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.
My mil had a neighbor where her welfare daughter and kids lived with her. They were so fat and actually pretty lazy. One day there was a major snow storm and all of us were trying to get home from work. The welfare neighbor came over to my mil's and said "now what fool would be out in that storm", to which my MIL replied, those fools out there working to support your fat ass, no get out.
So because one person that you know may be a mooch it proves that everyone else who is poor is? You have no proof that all people on welfare are lazy but I am sure you continue throwing baseless assumptions out because you are not interested in a real discussion just to show you hatred for people you assume are below you.
So because one person that you know may be a mooch it proves that everyone else who is poor is? You have no proof that all people are on welfare but I am sure you continue throwing baseless assumptions out because you are not interested in a real discussion just to show you hatred for people you assume are below you.
A little projection there? It's not about being "below" or "above" anyone. It's about being a drain on society instead of being a contributor.
Because we now have nearly 50% Medicaid births, we'll do a 1 to 1 comparison: 1 million receiving public assistance, 1 million not receiving such, the latest published birth rate numbers for each group (halved because the rates were reported for women only), and the formula for predicting future population: future value = present value x (e)^kt, where e equals the constant 2.71828, k equals the rate of increase (expressed as a decimal, rate taken from the U.S. Census data), and t is the number of years.
After 20 years, the population of those not receiving public assistance will have grown from 1 million to 1.75 million.
After 20 years, the population of those very likely needing public assistance will have grown from 1 million to 4.953 million, 3.467 million of which will never rise above poverty.
1.75 million paying taxes to support social programs for3.467million after just 20 years. The poverty class is growing at twice the rate of everyone else. Now extrapolate that to the entire U.S. population.
Providing for an exponentially growing welfare-dependent class is unsustainable. That's a mathematical certainty.
Because we now have nearly 50% Medicaid births, we'll do a 1 to 1 comparison: 1 million receiving public assistance, 1 million not receiving such, the latest published birth rate numbers for each group (halved because the rates were reported for women only), and the formula for predicting future population: future value = present value x (e)^kt, where e equals the constant 2.71828, k equals the rate of increase (expressed as a decimal, rate taken from the U.S. Census data), and t is the number of years.
After 20 years, the population of those not receiving public assistance will have grown from 1 million to 1.75 million.
After 20 years, the population of those very likely needing public assistance will have grown from 1 million to 4.953 million, 3.467 million of which will never rise above poverty.
1.75 million paying taxes to support social programs for3.467million after just 20 years. The poverty class is growing at twice the rate of everyone else. Now extrapolate that to the entire U.S. population.
Providing for an exponentially growing welfare-dependent class is unsustainable. That's a mathematical certainty.
I find this post ironic. Conservatives complain about the poor having a higher birthrate and those births are paid by Medicaid -- but it's those same conservatives that oppose spending federal funds on abortions, family planning and birth control.
Those who have private insurance through their employers general have birth control and abortions as a plan benefit.
[This is t]he high social cost of creating obstacles to affordable contraception access, which leads to a rapidly escalating unintended pregnancy rate for lower-income women. While it's a good thing for mothers and babies that Medicaid help is available and, under Obamacare, will be even easier to get (at least as long as Democrats run your state), we should still be very concerned about how this statistic shows that the system is failing working-class Americans who want to build a better life for themselves and their children.
Or we could just panic and paint women who use Medicaid assistance as wanton harlots in need of punishment for their sexy misdeeds. While the conservative response to these statistics is still in nascent form—not quite polished enough yet to be thrown on a teleprompter in front of Bill O'Reilly—anger at poor women for having babies is beginning to bubble up on the right.
This is what happens when we take proactive policy instead of whining about the outcome:
Quote:
The CDC’s report comes on the heels of Colorado’s own study, which reported a 40 percent decline in births among teens 15 to 19 from 2009 to 2013. The stunning decline in teen birth rates is significant not just for its size, but for its explanation. State public health officials are crediting a sustained, focused effort to offer low-income women free or low-cost long-acting reversible contraception, that is, intrauterine devices or implants. The Colorado Family Planning Initiative, supported by a $23 million anonymous donation, provided more than 30,000 IUDs or implants to women served by the state’s 68 family-planning clinics. The state’s analysis suggests the initiative was responsible for three-quarters of the decline in the state’s teen birth rates.
I find this post ironic. Conservatives complain about the poor having a higher birthrate and those births are paid by Medicaid -- but it's those same conservatives that oppose spending federal funds on abortions, family planning and birth control.
Did you not read the Seattle schools' free BC thread?
Quote:
Those who have private insurance through their employers general have birth control and abortions as a plan benefit.
Medicaid and CHIP provide FREE contraceptives. Why aren't they used?
Did you not read the Seattle schools' free BC thread?
Medicaid and CHIP provide FREE contraceptives. Why aren't they used?
Washington State has a teen birthrate of 20.5 per 1,000. They aren't the problem. States like Arkansas (43.5); New Mexico (43.3); Oklahoma(42.9); Mississippi (42.6); Texas (41.0); West Virginia; (40.1); Kentucky (39.5); Louisiana (39.2); Tennessee (34.7); Alabama (34.3) are the problem.
data source
Although federal law requires state Medicaid programs to cover family planning services and supplies for beneficiaries of child-bearing age, states vary considerably in level of coverage of these services. I would bet dollars to donuts that Washington State has far better coverage than Texas.
Washington State has a teen birthrate of 20.5 per 1,000. They aren't the problem. States like Arkansas (43.5); New Mexico (43.3); Oklahoma(42.9); Mississippi (42.6); Texas (41.0); West Virginia; (40.1); Kentucky (39.5); Louisiana (39.2); Tennessee (34.7); Alabama (34.3) are the problem.
Which of those states have high numbers of minorities and/or illegal aliens?
The teen birth rates of states are dependent on their population. Hispanics, Blacks, and American Indian/Alaska Natives have the highest rates of teen pregnancies. States with high percentages of any or all of those demographics will have higher teen birth rates. It's all about Demographics, not politics.
My mil had a neighbor where her welfare daughter and kids lived with her. They were so fat and actually pretty lazy. One day there was a major snow storm and all of us were trying to get home from work. The welfare neighbor came over to my mil's and said "now what fool would be out in that storm", to which my MIL replied, those fools out there working to support your fat ass, no get out.
Yeah, and? I have personal examples of wealthy conservative people behaving like d*****bags. Does that mean all of them are that way? By your logic I guess so.
The teen birth rates of states are dependent on their population. Hispanics, Blacks, and American Indian/Alaska Natives have the highest rates of teen pregnancies. States with high percentages of any or all of those demographics will have higher teen birth rates. It's all about Demographics, not politics.
Yes, those states don't want to spend money to reduce teen birthrates for "those people."
I really would like you to really take a moment and think about this auntie ok?
The wealth share of America’s top 3 percent, Fed researchers calculate, rose from 44.8 percent of the nation’s wealth in 1989 to 51.8 percent in 2007 and 54.4 percent in 2013. The top 3 percent now hold over double the wealth of America’s poorest 90 percent of families.
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Own Half Of The Country's Stocks, Bonds, And Mutual Funds:
Top 10% of Americans Own 76% of All the Stuff in America.
Now please understand that you, the middle class, me and the millionare and the welfare guy are all the remaining 24% fighting over whats left of the wealth. Thats about 316.5 Million people fighting over 1/4 of a pie. You keep banging the welfare guy, but hes in the same boat. Whats funny is we keep talking about how the tax burden is so hard for the rich when every year they keep getting a bigger piece of the wealth pie. Please understand that when you hate on poor people your just making it harder 4 us.
And in a few years, those who hold that wealth will DIE, donate their money to the Gates Foundation, and then be replaced by new wealth.
The 0.01% got richer under the Obama presidency. 7+ years in and the middle class is poorer, some slipping into poverty, struggling and not able to build wealth to live on in later years. The 0.01% got richer, the middle class including people who are high income trying to climb out of the middle class trap got stuck paying the bill, nothings changed.
HOPE & CHANGE is a joke!
Thats what they dont get. With more government, you get more influence from the top .01%, and because of that more influence, they can get richer at everyone elses expense.
The left wing solution, more government..
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.
It's not about being "below" or "above" anyone. It's about being a drain on society instead of being a contributor. 
