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.
Poor people had many children long before there were government programs. Just look at how many children people have in African countries that have no benefits.
It really comes down to what John Kenneth Galbraith said long ago:
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
Poor people had many children long before there were government programs. Just look at how many children people have in African countries that have no benefits.
It really comes down to what John Kenneth Galbraith said long ago:
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
Let's take a deeper look at the poverty problem and the triple birth rate of those receiving public assistance...
Example using numbers: 1 million receiving public assistance, 1 million not receiving such, the latest published birth rate numbers for each group (halved because the rates were reported for women only), and the formula for predicting future population, future value = present value x (e)^kt, where e equals the constant 2.71828, k equals the rate of increase (expressed as a decimal, rate taken from the U.S. Census data), and t is the number of years.
After 20 years, the population of those not receiving public assistance will have grown from 1 million to 1.75 million.
After 20 years, the population of those very likely needing public assistance will have grown from 1 million to 4.953 million.
1.75 million paying taxes to support social programs for 4.953 million.
Giving benefits to those who take what they need instead of earning it is not a sustainable strategy.
I didn't say it isn't. Stop avoiding the post that show facts.
I did. Only 2 of the top 15 welfare states were red states. You claimed the data was old, but you have so far declined to provide a link to updated data.
My 40-50% tax burden (federal/state) is keeping me from having children. We do not have the extra income necessary to take on the extra cost of having children. Some of the 4k a month my wife and I pay in just income tax would go along way to actually having a family, but instead it is used for those who have no consequences for their action. This is what is called making sound decisions based on your ability to provide for your family, also known as personal responsibility, I know, a new concept.
I do not expect the government to pay for me, I wish that could be said of others.
While republicans give CEO billionaires 11% tax rates, so they have the funds to build US factories in Asia.
The democrats want raise these CEO's tax rates and give regular Americans some tax relief. But republicans don't vote for themselves, rather they vote for the CEO's and corporations that fund Fox news and Rush radio.
(you must click the blue words under the screen to watch the video about Buffet and Obama.)
The democrats want raise these CEO's tax rates and give regular Americans some tax relief. But republicans don't vote for themselves, rather they vote for the CEO's and corporations that fund Fox news and Rush radio.
(you must click the blue words under the screen to watch the video about Buffet and Obama.)
Do we really need to get back into the difference between capital gains and income taxes?
The income tax rate for the wealthy is 40%. Taxing capital gains like you tax income would destroy the economy. Not to mention the capital gains rate is for the US is already amount the worlds highest, plus many states already tax capital gains as well as the federal government.
Read this Six Reasons to Keep Capital Gains Tax Rates Low | Cato Institute
Not to mention, most of the time tax rates are lowered by these ceo's donating millions and millions of dollars to charity. Like Romney that gave 30% or over 4 million to various charities.
"If I were to get pregnant, I would know just where to go for help: the local offices of Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), the federally funded food and nutrition program; Planned Parenthood; and the Family Resource Center. All three are places where I stood in line for hours with my siblings as a child growing up in Watts. But finding local resources to pursue higher education is harder. As one of the few community college students living in Watts, I can’t find a place to print out an essay or get college-related advice.
When I ran into a friend who grew up in the same low-income housing development as I did, she said there was an easier way than to struggle through college. “You should get pregnant,” she told me. “Girl, the government will take care of you, trust me.”"
This article hits home to the difference between the democrat/republican view towards those living in poverty. Republicans want to do things to lift up those impoverished, to give people means to get themselves out of poverty instead of the current broken model pushed by democrats to just keep giving things away, keep people from taking responsibility for themselves.
good article. i'm surprised time would publish such a thing.
Quote:
The trouble with assistance programs, as I’ve seen it, is that they reinforce a cycle of poverty without offering a way out for young people like myself who want to pursue higher education and a career — at least without having to get pregnant.
Forbes article on well documented conditions on government run Indian reservations. Serves as an insight into poverty ridden dem controlled cities.
When the people elect people to higher political office after they served tenure riding herd over a failed city, the predictive result will be more failure. The dem party, not necessarily individual dems, are a thoughtless monolith which has the ability to keep supporters by misrepresnting the cause of their problems in an endless journey whose stanza is 'we are almost there'.
So how does that explain ALL the poor republicans? You knows the biggest users of welfare.
You're misinformed. Democrats benefit the most from welfare programs:
Quote:
"...as we know, states do not vote, individuals do. There is only a paradox if Republican voters receive welfare at above average rates while voting against it. From the Gellman-paradox, we know that "the low-income voters who drag down the Red States' average tend to vote disproportionally for Democrats.
...Indeed, people who live off the government disproportionally support Democrats"
Note to moderators: all images appearing in this post have been linked via HTML text command in a legally permissible manner per the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Perfect 10 v. Amazon ruling, and as such do not constitute copyright violation.
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.
