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.
No, he said because whites are of a larger population they are likely a larger drain on resources and tax payer dollars. In reference to births out of wedlock, (assuming they use social services), he would be correct.
Whites pay a lot more taxes than blacks do.
They are hardly a "drain" on the nation's resources.
This is what the right fights hard for - no condoms distributed, do away with family planning, no teaching of sexual matters in school.
What do you expect? It's like you eat horse manure and expect it to be key lime pie. Action affect outcomes. What outcome(s) do you want?
I welcome all my new whitey friends to donate heavily to Planned Parenthood so we can have educated teens and parents. Will you do it? or would you rather just complain on a forum?
There seems to be this mentality that the male is responsible. Its the male that has has to pay child support. The female almost always gets custody. Where is the equal opportunity? Why this bias?
I would not give either any state or federal support. If either can support themselves and the child, fine. If not, put the child in protective custody and make both pay for the upkeep of the child.
1. A vast percentage of those males skip out on child support.
2. Big question here - what is harder - A or B
A - paying some child support
B - paying most ALL child support PLUS raising your child.....
I'd say B is more difficult and, if so, you have once again proven that we are living in backwards bizzarro world...where up is down and bad is good.
Exactly. And as a white, I know white couples that choose to avoid the marriage tax penalty, which still exists for higher income earners. I also have a friend that had the marriage ceremony, the rings, the name change, etc. but no actual marriage license. They both have their own businesses and felt that was the best choice for them.
Sure, money means everything! They probably have an altar at home with some 20's on it that they pray to each morning.
Don the Con had his own multiple marriages.....and children. Unfortunately, the taxpayers, bond holders, investors, contractors and many others had to get fleeced for him to raise them.
This is what the right fights hard for - no condoms distributed, do away with family planning, no teaching of sexual matters in school.
What do you expect? It's like you eat horse manure and expect it to be key lime pie. Action affect outcomes. What outcome(s) do you want?
I welcome all my new whitey friends to donate heavily to Planned Parenthood so we can have educated teens and parents. Will you do it? or would you rather just complain on a forum?
Ok I agree with the condoms, I agree making abortions available. The sex ed? Kids know by 10 how babies are made and what condoms are for. After the first pregnancy one would hope a woman has it figured out. This is a willful disregard for what follows.
I welcome all people regardless of race to donate to planned parenthood. I also welcome all people of every race to actually use birth control when they know that they cant afford to have a baby or don't want one. I am willing to bet 90% of these pregnancies involve a mother with a nice cell phone and unlimited data plans. They can afford that phone I bet if they wanted to they could afford the pill, a box of condoms, or scrounge up the $500 for an abortion.
we had this one AA gentlemen on our crew, he was 27 years old and had 21 kids by 11 mother. The judge order the county to pick up his check every week, 100%. Judge said he didnt care how he supported himself
I think folks are missing a bigger part of the picture here. What does "out of wedlock" mean these days?
1) Does "out of wedlock" mean "women randomly getting pregnant in short-term flings where the man then disappears, leaving her a single parent?"
2) Or, does "out of wedlock" mean, "man and women who live together and have kids effectively as a family, but who choose not to get married for whatever reason."
Point being that BOTH situation are probably on the rise, but the second one I don't see as a problem. Getting married and signing that piece of paper doesn't magically turn adults into mature, loving people who will make sacrifices for each other and their kids. Look at the nation's divorce rate - among ALL races - and you'll see what I mean. If the parents love each and their kids and are in it together for the long haul, I don't care if they officially are married or not. So, the increase in kids "born out of wedlock" may not be as dire as one thinks.
Also, note that I'm rather disappointed in the OP's focus on non-white races. While the increase in kids out of wedlock probably is rising higher for them than other races, it is happening in ALL races (about 1 in 3 for whites.) Of course, this is a right-wing political forum, so naturally the focus would be on race vs. any actual problem the entire nation is facing - big shock, and disappointing, as usual.
I think folks are missing a bigger part of the picture here. What does "out of wedlock" mean these days?
1) Does "out of wedlock" mean "women randomly getting pregnant in short-term flings where the man then disappears, leaving her a single parent?"
2) Or, does "out of wedlock" mean, "man and women who live together and have kids effectively as a family, but who choose not to get married for whatever reason."
Point being that BOTH situation are probably on the rise, but the second one I don't see as a problem. Getting married and signing that piece of paper doesn't magically turn adults into mature, loving people who will make sacrifices for each other and their kids. Look at the nation's divorce rate - among ALL races - and you'll see what I mean. If the parents love each and their kids and are in it together for the long haul, I don't care if they officially are married or not. So, the increase in kids "born out of wedlock" may not be as dire as one thinks.
Also, note that I'm rather disappointed in the OP's focus on non-white races. While the increase in kids out of wedlock probably is rising higher for them than other races, it is happening in ALL races (about 1 in 3 for whites.) Of course, this is a right-wing political forum, so naturally the focus would be on race vs. any actual problem the entire nation is facing - big shock, and disappointing, as usual.
Where the focus is in the original post is something you're trying to use as a deflection.
Blacks have the highest number, as a percent, of children living in single parent households. Why that is important is because children in two parent households (and not necessarily real mom/dad) have better outcomes across the board in all categories from education to teen pregnancy to criminal involvement as well as a significantly lower likelihood of spending all or part of their childhood in poverty.
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.
