Boortz: "Single mothers receiving public assistance" are "welfare broodmares"
SUMMARY: On his radio show, Neal Boortz described "single mothers receiving public assistance" as "welfare broodmares" -- a "broodmare" is "a mare [a female horse] kept for breeding." Boortz previously referred to "welfare brood mares" in a "Nealz Nuze" post on his website.
On the August 19 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Neal Boortz described "single mothers receiving public assistance" as "welfare broodmares." The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a "broodmare" as "a mare [a female horse] kept for breeding." Boortz made the comment while discussing a report (available here) that women in Georgia who received public assistance gave birth at more than three times the rate of women who did not receive public assistance, according to 2006 U.S. Census Bureau figures.
Boortz has previously referred to "welfare brood mares." In a January 2 "Nealz Nuze" post on his website, Boortz wrote: "And a word for you welfare brood mares out there. That's right ... welfare brood mares ... it's time for someone to call you out for what you are. Perhaps one of the greatest social wrongs a person can commit in this country is to have a child that you cannot afford to care for [ellipses in original]." Boortz continued, "Do you really think that it's perfectly OK for you to get yourself knocked up, download your baby, and then tell the taxpayers 'Hey, look what I did! Now you folks cough up the money I need to take care of this child.' " In the same post, Boortz also wrote:
[Y]ou're going to be right there in November to vote for Hillary, aren't you. In fact all of you are: the uneducated and unmotivated, the "I'm not responsible for my own health care" crowd, and the single moms. All of you want someone else to step in and take care of you after you've screwed up your own lives, and who better than Hillary, a woman more than ready to use the police power of government to reward you for your votes.
You do know, don't you, that you have absolutely no constitutional right to cast a vote in this presidential election. No ... you probably don't know that. That would mean you are educated, but you're not. You were educated by the government ... and the government sure isn't going to disclose that inconvenient little fact to you. Somehow the media in this country has bought the politician's about this 'right to vote.' It's not there. Doesn't exist. And to save this country we need to figure out a way to get tens of millions the parasite class off the voter roles [sic: rolls]. Welfare? No vote. Illiterate? Stay home on election day. Begging for the government to be your lifetime nanny? Let the doers, the achievers cast the votes. Just stay away.
From the August 19 edition of Cox Radio Syndication's The Neal Boortz Show:
BOORTZ: Two stories right here, I think gives us an idea of what, you know, life in this world and life in the United States is going to be like for our children. The first story. In Georgia, as well as, I dare say, most other states in the nation, the least -- or the less you can afford to have a child, the more likely it is you're going to have one. In Georgia, welfare broodmares -- that is also described as single mothers receiving public assistance -- are having babies at three times the rate, three times the rate of mothers who do not need public assistance. If you're on welfare, 162 births per 1,000 women. If you're not on welfare, 53 births per 1,000 women. Three to one. Three to one.
And then on a world basis, the world's poorest countries have one thing in even greater abundance: people. Nearly -- this is the Population Reference Bureau -- nearly all of the world population growth is now concentrated in the poorer countries. 1.2 billion people live in countries classified as developed by the United Nations. 5.5 billion live in less-developed regions. There is little population growth in the developed countries. In many of the developed countries, there is even a decline. By 2050, the global population -- you have a child, OK? Do you have a child right now? A 10-year-old. So how old will that child be by 2050? Fifty-two years old. If you just had a child in the last week, 42 years old. By 2050, global population up to 9.3 billion, the population share in the less-developed countries will be 86 percent, according to current birth rates -- 86 percent. We are going to have a situation, when your child right now reaches middle age, where 14 percent of the people in the world are supporting the other 86 percent. And those figures are reflected in this country as well. The women who cannot afford to have a child have them. The women who can, don't. Hey, look forward to your future.
Boortz is simply doing his job - offending anyone and everyone who listens to his show ;)
... or I should say "tries to". I haven't been offended by him for a long time despite listening to him every day.
Besides the broodmare comment, he does make some good points though.
Why does it not suprise me in the least that Dawuss is not offended by Boortz... and listens to him daily to boot!
As for the so-called valid point that you think that Boortz made about single moms as 'welfare broadmares' or 'welfare queens' (from Reagan speak) when many work two jobs to just keep the lights on...... what about the 'welfare whores' of the corporate kind? What say you about them?
In my opinion, they are more of a strain on our society by a far bigger margin than those that are poor and on welfare are!
Yes, there are some poor people that take advantage of the system... no doubt about it..... but every one of the poor will spend ever penny of welfare the get, so all that money ends up back in the economy in some way.....
Do you believe for a second that the several hundreds of millions to billions in tax-rebates' and 'cuts' to welfare corporate whores end up back in the economy? If you do.... I have the deed to the moon I'd like to sell you!!
"but every one of the poor will spend ever penny of welfare the get, so all that money ends up back in the economy in some way....."
Where can I get my free money to fuel the economy?, I want to do my share.
I think there's a guy out there dressed kind of like "the Riddler" who I occasionally see screaming on the tv machine about a book on how to get money from the gov't. Maybe you could check him out, though I haven't heard from him in a while. Maybe Batman got him or something...
Hmmm... maybe this dude goes by two different names then...
http://www.governmentgrant.com/mark-lesko.htm
I saw nearly every episode in the '60's, but I don't remember Batman battling any "Lesko". Was he Dr. Lesko, or Professor Lesko or something?
Thanks for summing it up.
I'm so tired of people's jealousy when it comes to this. There is not better word to describe it. Welfare is a small price to pay to keep us from completely losing our dignity as a nation.
Tommy,
Ok.... so you seem to think that the so-called 'welfare queen' are all bad people?
Seriously.... could you hear yourself as you typed that response? Perhaps it is 'free' money, but they will spend it! Do you think they will save it? Send it to the Cayman Islands? Invest it?
I've been on welfare before and food stamps..... if not for these services being available, my wife and three daughters and I would have been kicked out of the apartment we were in! Am I a bain to society because I was forced into using these services?
I used them for the time I needed them and got off them as soon as I had my first paycheck..... they are a life saver! And like I said in my other post.... are there those that take advantage of the systems? Yes, there are, and they should be flogged for doing as much!
But if a flogging for abusing a few hundred dollars a month is maybe warranted? ..... Again... I ask you the same as I asked Dawuss.... what say you about the billion dollar corporations that take millions a month and then don't spend them, but put them away in a tax free haven and away from the economy?
As I said..... at least the poor person will spend that welfare check back into the economy.... so answer with an answer that is not so self-righteous and childish!
"Ok.... so you seem to think that the so-called 'welfare queen' are all bad people?"
I will admit, when I read this from you, I stopped. Since I never said that, you made it up. What I find reprehensible, and shameful, is when people steal money from anyone, the government included. People that have children so they can up their welfare checks are thieves. Hard working people that need help and assistance temporarily and are not out to fleece anyone are not part of this discussion, for me.
Why does the degree of abuse within the system somehow invalidate the concern for accountability?
Maybe we don't need accountability because the degree of abuse is negligent.
Tommy,
Fair enough..... and I apologize for claiming that you said that those on welfare are all bad. Your right, you did not say that.
But what about corporate welfare? I realize that Boortz spoke about poor welfare..... but I'm just trying to get a gauge how Boortz can be defended in any way when corporate welfare is a much much bigger and worse thing to our economy?
When he speaks this way to his listeners, many of them are not going to think about corporate welfare as a comparison, unless he brings it up, which he did not.... and I think it should be... which is why I bring it up to both you and Dawuss....
Boortz is right about the potential for welfare abuse by the less off and I agree that those few should be punished for stealing and regardless of whether they spend it all back into the economy doesnt make it right.... but what about the corporations and the fleecing and stealing and lying they do to get their welfare checks?
Capt, I was very clear - stealing or abusing the system by anyone is wrong,
You keep on saying this but you won't give a number.
Tommy,
We are now getting to the meat of the argument that I think we are both in agreement on.... that those that lie, cheat, and steal to get welfare, regardless of whether they are poor or super rich should all be punished.....
But this is the meat of the issue: The poor and less well off will more easily go to jail for their stealing a few hundred and be put in front of the news camera to prove that the 'poor' are not trustworthy, but those that are of the corporate persuasion that steal millions will likely never or very rarely ever go to jail, let alone fined or publically humiliated because they can afford lawyers or pay off politicians to make it easier for them to steal even more....
Boortz brought up a valid argument.... what he failed to do was to mention that corporations do it as well..... only worse, so the only comparison for his listeners was how bad the poor are!
I am in full agreement with you and acknowledge that you mean 'anyone' that steals does include corporations and super rich people..... but the real issue I think is that the less well off are more prone to getting in trouble than those on the opposite end of the spectrum....
"Petty thieves get arrested, great thieves get elected." -Anonymous
And that, is a rather sad reality.
And that is the one true sad reality
What I find reprehensible, and shameful, is when people steal money from anyone, the government included.
No one is stealing money here.
Quit your job and go apply to find out the requirements. Might be educational. Or just use teh Google on "welfare myths.' Easy to learn.
"Nealz Nuze"
Well, at least he's as literate as he is intelligent.
"Nealz Nuze"
Hookt on Fonix Werkt Fer Himm...... :-)
".....that women in Georgia who received public assistance gave birth at more than three times the rate of women who did not receive public assistance"
That is downright shameful, and utterly ridiculous.
Another sidestep.
Typical Tommy... cherrypicking which questions are 'worthy' of his response... typical.
So are you in favor of abortion now?
Well I don't know about Tommy, but I think for me to answer that question is way above my pay scale ;-)
Tommy, you're not qualified to state your own opinion, and Jeter had to help you with that?
Oy. I'm taking that one.
Obama said that scientifically and theologically, when a "baby" gets "human rights" is above his pay grade, an answer that leaves the room for choice. I certainly got it. A thoughtful answer to a very loaded question.
How about this- if you dont believe in abortion, by all means, don't have one.
Capt, I was very clear - stealing or abusing the system by anyone is wrong, corporations, individuals, everyone.
I know what Jeter meant but the comment was silly. Asking someone when life begins is not the same as asking "Are you in favor of abortion rights?"
Loonz [and Watershed too],
Yes I tried to make a funny. Since you found it "silly", I won't leave my day job & hit the road as a standup comedian ;-)
Obviously when Obama said it was above his "pay scale" to the question of when life begins he was saying only God can honestly make that call.
For the record, I believe life begins at conception. However I'm pro-choice.
I simply think that abortions should always be the last option.
I simply think that abortions should always be the last option.- jeter2
Jeter, I know this probably won't surprise you, it's directed more at the nuts who called me an "abortion fanatic" recently;
Your opinion is most likely that of most Pro-Choice people.
Shocking, eh?
just like his buddies on righty talk radio. They ALL talk right out their asses.
Well then thank God they're on radio...wouldn't want to see anyone's ass talking on TV.
Could one of Neal's fans please explain why, in European countries with much higher levels of public subsidy for mothers and children, the birthrates in general and out-of wedlock births in particular are much lower than in the US?
Would you even admit to the possibility that maybe some countries are managing these issues better than we are?
"There is logic in that statement, though. If you're on welfare and receiving money for your child, the more children you have the more money you receive. So if you want more children, you go "download some more babies" (to use some Boortzology)"
"In Georgia, welfare broodmares -- that is also described as single mothers receiving public assistance -- are having babies at three times the rate, three times the rate of mothers who do not need public assistance. If you're on welfare, 162 births per 1,000 women. If you're not on welfare, 53 births per 1,000 women."
I'm not sure about this. It doesn't mean that 54 women had three babies each, as opposed to the 53 that had one each. It could be (theoretically) that 162 separate women on assistance had one baby each, while 18 women without assistance had three babies each. You really don't know what the overlap would be just from the stats given.
Besides, isn't this a yearly statistic? So out of that given 1000 women, each one of them could have one child during a six-year period with no overlap. Again, purely theoretical, but by the end of that cycle there's a whole new group of physically mature but irresponsible young women out there. And if it's yearly, then obviously it's not too likely that any one woman had more than one child in that period. That would surely mean that it's a higher proportion of women (%16.2) having babies, not the same proportion of women (%5.3) having three times as many babies. It's been a long day, so if I'm not thinking about this right, someone let me know.
In any event, while I know some women on assistance have too many children, the causation seems unproven here. All that's shown is that group is generally less educated and/or responsible, which are common factors between women who are on government assistance and women who have unwanted pregnancies. It doesn't prove anything about monetary motivation at all.
".....that women in Georgia who received public assistance gave birth at more than three times the rate of women who did not receive public assistance"
That statement doesn't mean what one might think it does. That statement, as written, means that every woman in Georgia who received public assistance always gave birth to triplets or quadruplets.
What a hero Boortz is. All he’s got is blame. Preying on the short fuse of the American taxpayer, he can tell why the root of all our problems lie with anyone who’s not white, male and wealthy. Similar to any other right-wing professional liar, Boortz’s only talent is making people angry, either at him or someone else, but he possesses no ability whatsoever to get people thinking.
Playing the race card, Isee. Hmmm...
One of his friends is Herman Cain, who is black
Pleaseeee, not the "I got a black friend" stuff.
"Preying on the short fuse of the American taxpayer"
Is that what liberals call it now when we, the short fused American taxpayer, expect and demand that our elected leaders spend our money cautiously, wisely, appropriately and are held accountable.
You mean the whole "responsibility" thing Tommy? Do liberals even know that word?
LOL
The fact that YOU or ANY conservative would ask THAT questions after 6 years of total Republican control of every branch of government is laughable!
Apparently, the executive branch and the legislative branch (controlled by the Republicans for the majority of Bush's two terms) are not listening to short-fused American taxpayers such as yourself, because they've done the exact opposite of everything on your grocery list.
You're looking at it all wrong. See, if a corporation is in trouble and goes down, it takes all those innocent taxpaying employees with it, creating jobless over-breeding welfare cheats. So you try to avoid that by bailing out the corporations with tax dollars.
However, in the event that jobless over-breeding welfare cheats already exist, they need to be made examples of, so the gov't should withhold any assistance. That way, the children of the jobless welfare cheats that were protected by the anti-abortion laws will live in abject poverty until their parents get a job, teaching them the value of...... owning a big corporation.
Get it?
"Is that what liberals call it"
Wow, I don't know. Go conduct a poll to get an answer to your stupid question. And thanks for pigeonholing me. I'll be sure to return the favor sometime.
Anyway, what you're describing is an example of the short-fused American taxpayer actually thinking. As I pointed out, Boortz and the rest of the right-wing professional liars don't inspire people to think, just to blame others.
The target of my scorn was clearly Boortz and the other right-wing professional liars, yet you insist on picking my post apart and finding ways to pigeonhole me and make false accusations.
Now you're trying to dress it up as me lashing out at short-fused American taxpayers, of which I proudly am one, simply for being short fused.
After the hundreds of billions that have been squandered and pallet load after pallet load of Ben Franklin's have disappeared into a black hole in Iraq, do you think for one freakin' moment I'm the least bit happy with how my money has been spent?
Pete,
Some liberals argue this disingenuously all the time. From hating children, to why not talk about corporate welfare, to not taking care of children after we want abortion outlawed, to how many welfare recipients exactly are cheating, to why are we not concerned with all the money spent on wars, on and on and on.
Anything to keep from addressing the point and the topic specifically. I have made my opinions clear on this subject.
Because, by default, anyone who gets money from the government that's not male, white and wealthy is fleecing the taxpayer.
Halliburton = Good
Struggling Single Mom = Bad
OK.
Not real sure what that has with your pigeonholing and accusations, but good for you.
"...expect and demand that our elected leaders spend our money cautiously, wisely, appropriately and are held accountable."
Are you SURE you want to open up THAT can of slimy worms, Tommy? If you do, expect to be destroyed on that topic.
Another sidestep. Wow, I'm impressed. Two so far in this thread.
Keep up the good work. Let's shoot for a baker's dozen just in this thread, all right?
He does have facts to back his point up though (the GA census).
It's kinda like that "Why Men Are Republicans" picture. It's an opinion (which may or may not be true), but it's still backed by facts. Another set of facts could refute that opinion made (both the OT and this segue), however.
"Why Men Are Republicans"
That has to be the dumbest thing I've seen in quite a while... Was the emotional development of the avergae Republican male interrupted when he was a teenager?
Here she is in a more "pensive" pose:
Here's my response. ALL of those women are fugly. Case closed.
Hey, btw, you righties who wank off to Ann Coulter's pics have got to be the worst of the pathetic.
Wow, Debbie Schlussel is soooo hot!!! I'm thinking about becoming a Republican for that reason alone, but I'm hesitant because Rachel Dratch is a Democrat, and she's hotter.
Also, I'd like to switch to the Republican party so I can meet Stifler's mom. She's way hotter than Dennis Kucinich's heinous wife!
Waitaminnit, Dawuss- is the point of that thing that the republican women are hot? Yikes!
I think what's more telling is that somebody actually had to find some stretch of a reason to explain why being a bedwetting god-fearing republican is manly. Doesn't take a shrink to figure that one out.
That's the point they're trying to make, yes.
I couldn't find the Democratic rebuttal, if there is one (and I would think that in the interest of balance there would be)
NOW wouldn't allow it.
I call them douchebags.
Welfare? No vote. Illiterate? Stay home on election day.
Well, then how about...
The purposely or negligently uninformed and misinformed who rely on FOX News and people like Neal Boortz as their lifeline to the world? You don't deserve to vote if you're that stupid. ;>)
...and since McCain is older than dirt, he's got to be at least 6,000.
God said 'let there be light' and it was McCain who flipped the switch!
that's pretty funny Dawuss. Good attempt at a joke.
Not to lend Boortz any credibility here by taking him seriously, but -
Aside from being insensitive and inflammatory, isn't he making an unwarranted causal assumption? He seems to be saying that women are having more children because they're on welfare. But, we don't know that the women were on assistance when they had the children. I mean couldn't you also conclude that women with more children are just more likely to need welfare at some point in their lives?
The only thing Boortz has going for him is his mouth! Flunking out of college after spending 4 years, draft dodging by lying during the heaviest fighting in Vietnam,by using his former draft status as a "Student in ROTC",and continuing to use the deferment after he had quit college, until his daughter was born almost a year out of college! He went as far as to buy a class ring Class of '67, 8 day's before he flunked out or gave up for good! For years he had listed in his bio on many radio web sites that he had graduated! Now he uses the term "Finished Up At!" He claims to be ONLY SIX HOURS short of a degree, but one would think after 40 years, a man as smart as Neil says he is, he would have taken the hours he needed to graduate!
Then the balding,overweight, mommies boy (He can't handle criticism) went to night school at a law school (found the ad on the back of a matchbook, while cleaning the stalls out in a Trailways Bus Depot men's room ) The law school (John Marshall) just recently received in 2005, a "Provisional Accreditation" from the American Bar Assoc. When Neil attended it, when not cleaning the men's room at the bus depot, it was a diploma mill! However it has improved greatly since neil went there in the late 70's
In closing, in trying to turn his listeners against this site MMFA a while back he spelled the word Myrmidons on air, 'Mirmidons!'
All the above info can be gleamed from johnsugg.com go to the Archives, for the months of Aug, Sept, Oct of '05, and March -June '06! That's where I found it! Just scroll down thru each month till you come upon John Suggs Posts!