The Sexual Revolution objectified Women and led to an Epidemic of Young Single Mothers and STDs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 17th, 2013

Week in Review

Women liberated themselves in the Sixties.  Gone were the days of finding a man to marry and settling down to raise a family.  The way it used to be in the Fifties.  In romantic comedies.  And in romance novels.  Where a woman meets the man of her dreams.  They get married.  And live happily ever after.  This is the hell the sexual revolution freed woman from in the Sixties.  And now they are free to enjoy their sexuality.  By giving it away to as many men as they please.  Which pleased a lot of men.  And more and more high school boys (see Victoria’s Secret’s Customers Keep Getting Younger by Ashley Lutz posted 2/16/2013 on Business Insider).

Ten years ago, Victoria’s Secret sold lingerie to women in their twenties.

Today, the lingerie retailer is luring in young girls by offering underwear that is cute instead of sexy, reports Sapna Maheshwari at Bloomberg News.

The highly-popular Pink line is technically marketed toward college girls ages 18 to 22.

“When somebody’s 15 or 16-years-old, what do they want to be?” Stuart Burgdoerfer, CFO of Victoria’s Secret, said at a conference last month. “They want to be older, and they want to be cool like the girl in college, and that’s part of the magic of what we do at Pink.”

You know what cool girls do in college?  They party.  That means they drink, do drugs and have sex.  When these cool college girls go on spring break they party so much that some star in amateur porn.  For free.  There are so many cool girls letting loose on spring break that they’ve built a video franchise around them.  Girls Gone Wild.  This is not what 15 and 16 year girls should be aspiring to.  Instead of focusing so much on buying cute underwear they should be hitting the books.  Getting good grades in math and science.  So they can pursue whatever career they choose.  Using their brains.  Instead of just trying to be pretty.

The whole point of the women’s liberation movement was to get away from thinking about women as sexual objects.  Of course you wouldn’t know that based on the 2012 presidential campaign.  When all the feminists urged young women to vote Democrat lest they lose their birth control or access to abortion.  For apparently that was more important to women than any other issue.  Their ability to have as much casual sex as possible.  Which seems to benefit men more than women.  While women have more to lose (see Why youths aren’t getting tested for HIV by Sari Zeidler posted 2/16/2013 on CNN).

The 25-year-old mother of two is poised. Sitting in a boardroom at AID Atlanta, an HIV outreach facility in Atlanta where she volunteers, she exudes confidence.

But Traylor is HIV positive.

According to the CDC, 50,000 Americans are infected with HIV each year, and 25% of those are between the ages of 13 and 24.

Sixty percent of youth with HIV don’t know they have it, despite recommendations from the CDC, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Traylor got her first HIV test as a teenager when someone living with the disease gave a presentation at her high school. She was about 16 and already a teen mother at the time. She knew she had been having unprotected sex and wanted to stay healthy for her young son.

At the time, Traylor was in what she believed was a monogamous relationship. During her annual doctor’s visit, she was disturbed to realize she had to ask specifically for an HIV test on top of a standard STD panel. She insisted on taking the test even though her doctor told her — as a heterosexual woman involved in a monogamous relationship — that she was low risk.

Later Taylor broke up with her boyfriend and began a new committed relationship. That was the year her life changed. Despite vigilance in testing, Traylor wasn’t prepared for what she found out at her doctor’s visit that year: She was HIV positive. Two weeks later she learned she was pregnant with her second child.

She thought she was in a monogamous relationship.  But thanks to birth control and abortion boys are like a kid in a candy store.  They may profess their love and say she is the only one.  But with all those young girls out there buying that cute underwear and no doubt eager to show it off (unlike their utilitarian granny panties that kids will make fun of any girl wearing them) how can a boy remain monogamous?  His body is surging with hormones.  And so many young girls want to be like the cool girls in college.  Who are very popular girls.  As they like having fun the way adults like having fun.  And you can’t stop these boys.  You can’t tell them to stop having sex.  Because boys will be boys.  That’s why they give away birth control in high school.  For there is just no way to stop the sex.

It’s rather ironic, really.  That women’s rights have come down to keeping birth control and abortion services abundant and accessible.  But who does that really benefit?  Girls who may end up with two babies before they’re 18?  Girls who come down with an STD or test positive for HIV?  Or girls who are both single mothers and HIV positive?  Girls who are not likely to complete high school and go on to college.  And on to a career that the women’s liberation movement opened up to them?  Or is it benefitting boys who are having multiple sex partners despite telling each girl that she’s the only one?  Boys who are leaving these girls to grow up as single mothers?  Or to grow up with HIV?  Or both?

One could call this the greatest con against women ever.  Men have made young women want to become sexual objects.  So men can enjoy having sex with a variety of women.  Without having to marry and settle down with one sex partner for the rest of their life.  Something most women want.  Monogamy.  Based on the success of romantic comedies.  And romance novels.  But today we’ve replaced living happily ever after with an active sex life.  Something that men love.  Who are clearly benefitting more from the sexual revolution than women are.  For they’re getting more of what they want.  And they don’t have biological clocks ticking away.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Abortion and Birth Control are Bankrupting Social Security and Medicare

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 20th, 2013

Week in Review

For the first time in history a credit reporting agency (Standard and Poor’s) downgraded the U.S bond rating in 2011.  Why?  The agency said they needed to see $4 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years.  The best Congress could do was $917 billion in spending cuts over 10 years.  And the creation of a super-committee to find another $1.5 trillion.  For a total of $2.417 trillion in spending cuts.  At least, on paper.  That never happened.  After winning reelection the president held out for and got increases in tax rates.  So he could increase spending.

So how did the U.S. get to where they needed to cut $4 trillion in spending?  Well, a large part of it has to do with abortion (see 55,772,015 Abortions in America Since Roe vs. Wade in 1973 by Steven Ertelt posted 1/18/2013 on LifeNews.com).

The United States marks 40 years of legalized abortion in all fifty states at any time for any reason throughout pregnancy on January 22nd, the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Since that time, there have been approximately 55,772,015 abortions that have destroyed the lives of unborn children.

Taxpayers pay taxes.  And how do we get taxpayers?  By having babies.  So when we aborted over 55 million babies the effect on tax revenue was profound.  We can see how by making some assumptions.  And doing a little math.

First of all, 55,772,015 abortions over 39 years come to on average 1,430,052 abortions a year.  Dividing this number by two to pair off couples for baby-making that comes to 715,026 couples.  Without abortion available we’ll assume about 80% of these couples will have children.

The first babies of the 715,026 enter the workforce 20 years later.  So in that year the number of additional workers paying taxes equals 2,002,072 (1,430,052 + (0.8 X 715,026)).  The following year the second child of this couple enters the workforce while another couple’s first child enters the workforce.  This brings the additional workers paying taxes equal 3,146,114.  And so on until each couple brings in three new taxpayers into the workforce. Over a decade the number of new workers paying taxes equals 110,685,999.

Assuming a median income of $50,000 these 110,685,999 taxpayers earn a total of $5.5 trillion over ten years.  Assuming an effective federal income tax rate of 18% the total federal income tax these people would have paid equals approximately $996 billion.

Using the 12.4% Social Security tax rate (both employer and employee) the amount of Social Security taxes these people would have provided over 10 years equals approximately $686 billion.

Using the 2.9% Medicare tax rate the amount of Medicare taxes these people would have provided over 10 years equals approximately $160 billion.

Adding these taxes together (Social Security and Medicare) they add up to $847 billion.  Adding this to the amount of federal income taxes brings the amount of taxes these people would have provided over ten years to about $1.8 trillion.

When they wrote Social Security and Medicare into law the average family size had fallen from around 5 to about 3.5 over a decade or so.  If you take that $1.8 trillion and adjust it for 3.5 children (1.8/3 X 3.5) the lost tax revenue equals $2.15 trillion.  At 4 children that lost tax revenue comes to $2.5 trillion.  At 5 children that lost tax revenue comes to $3.1 trillion.  At 6 children it’s $3.7 trillion.

Today’s seniors entered child-bearing age long before women’s liberation, birth control and abortion.  So most women got married and had children.  It is not uncommon for today’s seniors to come from families of 10 children or more.  This is significant because when the actuaries set up Social Security and Medicare they assumed these trends would continue.  But they didn’t.  The birth rate (and the population growth rate) declined since Social Security and Medicare became law.  Causing the population to age.  More people are now leaving the workforce and collecting Social Security and Medicare benefits than there are workers entering the workforce to pay for them.

Abortion has been a part of this decline.  In a current 10-year projection we are seeing anywhere from $1.8 trillion to $3.7 trillion in lost tax revenue due to abortion.  If Roe v. Wade didn’t legalize abortion and the Left didn’t assault the family (encouraging women NOT to get married or have children) during the Seventies as radical feminism took off there would have been a lot more births.  Perhaps as many as those actuaries thought there would be when they calculated the costs of Social Security and Medicare.

If normal family patterns had continued not only would these abortions not have happened families may have had more children.  Producing more taxpayers.  There were 3,136,965 live births in 1973.  The average family size then was about 2.5.  If you divide the number of births by average family size you get about 1,254,786 families having children.  If each of these families had one additional child that additional 1,254,786 children would be approximately 87.7% of the average number of abortions.  If these children grew up to have three children of their own we can calculate this additional tax revenue the same way we did for the loss revenue from abortion.  Or we can multiply the loss revenue from abortion ($1.8 trillion) by 87.7% to approximate what those additional children in 1973 would contribute in a ten-year projection today.  Approximately $1.9 trillion.  Adding the losses from abortion and families having one less child brings the total of loss tax revenue to $4.04 trillion.  Which equals the $4 trillion S&P was looking for in spending cuts.

So what is the cause for America’s deficits?   Is it because the rich aren’t paying their fair share in taxes?  No.  It’s because of abortion and birth control.  And radical feminism.  That attacked the family and encouraged women to do anything but get married and have children.  Something FDR and his New Dealers never designed Social Security and Medicare to take into account.  For FDR and his New Dealers were sexists.  As are Social Security and Medicare.  These programs require women to marry and have children to stay solvent.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme according to Economist Paul Samuelson who wrote the Book on Economics

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 19th, 2012

Week in Review

While the Europeans, the Japanese and the Americans all struggle with an aging population and pension and health care systems approaching insolvency Singaporeans are enjoying comfortable retirements.  How?  Because they did something crazy.  They acted responsibly and saved for their retirement and their health care.  Instead of depending on the state (see Singapore’s got some good ideas posted 5/17/2012 on ctpost.com).

…Singapore makes no promises but instead requires all citizens to save up to 36 percent of their income for their own retirement and health care. The government invests the savings in stocks and bonds; the money is not used for current expenditures.

The result? Singaporeans have comfortable retirements. Their health-care system delivers better outcomes while costing 80 percent less than ours, according to 2010 findings from the World Health Organization, and all of it is financed without imposing debt on the next generation. Singapore even reported an uptick in medical tourism last year.

Now, compare Singapore’s system to our own. When Medicare was debated and enacted, Paul Samuelson was America’s most influential economist. He was an adviser to presidents Kennedy and Johnson, author of the nation’s best-selling economics textbook and a soon-to-be Nobel laureate. In 1967, Samuelson wrote in Newsweek about the funding mechanism for Medicare and Social Security: “The beauty about social insurance is that it is actuarially unsound. Everyone who reaches retirement age is given benefit privileges that far exceed anything he has paid in. . . . Always there are more youths than old folks in a growing population. More important, with real incomes growing at some 3 per cent per year, the taxable base upon which benefits rest in any period are much greater than the taxes paid historically by the generation now retired. . . . A growing nation is the greatest Ponzi game ever contrived.”

Samuelson was right about social insurance being a Ponzi scheme even though he was wrong on his economics.  He was a Keynesian.  And it was Keynesian economics that is responsible for so many of our problems today.  Encouraging governments to intervene into the private economy.  And to tax, borrow and print money to spend.  Which has given Japan their Lost Decade.  Gave the U.S. (and the world) the subprime mortgage crisis.  And gave the Europeans their sovereign debt crisis.

So here is one of the Keynesians’ greatest and most admired economists admitting that social spending is what it is.  A Ponzi scheme.  Of course the fatal flaw in the Keynesian model was women’s liberation.  The world changed.  Women stopped having babies.  And when they did we went from having a young population (more people entering the workforce) to having an aging population (more people leaving the workforce).  A baby bust followed the baby boom.  Which smashed apart the Ponzi scheme.  Because there are now more old folks drawing benefits than there are youths entering the workforce to pay for them.  So governments are spending more than they collect in taxes.  And the rate of spending is growing greater than its population growth rate.  Which is a big problem.  As Mr. Samuelson pointed out in Newsweek.

Meanwhile those who are saving for retirement are not having the same problems as they are in Keynesian economies with state pensions and national health care.  Of course a Keynesian would never approve of this.  For savings is to a Keynesian what sunshine is to a vampire.  And they will do everything within their power to prevent people from saving.  Despite their incredible record of failure.  But they keep plugging along.  Why?  Because governments love them.  They keep hiring them.  And they keep listening to their advice.  For they give legitimacy to their irresponsible spending ways.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,