CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 42524
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 11:54 am
 


http://www.twincities.com/columnists/ci ... g-us-broke

Single moms are making us broke, says Joe Soucheray

This guy is usually seen on ESPN doing sports analysis...kind of interesting to see him throw this grenade out there for the liberals to go batshit crazy about.

Joe Soucheray wrote:
It was reported the other day on an inside page of the Pioneer Press, and without nearly enough fanfare, that more than six out of 10 women who give birth in their early 20s are unmarried. That is census data, from census demographers, from the very government that then becomes responsible for many, if not most, of those unmarried women and children.

If that isn't an astonishing statistic, it should be. Why, to any logical person's way of thinking, it explains everything in terms of government at all levels bloating out of control.

Supposing that even angels might fear to tread here, it being liberal dogma that I shouldn't be telling women what to do, or men, either, for that matter, I would submit that marriage would solve virtually every economic issue facing this country.

The census demographers said that single motherhood, on the increase since the 1940s, has accelerated mindblowingly. The birth rate for unmarried women in 2007 was up 80 percent in the almost three decades since 1980. Just between 2002 and 2007, it was up 20 percent.

The census people didn't use the word mindblowingly. I have chosen it because these numbers are chilling and so telling of the true nature of the government's insatiable spending. Just think of entitlement spending the next time the hypocrites in Washington want to take a snowplow off the road in Yellowstone or take a few flight controllers out of a tower because of this so-called sequestration. Who do they think they are fooling?

Statistically, you can avoid poverty in America by getting a high-school degree and waiting to get married before having a child. It's really that simple.

The census report would state it differently. The U.S. Census Bureau report said that women with college degrees and higher household incomes are less likely to be single mothers than are women who have lower incomes and less education.

Now, I suppose this is where I should acknowledge that not all women who choose to give birth without a marriage are consigning themselves and their child to a life of poverty.

But when more than 600 out of every 1,000 children born to women in their early 20s have single mothers, can anybody come up with a percentage for how many of them will flourish?

Single mothers in their early 20s instantly become the have-nots, statistically, in income and education. For so many women to have so many children without a husband is a complete abdication of personal responsibility, which leads to a complete shunning of any civic responsibility. We are going broke. And if you think taxing higher-income earners more is the answer, you haven't done the math. The men who are party to these births are, of course, just as irresponsible, just as uncommitted to a civic responsibility to take care of their own.

So what has happened as a result of this mindblowingly destructive trend? Well, most principally, what has happened since the 1940s is a government that has expanded to require more and more money to feed, clothe, house, educate and medicate the children of mothers who cannot afford to do it themselves because their education has stalled, knocking them off the path of growing their incomes.

We hear a hue and cry for all-day kindergarten, which I suppose makes sense because the children have no place else to be if their single mom is fortunate enough to have a job. Whole bureaucracies have been created to cut general assistance checks and food payments and housing vouchers and health care provisions. All because there is no conventional family in place to take care of these obligations.

I am hopelessly conservative in these matters and not in tune with all the wonderful life choices encouraged by liberal dogma.

But the numbers don't lie. More than 60 percent! Not for an air traffic controller or a snowplow driver are we going broke.

Joe Soucheray can be reached at jsoucheray@pioneerpress.com or 651-228-5474. Soucheray is heard from 1 to 4 p.m. on 1500ESPN.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 24040
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 11:58 am
 


To quote Henry Gibson: "So what are you going to do about it, white boy?"


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 18077
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 12:17 pm
 


The poor breed and the rich don't. One of those great imponderables.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Ottawa Senators
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7697
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 12:18 pm
 


Marry a single mom. Do it for your economy! :P


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4002
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 12:23 pm
 


Quote:
The birth rate for unmarried women in 2007 was up 80 percent

It may be worse that we thought....I've heard that 100% of women are born unmarried!


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23858
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 12:23 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
http://www.twincities.com/columnists/ci_23168440/joe-soucheray-single-moms-are-making-us-broke

Single moms are making us broke, says Joe Soucheray

This guy is usually seen on ESPN doing sports analysis...kind of interesting to see him throw this grenade out there for the liberals to go batshit crazy about.

Joe Soucheray wrote:
It was reported the other day on an inside page of the Pioneer Press, and without nearly enough fanfare, that more than six out of 10 women who give birth in their early 20s are unmarried. That is census data, from census demographers, from the very government that then becomes responsible for many, if not most, of those unmarried women and children.

If that isn't an astonishing statistic, it should be. Why, to any logical person's way of thinking, it explains everything in terms of government at all levels bloating out of control.

Supposing that even angels might fear to tread here, it being liberal dogma that I shouldn't be telling women what to do, or men, either, for that matter, I would submit that marriage would solve virtually every economic issue facing this country.

The census demographers said that single motherhood, on the increase since the 1940s, has accelerated mindblowingly. The birth rate for unmarried women in 2007 was up 80 percent in the almost three decades since 1980. Just between 2002 and 2007, it was up 20 percent.

The census people didn't use the word mindblowingly. I have chosen it because these numbers are chilling and so telling of the true nature of the government's insatiable spending. Just think of entitlement spending the next time the hypocrites in Washington want to take a snowplow off the road in Yellowstone or take a few flight controllers out of a tower because of this so-called sequestration. Who do they think they are fooling?

Statistically, you can avoid poverty in America by getting a high-school degree and waiting to get married before having a child. It's really that simple.

The census report would state it differently. The U.S. Census Bureau report said that women with college degrees and higher household incomes are less likely to be single mothers than are women who have lower incomes and less education.

Now, I suppose this is where I should acknowledge that not all women who choose to give birth without a marriage are consigning themselves and their child to a life of poverty.

But when more than 600 out of every 1,000 children born to women in their early 20s have single mothers, can anybody come up with a percentage for how many of them will flourish?

Single mothers in their early 20s instantly become the have-nots, statistically, in income and education. For so many women to have so many children without a husband is a complete abdication of personal responsibility, which leads to a complete shunning of any civic responsibility. We are going broke. And if you think taxing higher-income earners more is the answer, you haven't done the math. The men who are party to these births are, of course, just as irresponsible, just as uncommitted to a civic responsibility to take care of their own.

So what has happened as a result of this mindblowingly destructive trend? Well, most principally, what has happened since the 1940s is a government that has expanded to require more and more money to feed, clothe, house, educate and medicate the children of mothers who cannot afford to do it themselves because their education has stalled, knocking them off the path of growing their incomes.

We hear a hue and cry for all-day kindergarten, which I suppose makes sense because the children have no place else to be if their single mom is fortunate enough to have a job. Whole bureaucracies have been created to cut general assistance checks and food payments and housing vouchers and health care provisions. All because there is no conventional family in place to take care of these obligations.

I am hopelessly conservative in these matters and not in tune with all the wonderful life choices encouraged by liberal dogma.

But the numbers don't lie. More than 60 percent! Not for an air traffic controller or a snowplow driver are we going broke.

Joe Soucheray can be reached at jsoucheray@pioneerpress.com or 651-228-5474. Soucheray is heard from 1 to 4 p.m. on 1500ESPN.


Sounds like you're throwing your support behind abortion.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 42524
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 12:25 pm
 


saturn_656 wrote:
Marry a single mom. Do it for your economy! :P


:lol:

That's funny but it'd also be a curious thing for some government agency to advocate as a form of patriotism. :wink:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 42524
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 12:30 pm
 


Gunnair wrote:
Sounds like you're throwing your support behind abortion.


In recent days I have modified my position on abortion. I've decided that abortion-on-demand for liberals is a good thing. I'm even okay with it being taxpayer supported.

What's funny/ironic is how this pisses off liberals. They're generally pro-abortion so you'd think they'd be fine with my agreeing with their right to choose.

For some strange reason my position tweaks them in such a way that one would start to wonder if they think that abortion might be wrong. :idea:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 42524
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 12:46 pm
 


Along the lines of this same topic...

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/04/opinion/d ... Stories%29


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23858
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 12:57 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
Gunnair wrote:
Sounds like you're throwing your support behind abortion.


In recent days I have modified my position on abortion. I've decided that abortion-on-demand for liberals is a good thing. I'm even okay with it being taxpayer supported.

What's funny/ironic is how this pisses off liberals. They're generally pro-abortion so you'd think they'd be fine with my agreeing with their right to choose.

For some strange reason my position tweaks them in such a way that one would start to wonder if they think that abortion might be wrong. :idea:


Huh. Well you don't like abortion nor do you like single moms. Are you into sterilization now?

It's getting easier to pin you down on the map using your political compass.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
Profile
Posts: 98
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 1:08 pm
 


Already posts and no one mentioned the sperm donors, white, black, conservative and republican who contribute to the creation of a child yet leave the mother and child to fend for themselves. Those would be deadbeats, and you might be one of them. Instead of lumping society's problems at the feet of the most vulnerable, how about getting men to do their part and contribute to the welfare of their offspring?

If you are old enough to ejaculate inside of a woman you are old enough to get a job and pay the bills. If you as a society do not want to foot the bills then open the door so a woman can make the choice to postpone motherhood until she can has better means and a loving partner to help.

Single mothers in poverty are not the problem, they are the symptom of a society where we allow men to escape from the responsibility and costs of parenting.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 42524
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 1:08 pm
 


Gunnair wrote:
Huh. Well you don't like abortion nor do you like single moms. Are you into sterilization now?

It's getting easier to pin you down on the map using your political compass.


I never said I didn't like single moms. No idea where you got that from.

And you're right that I do not like abortion but, as I said, I've modified my position to say that I support 'choice' so far as it concerns liberals. If liberals want to prevent more liberals from being born then I'm all for it.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
Profile
Posts: 98
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 1:20 pm
 


GeeGeeMcFee wrote:
Already posts and no one mentioned the sperm donors, white, black, conservative and republican who contribute to the creation of a child yet leave the mother and child to fend for themselves. Those would be deadbeats, and you might be one of them. Instead of lumping society's problems at the feet of the most vulnerable, how about getting men to do their part and contribute to the welfare of their offspring?

If you are old enough to ejaculate inside of a woman you are old enough to get a job and pay the bills. If you as a society do not want to foot the bills then open the door so a woman can make the choice to postpone motherhood until she can has better means and a loving partner to help.

Single mothers in poverty are not the problem, they are the symptom of a society where we allow men to escape from the responsibility and costs of parenting.


Bart wrote:
For not finding an even more offensive way to phrase this. Try harder next time, this wasn't bad enough to get you banned.


I'm not sure which part you find offensive. Does the word "ejaculate" offend you, because it is the correct term for sperm leaving a male's penis (then entering a woman's vagina in cases where conception takes place) - without ejaculation there could be no single mothers (barring other scientific processes to impregnate a woman).

Or are you a deadbeat and you are offended that someone believes thatyou should take care of children fathered by you? Please explain why you're are offended.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4631
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 1:44 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
Gunnair wrote:
Sounds like you're throwing your support behind abortion.


In recent days I have modified my position on abortion. I've decided that abortion-on-demand for liberals is a good thing. I'm even okay with it being taxpayer supported.


Why not just leave it at abortion on demand? cause obviously conservatives would never avail themselves of the opportunity even if it's legal and payed for...


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 18077
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 3:17 pm
 


This thread was stupid to start with and went downhill fast.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 98 posts ]  1  2  3  4  5 ... 7  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.