Obama baby boom?

Search

New member
Joined
Oct 22, 2006
Messages
2,123
Tokens
From Msn article today....(in part)..God help us. More people having kids they can't afford that the rest of us will pay for.

And if so, could history repeat itself? In the hours and days since Obama's victory, many of his exhilarated supporters have been, shall we say, in the mood for love. And though it's too soon to know for sure, experts aren't ruling out the possibility of an Obama baby boom—the kind of blip in the national birth rate that often follows a seismic event, whether it's scary (a terrorist attack) or celebratory (the end of World War II). "The mood of the country and the optimism about leadership is always somewhat related to birth rates," says Dr. Manny Alvarez, chief of reproductive science at Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey. "I'm gearing up for a healthy increase."
Hope and euphoria, says University of Washington sociologist Pepper Schwartz, are a serious aphrodisiac. And voters under 30 went for Obama by a margin of 2 to 1. When you combine those two elements—randy people of child-bearing age—the likely result is what the online Urban Dictionary has already dubbed "Obama Babies" : children "conceived after Obama was proclaimed President, by way of celebratory sex." "If the amount of alcohol, happy people and major functions on election night is any indication, I suspect we'll indeed see a boom," says 25-year-old Brandon Mendelson, a graduate student in Albany, N.Y., who says he changed his vote at the last minute because "I wanted to be able to tell our future children that we voted for Obama
 

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
26,039
Tokens
Yeah..Michele Obamas Chewbacca mouth really makes me want to fuck somethin.
 

Pro Handi-Craper My Picks are the shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
4,098
Tokens
Them arnt kids they called checks.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 22, 2006
Messages
2,123
Tokens
In some of my business dealings I have cause to deal with women who can't pay their bills, yet continue to have child after child. They are angry that the bill collectors are knocking on their door, but don't seem to get the cause and effect of sex/children/poverty. They claim to have "insurance," which is of course is not insurance, but medicaid, subsidized housing, and food stamps. These were the women that were screwing on November 4 celebrating a certain continuation of the progams that allow them to be lazy and living off MY taxes.

I know that at times SOME people have legitimate reason to take advantage of government programs that are in place to help those that have fallen on hard times. But if you can't take care of the family that you already have, you have NO business having more children. Period.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
9,282
Tokens
Heres a question....

Are you guys in the same ilk that is against abortion? Im extremely fiscally conservative and extremely socially liberal, so my stance on abortion is the more the merrier. Now if you say yes, you against abortion....then either you are:

1> Just a dumb partisan fucking hack, who doesnt have a clue about cause and effect

2> Just a fucking redneck who doesnt have a clue about cause and effect

3> Just like to bitch and moan, because you have nothing better to do.


What is it going to be? Because you cant have it both ways.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 22, 2006
Messages
2,123
Tokens
The problem here though Fletch is that the ones in question here are the ones who will not HAVE abortions. So it being legal does not even enter the equation. Pregnancy =$$$$ for those in that mindset. What we need is mandatory birth control for those taking public funds. If you can't feed em, don't breed em.
 

New member
Joined
Jul 21, 2006
Messages
12,563
Tokens
that pregnancy for money thing is one of the stupidest things ive ever heard. nobody is getting pregnant for money. these are people, often young who made a dumb decision or have a pattern of having made dumb decisions(multiple births, different fathers) etc and don't want to abort.

nobody is having a kid because I can get a check for 200 dollars at the end of the month. and if you believe that then i don't know what to say. that's a famous saying, pop out a kid gov pays for you, but not realistic.

realistic is about 200 dollars for welfare, 185 for food stamps a month for the mother and children.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 22, 2006
Messages
2,123
Tokens
that pregnancy for money thing is one of the stupidest things ive ever heard. nobody is getting pregnant for money. these are people, often young who made a dumb decision or have a pattern of having made dumb decisions(multiple births, different fathers) etc and don't want to abort.

nobody is having a kid because I can get a check for 200 dollars at the end of the month. and if you believe that then i don't know what to say. that's a famous saying, pop out a kid gov pays for you, but not realistic.

realistic is about 200 dollars for welfare, 185 for food stamps a month for the mother and children.

You'd be surprised. They might not be having kids for the sole purpose of earning income.....but having too many kids prevents many from getting jobs, and thus are forced to stay home and rely on government programs. It is simply cheaper to stay in a subsidized apt, eat on food stamps, and welfare $ than to pay for daycare unless you are educated and can get a decent, high paying job. And I don't know where you got those figures, but I know a family of 3 that was getting $400 per month in food stamps alone. And I have a former loser friend that got $165 per month herself..without any kids. And there was no reason on earth that girl could not work!
 

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
9,282
Tokens
Absolutley Pro Choice. There is no contradiction here.


Your one but i bet there is a majority on here that would suggest otherwise.

As far as the validity to your last post, simply not true.

The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women).

And Black women are almost four times as likely as White women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.5 times as likely.

So its clearly a major economic issue to say the least.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 22, 2006
Messages
2,123
Tokens
Your one but i bet there is a majority on here that would suggest otherwise.

As far as the validity to your last post, simply not true.

The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women).

And Black women are almost four times as likely as White women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.5 times as likely.

So its clearly a major economic issue to say the least.

Well of course the abortion rate is going to be higher for the poor. But so are the number of pregnancies. Abortion rate may be higherfor poor vs. non poor, but the number of babies carried to term is also higher.Thus the number of poor on welfare within the "cycle" would be higher I would imagine.Let me know if you have numbers that take issue with that. I think I may have miscommunicated my point. I just believe if you are public assistance of any kind, you have no business procreating.


Back to Texas/Kansas....
 

New member
Joined
Jul 21, 2006
Messages
12,563
Tokens
You'd be surprised. They might not be having kids for the sole purpose of earning income.....but having too many kids prevents many from getting jobs, and thus are forced to stay home and rely on government programs. It is simply cheaper to stay in a subsidized apt, eat on food stamps, and welfare $ than to pay for daycare unless you are educated and can get a decent, high paying job. And I don't know where you got those figures, but I know a family of 3 that was getting $400 per month in food stamps alone. And I have a former loser friend that got $165 per month herself..without any kids. And there was no reason on earth that girl could not work!

i agree with you here and there. there not having kids for money. there having kids because there young and dumb and don't use contraceptives, and they don't want to abort the kid. i'd say abort it if you can't support like you stated, but at the same time ethics and morals play into it.

it's just not realistic for a parent with a litter of kids to survive off that money. subsidized apartment your still paying for. even if they got say 1000 off welfare and food stamps combined that's nothing in the end.

i just think we go wild with these people living off our taxes, being lazy bums, etc. the majority of you guys don't know what your talking about when you say stuff like that. majority of people on welfare are working 2 jobs, I believe over 60 percent in the last report, and the rest are working at least a full and a part. sure, you have some take advantage of the system and use there welfare for coke, booze, what have you but that number is way less than the stereotype for it. you need assistance when your working two full time jobs, 80 hrs a week, making minimum wage, 6.15 hr or so and have 3 kids like a number of young minority families. welfare is that extra boost.

and i'll tell you now, i'd be 10 times more willing to pay to help them out, then pay to help out these millionaires on wall street so they can get there 20 million dollar bonuses at my expense.
 

AIG Bonus Recipient
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
17,848
Tokens
btw...are there any studies on how productive people on welfare are at their jobs...

probably smokers that stay on internet
 

New member
Joined
Oct 22, 2006
Messages
2,123
Tokens
i agree with you here and there. there not having kids for money. there having kids because there young and dumb and don't use contraceptives, and they don't want to abort the kid. i'd say abort it if you can't support like you stated, but at the same time ethics and morals play into it.

it's just not realistic for a parent with a litter of kids to survive off that money. subsidized apartment your still paying for. even if they got say 1000 off welfare and food stamps combined that's nothing in the end.

i just think we go wild with these people living off our taxes, being lazy bums, etc. the majority of you guys don't know what your talking about when you say stuff like that. majority of people on welfare are working 2 jobs, I believe over 60 percent in the last report, and the rest are working at least a full and a part. sure, you have some take advantage of the system and use there welfare for coke, booze, what have you but that number is way less than the stereotype for it. you need assistance when your working two full time jobs, 80 hrs a week, making minimum wage, 6.15 hr or so and have 3 kids like a number of young minority families. welfare is that extra boost.

and i'll tell you now, i'd be 10 times more willing to pay to help them out, then pay to help out these millionaires on wall street so they can get there 20 million dollar bonuses at my expense.


Can you send me a link to that report? If these people really are working 80 hour weeks and unable to make it, that's one thing....

Still doesn't address my initial point that they need to stop having babies!!!!!!! I don't know if I would go so far as the "if you can't support, abort" argument, as I do respect people's moral problem with abortion although I am pro choice, but I do believe if you are taking handouts...if you tap it, wrap it!!! And why won't medicaid pay for abortions? Another contradiction.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
9,282
Tokens
Well of course the abortion rate is going to be higher for the poor. But so are the number of pregnancies. Abortion rate may be higherfor poor vs. non poor, but the number of babies carried to term is also higher.Thus the number of poor on welfare within the "cycle" would be higher I would imagine.Let me know if you have numbers that take issue with that. I think I may have miscommunicated my point. I just believe if you are public assistance of any kind, you have no business procreating.


Back to Texas/Kansas....

Ok, lets say you spade these poor woman... then what? Ill tell you what, look for AIDs to make a giant resurgence. Let me ask you this, whats more expensive, a baby or a mother with HIV? A birth costs what? 7K. Based on your data what does a mother on welfare with kids cost? Ill tell you because my GF works for the DOPW of Pennsylvania. Its about $500-600 a month. What is that 8,000 max a year? The lifetime cost of treating an HIV-positive person exceeds $400,000 and can run as high as $648,000 without discounts on antiretroviral drugs and that isnt even talking a potential transforming into AIDS, witch would cost more. Because if you "fix" these same people who dont understand the vicious cycle of unprotected sex in poverty, they will surly have even more unprotected sex and that opens a potential whole new Pandora's box. Nothing is black and white. Simply "fixing" the poor is never going to work.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,807
Messages
13,573,363
Members
100,871
Latest member
Legend813
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com