Government run health care

[Marigold2]

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.

[Marigold2]

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.

[Marigold2]

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

[Marigold2]

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?

[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.

[Cataholic]

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!

[blue]

So now paying into UI is Pork? Please explain the stretch of logic that being forced to pay into something and then getting something back is laundering money, Ild love to see that spin.

White post here.

[pomtzu]

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!

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?????

[Marigold2]

My post did not include those millions that had lost their jobs. It had to do with those that abuse the system. Those that take monies from deserving vets, the elderly or those that are truly ill and need money to live a decent and honorable life. We give money to teenage moms to care for their chidren instead of trying to convince them to give those children up for adoption. We need to educate young girls on the joys of life and education. Having babies is a wonderful thing but doesn't always remain so. Teenage girls should be thinking about school, purses, travel, what color nail polish to use and their future in this world. Not being a mom, they are children themselves and we the mom's and dad's should be helping them along. I love my grandkids but don't want to raise them. I raised mine and loved it but now it's me time. My friends have children who have children and they spend every free minute and dime helping them when they are barely making it themselves. Their grandchildren are beautiful and precious and they love them oh so much but they worry about themselves. Their parents are getting older, they are stuck in the middle between parents, children and grandchildren. They should never be in this postion. Even with their great love for their grandchildren I understand their concerns. They will have no retirement, no savings. No one to help them. They will spend years taking care of their mom and dad and their children and grandchidlren. Their children instead of taking steps to protect themselves against pregency have made generations take a new look at themselves and how they will servive. And this is in the best of families, in others the young girls are tossed out or not helped because the parents don't care or can't help. It's tragic all the way around.
I am home today not feeling well. I usually don't spend much time on PT not because I don't enjoy it but it's just that I am busy with family, friends and fun.

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

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?????

[pomtzu]

My post did not include those millions that had lost their jobs. It had to do with those that abuse the system. Those that take monies from deserving vets, the elderly or those that are truly ill and need money to live a decent and honorable life. We give money to teenage moms to care for their chidren instead of trying to convince them to give those children up for adoption. We need to educate young girls on the joys of life and education. Having babies is a wonderful thing but doesn't always remain so. Teenage girls should be thinking about school, purses, travel, what color nail polish to use and their future in this world. Not being a mom, they are children themselves and we the mom's and dad's should be helping them along. I love my grandkids but don't want to raise them. I raised mine and loved it but now it's me time. My friends have children who have children and they spend every free minute and dime helping them when they are barely making it themselves. Their grandchildren are beautiful and precious and they love them oh so much but they worry about themselves. Their parents are getting older, they are stuck in the middle between parents, children and grandchildren. They should never be in this postion. Even with their great love for their grandchildren I understand their concerns. They will have no retirement, no savings. No one to help them. They will spend years taking care of their mom and dad and their children and grandchidlren. Their children instead of taking steps to protect themselves against pregency have made generations take a new look at themselves and how they will servive. And this is in the best of families, in others the young girls are tossed out or not helped because the parents don't care or can't help. It's tragic all the way around.
I am home today not feeling well. I usually don't spend much time on PT not because I don't enjoy it but it's just that I am busy with family, friends and fun.

Perhaps you need to say what you mean, but I have no doubt that you meant exactly what you said in the beginning posts. Saying now that you weren't referring to people who have lost their jobs is just your way of trying to back out - but I believe that was already mentioned here too. You were quite adamant about what you said about being physically or mentally unable. See post #12 where you said "what other option is there". But this comes from a person who also thinks that the government is doing a great job with Medicare too.

[Edwina's Secretary]

Oh my!!!!!

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.

Eugenics anyone?

Although I have to say this is the first time in my life I have seen anyone suggest that "big business" and "liberals" have a common goal!

[Daisy and Delilah]

Unmarried women are much more likely to be on welfare, not all but most.

Forgive me if I've quoted this from a body of research. I believe this to be a statement made by you, Marigold, correct?

If this is from you, I think this is a very broad statement. This tells me that women without a man need to get help from outside sources because they can't make it on their own?

[Cataholic]

Forgive me if I've quoted this from a body of research. I believe this to be a statement made by you, Marigold, correct?

If this is from you, I think this is a very broad statement. This tells me that women without a man need to get help from outside sources because they can't make it on their own?

This is how I see Marigold's post. Some people find much comfort in tradition, the old way, etc. So, when someone else does something that is in opposition to that, it is threatening to that person's belief system. That person, with the threatened belief system *must* come out swinging in order to 'stay on top'. AND, that is totally okay, as we must all do what feels right or best for us. But, it shouldn't be that in order for one to feel better about ones' self, that one needs to make others feel bad.

Now, for the record, I do not 'believe' in marriage, per se. I mean, if you find that one special person, that is a wonderful, fantastic thing. And, I support you in your legally binding contract of marriage. But, that doesn't mean it is for me. Marriage is a state issue first and foremost- though many also have it religiously blessed.

I feel no 'need' to be married. I believe in other countries, "marriage" is less prevelant than here- but, I have not any research to link.

Many, many women find themselves in marriages that frankly- should anything happen to the male, will be in deep doo doo should the marriage fail. That would keep me up at night, fraught with worry. I think ALL people should be able to stand on their own two feed and provide for those they either bring into the world- or aquire along the way.

The larger issue I have with Marigold's 'research' (and I am not speaking solely of this thread, as she has made these comments at other times) is the large brush, and largely anti- human comments she makes about those she sees underneath her, status wise.

Insurance (LOL, I am pulling it back into topic) should be available to all. Even that poor guy that called her, asking about CareSource. I can imagine his frustration.

[Edwina's Secretary]

Marigold,

Up to this point in time I have stayed out of the fuss at you. I thought - "she's just somebody who says whatever comes into her head without thinking of the consequences."

But then you posted quotes from "news sources" inlcluding this...

But then Asians are too successful and don't form the permanent cheap-labor and welfare underclass so desired by big business and liberals.

It struck me as curious. Big business and liberals? Liberals wanting a permanent cheap-labor and welfare underclass?

So I did some research. I found where it came from. The blog of one really odd guy. Hard to figure exactly where he is coming from but one thing is overwhelmingly clear. He is a good old-fashioned racist. Not the "modern" kind of racist who sighs and says "one of my best friends is black" - but the real down home kind. (He likes Jews, dislikes fundamental Christians, hates government medical programs even though that is the only way his wife can get medical care, hates liberals, hates enviornmentalist, hates creationist - are you seeing a pattern here??) What you posted was his conclusions. I wish I knew how to wash my computer after having his words on it.

I am hoping you did a search and found that quote - pasting it in haste. I am hoping you did not look at the source.

If I am correct, I would encourage you to be more careful in quoting "news sources." Just because it is on the web doesn't not make it a "news source" nor credible.

If you did know from whom you were quoting - well I don't even want to go there - just too disgusting.

[Daisy and Delilah]

This is how I see Marigold's post. Some people find much comfort in tradition, the old way, etc. So, when someone else does something that is in opposition to that, it is threatening to that person's belief system. That person, with the threatened belief system *must* come out swinging in order to 'stay on top'. AND, that is totally okay, as we must all do what feels right or best for us. But, it shouldn't be that in order for one to feel better about ones' self, that one needs to make others feel bad.

Now, for the record, I do not 'believe' in marriage, per se. I mean, if you find that one special person, that is a wonderful, fantastic thing. And, I support you in your legally binding contract of marriage. But, that doesn't mean it is for me. Marriage is a state issue first and foremost- though many also have it religiously blessed.

I feel no 'need' to be married. I believe in other countries, "marriage" is less prevelant than here- but, I have not any research to link.

Many, many women find themselves in marriages that frankly- should anything happen to the male, will be in deep doo doo should the marriage fail. That would keep me up at night, fraught with worry. I think ALL people should be able to stand on their own two feed and provide for those they either bring into the world- or aquire along the way.

The larger issue I have with Marigold's 'research' (and I am not speaking solely of this thread, as she has made these comments at other times) is the large brush, and largely anti- human comments she makes about those she sees underneath her, status wise.

Insurance (LOL, I am pulling it back into topic) should be available to all. Even that poor guy that called her, asking about CareSource. I can imagine his frustration.

In the past, I've seen broad statements made by Marigold. Thanks for explaining this so well, Cataholic. To tell you the truth, this is exactly what I was thinking.

This statement is really hard to believe. Marigold, where are you getting these ideas of your's? I raised my children alone and they turned out remarkably well totally without welfare. Welfare never crossed my mind. I would gladly let you speak to both of them and perhaps they could shed some light on your twisted view of the subject. To me, you imply that a woman needs a man to survive. I am guessing what's next is that you think all the children of single parents are ignorant and uneducated. Does that sound unrealistic? So does your statement I quoted.

Some of the statements you make are utterly ridiculous. This is one of them. As you would like us to believe, I suppose, you have been fortunate to live a perfect life with the perfect family unit in a place that has been nothing but perfect. Every time someone tries to point out how off base you are, you have a fit over why people are disagreeing with you. I can only believe that you do this for sport. Surely you don't really support these comments do you?

Heaven forbid you should ever need help. I simply don't know how you're going to try to get it, you being of the upper crust, you know? After the Appalachian thread, I said I would never enter this territory again. However, the quote I listed was far too tempting to not at least ask about it.

Question: The guy that asked you about CareSource::with an answer like the one he gave, there had to be something to provoke him. Ya think? I'm sure we'll never hear the rest of that story.

I have to add this; sometimes you seem to be on a fairly decent path and BOOM, you blurt out another one of your questionable, opinionated, extremely broad, statements. Some of the things you say make some sense. It's too bad you so quickly negate all the good you may have done with one of your bloopers.