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.
Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda how many women really have a baby just so they can get welfare?
the extra costs of child-rearing surely outweigh any financial gain here, I would have thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
What extra costs? It doesn't cost them anything. They get everything for free. Free welfare, free Medicaid, free food, free daycare, free housing, free clothes, etc., all paid for by the taxpayers. Hence the... "It's free, swipe your EBT!"
How do you not know that?
let's assume that the woman was on welfare in the first place.
In which case, any child will just get the extra welfare to cover its expenses. (yes, I know its the mother that actually gets the money)
how many women really have a baby just so they can get welfare?
the extra costs of child-rearing surely outweigh any financial gain here, I would have thought
let's assume that the woman was on welfare in the first place.
In which case, any child will just get the extra welfare to cover its expenses. (yes, I know its the mother that actually gets the money)
so there is no net gain for the woman.
that is what I'm saying
Sure there is. Just one obvious example of that is the extra food stamps a woman gets for each child while those kids are fed free breakfast, lunch, and dinner 5-6 days per week at school, after school care, and daycare. So the woman doesn't really need all that much extra in food stamps because she rarely has to feed the kids, but she gets them anyway.
Where are Seniors exempt from Property Taxes? Might want to move there in 30 years.
I think I misspoke, it's not so much as seniors are exempt as there are more exemptions, freezes, deductions, and exclusions available to seniors. For example, a $90K house in Champaign, IL will cost you $900 in taxes. FL offers about $75K in exemptions and TX offers about $40K in total exemptions to seniors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
Plus some liberals would have us believe that it is purely coincidence that the groups with the highest illegitimate birth rates are also the groups with the highest incidence of being on welfare. The fact that married women don't get welfare as easily as single women has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that these women, both white and black alike, don't marry the fathers of their children. Just coincidence. Nope, they aren't gaming the system. They're just helpless victims.
I don't know that women are necessarily gaming the system, but I think it could be tweaked somehow to make sure people don't view public assistance as desirable. The video posted earlier is about CA and how much they give you, but it's well known that CA is a welfare state and not your typical American state.
Whatever tweaks we made would have to do the least amount of damage to the people that are actually working. Let me give you two examples. My friend's mom receives SSDI for her son, but 'technically' doesn't need it. She doesn't incur any increased expenses related to his care. However, it can't be said that she doesn't spend the money on her kids. Sounds strange? She doesn't make enough to afford rent, food, and utilities without the SSDI money, but her costs would be the exact same without the SSDi. Call it a form of welfare, and it is, but she wouldn't survive without it. She divorced her kids' dad because he used to beat her, but he doesn't pay child support. Every so often he will get put in jail for not paying, then get out pay for a few months, then stop and the cycle repeats itself.
In comparison, this bartender I know has her mom watching her kid, or her mom has custody/ control over raising the kid. Now, the mom gets SSDI on behalf of the kid and her kid does have increased medical needs, but the money is simply used for rent because the medical costs are all paid for by some other program. Her mom doesn't want to work though, she could easily make $30-50K, but doesn't because the kid's SSDI money pays the rent.
I would have no problem subsidizing the first example, but I have a problem subsidizing the second. What is the point of SSDI though? Children can't work, so even if they will have a problem holding down a job in the future I don't understand why they receive money at 3 yrs old.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
What extra costs? It doesn't cost them anything. They get everything for free. Free welfare, free Medicaid, free food, free daycare, free housing, free clothes, etc., all paid for by the taxpayers. Hence the... "It's free, swipe your EBT!"
How do you not know that?
Okay, maybe in CA/NY, but those aren't typical states and you have to make a ridiculously low income to qualify for food stamps. Take GA or TX for example, how well do you think people are living on welfare? Sec 8 housing has an 8 year wait list and I don't think more sec 8 properties are coming into the market, so I doubt many people are having kids to get onto sec 8. I've never heard of free daycare.
Okay, so I just looked up the program in GA, but I wasn't able to get much information. Using an income of $1700, rent cost of $650, and two children under 5 it looks like someone would be eligible for a bunch of services including daycare, but I have absolutely no idea how much. You may have some points here, maybe welfare needs to be cut back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner
It depends on what you know...
If you were raised generationally dependant on the Government... that is the way of life you are most familiar with...
I have seen it many times... it is not so much a person says I'm going to have a child to get on welfare... the reality is once you do have that child at a young age and you are eligible for assistance... it can become a way of life... especially when getting a housing voucher is dependant on one thing... family size...
It can become very difficult to break generational dependence in single parent homes... of course some do succeed... I have seen it a few times.
The reality is few leave Section 8 voluntarily and those that do are truly exceptions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
Yep. The people who say that trickle down doesn't work generally use only disparity to make their claims. They constantly harp on how much more the wealthy have as compared to the poor. What they don't say is that the poor now have more than they used to have. They simply imply that it's a zero sum game, so if they can show the rich are richer, then the poor must necessarily be poorer. But it's not so.
The true measure of whether trickle down worked or not isn't how rich the rich are. Are the poor better off under trickle down policies than they were? That's the true measure. It's irrelevant whether the rich have slightly more or much more than the poor. What's relevant is whether the standard of living of the poor was raised or not. How the rich compare to the poor is just smoke and mirrors. What's relevant is how the poor of today compare to the poor of yesterday. If you cut the taxes of the rich, and the poor's standard living raised then trickle down did trickle down.
You made some pretty good points. As far as I'm aware trickle down has only worked in Indonesia due to poverty and ease to employ people vs machines, but it's tough finding comparisons. Our poverty rate is lower today than in the 60'2, but more programs are available also. Do we know how to attribute the lower poverty rate? I've mentioned a few times in this thread that I'm unaware of where or how trickle down has worked, but I'm not so sure we ever employed trickle down fully. Tax rate is only one component, another component is lowering the barriers of entry to the marketplace and I don't know if we have done that. I'm not old enough to know, but from talking with my dad it was easier to bring a product to market 30 years ago.
I have to think about this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda
How about decrease amount of Welfare, and increase min wage at the same time
that would get many more people working right?
If you increase the minimum wage the poor are going to be negatively effected more than anybody else and anybody that isn't worth that new minimum wage isn't going to be hired. I'm pretty sure there is a graph floating around somewhere that shows minimum wage rates and unemployment. If there is I would not be the least bit surprised if unemployment rose when min wage rose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet
Seniors ar enot exempt here in texas , however you can get a freeze for life on property taxes when you hit 65
It heavily depends on your location. Most states offer freezes and additional exemptions. IL, for example usually taxes 1/3 of your housing appraisal then subtracts the exemptions. If I remember correctly, a $90K house will result in $900 in taxes, but I'm not sure of all the details.
You're understanding of "trickle down" is incorrect. It isn't based on an assumption that "people will 'spend' that money." What it means is that a growing, strong economy produces more opportunity (jobs), and it does. This is an undeniable truth.
I hate to do this, but must. It makes me break out in hives from head to foot when people confuse possessive adjectives and pronouns, or think they're both the same. It's "Your."
In any case, concerning your comment that trickle down somehow magically creates opportunities and jobs, is precisely the part of the myth used to sell it to the American people. Trickle down is a name given by Ronald Reagan to a swindler-style trick periodically played upon the American population, which gets sold to the public as intended to benefit for the middle class. Of course, the middle class doesn't get to vote on whether to swallow the trick or not - there is no referendum voting system which would ever allow that.
The sole purpose of "trickle down" was to further line the pockets of people who are already sitting on vast piles of money (the mega-rich and mega-corporations).
The name trickle down changes from time to time. Reagan called it trickle down because he wanted to dupe the unaware and uninstructed, and there's no doubt that Reagan was a master propagandist and marketing wizard. It sometimes provided a bit of humor when people referred to it as a "**** down upon" (the middle class). I think Will Rogers used the term, but to poke fun at the scam itself.
But I digress.
The primary metaphysical tenet of the "trickle down" theology sold to the ordinary American goes like this: if you cut a rich man's financial responsibilities and burdens to his country, and let him instead keep the money he would've owed to his country under normal circumstances, he will automatically feel compelled to invest that money in ways that will rain jobs down on the middle class - thereby putting that money into the pockets of the middle class.
Every time a trickle down scam is pulled on the American public, it has the same effect - the rich stash that money, increase the vast piles of money the rich were already sitting on, and nothing gets "trickled down", so the economy becomes stagnant and has much less activity.
In FACT, after the scam was pulled, and the rich had were sitting on even bigger amounts of money, the way they thanked this nation was by pulling jobs away from this country at breakneck speed, rendering this country practically jobless, by crushing the people's unions, and by carrying out a series of corporate scams that left this country on its knees.
I hate to do this, but must. It makes me break out in hives from head to foot when people confuse possessive adjectives and pronouns, or think they're both the same. It's "Your."
In any case, concerning your comment that trickle down somehow magically creates opportunities and jobs, is precisely the part of the myth used to sell it to the American people. Trickle down is a name given by Ronald Reagan to a swindler-style trick periodically played upon the American population, which gets sold to the public as intended to benefit for the middle class. Of course, the middle class doesn't get to vote on whether to swallow the trick or not - there is no referendum voting system which would ever allow that.
The sole purpose of "trickle down" was to further line the pockets of people who are already sitting on vast piles of money (the mega-rich and mega-corporations).
The name trickle down changes from time to time. Reagan called it trickle down because he wanted to dupe the unaware and uninstructed, and there's no doubt that Reagan was a master propagandist and marketing wizard. It sometimes provided a bit of humor when people referred to it as a "**** down upon" (the middle class). I think Will Rogers used the term, but to poke fun at the scam itself.
But I digress.
The primary metaphysical tenet of the "trickle down" theology sold to the ordinary American goes like this: if you cut a rich man's financial responsibilities and burdens to his country, and let him instead keep the money he would've owed to his country under normal circumstances, he will automatically feel compelled to invest that money in ways that will rain jobs down on the middle class - thereby putting that money into the pockets of the middle class.
Every time a trickle down scam is pulled on the American public, it has the same effect - the rich stash that money, increase the vast piles of money the rich were already sitting on, and nothing gets "trickled down", so the economy becomes stagnant and has much less activity.
In FACT, after the scam was pulled, and the rich had were sitting on even bigger amounts of money, the way they thanked this nation was by pulling jobs away from this country at breakneck speed, rendering this country practically jobless, by crushing the people's unions, and by carrying out a series of corporate scams that left this country on its knees.
And THAT is trickle down.
If you do not have and make money you do not create jobs
If you do not have and make money you do not create jobs
Perhaps, and perhaps not. The fact that after the redistribution of money to the already-rich, jobs were taken from the U.S., indicates that this trickle down formula is pure redistribution propaganda, and nothing else.
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.
