No mental health issue in america.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Don't want union pay don't take a union job ... unless your a scab

Why are some jobs union jobs? I was a public school teacher, and I was phenomenal at it. Why do I have to give money to an organization I disagree with ( a very political organization) in order to work?

I thought liberals like you, liked choice. I’m almost certain I heard that somewhere. So let me choose whether or not I give money to organizations that donate to Elizabeth warren and planned parenthood.

As I said, if an organization can only keep its membership by passing laws making membership mandatory, it must be a really useless organization, except for the people getting rich off it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso

Don't want union pay don't take a union job ... unless your a scab

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Why are some jobs union jobs?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that was a fascinating statement...apparently the unions are the employers?

[Sea Dangles]

To join the local rifle club I had to join the NRA, I wasn't happy about it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I thought liberals like you, liked choice. I’m almost certain I heard that somewhere.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually Liberals and Conservatives only like choice if you agree with them.
Liberals tend to believe that government should have limted authority over your private life and behavior. Liberals expect more government authority over peoples' wealth and earnings and more regulation of businesses.

Conservatives tend to expect more government authority over morality and more regulation of your behavior. Conservatives prefer limited government authority over peoples' financial matters and prefer less regulation of businesses.

Authoritarians prefer government with a significant control of your personal and economic matters and over businesses.
Though they disagree on specifics: authoritarians, conservatives, and liberals all expect government to "protect" people by forcing consenting adults to avoid risky, dangerous and foolish behavior that does not harm or endanger others.

Libertarians believe that government's role is to preserve personal and economic freedom -- including those of "minorties" -- and that government-provided "protection" should only include defense against foreign enemies, holding people who cause harm accountable, and providing for general order.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Why are some jobs union jobs? I was a public school teacher, and I was phenomenal at it. Why do I have to give money to an organization I disagree with ( a very political organization) in order to work?

I thought liberals like you, liked choice. I’m almost certain I heard that somewhere. So let me choose whether or not I give money to organizations that donate to Elizabeth warren and planned parenthood.

As I said, if an organization can only keep its membership by passing laws making membership mandatory, it must be a really useless organization, except for the people getting rich off it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you had a choice you could pay an agancy fee but it seems you want the pay and benefits of a union member with out paying for the services that negotiated the pay rate with the employer ..

So how are you any better then those on welfare who you claim are destroying the country .. if you are un willing to pay for a service but some how feel your entitled to the pay benefits...

The right fear unions because those who bank roll their campaigns may have to pay a decent wage its as easy as that ... and they wont be as rich as the want to be

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

you had a choice you could pay an agancy fee but it seems you want the pay and benefits of a union member with out paying for the services that negotiated the pay rate with the employer ..

So how are you any better then those on welfare who you claim are destroying the country .. if you are un willing to pay for a service but some how feel your entitled to the pay benefits...

The right fear unions because those who bank roll their campaigns may have to pay a decent wage its as easy as that ... and they wont be as rich as the want to be

"it seems you want the pay and benefits of a union member with out paying for the services "

Wrong.

In the teachers union, pay is based on tenure. So all teachers with masters degrees who have been there ten years, get the same exact pay. So the guy teaching AP Physics and goes above and beyond for his kids, gets paid exactly the same as the gym teacher who goes home when the bell rings.

The best teacher and the worst teacher get paid the same. That benefits the worst teacher, and penalizes the best teacher. That seems backwards to me, but makes all kinds of sense to the union.

If people choose not to be in the union, they should not benefit from collective bargaining. Let them negotiate their own pay and benefits.

I want to be paid based on my worth, not the average worth of everyone in my job. Don't people who do a better job, deserve more money?

"So how are you any better then those on welfare who you claim are destroying the country"

Ummm...I pay a ton in taxes, rather than draining the system? That doesn't make me a better person, it makes me a more valuable citizen in terms of cash flow.

"if you are un willing to pay for a service but some how feel your entitled to the pay benefits"

As I said, those who don't pay into the union, should have to negotiate on their own. They shouldn't benefit if they don't pay i8nto it. The bets workers, can do better negotiating on their own. "Collective bargaining" treats everyone the same, it does not differentiate within the collective. So top performers can do better, negotiating on their own.

"The right fear unions "

Hating something and fearing it, are not the same thing.

"those who bank roll their campaigns may have to pay a decent wage its as easy as that "

You are assuming that you'll make more in a union. If you are a top performer, you'll do better outside of a union. Most people in the private sector are not in a union, most get a decent wage, IF they acquire marketable skills and work hard.

[Pete F.]

Jim
I assume you have never been on a school board. I have and given taxpayer pressure teachers would not ever get a raise, if an individual teacher came in to negotiate for more money they would be replaced.
Now I don't think unions are any better than government unless they are monitored closely by the people they work for, but just like government they get confused about who is the employer and who is the employee.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Jim
I assume you have never been on a school board. I have and given taxpayer pressure teachers would not ever get a raise, if an individual teacher came in to negotiate for more money they would be replaced.
Now I don't think unions are any better than government unless they are monitored closely by the people they work for, but just like government they get confused about who is the employer and who is the employee.

"I assume you have never been on a school board"

Nope.

"I have "

Thanks you for your service.

"given taxpayer pressure teachers would not ever get a raise, if an individual teacher came in to negotiate for more money they would be replaced."

Not sure I agree. Tax rates are set, you have a pool of tax revenue to spend. Why does a gym teacher get the same pay as the folks teaching AP Chemistry and Calculus? That is absurd to me. Everyone knows who the best teachers are, everyone knows who the deadbeats are. The board, combined with the principals, could distribute available money so that the best performers get more. It's fair, and it provides the incentive for people to work harder.

That's how the private sector works, I'm not sure teaching has to be handled so differently.

"they (public unions) get confused about who is the employer and who is the employee"

Amen to that.

This year, our town, facing a tough budget, was considering cutting music programs for our middle schools. I went to the Board Of Ed meeting, and I said "teachers in our town pay 17% of the cost of their health insurance. In the private sector, on average, we pay 35% of the cost of our health insurance. Bring that percentage more in line with what's available to the people who pay the taxes, and we will have more than enough money to fund music in the middle schools".

I had teachers leaving me profane, hate-filled voicemails on my voicemail.

I was asked to run for board of ed last fall. I declined, they don't want me on that board, I have the nutty idea that it's bad to bankrupt ourselves to give benefits to public servants which dwarf what's available to the public they claim to serve. For some reason, that's considered an absurd, extremist position. I'm not sure why.

To my original point, I don't see why teachers can't be paid based on merit. I taught for a very short time, I've been in the private sector, it isn't so different that you couldn't putt it off. I have had many teachers say to me "I get paid whether I work very hard or if I coast, so why should I kill myself". They don't like it at all, when I tell them "for the kids?".

I love teachers. Despise the unions.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Your data was selective and misleading.

Ok, find where and give data that contradicts it, specifically your nonsense about lower birthrates due to higher rates of abortion.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Posting data comparing the 1980s to today, has nothing to do with my beliefs about the 1950s. The 1980s happened a long time after the 1950s. Look it up if you don't believe me.

I also never said the 1950s were utopia. You put stupid words in my mouth, which is what simpletons do when the other guy has a point, but you won't admit it.

In the 1950s, American culture had a view of what a "family" was, and how it was supposed to function, that I believe is far superior to the current view of what a family is. Two parents committed to the family and the kids, one parent staying home during the early years, not leaving 3 year-olds in daycare for 10 hours a day being raised by God knows who. Parents sticking together even when it's brutally hard. Eating dinner together and talking and listening, instead of everyone watching TV or on their phones.

Kooky ideas, I know. Those zany olden times!! Hell, I'm so old I remember when it wasn't considered controversial to suggest that if you have a wee wee, you go to the mens room. I know, I'm a dinosaur.

You probably understand that my posts about the 1980's show how crime, abortion rates, childbirth rates, etc. have all declined dramatically- the point of 1950's levels, though many desperately want to make America something it never was again . It shows the changes over a long period of time, which is beneficial for analyzing data. Major ways today really is different from the 1950's: minimum wage adjusted for inflation- much lower today; top marginal top tax rate: 1/3 of what is was in the 1950's; spending power- lower today, attributed by some experts to the fact that 1/3 of workers were unionized in the 1950's.
We can agree then on higher top tax rates, more unions, and higher minimum wages?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You probably understand that my posts about the 1980's show how crime, abortion rates, childbirth rates, etc. have all declined dramatically- the point of 1950's levels, though many desperately want to make America something it never was again . It shows the changes over a long period of time, which is beneficial for analyzing data. Major ways today really is different from the 1950's: minimum wage adjusted for inflation- much lower today; top marginal top tax rate: 1/3 of what is was in the 1950's; spending power- lower today, attributed by some experts to the fact that 1/3 of workers were unionized in the 1950's.
We can agree then on higher top tax rates, more unions, and higher minimum wages?

"You probably understand that my posts about the 1980's show how crime, abortion rates, childbirth rates, etc. have all declined dramatically"

They have declined since the 1980s. I didn't utter s syllable about the 1980s, nor did I utter a syllable suggesting that these things were at all time highs today. If I did, your stats from the 1980s would be relevant.

"Major ways today really is different from the 1950's: minimum wage adjusted for inflation- much lower today; top marginal top tax rate: 1/3 of what is was in the 1950's; spending power- lower today, attributed by some experts to the fact that 1/3 of workers were unionized in the 1950's.
We can agree then on higher top tax rates, more unions, and higher minimum wages?"

When you ignore all the things that I say were better in the 1950s, and you focus on the things you think were better in the 1950s, you aren't fooling anybody.

Yes, many things you say were different in the 1950s, were different in the manner you stated.

If I say family values were better in the 1950s than they are today, you cannot refute that by pointing pout that the 1980s were worse than today.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Ok, find where and give data that contradicts it, specifically your nonsense about lower birthrates due to higher rates of abortion.

I did. The rates of abortion for blacks has risen, not only in your selective time range, but consistently from previous to that and after that. And that has happened consistently even under Democrat administrations, not just Republican as you suggest. In N.Y. city alone, more blacks are aborted than are born.

Here is a part of what I posted before:
"In 2010, the black population in the U.S. stood just shy of at 39 million. The CDC reports that during the 1970's, roughly 24% of all U.S. abortions were performed on black women. That percentage rose to 30% in the 1980's, 34% in the 1990's and 36% in the 2000's. That means that about 31% of all U.S. abortions since 1973 have been performed on African American women. Based on the January 2013 estimate that there have been 55.7 million abortions in the United States since 1973, we can deduce that approximately 17 million of the aborted babies were black.

"Despite an overall black population growth of 12% between 2000 and 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that the black population "grew at a slower rate than most other major race and ethnic groups in the country." CBS News reported in 2009 that "Hispanics have surpassed blacks as the nation's largest minority group." Can there be any question about the role abortion has played in this demographic shift? Despite similar population numbers, Hispanic women account for approximately 19% of U.S. abortions whereas African-American women account for up to 36%. From 1973 to 2012, abortion reduced the black population by 30%, and that doesn't even factor in all the children that would have been born to those aborted a generation ago. To put it bluntly, abortion has thinned the black community in ways the Ku Klux Klan could have only dreamed of."

In 1950 the Black population in the U.S. was about 15 million. Since 1973 about 17 million Blacks (more than the entire Black population at the time we were discussing) were aborted. On average almost 1900 Blacks are aborted every day in the U.S. In N.Y. City more Blacks are aborted than are born. Blacks in the U.S. are aborted at 3 times the rate as whites."

The black population today would be exponentially much higher today if the rates of their abortions had not risen, or if it had lowered or approached zero. Without the higher rates of abortion, Blacks would not have been surpassed in population by Latinos.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I did. The rates of abortion for blacks has risen, not only in your selective time range, but consistently from previous to that and after that. And that has happened consistently even under Democrat administrations, not just Republican as you suggest. In N.Y. city alone, more blacks are aborted than are born.

Here is a part of what I posted before:
"In 2010, the black population in the U.S. stood just shy of at 39 million. The CDC reports that during the 1970's, roughly 24% of all U.S. abortions were performed on black women. That percentage rose to 30% in the 1980's, 34% in the 1990's and 36% in the 2000's. That means that about 31% of all U.S. abortions since 1973 have been performed on African American women. Based on the January 2013 estimate that there have been 55.7 million abortions in the United States since 1973, we can deduce that approximately 17 million of the aborted babies were black.

"Despite an overall black population growth of 12% between 2000 and 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that the black population "grew at a slower rate than most other major race and ethnic groups in the country." CBS News reported in 2009 that "Hispanics have surpassed blacks as the nation's largest minority group." Can there be any question about the role abortion has played in this demographic shift? Despite similar population numbers, Hispanic women account for approximately 19% of U.S. abortions whereas African-American women account for up to 36%. From 1973 to 2012, abortion reduced the black population by 30%, and that doesn't even factor in all the children that would have been born to those aborted a generation ago. To put it bluntly, abortion has thinned the black community in ways the Ku Klux Klan could have only dreamed of."

In 1950 the Black population in the U.S. was about 15 million. Since 1973 about 17 million Blacks (more than the entire Black population at the time we were discussing) were aborted. On average almost 1900 Blacks are aborted every day in the U.S. In N.Y. City more Blacks are aborted than are born. Blacks in the U.S. are aborted at 3 times the rate as whites."

The black population today would be exponentially much higher today if the rates of their abortions had not risen, or if it had lowered or approached zero. Without the higher rates of abortion, Blacks would not have been surpassed in population by Latinos.

"In N.Y. city alone, more blacks are aborted than are born."

Which was the goal of Margaret Sanger, the racist/eugenicist, who was the fonder (I think) of Planned Parenthood.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Anybody else notice the irony of the thread title after reading through 6 pages of posts?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"I assume you have never been on a school board"

Nope.

"I have "

Thanks you for your service.

"given taxpayer pressure teachers would not ever get a raise, if an individual teacher came in to negotiate for more money they would be replaced."

Not sure I agree. Tax rates are set, you have a pool of tax revenue to spend. Why does a gym teacher get the same pay as the folks teaching AP Chemistry and Calculus? That is absurd to me. Everyone knows who the best teachers are, everyone knows who the deadbeats are. The board, combined with the principals, could distribute available money so that the best performers get more. It's fair, and it provides the incentive for people to work harder.

That's how the private sector works, I'm not sure teaching has to be handled so differently.

"they (public unions) get confused about who is the employer and who is the employee"

Amen to that.

This year, our town, facing a tough budget, was considering cutting music programs for our middle schools. I went to the Board Of Ed meeting, and I said "teachers in our town pay 17% of the cost of their health insurance. In the private sector, on average, we pay 35% of the cost of our health insurance. Bring that percentage more in line with what's available to the people who pay the taxes, and we will have more than enough money to fund music in the middle schools".

I had teachers leaving me profane, hate-filled voicemails on my voicemail.

I was asked to run for board of ed last fall. I declined, they don't want me on that board, I have the nutty idea that it's bad to bankrupt ourselves to give benefits to public servants which dwarf what's available to the public they claim to serve. For some reason, that's considered an absurd, extremist position. I'm not sure why.

To my original point, I don't see why teachers can't be paid based on merit. I taught for a very short time, I've been in the private sector, it isn't so different that you couldn't putt it off. I have had many teachers say to me "I get paid whether I work very hard or if I coast, so why should I kill myself". They don't like it at all, when I tell them "for the kids?".

I love teachers. Despise the unions.

But you should run, even if i disagree with you. Running will push the view in your direction and if you believe in what you say that should be important to you.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Anybody else notice the irony of the thread title after reading through 6 pages of posts?

I thought Train Wreck might be more appropriate

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I did. The rates of abortion for blacks has risen, not only in your selective time range, but consistently from previous to that and after that. And that has happened consistently even under Democrat administrations, not just Republican as you suggest. In N.Y. city alone, more blacks are aborted than are born.


In 1950 the Black population in the U.S. was about 15 million. Since 1973 about 17 million Blacks (more than the entire Black population at the time we were discussing) were aborted. On average almost 1900 Blacks are aborted every day in the U.S. In N.Y. City more Blacks are aborted than are born. Blacks in the U.S. are aborted at 3 times the rate as whites."

Your analysis of the data and your conclusions are fundamentally flawed. Abortion rate is number of abortions per 1000 women. It has fallen dramatically across all groups.
You are comparing abortions among ethnic groups as a percent of total number of abortions. It is correct to say it has fallen less for blacks than other groups. It is correct to say that it is higher in blacks as a percent of population and that the percentage of the total has increased. It is incorrect to say the rate has gone up. Factually incorrect.

If there were only three abortions last year and two were black and one white, you could say 66 percent of abortions were black. That would be a higher percent than ever. It would not mean there were more abortions than ever. It does not support your statement that birth rates have dropped due to abortions.

All else equal, a drop in abortion rates and a drop in birth rates means a drop in pregnancy rates, which refutes your statement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"
When you ignore all the things that I say were better in the 1950s, and you focus on the things you think were better in the 1950s, you aren't fooling anybody.

When you say ignore all the things, you say were better...everything I addressed about the 1980s, I concurrently addressed in reference to the 1950s.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

But you should run, even if i disagree with you. Running will push the view in your direction and if you believe in what you say that should be important to you.

Thanks. The other reason why I don't run? As much as I believe my opinions are based on common sense, fiscal sanity, and also a respect for teachers...teachers hate my opinions, and I don't want to piss off the people who teach my kids. I have 3 boys in elementary school. I will share my views with my friends and family who teach in other towns, but I don't let my kids' teachers know what I think, as far as they know, I'm as pro union as Jimmy Hoffa.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Anybody else notice the irony of the thread title after reading through 6 pages of posts?

I think I pointed that out to the McKenzie Brother....

[spence]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Your analysis of the data and your conclusions are fundamentally flawed. Abortion rate is number of abortions per 1000 women. It has fallen dramatically across all groups.
You are comparing abortions among ethnic groups as a percent of total number of abortions. It is correct to say it has fallen less for blacks than other groups. It is correct to say that it is higher in blacks as a percent of population and that the percentage of the total has increased. It is incorrect to say the rate has gone up. Factually incorrect.

If there were only three abortions last year and two were black and one white, you could say 66 percent of abortions were black. That would be a higher percent than ever. It would not mean there were more abortions than ever. It does not support your statement that birth rates have dropped due to abortions.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And he's an actuarial
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Your analysis of the data and your conclusions are fundamentally flawed. Abortion rate is number of abortions per 1000 women. It has fallen dramatically across all groups.
You are comparing abortions among ethnic groups as a percent of total number of abortions. It is correct to say it has fallen less for blacks than other groups. It is correct to say that it is higher in blacks as a percent of population and that the percentage of the total has increased. It is incorrect to say the rate has gone up. Factually incorrect.

If there were only three abortions last year and two were black and one white, you could say 66 percent of abortions were black. That would be a higher percent than ever. It would not mean there were more abortions than ever. It does not support your statement that birth rates have dropped due to abortions.

You specifically referred to Blacks and Hispanics. Which infers a comparison to others. Even if the rates of abortions for all groups has dropped, the rates for blacks compared to whites and Asians and Hispanics, has dramatically risen. So then the number of births per 1000 pregnancies would have become less for blacks, dramatically than for whites, Asians, and Hispanics. That portion of the lower Black birth rate due to abortions would affect the rate of growth in the size of the Black population vis a vis others. Which supports to some degree the idea that the native Black population is diminishing or growing less in comparison to other races which Jim exaggerated with his usual hyperbole when he said : "liberalism is convincing blacks to abort themselves almost out of existence."

All else equal, a drop in abortion rates and a drop in birth rates means a drop in pregnancy rates, which refutes your statement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You talked about birth rates before, but you change to pregnancy rates here. In either case, how does a drop in abortion rates decrease either birth or pregnancy rates. Won't higher abortion rates cause a drop in birth rates? Or vice versa, won't lower abortion rates (lower number of abortions per 1000 pregnancies) increase the number of births per 1000 thus increasing the birth rates (number of births per 1000 pregnancies)?

And what do either birth or abortion rates have to do with pregnancy rates if "Pregnancy rate is the success rate for getting pregnant. It is the percentage of all attempts that leads to pregnancy, with attempts generally referring to menstrual cycles where insemination or any artificial equivalent is used, which may be simple artificial insemination (AI) or AI with additional in vitro fertilization."?

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You talked about birth rates before, but you change to pregnancy rates here. In either case, how does a drop in abortion rates decrease either birth or pregnancy rates? I can see how that isn't clear. It isn't that the drop in abortion causes the the decrease in birth rates. If the birth rate dropped and abortion rates dropped, then pregnancy rates had to drop, which is the case. Fewer black and hispanic teens get pregnant each year now than 25 years ago. Also, ~5% fewer have sex before the age of 18 than in the 1990's


And what do either birth or abortion rates have to do with pregnancy rates if "Pregnancy rate is the success rate for getting pregnant. It is the percentage of all attempts that leads to pregnancy, with attempts generally referring to menstrual cycles where insemination or any artificial equivalent is used, which may be simple artificial insemination (AI) or AI with additional in vitro fertilization."?
You are right that if you go to wikipedia, you get the definition of pregnancy rate that you quoted. However, the literature related to pregnancy and birthrates also use the term pregnancy rate differently: the number of women out of 1000 who become pregnant.
i.e.
Kost K and Maddow-Zimet I, U.S. Teenage Pregnancies, Births and Abortions, 2011: National Trends by Age, Race and Ethnicity, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2016, https://www.guttmacher.org/report/us...cy-trends-2011.

Me: By the way, birth rates among black and hispanic teens today are about 25% what they were in 1990 after 12 years of Republican leadership.

You: Abortion

You are wrong about why teen birth rates among blacks and hispanics are 25% of what they were in 1990.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Me: By the way, birth rates among black and hispanic teens today are about 25% what they were in 1990 after 12 years of Republican leadership.

I'm not getting your point about "Republican leadership." Birth rates would have to do with a mixture of various factors including cultural values and state politics. States with larger populations tend to be Democrat run. Large urban areas are also usually run by Democrats. National statistics can be skewed to a great extent by large states and cities. During that 12 years, a great deal of political leadership was by Democrats in the Big states and cities. State governments would have had more influence than the federal government on their own rates. And there was a great deal of Democrat leadership in the federal Congress during that time. And the uptick in birth rates began before that 12 year period. So, the correlation between either Republican or Democrat leadership and the rise and fall of birth rates in that 12 year span is unclear, and possibly less relevant than other factors.

You: Abortion

I didn't say abortion was the only reason. It was a contributing factor, especially in the comparative decrease in population between the races.

You are wrong about why teen birth rates among blacks and hispanics are 25% of what they were in 1990.

I am not wrong that teen birth rates were impacted more among blacks and Hispanics by abortion than among whites. The abortion rates are 300% higher for blacks than for whites. Whatever factors exist in producing birth rate figures, abortion is one. And that factor is significant when comparing races. The birth rate would significantly increase for blacks if their abortion rate was comparable to whites. You brought up blacks and Hispanics. That's what I addressed.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I am not wrong that teen birth rates were impacted more among blacks and Hispanics by abortion than among whites. The abortion rates are 300% higher for blacks than for whites. Whatever factors exist in producing birth rate figures, abortion is one. And that factor is significant when comparing races. The birth rate would significantly increase for blacks if their abortion rate was comparable to whites. You brought up blacks and Hispanics. That's what I addressed.

I quoted you. You said one word when you replied to my post- abortion. You didn't say the rates were impacted more by abortion for blacks than whites. You said abortion as the explanation for the drop in birth rates. You can keep trying. I'm done with it.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I quoted you. You said one word when you replied to my post- abortion. You didn't say the rates were impacted more by abortion for blacks than whites. You said abortion as the explanation for the drop in birth rates. You can keep trying. I'm done with it.

There was a lot of discussion which followed both your baldly stated fact in response to Jim that birth rates were lower after twelve years of Republican leadership and my baldly stated "abortion" as a support to what Jim had said. After that, you, as well as I, proceeded to explain what and why we said what we said.

It seemed to start with your: "The majority of the country sees through the bs of the 1950's culture you seem to think is utopia." From which you immediately jumped to your statement that birth rates had dropped after twelve years of Republican leadership. From there we went back and forth fleshing out my single word and your simple statement.

You didn't refute what I said. You certainly didn't refute that abortion has an effect on birth rate, even more so on black birth rate. Nor did you show how Republican leadership was responsible for higher birth and abortion rates. Your Guttmacher Org. link didn't connect lowered birth rate to Republicans. It posited more use of, and better, contraceptives and the influence of economic conditions as reasons for the lowered birth rates. It mentioned that "Wide differences in birth and abortion rates (as opposed to pregnancy rates) also persist across racial and ethnic groups." Which, since you had specified black and Hispanic teens, is what I addressed and pointed out, indeed, that the black birth rate was suppressed far more in blacks than in whites due to abortion.

If all that exasperates you, then by all means be done with it.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It seemed to start with your: "The majority of the country sees through the bs of the 1950's culture you seem to think is utopia." From which you immediately jumped to your statement that birth rates had dropped after twelve years of Republican leadership.

No, I didn't immediately jump to the birth rate statement. It was part of a response to:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So your party encouraging black teenage girls to have babies, is solving the problem?

Completely in context. You just missed the context. Now I am really done

[wdmso]

back to MH issues

Florida House Declines Debate On Assault Rifles,
in a matter of three minutes. The bill would have prohibited the sale of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines and required “certificates of possession” for lawfully-possessed firearms, among other measures.



An hour later, Rep. Ross Spano turned the lawmakers’ attention to more pressing matters: pornography. The bill (HR 157) argued that it was “creating a public health risk” and was “contributing to the hypersexualization of children and teens.”

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

No, I didn't immediately jump to the birth rate statement. It was part of a response to:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So your party encouraging black teenage girls to have babies, is solving the problem?

Completely in context. You just missed the context. Now I am really done

I was referring to the start of the back and forth between you and me. But I can see why you responded to Jim the way you did. I just think you made an oversimplified and misleading statement. It's a lot more complex, and telling, when one gets into the weeds of the argument. Abortion impacts black birth rates a lot more than it does white rates.

And abortion has an effect on the subject of this thread--mental health issue in America. I suppose it can be seen as having either a positive or negative effect, depending on circumstances. It may be positive for the mental health of poor single black women. I don't think so. But I can understand the opposite view. Discussing that would be getting farther into the weeds. But that would be more germane to the notion of "family values" and what effect those values have on American culture, even how the deterioration of those values can produce mass killers.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso

Don't want union pay don't take a union job ... unless your a scab








that was a fascinating statement...apparently the unions are the employers?

Apparently...