DescentBB

callmeslick wrote:

and the percentage is up to near 50% from white women,

Tell me slick, did you really go to college? Did you learn anything from poasting on this board? When are you going to start being embarrassed about stating something without a even cursory search to verify what you state? No wonder you have become the laughing stock of the conservative members on this board. But let me help you once again:

"Seventy-four percent of White, non-Hispanic, 59 percent of Hispanic, and 33 percent of Black children lived with two married parents in 2012"

http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/famsoc1.asp

I want to make something clear….social programs don’t destroy families by default…just the poorly written and implemented ones.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

and the percentage is up to near 50% from white women,

Tell me slick, did you really go to college? Did you learn anything from poasting on this board? When are you going to start being embarrassed about stating something without a even cursory search to verify what you state? No wonder you have become the laughing stock of the conservative members on this board. But let me help you once again:

"Seventy-four percent of White, non-Hispanic, 59 percent of Hispanic, and 33 percent of Black children lived with two married parents in 2012"

http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/famsoc1.asp

sorry, I was citing birth stats, as opposed to ' number of children living' stats.The article in question said that the rates of whites was approaching that of blacks as of 2012; Your numbers are valid, for NUMBERS of children, as opposed to percentage of households. Which, sort of makes sense, as quite likely the number of children in two parent families would average more than single parent families.

callmeslick wrote:No family, raised by a single parent, is going to see the economic opportunity of a standard two parent household. Yet, our modern society creates such families with alarming frequency. It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with public assistance, but the general social decline associated with a shallow, selfish society, incapable of thinking about or planning for the future.

I have a problem with that, slick. Any type of decline meets naturally with aspects of reality which may act as discouragement. Is it not possible plausible that a government which eliminates some of this discouragement as a side-effect may bear responsibility?

I don't know, Thorne, to be honest. I suspect you would be right, if the disincentives were that profound(I think, for instance, that they were more so back in the 1980s and early 90s, until the welfare laws were adjusted). But, even after tightening the rules, there has been a distinct spike, across all ethnic lines, in single parent families. And, those situations seem to be far less of the 'teenage mom' type situations, as teen birth rates are down acrooss the board.