Wait until the figure out that the “High-Birthrate Areas” are mostly black, Hispanic, and immigrant. {{ LOL }}
intercst
4 Likes
Yes, but they are also largely southern red states.
None of that means that the cities where the births are happening will get the funds.
7 Likes
But they already know that.
Put on a larger more cynical hat.
Like the one that says “yeah, we give the money to the places with a high birthrate, but they only use it to benefit the better off, white, folks.”
Steve
As usual, that article is behind a paywall. iirc, there was something posted here, a week or two back, about the intention to allocate funding to areas with the highest birth rate, and the highest marriage rate. Maps were posted showing which states best fit those parameters, and which do not.
So the government rewards areas that conform to the government approved lifestyle, and punishes areas where the people do not conform to “traditional American family values”…because “big gummit” is “bad”.
1 Like
No handmaid’s tale for this Michigan rep…
DB2
Cut off all funding for Florida (for obvious reasons).
A few years ago, Gordon Dahl, an economist at UC San Diego, set out to measure how Trump’s 2016 victory might have affected conception rates in the years following. And he and his colleagues found a clear effect: Starting after Trump’s election, through the end of 2018, 38,000 fewer babies than would otherwise be expected were conceived in Democratic counties. By contrast, 7,000 more than expected were conceived in Republican counties in that same period. (The study, published in 2022, was conducted before data on the rest of Trump’s term were available.) Over the past three decades, Republicans have generally given birth to more kids than Democrats have. But during those first years of the first Trump administration, the partisan birth gap widened by 17%. “You see a clear and undeniable shift in who’s having babies,” Dahl told me.
That isn’t to say 38,000 couples took one look at President Trump and decided, Nope, no baby for us! But the correlation that Dahl’s team found was clear and strong. The researchers also hypothesized that George W. Bush’s win in 2000, another close election, would have had a noticeable effect on fertility rates. And they found that after that election, too, the partisan fertility gap widened, although less dramatically than after the 2016 election.
According to experts I spoke with, as the ideological distance between Democrats and Republicans has grown, so has the influence of politics on fertility.
DB2
2 Likes