Alaska Talk radio host opines on guns

[JimandChristy 1,689]

Come to Middle GA.Will show you around. Make you a believer.

Funny, I live in Georgia in the Atlanta Metro area, though I wouldn't know where to search for benefits and income limits since I'm not on Welfare. I just don't believe that anyone in Georgia can afford a new car, designer clothes etc etc if they are on Welfare. Show me proof that someone on Welfare can afford this expensive stuff.

Edited January 17, 2013 by JimandChristy

[scotinmass 588]

Funny, I live in Georgia in the Atlanta Metro area, though I wouldn't know where to search for benefits and income limits since I'm not on Welfare. I just don't believe that anyone in Georgia can afford a new car, designer clothes etc etc if they are on Welfare. Show me proof that someone on Welfare can afford this expensive stuff.

Just accept what he has to say. He knows everything and he's never wrong!

[decocker 7,198]

It just means you are not going to have anymore until you are off benefits.

yes, i get it. you want to regulate women's reproductive health more than you care to regulate guns and gun ownership.

more interesting questions:

what would the protocol be if the birth control fails?

if the birth control fails, will the regulated woman be required to prove that she didn't intentionally get pregnant?

if the woman gets pregnant and looses the benefits - who is taking the now completely impoverished children she can no longer provide for?

[scotinmass 588]

yes, i get it. you want to regulate women's reproductive health more than you care to regulate guns and gun ownership.

more interesting questions:

what would the protocol be if the birth control fails?

if the birth control fails, will the regulated woman be required to prove that she didn't intentionally get pregnant?

if the woman gets pregnant and looses the benefits - who is taking the now completely impoverished children she can no longer provide for?

Forced abortion?

[decocker 7,198]

On the first 50.. Surely you are joking.

a book recommendation for you, deer hunting with jesus.

joe bageant was a brilliant man, from where i spent most of my growing up. He was hilarious and a great writer, he details the workings and effects of generational poverty.

if want to read it and don't want to buy it - i'll mail you my copy.

A raucous, truth-telling look at the white working poor-and why they hate liberalism.

Deer Hunting with Jesus is web columnist Joe Bageant’s report on what he learned when he moved back to his hometown of Winchester, Virginia, which-like countless American small towns-is fast becoming the bedrock of a permanent underclass. By turns brutal, tender, incendiary, and seriously funny, this book is a call to arms for fellow progressives with little real understanding of "the great beery, NASCAR-loving, church-going, gun-owning America that has never set foot in a Starbucks."

Forced abortion?

forced adoption?

none of this would be able to come from tax payer money though..

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Here was my initial argument

"As for Welfare quuens, in my world if you have a child and get any means tested benefit, Birth Control is mandatory."

IF YOU HAVE A CHILD---That means you already have a child. That means if your husband walks out on you and you have 4 kids, we will help. It just means you are not going to have anymore until you are off benefits.

So it's not welfare queens but welfare moms that must take birth control to receive their means tested benefits. A welfare queen would be allowed one child on welfare but then she would have to take birth control because she now is a welfare mom. Do they have to show up at the welfare office daily to administer the birth control pill in front of a case worker? Or do we trust them to take just as long as we provide it to them? What if it doesn't work? Maybe some condoms and a diaphragm as back-ups just to be safe? But then who would administer those? I don't know but to me it would appear that you need to iron out a few wrinkles in your brilliant idea.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

So it's not welfare queens but welfare moms that must take birth control to receive their means tested benefits. A welfare queen would be allowed one child on welfare but then she would have to take birth control because she now is a welfare mom. Do they have to show up at the welfare office daily to administer the birth control pill in front of a case worker? Or do we trust them to take just as long as we provide it to them? What if it doesn't work? Maybe some condoms and a diaphragm as back-ups just to be safe? But then who would administer those? I don't know but to me it would appear that you need to iron out a few wrinkles in your brilliant idea.

Aww such a well thought out retort .

Preconceived clever retort meet===NORPLANT

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I am sorry but there is a huge problem of out of wedlock births to women who at a very young age go on the system. That is part of the huge problem we have in this country.

You've got it backwards, B. Here's some interesting article on the issue - if you can stomach reality on the issue.

For teen moms, it's poverty, then baby

By Matthew Yglesias

Delivering the commencement address at Liberty University, Mitt Romney naturally stuck primarily to "family values" and religious themes. He did, however, make one economic observation that intersects with some fascinating new research. "For those who graduate from high school, get a full-time job, and marry before they have their first child," he said, "the probability that they will be poor is 2 percent. But if (all of) those things are absent, 76 percent will be poor."

These are striking numbers, but surprising new evidence indicates that Romney and others have it backward: Having a baby early does not hamper a woman's economic prospects, as he implies. Rather, young women become mothers because their economic outlook is so objectively bleak.

The problem of teen/single/unwed motherhood is one of the relatively few issues liberals and conservatives seem to be able to agree on these days. The right is more likely to pitch the issue in terms of marital status ("single moms") and the left in terms of simple age ("teen moms"). But both sides reach the same basic conclusion. Raising a child without help from a partner is very difficult. Doing it at an early age is going to substantially disrupt one's educational or economic life at a critical moment, with potentially devastating consequences for one's lifetime. Therefore, preventing early non-marital pregnancies (whether through liberal doses of contraception and sex education, or the conservative prescription of abstinence cheerleading) would seem universally desirable.

But perhaps we're approaching the problem from the wrong direction, according to Melissa Kearney and Phillip Levine in a new paper "Why is the Teen Birth Rate in the United States So High and Why Does It Matter?" published in the spring issue of the Journal of Economic Perspectives.

They conclude that "being on a low economic trajectory in life leads many teenage girls to have children while they are young and unmarried and that poor outcomes seen later in life (relative to teens who do not have children) are simply the continuation of the original low economic trajectory."

In other words, it is a mistake to the leap from the observation that women who gave birth as teenagers are poor to the view that they're poor because they gave birth. Women with better economic opportunities tend to do a good job of avoiding childbirth.

Kearney and Levine used data on miscarriages to isolate the impact of giving birth from background characteristics that may contribute to a decision to give birth. When used this way as a statistical control, the negative consequences of teen childbirth appear to be small and short-lived. Young women who gave birth and young women who miscarried have similarly bleak economic outcomes. Similarly, when you compare teen mothers not to the general population but to their own sisters who aren't teen moms "the differences are quite modest."

The researchers also discovered that very few policies appear to affect teen birth rate, including abortion policies and sex ed. (Although stingier welfare benefits do appear to cut birthrates a bit.) What really causes birthrates to vary are demographics and state-level economic variables. In particular, teen girls whose mothers have little education are much more likely to give birth than girls with better-educated mothers. Even more interesting is the way that economic inequality amplifies non-marital births to teen moms. In particular, "women with low socioeconomic status have more teen, non-marital births when they live in higher-inequality locations, all else equal."

The measure of inequality used here is not the fabled gap between the 1 percent and the 99 percent, but the gap between the median income and incomes at the 10th percentile. It measures, in other words, the gap between poor people and the local typical household. It may be a proxy for how plausible it would be for a girl from a low-income household to rise into the middle class. The more difficult that rise seems, the more births there are to unmarried teens.

The upshot is that teen motherhood is much more a consequence of intense poverty than its cause. Family life seems to follow real economic opportunities. Where poor people can see that hard work and "playing by the rules" will reward them, they're pretty likely to do just that. Where the system looks stacked against them, they're more likely to abandon mainstream norms. Those who do so by becoming single teen moms end up fairing poorly in life, but those bad outcomes seem to be a result of bleak underlying circumstances rather than poor choices.

Aww such a well thought out retort .

Preconceived clever retort meet===NORPLANT

You've got anything of substance as a response?

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Many women cannot use Norplant or any hormonal birth control, myself amongst them.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Many women cannot use Norplant or any hormonal birth control, myself amongst them.

Facts are devastating to RWNJs. They are flat out at war with facts.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Facts are devastating to RWNJs. They are flat out at war with facts.

I just caught up on reading that Europe/US cray-cray thread. You're right.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I just caught up on reading that Europe/US cray-cray thread. You're right.

Yeah when I have the experts tell me that there are shittier spots in the US than there are in Europe, I just know that someone either has absolutely no idea what they're talking about or someone is trying to pull a fast one hoping nobody will notice. That line of argument simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

[JensJrny2Ray 367]

I propose that every male on welfare, call in to the welfare-sexual activity-reporting phone line and tell a case worker that he will be engaging in sexual intercourse and will be using a welfare appointed condom.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I propose that every male on welfare, call in to the welfare-sexual activity-reporting phone line and tell a case worker that he will be engaging in sexual intercourse and will be using a welfare appointed condom.

You mean, these women aren't making babies all by themselves?!

[JensJrny2Ray 367]