Actually, the black middle class is the fasted growing population, but
Posted By: does the media hype that? NO! nm on 2005-09-14
In Reply to: Well, are they back up since the Clinton adm. - Reality check
x
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
helping the lower class and middle class will NOT
Giving handouts to those that do not work certainly does nothing to help their situations; it only encourages it. Middle class are your working class, the support and backbone of this country. Obama's interference in their lives is just that, interference. The democrats have always felt they have the right to interfere in our lives by taxing us to death. What does that do to help us? It only makes us MORE dependent on the government......nothing about MORE government is helping us in any way.
I'm glad you think crime is JUST a biproduct of poverty, not race, which proves you obviously don't live in an area where that would prove you wrong. I live in an area where I know that every BLACK has the same opportunities as whites, the EXACT same education and FREE two college years....FREE, FREE, FREE.....all they have to do is finish high school....not all As or even any Bs, just finish high school. Now, a lot of young people take advantage of that but MANY do not. What do they do instead? Stand on the street corner, run around with their pants hanging down to the knees, steal for drugs, sell drugs to make money so they can buy expensive hubcaps for their souped up cars, buy their expensive shoes and ugly pants, and make MORE BABIES, which by the way, I SUPPORT with my taxes. No, I don't want to hear all that hogwash about their poverty. The media has made so much of that garbage, those that don't live in or near it, don't realize many blacks have the same opportunities; it's just that a lot of blacks, especially in my town, have grown up generation after generation living off the taxpayer and see no reason whatsoever to change their situation. They make more babies.....I'm forced to raise them so that generation can make more babies. Do I wish their situation would change? ABSOLUTELY! Do they have plenty of resources available in this town alone to change that? ABSOLUTELY! Do most of them take advantage of that? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!! Yes, the majority of crimes in our town is committed by blacks but it AIN'T because of poverty; it's because THEY WANT TO COMMIT A CRIME!! We have poor whites as well and the majority of those do not feel they have the right to steal what belongs to others, kill someone over drugs or a stupid girl, or whatever else one wants to use as an excuse.
Obama will do nothing to help those that feel entitled and look to Obama as just a bigger free paycheck. You don't help anyone by giving them free handouts. If they don't want an educate, won't help themselves, and continue to feel ENTITLED to MY money, Obama certainly won't change that by encouraging laziness and lack of worth ethics.
Making the middle class dependent on the government is in no way helping them; if anything, Obama will be the end to the middle class as we know it today.
40% of TOTAL US population (i.e., most of mid class)
Folks, this is the sum total of every SINGLE person (not family income) whose income is less than $57,490. Again, if this describes your economic class, ask yourself, does 40% of all work force (those persons who earn under this income figure) do less than 1% or more than 1% of the work. People, this is a question of fair pay for work performed. MTs battle cry. Is this okay with you?
Middle class
Didn't McCain define "middle class" as anyone with $5 million??? How realistic is that? I don't personally have, nor do I know anyone, who has $5 million. The "real" middle class is screwed with either of these clowns.
If the new middle class is $120,000 (sm)
Then my income will just push us into that bracket. I wonder if that will negate my entire income? If so, I guess we may be better off if I just quit? Right now I work because I can't afford to quit. I won't be able to afford it then either so what will I do? I wonder how many others will be in my situation?
FYI, we live in a small older home that we are trying to pay off so that when our two children are college-age, maybe we can afford it. We don't live extravagently by any means. What will happen to people like us?
Middle class? sm
If Obama is elected, that is something that our children's children will be reading about in a history book. It is fast disappearing and will be completely gone if Obama takes office.
A New Way To Tax the Middle Class
Just call it something besides a tax.
Who Pays for Cap and Trade?
Hint: They were promised a tax cut during the Obama campaign.Article
Cap and trade is the tax that dare not speak its name, and Democrats are hoping in particular that no one notices who would pay for their climate ambitions. With President Obama depending on vast new carbon revenues in his budget and Congress promising a bill by May, perhaps Americans would like to know the deeply unequal ways that climate costs would be distributed across regions and income groups.
Politicians love cap and trade because they can claim to be taxing "polluters," not workers. Hardly. Once the government creates a scarce new commodity -- in this case the right to emit carbon -- and then mandates that businesses buy it, the costs would inevitably be passed on to all consumers in the form of higher prices. Stating the obvious, Peter Orszag -- now Mr. Obama's budget director -- told Congress last year that "Those price increases are essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program."
Hit hardest would be the "95% of working families" Mr. Obama keeps mentioning, usually omitting that his no-new-taxes pledge comes with the caveat "unless you use energy." Putting a price on carbon is regressive by definition because poor and middle-income households spend more of their paychecks on things like gas to drive to work, groceries or home heating.
The Congressional Budget Office -- Mr. Orszag's former roost -- estimates that the price hikes from a 15% cut in emissions would cost the average household in the bottom-income quintile about 3.3% of its after-tax income every year. That's about $680, not including the costs of reduced employment and output. The three middle quintiles would see their paychecks cut between $880 and $1,500, or 2.9% to 2.7% of income. The rich would pay 1.7%. Cap and trade is the ideal policy for every Beltway analyst who thinks the tax code is too progressive (all five of them).
But the greatest inequities are geographic and would be imposed on the parts of the U.S. that rely most on manufacturing or fossil fuels -- particularly coal, which generates most power in the Midwest, Southern and Plains states. It's no coincidence that the liberals most invested in cap and trade -- Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman, Ed Markey -- come from California or the Northeast.
Coal provides more than half of U.S. electricity, and 25 states get more than 50% of their electricity from conventional coal-fired generation. In Ohio, it totals 86%, according to the Energy Information Administration. Ratepayers in Indiana (94%), Missouri (85%), New Mexico (80%), Pennsylvania (56%), West Virginia (98%) and Wyoming (95%) are going to get soaked.
Another way to think about it is in terms of per capita greenhouse-gas emissions. California is the No. 2 carbon emitter in the country but also has a large economy and population. So the average Californian only had a carbon footprint of about 12 tons of CO2-equivalent in 2005, according to the World Resource Institute's Climate Analysis Indicators, which integrates all government data. The situation is very different in Wyoming and North Dakota -- paging Senators Mike Enzi and Kent Conrad -- where every person was responsible for 154 and 95 tons, respectively. See the nearby chart for cap and trade's biggest state winners and losers.
Democrats say they'll allow some of this ocean of new cap-and-trade revenue to trickle back down to the public. In his budget, Mr. Obama wants to recycle $525 billion through the "making work pay" tax credit that goes to many people who don't pay income taxes. But $400 for individuals and $800 for families still doesn't offset carbon's income raid, especially in states with higher carbon use.
All the more so because the Administration is lowballing its cap-and-trade tax estimates. Its stated goal is to reduce emissions 14% below 2005 levels by 2020, which assuming that four-fifths of emissions are covered (excluding agriculture, for instance), works out to about $13 or $14 per ton of CO2. When CBO scored a similar bill last year, it expected prices to start at $23 and rise to $44 by 2018. CBO also projected the total value of the allowances at $902 billion over the first decade, which is some $256 billion more than the Administration's estimate.
We asked the White House budget office for the assumptions behind its revenue estimates, but a spokesman said the Administration doesn't have a formal proposal and will work with Congress and "stakeholders" to shape one. We were also pointed to recent comments by Mr. Orszag that he was "sure there will be enough there to finance the things that we have identified" and maybe "additional money" too. In other words, Mr. Obama expects a much larger tax increase than even he is willing to admit.
Those "stakeholders" are going to need some very large bribes, starting with the regions that stand to lose the most. Led by Michigan's Debbie Stabenow, 15 Senate Democrats have already formed a "gang" demanding that "consumers and workers in all regions of the U.S. are protected from undue hardship." In practice, this would mean corporate welfare for carbon-heavy businesses.
And of course Congress is its own "stakeholder." An economy-wide tax under the cover of saving the environment is the best political moneymaker since the income tax. Obama officials are already telling the press, sotto voce, that climate revenues might fund universal health care and other new social spending. No doubt they would, and when they did Mr. Obama's cap-and-trade rebates would become even smaller.
Cap and trade, in other words, is a scheme to redistribute income and wealth -- but in a very curious way. It takes from the working class and gives to the affluent; takes from Miami, Ohio, and gives to Miami, Florida; and takes from an industrial America that is already struggling and gives to rich Silicon Valley and Wall Street "green tech" investors who know how to leverage the political class.
She actually grew up middle class
and made her own money. Then married Sir Rothschild. Why couldn't I have found a guy like that?!?
The middle class has already all but disappeared under...sm
republican rule. Based on earnings, we have a huge lower class, a very small middle class, and a tiny upper class that makes over 90% of the income in the US.
The middle class needs to realize
that John McCain's economic plan is designed from the ground up to raise incomes and create jobs for Americans - especially middle-class Americans - and get our economy moving again. It is in sharp contrast to Barack Obama's plan, which does not treat the middle class well and which will reduce jobs rather than create them.
"The McCain tax plan will allow middle-class Americans to keep more of what they earn than the Obama tax plan. McCain will increase the exemption for children from $3,500 to $7,000 per child, and he will provide a refundable health care tax credit of $5,000 for every family. What does this mean for middle-class families? Consider a married couple, one of whom works, earning $55,000 plus employer-paid health insurance of $8,000, and who rent their home and have two young children. Under McCain's plan, this family would receive a tax refund of $2,087 for health care and other things. Under Obama's plan, including his proposed worker's credit, this same family would not get any tax refund; in fact, they will have to pay taxes of $1,213. That's a $3,300 advantage for that family with McCain's plan compared with Obama's.
McCain's plan also provides incentives for firms to hire more workers and to pay them more. He will stop penalizing American firms when they create jobs in America rather than overseas. The U.S. tax code now levies a tax of 35 percent on American firms, the second highest in the world. McCain would reduce the tax to 25 percent, an important reason why his plan creates more jobs than Obama's. Another reason is that McCain will not raise the tax on small businesses, as Obama's plan does. Under Obama's plan, the top marginal income tax rate, which many small businesses pay, will rise to over 50 percent, including his proposed 5 percent increase in the statutory rate, 3 percent for Medicare, 3 percent for Social Security, and 4 percent from the phase out of exemptions.
McCain's economic plan is comprehensive and helps the middle class in many other ways. By promoting domestic energy production, including nuclear power and exploration and production of oil and gas - which Obama has opposed - McCain will reduce the price of gasoline, electricity and heating oil. By promoting free-trade agreements, he will reduce taxes on job-creating exports and reduce the prices that middle- and lower-income families pay for food and clothing. In contrast, Sen. Obama opposes good trade agreements - voting against the Colombia free-trade agreement - that would create jobs in America."
Does the middle class ever get a break?
All I heard during Barrack Obama's campaign was how he was going to look out for the middle class and how Bush and McCain would do nothing more than make the rich richer. Well, every time I turn on the news, I cringe. All I see are crooks. CEO crooks, rich crooks, and political crooks. These crooks are getting rich off of taxpayers and we are getting nothing in return. The initial bailout has done nothing. The stock market is still extremely low. The only good thing I've heard of late is that gas is below 2 dollars a gallon right now. Now GM wants a bailout. Their CEOs flying in on private jets and asking for a handout. I truly do not want to get them one because I know it won't change anything. However, it breaks my heart to think of the millions of people who will truly suffer from this....including my mother.
Now President-elect Obama still claims to be out there for the middle class, but I just don't see it. His plans will do nothing more than to help the lower class. The rich will survive as they are rich, but it will be the middle class who again takes the hit. The more TV I watch, the more I see Obama as nothing more than a puppet of his political party.
My husband is so stressed out about this economy and his business that he is losing sleep at night. He had to fire someone yesterday to save costs which means he will have to work a lot more hours to cover for the person he had to let go which will add more stress and little to no downtime for him. Not to mention the poor bloke he had to fire right before the holidays.
I'm sitting here at my desk thinking about our monthly house payment and our two kids and I wonder how we will make it if my husband's boss decides to close his store. Will he send him to another store or will he just let him go? How will he find another job in this economy that would make enough money to pay our house payment? What will happen to my mom if GM gets rid of legacy expenses and she loses my dad's pension and her health benefits. What happens to my brother when his factory goes under and he is left with three kids and a wife to support?
Is anyone else literally sick to their stomach about all of this? I feel like I could just hurl and then I turn TV on and see all these crooks and I just want to scream. I've tried to stay positive and I've tried to give Obama the benefit of the doubt but his pal Bill Clinton is the one who started the housing crisis by forcing bad loans to be given and Obama has done nothing but surround himself with Clintons and I just can't shake the feeling that we won't rebound from this......at least not for a very very long time.
Dems to focus on middle class..sm
Pelosi, Hoyer Say Their Focus Will Be on Helping Middle Class
Monday, November 20, 2006
Associated Press
WASHINGTON — House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi said Monday her new Democratic majority will extend a hand to Republicans in moving the agenda of relieving the middle-class squeeze. She said restoring the military draft will not be part of that agenda when Democrats take over the House in January.
Pelosi, following a strategy meeting with the next House majority leader, Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said she will meet with incoming House Minority Leader John Boehner and we'll find our common ground for the American people.
The principle of civility and respect for minority participation in this House is something we promised the American people. It's the right thing to do, she said.
Pelosi and Hoyer repeated that in the first 100 legislative hours of the new Congress that convenes in January, they will try to pass bills that directly affect the pocketbooks of working-class and middle-class people, including raising the minimum wage, cutting interest rates for student loans and allowing the Medicare program to negotiate lower drug prices.
Other top priorities for January are lobbying reform, implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and rolling back subsidies to the oil industry.
Pelosi said restoring the draft will not be on that list and was not something she supported.
The speaker and I discussed scheduling and it did not include that, Hoyer added.
Incoming Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., caused a stir by repeating a long-held position that a draft is the best way to ensure that all levels of society are represented in the military. Besides Rangel, there is almost no support in Congress for restoring the draft.
It's not about a draft, it's about shared sacrifice in this country, Pelosi said. She said Rangel is a strong voice for social justice in our country and his support for the draft was a way to make a point.
And do you know why the cost of living for the middle class has gone down...?
because we are being taxed to death. The amount of our income off the top for taxes has increased over all those years. More programs to help the "poor," some of which have moved people from what used to be middle class to the "poor class" to get on some of those social programs...which is never a good thing...and meanwhile the working middle class continues to get the tax shaft. Yeah, we are being had...by those who want to spend, tax, spend, tax, spend....
Obama's tax cut plan for middle class
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#tax-relief
Provide Middle Class Americans Tax Relief
Obama will cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay.
• Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.
• Eliminate Income Taxes for Seniors Making Less than $50,000: Barack Obama will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This proposal will eliminate income taxes for 7 million seniors and provide these seniors with an average savings of $1,400 each year. Under the Obama plan, 27 million American seniors will also not need to file an income tax return.
• Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class Americans: Obama will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. Obama will ensure that the IRS uses the information it already gets from banks and employers to give taxpayers the option of pre-filled tax forms to verify, sign and return. Experts estimate that the Obama proposal will save Americans up to 200 million total hours of work and aggravation and up to $2 billion in tax preparer fees.
Well I guess the middle class who can't scrape
enough together to feed their kids, or pay their bills don't really have a good sense of humor right now - imagine that.
IMO it was just another insensitive remark he has made, trying to be the comedian.
He plans to give the middle class (that would be US)
Don't know about you, but I just can't pay any more taxes without going under financially. (Unless someone invents a vaccine that makes it possible to survive without having to EAT.)
Big corporations (I'm not talking about SMALL businesses, here... I said 'BIG'), aren't paying their fair share & pulling their weight tax-wise. Compounding that is the fact that they currently are actually getting incentives for sending work offshore. Why else do you think the LARGEST MT companies are the ones that offshore? In addition to paying p1ss-ant wages to us peons, they're getting financial incentives to do so.
There are also too many loopholes in labor laws that the big co's have going for them. How else would it be possible to tell a U.S. MT that they cannot work overtime, yet that MT has to work 2-6 hrs. over OT per DAY, just to make the 'minimum' line count and keep her health insurance. All withOUT getting paid for said overtime.
With McCain in office, there is little hope that any of that will improve. The fact that Obama is from a younger generation, with newer ideas, at least gives me a glimmer of HOPE, and right now hope means a lot to me, and alot of other people in the US. Will he get some things wrong? Undoubtedly. No one has ever had a 'perfect Presidency'. But will he get some things RIGHT? Absolutely. He will base a lot of his military decisions on TODAY's world situation, not the one that existed in 1942, or 1969.
I don't agree with EVERYthing Obama says (but then again, I never agree with everything ANYone says.) But I think that for this particular time in our country's and the world's history, we stand a better chance of improving the way things are with some new blood in the White House, NOT the same-ol', same-ol'.
Why wasn't he worried about us in the middle class...
when first McCain and then the Bush admin warned about fannie/freddie and that they needed to be reeled in? Where was all that concern for us then, when it realy mattered??
I hope you are right, that someone is standing up for the middle class (sm)
But I think what is more likely to happen is that we will ALL be taxed more and we will ALL have less money and it will be spread throughout the world. What you see as wealth and middle class will no longer be the same. Wealth will be being able to afford to feed your family. The jobs will go overseas alright, even more so than they are now. I wish I believed that you are right. That would be great! Unfortunately, I think it is a dream, far from the reality of the nightmare that is coming.
Walking up the backs of the middle-class to
xx
Just proof that Obama really isn't out for the middle class.
He just wants our vote and he figured this would be the way to get it. To promise to not tax us middle class folks. I don't believe he intends to keep his promise. He may at first but the bottom line is that all the government spending of his and the 3 trillion dollars he plans to spend....where he is going to get that money? He is going to get it from us and that includes the middle class.
All the companies who get tax hikes will pass that tax onto us as well by jacking up prices of products and services so we the consumers pay for that tax hike. Then Obama will have to raise taxes on the middle class as well to cover his government spending. It is common sense people. Look at his record. He has consistently wanted to raise taxes and that includes on us middle class folks he is all of sudden so interested in helping out since he is up for election. Give me a break. I see through the lies and false promises. That isn't change. That is Washington elitists at their norm.
I see the new middle class has dropped from 250,000 to 120,000 and could be lower.
Very, very contradicting to me. Obama changing a lot of what he said lately and it gets worse. He wants us to vote early and take off from work Nov. 4th to help him win. Fox news also reports Obama and his campaign lays out plans to kill expectations after win because of concerns that many supporters are now harboring unrealistic hopes of what can be achieved. What the heck? Now he says, "it will be hard to achieve goals and will take time." He says one thing and then says another. I want to know where these unauthorized credit cards came from for his campaign. I want to see his birth certificate that he cannot cough up and there is a petition out and he is under investigation if he was truly born in the good ole USA. Call your State Department and they will tell you there is an investigation and they trying to get this resolved before Nov. 4th. So much uncertainty. Hope I do not offend anyone, but just like a bumper sticker I read
I'll keep my God, my freedom, my guns, and my money, you can keep THE CHANGE. VOTE FOR MCCAIN/PALIN.
Not super rich, am middle class, but i am not a ...
Marxist socialist. That kind of stomping on I can do without. I may have to live through it, but I am not handing him the ball bat to hit me over the head with.
What tax cuts is Barack going to give middle class?
facts to back it up. We are most definitely middle class and in the last 4 years, I made more money as an IC but didn't have to pay in at year end, for the first time in YEARS. We also got a higher child credit, etc. Or maybe I should ask what you consider middle class, but I am quite sure my measly salary doesn't qualify as anything but and I sure as heck am not in the upper 10%. The proof is in the pudding for me, and not having to pay taxes when I always had before, despite having made more money as an IC, is tasty pudding to me. I can't complain on that particular point.
I've compared both Obama's and McCain's tax proposals, and I sure didn't see a lot of give for middle class in either so apparently you are privy to some information that I am not. Can you show me where I can find that? IMO, they are both ignoring the middle class and the middle class is most of America.
I am middle class, but I dont "buy" Obama's
nm
working poor and middle class need defending not rich
Believe me, the rich do not need to be defended. They are getting along just fine and can pay for the best defense in the world. Debating about how the rich should have their money, on and on..if anyone needs defending, it is the working poor and the middle class whose salary for the past five years has gone down, not increased.
I didn't realize middle class meant uneducated......
xx
So, rich tax cuts expire, middle class gets benefit,
will undermine, erode and ultimately vaporize capitalist money/greed ambition and incentive to produce, but keep minimum wage workers at sub-living-wage levels and expect them to have exhibit impeccible work ethic and slave away 24/7 with no complaints? I think I got it now.
Also, because we are white middle class and have a house, we are putting kids through college, ever
nm
Her point is that Obama voted repeatedly against tax breaks for the middle class and suddenly he'
the middle class person's best friend! Funny how now he wants to help us, when each time he had the opportunity to, he voted against it.
is the the starting point or the end point for the middle class?
x
This is growing tiresome....
Your hatred of liberals is causing you to cover your eyes and ears and pretend nothing is wrong, or could possibly be wrong with our government. There is a growing majority who do not believe as you do (or disbelieve as you do).
If you find gt's posts so virulent and hateful why do you come on the liberal board? The board posts obviously upset you. And with your repeated personal attacks on the posters you are truly providing a negative advertisement for your belief system. You need to think about that.
Wow. List growing by the minute.
by hate mail after daring to have his own opinion and is leaving the National Review, the magazine founded by his dad. So much for family tradition.
I always remember what my mom and dad taught me growing up
Treat others how you want to be treated. Don't call people names if you wouldn't want to be called names. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and if you don't like what is being said (this pertained more to racial slurs in public when they would look at me and call me a name) keep walking and soon you will not hear them talk anymore.
Hope the board will now come back to what it is meant for. You have a good night and don't let people get to you. You are a valuable person with valuable ideas and thoughts and that's what makes our country a wonderful place.
They are not scientific, but do show a growing trend.sm
The Rocky Mountain News is a mainstream paper in a conservative state. All everyone wants is for this to be properly investigated, by independent investigators. The 911 Commission pretty much admitted the first one was a whitewash.
I ate my fair share of soup growing up........sm
We lived on a farm and my dad grew a big garden every year....peas, corn, potatoes, tomatoes, butter beans, onions....and when the first pickings of the garden came in, mom would make a pot of vegetable soup with a little of all the different vegetables....an ear of corn, a few tomatoes, an onion, a few peas and a few butter beans. Best soup I ever ate and I wish I could have some now. Mom would always can and freeze a lot of vegetables to last us through the winter and sometimes a pot of peas and a pan of cornbread was all we had for supper. But it sho was good eatin'!
Makes you wonder, with technology growing faster than the human mind...sm
something is bound to crash! I think my kids are probably responsible for about half of those text messages, thank goodness for unlimited!!
Too bad we can't develop the technology to come up with a decent government!
Well, it keeps the population down
and lesbians don't spread HIV. Also, (see my other post) nobody leaves the toilet seat up. There's no fight over the TV remote, which is used only for selecting a channel someone actually wants to watch. Additonally (and this is a big plus in my book) there are none of them little tiny hairs that are left in the bathroom sink after a guy shaves. Nobody opens a cupboard door for a split second, closes it and yells, 'Honey, where's the ........?'
When you want to indoctrinate a population...
you start with children and youth. Socialism 101.
US population replacing itself.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/World/Story/STIStory_352004.html
March 19, 2009
40% babies out-of-wedlock
Behind the number is both good and bad news. While it shows the US population is more than replacing itself, a healthy trend, the teen birth rate was up for a second year in a row. -- PHOTO: AFP
ATLANTA - MORE babies were born in the United States in 2007 than any year in the nation's history - and a wedding ring made increasingly little difference in the matter.
The 4,317,119 births, reported by federal researchers on Wednesday, topped a record first set in 1957 at the height of the baby boom.
Abortions down to lowest levels
Meanwhile, US abortions dropped to their lowest levels in decades, according to other reports. Some have attributed the abortion decline to better use of contraceptives, but other experts have wondered if the rise in births might indicate a failure in proper use of contraceptives. Some earlier studies have shown declining availability of abortions.
The statistics are based on a review of most 2007 birth certificates by the National Centre for Health Statistics, part of the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention.
... more
Behind the number is both good and bad news. While it shows the US population is more than replacing itself, a healthy trend, the teen birth rate was up for a second year in a row.
The birth rate rose slightly for women of all ages, and births to unwed mothers reached an all-time high of about 40 per cent, continuing a trend that started years ago. More than three-quarters of these women were 20 or older.
For a variety of reasons, it's become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband, said Duke University's S. Philip Morgan, a leading fertility researcher.
Even happy couples may be living together without getting married, experts say. And more women - especially those in their 30s and 40s - are choosing to have children despite their single status.
The new numbers suggest the second year of a baby boomlet, with US fertility rates higher in every racial group, the highest among Hispanic women. On average, a US woman has 2.1 babies in her lifetime. That's the 'magic number' required for a population to replace itself.
Countries with much lower rates - such as Japan and Italy - face future labour shortages and eroding tax bases as they fail to reproduce enough to take care of their aging elders.
While the number of births in the US reached nearly 4.3 million in 2006, mainly due to a larger population, especially a growing number of Hispanics, it's not clear the boomlet will last. Some experts think birth rates are already declining because of the economic recession that began in late 2007.
The 2007 statistical snapshot reflected a relatively good economy coupled with cultural trends that promoted childbirth, she and others noted. -- AP
US population replacing itself.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/World/Story/STIStory_352004.html
March 19, 2009
40% babies out-of-wedlock
Behind the number is both good and bad news. While it shows the US population is more than replacing itself, a healthy trend, the teen birth rate was up for a second year in a row. -- PHOTO: AFP
ATLANTA - MORE babies were born in the United States in 2007 than any year in the nation's history - and a wedding ring made increasingly little difference in the matter.
The 4,317,119 births, reported by federal researchers on Wednesday, topped a record first set in 1957 at the height of the baby boom.
Abortions down to lowest levels
Meanwhile, US abortions dropped to their lowest levels in decades, according to other reports. Some have attributed the abortion decline to better use of contraceptives, but other experts have wondered if the rise in births might indicate a failure in proper use of contraceptives. Some earlier studies have shown declining availability of abortions.
The statistics are based on a review of most 2007 birth certificates by the National Centre for Health Statistics, part of the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention.
... more
Behind the number is both good and bad news. While it shows the US population is more than replacing itself, a healthy trend, the teen birth rate was up for a second year in a row.
The birth rate rose slightly for women of all ages, and births to unwed mothers reached an all-time high of about 40 per cent, continuing a trend that started years ago. More than three-quarters of these women were 20 or older.
For a variety of reasons, it's become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband, said Duke University's S. Philip Morgan, a leading fertility researcher.
Even happy couples may be living together without getting married, experts say. And more women - especially those in their 30s and 40s - are choosing to have children despite their single status.
The new numbers suggest the second year of a baby boomlet, with US fertility rates higher in every racial group, the highest among Hispanic women. On average, a US woman has 2.1 babies in her lifetime. That's the 'magic number' required for a population to replace itself.
Countries with much lower rates - such as Japan and Italy - face future labour shortages and eroding tax bases as they fail to reproduce enough to take care of their aging elders.
While the number of births in the US reached nearly 4.3 million in 2006, mainly due to a larger population, especially a growing number of Hispanics, it's not clear the boomlet will last. Some experts think birth rates are already declining because of the economic recession that began in late 2007.
The 2007 statistical snapshot reflected a relatively good economy coupled with cultural trends that promoted childbirth, she and others noted. -- AP
US population replacing itself.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/World/Story/STIStory_352004.html
March 19, 2009
40% babies out-of-wedlock
Behind the number is both good and bad news. While it shows the US population is more than replacing itself, a healthy trend, the teen birth rate was up for a second year in a row. -- PHOTO: AFP
ATLANTA - MORE babies were born in the United States in 2007 than any year in the nation's history - and a wedding ring made increasingly little difference in the matter.
The 4,317,119 births, reported by federal researchers on Wednesday, topped a record first set in 1957 at the height of the baby boom.
Abortions down to lowest levels
Meanwhile, US abortions dropped to their lowest levels in decades, according to other reports. Some have attributed the abortion decline to better use of contraceptives, but other experts have wondered if the rise in births might indicate a failure in proper use of contraceptives. Some earlier studies have shown declining availability of abortions.
The statistics are based on a review of most 2007 birth certificates by the National Centre for Health Statistics, part of the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention.
... more
Behind the number is both good and bad news. While it shows the US population is more than replacing itself, a healthy trend, the teen birth rate was up for a second year in a row.
The birth rate rose slightly for women of all ages, and births to unwed mothers reached an all-time high of about 40 per cent, continuing a trend that started years ago. More than three-quarters of these women were 20 or older.
For a variety of reasons, it's become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband, said Duke University's S. Philip Morgan, a leading fertility researcher.
Even happy couples may be living together without getting married, experts say. And more women - especially those in their 30s and 40s - are choosing to have children despite their single status.
The new numbers suggest the second year of a baby boomlet, with US fertility rates higher in every racial group, the highest among Hispanic women. On average, a US woman has 2.1 babies in her lifetime. That's the 'magic number' required for a population to replace itself.
Countries with much lower rates - such as Japan and Italy - face future labour shortages and eroding tax bases as they fail to reproduce enough to take care of their aging elders.
While the number of births in the US reached nearly 4.3 million in 2006, mainly due to a larger population, especially a growing number of Hispanics, it's not clear the boomlet will last. Some experts think birth rates are already declining because of the economic recession that began in late 2007.
The 2007 statistical snapshot reflected a relatively good economy coupled with cultural trends that promoted childbirth, she and others noted. -- AP
US population replacing itself.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/World/Story/STIStory_352004.html
March 19, 2009
40% babies out-of-wedlock
Behind the number is both good and bad news. While it shows the US population is more than replacing itself, a healthy trend, the teen birth rate was up for a second year in a row. -- PHOTO: AFP
ATLANTA - MORE babies were born in the United States in 2007 than any year in the nation's history - and a wedding ring made increasingly little difference in the matter.
The 4,317,119 births, reported by federal researchers on Wednesday, topped a record first set in 1957 at the height of the baby boom.
Abortions down to lowest levels
Meanwhile, US abortions dropped to their lowest levels in decades, according to other reports. Some have attributed the abortion decline to better use of contraceptives, but other experts have wondered if the rise in births might indicate a failure in proper use of contraceptives. Some earlier studies have shown declining availability of abortions.
The statistics are based on a review of most 2007 birth certificates by the National Centre for Health Statistics, part of the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention.
... more
Behind the number is both good and bad news. While it shows the US population is more than replacing itself, a healthy trend, the teen birth rate was up for a second year in a row.
The birth rate rose slightly for women of all ages, and births to unwed mothers reached an all-time high of about 40 per cent, continuing a trend that started years ago. More than three-quarters of these women were 20 or older.
For a variety of reasons, it's become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband, said Duke University's S. Philip Morgan, a leading fertility researcher.
Even happy couples may be living together without getting married, experts say. And more women - especially those in their 30s and 40s - are choosing to have children despite their single status.
The new numbers suggest the second year of a baby boomlet, with US fertility rates higher in every racial group, the highest among Hispanic women. On average, a US woman has 2.1 babies in her lifetime. That's the 'magic number' required for a population to replace itself.
Countries with much lower rates - such as Japan and Italy - face future labour shortages and eroding tax bases as they fail to reproduce enough to take care of their aging elders.
While the number of births in the US reached nearly 4.3 million in 2006, mainly due to a larger population, especially a growing number of Hispanics, it's not clear the boomlet will last. Some experts think birth rates are already declining because of the economic recession that began in late 2007.
The 2007 statistical snapshot reflected a relatively good economy coupled with cultural trends that promoted childbirth, she and others noted. -- AP
African-American population
It's a good thing if the black population is ever growing into the middle class. It means that that demographic is benefiting from workfare and the changes in welfare that kept the culture dependent soley on the government for many years. The most striking thing about New Orleans is that it is one of the most welfare ridden cities left in the country, and that is why so many people there were in such a poverty state. The able people haven't been made to start providing for and/or bettering themselves. New Orleans is an example of what happens in a nanny state. It's not that the government was not involved. It was involved too much. It's glaringly obvious.
Nothing silly about population control.
BTW....we ARE animals.
State population: Same as Austin, Tx.
nm
so now abortion as population control...
lovely thought! As far as my daughter getting pregnant--there are options other than abortion. Plenty of people who want babies can't have them--or there is always the good old fashioned taking responsibility for your actions. I have one child that was a surprise and don't know what I would do without him. With my second "surprise" on the way, I am certain that I will never feel that keeping my baby was a mistake, but I am certain that I would have thought killing him was! The timing is bad, I was a little irresponsible, but babies have an uncanny way of making people happy. It seems to me that our world could use a little more of that.
No, not population control, Einstein. But in
an already overcrowded world, what sense does it make to bring an UNWANTED child into the world? Babies dont automatically make people happy when their birth is a mistake and it ruins their lives.
He's won the Islam population......whoop de doo
nm
Nope, she's right. He won that population hands down
x
He is president for the Muslim population
))
Population is comparable to Memphis, TN - hahahahahaha
80% approval rating - WHAT A JOKE!!!
Alaska is the largest state, accounting for over 15% of the entire land area of the United States. For all its size, Alaska has the lowest population density of all fifty states, with just 1.1 person per square mile.2 By comparison, South Dakota has ten times as many people per square mile.3 Alaska's entire population is comparable to the city of Memphis, Tennessee, which is the 17th largest city in the United States.
http://www.mahalo.com/Alaska_Population
The moderate Islamists, that is the general population
condemn the actions of the fundamentalists and radicals, they do not agree with them, as those backfired on them.
These wars have nothing to do with religion, they are all political wars.
|
