Comedy gold right there. You think a lot of things. So far, most of them have been wildly inaccurate. But gwon. Child, please. I have used a variety of supporting material. If official government docs are your idea of blogs, that's cool.
Stop with the race bating. You are the only one pursuing that avenue. Drive at will but I am not getting in the car. Your language could use some cleaning up BTW. However, here is what happens when you break down the discussion. Birth rate is not equal to pregnancy rate. I said responsible procreation. Sure, there are people who make solid decisions about postponing children. However, there are others who say the craziest saddest things. http://msmagazine.com/blog/2012/02/24/when-abortion-is-an-economic-necessity/ Demographics....."According to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as part of the National Survey of Family Growth, first births among unwed parents between the ages of 15 to 44 have risen from 12 percent in 2002 to 22 percent between 2006 and 2010." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_...among-unwed-cohabitating-couples-rise-in-u.s/ And according to the Census Bureau, if you look at the total birth rate for a group of 11,235 women, there were 1,862 babies ever born. Break it down and you will find that for the demographic within that group of women with income less than $20k/year, the number was 2,038 and for those without a high school diploma, 2,447. Lastly, take a look at California because we account for a stupidly large amount of the national welfare cost. What goes on here is a huge part of the discussion. " In California, 3.8 percent of the population receives monthly welfare checks.....unsurprisingly, three-fourths of California’s welfare recipients are 18 years old and younger". Further, "welfare programs that cost the government $517 billion a year include Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for the disabled, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), a nutritional program known as Women, Infants and Children (WIC), food stamps, free/reduced school lunch, public housing and health insurance for the poor (Medicaid). Food assistance and Medicaid are the programs most commonly used by illegal immigrants, mainly on behalf of their American-born children who get automatic citizenship". Anchor babies....we got em...."In 2009, San Bernardino County spent $64 million providing welfare benefits to U.S.-born children of illegal aliens....in August 2009, Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich made public the staggering amount which the taxpayers spend on illegal aliens, living in L.A. County. Last June alone, the county paid out $48 million to the children of illegal aliens, an increase of $10 million over June 2007. $26 million of that total came in the form of food stamps, while another $22 million was given to the illegal alien families in welfare checks. Assuming that June was a typical month for 2009, Los Angeles County spent nearly $600 million on those two programs last year alone. That is in addition to the more than $1 billion that the county spends annually on the medical treatment, education, emergency services, and incarceration of illegal aliens." $600M in one year....for one county....yea, we have a problem. There is an incentive for that demographic to have more children. A baby born to immigrants is American and their parents reap a boatload of benefits. Ya'll should be pissed as hell that CA is doing this.
And your still deflecting. You still have not responded to post #264. You claim that I have been wildly inaccurate but you've failed to show, in any way, that I am wildly inaccurate. You make assertions that I have quickly rebutted and then you move on to another subject, having failed to support your argument against my rebuttal. This is a pattern for you, comic gold or not. You have used exactly one government document to support the number of government employees and exactly one more to support your TANF demographics. Everything else has been from a blog. Oh, and I love how you like to claim victory when there has been none......it's so George W Bush of you.....I can almost see the banner behind you now.....LOL.
Tell you what, why don't you hold your breath until I respond to it. Put down the mirror and back away slowly. Victorious warriors win first, and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. And to borrow a quote from Monsieur Rouge who seems to be MIA from FSA these days....Adios.
Deflection, deflection, deflection..... These are your words from post #274. In it you very clearly were talking about birth rates and not pregnancy rates. And once again, you insinuate that the TANF roles are filled by those who are irresponsibly procreating, which leads to your race-baiting assertion. The facts I presented were a rebuttal to your statement about irresponsible procreation, which I consider to be far more race baiting than any of the facts I presented. Next, I have found, especially here on TF, that when someone starts correcting my grammar or reprimanding my use of slang, they are out of ideas. I could care less what you think of my use of the language. You cannot formulate a decent argument that isn't filled with holes, which I have exploited, so you want to tell me to watch my language? To show how far off you've gone, this all started about Benghazi. As I've refuted your points, you've continued to shift the conversation to what you consider to be safer ground and here is where we are: you talking about California politics. Awesome. Lastly, I understand that you are a lady and it isn't appropriate to ask a lady's age. That said, what generation are you from? I ask this in all seriousness.
see what I mean? Now you are responding with one liners and openly admitting that you will not answer my post, which was directed specifically at you and in rebuttal to your point. Oh, and now you are signing off. LOL....this is awesome. For all your shit talking, now you are running away and, even worse, you are trying to tell me that you won.....while you are running away. I love it.
So I'm reading through this thread and kept seeing references to #264 - so I looked it up and read it. And this line jumped off the page, did a 3 stooges combination face slap on me, and then finished with a obligatory 2 finger eye poke. "When Obama took office we were at an all time low in regulations and we were freshly aware of the consequences of having no regulation. When you go from no regulations, . . " Good lord man, you must know regulations don't expire and they don't die. Once born they grow a constituency and a following. I don't have numbers I can pull out of my ass, but I would be willing to make a sizable bet that the number of national government regulations has continuously grown since 1932 with Roosevelt's election. When Reagan 'simplified' the tax code in the 80's the books on tax law did not get thinner - they grew. If regulations solved problems we would all be living in the Garden of Eden. But we aren't, are we. .
If you aren't keenly aware of what the blatant lack of regulation cost the economy in 2008 then I don't know if I can help you, friend. Of course regulations have increased since 1932. In 1932 we weren't even regulating air travel so that the airplane you pay good money to fly on is actually being serviced and is in good enough repair to reliably transport our citizens; we weren't regulating our food supply either but the world has changed just a little since then too. I never said regulations solved problems but the lack thereof surely causes them.....and we actually have proof of that and have lived through that proof. You want to argue whether deregulation costs us, then let's go.....and yes, I know that Slick Willy was the champion of deregulation during the nineties.....but it got taken to whole new level from then until 2009. In fact, further banking regulation is sorely needed and a replacement for Glass-Steagall would go a long way toward repairing what got broken, at least banking wise.
