COMMENTS:
Source is the House Ways and Means Committee.
Hmmm ... so the stereotype about poor people breeding like rats is not true ... whatever will we do with our preconceptions?
Preconceptions.... the bedrock of ignorant
Proof? Sources?
Political opinion.
The House and Ways Committe? What Congress?
I couldn't find this stat anywhere, so I think it is a lie.
Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means in 1996
Wait, I don't totally understand your stat. Do you mean that the number of children per families OVERALL decreased in that 25-year span, or did the numbers only decrease for WELFARE families? Because if it is the former, then your ballot title could still be true. Please be more specific.
From what i have seen yes, they have more time on their hands
by ABC on Sun Jun 26, 05 8:36pm
[+]
Statistically, it may be true. But from observation, every welfare family that I've encountered has more children than those I know of who do not receive welfare.
Alot of them just dont care because they know that no matter how many kids they have, the government will take care of them.
The average number of children born to families on welfare is essentially the same as that of the average American family.
The average size of a family on welfare has decreased since 1969, as I would imagine it has done so for the average family.
Perhaps some of the reason for this is that the average monthly welfare check has decreased (when adjusted for inflation) significantly compared to where it was in 1970.
I can cite a number of studies that show the same thing, if you wish.
Crap, I want to say yes but I don't want to be called a racist. I'll say yes anyway.
Illegal immigrants breed like rabbits. That's my ignorant preconception and I'm sticking to it. Shopping carts are NOT stollers guys!
Actually, Fiddle, I'd like the data from the time since the "Welfare Reform" act in the 90's. My guess is that the decline in welfare pregnancies declined dramatically after this reform was passed.
Don't necessarily agree with the so-called "reform," but, as I said elsewhere, things are what they are.
I'm guessing, but I'd bet that much of this decline is attributable to the loss of benefits after two years.
Not advocating this so-called reform, but it seems just a wee bit possible that there was a more dramatic effect on welfare pregnancies after this act than before.
Interesting point, griffon007. There were some reforms allowed at the state level which restricted or eliminated additional benefits if the recipient had children while on public assistance. However, this also has it's limits. Many are concerned doing this would increase the number of abortions.
There are some post-reform studies - maybe I'll make ballot about them.
Probably true, at least this is the case in my country. Poverty is usually asociated with lack of education.
Ups1 Me bad and ignorant?
Just wondering, I_R: if this ballot claimed, say, that people had a better quality of life under Republican leadership than Democrat, would you be demanding stats and calling the balloteer a liar?
by mojo on Mon Jun 27, 05 10:39am
[+]
They don't but that doesn't mean some people don't breed for extra cash. And I'd like to see your definition of welfare.
fiddle, if you have other sources that can be verified I would like to know of them. You don't have to summarize, but saying "staff of House and Ways" doesn't mean anything.
I will look it up myself if you really have studies done by others that bear out what you are representing as facts.
mojo, doesn't it concern you that opinions presented as facts are swallowed by you and others?
Wouldn't you like to know the source of these opinions?
No, honestly I wouldn't ask for sources if they ballot made claims that Bush/Republicans are the best.
But have you ever seen that ballot?
LOL.
mojo, if you want to believe political opinion as fact then go ahead, but I am not a useful idiot.
Fiddle dismissed my concerns with a personal attack.
I guess you didn't notice that.
I suppose because this ballot confirms your biases you don't have to be suspicious of it?
They did, but I heard they are getting stricter in their rules!!
Do a search on scientific research on this subject. You will find even more evidence. Unlike the quiz in ballot:73456
For those that care to, you can find this information verified in numerous peer reviewed sociology studies on welfare.
BUT WHERE DID YOU GET THE INFORMATION FROM?
You still haven't said where.
Which means you lied and made it up.
If the information was so readily available you would simply supply it.
Why do you keep referring to my ballot on immigration?
Don't you understand that you can't just say well look at that and the person minding the till will conveniently look away while you steal the cash.
Provide the source liar.
I lied and made it up?
I'll let the people judge who makes things up.
Here's my sources:
The original information came from the American Psychological Association stating: The belief that single women are promiscuous and have large families to receive increased benefits has no basis in extant research, and single-parent families are not only a phenomenon of the poor (McFate, 1995). In fact, the average family size of welfare recipients has decreased from four in 1969 to 2.8 in 1994 (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). In 1994, 43 percent of welfare families consisted of one child, and 30 percent consisted of two children. Thus, the average welfare family is no larger than the average nonrecipient's family, and despite considerable public concern that welfare encourages out-of-wedlock births, a growing body of empirical evidence indicates that welfare benefits are not a significant incentive for childbearing (Wilcox, Robbennolt, O'Keeffe, & Pynchon, 1997). Notes several studies. Last I checked, the APA wasn't in the habit of posting lies on their web site.
Got some more sources for you, a whole mixed bag: (Cutright, 1970 no effect; Winegarden, 1974, no effect; Placek and Hendershot, no effect; Polgar and Hiday 1974 no effect; Presser and Salzburg 1975 no effect, Janowitz 1976 significant non-whites only; Southwick 1978, negative significant effect; Freshcock and Cutright, mixed effect by race 1979; Keefe 1983 no effect; Ellwood and Bane 1985 no effect; Bernstam and Swan 1986 negative effect; Winegarden 1988 mixed effect by race; Gonul 1988 weak positive effect; Plotnick 1990 mixed effect by race; Duncan and Hoffman 1990 no effect to significant negative; and on. A mixed bag. The items where there were effects by race usually showed an increase in childbirths among white women.
Almost all of these studies tested whether the benefit differentials (additional income) of having another child increased the liklihood of another child being born.
In fact there is a drop off by at least half in the number of children being born after the first one to the following ones.
I refer to your immigration ballot because you have still refused to provide a source on that ballot.
You originally said it was from the house ways and means committee.
Your words, not mine:
Source is the House Ways and Means Committee.
by FiddleFaddleOnLSD on Jun 26, 2005
Then you obfuscated:
Do a search on scientific research on this subject. You will find even more evidence. Unlike the quiz in ballot:73456
by FiddleFaddleOnLSD on Jun 27, 200
Then you cite unverifiable sources.
I suppose that the "kool-aid drinkers" (cathexis, mojo) are happy to massage their biases.
The fact remains that you claimed the source was the Congress, then some staff meeting, then some "scientific research".
Now my ballot, was meant to make a point that you don't seem to be able to grasp.
Exposed. Play all the fake sources games you want.
Are those books?
HAHAHAHA! Exposed! Hardly. I gave you a number of authors of various studies on this issue that had a variety of results. They are easy enough to find using google scholar.
Like my mother used to say: Look it up yourself.
no comment, I may get bad karma..
|
