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.
Just curious, but do you consider Social Security, as it exists in the US, to be a "social welfare" program?
yes, because it is
a. mandatory (for most of us)
b. redistributive
The only way I could call it an "investment" is if I could opt to disburse every penny I'd ever paid in, with interest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PawleysDude
From every paycheck I ever received, I "invested" in Social Security, just as I invested in a 401K. I don't feel like the checks I draw monthly from either of them to be welfare...
I think "feel" is the correct word, because whether or not you're "on welfare" or "participating in a welfare system" is an emotional issue for most people. My opinon is that you shouldn't "feel" that you are "on welfare", despite participating in a welfare system, because you are probably a lifetime net contributor to the social welfare system. I am just making an assumption, though, you could be a deadbeat.
By the way, here is the data I have in mind, regarding my earlier comments about whose children we should be subsidizing, or whether we should be subsidizing anyone's children at all.
in the last 12 months, at the time of the study:
for every 1,000 women who live below the poverty line, there are 91.4 births
for every 1,000 women who live above the poverty line, to 2x the poverty line, there are 67.6 births
for every 1,000 women who live at 2x the poverty line or above, there are 44.5 births.
or you can look at it by public assistance. For every 1000 women who don't receive public assistance, they have 52.6 babies. For every 1000 women who do receive public assistance, they have 154.5 babies. This is enabled by a lot of things, one of which is our policy of giving women money for having kids. I'm not your typical "traditionalist" or a social conservative, but it just seems obvious that we are eroding our social fabric through this social engineering of promoting single welfare mommies and absent (or child-support) daddies.
By the way, here is the data I have in mind, regarding my earlier comments about whose children we should be subsidizing, or whether we should be subsidizing anyone's children at all.
in the last 12 months, at the time of the study:
for every 1,000 women who live below the poverty line, there are 91.4 births
for every 1,000 women who live above the poverty line, to 2x the poverty line, there are 67.6 births
for every 1,000 women who live at 2x the poverty line or above, there are 44.5 births.
or you can look at it by public assistance. For every 1000 women who don't receive public assistance, they have 52.6 babies. For every 1000 women who do receive public assistance, they have 154.5 babies. This is enabled by a lot of things, one of which is our policy of giving women money for having kids. I'm not your typical "traditionalist" or a social conservative, but it just seems obvious that we are eroding our social fabric through this social engineering of promoting single welfare mommies and absent (or child-support) daddies.
That is some SCARY data you just posted. I can see where a lot of my tax dollars are going!
When I was in high school (I graduated in 2005, so not that long ago) I knew girls who wanted to have kids just to get a check from the government. I knew people who didnt want to work and go on welfare because they "can". There were SEVERAL girls who were 15 and 16 who got "knocked up" and had a kid, and ofcourse, no father was around. These girls had to miss school and miss out on an education, burden others to take care of the kid while they were at school, and forced them to find whatever job they could find to try and get some money to buy the supplies for the kids. Sadly, a few of these girls went ahead and got knocked up AGAIN before we even graduated. You would think they would learn a lesson from the first time. Why would you want to miss out of a high school education, burden family or friends to take care of a kid, because the person you had unprotected sex with doesnt want anything to do with the kid, then try and find any job you can to buy basic necessities for the child, oh yeh, and completely miss out on growing up normal?
Are we supposed to feel bad for the couple living in a trailer and have 2 kids they cant afford? Most of the time, I dont. You shouldnt bring a human into this world if you cant raise it properly. Why would you want to subject someone into poverty, into skipping meals because you cant afford enough food, into not being there because the father has to work 2 jobs just to survive?
Im thankful my parents were smart enough to only have one child. My dad was a teacher, and my mom stayed at home taking care of me. Eventually as I got older, my grandparents and elderly family started having issues, and im thankful my mother was able to help them, while my dad worked. We werent poor nor wealthy, and I learned the importance of earning your own money. I got a sjob as soon as I was 16, sometimes worked 2 jobs, because I wanted to earn my own money and not "mooch" off my parents. By the time I was 19 I had a career and my own place, and bought my first property at 21. Im thankful my parents were responsible people, and im glad im also responsible too. I just wish more families would think LONG TERM when they decide to have a child. We're talking about a HUMAN LIFE, this isnt a dog or cat you can just ask the neighbors if they want to take in, and sadly, some people think they can just have a kid and merely forget it exists after a while. Just read the newspaper or watch the local news for all the deadbeat parents out there. The stories about parents leaving there kids in hot, locked cars will begin to surface soon im sure.
I guess he is failing to see that would backfire on him big time. Everytime a kid is born and the parent(s) cant pay for it, guess who pays? The taxpayer. The more kids you need to send to public school, guess who pays? The taxpayer, and out public school are already under-funded. What happens if the kid has a father who doesnt want anything to do with him? Are we promoting people to have children just to support SS?
This is a guy who has SEVEN KIDS! He should be glad he got into politics so he could afford to have all those kids. Maybe he doesnt see that most americans aren't bringing in 6 figures, and theres a lot of people who are barely making it by. Telling people to have MORE children is just silly.
Why oh WHY does the state of SC seem to be his #1 supporter?
Some of my NYC friends will make snide remarks by saying " well, that statement right there fits the SC Mentality!!!!!1111"
Seriously, I think Rick's social conservatism fits in with many culture warriors in the rural areas and Greenville/Spartanburg (correct me if im wrong), but scares away the Libertarians, or economic conservatives in Charleston or Columbia.
Fear not. I'm sure the Mexicans will be willing and able to pay for all the old gringos.
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.
