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.
Many have children because (they think that) it is god's command to them, and the poor, tend to be more religious, then most (In many households, all they have is faith).
Interesting claim. I thought the assertion was that right-wingers were religious fanatics. The poor have a 3 times higher birth rate, yet largely vote left-wing. Explain that.
Note to moderators: all images appearing in this post have been linked via HTML text command in a legally permissible manner per the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Perfect 10 v. Amazon ruling, and as such do not constitute copyright violation.
That said, the only sure fire way to not procreate is to not have sexual intercourse. BC has failure rates, though this varies. Different BC methods also have other health risks, which equal costs, as well.
It has been tracked many places and through history that the more challenged economically humans are the more they pro-create. Other animals also have been shown to pro-create under stressful circumstances.
I know I go against even some Conservatives on this, and nearly all liberals, but when this country started rewarding the poor who have kids, it started down not just a dangerous path. But an extremely stupid one.
Why in the hell do we look for ways to reward those who knowingly have kids, yet can barely take care of themselves? Most of these situations arent people who accidentally get pregnant. (and let's be honest, you dont ever "accidentally" get pregnant. We all know the possible out come of sex). Giving these people handouts and rewards for having kids is like rewarding your dog for getting himself into trouble or making a mess. Now people not just expect it, but they want more and more. And if you dont want to do more, you hate the poor or hate the children.
Personal responsibility no longer exists. People are afraid to say on national tv that you should not have kids if you can't afford it, and you should no longer be rewarded.
Human responsibility and accountability by design, is limited, in a corporate structure. This especially applies to so-called Govt and TNCs. This is for for liability purposes.
However, for every action there are consequences.
Govt offers services to reap benefits and returns just like other corporations. Who is "we"?
Exactly. The fact that Medicaid pays for nearly 50% of all births confirms the Census Bureau's fertility statistics. We don't have a 50% poverty rate... yet.
It amazes me that so many liberals don't see any problem at all with this fast growing government dependency. The welfare households are outbreeding the taxpayers.
Many have children because (they think that) it is god's command to them, and the poor, tend to be more religious, then most (In many households, all they have is faith).
Well, I don't think "the poor" are necessarily more religious. If you ignore first or second generation immigrants, who are almost invariably poor and religious, most of the people I know who I would call "very religious" are upper middle-class.
Poverty in regards to religion seems to be mostly about your affiliation. Here are some statistics.
I'm not going to argue that there aren't some people who pop out tons of kids because they think god wants them to do that. But I've never met such a person in my entire life. The people who have a lot of kids from my experience really fall into two camps. Men who sleep with every woman who agrees, and who think bringing more of themselves into the world is an accomplishment. And women who abuse the social or legal benefits of having children. Basically, we feel sorry for children, and so are far more likely to help the mothers.
Interesting claim. I thought the assertion was that right-wingers were religious fanatics. The poor have a 3 times higher birth rate, yet largely vote left-wing. Explain that.
Note to moderators: all images appearing in this post have been linked via HTML text command in a legally permissible manner per the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Perfect 10 v. Amazon ruling, and as such do not constitute copyright violation.
Rural poor tend to go republican and are many small areas throughout a state, and while larger in numbers tend to go unnoticed by the attack the poor crowd, while urban poor tend to be clusterd in one or two areas (i.e. Big Cities, a easy target) go for the democratic party in presidential elections (they rarely vote otherwise, as they still don't see their votes being worth much).
Most of the folks here that constantly attack the poor, are (from other postings that they have made) really using the term to mean blacks. Poor white outnumber poor blacks by a 2 to 1 margin, and if you consider all non-blacks [which I do] i.e. hispanics/others in the white grouping, it's over 4 to 1.
As far as your 'chart' example. (which was done months before the election and was not based on exit poll)
4/5 of the households in the country are below $80,000, while 1/5 is in the above.
If only the above group voted for Romney, he would have lost by a lot more votes, not just 5 million.
Rural poor tend to go republican and are many small areas throughout a state, and while larger in numbers tend to go unnoticed by the attack the poor crowd, while urban poor tend to be clusterd in one or two areas (i.e. Big Cities, a easy target) go for the democratic party in presidential elections (they rarely vote otherwise, as they still don't see their votes being worth much).
Exactly.
Quote:
Poor white outnumber poor blacks by a 2 to 1 margin, and if you consider all non-blacks [which I do] i.e. hispanics/others in the white grouping, it's over 4 to 1.
You have to consider the poverty rate by race/ethnicity:
And yes, more poor people live in urban areas than in rural areas:
Note to moderators: all images appearing in this post have been linked via HTML text command in a legally permissible manner per the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Perfect 10 v. Amazon ruling, and as such do not constitute copyright violation.
The country is on a decline. There are more that cannot afford to live and work on their own salaries anymore.
Did you know that close to 56% of all public schools (K-12) in the US receive some type of Title 1 funds ?
More than 1/2 of our schools have enough students living in poverty to qualify for Title 1 funds (amount varies based on percentage of poor students).
Pre-K funded by the government has been pushed since 2012.
The DOE said Title 1 funds may be used to fund pre-k programs now.
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.
