Cunningham: America's "so-called noble poor" don't use birth control so that "the mom can get more checks in the mail from the government"
Bill Cunningham claimed that "[a]mong the so-called noble poor in America ... [b]irth control is not used so illegitimate children can be brought into the world, so the mom can get more checks in the mail from the government." Cunningham then added: "And then once the child is born, that is the key to financial riches in the poor communities -- white and black -- in America."
After declaring on the October 27 broadcast of his radio show that "most responsible couples engage in birth control so they don't bring children into the world they cannot afford," Bill Cunningham claimed that "[a]mong the so-called noble poor in America, just the opposite is true. Birth control is not used so illegitimate children can be brought into the world, so the mom can get more checks in the mail from the government." Cunningham then added: "And then once the child is born, that is the key to financial riches in the poor communities -- white and black -- in America. And that key is Section 8 housing and vouchers; the key is food stamps, no work -- if you work you're punished."
Cunningham continued: "If you do work, you're thrown off the public dole. You get your Medicaid card and free dental care. And then you become a mascot of the Democrat [sic] Party, who promises you more riches on condition you continue to act poorly."
From the October 27 broadcast of Clear Channel's The Big Show with Bill Cunningham:
CUNNINGHAM: Nothing's gonna change. You can have all the "stop the violence" rallies and marches you want. Whether it's Avondale or Chicago or Lexington or Atlanta or -- wherever you wanna go -- New York, Los Angeles, Portland, Oregon, whatever. It's not gonna have any impact until government incentivizes families to raise the children they bring into the world. And as long as government is paying individuals to act irresponsibly -- white, black, brown, yellow, or red -- what difference does it make?
It isn't about color, it's about government paying for bad behavior. Most responsible couples engage in birth control so they don't bring children into the world they cannot afford. Among the so-called noble poor in America, just the opposite is true. Birth control is not used so illegitimate children can be brought into the world, so the mom can get more checks in the mail from the government. And then once the child is born, that is the key to financial riches in the poor communities -- white and black -- in America. And that key is Section 8 housing and vouchers; the key is food stamps, no work -- if you work you're punished. If you do work, you're thrown off the public dole. You get your Medicaid card and free dental care. And then you become a mascot of the Democrat [sic] Party, who promises you more riches on condition you continue to act poorly. If Obama would address that problem, and being the child of illegitimacy, Obama should know that perhaps more than anyone else. How was his life growing up?
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
The person that lifted the rock in which this sleezy bastard lived under and offered him his own show.... needs to be jailed for for dumping this idiot upon us!
And apparently Bill Cunningham's mom didn't have an abortion so she could get more checks in the mail from the March of Dimes.
Ah, the good old days. When they used to pay welfare mothers to have more babies.
"that is the key to financial riches"
So, who is getting rich off the government by having kids?
So, who is getting rich off the government by having kids?
I guess that in Bill Cunningham's warped mind, they're rich because they get free cheese, food stamps, and WIC coupons........
As much as I loathe people who fleece the government out of our money, I am always amused by some of these rightwingers who are so freaked out over gay marriage, as it will be the death of traditional marriage and drive it into ruination.......yet they offer up a damn good reason to support gay marriage while they trash poor people who work the system while in traditional marriages procreating more and more, something two guys or two women could never do.
Just a thought....
people who fleece the government out of our money - Tommy
And which people might those be? In anticipation of your answer, I will venture a guess that whatever group you name pales by a microscopic fraction to the fleecing that has been perpetrated by the defense department and the financial markets.
Your knee jerk reaction to my post is not unexpected, however your question doesn't deserve an answer, it's so asinine.
I loathe people who say people are fleecing the government but then refuse to identify who those mysterious people are.
You remain the most intellectually dishonest poster to this site.
Whether you agree with welfare or not, Cunningham said that the "so-called noble poor" which consists of "mom[s who] can get more checks in the mail from the government."
He made a disgusting generalization, and you with your "people who fleece the government out of our money" comment seem to reaffirm part of what he said.
So I think it is a valid question to ask and deserves an answer.
Well, what you seem to think I reaffirmed is irralevant to me. If you disagree with my statement about those that fleece the government, then you are the one who needs to qualify your reasons why. My statement stands.
I loathe people who fleece the government out of our money
Such as?
I can't disagree with your statement: I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Who are "the people fleecing the government"? I'm against people "fleecing the government" in general. The question is, do you think that all people on welfare are "fleecing the government"?
And speaking of "ralevancy": you are commenting under a heading of an article featuring some idiot who says that all the people on welfare are crooks who abuse the system.
Maybe I'm asking you the wrong if you get so defensive about someone seeking clarification from you. So let me try again:
May your lordship please condescend to our level in order to enlighten us on the meaning of your most astute and reasonably-said comment, "people who fleece the government out of our money"? Please, your majesty, we do not have your highly-evolved brain.
Your inimical blather is always transparent, Tommy. You secretly delight in the covert anarchy you constantly spew, your bitchy contentions are mere retorts while “positive,” “helpful,” and “constructive” are not in your personal vocabulary or mindset yet their antitheses are and warmly embraced. “Bellicose” befits your words; “bitchy, petulant fifth column troll” is just you.
people who fleece the government out of our money - Tommy
Like Halliburton????
My stepdaughter is pregnant with her third child. I can say with no uncertainty whatsoever that there are no "riches" pouring in from her government assistance. Anyone who thinks otherwise has no idea what they're talking about.
The "welfare queen", popping out children and living high on Government largess, is a Republican fabrication, probably cooked up by one of Ronald Reagan's Trickle Down Toadies.
my question is this; if your stepdaughter is on goverment assistence now, why is she pregnant with another child?
Because she doesn't believe in abortion.
If you don't get pregnant in the first place you don't have to worry about that.
None of my business here, but just a thought, perhaps she lives in one of those places where pharmacists refuse to distribute contaceptives because of whacky religous nonsense.
sure. It's the pharmacists and the religous people's fault for people becoming pregnant, i love liberal thought.
I love cons who attempt to think logically.
Keep reaching for that rainbow!
Maybe she was inspired by Bristol Palin.
Right, but since people do have sex, and do get pregnant, what do you propose? Either you wholeheartedly support abortion, or you understand the need for government assistance. Otherwise you're basing policy on idealism.
That's all fine and good, but if you can't afford the children you have, and your excuse is I want sex anyway and damn the consequences, then maybe Cunningham is right. It's called responsibility, something liberals shirk all the time.
She's not a liberal.
Again, what do you propose? You can't very well say women shouldn't have abortions because the fetus is sacred, then say "you're on your own" when the child is born.
It's not like I think this is some wonderful situation, by the way. It's not a question of whether people should be responsible or not, it's a question of reasonable consequences.
Jimmy is just articulating the typical Social Darwinist mantra; "don't have children if you can't afford them". If you violate this dictum, either by accident or carelessness.... too bad for you. Jimmy probably has a similar approach to healthcare ..... "Don't get sick if you can't afford it."
The funny thing is that his kind love to promote "social Darwinism" but deny biological Darwinism.
An accurate observation. Essentially, if you follow their doctrine to its logical conclusion, it results in something resembling feudalism.
As Brab said, how do you know the step daughter is a liberal? Funny, most of the people that I know around me that are government support have McCain Palin signs in their front yards. So keep thinking that people who are on the government dole, for one reason or another, are liberals. Lots of times, it just isn't true.
And remember, liberals are the ones who want to teach comprehensive sex education in our schools, conservatives are the ones who want to just teach abstinence. Liberals are the ones who want to make condoms available easily to teenagers, conservatives are the ones who don't even want to think about doing something like that. Liberals are the ones who want to make it a choice of a woman whether or not she has a baby, conservatives are the ones who want them to have said baby no matter what. And again JamesB, you prove out the point that many of us have made here in the past, that there are a lot of conservatives out there who preach about being pro-life, right up until that baby is born...
And, no doubt, Conservatives like JimmyB oppose any assistance for childcare, which might enable these "welfare queens" to get jobs. Chances are he also opposes raising the minimum wage, which might enable these women to support their families without government aid.
Social Darwinism, or.... "To Hell with you, I've got mine."
mine is about personal responsibility. If you can't afford to raise your children then it is an abomination to bring them into this world, if you find that offensive I could care less. It is the truth. how is it fair for any child? then you become pregnant and because you can't afford your own child you expect me or someone else to foot the bill? Incredible. Liberals love to spout about compassion, yet they don't give a damn that a child has to beg for food and clothing, it's pitiful. So don't sit there and blame everyone and anyone like you liberals always do, it's the conservatives fault because we don't throw condoms from the rooftops, be responsible for your own decisions and stop being the party of babies and blame someone else.
Since we know that people are going to screw up, despite your eloquent preaching, what do you propose we do with the resulting children?
we take care of them, of course. But we don't reward bad choices and sluff off those that make them by making excuses for their choices.
"we take care of them, of course."
I agree. How do you do that without "rewarding" the mother? Do you take the child away?
That made no sense at all. The people who want the child to get food and clothing aren't compassionate?
no. If you had thought about that before you were irresponsible in your choice to have sex without protection, that child wouldn't be dependent on you begging for anything. it's morally wrong. support those you bring into this world, why is that so controversial for liberals?
So, your solution is to shake your finger at irresponsible parents?
Brab has already said that his stepdaughter is not a liberal; Mag has mentioned knowing McCain\Palin supporters who are also on govt. assistance. So why, in spite of this, do you keep bringing up the whole "liberals are irresponsible" line in your posts?
But abortion is supposed to be the "irresponsible" action. She committed herself to her children, she brought them into the world, and she's done what she can for them. Isn't that what she's supposed to do? Again, it's easy to say she shouldn't get pregnant, but you're not telling us what someone should do when it happens.
Ah yes, the right's favorite sanctimonious rant. Perhaps if you guys weren't so dead set on abstinence only sex ed and religious zealot pharmacists people would have more resources from which to make responsible choices.
JB, one thing is being overlooked in this equation. When I see a situation such as this, the first question I ask is "Where is the father in this?" The woman does bear some responsibility in this, but no more that the man(?).
To follow up on Oscar's comment, James ["JB, one thing is being overlooked in this equation. When I see a situation such as this, the first question I ask is "Where is the father in this?" The woman does bear some responsibility in this, but no more that the man(?)."], do you support very stringent laws making the man equally financially responsible--as in ALL expenses, not just some pittance percentage of his income--equally with a capital E financially responsible for the child he fathered? In anticipation of a "how does he know it's his" reply, yes the government, via low bidder contract and wheeling dealing, could provide parental testing free since dna testing is beyond the financial reach of most people. Too complicated? Or too scary?
First, it's "I couldn't care less". I hate to correct people on the internets, but that's just one of my biggest pet peeves ever in the English language. If you say, "I could care less" that indicates that you have some space in your thinking, and or compassion to possibly care less. If you "couldn't care less", then you have hit the rock bottom of caring. I'm just saying.
Do you even realize how much welfare costs this country? It's a pittance. Do you realize also that there are many folks out there who do have kids who can't work. Why? Do you know what daycare and child care costs? Apparently not. I have a friend of my wife's who was working a medium 6 figure job in London. Her and her huband were paying so much money into childcare, that she quit her job, took a small part time job, and now they're coming out ahead. Now think for a minute. I know sometimes that is hard for you to do. You are a couple. You have say, 3 kids. You both work near minimum wage jobs, say you're pulling in, even, 10 bucks per hour. Per week you're making $800/week between the 2 of you, before getting taxes pulled out. Say, you're getting taxed at around, oh, 25% (ballpark here). Now you're bringing home $600/week total between 2 people. Say you're renting a 2 bedroom apartment, that's going to run you, oh about $700/month, even for a cheap on. Utilities (basic electricity, and possibly heat/cooling), going to run you another $150-200 per month right? Now say you need to place your kids into daycare so that you can work. That's going to run, a couple of hundred bucks per week, at the cheap end of things. We're talking about 1700/month without adding in, you know, food, gas, clothing, and other essential items.
Looking at even some rough numbers, can you see why, even 2 people who work full time, might need some assistance? I'm happy to pay into a system that gives people this assistance. Why? Because I'm doing OK in life, and I have some extra money, and I'm not sad that it can go to things like welfare, and foodstamps. I think that's a better use of my tax money, than say, corporate welfare, war, and other things I disagree with.
I remember as a child in the '70's, growing up in a single parent home (my parents divorced when I was two years old). My mother worked full-time and my father worked full-time - along with paying child support to my mother. This was still not enough, so we stood in line for food stamps.
Yes, this lib got government assistance when he was younger. This government assistance put food in his mouth and helped keep a roof over his head. Decades later, this lib who grew up on food stamps is now doing quite well - and is very happy to share his wealth with those who are less fortunate - or those who were like him when he was growing up.
Just like those who helped him keep food in his belly and a roof over his head so long ago, this lib is very happy to give back to the community. It's payback. It's a simplified 'thank you', in a round-a-bout way. It's about doing your part to help everyone on the road to prosperity.
Somehow I'd like to think that G-d is pleased.
So, my mother, after her divorce from my father, couldn't afford to raise me on her own, with the pittance of child support from my father and the very little she was making working full-time. So my being here is an abomination because my mother couldn't afford to raise me on her own? If you truly believe that, JamesB, you need psychological help.
To me, it boils down to this: Conservatives want to mandate what people do in their bedrooms. They want to mandate who can have children and whether or not these families will get some government support. Conservatives want to you 'pay for your bad decision to have sex and get pregnant'. But, Conservatives don't want you to have an abortion if, for whatever reason, you should decide you want one. So, for Cons, it's support the baby while it's in the womb, but as soon as it's born, be damned sure that it's not getting any help from anyone else. Nice. Real compassionate, Cons.
As far as welfare goes, it's you Cons who have been doing the blaming. You blame lazy welfare mothers for taking your hard-earned money. I'll admit, there are few cases where mothers have been lazy and had a child or two which they've used to acquire more government aid. That is not the norm. It's not happening as much as you might think.
Finally, (and this is a gem, JamesB) you state that 'Liberals love to spout about compassion, yet they don't give a damn that a child has to beg for food and clothing, it's pitiful'.
Your logic sucks, JamesB. If the child's mother is receiving government aid, they don't have to beg for food and clothing. It is WITHOUT this aid that the child would have to beg for his daily needs. That is the whole point of government aid.
Wise up, dumbass.
Some facts for ya:
Teen pregnancy rates are higher in red states.
Abortion rates are higher in red states.
Now that Obama has turned those red states blue, they may or may not drag down the blue states rates, but the above facts have been true for quite some time.
Some facts about welfare.
This low life forgot to add how important it is to get a Cadillac once the checks start coming in.
Rightwing scum should never ridicule someone's not using birth control or else he might suffer the wrath of the Vatican.
Nothing quite as exciting as getting pregnant and signing up with the state for that high living on five hundred a month.
There are a number of people in this comment thread who appear to have fallen for the "welfare queen" myth.
Did you know that most women on welfare are employed and work at a job?????
Shocking, I know. How very dare they not fit themselves to the mythology that you believe in.
I think a little perspective is called for here. Let's assume that we could quantify this claim, that there are "X" number of women out there who have more children specifically to get more welfare. The amount of money we spend on those cases in a year would be equal to.... what.... three hours in Iraq?
Jesus.... the Numbnuts administration "misplaced" NINE BILLION DOLLARS in Iraq. Not spent, but LOST... as in "Where the hell did it go?"
I didn't hear one peep out of these so-called "fiscal conservatives" about that.
If there are so many of these women out there, why does'nt this Bill person have a few on his show and interview them? Let's hear it from the horses' mouth how great it is to have a big welfare brood. Also, just a minor factual error, there would not be more checks, just one getting bigger. Even the welfare office can figure out how to write checks efficiently.
That's b/c the lost 9 billion dollars ended up in the hands of the conservative right wingers themselves. You don't think they would rat themselves out, do you?
You're probably right. Maybe we should look in that man-sized safe in Darth Cheney's office. Would 9 billion dollars even fit in the bed of a pickup truck?
As politically incorrect as it is, this is actually true. This is why if you go to a swap-meet or even Wal Mart, many of the parents will be trailed by 4-7 kids without even 1 year between their ages. Particularly the latino families.
Good catholics are variable in their use of family planning. As a generalization their poorer populations are more othodox and into fecundity as gods will.
Yeah, I agree. Just another unfortunate side-effect of the Catholic Church and its opposition to birth control. It's sad too because many of the girls are under 25 years old themselves, have never finished school let alone attended college, and already they have 5 little mouths to feed.
"And then once the child is born, that is the key to financial riches in the poor communities -- white and black -- in America."
Do those swap-meet-Wal-Mart latinos strike you as being rich?
I doubt it. Cunningham is not only politically incorrect, he's full of crap.
Could you be a more racist dumbf**k?
If being "racist" is incidental to speaking the truth, then I guess I could be more racist. It isn't like I said anything about how overweight these same kids are. Two year olds that look like a Cabbage Patch doll. Put your blinders back on, you might see something.
hate to break it to you folks but this is a common perception among the working class. rarely does it occur to people that birth control costs money
Maybe it shouldn't. Maybe birth-control and condoms should be sold at "cost" by the government.
Maybe it shouldn't.
Low-cost or no-cost contraception may be hard to find in many areas because the Bible-thumping righties have been cutting off subsidies to Planned Parenthood and they've had to shut down clinics. Even after PP established financial "firewalls" to make sure that public monies do not fund abortions, it's not good enough for many righties - they want PP to be denied all funding. And the poor suffer as a result.
Ah, Billy Cunningham.
More wisdom from one of the biggest asshats ever sent our way by Planet Wingnut ...
I am against welfare, but how significant of a drain is it ? I heard only a very small percentage of people receive welfare. Is welfare really something to worry about ? If the welfare system was ended, would we see a significant effect on our paychecks ? Will it substantially decrease our taxes ? What percentage of our taxes are spent on welfare, anyway ? Is it a high percentage ? I'm thinking most of our taxes are spent on other things (e.g. building roads, and other infrastructure), and only very little of our taxes are actually spent on welfare.
If welfare was ended, the impact on our society would be worse, because we would then have to pay for all the consequences of failing to provide a little stability for these people.
being the child of illegitimacy, Obama should know that perhaps more than anyone else.
Wrong. Obama's parents were married.
Where does Right-wing radio locate these low-life bastards? Is there a rock somewhere under which the Hannitys, Savage Weiners, O'Reillys, Limbaughs, Cunninghams, and other specimens of pre-intelligent life are found? These lying a**holes only tell the truth when they can't get a lie to fit.
JHMFC, what sewer do they find these "conservative Christians" in? This chump, Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin, Coulter, Ingraham, etc are some of the most hateful, bitter, miserable trash that has ever crawled out of the gutter and they have, combined, millions of loyal followers.
What does this say for their followers? Absolutly disgusting. :-(