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.
There is a five year max lifetime cap on welfare. This has been law since 1996.
HOW MANY TIMES DOES THIS HAVE TO BE REPEATED? They cannot stay on welfare their whole lives.
There is work requirement. HOW MANY TIMES THIS HAVE TO BE REPEATED.
This has been law since 1996. Most people do not stay on food stamps the whole life or medicaid or any form of assistance you are just plain ignorant and hateful.
I don't think the argument is about the law. It's about what's happening in real life.
No. It just doesn't punish their bad behavior. Poor people have been having kids, regardless if there was a welfare system in place. If we erased it tonight, we'd still have the same problem in 10 years.
Yes, and there would simply be more of them on the streets, homeless, and of course the increase in crime that goes with THAT. People do need to stop having kids they can't afford, something needs to be done about that, but cutting everyone off financially so they STARVE is not the answer. And no, there aren't enough jobs to go around for the people who dropped out of high school to have babies ... unless we reinstate something like Clinton's Welfare-to-Work program which forces mainly government agencies to hire welfare moms at the lowest pay scales to do the "grit" jobs that college graduates either won't do or shouldn't have to do....but with the current cuts in government agencies, THAT'S not likely to happen. That would require an expansion of government, not a huge sh**load of CUTBACKS in it.
There is a five year max lifetime cap on welfare. This has been law since 1996.
HOW MANY TIMES DOES THIS HAVE TO BE REPEATED? They cannot stay on welfare their whole lives.
There is work requirement. HOW MANY TIMES THIS HAVE TO BE REPEATED.
This has been law since 1996. Most people do not stay on food stamps the whole life or medicaid or any form of assistance you are just plain ignorant and hateful.
This doesn't help anyone's point here, but these days most places with the highest unemployment waive the "work requirement" because there simply are NO JOBS. Michigan comes to mind. Detroit specifically. And possibly the entire state of Alaska.
One program limited for 5 years.
Who said anything about HUGE families ?
But each child does get you more money.
The poor have 3 times as many kids as non poor.
How's about SNAP ?
Fact check....Welfare recipients average 1.8 children per woman...The US average is 2.1 children per woman...
Here are more fact for you greedy bastards that want to deny help for those less fortunate than you.
19% of those on welfare are temporary because of an emergency...I suspect your crappy health care system caused a lot of these emergencies. No doubt you same greedy bastards are the ones bucking the Affordable Care Act.
91% of welfare recipients are the elderly, disabled and the working poor...I suspect that the same people that want to kick people off of welfare and see them suffer, are the same ones fighting against raising minimum wage...
Of this total only 19% stay on for more than five years....
The poll is whacked and the premise of the thread is an epic fail.
Correction to whoever messaged me via a rep....Thanks for the rep point, but the contents of my post above are facts, not my opinion...Deal with them or more likely deny them, I couldn't care less.
These are the government's own numbers and the government's analysis:
Quote:
"The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) gave states greater flexibility to formulate and implement initiatives to reduce welfare dependency and encourage employment for members of low-income families with children. For
the nation, in 2006, 10 years after passage of the Act, the birth rate for women 15 to 50 years old receiving public assistance income in the last 12 months was155 births per 1,000 women, about three times the rate for women not receiving public assistance (53 births per 1,000 women)."
And very similar stats in the 2010 release (The 2012 report hasn't been published. Only data tables are available, and it looks like they've stopped tracking this statistic because it's obviously incendiary.):
Quote:
"For the nation, the birth rate for women receiving public assistance was160 births per 1,000 women, almost three times the rate for women not receiving public assistance (56 births per 1,000 women)."
Is that sustainable? Will the 40% who actually support the rest be able to afford to keep paying more and more to financially support an exponentially growing chronically poor class? And how "moral" or "kind" is a country that incentivizes the highest rate of birth among its poor? What kind of future are all those children born into poverty going to have? Right off the bat there are overwhelming odds AGAINST them. Why would any country do that to its own children? Why is incentivizing an increasingly larger poverty class Democrat/liberal policy? (I know the answer to that question: VOTES. Democrats get their largest percentage of votes from the lower income quintiles.)
Government welfare programs make it easy and profitable for irresponsible people to bear child after child with NO thought whatsoever to providing for that child, guiding that child to adulthood, and helping that child develop his/her potential so they can be contributing members of society.
Location: planet octupulous is nearing earths atmosphere
13,621 posts, read 12,728,425 times
Reputation: 20050
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good
No. It just doesn't punish their bad behavior. Poor people have been having kids, regardless if there was a welfare system in place. If we erased it tonight, we'd still have the same problem in 10 years.
I agree, just look at countries like Haiti they get no gov hand outs!!! and just keep pumping out the babies left and right.. but on the other hand giving em rewards to breed like flies makes even more flies.. its a catch 22... either way it sucks in the end...
The births per 1000 women have been posted (with citations) half a dozen times, but we still have a poster charge in with different (uncited) numbers, shouting that his are right.
Amazing.
I do have a question - proving that those receiving benefits have a higher birth rate is not the same as proving that the benefits caused the birth rate. Plenty of confounding factors there. So, for any left leaning poster who does not believe that laziness is rewarded under the current system (or that they are all downtrodden due to "luck," and worked just as hard as self supporting Americans):
What should we do? If cutting welfare type programs isn't the answer, what is?
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.
(I know the answer to that question: VOTES. Democrats get their largest percentage of votes from the lower income quintiles.)
