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.
The out of wedlock crisis is completely due to welfare. If welfare didn't exist, lower and middle class women would marry and raise children with a dependable nice guy. Since welfare exists lower class women let their primitive hindbrain influence their sexual selection...so they have children with the most dangerous thug on the street or some other type of bad boy. They could care less that he won't stick around because they get alll kinds of cash and prizes from Uncle Sam. The really sad thing about this is the Republicans won't cut off welfare to single moms. So this horrific trend will continue. People wonder why young men play video games all day. The answer is they can not compete against the welfare state. They are of no use so they might as well indulge in games and hobbies.
Welfare has little to nothing to do with it.
In human history, the poor always procreate more than the middle classes.
In human history, the poor always procreate more than the middle classes.
That's because their infant mortality rate was significantly higher. That's not true in the US; they're just over-breeding by a rate of 3 to 1 and creating an impending, unsustainable societal catastrophe.
That's because their infant mortality rate was significantly higher. That's not true in the US; they're just over-breeding by a rate of 3 to 1 and creating an impending, unsustainable societal catastrophe.
And also teen pregnancy is at its lowest ever today And no people are not over breeding.
Many want to paint black people, and Latinos as sexual deviants and animals.
And teen pregnancy is at its lowest ever. And no people are not over breeding.
The poor actually are overbreeding. Who's going to pay to artificially financially support them?
Think very carefully about the following...
48% of all US births are paid by Medicaid (source: Medicaid). In a country that only has a 13.5% poverty rate (source: CIA World Factbook). The US Census Bureau has determined that, consistently, women on public assistance, as a group, have a birth rate 3 times higher than those not on public assistance. I can post links to the Census Bureau's analysis publications if anyone wishes.
Anyone who understands compounded population growth projection will understand that this is a recipe for disaster. It's mathematically unsustainable. Period.
I'll give an example of the future consequences using the following formula (compounded population growth projection) and values, given the rate ratios we already know (non-poor : poor = 1 : 3), after a time period of 50 years (roughly, the time span of two generations), and using a small sample size for the sake of making an easier comparison.
The formula is:
present value x (e)^kt = future value
where e equals the constant 2.71828..., k equals the rate of increase (expressed as a decimal, e.g. 5% would be 0.05), and t is the number of years (or other unit, as long as it is the same as k) over which the growth is to be measured.
Given: 100 births/year. 52 non-poor. 48 poor.
k for the non-poor = 1% = 0.01
k for the poor = 3% = 0.03
Non-poor population after 50 years: 85.73
Poor population after 50 years: 215.12
They began at:
Non-poor: 52%
Poor: 48%
And after 50 years of population growth given the rate ratios we already know, that results in:
Non-poor: 28.5%
Poor: 71.5%
The poor/low-income are WAY overbreeding, encouraged and enabled to do so by all the freebie public assistance benefits they get. Do you recognize the problem for society that presents? What's the plan to PAY for that?
The percentage of the US population that cannot support themselves and their dependents will increase exponentially, while those paying taxes will be increasingly unable to pay enough to support them all. It's completely mathematically unsustainable, and the US's society is already beginning to feel the effects.
The poor actually are overbreeding. Who's going to pay to artificially financially support them?
Think very carefully about the following...
48% of all US births are paid by Medicaid (source: Medicaid). In a country that only has a 13.5% poverty rate (source: CIA World Factbook). The US Census Bureau has determined that, consistently, women on public assistance, as a group, have a birth rate 3 times higher than those not on public assistance. I can post links to the Census Bureau's analysis publications if anyone wishes.
Anyone who understands compounded population growth projection will understand that this is a recipe for disaster. It's mathematically unsustainable. Period.
I'll give an example of the future consequences using the following formula (compounded population growth projection) and values, given the rate ratios we already know (non-poor : poor = 1 : 3), after a time period of 50 years (roughly, the time span of two generations), and using a small sample size for the sake of making an easier comparison.
The formula is:
present value x (e)^kt = future value
where e equals the constant 2.71828..., k equals the rate of increase (expressed as a decimal, e.g. 5% would be 0.05), and t is the number of years (or other unit, as long as it is the same as k) over which the growth is to be measured.
Given: 100 births/year. 52 non-poor. 48 poor.
k for the non-poor = 1% = 0.01
k for the poor = 3% = 0.03
Non-poor population after 50 years: 85.73
Poor population after 50 years: 215.12
They began at:
Non-poor: 52%
Poor: 48%
And after 50 years of population growth given the rate ratios we already know, that results in:
Non-poor: 28.5%
Poor: 71.5%
The poor/low-income are WAY overbreeding, encouraged and enabled to do so by all the freebie public assistance benefits they get. Do you recognize the problem for society that presents? What's the plan to PAY for that?
The percentage of the US population that cannot support themselves and their dependents will increase exponentially, while those paying taxes will be increasingly unable to pay enough to support them all. It's completely mathematically unsustainable, and the US's society is already beginning to feel the effects.
And now we do have welfare and they are still having kids at a 3:1 ratio to non poor.
That is exponential growth of poverty as most born into poverty stay there.
Is that financially sustainable ?
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.
