, that's because it takes two to tango. It's really as simple as that. If the man does not have sex with the woman to begin with, protection or not, then she could not possibly get pregnant. Ergo, I consider the responsibility equal.

We could go back to what we did pre-1970s. Encourage to put the kid up for adoption. This worked forever. As to abortion, I prefer we do not do it but realize is not going away. And as I said, a society bragging about aborting kids is a society in collapse. I am resigned that the USA is in collapse and just enjoying the decline. Things will last through my time, but after that, the deluge.

Quote:

When it comes to qualifications, again, I have no problem with women being subject to the same qualifications as men for a given position. That's what equality is. If you have certain physical tests that are required to qualify for a given position, then anyone from either gender should be required to be able to pass the test to get the job. Again, I have no problem with that. My only problem is discriminating against a person of a given gender who has passed said test.

But my point is, they change the tests to "get" women to pass.

Quote:

What qualifies someone to coach football? Football knowledge, first and foremost. There are certainly coaches who never played the game at a professional level, and I am sure I could scrounge up someone who didn't play at the collegiate level, but they are apparently still qualified to coach. Playing the game at a high level lends the experience that would make it easier to coach, I'll stipulate that, but it's not strictly necessary.

I mentioned what qualifies you. For the NFL it is working at a Division I level or having played.

Quote: AZDuffman

We could go back to what we did pre-1970s. Encourage to put the kid up for adoption. This worked forever. As to abortion, I prefer we do not do it but realize is not going away. And as I said, a society bragging about aborting kids is a society in collapse. I am resigned that the USA is in collapse and just enjoying the decline. Things will last through my time, but after that, the deluge.

I'm saying that there has been a point, I believe (but could look) we are currently at a point, and that there may be a point that there are more kids than couples both able and willing to adopt them. That's why allowing for gay adoption also makes complete sense. I don't know what your stance on gay adoption is, but my sentiment to many Republicans who are against it is the same, "Pick one."

If you're not adamantly against abortion, then I find that your positions (while I may disagree) are at least consistent. The only time I really have a particular problem with the Rightist point of view is when it is either hypocritical or inconsistent, and it is often (but not always) one or both of those things. I also have a problem with Leftist views that are either hypocritical or inconsistent. I find that Leftists are not inconsistent too frequently, (though that could be bias talking, admittedly) but are often VERY hypocritical when it comes to Free Speech. Many of them have an obsession with controlling the narrative as well as what narratives are even allowed to be spoken. I obviously don't like that. Free conversation and free thought fosters both ideas and compromise.

Quote:

But my point is, they change the tests to "get" women to pass.

I'm saying that the tests should not be changed or the standard is not equal. The only exception would be if men can also pass the tests that way, in which case, I have no problem with it. As long as they are taking the same test, the results are applied the same way, and employment based on those results; I have no problem with it. I never once advocated that the testing standards should be different. If the testing standards are different, then that is not equal treatment.

I said I am in favor of equal treatment, and I am. I never once wavered or said anything inconsistent with that position.

Quote:

I mentioned what qualifies you. For the NFL it is working at a Division I level or having played.

Yes. Thus, you get into what qualifies a person to be a Division I coach and whether or not qualified people are being kept out of doing that. I truly don't know. We're talking about so few jobs, in this particular example, that I don't know that there have even been any studies on that.

Quote: Mission146

I'm saying that there has been a point, I believe (but could look) we are currently at a point, and that there may be a point that there are more kids than couples both able and willing to adopt them. That's why allowing for gay adoption also makes complete sense. I don't know what your stance on gay adoption is, but my sentiment to many Republicans who are against it is the same, "Pick one."

I highly doubt we are at the point of fewer couples than kids. When it comes to newborns I extremely doubt it. This is why they lojack babies at the maternity ward and you have to pass security to get inside to visit. If a girl wants her newborn to have a good family, it will be easy to do.

Quote: AZDuffman

I highly doubt we are at the point of fewer couples than kids. When it comes to newborns I extremely doubt it. This is why they lojack babies at the maternity ward and you have to pass security to get inside to visit. If a girl wants her newborn to have a good family, it will be easy to do.

Not fewer couples, couples ready, able and willing to adopt. I assume, if you were correct, then all kids would be adopted, but:

https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-statistics

Most notably:

Quote:

62% were placed with their adoptive families within a month of birth.

So, that is just out of kids who were, in fact, adopted. Many of the kids who are not adopted have been removed from their parents, for one reason or another, or maybe the parents have died and there was no adequate and willing family member to adopt them.

It appears that 26% of adoptions are from other countries, so maybe that is a problem. I think that number should be 0% until we have no kids in this country who need an adopted family. In fairness, I'm somewhat of an isolationist, in general.

It says that only 4% of women with unwanted pregnancies go the adoption route. Therefore, they either have an abortion, keep the child even though they do not want the child or ultimately decide that they do want the child. I think that we could agree that freely provided contraception would be better than either abortion or a mother keeping an unwanted child. However, I remain pro-choice and think an abortion is better than keeping an unwanted child that the mother also cannot afford. I think adoption is preferable to abortion, but I clearly see that is not always going to happen.

Often, couples will only want kids who are adopted from birth and do not otherwise wish to adopt children out of the foster system. That is their choice, obviously, but that is where you have many kids who are foster children with nobody available to adopt them.

The numbers bear out the above paragraph as there are more children in the foster system than adopted out of the foster system:

Quote:

There are 107,918 foster children eligible for and waiting to be adopted. In 2014, 50,644 foster kids were adopted — a number that has stayed roughly consistent for the past five years. The average age of a waiting child is 7.7 years old and 29% of them will spend at least three years in foster care.

On average, any child in the foster system waits for three years:

Quote:

The average child waits for an adoptive family for more than three years. 11 percent spend 5 years or more waiting for a family (43,083 children). The average age of children waiting for an adoptive family is 8.

So, there are more kids than willing couples depending on the demographic of the children in question. Most couples want a newborn. Most mothers with an unwanted pregnancy do not ultimately choose adoption. There is nothing to indicate that a significantly greater number of mothers would, even if abortion were not an option.

Quote: Mission146

Not fewer couples, couples ready, able and willing to adopt. I assume, if you were correct, then all kids would be adopted, but:

https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-statistics

Most notably:



So, that is just out of kids who were, in fact, adopted. Many of the kids who are not adopted have been removed from their parents, for one reason or another, or maybe the parents have died and there was no adequate and willing family member to adopt them.

It appears that 26% of adoptions are from other countries, so maybe that is a problem. I think that number should be 0% until we have no kids in this country who need an adopted family. In fairness, I'm somewhat of an isolationist, in general.

It says that only 4% of women with unwanted pregnancies go the adoption route. Therefore, they either have an abortion, keep the child even though they do not want the child or ultimately decide that they do want the child. I think that we could agree that freely provided contraception would be better than either abortion or a mother keeping an unwanted child. However, I remain pro-choice and think an abortion is better than keeping an unwanted child that the mother also cannot afford. I think adoption is preferable to abortion, but I clearly see that is not always going to happen.

The article is misleading in that it talks about "kids." Newborns get scooped up fast. I met several people in the 1990s-2000s who went overseas to adopt. the demand was that great. Overseas is harder than it was back then.

Quote:

So, there are more kids than willing couples depending on the demographic of the children in question. Most couples want a newborn. Most mothers with an unwanted pregnancy do not ultimately choose adoption. There is nothing to indicate that a significantly greater number of mothers would, even if abortion were not an option.

If we promoted more adoption then not as many kids would end up in the foster system.

Quote: AZDuffman

The article is misleading in that it talks about "kids." Newborns get scooped up fast. I met several people in the 1990s-2000s who went overseas to adopt. the demand was that great. Overseas is harder than it was back then.

Did you read it? It also talks about newborns. Did you read my post? I quoted in my post where it talks about newborns.

Again, this is another example of wanting them born, but not caring what happens to them after that.

Quote:

If we promoted more adoption then not as many kids would end up in the foster system.

Presumably, and it should be easy to see, if there were even more newborns in the adoption system, depending on the proportion, then the opposite may happen. It could ultimately result in fewer older kids getting out of the foster system, which, you guessed it, would mean that there would be more older kids in that same system.

Overseas should be impossible until the number of kids and newborns waiting to be adopted is very, very, close to zero.

The simple Economics of the question is that unadopted newborns and older children in the foster/adoption system require tax dollars to take care of until they are out of that very same system. Unadopted newborns and/or children in other countries cost our tax system nothing. Therefore, first and foremost, the goal should be to get all of the kids and newborns in the United States out of that same system before we worry about other countries.

Again, that's just simple Economics.

Quote: Mission146

The simple Economics of the question is that unadopted newborns and older children in the foster/adoption system require tax dollars to take care of until they are out of that very same system. Unadopted newborns and/or children in other countries cost our tax system nothing. Therefore, first and foremost, the goal should be to get all of the kids and newborns in the United States out of that same system before we worry about other countries.

The overseas adoptions seem to have fallen on their own, or I might just be hanging with an older crowd now. Putin really turned off the supply from Russia, I do know that.

I still say it all starts with stopping making heroes of single moms and instead showing young girls that this is a road to lifetime poverty. Right now they see the starlets doing it and they hear the "YOU GO, GIRL!" for those that do it. But, it is probably already far too late. The collapse of the Black family is now hitting every other race. Expect similar results.

Quote: mcallister3200

Maybe removing, reducing, or finding a way to curb abuse of programs where low income mothers choose to have children to be a source of income might help lower unwanted births, since they want the monthly check more than the child? I don’t know how common it is, but it’s too much when you’ve heard people openly discussing it on multiple occasions. #bus people

My fiancee has an employee, a hard working single mother, trying to make ends meet. She makes a few dollars an hour more than minimum wage. She announced she is pregnant again. She said she did so because as a mother of two her income would be low enough to qualify for more stuff from the government (Medicaid, food stamps, etc.) She said as a mother of one she did not qualify.

Quote: SOOPOO

My fiancee has an employee, a hard working single mother, trying to make ends meet. She makes a few dollars an hour more than minimum wage. She announced she is pregnant again. She said she did so because as a mother of two her income would be low enough to qualify for more stuff from the government (Medicaid, food stamps, etc.) She said as a mother of one she did not qualify.

I don't think anybody, at least certainly not me, is suggesting that nobody has never, is not currently and will never do that. Of course some people do that.

What may have been actually (Economically) better may have been for her to take a voluntary reduction in pay so she could qualify with one child. Or, find a higher paying job, but I'm assuming the latter was not currently an option for her.

It may well end up costing her more in the long run to have this second child, even with the benefits. It's hard to say. The system should definitely be structured such that it is never a better option to have more kids. I definitely would not be opposed to that.

Far be it from me to say there are no problems with the system. Sometimes not working is better than working. Sometimes making less is better than making more. Those are definitely problems.

Quote: AZDuffman

The overseas adoptions seem to have fallen on their own, or I might just be hanging with an older crowd now. Putin really turned off the supply from Russia, I do know that.

I still say it all starts with stopping making heroes of single moms and instead showing young girls that this is a road to lifetime poverty. Right now they see the starlets doing it and they hear the "YOU GO, GIRL!" for those that do it. But, it is probably already far too late. The collapse of the Black family is now hitting every other race. Expect similar results.

Look at the numbers of kids who are currently not adopted. Until that number is, say, fewer than 100, then the number of overseas adoptions should be 0. The percentage should be 0%. The ratio should be 0:x. If expressed as a fraction, the numerator should be zero.

I don't know who is making heroes out of single moms. Are you saying that they don't go every waking moment of their lives being publicly ostracized is, "Making heroes," out of them? I wouldn't mind if they did some community service, during school hours, in exchange for benefits...as long as the fathers have to do it too.

Why are you talking about Black and White as if it is just Black people who started it? There are single mothers in every race, and always have been, even though the percentages may be different. If the percentages are different, why do you think that would be? Upbringing, being born into poverty, quality of education...long story short, self-replicating society. That's why you want to provide everyone with a chance; the easiest way to do that is through the education system, and making that more equal.

Attending to your responsibilities does not a hero make, but it is certainly better than not attending to them.

I had a good friend try and adopt an American boy, between 7 and 9, who would be a brother to their own 10 year old. Living in Northern Virginia, they didn't think adopting a minority kid would be a good idea. They claim they were told any adopted minority kid would not be made welcome in the school or their church. They ended up adopting a Russian boy, at great expense, because he would fit into the community better. The whole thing turned out to be a disaster. The boy had been horribly abused and suffered from malnutrition.
Many people still seem to think that adopting minorities is a stigma and would rather get a kool Asian or Russian kid.

Quote: Mission146

I don't know who is making heroes out of single moms. Are you saying that they don't go every waking moment of their lives being publicly ostracized is, "Making heroes," out of them? I wouldn't mind if they did some community service, during school hours, in exchange for benefits...as long as the fathers have to do it too.

Popular culture is doing so. I think you are not seeing it because you are too young to remember when having a kid out of wedlock made one and outcast. This changed in the 1980s. You would have to have seen what it was like before and after.

Quote:

Why are you talking about Black and White as if it is just Black people who started it? There are single mothers in every race, and always have been, even though the percentages may be different. If the percentages are different, why do you think that would be?

Because the high black rate is perhaps the biggest reason so many more blacks live in poverty. Not having kids out of wedlock is the best way to reduce your and their chances of living in poverty, needing the government services you bring up. It is the best way to keep the kids out of the criminal justice system. I blame the welfare state for the "why." Pay women to have kids out of wedlock, and they will have kids out of wedlock. Note the huge spike in the Black rate after the War on Poverty started in the 1960s.

Anyone else notice that the race AZD blames is the race whose graph line is pretty much flat for the last generation while white kids are up 200% since then.
I do love it when posters post graphs that disprove the points they are trying to prove.

Quote: AZDuffman

Popular culture is doing so. I think you are not seeing it because you are too young to remember when having a kid out of wedlock made one and outcast. This changed in the 1980s. You would have to have seen what it was like before and after.

No, I think we are saying the same thing. You say, "Outcast," I say, "Publicly ostracized." When you say outcast, that basically means treated as if they are complete pieces of garbage. I agree that we do not treat them like complete pieces of garbage. Not treating them like complete pieces of garbage and treating them like heroes are two different things.

It sounds like you are advocating in favor of not even having basic human respect for them.

Quote:

Because the high black rate is perhaps the biggest reason so many more blacks live in poverty. Not having kids out of wedlock is the best way to reduce your and their chances of living in poverty, needing the government services you bring up. It is the best way to keep the kids out of the criminal justice system. I blame the welfare state for the "why." Pay women to have kids out of wedlock, and they will have kids out of wedlock. Note the huge spike in the Black rate after the War on Poverty started in the 1960s.

Okay, and those things are achieved through education and having a clear path out of poverty. We agree on the symptoms, we probably largely agree on the cause; it just seems that we don't agree on the cure. Some would argue that many Republicans don't think it should be cured. You seem to believe it should be cured, so I appreciate that, because I also believe it should be cured.

Having an education, and affording those with the academic ability to easily acquire an education, is an excellent means by which people can be raised out of poverty. As you stated, once out of poverty, it will help keep them out of the criminal justice system. I am referring to all races, of course, it's true of anybody.

You seem to be obsessed with this notion of, "Paying women." We're not paying the women, we're paying to take care of the kids; there's a not overly subtle difference between those two things. The goal is that the children not suffer a life of hopelessness and destitution due to the poor choices of their parents and inability of the parents to provide anything better.

If you cut the social safety net, you're correct, you punish the women for, perhaps, making poor decisions. Unfortunately, that does not seem to punish the man who was equally responsible for the pregnancy and also made a poor decision. The same poor decision, in fact. Most importantly, it also punishes the child, who did not make a decision at all. I say the child does not deserve punishment. We want to give the child, who did not choose to be born, a chance at a reasonable standard of living and education.

That's why I keep coming back to, "Pick one," on those people who would eliminate the opportunity for abortion while cutting the social safety net. It's not about the mothers and never has been; it's about the children as well as the recognition that those same children are, yes, a tax burden.

But, if you are pro-choice, then as I said before, you are at least consistent.

Quote: billryan

I had a good friend try and adopt an American boy, between 7 and 9, who would be a brother to their own 10 year old. Living in Northern Virginia, they didn't think adopting a minority kid would be a good idea. They claim they were told any adopted minority kid would not be made welcome in the school or their church. They ended up adopting a Russian boy, at great expense, because he would fit into the community better. The whole thing turned out to be a disaster. The boy had been horribly abused and suffered from malnutrition.
Many people still seem to think that adopting minorities is a stigma and would rather get a kool Asian or Russian kid.

They should probably try not living in a Southern state, if there's any way to find a job elsewhere.

See that!!! "Not welcome in school or church." You said it! You're absolutely right. Insufferable, sanctimonious, deplorable and irredeemable Religious hypocrites. Not all of them, of course.

I don't believe in Hell, but I certainly hope there is one. Even though I will end up there, they'll all be coming with me. At least I didn't pretend.

Quote: billryan

Anyone else notice that the race AZD blames is the race whose graph line is pretty much flat for the last generation while white kids are up 200% since then.
I do love it when posters post graphs that disprove the points they are trying to prove.

I did notice. To be fair Did you notice in his post he said “after 1960” which the graph does demonstrate. I also noticed it kinda flatlined above 70%. Difficult to continue at that pace once you reach an obscene number like that. To be double fair, there are more non married two parent households than previous generations so doesn’t automatically mean an increase in single parent households.

I grew up in the Vietnam Era Military. Many of my friends were from mixed marriages. One of my best friends fathers met his mother in Japan, and the other had a German mother. Never gave it much thought, even when I found out my friend couldn't visit his grandparents in North Carolina. I honestly thought racism was a thing of the past until I moved to Long Island in the mid-60s.

Quote: mcallister3200

I did notice. To be fair Did you notice in his post he said “after 1960” which the graph does demonstrate. I also noticed it kinda flatlined above 70%. Difficult to continue at that pace once you reach an obscene number like that. To be double fair, there are more non married two parent households than previous generations so doesn’t automatically mean an increase in single parent households.

His quote was " 1960s", not 1960. I went from the halfway mark,1965, which is when the Civil Rights Legislation and WOP started to kick in. When the anti-poverty laws first took effect, there were terrible loopholes that did end up encouraging single mother families. Those loopholes were closed many years ago. For someone to be using 1960s examples in 2018 is ridiculous. Then again, so is arguing with a brick wall.

The CDC has some more up to date figures

First, birth rates for teenagers aged 15-19 has plummeted.

Rates / 1000.
2015 - White: 16.0, Black 31.8, Hispanic 34.9
2007 - White: 27.2, Black 62.0, Hispanic 75.3
1991 - White: 43.4, Black 109.3, Hispanic 104.6

Conclusion: teenage pregnancy is no longer sexy.

The 2015 number is 70.1% of black children are to unmarried mothers, while the white number is at 29.2%. The Hispanic number is 53.0%. (table 14).

The birth rate for for unmarried women in 2015 is 31.4/1,000 for white women, 67.4/1,000 for Hispanic and 59.6/1,000 for Black women.

And the rates for non-marital births are going down

Figure 4 in the reference above shows that 58% of unmarried births from 2006-2010 were in cohabitation situations (unmarried but living together), up from 41% in 2002.

There is no statistic that I can find that finds those rates among races.

Minorities today have less teenage mothers having babies than white girls were having in 1991.

Got to get back to child bearing, America will need the cannon fodder. Soon to be EEO.

More than meets the eye, to this wave of immigrants.

Quote: boymimbo

The 2015 number is 70.1% of black children are to unmarried mothers, while the white number is at 29.2%. The Hispanic number is 53.0%. (table 14).

In 1940, only 14% of black children were born to unwed mothers. Is there a better indicator of whether a child will be successful, or not, than illigitimacy? Don't say IQ, that topic is off limits.

Conclusion: whitie must be more racist now than in 1940. Nevermind cryptos, white guilt = the most valuable mineable resource in the west.

1:15 LOL

I'm all for helping people truly in need, at least for a short period of time.

The problem we have is a large percentage of people are abusing the system and rarely follow the rules. They know how to game the system.

Their boyfriends are living with the mothers and bringing in money.
They claim they are paying rent while living with their parents or roommates.
They work themselves and don't report the money, or they make money while doing criminal activity.

Upwards of 80% of people on welfare(in some locations) commit welfare fraud and it's hard to catch.

Quote: AxelWolf

I'm all for helping people truly in need, at least for a short period of time.

The problem we have is a large percentage of people are abusing the system and rarely follow the rules. They know how to game the system.

Their boyfriends are living with the mothers and bringing in money.
They claim they are paying rent while living with their parents or roommates.
They work themselves and don't report the money, or they make money while doing criminal activity.

Upwards of 80% of people on welfare(in some locations) commit welfare fraud and it's hard to catch.

Mind sharing the source of the 80% of some locations are cheaters.

Quote: billryan

Anyone else notice that the race AZD blames is the race whose graph line is pretty much flat for the last generation while white kids are up 200% since then.
I do love it when posters post graphs that disprove the points they are trying to prove.

Black out of wedlock births are "flat" as you say because they have hit rock bottom. Even a collapsed society will have a few who will hold things together. My graph proves my point. Hispanic and White America are following Black America right off the same cliff.

Sorry you are taking the wrong information from the graph.

Quote: Mission146

No, I think we are saying the same thing. You say, "Outcast," I say, "Publicly ostracized." When you say outcast, that basically means treated as if they are complete pieces of garbage. I agree that we do not treat them like complete pieces of garbage. Not treating them like complete pieces of garbage and treating them like heroes are two different things.

They are treated like heroes. Ever hear the song "Pappa, Don't Preach?" Again the whole "Murphy Brown" thing? I am going to leave it here as I we are making no progress. Except to again say you don't see what I see because you do not remember pre-1980s when they started to be made heroes. Before "I want a baby, not a man!" was acceptable. I forget what sitcom had an episode about some woman doing that, but it was one of the little "lessons" sitcoms embedded in that era.

Quote:

Okay, and those things are achieved through education and having a clear path out of poverty. We agree on the symptoms, we probably largely agree on the cause; it just seems that we don't agree on the cure. Some would argue that many Republicans don't think it should be cured. You seem to believe it should be cured, so I appreciate that, because I also believe it should be cured.

I do not see where Republicans say "it should not be cured." In fact, it is the Democrats who have the vested interest in the poverty demographic. Between pandering pols to poverty pimps like Al Sharpton, many live off of it. The difference is Democrats say the path out is spend on this, spend on that. Republicans say the path out is finish high school, don't get married until age 25, don't have kids before and without marriage. Ann Coulter showed that the later is on the order of IIRC >90% effective.

Quote: billryan

Mind sharing the source of the 80% of some locations are cheaters.

I said Upwards of 80%.
It's probably 81%.

Let's pretend it's as low as 50%, will that make you feel 30% better?

Quote: AxelWolf

I said Upwards of 80%.
It's probably 81%.

Let's pretend it's as low as 50%, will that make you feel 30% better?

It probably settles it that theres a 99% you just made it up with no source

Welfare these days is really workfare. They no longer just give money to people not working. And the money they do give isnt enough to live on.

There are many people who are homeless who dont qualify for welfare and many who refuse it because of the high restrictions

And before you ask for my data source i was homeless in nyc for a few years so not only a personal knowledge of the situation but living and breathing amongst many others who shared the same plight

Quote: darkoz

Welfare these days is really workfare. They no longer just give money to people not working. And the money they do give isnt enough to live on.

It is not supposed to be enough to "live on." It is supposed to just maintain a person while they get back to work. That said, I would agree we need to get rid of the "welfare trap" where people figure it is not "worth it" to work because benefits get reduced.

Quote: AZDuffman

It is not supposed to be enough to "live on." It is supposed to just maintain a person while they get back to work. That said, I would agree we need to get rid of the "welfare trap" where people figure it is not "worth it" to work because benefits get reduced.

Were in agreement

My point is no one is able to survive off of welfare as the benefits are not enough to live on

A lot of posters on here paint welfare as some free ticket people are striving for. Unless you want to strive for almost nothing

Now im sure there is fraud but thats true in any financial business. Theres insurance fraud bank fraud etc. But the people who legitimally use insurance or banks or welfare should not be looked down upon

Quote: darkoz

A lot of posters on here paint welfare as some free ticket people are striving for. Unless you want to strive for almost nothing

That is what many on the welfare class strive for. I used to see it in public housing. Read a long WSJ article about getting people out of public housing and off the dole. Caseworker said:

1/3 will get off and do fine, they just need a little kick
1/3 will survive with a lot of coaching since they grew up in the system and know nothing else
1/3 were hopeless

Doun't doubt me when I say there is a huge poverty-industrial complex that does all it can to protect itself.

Quote: AZDuffman

That is what many on the welfare class strive for. I used to see it in public housing. Read a long WSJ article about getting people out of public housing and off the dole. Caseworker said:

1/3 will get off and do fine, they just need a little kick
1/3 will survive with a lot of coaching since they grew up in the system and know nothing else
1/3 were hopeless

Doun't doubt me when I say there is a huge poverty-industrial complex that does all it can to protect itself.

I have to admit thats the first time i have seen poverty compared to an industrial complex lol

Quote: darkoz

I have to admit thats the first time i have seen poverty compared to an industrial complex lol

Just look at how many people it employs. Just look at the poverty economy of check cashing shops, appliance rental, payday loans, low end tax prep, and other business that cater to this group in their neighborhoods. Look at the Jesse Jackson and Al Sharptons of the world feeding off it. Seriously, don't doubt me.

Quote: AZDuffman

Just look at how many people it employs. Just look at the poverty economy of check cashing shops, appliance rental, payday loans, low end tax prep, and other business that cater to this group in their neighborhoods. Look at the Jesse Jackson and Al Sharptons of the world feeding off it. Seriously, don't doubt me.

You have a point. However, I think the giant advocate protecting the poverty trade is the private prison construction and administration business. Those other businesses are getting cracked down on for usury or put out of business for predatory practices; private prisons (an abomination as a for-profit sector) just keep expanding.

Disgusting that the government would contract that out. Or that our society refuses to do the things necessary to lower the rates of incarceration.

Quote: AZDuffman

They are treated like heroes. Ever hear the song "Pappa, Don't Preach?" Again the whole "Murphy Brown" thing? I am going to leave it here as I we are making no progress. Except to again say you don't see what I see because you do not remember pre-1980s when they started to be made heroes. Before "I want a baby, not a man!" was acceptable. I forget what sitcom had an episode about some woman doing that, but it was one of the little "lessons" sitcoms embedded in that era.

I've barely been alive as long as that song has been out, what are you talking about, "Papa, Don't Preach?"

By the way, did you ever read the lyrics to, "Papa Don't Preach?" It appears to me that she wants to keep the baby and marry the guy who impregnated her. She insists that guy is treating her well, and while she realizes it will be a sacrifice is going to do that. She's imploring her dad not to try to talk her out of it, (it's not clear whether he would be advocating for adoption or abortion) while her friends, I believe, are encouraging her to get an abortion...but they may also be talking about adoption.

Either way, if you spend ten seconds reading the lyrics:

Quote:

He says that he's going to marry me
We can raise a little family
Maybe we'll be all right
It's a sacrifice

Daddy, daddy if you could only see
Just how good he's been treating me
You'd give us your blessing right now
'Cause we are in love, we are in love, so please

She clearly wants to marry the guy, so the song has nothing to do with being a single mother. Did you assume that just because Madonna is most likely a Liberal, or what?

I also don't know what makes you think that I watched Murphy Brown. I don't know anything about Murphy Brown. I didn't even watch CBS between 1988 (I was four years old for all but a few days of that year, by the way) and 1998. I liked NBC sitcoms, Wings, Cheers, Seinfeld, Frasier etc.

Assume for a second that I know nothing about Murphy Brown except there was a show called Murphy Brown and please explain your reference.

Quote:

I do not see where Republicans say "it should not be cured." In fact, it is the Democrats who have the vested interest in the poverty demographic. Between pandering pols to poverty pimps like Al Sharpton, many live off of it. The difference is Democrats say the path out is spend on this, spend on that. Republicans say the path out is finish high school, don't get married until age 25, don't have kids before and without marriage. Ann Coulter showed that the later is on the order of IIRC >90% effective.

The Democrats are the only party, in my view, to show an actual vested interest in pulling people out of poverty. Do you think I'm advocating for free state college in order to keep people in poverty? Is that what you're getting out of this?

Situations are different, the mere act of having kids without being married has nothing to do with anything. It's having kids when you're in poverty that is the problem.

If you think finishing high school has merit, and high school is free, then how can you so easily dismiss free state college? You seem to be saying that education is generally a good and worthwhile investment.

Pick one.

Quote: AZDuffman

Just look at how many people it employs. Just look at the poverty economy of check cashing shops, appliance rental, payday loans, low end tax prep, and other business that cater to this group in their neighborhoods. Look at the Jesse Jackson and Al Sharptons of the world feeding off it. Seriously, don't doubt me.

I want to make sure i understand you because i may agree with you here

Its not poverty class striving to remain in poverty but an industrial complex of businesses (some quite large like rent-a-center which will lease to purchase an item that over time and payments cost those that cant afford the item triple what it costs eg a $300 dvd player at $25 per month when finally puchased in 3 years cost the person $900) that is the real problem that needs fixing

If thats your point then i wholeheartedly agree

Quote: darkoz

Were in agreement

My point is no one is able to survive off of welfare as the benefits are not enough to live on

A lot of posters on here paint welfare as some free ticket people are striving for. Unless you want to strive for almost nothing

Now im sure there is fraud but thats true in any financial business. Theres insurance fraud bank fraud etc. But the people who legitimally use insurance or banks or welfare should not be looked down upon

If it's not enough to live on, then how do they live?

Let me know all the ways they are surviving and I bet most all of those things breaking the rules of the welfare system and most of it goes unreported, therefore its welfare fraud.

Since you have confirmed it's it's not enough to live on, they must be making up for it somehow, so
I'm revising my number 90%.

Theoretically the entire banking industry is a poverty industrial complex

Too impoverished to afford a $1000 start up. Heres a loan

Too impoverished to afford a $50,000 start up. Heres a loan

Too impoverished to afford a million dollar start up. Heres a loan

The more people make the higher the loan qualifications but its always being lent because the money is not available at the time

Quote: AxelWolf

If it's not enough to live on, then how do they live?

Let me know all the ways they are surviving and I bet most all of those things breaking the rules of the welfare system and most of it goes unreported, therefore its welfare fraud.

Since you have confirmed it's it's not enough to live on, they must be making up for it somehow, so
I'm revising my number 90%.

Perhaps we need to agree on what "surviving on" means

When i was homeless i survived by waiting till certain stores closed that threw out their food by giving it to the homeless (a pizza shop on 68th street n lexington was particularly generous)

I also went to free food pantries. I never brought myself to panhandling but a lot do

We survived!

If thats what you consider surviving then you have your answer

But if you are imagining welfare people sipping cocktails and taking 3 week vacations in bermuda then you are mistaken

United States

Seal of the Social Security Administration Office of Inspector General, which investigates welfare fraud
Welfare fraud is widespread, but in most cases it is committed by people who are unable to make ends meet. In a 2012 study, 30 of 34 interviewed welfare recipients admitted fraud.[4] A 1988 study of 50 Chicago women on welfare found that 80% worked either full-time or part-time, but none of them reported their income to the welfare office.[38] Surveys conducted during the 1970s in Seattle and Denver showed that 50% of recipients admitted to "cheating" in order to get by financially.[39] In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, an ex-fraud investigator for IDPA estimated that 25 to 50% of welfare recipients had committed some degree of fraud.[40] A study of 450 welfare recipients in Orange County, California, found that 45% of them had committed fraud.[41] Between 1970 and 1979, there was a 729% increase in the number of fraud cases initiated nationwide.[42]

Quote: darkoz

Perhaps we need to agree on what "surviving on" means

When i was homeless i survived by waiting till certain stores closed that threw out their food by giving it to the homeless (a pizza shop on 68th street n lexington was particularly generous)

I also went to free food pantries. I never brought myself to panhandling but a lot do

We survived!

If thats what you consider surviving then you have your answer

But if you are imagining welfare people sipping cocktails and taking 3 week vacations in bermuda then you are mistaken

But they be at the local casino am I rite! Easy come easy go.

Quote: SOOPOO

She said she did so because as a mother of two her income would be low enough to qualify for more stuff from the government (Medicaid, food stamps, etc.) She said as a mother of one she did not qualify.

Some people come up with the most bizarre, counter-intuitive, counter-productive, and complicated ways to solve their problems...

Quote: billryan

Living in Northern Virginia, they didn't think adopting a minority kid would be a good idea. They claim they were told any adopted minority kid would not be made welcome in the school or their church.

By "minority" do you mean black? I grew up in Northern Virginia, and there were a ton of black kids at my school. The next town over had a school that was almost all black kids. Other than occasional racism which is everywhere, being black in Northern Virginia didn't seem like it was much of a stigma. But if you're not talking about black kids, then never mind.

Quote: darkoz

Perhaps we need to agree on what "surviving on" means

When i was homeless i survived by waiting till certain stores closed that threw out their food by giving it to the homeless (a pizza shop on 68th street n lexington was particularly generous)

I also went to free food pantries. I never brought myself to panhandling but a lot do

We survived!

If thats what you consider surviving then you have your answer

But if you are imagining welfare people sipping cocktails and taking 3 week vacations in bermuda then you are mistaken

Were you receiving welfare while homeless? I don't think that's allowed. I guess it would depend on what kind of welfare. I'm talking about the monthly check and food stamps many people get, add that to HUD or living with your relative's in their basement and someone can live a lazy life.