Why do the poor cost so much money in welfare? (legal, solution)

[Opin_Yunated]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Irrelevant in regards to sustaning an exponentially increasing welfare-dependent class. As I've already posted, the facts are that nearly 50% of U.S. births are paid for by Medicaid, and those who receive public assistance have a birth rate 3 times higher than that of those who provide for themselves.

That's not sustainable. Mathematical fact.

False.

We have a progressive tax code. More people are on public assistance because most of the tax revenue is coming from the upper class. The way to reduce welfare is to increase wages of the lower and middle class. Wages have been going in the opposite direction (relative to total overall wealth) for 95% of folks, so the "winners" just pay more in taxes.

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by hawaiian by heart

While some value of labor has consistently risen since 1970 namely the top 10% wage earners income, namely CEOs etc.

And?

What does it matter if stock holders want to pay top dollar for a leader they believe will do the best job?

If a basketball team wants to pay their star player $30 million, that's up to them. If a movie studio wants to pay its star $15 million for doing a role, that's up to them.

Why can't a company pay what they feel a person is worth?

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated

False.

Burger King would disagree.

We live in a global economy. If the cost of doing business in the US continues to climb, companies and investors will go elsewhere.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by hawaiian by heart

Let me challenge your perception ok, half of all births are paid for by medicare etc?

No, Medicaid. I doubt many age 65+ women are bearing children.

Ok is it because people are irresponsible and lazy or want a handout?

Mostly irresponsible. It costs ~$250, 000 to raise a child to age 18. Can't foot the bill? Don't have kids. Simple truth.

Are we raising a generation of welfare recipients?

Yes. The U.S. Government in it's dubious wisdom has financially incentivized bearing children which one has inadequate means to support.

[Opin_Yunated]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

Burger King would disagree.

We live in a global economy. If the cost of doing business in the US continues to climb, companies and investors will go elsewhere.

To hell with Burger King. If they want to ship overseas, let them. Expel them from the country. Crappy company anyway.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

No, Medicaid. I doubt many age 65+ women are bearing children.

Mostly irresponsible. It costs ~$250, 000 to raise a child to age 18. Can't foot the bill? Don't have kids. Simple truth.

Yes. The U.S. Government in it's dubious wisdom has financially incentivized bearing children which one has inadequate means to support.

Why wouldn't they?

I repeat. Your birth rate is at 1.9. Replacement rate is at 2.1.

Put your flawed ideology aside and do the math. The next generation faces a ****ed economy if you don't reach replacement rate.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

That's not what happened in either Roman Empire.

Based on what? Your imagination? Rome did indeed have an increasingly unsustainable welfare problem, just like we have in the U.S.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by hawaiian by heart

While some value of labor has consistently risen since 1970 namely the top 10% wage earners income, namely CEOs etc.

There's a reason for that. Not everyone is qualified to be a CEO. However, the ranks of those who are only qualified to perform menial jobs has risen exponentially, and Obama wants to further glut the no/low-skill work force with illegal immigrants.

[Opin_Yunated]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Based on what? Your imagination? Rome did indeed have an increasingly unsustainable welfare problem, just like we have in the U.S.

We created our own welfare problem by creating a class of working poor. Most people on welfare are working. They just aren't paid enough to survive.

[Opin_Yunated]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

There's a reason for that. Not everyone is qualified to be a CEO. However, the ranks of those who are only qualified to perform menial jobs has risen exponentially, and Obama wants to further glut the no/low-skill work force with illegal immigrants.

Nope. Labor for the top 10% has risen due to the power of the financial markets. "Labor" is a more appropriate euphemism, since they don't produce anything other than speculation.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated

False.

We have a progressive tax code. More people are on public assistance because most of the tax revenue is coming from the upper class. The way to reduce welfare is to increase wages of the lower and middle class.

I agree, but those are the people who are choosing to overpopulate by reproducing too much, thereby creating a glut of no/low-skilled workers. That glut keeps wages low.