Who in the hell was a part of this?

[homedawg]

Births Set Record in 2007


A record number of babies were born in the USA in 2007, according to early federal data released Wednesday that some demographers say could signal an impending baby "boomlet." The 4,315,000 births in 2007, reported as "provisional" data by the National Center for Health Statistics, gives just a glimpse of what's ahead in the nursery.

"I can't tell you anything about who's having these babies, but it is an early look and there is an increase," says federal demographer Stephanie Ventura. "It's a milestone."
She says details about the mothers won't be available until the fall, because all the agency has now is birth certificate data from state health departments.

The last time the number was this high was in 1957, in the middle of the baby boom years; about 78 million Americans were born from 1946 to 1964. Demographers have been monitoring gradual increases in recent years; data for 2006, which won't be made final until September, show a 3% increase over 2005. That's the largest single-year increase since 1989.

"I suspect this is the beginning of a new kind of baby boom, although it's going to be nowhere near the baby boom of the 1950s or '60s," says demographer Arthur Nelson of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. "It will be sort of a boomlet."
To be considered a real boom, demographers say, the percentage increases would have to be much larger than the single-digit increases we're seeing now.

The last time there was talk of a boomlet was during the 1980s and '90s. Those babies were sometimes known as "Echo Boomers" and today are called Millennials or Generation Y.

Nelson attributes the 2007 numbers to a "perfect storm" of factors: more immigrants having children, professional women who delayed childbearing until their 40s, and larger numbers of women in their 20s and 30s in the population, keeping the fertility rate high. The average number of births per woman was 2.1 in 2006, the highest since 1971.

"We have three different phenomena around birth happening at the same time," he says.
But family demographer Ronald Rindfuss of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill says there is a bigger question looming than who's having kids.

"From the perspective of schools that have to educate these children, this is a real increase in the number of births and something they're going to have to deal with," he says. But it won't be "the kind of shock that we saw at the beginning of the baby boom. In 1952 and '53, in many parts of the country, schools had to run double sessions. This is a gradual increase."

_________________



It's gotta be them mexicans, jumping the border, living on our land, taking our jobs, taking our money, and now overpopulating our country!

Time to open up a can on them!

[TheCaymanIslands]

We're going to have to institute population control at some point here. Won't be enough space in the world for all these people.

[dananderson32]

more people living on earth today, than have ever died throughout the earths history, population control or moving to mars gonna need to do one or the other sooner than later

[Q-Unit]

life expectancy.

[homedawg]

The overpopulation is not coming from my family, nor my wife's family. There are 7 siblings in my family and my wife has 6 in hers, and there are only 14 total children, including our 2.
There needs to be a limit on the number of children 1 can have! You want more? Adopt!

[CuseFan10]

Don't let Flyers see this..............

[redhog55]

None were mine-------that I know of

[homedawg]

It's an epidemic, guys are knocking up multiple women, and women are getting knocked up, to lock a man in, or for the extra funding from the government.

I am sick and tired of hearing about a guy, who has multiple children with multiple women, that end up being a deadbeat dad, and the women that allow it to happen!

We shouldn't be so concerned with our pets, get yourself spayed or neutered!

[redhog55]

Can't agree with you more Homedog!! We have no morals in this country any more and when you state your opinion to topics such as this one, you are referred to as a right wing dinosaur.

Unless the welfare program has changed, the more kids that you produce, the larger the benefits each month.

It could be worse though. We could adapt the Chinese policy and just allow women to have 1 child. How many of us wouldn't be around if that was the case?

Anyway, I guess I'll just keep paying my taxes and watching the government piss it away. Maybe someday they will change, but not in my lifetime.

[dananderson32]

Originally Posted by redhog55

Can't agree with you more Homedog!! We have no morals in this country any more and when you state your opinion to topics such as this one, you are referred to as a right wing dinosaur.

Unless the welfare program has changed, the more kids that you produce, the larger the benefits each month.

It could be worse though. We could adapt the Chinese policy and just allow women to have 1 child. How many of us wouldn't be around if that was the case?

Anyway, I guess I'll just keep paying my taxes and watching the government piss it away. Maybe someday they will change, but not in my lifetime.

what if i ran for president with my platform promising all driveways to be shoveled year round and for those people who don't get any snow **** em

[redhog55]

What the hell is "snow"? Anyway, you're too damn young to run for president!!!!

[Nigel Tufnel]

I guess I'm guilty as charged....had a baby born October of 2007. But, hey, my wife and I are both gainfully employed, and at least we aren't as bad as this guy....



Man Reportedly Fathers 6 Children With 6 Different Women
Monday, March 12, 2007

A Cincinnati man is expecting six children with six different women, according to The Cincinnati Enquirer.

During court proceedings charging Rickey Lackey with attempted theft, Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Melba Marsh asked Lackey how many children he had.

Lackey's response: “None, but I have six on the way."

That prompted Marsh to ask Lackey, 25, if he was marrying a woman with six kids.

“No, I be concubining," Lackey responded, meaning he lives with women he is not married to.

Lackey's lawyer stopped the line of questioning and the judge dropped it after deciding it was not relevant to the case.

Lackey was later convicted for attempted theft.

The women are all expecting between August and October.



This was the punchline of a lot of jokes in the Cincy area...it takes some balls to tell a judge to keep you out of jail because you have six kids on the way....only to inform her that you aren't marrying a woman who is pregnant with sextuplets or marrying a woman with six children, but rather...."U be concubining." While the quote to the judge is funny, its a perfect example of the problem...now six different women are going to have children with a father that will likely be incarcerated and unable to provide support.

[homedawg]

Originally Posted by Nigel Tufnel

had a baby born October of 2007.

Congrats!

I now know where 1 baby came from! There's still another 4,314,999.

[homedawg]

Children are priceless, but raising them is probably the most expensive thing you'll ever do.

Every newborn child is a bundle of joy. But you better have a bundle of cash on hand if you want to raise one.

For 2004, the newest data available, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that families making $70,200 a year or more will spend a whopping $269,520 to raise a child from birth through age 17. Higher-income families in urban areas in the West spend the most, $284,460.

Though not as steep, the figures for lower-income families are just as unsettling: $184,320 for families earning $41,700 to $70,200 and $134,370 for families making less than that. That breaks down to nearly $15,000 a year from birth to age 2 for families in the $65,800 -plus income bracket. As your child ages, he or she gets even more expensive, topping out at $15,810 from ages 15 to 17. This is no back-of-the-envelope guesstimate. The survey involves visits to, and interviews with, about 5,000 households, four times a year.

Nor is there much in the way of cost-effectiveness for larger families. With an older child of 16, the USDA study says, a family with a second child under 2 lays out $20,740 for the both of them each year, with the numbers growing progressively as the children get older. With three children -- the two older ones being 16 and 13 -- a third child aged 2 years or less rings up an annual bill of $24,160.

____________________
The figures are LOW!

[Nigel Tufnel]

Those figures are staggering, HomeDawg. I've got a 4 year old, 2 year old and 9 month old....its hectic now, but I don't even want to think about what the hell is going to happen when they are all in college at the same time. From the time they can understand it, I'm going to have to tell them that they better work hard enough to earn scholarships or grants, otherwise.....well, I don't know what otherwise is.

While many may not agree with me on this...my feeling is that as a parent, I have to teach my children how important grades are....I don't want to put undue stress on them...but, even though my wife and I make decent money, there is no way we will be able to afford paying for all of them to go through college. My parents helped some...but I also graduated college and law school with a pretty hefty amount of debt. I want to be able to help them...but if they think we are going to pay for them to party in college while they attend 6 or 7 years of undergraduate schooling, they've got another thing coming. Helping is one thing....but they're going to have to learn that they are also going to be responsible.

My parenting woes have only just begun...but I wouldn't change it for anything when those three little angels look me in the eye.