U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-16-2011, 07:12 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,078 posts, read 17,657,689 times
Reputation: 7720

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lenora View Post
Stillkit,

Read this carefully. I studied Constitutional Law, but do not pretend to be an expert in Constitutional Law. Forget the Declaration of Independence stuff. Look at the Constitution. In general, the Supreme Court has found that persons have a fundamental right to procreate. The Supreme Court did not find that forced sterilization is always unconstitutional but nevertheless imposed such severe restrictions that states have not imposed sterilization in decades.

I did not state that persons receiving public benefits should be sterilized. I did not state that persons receiving benefits were violating the Constitution. You have me pegged incorrectly. For God's sake, I was a Public Benefits Attorney. I helped the poor (and sometimes middle class) get public benefits, i.e., TCA, FS, Child Care Vouchers, Medical Assistance and Section 8. I am not the bigot/racist on this board.

Frequently the folks who rail against recipients of public benefits have no clue of the eligibility requirements. They are usually unaware that the recipients (with few exceptions) must work and that benefits are limited to 5 years or less. This requirement was imposed during the Clinton administration. I've also noticed that the same folks who rail against the welfare class are often the first in line to ask for Medical Assistance when they have determined that their dear Mother or Father "needs" to go into a nursing home.

You will notice that I have not posted in this thread other than to advise you that Americans have also been guilty of systemic sterilization. I did not respond directly to the argument because, IMHO, it's a dumb, useless argument. I have learned over the years that you cannot change peoples' minds when they would prefer to remain ignorant. Examples would include one of my sisters, a nurse, who believes everyone can work, regardless of disability. My brother believes that America is (was) not only the greatest place on earth, but that we should drop a nuclear bomb on any country that mistakenly disagrees with that assertion. Remember, even highly educated people can be ignorant. But, in this particular case, that's not me.

Then I apologize for misunderstanding you. Given the tenor of this thread, I mistakingly assumed you thought those who need assistance were somehow violating the Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-16-2011, 07:15 PM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
28,490 posts, read 62,120,010 times
Reputation: 32158
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoButCounty View Post
Perhaps you should look up the official statistics on the CDC web site.
I think you'll find that your numbers aren't even close to reality.
41% of births are to unmarried women.
As you assert being so familiar with the statistics perhaps you'll fill in the rest that is inaccurate?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2011, 08:06 PM
 
1,060 posts, read 1,640,292 times
Reputation: 1928
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
41% of births are to unmarried women.
As you assert being so familiar with the statistics perhaps you'll fill in the rest that is inaccurate?
I would assert that the fact that 41% of births are to unmarried women in no way correlates to all of those women being irresponsible and on welfare. Perhaps they don't meet your moral standards or that of others but the fact that they gave birth out of wedlock does not indicate in any way their financial situation. It means nothing more than the fact that there was no husband.

I did not assert familiarity with the statistics in any way other than acknowledging that the presence of accurate statistics is easily observed. It takes nothing more than a quick glance to open the PDF document on that page and observe that the illegitimate birth rate has been steadily decreasing for 20 years. To indicate otherwise is false & displays a lack of research. It was obvious at a quick glance that the poster's numbers were not even close.

I simply find it curious that someone who goes out of their way to emphasize that they perform exhaustive research to ensure that they are accurate in their assertions did not discover this information. It was the very first link that came up upon googling the term "illegitimate birth rate".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2011, 08:42 PM
 
Location: Ponte Vedra Beach FL
14,628 posts, read 17,923,045 times
Reputation: 6716
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoButCounty View Post
Perhaps you should look up the official statistics on the CDC web site. They're easily available at:

FASTSTATS - Unmarried Childbearing
Did you even read the stuff you linked?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus10.pdf#007

I think this pretty much supports what I said (give or take a few % points here and there). Robyn
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2011, 07:34 AM
 
1,060 posts, read 1,640,292 times
Reputation: 1928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robyn55 View Post
Did you even read the stuff you linked?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus10.pdf#007

I think this pretty much supports what I said (give or take a few % points here and there). Robyn
The percentage portion (Percentage of Live Births to unmarried mothers) of the table I would concede is closer to your numbers but how does that reconcile with the actual live birth numbers in the first section of the table? (Live births per 1,000 unmarried women 15-44 years of age)

Your assertion is that the rates of blacks is approaching 75%, the first portion of the table (Live births per 1,000 unmarried women 15-44 years of age) shows 72.6 births per thousand unmarried women for 7.2% in 2007, your assertion on whites is that the rate is approaching 50%, the table shows 48.1 live births per thousand unmarried women for 4.8% in 2007.

How is this reconciled?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2011, 08:34 AM
 
Location: Lexington, SC
4,281 posts, read 10,732,445 times
Reputation: 3716
Do not look my way while quoting those numbers.....I have nothing to do with them....though at times I wish I did when I see some of unwed mommies....LOL
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2011, 03:57 PM
 
Location: Ponte Vedra Beach FL
14,628 posts, read 17,923,045 times
Reputation: 6716
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoButCounty View Post
The percentage portion (Percentage of Live Births to unmarried mothers) of the table I would concede is closer to your numbers but how does that reconcile with the actual live birth numbers in the first section of the table? (Live births per 1,000 unmarried women 15-44 years of age)

Your assertion is that the rates of blacks is approaching 75%, the first portion of the table (Live births per 1,000 unmarried women 15-44 years of age) shows 72.6 births per thousand unmarried women for 7.2% in 2007, your assertion on whites is that the rate is approaching 50%, the table shows 48.1 live births per thousand unmarried women for 4.8% in 2007.

How is this reconciled?
The columns of numbers are for the years in the table. In the table you're looking at - there may be X live births to unmarried mothers ages 15-44 in the year 2007. But not all women ages 15-44 have children every year. Far from it The table I'm looking at shows the total % of children born in any given year that are illegitimate. To give you an example. Say that all women in this age group have an illegitimacy rate of 5 per 100 women - 5% in the year 2000. That would be 5 illegitimate kids. That's pretty much the chart you're looking at. But say only 10 of 100 women in this age group have a child - that's 10 kids - and that half (5) are legitimate and the other half (5) are illegitimate. That would mean that 5 out of the 10 kids born in that year - or 50% - are illegitimate.

BTW - I don't fault you for misreading the charts - especially if you aren't familiar with the basic statistical profile of the problem. The way the data is arranged in these charts isn't especially intuitive.

FWIW - one of the first people to start talking about this problem was the late Senator Moynihan. In the 1960's:

The Negro Family: The Case For National Action - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At a time when black illegitimacy rates were about 25% - and white rates were much lower than that.

I think this is one of the largest problems facing US society today. Because one of the most significant factors in terms of predicting future poverty is being born to and raised by a single mother. Which leads me to all kinds of views a conventional conservative might not have (and I am in general a pretty conservative person). I believe in free abortion/sterilization on demand - gay adoption by gay couples (any family is better than none) - etc. I despise the "hip-hop" culture - but will leave it to people like Bill Cosby to do the preaching in the black community. Robyn
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2011, 04:27 PM
 
Location: Ponte Vedra Beach FL
14,628 posts, read 17,923,045 times
Reputation: 6716
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
What government benefits? AFDC? Food stamps? Medicaid? Unemployment insurance? WIC? SCHIP? State and local too, or just federal?
I would put unemployment benefits to the side (because it's a different animal) - but otherwise say all of the above. And I sure wouldn't extend unemployment benefits for really long periods of time (as is being done now). Because it's putting a big strain on state finances - and - in turn - on employers who pay into the unemployment benefits system on state/federal levels. Many states borrowed from the feds to pay unemployment benefits - and the bills from those loans are starting to come due now.

I wouldn't mind seeing us try to come up with some kinds of programs meant to help older people 40-50+ or so (not retired seniors) - people who are still capable of working - but who have been caught between the old economy they were trained to live in and work in - and the one that exists now. But the government doesn't seem to have any interest in that. I had to laugh when ex-governor Rendell (PA) spoke on CNBC today about how the government could spend $1 billion on the crumbling infrastructure of Pennsylvania and put a lot of people to work. He might well be right - at least to some extent. But our federal government - in its infinite wisdom - chose to throw $500 million down the rat hole of Solyndra instead (not to mention all the "bankster" bailouts and a whole lot of other nonsense).

I really don't know if I'm in the 1% - because I don't know how it's defined - but I do ok. Yet - perhaps my husband and I in our later years will need skilled nursing care (which costs a fortune). And people with less money than we have may worry about how they'll pay for this - and other health-related costs too (Medicare/Medigap/drugs etc.). All of this going on in an investment environment that stinks. At a time when we're aging and becoming less capable or incapable of working at a job.

A lot of us seniors sit back and watch this and lose any compassion we might have had. And just try to figure out how we will get through the rest of our lives. Robyn
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2011, 04:31 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,078 posts, read 17,657,689 times
Reputation: 7720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robyn55 View Post
I would put unemployment benefits to the side (because it's a different animal) - but otherwise say all of the above. And I sure wouldn't extend unemployment benefits for really long periods of time (as is being done now). Because it's putting a big strain on state finances - and - in turn - on employers who pay into the unemployment benefits system on state/federal levels. Many states borrowed from the feds to pay unemployment benefits - and the bills from those loans are starting to come due now.

I wouldn't mind seeing us try to come up with some kinds of programs meant to help older people 40-50+ or so (not retired seniors) - people who are still capable of working - but who have been caught between the old economy they were trained to live in and work in - and the one that exists now. But the government doesn't seem to have any interest in that. I had to laugh when ex-governor Rendell (PA) spoke on CNBC today about how the government could spend $1 billion on the crumbling infrastructure of Pennsylvania and put a lot of people to work. He might well be right - at least to some extent. But our federal government - in its infinite wisdom - chose to throw $500 million down the rat hole of Solyndra instead (not to mention all the "bankster" bailouts and a whole lot of other nonsense).

I really don't know if I'm in the 1% - because I don't know how it's defined - but I do ok. Yet - perhaps my husband and I in our later years will need skilled nursing care (which costs a fortune). And people with less money than we have may worry about how they'll pay for this - and other health-related costs too (Medicare/Medigap/drugs etc.). All of this going on in an investment environment that stinks. At a time when we're aging and becoming less capable or incapable of working at a job.

A lot of us seniors sit back and watch this and lose any compassion we might have had. And just try to figure out how we will get through the rest of our lives. Robyn

So, you'd offer help to seniors but not to young people who also need help? Does that really make sense in terms of the subject of this thread? After all, seniors are near, or beyond, their productive years and helping them is merely a drain on everyone else's resources without any expectation of a return.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2011, 04:34 PM
 
Location: Ponte Vedra Beach FL
14,628 posts, read 17,923,045 times
Reputation: 6716
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
That shouldn't be surprising as I'm not a scientist. I'm a retired truck driver.

The information is out there and I've given you a decent starting place. That's about it from here.

In any case, I have no reason to lie about it.
Sorry there - I got you mixed up with Songbird - the alleged scientist. Robyn
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top