Government run health care

About 1.4 million children were born to unmarried women in 2003, comprising 34.6 percent of total births (Hamilton, Martin, & Sutton, 2004). If the relinquishment rate measured by NSFG in 1995 for never-married women were applied to all unmarried women who gave birth in 2003, this would mean that fewer than 14,000 children were voluntarily relinquished in 2003.
Who Are the Women Who Place Their Children



This states 1/3 of women, there are tons of articles like this, one just needs to look, read, study, explore and believe the facts even if they are not how your life is or has turned out. These are the facts. Yes the article in Time was old, the problem has not gotten any better, it has probably gotten worst. Why do you have such spite and joy in trying to prove me wrong? What do you have to prove? I am just stating facts. If you are willing or thinking of giving your child up being on welfare or / and not being able to take care of said child is a good possiblitiy. Unmarried women are much more likely to be on welfare, not all but most.

Update March 19, 2009: 'Baby Boomlet'

According to www.cdc.gov:
The preliminary estimate of births in 2007 rose 1 percent to 4,317,119, the highest number of births ever registered for the United States. The general fertility rate increased by 1 percent in 2007, to 69.5 births per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years, the highest level since 1990. Increases occurred within all race and Hispanic origin groups and for nearly all age groups.
The birth rate for U.S. teenagers 15-19 years rose again in 2007 by about 1 percent, to 42.5 births per 1,000. The birth rate for teenagers 15-17 and 18-19 years each increased by 1 percent in 2007, to 22.2 and 73.9 per 1,000, respectively. The rate for the youngest group, 10-14 years, was unchanged. Birth rates also increased for women in their twenties, thirties, and early forties between 2006 and 2007. The 2007 total fertility rate increased to 2,122.5 births per 1,000 women.
All measures of childbearing by unmarried women rose to historic levels in 2007, with the number of births, birth rate, and proportion of births to unmarried women increasing 3 to 5 percent.
By race of 4,317,119:
2,312,473 were white. 27.8% to unmarried women for a total of 642,687 fatherless children.
627,230 were black. 65.2% to unmarried women for a total of 408,953 fatherless children.
1,061,970 were Hispanic. 51.3% to unmarried women for a total of 544,790 fatherless children.
49,284 American Indian, etc. 65.2% to unmarried women for a total of 32,133 fatherless children.
254,734 were Asian. 16.9% to unmarried women for a total of 43,050 fatherless children.
Total fatherless children: 1,671,613 or 38.72% to unwed mothers.
US births break record; 40% out-of-wedlock
AP Mar 18, 2009
Births to unwed mothers reached an all-time high of about 40 percent, continuing a trend that started years ago. More than three-quarters of these women were 20 or older. For a variety of reasons, it's become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband, said Duke University's S. Philip Morgan, a leading fertility researcher...
The new numbers suggest the second year of a baby boomlet, with U.S. fertility rates higher in every racial group, the highest among Hispanic women. On average, a U.S. woman has 2.1 babies in her lifetime. That's the "magic number" required for a population to replace itself...While the number of births in the U.S. reached nearly 4.3 million in 2006, mainly due to a larger population, especially a growing number of Hispanics, it's not clear the boomlet will last. Some experts think birth rates are already declining because of the economic recession that began in late 2007...
Meanwhile, U.S. abortions dropped to their lowest levels in decades.
Conclusion

What we have is a growing demographic powder keg. In other studies the high school dropout rate nearly mirrors the unwed mother rate. Like unwed motherhood, it's also self-inflicted and has nothing to do with racism. According to Charles Murray (1993) the white illegitimacy was 22% (707,502 babies in 1991) and black illegitimacy rate was 68%. Using the above figures, the white illegitimacy rate has risen about 5% and the black rate has held steady. The problem for whites is the illegitimacy rate is concentrated in the bottom tier of the population:

For white women below the poverty line in the year prior to giving birth, 44% of births have been illegitimate, compared with only 6% for women above the poverty line. White illegitimacy is overwhelmingly a lower-class phenomenon. This brings us to the emergence of a white underclass. In raw numbers, European-American whites are the ethnic group with the most people in poverty, most illegitimate children, most women on welfare, most unemployed men, and most arrests for serious crimes. And yet whites have not had an "underclass" as such, because the whites who might qualify have been scattered among the working class...The figure in low-income, working-class communities may be twice that.

Places such as Appalachia and Tri-Cities. Yet most social programs are aimed at non-whites only, such as Obama's Racist' Stimulus Package. The other big demographic nightmare is Hispanics whose illegitimacy rates, dropout rates, crime rates, etc. could overtake blacks in a few years. Their population (legal and illegal) is exploding in this region as well as they are used by cheap-labor employers to displace poor whites and blacks from their jobs and further depress wages. It would make more sense to deport as many illegal aliens (mainly Hispanic) as possible and secure our borders, while allowing much higher immigration levels from East Asia and Europe. But then Asians are too successful and don't form the permanent cheap-labor and welfare underclass so desired by big business and liberals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caseysmom

I can think of at least one pettalker that wouldn't appreciate single mothers being lumped in a bucket with welfare mothers.

---

LOLOL, I pretty much buck every 'statistic' ever thought of by Marigold. I imagine between the two of us, she is a bit more closer to those she scorns than I am. :D

Lots and lots of facts out there to check, read and explore. Does someone else have stats to post?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marigold2

I have no idea why you would be mean to me. What are you so angry about? I did not swear or yell at the patient, I nicely told him that we don't take Care Source we don't take it because it does not pay enough to keep an office open.
He attacked me, I laughted because it was funny. I get 100 phone calls a day and several have Care Source many people get nasty when I tell them we don't take it.
What ya gonna do? Take it personaly, NO you have to laugh about it and keep your humor and good mood. If he had not hung up on me I would have told him to call Care Source to find a provider who takes that policy. But he hung up, so he is the one who is F^%KED.
It's not my fault we don't take it. I don't make the rules, I just follow them.
My advice on lowing medicial rates was sound. Don't smoke, use birth control, watch the diet and exercise, Nothing nasty there. It would benefit all, as a country and just one on one. Diabetes is a very serious issue in this country as is being overweight. Heart disease, cancer, stroke and all be prevented or greatly reduced if we do our best to take care of ourselves.
As for 1/3 of all births being on welfare, well that is just a fact. I can't change it. I just stated the truth, it might not be pretty but it's true. We as Americans need to be more repsonsible for our bodies. We need better morals, better role models, and young women need to know that having a baby by 21 is not the be all end all. They need to educate themselves, be able to take care of themselves, travel, expolore, have fun, shop till they drop, break a heart or two, climb a mountain, backpack through Europe, go sailing, join the Peace Corps, go out west and follow the Oragan trial. So much to do and see and explore before you settle and have kids, Moms need to tell kids that, to educate them that life is a journey and it's a blast. I have taught my kids that. I am not bitter, I am very down to earth and partical. I tell the truth even if it is ugly. The only way to change and grow and make things better is to talk honestly. I do that. I didn't say anything that wasn't true.
Are you feeling guilty about something or picked on? Why? What did I say that was not true?




QUOTE=Cataholic;2197923]Marigold, your perspective is very unique. Very. So much broadstroke action you may as well be painting a barn.

I know I have said this before but you must have had a very, very difficult childhood to sound so bitter about many things.

---

[/QUOTE]

Mean? Mean? Where was I mean? You are very bitter. Like you, I tell it like it is, even if it is ugly. And, I do, personally, find bitter ugly. Along with your "take" on the world at large. Very ugly. Only someone really bitter would continue with the late 1960's white elitism talk. We all get you are better than someone on welfare, that you are better than someone that would have <gasp> a child without being married (LOLOL), that you are better than those that don't have a job. So, relax, you are WAY better than me!

Excuse me, you think I made those up? Check the facts yourself. Are you a single mom? Are you trying to prove something? I don't understand why you are so defense?
I am married. I have four children and three grandkids. Three children I gave birth to and a young man who I consider a son and treat in every way as one. I posted his wedding pictures just a few days ago. I live in a nice home, upscale development, have never been on welfare or any type of government program. I have never been arrested. I have been to jail but only with my dad who was in law enforcement to visit his coworkers. I work full time and am able to support myself if my husband would become injured or die. I am just a normal everyday women who tries to do her best. I live a good life and pay my own way.
What are you so mad about? Why are you so angry about the facts I have posted?

I have no idea what your life is, nor is it any of my business. It's your life to make the best of. If you are offended by my stats then you need to look at yourself and your own self-esteem and wonder why.
Like I said what are you angry about? If you don't like your life change it. But don't get mad at me for posts facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marigold2

Why do you have such spite and joy in trying to prove me wrong? What do you have to prove? I am just stating facts. If you are willing or thinking of giving your child up being on welfare or / and not being able to take care of said child is a good possiblitiy. Unmarried women are much more likely to be on welfare, not all but most.

---

I don't know if this is addressed to me or caseysmom, but it hardly applies to me - a 65 year old retiree! :eek:

But you made some rather unfounded statements in Post #1 which I called you on, and you never answered sensibly. You stated that being on welfare means that you have declared yourself physically and mentally unable to care for yourself and you're asking the government to pay your bills. You never could answer where the unemployed person that perhaps needs some temporary help, fits in to your statement. Are they physically and/or mentally unable?? Doubtful - since they likely wouldn't have had a job in the first place. So you just saw fit to disappear for a while, and hope my question would be forgotten. Remember that????? :confused::rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marigold2

Here is part of page 3
It is hard to argue with the evidence they cite. Nearly a third of American children are born out of wedlock, and those children are four times as likely as the others to be poor. Unwed mothers average nearly 8 years on welfare, in ^ contrast to 4.8 years overall. "From the President on down, there has been an amazing shift in attitude," says Douglas Besharov, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "Today everyone recognizes that dealing with births out of wedlock is the central issue of welfare reform, so much so that the President's draft plan makes dealing with illegitimacy the No. 1 priority

---

Aw, Holy Crap! Now I am poor? Must be cause I am due 8 years of welfare checks. What could possibly be next, that I am undereducated? From a long family line of welfare recipients?

Someone should have told me sooner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marigold2

I have no idea what your life is, nor is it any of my business. It's your life to make the best of. If you are offended by my stats then you need to look at yourself and your own self-esteem and wonder why.
Like I said what are you angry about? If you don't like your life change it. But don't get mad at me for posts facts.

---

LOL, truly, get over yourself, Marigold. You would have to ask the probably 25 or so people on here that I have met in person if they would consider me 'worried about my self-esteem' or if my life needs to be changed (though I do admit to being 25 pounds heavier than I should be).

I am not 'mad', I think you are horribly bitter and ignorant about life. It is comical, when it stops being so sad a commentary on what a 'normal' woman would think and post.

Now, I am off to look at myself!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cataholic

Now I am poor?
Must be cause I am due 8 years of welfare checks.

What could possibly be next, that I am undereducated?

---

GOSH, Joh!

WHO knew?
You're not out of FoodStamps, again, are you? ... I might have a couple extras.
Want 'em?

;)

Marigold since Cataholic has too much self esteem to boast, I will for her...Cataholic is an attorney, hardly at the poverty level:rolleyes:

As I said earlier I am posting stats and I asked others to post as well. I wanted an open discussion. Why isn't anyone posting facts? It's the truth we are after.

Well you see that addes to the confusion. Why is she so upset about the stats I posted? They had nothing to do with her, they were never aimed at anyone here, they were posted from stats from leading news agencies. Why she got so upset is confusing. I was trying to have an open conversion without people name calling or taking offense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caseysmom

Marigold since Cataholic has too much self esteem to boast, I will for her...Cataholic is an attorney, hardly at the poverty level:rolleyes:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marigold2

Well you see that addes to the confusion. Why is she so upset about the stats I posted? They had nothing to do with her, they were never aimed at anyone here, they were posted from stats from leading news agencies. Why she got so upset is confusing. I was trying to have an open conversion without people name calling or taking offense.

---

Your broad generalizations are insulting to people even if we are not in that particular situation that you are stereotyping, its called empathy...try it sometime it keeps you human.