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.
Now we learn that 48% of all U.S. births are to Medicaid recipients, that is, those unable/unwilling to provide for themselves and any and all children they may bear.
Is that sustainable? Will the 40%* who actually support the rest of our society 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. Study after study reports EXACTLY that. Why would any country do that to its own children, thereby weakening its own society as a whole?
* 60% of the tax-eligible in this country are net TAKERS. They pay LESS in taxes than they get from the government in benefits and services. It's a completely unsustainable burden foisted on the productive contributors. Simple math. The majority takers WILL destroy our society. We're all witnessing the downward spiral. Data here: http://www.city-data.com/forum/31225997-post75.html
Last edited by InformedConsent; 09-09-2013 at 08:44 AM..
Why are we teaching Darwinism if we don't allow it to play out?
I have asked the same question many times. No one has been able to answer it. They come back with buzzwords like "moral," "humane," etc., but then don't understand that literally condemning millions more children to a lifetime of poverty and struggle each year ISN'T "moral" OR "kind."
LOL, the weak yes we know you do nto care about them, God forbid you every have to walk in their shoes. The freaks, now you are just being ignorant and insulting towards those you believe are somehow less than you, no surprise there either.
We should bear in mind that loopholes and incentives to the wealthiest people of this nation are also terribly, astronomically high, unsustainable and a profound financial burden to the rest of us regular working folk.
After 1-2 children
If they cannot afford them and they have more they will have to GIVE UP the child for adoption.
TOO BAD.
You went over your limit as a result you will not get any help.
The only help will be for the child in adoption.
You can still visit BUT YOU WILL NEVER GET A DIME from the government as support for it again.
It will be put up for foster care or in the adoption center.
You can pick him/her up when you think you can afford it but NO EXTRA HELP after 1-2 children.
The problem is thus largely solved for welfare queen abuse using extra children.
So, you believe in the Chinese one-child policy, but make it 2.
You'll remove kids from their families and you don't think this will be a problem?
How many kids aren't adopted and are in foster homes now?
We should bear in mind that loopholes and incentives to the wealthiest people of this nation are also terribly, astronomically high
How so? Look at the ACTUAL average effective tax rates, reported by the IRS:
Top 0.1%: 22.84%
Top 1%: 23.39%
Top 5%: 20.64%
And then a HUGE effective tax rate drop-off below the top 5%...
Top 5-10%: 11.98%
Top 10-25%: 8.70%
Top 25-50%: 6.01% (middle class)
Bottom 50%: 2.37% Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data
Explain to us how those "loopholes" and "incentives" are causing the top 1% to pay a tax rate 4 times higher than the tax rate paid by the middle class. What kind of "loophole" means one pays MORE?
After 1-2 children
If they cannot afford them and they have more they will have to GIVE UP the child for adoption.
TOO BAD.
You went over your limit as a result you will not get any help.
The only help will be for the child in adoption.
You can still visit BUT YOU WILL NEVER GET A DIME from the government as support for it again.
It will be put up for foster care or in the adoption center.
You can pick him/her up when you think you can afford it but NO EXTRA HELP after 1-2 children.
The problem is thus largely solved for welfare queen abuse using extra children.
All on the premise that women are reproducing for the sole purpose of more welfare benefits.
BTW, the all-in cost of 18 years of foster care is multiples of welfare benefits. This report from 2006 pegs the cost at about $40K a year, per child.
When I write that conservatives hate millions upon millions of their fellow citizens this thread is yet another example of too many that illustrates this hatred.
conservatives hate. The core of conservatism is exclusion.
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.
