On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 15:33:59 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:

The 'out of wedlock' birth rate in Washington, DC, is close to 60%,


Been dipping your wick?

Don't you practice what you preach?

---------------------------------
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:36:41 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

basskisser wrote:
"Dr. Dr. Smithers" wrote in message news:ne9ld.499302$mD.352160@attbi_s02...
"basskisser" atl_man2@a href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=1&k=yahoo%20com" onmouseover="window.status='yahoo.com'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"yahoo.com/a wrote in message
m...
"Dr. Dr. Smithers" wrote in message
news:ML4ld.329980$wV.329077@attbi_s54...
JimH,
You do realize that this was Harry's favorite method of posting in
rec.boats, it will take basskisser a few months to realize that Harry is
no
longer cut and pasting news articles. As soon as he realizes his master
has
moved on to new things, Basskisser will move on to whatever Harry is
doing.


As well as Fritz's, but you seem to condone it from him just fine, huh?


Can you show me one post where I condoned anything Fritz has done?

You kiss his ass constantly!!!!


Why do you bother with either of them, Bass? Neither is anything more
than a boil on the other's ass. Just dumpster them, and all they'll have
left is each other, Hertvig and Herring.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:07:21 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Gould 0738 wrote:
The 'out of wedlock' birth rate in Washington, DC, is close to 60%,
Chuck.

Whoops.

Probably so. But welfare changed 7 or 8 years ago, and you should get your
facts up to date before diving into a tirade based on old information. If the
OOW birth rate were 100%, that wouldn't negate the fact that many remarks about
welfare, typically heard from the far right, are no longer factually accurate.




I suspect you are quoting Herring here, since he is the one who is hung
up on the out-of-wedlock birth rate in DC, most probably because he's
trying to make a "racial" point without actually mentioning race.

"Out-of-wedlock" itself is not an issue. I know several women with
high-level jobs who earn more than Herring ever did, and who are
unmarried and decided to have a baby. The issue is one of supporting the
child. The answer is simple: more and better education for teens, and
decent training and jobs for teens who need to support themselves and a
child. And, of course, more easy access to birth control and abortion.

BTW, any number of "red" states have a climbing "out-of-wedlock" birth
rate. DC's, while the highest, is dropping. During the Clinton
Administration, the out-of-wedlock birth rate dropped for six years in a
row for ALL states.

The only possible conclusion...morality has gone down the tubes since
Bush was implanted.

"I suspect you are quoting Herring here...."

Harry, you've already responded to my post, what is there to
'suspect'?

Harry, are you pretending that you've kill filed me? Awwww Man!!

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On 15 Nov 2004 16:29:27 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Perhaps you could share some evidence of this fraud? Your concept of
"welfare" is outdated and has been for years.



May not be his fault. One of the strongest weapons in the propaganda bag has
always been, "The liberals in government take your hard earned tax dollars, the
very bread off your family's dinner table, and give it to dark skinned people
who live in the housing projects so that *those* people don't have to work at
all.

What a racist thing to say.



The people the liberals give your money to all have large families,
because the more often a woman gets pregnanat and has a kid- regardless who the
father is or whether she even knows who the father is- the more money the
liberals will give her."

And it's still true.


You still hear this argument on the right wing radio shows, see it repeated in
public forums, etc. Since welfare was reformed under the Clinton
Administration,

You means the republican lead congress initiative that Clinton
attached himself to?


there are certain groups who would simply prefer to pretend it
never happened. The traditional
"woman cranking out babies on welfare" propaganda technique is too powerful to
abandon merely because it is no longer true.

It is still true. They may have to jump through a few more hoops, but
it's still happening in many places.

Dave

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 10:02:12 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 07:01:16 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


I guess the news of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 has yet to reach you. It is no longer
welfare, more accurately, it is workfare.

In theory anyway.......

I find it almost laughable, in a sick sort of pathetic way, that these
people have the balls to complain about the "work" that they now have to
do to get their welfare money. I also wonder just how strict the people at
the "workfare" office are about making sure these people are actually
"working".


Perhaps you could share some evidence of this fraud? Your concept of
"welfare" is outdated and has been for years.

First off, each state is able to override many of the federal
guidelines, and continue to fund state run welfare programs.

A primer on what you can expect can be seen he

http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-03-96.html

Also, if I remember correctly, the program was set to expire in 2002.
So my "outdated" view of welfare may be "in style" once again.....

Dave

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 07:54:29 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


A primer on what you can expect can be seen he

http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-03-96.html

Dec. 3, 1996?


Also, if I remember correctly, the program was set to expire in 2002. So
my "outdated" view of welfare may be "in style" once again.....

It's been extended several (8) times. The present extension runs until
March, 2005.

May not be his fault. One of the strongest weapons in the propaganda bag has
always been, "The liberals in government take your hard earned tax dollars,
the
very bread off your family's dinner table, and give it to dark skinned
people
who live in the housing projects so that *those* people don't have to work
at
all.


What a racist thing to say.



Yes it is. Truly disgusting. Why do you guys keep it up, when it isn't true and
hasn't been for many years?

The people the liberals give your money to all have large families,
because the more often a woman gets pregnanat and has a kid- regardless who
the
father is or whether she even knows who the father is- the more money the
liberals will give her."

And it's still true.


It is still true. They may have to jump through a few more hoops, but
it's still happening in many places.



Ok Dave. Put up or shut up. We've had links to the welfare reform bill posted
here
to demonstrate the law has changed- vs. Dave Hall stating that the system still
allows women to crank out babies and spend a lifetime on welfare. (only with a
few more hoops).

Surely you can provide some evidence more compelling than "Sean Hannity and
Rush Limbaugh said......"

Or not.