What Percentage of BLM Protestors Know What They're Protesting?

[BmorePat87]

(08-16-2016, 10:03 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Hold up, I'm curious about this one.

The majority of which kids do not know who their dad is? Black kids? Kids whose moms are on welfare? Black kids whose moms are on welfare?

(08-17-2016, 02:19 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: 1. What ever he felt doesn't really matter, he signed it as part of his War on Poverty bill. If he was strongly against it, then he should've left it out.

2. *sighs, Of course not in the beginning. AS of today, we have had several generations of families living off of Welfare. Do you deny that?

3. Yes it was the same payments to all races, but the white race didn't have the majority of it's population living in poverty already (and yes, there is White Welfare Queens as well). Letting the government pay you was much more reliable than getting child support from a man with an education level no higher than High School/GED. Also with the way the bill was written, it penalized you if you got married vs remained single.

The intentions were good in the beginning, but again, humans are greedy and will always find a way to abuse it.

Mike, still curious if you have an answer for my question

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-16-2016, 10:03 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Hold up, I'm curious about this one.

The majority of which kids do not know who their dad is? Black kids? Kids whose moms are on welfare? Black kids whose moms are on welfare?

Children who live with single moms in poverty who are on Welfare.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-16-2016, 10:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't let guys like Mike M run me away from this forum.

Give it up for Pedo fred.
Don't quit your day job.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-16-2016, 10:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to Mike's comments: They seem to paint with a pretty broad brush.

yes I did do that way intentionally.
If I don't do that, it would ruin Fred's day by not giving him the pleasure of coming up with some asinine "what if" scenario that would make him feel like king of the Message Board for a day. I don't want him to , so I posted something that he can respond to that will make him  

[BmorePat87]

(08-17-2016, 03:43 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Children who live with single moms in poverty who are on Welfare.

Your source?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-17-2016, 04:53 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Your source?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/surge-in-welfare-stems-from-rise-in-out-of-wedlock-births/article/2552779

The curve that tracks the increasing percentage of babies born to unmarried mothers starts to bend upward in the mid-1960s. By 1965, it was 7.7 percent. By 1969, it was 10 percent. By 1975, it was 14.3 percent.

It broke 20 percent in 1983; 30 percent in 1992; and 40 percent in 2008. That year it was 40.6 percent. In 2009, it was 41.0 percent. In 2010, it was 40.8 percent. In 2011 and again in 2012, it was 40.7 percent. And in 2013, it was 40.6 percent.

-----
Please note that after Johnson's Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 the numbers begin to rapidly rise.

This is by far the best source I have seen so far:

https://singlemotherguide.com/single-mother-statistics/

Today 1 in 4 children under the age of 18 — a total of about 17.4 million — are being raised without a father and nearly half (45%) live below the poverty line.

For those living with father only, about 21% live in poverty. In contrast, among children living with both parents, only 13% are counted as poor.

Out of more than 10 million low-income working families with children, 39% were headed by single working mothers or about 4.1 million. The proportion is much higher among African Americans (65%), compared with whites (36%).

Only one third of single mothers received any child support, and the average amount these mothers received was only about $430 a month.

Single mothers are more likely to be poor than married couples. The poverty rate for single-mother families in 2013 was 39.6%, nearly five times more than the rate (7.6%) for married-couple families.

More than half (51.9%) live in extreme poverty with incomes below half of the federal poverty level — about $9,900 for a family of three. This translates into a weekly family budget of about $200.

Poverty rates were about one in two for Black (46.3%), Hispanic (46.5%), White (31.6%), and Asian (24.0%). Among all other ethnic groups, Native American female-headed families with children had the highest poverty rate (52.8%).

Single-parent families are among the poorest in the nation and as such, are extremely vulnerable to homelessness. Among all homeless families nationwide, over three quarters were headed by single women with children; two fifths were African Americans (43%).

Two fifths (45.8%) of all single mothers received food stamps. Among children with single mothers, 45% get food stamps and 55% don’t. Roughly two thirds received free or reduced-price meals.

Although two fifths of all single mothers are poor, only one tenth of all single mothers receive TANF. Though a small percentage, they represent more than 90% of all TANF families.

Black women are more likely to have children outside of marriage than other racial or ethnic groups. In that year, about 72% of births to black women were non-marital births.

Children born to young unmarried mothers are most likely to grow up in a single-parent household. More than two thirds end up on welfare.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-17-2016, 07:51 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/surge-in-welfare-stems-from-rise-in-out-of-wedlock-births/article/2552779

The curve that tracks the increasing percentage of babies born to unmarried mothers starts to bend upward in the mid-1960s. By 1965, it was 7.7 percent. By 1969, it was 10 percent. By 1975, it was 14.3 percent.

It broke 20 percent in 1983; 30 percent in 1992; and 40 percent in 2008. That year it was 40.6 percent. In 2009, it was 41.0 percent. In 2010, it was 40.8 percent. In 2011 and again in 2012, it was 40.7 percent. And in 2013, it was 40.6 percent.

-----
Please note that after Johnson's Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 the numbers begin to rapidly rise.

This is by far the best source I have seen so far:

https://singlemotherguide.com/single-mother-statistics/

Today 1 in 4 children under the age of 18 — a total of about 17.4 million — are being raised without a father and nearly half (45%) live below the poverty line.

For those living with father only, about 21% live in poverty. In contrast, among children living with both parents, only 13% are counted as poor.

Out of more than 10 million low-income working families with children, 39% were headed by single working mothers or about 4.1 million. The proportion is much higher among African Americans (65%), compared with whites (36%).

Only one third of single mothers received any child support, and the average amount these mothers received was only about $430 a month.

Single mothers are more likely to be poor than married couples. The poverty rate for single-mother families in 2013 was 39.6%, nearly five times more than the rate (7.6%) for married-couple families.

More than half (51.9%) live in extreme poverty with incomes below half of the federal poverty level — about $9,900 for a family of three. This translates into a weekly family budget of about $200.

Poverty rates were about one in two for Black (46.3%), Hispanic (46.5%), White (31.6%), and Asian (24.0%). Among all other ethnic groups, Native American female-headed families with children had the highest poverty rate (52.8%).

Single-parent families are among the poorest in the nation and as such, are extremely vulnerable to homelessness. Among all homeless families nationwide, over three quarters were headed by single women with children; two fifths were African Americans (43%).

Two fifths (45.8%) of all single mothers received food stamps. Among children with single mothers, 45% get food stamps and 55% don’t. Roughly two thirds received free or reduced-price meals.

Although two fifths of all single mothers are poor, only one tenth of all single mothers receive TANF. Though a small percentage, they represent more than 90% of all TANF families.

Black women are more likely to have children outside of marriage than other racial or ethnic groups. In that year, about 72% of births to black women were non-marital births.

Children born to young unmarried mothers are most likely to grow up in a single-parent household. More than two thirds end up on welfare.

And that lead you to believe this . . .

(08-16-2016, 07:59 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Lyndon Johnson thought it was a wonderful Idea to give Single moms free welfare if they didn't know who the baby daddy was.....
 
This has worked out to be a major downfall of the African Americans. The majority of the kids have no idea who their daddy is.

FFS

[BmorePat87]

(08-17-2016, 07:51 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/surge-in-welfare-stems-from-rise-in-out-of-wedlock-births/article/2552779

The curve that tracks the increasing percentage of babies born to unmarried mothers starts to bend upward in the mid-1960s. By 1965, it was 7.7 percent. By 1969, it was 10 percent. By 1975, it was 14.3 percent.

It broke 20 percent in 1983; 30 percent in 1992; and 40 percent in 2008. That year it was 40.6 percent. In 2009, it was 41.0 percent. In 2010, it was 40.8 percent. In 2011 and again in 2012, it was 40.7 percent. And in 2013, it was 40.6 percent.

-----
Please note that after Johnson's Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 the numbers begin to rapidly rise.

This is by far the best source I have seen so far:

https://singlemotherguide.com/single-mother-statistics/

Today 1 in 4 children under the age of 18 — a total of about 17.4 million — are being raised without a father and nearly half (45%) live below the poverty line.

For those living with father only, about 21% live in poverty. In contrast, among children living with both parents, only 13% are counted as poor.

Out of more than 10 million low-income working families with children, 39% were headed by single working mothers or about 4.1 million. The proportion is much higher among African Americans (65%), compared with whites (36%).

Only one third of single mothers received any child support, and the average amount these mothers received was only about $430 a month.

Single mothers are more likely to be poor than married couples. The poverty rate for single-mother families in 2013 was 39.6%, nearly five times more than the rate (7.6%) for married-couple families.

More than half (51.9%) live in extreme poverty with incomes below half of the federal poverty level — about $9,900 for a family of three. This translates into a weekly family budget of about $200.

Poverty rates were about one in two for Black (46.3%), Hispanic (46.5%), White (31.6%), and Asian (24.0%). Among all other ethnic groups, Native American female-headed families with children had the highest poverty rate (52.8%).

Single-parent families are among the poorest in the nation and as such, are extremely vulnerable to homelessness. Among all homeless families nationwide, over three quarters were headed by single women with children; two fifths were African Americans (43%).

Two fifths (45.8%) of all single mothers received food stamps. Among children with single mothers, 45% get food stamps and 55% don’t. Roughly two thirds received free or reduced-price meals.

Although two fifths of all single mothers are poor, only one tenth of all single mothers receive TANF. Though a small percentage, they represent more than 90% of all TANF families.

Black women are more likely to have children outside of marriage than other racial or ethnic groups. In that year, about 72% of births to black women were non-marital births.

Children born to young unmarried mothers are most likely to grow up in a single-parent household. More than two thirds end up on welfare.

I asked for your source for stating that the majority of kids whose single moms are on welfare do not know who their father is. Instead of posting a ton of data that doesn't answer this, you could just say "I made that up". It makes you look less pathetic. 

[Rotobeast]

(08-17-2016, 08:27 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I asked for your source for stating that the majority of kids whose single moms are on welfare do not know who their father is. Instead of posting a ton of data that doesn't answer this, you could just say "I made that up". It makes you look less pathetic. 

He could say he fathered 51% of them and that would make him..... *Wilt Chamberlain.

*name used purely in regards to sexual conquests and nothing to do with being black

[fredtoast]

(08-17-2016, 02:19 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: 1. What ever he felt doesn't really matter, he signed it as part of his War on Poverty bill. If he was strongly against it, then he should've left it out.

There was never any provision about knowing who the father was.  That is a lie.

[fredtoast]

(08-17-2016, 08:27 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I asked for your source for stating that the majority of kids whose single moms are on welfare do not know who their father is. Instead of posting a ton of data that doesn't answer this, you could just say "I made that up". It makes you look less pathetic. 

Rep.

[fredtoast]

(08-17-2016, 02:19 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: 2. *sighs, Of course not in the beginning. AS of today, we have had several generations of families living off of Welfare. Do you deny that?

But there were always poor people.  Do you deny this?

If people are just poor because they want to live off welfare then how do you explain all of the people who were poor before welfare existed?

[djam]

(08-16-2016, 09:47 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No it was not ruined by government regulation.  That not true.  

Our economy is struggling because of competition from third world labor.  It has nothing to do with government regulations. 

PLease explain a specific government regulation that could be removed that would make US workers higher paid and still allow us to compete with third world labor costs.

Been busy so I've missed a lot of posts that I dont have time to read. But I'll respond to this one lol. 

It has everything to do with the business environment that they have to operate under fred. Do you know what a 5% corp tax rate vs a 21% corp tax rate costs companies? A lot of money, and numbers similar to those became a good reason to move. 

The truth is, just like in the failing liberal cities that we currently have, socialism fails, period. At some point, people get tired of being stolen from and they take their money and leave. It's pretty simple. It's not at all complex. Its very basic --which seems to be why a lot of people, especially liberals, dismiss it. They love to complicate things. The only way they have gotten as far as they have is because they deceive people and try to make people think its just too complicated to understand. Well its not. The more social programs we come up with, the worse off people are. People dont just want a ration, they want to thrive. There is no thriving under socialism lol. The only way to do that forreal is to be free, work hard and be responsible for yourself. Sadly democrats are pushing those ideas --in fact quite the opposite. Start pushing those ideas in the inner cities and see what happens.

[djam]

(08-16-2016, 02:06 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Fox News and CNN are first and foremost businesses serving their corporate masters. They cover what makes them money based upon the demographics. 

Drug companies aren't forced to charge as much as they do in America. They choose to charge that much. 

I'm not buying what you're selling. 

Not that it means anything, but I have a multiracial family. Once I was taking a phone survey and they asked my wife's race. I said, "Mixed."  My wife asked, "Mixed? Like a dog?"  She was making a joke, but it taught me a lesson. I no longer call people "mixed," but that's just me. 

I never said they dont choose to charge that much did I? What I'm saying is that the entire pharm industry owns a lot of our politicians, democrats and republicans alike. Drug companies have done A LOT of unethical things -not just pricing, but they, for some odd reason, are protected from harm. Do you agree with that or no? Assuming you do, who protects and covers their scams? Lawmakers do --you know, politicians. Do you think these same lawmakers would lie to you to get you to believe what they are saying? They do is most of the time. There is a money racketing scheme going on and the American tax payers are fully funding it. Its why a vote for Bernie would be so dangerous. To submit MORE power to government, the same folks who have been taking payoffs to protect scammers of the American people for decades? Brilliant lol. Bernie does see a lot of the scandals and he has called them out, but his solution will only breed more of it, not less. 

[fredtoast]

(08-26-2016, 12:36 AM)djam Wrote: It has everything to do with the business environment that they have to operate under fred. Do you know what a 5% corp tax rate vs a 21% corp tax rate costs companies?

Do you not know that most corporations don't care about the tax rate because they have no taxable income.

You have no clue about what is going on.

[fredtoast]

(08-26-2016, 12:36 AM)djam Wrote: The more social programs we come up with, the worse off people are.

This is nto true.

I have already posted facts that prove that the social programs helped the poor and minorities tremendously.

You can't just keep sayings something without having anything to back it up.  your opinion is completely meaningless without any facts.  You are just making this all up.

Every single industrialized nation on earth has some form of scialized health care.  Social programs are not failing every where.  They are working.  Many of the countries with the highest standard of living on earth have strong social programs.  You have no idea what you are talking about.

[fredtoast]

(08-26-2016, 12:51 AM)djam Wrote: I never said they dont choose to charge that much did I? What I'm saying is that the entire pharm industry owns a lot of our politicians, democrats and republicans alike. Drug companies have done A LOT of unethical things -not just pricing, but they, for some odd reason, are protected from harm. Do you agree with that or no? Assuming you do, who protects and covers their scams? Lawmakers do --you know, politicians. Do you think these same lawmakers would lie to you to get you to believe what they are saying? They do is most of the time. There is a money racketing scheme going on and the American tax payers are fully funding it. Its why a vote for Bernie would be so dangerous. To submit MORE power to government, the same folks who have been taking payoffs to protect scammers of the American people for decades? Brilliant lol. Bernie does see a lot of the scandals and he has called them out, but his solution will only breed more of it, not less. 

Again you have no clue what you are talking about.  The DOJ does prosecute pharmaceutical companies.  It may not be as much as some of us want but it is better than nothing.

The government needs MORE power to prosecute, not less.  Please tell me exactly how you think we will be able to control the large corporations MORE with LESS regulatory power.

You have no grasp of reality.  you are basically saying that snce ther is a lot of crime right now what we need to do is eliominate all government crime fighting.  How in the hell does that make any sense?

http://www.law360.com/articles/789155/allergan-others-hit-with-generic-drug-price-fixing-suit

Six companies, including Allergan PLC, involved in the manufacture and distribution of generic versions of two drugs have been colluding to dramatically raise the prices of the drugs since at least 2013, according to a putative class action filed Monday in Pennsylvania federal court. 




http://www.naturalnews.com/036417_Glaxo_Merck_fraud.html





Drug and vaccine manufacturer Merck was caught red-handed by two of its own scientists faking vaccine efficacy data by spiking blood samples with animal antibodies. GlaxoSmithKline has just been fined a whopping $3 billion for bribing doctors, lying to the FDA, hiding clinical trial data and fraudulent marketing. Pfizer, meanwhile has been sued by the nation's pharmacy retailers for what is alleged as an "overarching anticompetitive scheme" to keep generic cholesterol drugs off the market and thereby boost its own profits.




I can provide dozens of other examples of large corporations being prosecuted by the DOJ.  So please tell me how these companies would have evr been brought to justice without the action of the federal government.

[djam]

(08-26-2016, 01:28 AM)fredtoast Wrote: This is nto true.

I have already posted facts that prove that the social programs helped the poor and minorities tremendously.

You can't just keep sayings something without having anything to back it up.  your opinion is completely meaningless without any facts.  You are just making this all up.

Every single industrialized nation on earth has some form of scialized health care.  Social programs are not failing every where.  They are working.  Many of the countries with the highest standard of living on earth have strong social programs.  You have no idea what you are talking about.

Ok Mr White liberal sitting on easy street thinking you have a clue about anything. Here is a direct quote from the leader of the New Black Panthers. 

"Let me say this to the brothers and sisters who listened and watched that speech. We may not like the vessel that said what he said, but I ask us to truly examine what he said, because it is a fact that for 54 years, we have been voting for the Democratic party like no other race in America. And they have not given us the same loyalty and love that we have given them. We as black people have to reexamine the relationship — where we are being pimped like prostitutes, and they’re the big pimps pimping us politically, promising us everything and we get nothing in return.

We gotta step back now as black people and say, we’ve gotta look at all the parties and vote our best interests.
…
He spoke directly to black people. And I want to say and encourage the brothers and sisters. Barack Obama, our president, served two terms. The first black president ever. But did our condition get better? Did financially, politically, academically, with education in our community, did things get better? Are our young people working more than what is was before he came into office? The condition got worse. So now we as black people have to do and remember what the honorable Elijah Mohammed said. No politician can save the black community; we’ve gotta do it ourselves."


Well Fred, why dont you explain to him how black people are better off than they were and have been because of those great programs democrats use to keep them enslaved. 

I read your other posts too fred, and I gotta say, if you believe the crap you spew, you need to go back to kindergarden and start completely over. 

[djam]

Ok liberals. Here is an article I dug up debunking the idea of socialism and the left using nordic countries to push it. You can order a book written on the topic by going here: https://www.amazon.com/Debunking-Utopia-Exposing-Nordic-Socialism/dp/1944229396/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1472417509&sr=8-1&keywords=DEBUNKING+UTOPIA%3A+EXPOSING+THE+MYTH+OF+NORDIC+SOCIALISM

Liberal American politicians often cite Nordic countries like Norway, Sweden and Denmark as proof that big government or socialist policies can lead to vibrant, prosperous nations, but a leading economic scholar says those countries are successful despite more government and are actually proof that such policies are a failure.
Dr. Nima Sanandaji is author of “Debunking Utopia: Exposing the Myth of Nordic Socialism.” He told WND and Radio America liberals and socialists in America and beyond frequently extol the Nordic countries such as Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Iceland for one simple reason.
“If you remove the Nordic countries, the left doesn’t have any role models left,” he said. “The left doesn’t say, ‘Look at California. They have big government. It works.’ They don’t say that. They don’t say, ‘Look at Italy. They have social democratic policies. That works.’ They only point to the Nordic countries.”
But even that example is badly misleading. Sanandaji said while there are some socialist policies in place, those are not socialist countries, and they don’t see themselves that way.
“The policies of Nordic countries are not socialism. It is capitalism,” he explained. “Denmark is used by the U.S. left as the main role model for socialism. The Danish prime minister came to Harvard University at the end of last year. He said, ‘Stop saying Denmark is socialist. Denmark is a market economy.'”
While citizens of Nordic countries pay up to 60 percent of their income in taxes, Sanandaji said other policies help to keep the economy humming.
“To a large degree, these companies compensate for high taxes by having economic freedom in every other area,” he said. “Denmark has the same economic freedom score that the U.S. does. Why? Besides having higher taxes, in virtually every other part of their economy, they’re much more capitalist than the U.S. is.”
But even more significant than economic freedom, Sanandaji said, is the renowned work ethic and strong responsibility culture of the Nordic people, qualities he said were in place long before the big-government policies came along.
“The Nordic countries have a culture of success that gives them prosperity, that gives them social success,” he said. “This culture of success predates the welfare state. I systematically show in my book, ‘Debunking Utopia,’ that the admirable features of the Nordic countries predate the welfare state.”
However, his research shows that the “culture of success” is even stronger in Nordic immigrants to the U.S., proving the big-government policies are actually a hindrance.
“All of [the admirable features] are found equally or even more among Nordic Americans who live in the American capitalist system than their Nordic cousins who live in the social democratic system,” Sanandaji said. “It is not about social democracy. It is not about big government. It is about a unique Nordic culture.”
Liberals in the U.S. and beyond point to Nordic life expectancy exceeding that of the U.S., including Denmark, which has a life expectancy one-and-a-half years higher than that of Americans. Sanandaji said that’s true, but government-run health care is not the reason.
“True. They do live longer, but I look at history,” he said. “In 1960, Denmark had lower taxes than the U.S. had. At that time, before the welfare state, Danes lived 2.4 years longer than Americans. The difference has actually shrunk when Denmark is moving toward the highest tax on the planet.”
He also said Denmark has the lowest life expectancy among the Nordic countries despite having the biggest government. Iceland has the smallest government but also boasts the longest Nordic life expectancy.
But while the Nordic nations are doing much better than socialist nations like Venezuela, Italy and Greece, thanks to a strong culture and market economic policies, Sanandaji said other big-government policies are harming those countries.
“All this social capital, work ethic, responsibility ethics has been ground down by the welfare state,” he said. “Many, many people are trapped in welfare dependency. That creates social poverty. So while the welfare state is supposed to combat poverty, it is actually to some degree creating poverty and social problems.”

[Vas Deferens]

What's your cut on that book sale jammer?