In the post I quoted, you were talking about the UK, not the US, and about some bloke claiming that immigrant groups use more fresh produce. I was explaining why that might be so.
You certainly didn’t. You almost never do.
Oh, please. You have a definite and specific position on the matter, which you are trying keep off the table because you know you can’t present a case for it.
I’ve already brought it. Deal with it.
I don’t need to provide cites or evidence for a well-established fact. If you think there isn’t substantial abuse of our welfare systems, you need to deal with the fact that the number of fatherless homes among the underclasses has been growing steadily for decades and is closely associated with welfare.
Neither will anything from the SPLC, Mother Jones and their ilk.
“Well-established fact” doesn’t mean the same thing as “stuff LP thinks”. You don’t speak English so good for a white guy.
If it’s so well-established, take 30 seconds out of your life to show me a cite. Or shut up. Either’s fine.
Insisting that everything you pull out of your ass is gold doesn’t stop the rest of us from recognizing the smell of shit.
Well, judging from the conversation so far, “stuff LP thinks” is a lot more likely to be factual than “stuff DianaG thinks.”
I have no doubt that my skill with the language greatly exceeds yours, though I admit you show a fair degree of facility for a colored woman.*
Why? It is perfectly proper to refuse a demand for cites when there clearly is no need or when the demand clearly has not been made in good faith. Both conditions apply here.
If you really think that’s not an established fact, surely you can take 30 seconds out of your life to show that it’s counterfactual.
Such eloquence. :rolleyes:
Well, I suggest you see an OTO specialist, as you clearly don’t recognize the smell of what’s coming out of your mouth.
*And don’t go crying to the mods. You’re the one who dragged race into it.
So still no cite then?
Okey dokey, the point that you’ve got nothing has been pretty thoroughly made at this point.
Personal comments like this don’t belong in this forum.
If it’s well established, it should be easy to cite. “I don’t have to cite this because everybody knows it” is empty bluster, and it is indeed easier to cite an argument than it it is to insist over and over that cites are unnecessary. If you don’t want to support what you’re saying, there’s not much sense in participating in a debate forum.
Both of you need to stop this immediately.
NM
I suppose bravery being a requirement to go to Planned Parenthood must depend on where you live. I relied in Planned Parenthood for many years, and no bravery was required. There were no picketers or bomb threats, and going into a PP was just as eventful as going into a Rite Aid.
Another thing is people might be ignorant of what PP’s benefits are in their area, which is easy, considering they vary by location. In Los Angeles, for example, there were no questions asked, outside of the necessities like name and address, in order to administer birth control. I moved to MN and opted for PP while I had no health insurance, and they required proof of citizenship, along with a small laundry list of requirements before shooting me with Depo. I thought PP was supposed to be for people whose options were otherwise limited, yet my experience in Minneapolis may as well have taken place at a regular freakin’ hospital. Okay, sorry about that little mini-rant there.
You’re single and have a low income, and you have such casual disregard toward whether or not you have a child? I’m not a planner either, but some things should involve at least cursory planning.
Poor nutrition which leads to illnesses is a far cry from people “starving to death.”
The answer to the OP’s question is, of course, all of the above, with the exception of this silliness about having children being profitable. The Welfare Queen image was something dreamt up by the right wing in the 1980s and doesn’t exist. There may have been some clever people here and there able to scam the system out of “hundreds of thousands” of dollars, but for the most part, Welfare moms aren’t exactly hobknobbing with Robin Leach. Even if they become eligible for social welfare programs that they would not have been without a child, they hardly net a profit, and certainly not one worth having a child over. To classify money as a motivation to bare children is just plain asinine.
Please, humor us. What you’ve given thus far (stray bands of Mormons) fails.
I have reasonable doubt.
Generally, I don’t comply with requests or demands for cites. My experience has been that such requests are too often made in bad faith to justify the investment of time and energy. In any case, there really isn’t anything to debate here. For several generations and decades now, our welfare systems have brought about a huge increase in fatherless families, and demanding a cite for that is like demanding a cite for the heliocentric theory of the solar system.
I have neither the time nor the patience to indulge needless demands for cites. If someone thinks they can make a case that our welfare system has not been a major factor in the immense increase in fatherless households, I’m all ears. But they’re going to have to do better than shake their heads and say “Nuh uh!” over and over again.
:rolleyes: In other words, you what you perceive as flaws in the Welfare system is directly responsible for more unwed mothers having children for the sake of making money, but refuse to provide anything that supports this claim. Your claim is entirely false, and if you believe my asking for a citation is in bad faith, and thus you refuse to do anything but peddle shallow stereotypes that have no basis in reality, perhaps you can tell me how much financial benefit you believe, roughly, a woman stands to gain by having a baby? Please no tired generalizations that you heard on the radio. Enlighten me, sans citations, on what you think these women gain from bearing children.
Also, in your explanation, be sure to spell out why Welfare is the reason there has been an increase in fatherless families, in case you were not intending to do so. If you’re going to make such claims and provide no proof, I would at least like a detailed explanation as opposed to reverting to the same “Welfare Queens” trope with no further information. Thanks.
Eh, it’s not like I’m a teenage runaway. Already I’m in a far, far better position to provide materially for children than anyone in my family has ever been, ever. As for being single- it’s my experience that not being single when you have a baby is no guarantee you won’t be single at some point later. I’d rather be a planned single parent than an unplanned one. Anyway, there is no perfect time for anyone- if we waited until all circumstances were ideal, the human race would have ended a few million years ago. Sometimes you have to jump off that cliff and figure you’ll cross the bridges when you come to them.
It’s not like I’m running around having unprotected sex to get knocked up or anything. But I think most women hit a point where they say “You know, in the non-zero chance that my birth control fails, I think I’d keep the baby.”
There are many other factors to consider in the cost of food. Many poor people do not live within walking distance of a supermarket. They do live within walking distance of a convenience store. To go to the market where the fresh vegetables, fruit, bulk quantities samples, etc., are they either need a car (which also entails insurance costs) and the money to pay for gas or money to pay for a taxi. It’s possible to get a few bags of food home on the bus (which is still going to require some money to ride), but that may add another hour onto a day in which they have already worked ten or more hard hours, not to mention late nights at the bus stop are a darn good way to end up a crime statistic.
Obviously there is high correlation between Presbyterianism and wealth.
What if we can point to places that have an even more liberal welfare system, but with a smaller percentage of fatherless households? Would you then abandon the idea that the American welfare system causing fatherless families is as established as the heliocentric theory of the solar system?
The thread is about the relationship between income and fertility. Alleged abuse of the welfare system is not sufficient to show this, as the preceding relationship occurs in countries and time periods without welfare systems. As I and others noted earlier.
Indeed.
That kind of thinking is why there are so many women in poverty. We really need to actively work against it. In the Western world, in the 21st century there really isn’t an excuse for such poor planning.
Some things are more important than “poverty.”
My family is tiny, not exceptionally healthy, and there is only one person in it under 50. I’m honestly looking at the possibility of, in the nearish future, having no family at all. I really, really, really don’t like the idea of spending 35 or so Christmases without a family dinner, watching everyone I’m related to die without any births or weddings to look forward to and dying with at best one family member to remember me. For someone who was raised in a tight-knit family like myself, just thinking about it makes me want to cry. I’m not ready to be alone on this earth.
I want to have people in my family, and I can’t really make someone else produce them (my various gay uncles are certainly no help), so eventually I’m going to have to kids. I’m turning 31. I have some time, but not infinite time. If that puts me in the poorhouse (which I’m pretty sure, at this point, it won’t) than so be it. I was raised poor and survived, and it was far from the worst thing in the world.
Anyway, its not time yet, but if my body makes it happen anyway, it’ll be a joyous (if difficult) thing.
I’m not actually sure what “poor planning” you’re talking about. Are you insisting that any woman who doesn’t get an abortion (or give the kid up for adoption) when her birth control fails is ipso facto a poor planner unless she has a certain minimal income?