Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You've posted a LOT of blatantly false info trying to pass it off as a lame attempt at excuses for the ballooning disaster caused by financially incentivizing high rates of child birth among the poor.
It isn't false when it is true. This isn't a new trend either and is directly related to education, abortions, and access to birth control. Let's face it, conservative states teach the very thing that hurts them the most. You can't teach abstinence/anti abortion and expect low teen birthrates.
So, pass a law, round them up, and send them in exile. Careful though, your job could be eliminated too.
My suggestion was to stop handing them extra benefits and services for each and additional child, and instead have them EARN the additional benefits and services by performing low-skill government jobs and/or community service. Instill a requirement of responsibility into an otherwise cultural norm of irresponsibility.
Citing some abortion restrictions is disingenuous when free and low cost BC and sterilization are available via means tested programs in all 50 states.
Quote:
Not really, only 21 states allow unrestricted access to BC.
From the article you cited: "Even when a state has no clear policy or law, physicians may decide to provide medical care to a mature minor without parental consent, particularly if the state allows a minor to consent to other related health services."
And PP isn't the only provider of BC/sterilization services.
Quote:
We must have different definitions of teach.
Again, citing some restrictions and a policy of promoting abstinence is no proof whatsoever that sex ed in public schools is banned in any state. That's as ridiculous as saying you think learning math facts is banned because the use of calculators is promoted in math classes.
Quote:
Let's face it, conservative states teach the very thing that hurts them the most. You can't teach abstinence/anti abortion and expect low teen birthrates.
The problem ISN'T political red/blue state values.
As has been pointed out MANY times here on this forum, the problems of excessive welfare, teen pregnancy, etc., statistics in many southern states is directly related to demographics.
Teen pregnancies per 1,000 female teens, age 15–19, by race:
Source: The Guttmacher Institute, 2012.
The government-sponsored financial incentivization of the highest birth rate among the poor is NOT helping anyone. It's creating an exponentially increasing welfare-dependent class that will eclipse our society's ability to continue to artificially financially support them, and it will doom ADDITIONAL MILLIONS of children to a life of struggle.
Last edited by InformedConsent; 02-22-2013 at 09:36 AM..
My suggestion was to stop handing them extra benefits and services for each and additional child, and instead have them EARN the additional benefits and services by performing low-skill government jobs and/or community service. Instill a requirement of responsibility into an otherwise cultural norm of irresponsibility.
As I have stated numerous times, I would be willing to completely do away with welfare completely in favor of a public jobs programs including the elderly and those with employable disabilities. But the strange thing is ever since the creation of the WPA and the Civilian Conservation Corps conservatives/Republicans have consistently opposed such programs and when created, work overtime to gut them.
With that in mind, no sane liberal Democrat would ever support the abolition of welfare because those job programs won't be created and if they are the next round of small government pin heads will come around with their talking points to eliminate those programs as well. We've been down that road, and I see no reason to go down it again.
Moving on
I am at a total loss to understand what point you are trying to make by one hand arguing that each additional child should require some new condition for benefits since there isn't a single legitimate study that demonstrates that women have more children inorder to be awarded higher benefit levels. In fact your first graph establishes that number of teen pregnancies has been in steady decline.
As for your second graph...what are suppose to take from this? The fact that during economic downturns poverty rises and those most effected are people of color? Well that's a shocker.
As I have stated numerous times, I would be willing to completely do away with welfare completely in favor of a public jobs programs including the elderly and those with employable disabilities. But the strange thing is ever since the creation of the WPA and the Civilian Conservation Corps conservatives/Republicans have consistently opposed such programs and when created, work overtime to gut them.
You have it exactly backwards.
When have Republicans opposed any "workfare" (as opposed to welfare) proposals?
And the Obama administration gutted welfare reform last summer when it announced it would grant waiversauthorizing states to evade Section 407’s definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates.
I think if you are on any type of government assistance you should be ineligible to vote in any kind of election wether it's state or federal. Even that is asking too much. This last election was like a slave master telling the slave how things are going to be when it should be the other way around.
Interesting thought. Originally the U.S. was going to be designed so that only the wealthy would have a say in government. The homespun man had no option of serving in Congress.
Today we have the same thing. The rich individuals and corporations own Congress. In a democratic society with an economic system based on buying and selling, the first thing bought and sold are Congressmen.
Would you include the wealthy in that non-voting group? The top 10% receive greater benefit from tax breaks than anyone else? They have tax breaks that only they can utilize. Isn't that a form of welfare?
Lower dividend rates helps who? The lowest paid 20% of our citizens who can't possibly own any stock?
For two years I worked with members of the Christian Motorcycle Association to feed homeless, hungry people on the streets of Denver. Many had jobs, but didn't earn enough money to eat on a regular basis. A few were hardened to street life and had given up on everything, scavenging, one guy living on the rooftop of an apartment building with a tarp over a heat vent in winter. They didn't collect welfare, so I suppose under your reasoning they would still be eligible to vote?
Look at the history of nations which fall into the idiocy of letting their lower class citizens become totally disenfranchised. Sooner or later every one of them has a revolution or civil war. France, circa 1790, Syria today.
I'm more in favor of Populist Huey Long's suggestion that income over ten million be taxed 100%!!!
The lower money paid to CEOs and other executives could be utilized to pay other wage earners more money or used for research and development. One of my favorite radio moments some years ago when Limbaugh had a guest host filling in for him, was the guy was lambasting Dems for wanting to do away with Bush's tax cuts. Some woman called in to say, "I agree with you totally. If the rich don't have to pay so much in taxes then they can create jobs for people. If you give $200 back to all the lower class and poor what are they all going to do? Go out and buy a DVD, I suppose!" The host was falling all over himself to get her off the air. Because that's exactly what would happen if they got money back--they would SPEND it in our economy.
The poor spend ALL their money--wages and welfare--into the economy. If they didn't have anything to spend, and now add no hope of participating in government---sooner or later, civil war.
So the preamble to the Constitution should read, "We the wealthy of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect monopoly, establish inequity, insure the need of a police state, provide for our common defence behind gated communities, promote our own Benefits, and secure the Blessings of unrivaled Prosperity to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of the Well Off."
Lincoln's Gettysburg Address would have concluded, "and that government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich, will not perish from the earth."
Because frankly, that's exactly what we have right now.
So take away the vote from the poor, dumb b*st*rds who cannot find the jobs being created by the wealthy , who don't make enough to feed their families, frequently live in third world type housing, and then criticize them for not being wise in their decision making (because WE wouldn't give them a decent education--costs too much tax money). Yep, not allowing them to vote would sure be an incentive to get off welfare!
When have Republicans opposed any "workfare" (as opposed to welfare) proposals?
And the Obama administration gutted welfare reform last summer when it announced it would grant waiversauthorizing states to evade Section 407’s definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates.
If you ever need a new nickname, here's an idea. How about Uninformeddeceit?
As specified in statute, the purpose of Part A is to increase the flexibility of states in operating a program designed to: (1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; (2) end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; (3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and (4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
HHS is encouraging states to consider new, more effective ways to meet the goals of TANF, particularly helping parents successfully prepare for, find, and retain employment. Therefore, HHS is issuing this information memorandum to notify states of the Secretary’s willingness to exercise her waiver authority under section 1115 of the Social Security Act to allow states to test alternative and innovative strategies, policies, and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families.
States led the way on welfare reform in the 1990s — testing new approaches and learning what worked and what did not. The Secretary is interested in using her authority to approve waiver demonstrations to challenge states to engage in a new round of innovation that seeks to find more effective mechanisms for helping families succeed in employment. In providing for these demonstrations, HHS will hold states accountable by requiring both a federally-approved evaluation and interim performance targets that ensure an immediate focus on measurable outcomes. States must develop evaluation plans that are sufficient to evaluate the effect of the proposed approach in furthering a TANF purpose as well as interim targets the state commits to achieve. States that fail to meet interim outcome targets will be required to develop an improvement plan and can face termination of the waiver project.
The demonstration authority provided by section 1115 and sound evaluation of approved projects will provide valuable knowledge that will help lead to improvements in achieving the purposes of the TANF program.
I am at a total loss to understand what point you are trying to make by one hand arguing that each additional child should require some new condition for benefits since there isn't a single legitimate study that demonstrates that women have more children inorder to be awarded higher benefit levels.
The fact remains that those receiving public assistance have a birth rate 3 times higher than everyone else. Even the working poor who earn too much to qualify for public assistance somehow manage to keep their birth rate BELOW that level. Bearing additional children nets them no additional benefits and services. They cannot afford to support additional children, so they do the RESPONSIBLE thing and do not bear them.
Quote:
As for your second graph...what are suppose to take from this? The fact that during economic downturns poverty rises and those most effected are people of color? Well that's a shocker.
No comment on the teen pregnancy rates?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Founding fathers
