<p>
Believe it or not,there are other organizations which provide birth control end educational services, as opposed to being abortion pushers.</p>
<p>The breakdown or lack of family in poor households is probably the most important contributor to their plight…so should taxpayers pay for problems they have caused? Help, absolutely, provide them everday costs of living,no…</p>
<p>For those who want to do something to help the protest, I read that Adriennes Pizza in the financial district will deliver to the protesters in Liberty Plaza.</p>
<p>The rest of us should bring eggs to throw at them.</p>
<p>" Did any of the families at the private school gathering attend urban public schools? I agree with you that families keep wealth by delaying childbearing and limiting the number of children they have. They do this to keep resources in their own family and not share them with other families (except through marriage). Is this greedy?"</p>
<p>Wow, that is really convoluted reasoning. Are you saying people are greedy by waiting to have children until they can afford them, or did I misunderstand that? So are the generous people the little girls who have babies at 14 and then make the government support them as they attempt to keep their kids out of gangs and jail, and perpetuate the misery through the next generation? Having kids is difficult and expensive, even for a two parent family with stable jobs. I can’t imagine the struggle of having children as a teenager, on your own. Why anyone would be crazy enough to walk through that door is beyond me.</p>
<p>Teenage pregnancy has been going down…</p>
<p>[Facts</a> on American Teens’ Sexual and Reproductive Health](<a href=“http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-ATSRH.html]Facts”>http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-ATSRH.html)</p>
<p>"• Each year, almost 750,000 U.S. women aged 15–19 become pregnant. [18] Two-thirds of all teen pregnancies occur among 18–19-year-olds. [18]</p>
<p>• Overall, 72 pregnancies occurred per 1,000 women aged 15–19 in 2006, a slight increase from the previous year (70 per 1,000). The 2005 rate was a record low and represented a 41% decline from the peak (117 per 1,000), which occurred in 1990. [18]</p>
<p>• The majority of the decline in teen pregnancy rates in the United States (86%) is due to teens’ increasingly consistent contraceptive use; the rest is due to higher proportions of teens choosing to delay sexual activity. [19]</p>
<p>• Despite the decline, the U.S. teen pregnancy rate continues to be one of the highest in the developed world—more than twice as high as rates in Canada (28 per 1,000 women aged 15–19 in 2006) and Sweden (31 per 1,000). [20]</p>
<p>• For the first time since the early 1990s, the overall U.S. teen pregnancy rate increased in 2006, rising 3%. It is too soon to tell whether this reversal is simply a short-term fluctuation or the beginning of a long-term trend. [18]</p>
<p>• In 2005, New Mexico had the highest teenage pregnancy rate (93 per 1,000); rates in Nevada, Arizona, Texas and Mississippi followed. The lowest rates were in New Hampshire (33), Vermont, Maine, Minnesota and North Dakota. [18]</p>
<p>• Eighty-two percent of teen pregnancies are unplanned; they account for about one-fifth of all unintended pregnancies annually. [21]</p>
<p>• Fifty-nine percent of pregnancies among 15–19-year-olds in 2006 ended in birth, and 27% in abortion (see chart). [18]</p>
<p>• Black and Hispanic women have the highest teen pregnancy rates (126 and 127 per 1,000 women aged 15–19, respectively); non-Hispanic whites have the lowest rate (44 per 1,000). [18]</p>
<p>• The pregnancy rate among black teens decreased 45% between 1990 and 2005, more than the overall U.S. teen pregnancy rate declined during the same period (41%). [18]</p>
<p>• Most female teens report that they would be very upset (58%) or a little upset (29%) if they got pregnant, while the rest report that they would be a little or very pleased. [1]
CHILDBEARING</p>
<p>• Ten percent of all U.S. births are to girls aged 19 or younger. [22]</p>
<p>• Most births to teen mothers are first births. Nineteen percent are second or higher order births. [22]</p>
<p>• The share of births to teen mothers that are nonmarital rose from 79% in 2000 to 87% in 2008. Yet, over the last several decades, the share of all nonmarital births that are to teenagers has been declining, from 52% in 1975 to 22% in 2008.[22, 23]</p>
<p>• In 2008, some 42 births occurred per 1,000 women aged 15–19; this rate marks a 33% decline from the peak rate of 62 reached in 1991. However, after decades of decline, the teen birthrate increased in 2006 and 2007, only to fall again in 2008. [22]</p>
<p>• Six percent of teen mothers aged 15–19 received late or no prenatal care. Babies born to teens are more likely to be low-birth-weight than are those born to women in their 20s and 30s. [24]</p>
<p>• Teen childbearing is associated with reduced educational attainment. Teen mothers are substantially less likely than women who delay childbearing to complete high school or obtain a GED by age 22 (66% vs. 94%). [25] Fewer than 2% of teens who have a baby before age 18 attain a college degree by age 30. [26]
FATHERHOOD</p>
<p>• Most teen males report that they would be very upset (47%) or a little upset (34%) if they got a female pregnant, while the rest report that they would be pleased or a little pleased. [1]</p>
<p>• Teen fatherhood rates vary considerably by race. In 2006, the rate among black males aged 15–19 who became fathers (34 per 1,000) was more than twice that among whites (15 per 1,000). [27]</p>
<p>• The rate of teen fatherhood declined 25% between 1990 and 2006, from 24 to 18 per 1,000 males aged 15–19. This decline was far more substantial among blacks than among whites (38% vs. 18%). [27]
ABORTION</p>
<p>• Women aged 15–19 had 200,420 abortions in 2006. [18]</p>
<p>• The reasons teens most frequently give for having an abortion are concern about how having a baby would change their lives, inability to afford a baby now and feeling insufficiently mature to raise a child. [28]</p>
<p>• As of June 2010, Laws in 36 states required that a minor seeking an abortion involve her parents in the decision. "</p>
<p>I can’t resist a shoutout for Planned Parenthood. If I hadn’t had personal experience with them, I might believe what I heard in the press about them.</p>
<p>When I was younger and had little money and was too embarrassed to talk to my parents or doctor about birth control, Planned Parenthood provided it in a private and inexpensive way to me. When I was pregnant with my first child and didn’t want to inform the military about it (because I would have been instantly grounded), they provided me with my prenatal vitamins and pregnancy counseling for very low cost.</p>
<p>And I absolutely don’t believe that they celebrate abortion. When I went to them to get a pregnancy test, the secretary at the front desk informed me I was pregnant. She asked me quietly what I was going to do. When I smiled and said I was married and we were trying to have a baby, the woman yelled out, “She’s going to have a baby!” And everyone in the office cheered and clapped. Well, so much for privacy, but I was very excited and happy.</p>
<p>Your personal experiences always have a greater impact than the spin of what you read. The govt should absolutely give money to Planned Parenthood, because it is far cheaper to provide people birth control and maternity vitamins, and yes, even access to abortion…than for people to have babies who can’t take care of them, or who can’t afford decent pregnancy care. If they defund them, I know that I and others like me will step up donations. Is it really such a good idea to attempt to get rid of one of the few agencies that provide low cost birth control and pregnancy assistance and vitamins, purely because they give abortion assistance (many of their clinics do not perform abortions)?</p>
<p>Along the way I have gotten help and I have given it back. That’s how it works. I waited until I was 39 to have a child who by the way is the love of my life, educated and giving back. I can’t imagine telling people when they can have children. That is definitely a wicked world. I don’t want to live or promote that world. I work with the children of rich people and money doesn’t necessarily create a happy home where children thrive. Deprivation can as well. Love doesn’t ask for cash to exist.</p>
<p>
I’ve had personal experience with planned parenthood. Like other things, it may depend on where you live.</p>
<p>“I’ve had personal experience with planned parenthood. Like other things, it may depend on where you live.”</p>
<p>True. And who you are dealing with that day.</p>
<p>“I can’t imagine telling people when they can have children. That is definitely a wicked world. I don’t want to live or promote that world. I work with the children of rich people and money doesn’t necessarily create a happy home where children thrive.”</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone is suggesting making laws or telling people what they must do. Is it really so unreasonable to strongly advise and inform people that in order to place their children in the best possible circumstances, they should not have children when they are young, wait until they are married and financially secure? You can purposefully walk through that door towards poverty (and then try to change it), or you can walk through the door to the best chance of success. Money may not bring happiness, but a lack of a sense of security, having to live in an area with poor and dangerous schools, lack of health care and a family to take care of you sure doesn’t help stack the odds.</p>
<p>It cracks me up…teenage pregnancy is declining…yet…the standard of living is also declining…poverty is going up…I thought if teen pregnancy goes down…poverty rates would go down…the standard of living would go up…</p>
<p>
Is it really? Have you scoped on the census data?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Video Games and Social Networking.</p>
<p>The door to the best chance of success is when we all work together to make it happen.</p>
<p>That is what is going on in all its confusion and disorganization on wall street…</p>
<p>I posted a link earlier…about teenage pregnancy declining…</p>
<p>teenage pregnancy is dropping…and the standard of living is declining…obviously there are reasons why the standard of living is declining that have nothing to do with teenage pregnancy…that is my point…:)</p>
<p>census data…</p>
<p>[A</a> Decade With No Income Gains - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/a-decade-with-no-income-gain/]A”>A Decade With No Income Gains - The New York Times)
"The typical American household made less money last year than the typical household made a full decade ago.</p>
<p>To me, that’s the big news from the Census Bureau’s annual report on income, poverty and health insurance, which was released this morning. Median household fell to $50,303 last year, from $52,163 in 2007. In 1998, median income was $51,295. All these numbers are adjusted for inflation.</p>
<p>In the four decades that the Census Bureau has been tracking household income, there has never before been a full decade in which median income failed to rise. (The previous record was seven years, ending in 1985.) Other Census data suggest that it also never happened between the late 1940s and the late 1960s. So it doesn’t seem to have happened since at least the 1930s."</p>
<p><a href=“http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/poverty-rate-rises/[/url]”>http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/poverty-rate-rises/</a></p>
<p>Conveniently left out the data about the lifestyle of “poverty” in America.</p>
<p>The protesters are beyond clueless. They’ve been raving about how they have to get the attention of Wall Street titans by inconveniencing them. Then, as they block traffic and bridges, they shout about wanting to know how the Wall Street titans’ secretaries commute. Umm. Hello you entitled, stupid brats. They use the bridges, streets, subways and buses. Inconvenienced, bigwigs will stay home and tele-commute. It’s only the lowly who are being inconvenienced by the wealthy, entitled leisure class of protesters.</p>
<p>[Americans</a> spending less ? but not on health care or gas | The Lookout - Yahoo! News](<a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/americans-spending-less-not-health-care-gas-170917461.html]Americans”>Americans spending less — but not on health care or gas)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am thinking, as long as we actually have any money, we really don’t have a choice about transportation and health care spending.</p>
<p>Why people are getting fed up…</p>
<p>[Income</a> Gaps Between Very Rich and Everyone Else More Than Tripled In Last Three Decades, New Data Show — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities](<a href=“http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3220]Income”>http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3220)</p>
<p>"The new CBO data the most comprehensive data available on changes in incomes and taxes for different income groups also show the following:</p>
<pre><code>In 2007, the share of after-tax income going to the top 1 percent hit its highest level (17.1 percent) since 1979, while the share going to the middle one-fifth of Americans shrank to its lowest level during this period (14.1 percent).
Between 1979 and 2007, average after-tax incomes for the top 1 percent rose by 281 percent after adjusting for inflation an increase in income of $973,100 per household compared to increases of 25 percent ($11,200 per household) for the middle fifth of households and 16 percent ($2,400 per household) for the bottom fifth (see Figure 1).
If all groups after-tax incomes had grown at the same percentage rate over the 1979-2007 period, middle-income households would have received an additional $13,042 in 2007 and families in the bottom fifth would have received an additional $6,010.
In 2007, the average household in the top 1 percent had an income of $1.3 million, up $88,800 just from the prior year; this $88,800 gain is well above the total 2007 income of the average middle-income household ($55,300). [1]"
</code></pre>
<p>"The new CBO data the most comprehensive data available on changes in incomes and taxes for different income groups also show the following:</p>
<pre><code>In 2007, the share of after-tax income going to the top 1 percent hit its highest level (17.1 percent) since 1979, while the share going to the middle one-fifth of Americans shrank to its lowest level during this period (14.1 percent).
Between 1979 and 2007, average after-tax incomes for the top 1 percent rose by 281 percent after adjusting for inflation an increase in income of $973,100 per household compared to increases of 25 percent ($11,200 per household) for the middle fifth of households and 16 percent ($2,400 per household) for the bottom fifth (see Figure 1).
If all groups after-tax incomes had grown at the same percentage rate over the 1979-2007 period, middle-income households would have received an additional $13,042 in 2007 and families in the bottom fifth would have received an additional $6,010.
In 2007, the average household in the top 1 percent had an income of $1.3 million, up $88,800 just from the prior year; this $88,800 gain is well above the total 2007 income of the average middle-income household ($55,300). [1]"
</code></pre>
<p>zoosermom… INCOME is down…</p>
<p>"Legislation enacted under the Bush Administration provided taxpayers with about $1.7 trillion in tax cuts through 2008. Because high-income households received by far the largest tax cuts — not only in dollar terms but also as a percentage of income — the tax cuts have increased the concentration of after-tax income at the top of the spectrum.</p>
<p>The CBO data do not provide a direct measure of the impact of these tax policy changes because they also reflect the effects of changes in household incomes and other factors that influence tax payments. However, estimates by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center that consider only the impact of the tax policy changes demonstrate that the tax cuts have widened income inequality. As a direct result of the tax cuts enacted since 2001, the Tax Policy Center found that in 2007: [5]</p>
<pre><code>Households in the bottom fifth of the income spectrum received tax cuts averaging $29, which raised their after-tax incomes by an average of 0.4 percent.
Those in the middle fifth received tax cuts averaging $760, which raised their after-tax incomes by an average of 2.4 percent.
The top 1 percent of households received tax cuts averaging $41,077, which raised their after-tax incomes by an average of 5.0 percent.
Within the top 1 percent, those with incomes exceeding $1 million received tax cuts averaging $114,000, which raised their after-tax incomes by an average of 5.7 percent."
</code></pre>