Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From the link: "Ten major studies have been conducted on this issue in the last six years alone, and not one has found any connection between the level of payments offered and a woman's decision to bear children."
"Studies" have not found a connection? What "studies" would that be, and exactly how were those "studies" conducted? Because the US Census has definitive data that those who receive public assistance have a birth rate 3 times higher than those who do not receive public assistance.
Those receiving public assistance are 3 times more likely to have a/another child.
I've already provided links to the US Government's reports. Those are the actual numbers and the actual facts, not manipulated "study" interpretations.
As long as it can also vote them away, it does not reduce freedom. A self-imposed restriction that is there because you want it to be, does not reduce your freedom.
What about the 49% that gets outruled? They have no freedom in a democracy. Democracy does not imply freedom at all, because pretty much everybody is a minority in at least one aspect, and that aspect of their lives could be restricted by the majority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead
I agree with most of this. Neither is viable in pure form. The question is how do strike a balance. I don't think left wingers are any more doctrinaire than right wingers.
I think it's hypocritical to want free health care but legalized drugs. Or to want free education but get to choose to pursue a degree in <insert stupid subject here>. With freedom comes responsibility, but with privilege comes restriction. No different from the old "as long as you're under my roof, you'll follow my rules."
Well that has nothing to do with what you said, which was absolutely false.
This article is pretty hollow. Couple of loose correlations but nothing conclusive. I'd love to hear your explanation for the 3x birth rate.
1. You can't equate a cash payment with a tax cut because we're talking about humans here, and humans behave in different ways in different situations. A cash benefit is more of an incentive than a tax cut, based on the shortsighted way that the average person (especially on welfare) thinks. And this article only mentions AFDC, which is intentionally dishonest IMO.
2. Comparing states is useless. There are a number of factors at play here. Now if you can find something within the same populace I'll go for it.
3. "Of all welfare families, 73.9 percent have two children or less. (3) Of all American families with children, this figure is 79.1 percent." - Only backs me up.
4. About the drop in percentages 1960-1990, there is one crucial variable that isn't even mentioned, I'll let you figure that out. Even if that variable were to = 1 it would still support my premise based on 42% drop and the higher rate of decrease (compared non welfare) during that time frame.
Oh I'm sure there's lot of folks that want a "free welfare state".
You cannot take away free benefits, which are now considered rights, once you start handing them out or didn't you know that ?
The person that controls the purse strings wields a ton of power. The Communists in DC are already micro-managing society as much as they can get away with.
From the link: "Ten major studies have been conducted on this issue in the last six years alone, and not one has found any connection between the level of payments offered and a woman's decision to bear children."
"Studies" have not found a connection? What "studies" would that be, and exactly how were those "studies" conducted? Because the US Census has definitive data that those who receive public assistance have a birth rate 3 times higher than those who do not receive public assistance.
Those receiving public assistance are 3 times more likely to have a/another child.
I've already provided links to the US Government's reports. Those are the actual numbers and the actual facts, not manipulated "study" interpretations.
well, almost 1/2 of households receive some kind of government assistance. Would you want people on welfare to have NO children? It's not surprising that people on welfare have more children, people are struggling in this economy and have been for over a decade. You are mean spirited, pure and simple.
well, almost 1/2 of households receive some kind of government assistance. Would you want people on welfare to have NO children? It's not surprising that people on welfare have more children, people are struggling in this economy and have been for over a decade. You are mean spirited, pure and simple.
What, for noticing a mathematical inevitability? You guys are hilarious.
well, almost 1/2 of households receive some kind of government assistance.
No. You're including Social Security and Medicare in that stat. Those aren't public assistance programs, those are the federally mandatedinsurance programs (FICA: Federal InsuranceContributions Act) for which those who receive benefits have paid premiums throughout their working years.
The actual stat for households receiving public assistance is 34.2%.
Quote:
"Means-tested programs, designed to help the needy, accounted for the largest share of recipients last year. Some 34.2% of Americans lived in a household that received benefits such as food stamps, subsidized housing, cash welfare or Medicaid (the federal-state health care program for the poor)."
I am a liberal, and I am very alarmed by the trends of welfare types having more kids. Is it smart to support the expansion of populations which have proven they cannot support themselves?
And by supporting the expansion of the welfare classes, we are weakening America. For instance, China has a mean IQ of about 100, America is about 98. As China's economy keeps improving and most of its people get proper nutrition and education, I expect their figure to rise to come closer to Korea or Japan. The smartest average populations on earth. Ours, in contrast, is dropping, precisely because the most intelligent individuals are underreproducing and the uneducated and sadly, just plain dumb, are reproducing at much higher rates. The former think of the consequences of their actions, the latter less so.
To cut the the chase, I would never be against providing free, high quality education and health care for all American children, but the overreproduction of welfare and working poor families (and the under reproduction of professionals) must be discouraged somehow. I am not sure if welfare reform would do it, but it is part of the problem.
As an interesting aside, I would say the liberal head-in-the-sand fallacy that genetics has nothing to do with the accomplishment and wealth of populations has led the gifted to believe they have no obligation to reproduce to support the future population (whose labor will be partially funding their retirement). Immigration or others' kids can do that. So, we have gifted yuppy types who have double incomes and no kids, and welfare types with 8 kids. SAT scores show the outcome. One of the big issues with the boomer meltdown we will be experiencing is that one generation overproduced, but the next underreproduced. All our social and economic assumptions depend upon a degree of population growth that did not occur. Complicating all of this is a realization that the world is overpopulated. Something educated liberals (and Chinese) recognized and heeded, but not the uneducated masses around the world.
Point is, these are super important, if contentious issues. Meanness has nothing to do with it. It is just pointing out the pig on the sofa.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
