100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Understanding out of wedlock statistics | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
The rate of irresponsible births still exceeds the resources to support them. Competence testing. That would weed out those who could not responsibly support kids. If they test to where, one day, they could independently support kids, mandatory BC. Test and test shows they have a low percent rate to advance to the point of independently support a child, recommend sterilization. Poverty decreases. again, slowly POVERTY does not rise and fall upon whether people have a ring on their finger when they give child birth and no one is going to allow someone else to decide what type of 'competency' should be mandated for the very NATURAL right to have a family,,,,,, resources aren't based upon RATES but upon numbers, and we have not the RESOURCES to keep people out of poverty,, whatever the oow rates are evidenced by the FACT that although there are FEWERE NUMBERS of those to feed,, the poverty rates are still troublesome ,,,, the simple lesson of the op and then I am done,, , the simple point, that IM sure those looking to scapegoat will continue talking their way around RISING NUMBER OF OOW BIRTHRATES, is NOT, SYNONYMOUS WITH MORE CHILDREN BEING BORN TO UNWED MOTHERS or with UNWED MOTHERS HAVING RISING LEVELS OF IRRESPONSIBILITY,,, ...plain and simple now carry on with the fun of explaining how poverty is primarily the result of whether women are in a marriage when they give birth,,,, and if only more of them would have that ring on their finger when they give birth,, poverty rates would decline cause that's ABSOLUTELY LOGICAL,,,,  Does that mean I get to have the last word?  "Statistics" prove that poverty levels in some demographics do rise when unwed women choose to have and keep babies...Some of those areas include single white mothers, single black mothers, single hispanic mothers, single asian mothers, and children of single white, black, hispanic,and asian mothers...Out-of-wedlock childbearing is one of the biggest causes of poverty among women and children...It's not new and it is real....And Will is right, the rate of irresponsible births does exceed the resources needed to support them...Two obvious reasons are boomers retiring and inflation levels that exceed income levels...The money pit is dry in spite of the fact that blue color America continues to take responsibility for feeding, housing, and clothing the children born to irresponsible unwed women who breed with irresponsible men...Seriously... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what 'statistics' PROVE the above leap of logic?
statistically, poor people will have children born to poor people and will then be poor children but 'statistics' would also show pverty levels of MARRIED children results also rise when couples DIVORCE, WIDOw SEPERATE< or just stop supporting their children the idea that the 'ring' on the finger is the contributing factor is still preposterous..and purposefully ignores the very complex and constantly changing status people keep both in terms of marriage and poverty,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Wed 08/14/13 02:45 PM
|
|
NUMBERS ,,,,
black out of wedlock numbers steadily climb from 1975-1995 http://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/files/2010/10/maritaldecline.jpg HOWEVER,,, in 83-90 AND 92-99 black poverty rate declined http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104525.html kind of debunking that an increased oow rate increases the poverty rate,,,, and possibly lending credibility to the relationship the ECONOMY has to poverty rates instead,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, Jerry!
Who da baby Daddy? Jerry made big bucks on ghetto hos who didn't have a clue as to who be da Daddy. Millions need spayed and neutered. If ya masters obummer plan says they don't get paid to breed, I believe, they'll go for the free fixing. He could even throw in a free buffet at KFC. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, Jerry! Who da baby Daddy? Jerry made big bucks on ghetto hos who didn't have a clue as to who be da Daddy. Millions need spayed and neutered. If ya masters obummer plan says they don't get paid to breed, I believe, they'll go for the free fixing. He could even throw in a free buffet at KFC. nice allusion to offensive stereotypes,,,not sure what response you are seeking,,, but I got stuff to do,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sheeeit!
I like KFC. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The rate of irresponsible births still exceeds the resources to support them. Competence testing. That would weed out those who could not responsibly support kids. If they test to where, one day, they could independently support kids, mandatory BC. Test and test shows they have a low percent rate to advance to the point of independently support a child, recommend sterilization. Poverty decreases. again, slowly POVERTY does not rise and fall upon whether people have a ring on their finger when they give child birth and no one is going to allow someone else to decide what type of 'competency' should be mandated for the very NATURAL right to have a family,,,,,, resources aren't based upon RATES but upon numbers, and we have not the RESOURCES to keep people out of poverty,, whatever the oow rates are evidenced by the FACT that although there are FEWERE NUMBERS of those to feed,, the poverty rates are still troublesome ,,,, the simple lesson of the op and then I am done,, , the simple point, that IM sure those looking to scapegoat will continue talking their way around RISING NUMBER OF OOW BIRTHRATES, is NOT, SYNONYMOUS WITH MORE CHILDREN BEING BORN TO UNWED MOTHERS or with UNWED MOTHERS HAVING RISING LEVELS OF IRRESPONSIBILITY,,, ...plain and simple now carry on with the fun of explaining how poverty is primarily the result of whether women are in a marriage when they give birth,,,, and if only more of them would have that ring on their finger when they give birth,, poverty rates would decline cause that's ABSOLUTELY LOGICAL,,,, Does that mean I get to have the last word? "Statistics" prove that poverty levels in some demographics do rise when unwed women choose to have and keep babies...Some of those areas include single white mothers, single black mothers, single hispanic mothers, single asian mothers, and children of single white, black, hispanic,and asian mothers...Out-of-wedlock childbearing is one of the biggest causes of poverty among women and children...It's not new and it is real....And Will is right, the rate of irresponsible births does exceed the resources needed to support them...Two obvious reasons are boomers retiring and inflation levels that exceed income levels...The money pit is dry in spite of the fact that blue color America continues to take responsibility for feeding, housing, and clothing the children born to irresponsible unwed women who breed with irresponsible men...Seriously... Guess not 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The rate of irresponsible births still exceeds the resources to support them. Competence testing. That would weed out those who could not responsibly support kids. If they test to where, one day, they could independently support kids, mandatory BC. Test and test shows they have a low percent rate to advance to the point of independently support a child, recommend sterilization. Poverty decreases. again, slowly POVERTY does not rise and fall upon whether people have a ring on their finger when they give child birth and no one is going to allow someone else to decide what type of 'competency' should be mandated for the very NATURAL right to have a family,,,,,, resources aren't based upon RATES but upon numbers, and we have not the RESOURCES to keep people out of poverty,, whatever the oow rates are evidenced by the FACT that although there are FEWERE NUMBERS of those to feed,, the poverty rates are still troublesome ,,,, the simple lesson of the op and then I am done,, , the simple point, that IM sure those looking to scapegoat will continue talking their way around RISING NUMBER OF OOW BIRTHRATES, is NOT, SYNONYMOUS WITH MORE CHILDREN BEING BORN TO UNWED MOTHERS or with UNWED MOTHERS HAVING RISING LEVELS OF IRRESPONSIBILITY,,, ...plain and simple now carry on with the fun of explaining how poverty is primarily the result of whether women are in a marriage when they give birth,,,, and if only more of them would have that ring on their finger when they give birth,, poverty rates would decline cause that's ABSOLUTELY LOGICAL,,,, Does that mean I get to have the last word? "Statistics" prove that poverty levels in some demographics do rise when unwed women choose to have and keep babies...Some of those areas include single white mothers, single black mothers, single hispanic mothers, single asian mothers, and children of single white, black, hispanic,and asian mothers...Out-of-wedlock childbearing is one of the biggest causes of poverty among women and children...It's not new and it is real....And Will is right, the rate of irresponsible births does exceed the resources needed to support them...Two obvious reasons are boomers retiring and inflation levels that exceed income levels...The money pit is dry in spite of the fact that blue color America continues to take responsibility for feeding, housing, and clothing the children born to irresponsible unwed women who breed with irresponsible men...Seriously... Guess not Now you know how a man feels when he is talking to a woman.  (j/k)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The rate of irresponsible births still exceeds the resources to support them. Competence testing. That would weed out those who could not responsibly support kids. If they test to where, one day, they could independently support kids, mandatory BC. Test and test shows they have a low percent rate to advance to the point of independently support a child, recommend sterilization. Poverty decreases. again, slowly POVERTY does not rise and fall upon whether people have a ring on their finger when they give child birth and no one is going to allow someone else to decide what type of 'competency' should be mandated for the very NATURAL right to have a family,,,,,, resources aren't based upon RATES but upon numbers, and we have not the RESOURCES to keep people out of poverty,, whatever the oow rates are evidenced by the FACT that although there are FEWERE NUMBERS of those to feed,, the poverty rates are still troublesome ,,,, the simple lesson of the op and then I am done,, , the simple point, that IM sure those looking to scapegoat will continue talking their way around RISING NUMBER OF OOW BIRTHRATES, is NOT, SYNONYMOUS WITH MORE CHILDREN BEING BORN TO UNWED MOTHERS or with UNWED MOTHERS HAVING RISING LEVELS OF IRRESPONSIBILITY,,, ...plain and simple now carry on with the fun of explaining how poverty is primarily the result of whether women are in a marriage when they give birth,,,, and if only more of them would have that ring on their finger when they give birth,, poverty rates would decline cause that's ABSOLUTELY LOGICAL,,,, Does that mean I get to have the last word? "Statistics" prove that poverty levels in some demographics do rise when unwed women choose to have and keep babies...Some of those areas include single white mothers, single black mothers, single hispanic mothers, single asian mothers, and children of single white, black, hispanic,and asian mothers...Out-of-wedlock childbearing is one of the biggest causes of poverty among women and children...It's not new and it is real....And Will is right, the rate of irresponsible births does exceed the resources needed to support them...Two obvious reasons are boomers retiring and inflation levels that exceed income levels...The money pit is dry in spite of the fact that blue color America continues to take responsibility for feeding, housing, and clothing the children born to irresponsible unwed women who breed with irresponsible men...Seriously... Guess not Someone once said "We hold these truths to be self evident." 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consider the following scenario.
A single woman chooses to participate in sexual intercourse. A natural consequence of her choice is that she becomes a single mother. As a consequence of her becoming a single mother, she is now financially poorer than she was before she gave birth. Now, why is she poorer? A. Because of her choice. B. Because of the state of the economy. C. Because of racism. If you chose Answer "A", then you may be a conservative and/or a Republican. If you chose something other than "A", then you may be a liberal and/or a Democrat. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The rate of irresponsible births still exceeds the resources to support them. Competence testing. That would weed out those who could not responsibly support kids. If they test to where, one day, they could independently support kids, mandatory BC. Test and test shows they have a low percent rate to advance to the point of independently support a child, recommend sterilization. Poverty decreases. again, slowly POVERTY does not rise and fall upon whether people have a ring on their finger when they give child birth and no one is going to allow someone else to decide what type of 'competency' should be mandated for the very NATURAL right to have a family,,,,,, resources aren't based upon RATES but upon numbers, and we have not the RESOURCES to keep people out of poverty,, whatever the oow rates are evidenced by the FACT that although there are FEWERE NUMBERS of those to feed,, the poverty rates are still troublesome ,,,, the simple lesson of the op and then I am done,, , the simple point, that IM sure those looking to scapegoat will continue talking their way around RISING NUMBER OF OOW BIRTHRATES, is NOT, SYNONYMOUS WITH MORE CHILDREN BEING BORN TO UNWED MOTHERS or with UNWED MOTHERS HAVING RISING LEVELS OF IRRESPONSIBILITY,,, ...plain and simple now carry on with the fun of explaining how poverty is primarily the result of whether women are in a marriage when they give birth,,,, and if only more of them would have that ring on their finger when they give birth,, poverty rates would decline cause that's ABSOLUTELY LOGICAL,,,, Does that mean I get to have the last word? "Statistics" prove that poverty levels in some demographics do rise when unwed women choose to have and keep babies...Some of those areas include single white mothers, single black mothers, single hispanic mothers, single asian mothers, and children of single white, black, hispanic,and asian mothers...Out-of-wedlock childbearing is one of the biggest causes of poverty among women and children...It's not new and it is real....And Will is right, the rate of irresponsible births does exceed the resources needed to support them...Two obvious reasons are boomers retiring and inflation levels that exceed income levels...The money pit is dry in spite of the fact that blue color America continues to take responsibility for feeding, housing, and clothing the children born to irresponsible unwed women who breed with irresponsible men...Seriously... Guess not Now you know how a man feels when he is talking to a woman. (j/k) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The rate of irresponsible births still exceeds the resources to support them. Competence testing. That would weed out those who could not responsibly support kids. If they test to where, one day, they could independently support kids, mandatory BC. Test and test shows they have a low percent rate to advance to the point of independently support a child, recommend sterilization. Poverty decreases. again, slowly POVERTY does not rise and fall upon whether people have a ring on their finger when they give child birth and no one is going to allow someone else to decide what type of 'competency' should be mandated for the very NATURAL right to have a family,,,,,, resources aren't based upon RATES but upon numbers, and we have not the RESOURCES to keep people out of poverty,, whatever the oow rates are evidenced by the FACT that although there are FEWERE NUMBERS of those to feed,, the poverty rates are still troublesome ,,,, the simple lesson of the op and then I am done,, , the simple point, that IM sure those looking to scapegoat will continue talking their way around RISING NUMBER OF OOW BIRTHRATES, is NOT, SYNONYMOUS WITH MORE CHILDREN BEING BORN TO UNWED MOTHERS or with UNWED MOTHERS HAVING RISING LEVELS OF IRRESPONSIBILITY,,, ...plain and simple now carry on with the fun of explaining how poverty is primarily the result of whether women are in a marriage when they give birth,,,, and if only more of them would have that ring on their finger when they give birth,, poverty rates would decline cause that's ABSOLUTELY LOGICAL,,,, Does that mean I get to have the last word? "Statistics" prove that poverty levels in some demographics do rise when unwed women choose to have and keep babies...Some of those areas include single white mothers, single black mothers, single hispanic mothers, single asian mothers, and children of single white, black, hispanic,and asian mothers...Out-of-wedlock childbearing is one of the biggest causes of poverty among women and children...It's not new and it is real....And Will is right, the rate of irresponsible births does exceed the resources needed to support them...Two obvious reasons are boomers retiring and inflation levels that exceed income levels...The money pit is dry in spite of the fact that blue color America continues to take responsibility for feeding, housing, and clothing the children born to irresponsible unwed women who breed with irresponsible men...Seriously... Guess not Someone once said "We hold these truths to be self evident."  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consider the following scenario. A single woman chooses to participate in sexual intercourse. A natural consequence of her choice is that she becomes a single mother. As a consequence of her becoming a single mother, she is now financially poorer than she was before she gave birth. Now, why is she poorer? A. Because of her choice. B. Because of the state of the economy. C. Because of racism. If you chose Answer "A", then you may be a conservative and/or a Republican. If you chose something other than "A", then you may be a liberal and/or a Democrat. Ahhhhh .... clarity in motion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consider the following scenario. A single woman chooses to participate in sexual intercourse. A natural consequence of her choice is that she becomes a single mother. As a consequence of her becoming a single mother, she is now financially poorer than she was before she gave birth. Now, why is she poorer? A. Because of her choice. B. Because of the state of the economy. C. Because of racism. If you chose Answer "A", then you may be a conservative and/or a Republican. If you chose something other than "A", then you may be a liberal and/or a Democrat. What are you if you choose all three.......or none of the above...........or A&B.....or A&C...or B&A...or B&C? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consider the following scenario. A single woman chooses to participate in sexual intercourse. A natural consequence of her choice is that she becomes a single mother. As a consequence of her becoming a single mother, she is now financially poorer than she was before she gave birth. Now, why is she poorer? A. Because of her choice. B. Because of the state of the economy. C. Because of racism. If you chose Answer "A", then you may be a conservative and/or a Republican. If you chose something other than "A", then you may be a liberal and/or a Democrat. What are you if you choose all three.......or none of the above...........or A&B.....or A&C...or B&A...or B&C? Oh, so sorry  ...That would make you a Democrat, right?....I'm right, aren't I
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consider the following scenario. A single woman chooses to participate in sexual intercourse. A natural consequence of her choice is that she becomes a single mother. As a consequence of her becoming a single mother, she is now financially poorer than she was before she gave birth. Now, why is she poorer? A. Because of her choice. B. Because of the state of the economy. C. Because of racism. If you chose Answer "A", then you may be a conservative and/or a Republican. If you chose something other than "A", then you may be a liberal and/or a Democrat. What are you if you choose all three.......or none of the above...........or A&B.....or A&C...or B&A...or B&C? Then you may be a liberal and/or a Democrat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consider the following scenario. A single woman chooses to participate in sexual intercourse. A natural consequence of her choice is that she becomes a single mother. As a consequence of her becoming a single mother, she is now financially poorer than she was before she gave birth. Now, why is she poorer? A. Because of her choice. B. Because of the state of the economy. C. Because of racism. If you chose Answer "A", then you may be a conservative and/or a Republican. If you chose something other than "A", then you may be a liberal and/or a Democrat. What are you if you choose all three.......or none of the above...........or A&B.....or A&C...or B&A...or B&C? Then you may be a liberal and/or a Democrat. Dodo, what about this Japanese love swing thing ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consider the following scenario. A single woman chooses to participate in sexual intercourse. A natural consequence of her choice is that she becomes a single mother. As a consequence of her becoming a single mother, she is now financially poorer than she was before she gave birth. Now, why is she poorer? A. Because of her choice. B. Because of the state of the economy. C. Because of racism. If you chose Answer "A", then you may be a conservative and/or a Republican. If you chose something other than "A", then you may be a liberal and/or a Democrat. What are you if you choose all three.......or none of the above...........or A&B.....or A&C...or B&A...or B&C? Then you may be a liberal and/or a Democrat. Dodo, what about this Japanese love swing thing ? This might answer your question... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If ya claim it's all the dudes fault yer knocked up ya might just be an idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If ya claim it's all the dudes fault yer knocked up ya might just be an idiot. An idiot would be the least of it
|
|
|
|
|
