View Full Version : Solving America's teen sex problem!!
Kellydancer
12-04-2011, 05:33 PM
That's exactly it. Having seen many welfare mothers and seen many of them have more babies to get more welfare it has made me think offering them birth control is NOT a bad thing. Yes there are women who use the system temporary and have small families but there are also the stereotypical ones with large families. I have seen the women with 6 or more babies who kept having kids on welfare. There was just an article in the paper about one of the housing projects closing and all of the women interviewed all had 5 or more kids. There was a woman in the paper with 9 kids, 24 and never held a job. If there is birth control used there would be less of these kids. Oh and before anyone thinks I am cutting down people on welfare, there is also a major problem with many kids in foster care in Illinois and many kids who need adoptive homes. This would prevent quite a bit of this happening.
Swagz
12-04-2011, 05:33 PM
^Oh ok, was skimming through the posts. That's an interesting proposal that seems like it will be difficult to regulate
GlamourRouge
12-04-2011, 05:58 PM
That's exactly it. Having seen many welfare mothers and seen many of them have more babies to get more welfare it has made me think offering them birth control is NOT a bad thing. Yes there are women who use the system temporary and have small families but there are also the stereotypical ones with large families. I have seen the women with 6 or more babies who kept having kids on welfare. There was just an article in the paper about one of the housing projects closing and all of the women interviewed all had 5 or more kids. There was a woman in the paper with 9 kids, 24 and never held a job. If there is birth control used there would be less of these kids. Oh and before anyone thinks I am cutting down people on welfare, there is also a major problem with many kids in foster care in Illinois and many kids who need adoptive homes. This would prevent quite a bit of this happening.
A lot of them have access to birth control! They can get as much as they want, and for free. Think planned parenthood. That's not the issue, for the most part. The issue is that once the mother has one baby, she starts to RELY on welfare and often refuses to work (or is unable to) because she has a child. So what does she do? She figures "well I should just have more children so I get more $$$!" And it turns into a vicious cycle, and all of a sudden she has 7, 8, 11 children and is stuck! I've seen it dozens of times.
In addition, its also a CULTURAL issue! A lot of cultures are happy when younger generations in their culture have large families whether they can pay out of pocket or not. The parents & grandparents are happy to help, and often times its just apart of the culture for them to help. Often times these same women who DON'T have large families starting at a young age, are looked down upon by their families/cultural peers because it seems as if they are shunning their cultural values. Just as mainstream society pressures us all to "go to school to get a good job::)", many ethnic and/or strict religious cultures pressure younger generations to have large families at a young age.
I could have gone on this same path. The reason that I didnt was because my parents wouldn't let me outside for the most part once I was like 11-12 or so because they didn't want me interacting with ANYONE from our neighborhood anymore. They were terrified I would fall into the same path (which I don't find to be bad, just different). It was very lonely for me during that time, but they wanted me to only be around kids from non-low-icome, and preferably wealthy neighborhoods, which is exactly what happened.
Trust me, I grew up in a very low income area for my entire life, and I noticed these things were VERY common ONLY among my neighborhood. The schools I went to were actually very good because my neighborhood was the only low income neighborhood in my entire city, and as time went on, the city got more affluent. They have now tore down the neighborhood I grew up it citing that there was too much drugs & crime which was scaring away potential new affluent home buyers. Really dumb, but okay.
But, the point is that it all comes down to culture. I can't even tell you how many times I was pulled over IN MY OWN NEIGHBORHOOD and asked in a rude tone what I was "doing here." After arguing each and every time with them telling them I LIVED there, I was literally told things like "how come I've never seen you here before then??", "lying isn't going to get your anywhere with me!", "you know I can arrest you for failure to cooperate since you won't tell the truth(wtf!)", etc. This is SOLELY because I didn't look like everyone else there. Its all CULTURE. Its sucks because lower class people are EXPLOITED, manipulated, and abused by police officers because the police know these people have no power or resources to fight them. Sucks. I've only been pulled over ONE TIME outside my old neighborhood. So laughable.
So anyway, teen birth rates & large families on welfare will never, ever change. Those cultures don't want it to change, and while some may not agree with it, its THEIR lives & THEIR decision.
GlamourRouge
12-04-2011, 06:14 PM
I agree with Melonie that our welfare system does, in effect, promote unmarried teen pregnancy, and therefore is incompetent and corrupt.
But if the "fathers" of children unmarried women who will not support those children were actively hunted down and made to pay or made to do community work and garnisheed, (even without court documents), then perhaps this problem could be lessened.
If you don't pay your traffic infraction fines, they will take away your license to drive and then arrest you and charge you with a misdemeanor if you do drive. Surely causing a social misdemeanor by not supporting your offspring is a much greater offense.
The reason the fathers do not stick around for young mothers is because they are young. The same reason why people don't stay married very long these days. Technology. Culture changes so fast now. Opportunities arise at astronomical levels compared to the "old days." In the "old days" you roughly knew the same people for your entire life so there was little reason to want to look for a new partner.
I believe the fathers are actively hunted down and their wages are garnished if they do not pay child support. To make anything happen legally, you NEED a court order. Our entire society is run on legal jurisdiction, so there's not much than can be done without it.
GlamourRouge
12-04-2011, 06:16 PM
70% unmarried and on welfare?
Incredible! Why are we letting this happen?
Marriage a stupid piece of paper, IMO. I am probably NEVER getting married unless it was for citizenship to a foreign country. Kids or no kids. I don't think that argument is valid. I know plenty of others who would agree with that. However, I have no children, am not on welfare, and am in the US. But, just saying...
GlamourRouge
12-04-2011, 06:20 PM
The Dutch have dramatically reduced adolescent pregnancies, abortions and STDs. What do they know that we don't?
CULTURE!!! A lot of European countries aren't really pro-having large families. Didn't France have a HUGE problem with it to the point where they gave huge tax incentives so that people would have 3 children just to keep the population stable? Its culture. What's hip. What's popular. What's "the norm". What's expected of you. What most other people are doing. Culture.
Melonie
12-04-2011, 09:37 PM
A lot of them have access to birth control! They can get as much as they want, and for free. Think planned parenthood. That's not the issue, for the most part. The issue is that once the mother has one baby, she starts to RELY on welfare and often refuses to work (or is unable to) because she has a child. So what does she do? She figures "well I should just have more children so I get more $$$!" And it turns into a vicious cycle, and all of a sudden she has 7, 8, 11 children
^^^ this is the whole point of the proposed 'trade' ... in exchange for receiving social welfare benefits for herself and her first child, the mother must agree to have a temporary birth control implant placed in her body which prevents her from having more children ( whether she wants to or not ) until she no longer needs social welfare assistance.
teen birth rates & large families on welfare will never, ever change. Those cultures don't want it to change, and while some may not agree with it, its THEIR lives & THEIR decision.
True. But the Dutch advocates of birth control implants for social welfare benefit recipients would tell you that when THEIR decision also involves forgoing social welfare benefit eligibility in order to have additional children, most will change their decision in a huge hurry !
The reason the fathers do not stick around for young mothers is because they are young.
This may be part of the truth. But so is the fact that having the father stick around may also jeopardize the mother's eligibility for social welfare benefit assistance for herself and her child.
To make anything happen legally, you NEED a court order. Our entire society is run on legal jurisdiction, so there's not much than can be done without it.
and the father's 'responsibility' begins with legal proof that he is in fact the father. Thus, for better or worse, in the 'real world' the difficulties and associated costs of the unmarried mother / the state attempting to force child support payments from a father who works a near minimum wage job, who is unemployed, who is incarcerated etc. is a 'losing' proposition.
Kellydancer
12-04-2011, 09:44 PM
GlamourRouge, yes it maybe the culture but once the problem reaches my wallet then I want it stopped. I do not feel sorry for these lazy people who refuse to work and just keeping making baby after baby. They can have as many babies as they want, but when they are on welfare it become my problem and my taxes go up to support it. That's why I support strict rules on welfare. I want it to be a program like unemployment where they have to prove they are working and it eventually runs out. I shouldn't have to pay for someone else's kids, especially the kids who will keep repeating the pattern. I understand what you are saying about culture but in the past large families weren't taken care of by welfare.
GlamourRouge
12-04-2011, 10:22 PM
GlamourRouge, yes it maybe the culture but once the problem reaches my wallet then I want it stopped. I do not feel sorry for these lazy people who refuse to work and just keeping making baby after baby. They can have as many babies as they want, but when they are on welfare it become my problem and my taxes go up to support it. That's why I support strict rules on welfare. I want it to be a program like unemployment where they have to prove they are working and it eventually runs out. I shouldn't have to pay for someone else's kids, especially the kids who will keep repeating the pattern. I understand what you are saying about culture but in the past large families weren't taken care of by welfare.
If you are really worried about tax dollars and where they are going, this should be the least of your concerns. At least this is helping people. You should be more concerned about the mysterious $100 billion dollar black budget, and things like that, that are covered up. And war? Are those billions really necessary to spend? They WANT us to get angry at things like this to divert our attention off of the real issues behind this... like where our tax dollars are really mostly being spent.
eagle2
12-04-2011, 11:19 PM
Like it or not, a politics ban is supposed to prevent political commentary across the board. As much as someone may personally agree, asserting that the US, Canada etc. were 'righteous' while Germany was 'abhorrent' are both political statements.
~
No, it's pretty much what any normal rational person would think. It's not "political" to call mass murderers "disgusting and abhorrent".
Kellydancer
12-04-2011, 11:23 PM
If you are really worried about tax dollars and where they are going, this should be the least of your concerns. At least this is helping people. You should be more concerned about the mysterious $100 billion dollar black budget, and things like that, that are covered up. And war? Are those billions really necessary to spend? They WANT us to get angry at things like this to divert our attention off of the real issues behind this... like where our tax dollars are really mostly being spent.
I don't want waste in anything, whether it's lazy freeloading people or war. Spending more so people can have more babies isn't helping people, it's enabling them to be lazy, which is considerably different. I am also opposed to corporate welfare but that's not this topic. If someone creates a thread about how government wastes money on corporate welfare I will call those groups cheats too because they are all freeloading.
Lady Xplicit18
12-05-2011, 06:07 AM
Don't even get me started with California's mass reproduction problem. ::)
Luna123
12-05-2011, 06:35 AM
Almost every woman I've known (outside of the sex industry)believed that sex=love. As that it was a "gift" you gave your SO. I don't feel that way myself and think the two things are different but almost every woman I've known disagreed with me. I've known many guys who will only have sex in relationships (I dated a few)but found most of them have related values, like most of them were religious or conservative.
Everyone's gonna have different anecdotal experiences about this though. Almost all my female friends are polyamorous/sexually libertine/sexually "liberal"/willingly single/whatever, and almost all my male friends as well. It's not like there aren't issues and jealousies that come up, but they can separate sex from love, and yes sometimes want both together but can still have sex or practice bdsm or whatever outside the confines of a monogamous or even polyamorous relationship. I think the whole "sex as exclusive gift" dynamic is pretty problematic anyway and leads to a ton of social and personal problems, but that's a whole 'nother convo.
cherryblossomsinspring
12-05-2011, 08:50 AM
How did this become a welfare argument? I thought this was about teen pregnancy.
The reality is there are 6 divisions where money is collected for programs , 3 of which are specifically earned by working and paying into like pensions, unemployment and disability. It was said that it's about 12% according to the government.
The last 3 are housing assistance, food and nutrition and other income security. This accounts for about 284 billion dollars out of the actual 533 billion.
If we break this down further
There are 4 parts to this
1. Not directed at poor meaning the poor may use some of these programs but not all poor qualify.
2. Direct welfare to the poor
3. Indirect money paid to 3rd parties on behalf of the poor
4. Poor and Middle class tax rebates the most poor and middle class people use and qualify for.
If we look at the graph it's about 5.5%-6.4%( 181billion ) approx unified budget that actually goes to the poor. There are over 312 billion people in the US. So what are you actually paying towards the poor? If you're middle class you are considered poor so you're just giving back money to yourself.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4035/4719687379_4f46547a77_m.jpg
Unless you're not in that top percent the government still views you as a poor slob. If you're middle class you are considered poor so you're just giving back money to yourself.
I'm pretty sure if the top percent boosted their tax rate, 20 of them could easily pay off all the budget for the poor.
I mean there's actually a group of wealthy people begging the government to up their rates. Now why would they do this if they didn't have it to give?
While we're at it maybe we should push people off of disability too. I mean just because that guy's arms were torn off his shoulders doesn't mean he can't learn to type with his feet right?
Anyways here are some more numbers below:
**these numbers may be outdated***
$586.5 billion on gambling;
$80 billion on illegal drugs;
$58 billion on alcohol consumption;
$31 billion on tobacco products, and;
$250 billion on the medical treatment for the above related issues
Department of Defense: $515.4 billion (29.3 times larger than NASA's budget)
Global War on Terrorism: $189.3 billion (10.8 times larger than NASA's budget)
Just something to think about. Not sure neutering and spaying people is necessarily the answer. Or implanting birth control. I do think in some communities/cultures child birth is considered to be a statement of becoming a woman. Having big families is also quite normal for certain cultures as well.
Now perhaps the government can send some notification to parents at a certain age urging them to provide some sort of birth control plan. Again maybe they can use the acne and birth control line. How a pill a day will clear that face up right away! Again we spend more money on things we don't need. Maybe a higher tax on alcohol hmm. A drink is nice but it's not a necessity right? People will not go hungry without booze? Actually most people that over drink just throw up their food. Such food wasters! lol.
I don't have the answers on what to do but we're not the one that makes the decisions. Get that degree and get in office and make the changes. Here we just look like silly children bickering over things that we don't actually have a say in.
My thought is to get rid of the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Generally the people that don't want to get off that 10th car they never drive or that 13th mansion that they visit once a year are the same people making these laws up. It's easier to look down on the poor. When in reality the rich are living very well off your tax dollars.
cherryblossomsinspring
12-05-2011, 09:00 AM
Also to add based on another article since 1997 the average income of the 400 most wealthiest people in the US is about 350 million dollars benefiting from that lovely Bush tax break. Aww the poor (middle class included) aren't we just some lazy sobs? lol
Kellydancer
12-05-2011, 11:34 AM
Everyone's gonna have different anecdotal experiences about this though. Almost all my female friends are polyamorous/sexually libertine/sexually "liberal"/willingly single/whatever, and almost all my male friends as well. It's not like there aren't issues and jealousies that come up, but they can separate sex from love, and yes sometimes want both together but can still have sex or practice bdsm or whatever outside the confines of a monogamous or even polyamorous relationship. I think the whole "sex as exclusive gift" dynamic is pretty problematic anyway and leads to a ton of social and personal problems, but that's a whole 'nother convo.
I know many people like that as well, but for the most part I know the ones who believe sex=love. I can separate sex and love but many can't. I know though with a man I am really in love I couldn't share him sexually with someone else. This is just me though and I'm not bothered by those who are able to be sexually liberated. I have had threesomes with an ex and his friend in the past but knew I wasn't going to marry him so it made a difference to me.
Melonie
12-05-2011, 12:31 PM
How did this become a welfare argument? I thought this was about teen pregnancy.
Arguably, the two are now inseparably linked, at least in statistics from US states with 'generous' social welfare benefit programs.
Also, arguably, the claimed societal changes in attitudes toward teen pregnancy being increasingly 'acceptable' actually stem from the fact that 'grandpa', 'grandma', 'aunts and uncles' etc. no longer need to bear a personal burden in regard to an unexpected grandchild being born to an unwed teen daughter. Instead, actual federal and state taxpayers are forced to 'pony up' to move 'mom' and the baby into separate Section 8 housing, with taxpayer subsidized fuel and utility payments, with taxpayer subsidized food, medical, plus some additional cash. More children being born to that unwed teen daughter simply means more of the same for taxpayers, with no additional consequences for 'grandpa', 'grandma' etc, and even more money for 'mom' !
If the 'clock were rewound' to the point where an unexpected grandchild again translated into 'grandpa' having to foot higher grocery and utility bills, to the point where care of the grandchild forcibly involved 'grandma' plus 'aunts and uncles' all living in the same household since 'mom's' income level couldn't provide for independent living, etc. it is extremely probable that attitudes concerning teen pregnancy would also return to those of earlier times !!!
Also, in regard to all of the gov't spending numbers being thrown around, in truth there is arguably only one point that matters ...
(snip)"Until the financial crisis, the welfare state existed in a shaky equilibrium with sluggish economic growth. The crisis destroyed that equilibrium. Economic growth slowed. Debt — already high — rose. Government bonds once considered ultrasafe became risky.
Switch to the U.S. Broadly speaking, the story is similar. The great expansion of America's welfare state (though we avoid that term) occurred in the 1960s and 1970s with the creation of Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps.
In 1960, 26% of federal spending represented payments for individuals; in 2010, it was 66%. (snip)
from
~
eagle2
12-05-2011, 09:08 PM
Arguably, the two are now inseparably linked, at least in statistics from US states with 'generous' social welfare benefit programs.
What is your proof? Why is it that the facts show the exact opposite? After 1995, the number of women receiving welfare fell dramatically, while the number of unwed women having children increased.
Also, arguably, the claimed societal changes in attitudes toward teen pregnancy being increasingly 'acceptable' actually stem from the fact that 'grandpa', 'grandma', 'aunts and uncles' etc. no longer need to bear a personal burden in regard to an unexpected grandchild being born to an unwed teen daughter. Instead, actual federal and state taxpayers are forced to 'pony up' to move 'mom' and the baby into separate Section 8 housing, with taxpayer subsidized fuel and utility payments, with taxpayer subsidized food, medical, plus some additional cash. More children being born to that unwed teen daughter simply means more of the same for taxpayers, with no additional consequences for 'grandpa', 'grandma' etc, and even more money for 'mom' !
Again, the facts are the exact opposite of your statement. The teen pregnancy rate has fallen dramatically over the past 20 years.
threlayer
12-08-2011, 02:51 PM
...
But if the "fathers" of children unmarried women who will not support those children were actively hunted down and made to pay or made to do community work and garnisheed, (even without court documents), then perhaps this problem could be lessened.
Fine in theory but unrealistic in 'real world' terms. How does the state attempt to 'extract' sufficient funds to cover the costs of raising a child from a 'father' who is employed but working at near minimum wage ?... And what about the 'fathers' who are already unemployed, incarcerated, essentially unemployable ? ... thus every additional child born to members of that 'underclass' by definition imposes an additional burden on the more productive members of society.
I stated it...
(1) hunt them down;
(2) require those who do not work to do mandatory public service to extract from them some significant value (almost everyone 'disabled' or not can do some valued work);
(3) reduce benefits to unmarried women to wher4e additional kids do not produce proportionate additional income (welfare benefits) and make it mandatory for them to get educated in some field where they can produce an income while raising their kids;
(4) drug testing, detoxing as necessary and rehabilitation (people heavy into drugs cannot do anything productive);
(5) give them women a financial incentive to be sterilized and make it mandatory after they have some number of kids while not being able to support themselves and their kids (say for purposes of argument 4 kids) with or without the father's support.
This is not just a financial problem, it is a social problem t5hat leads to drugs, crime and perpetuates itself. Our society MUST fix this cancer.
Melonie
12-08-2011, 03:03 PM
^^^
#1 may cost the gov't more than they are actually able to recover from the 'deadbeat dad' ( especially if the state must legally prove who the actual father is )
#2 has already been ruled unconstitutional ( entitlement vs indentured servitude )
#3 has been officially implemented in some states ( more than 3 children in NY ), but enforcement has been lax based on claims that not providing benefits for a 4th, 5th, 6th child 'penalizes' the 1st, 2nd, 3rd child.
#4 claimed to be unconstitutional but no actual top level court ruling to my knowledge ( legal point concerns alcoholism, drug addiction etc. already being classified as 'disabilities' ... thus denial of benefits discriminates against Americans with disabilities )
#5 also claimed to be unconstitutional ... but the constitutional question could be avoided via the use of 'temporary' birth control implants that could be removed if and when the welfare recipient mother becomes able to provide for herself and her children.
As to claims of factual deficiencies, please read
(snip)If you can believe it, 48.5% of all Americans now live in a household that receives some form of government benefits. Back in 1983, that number was less than 30 percent.
(snip)The amount of money paid out to individual citizens by the government today is absolutely staggering. In 1980, government transfer payments accounted for just 11.7% of all income. Today, government transfer payments account for 18.4% of all income.
(snip)Back in 1965, only one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid. Today, one out of every 6 Americans is on Medicaid.
(snip)The federal government spent more than 50 billion dollars on "housing assistance" in 2009.
(snip)Right now, there are more than 45 million Americans on food stamps. That means that approximately one out of every seven Americans is dependent on the federal government for food.
(snip)The number of Americans on food stamps has increased 74% since 2007.
(snip)Sadly, one out of every four American children is now on food stamps.
(snip)In 2010, 42 percent of all single mothers in the United States were on food stamps.
(snip)According to one study, "64.3 million Americans depended on the government (read: their fellow citizens) for their daily housing, food, and health care" during 2009.(snip)
~
Djoser
12-08-2011, 04:42 PM
What do you think?
Sorry, sweetsam, it was a great thread, but too many complaints about political posts were being made. I don't have time to go through the thread since the last time I had to edit it, but maybe I can do it later and reopen it.