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.
Entitlements and military are the single largest spending categories for the US federal government, so it makes sense to start here.
I'd rather start with the military. We spend more on war than the next nine nations combined. If I have to pay taxes, I'd much rather have it go to people who need it, than to killing people.
Welfare abuse is infinitesimally small. The largest welfare recipients by far are the massive corporations who receive huge tax breaks, get subsidies, and hide money overseas.
In any event, why take it out on an innocent child who had nothing to do with the parents' decision? I remember some wise man who said "what you do to the least of these, you do to me."
People who are already receiving benefits should not be having more children. Period. Hand out condoms with their payments with instructions on how to use them.
People talk about being born into circumstances and not having good role models WRT getting good jobs and breaking the baby machine cycle. Yet no one mentions that these same people manage to figure out how to get welfare, WIC, section 8 etc. If they can go through all the red tape to get benefits, surely they can handle opening a little foil package and using what's inside?
Do you understand what I mean when I say "deliberate budget waste"? No one wants to get their budget cut. This is true in every segment of government. So, it is business as usual to purchase things you do not need, on a regular basis, in order to keep your budget up. You put these things in storage and later sell them as government surplus. When times are tight you can make "budget cuts" without feeling any pain, simply by trimming the funds you are deliberately wasting. This is how government budgeting works.
We're not talking about small sums of money, we're talking about substantial sums of money, in every department of every city, county, state, and the federal government. This has nothing to do with awarding very profitable over-inflated contracts to your cronies, which of course is another huge problem.
So no, I don't fret about a poor family getting an extra $50 a month to feed their children. That just means some government department somewhere has $50 less to waste. You didn't imagine the taxpayers were going to get a break of $50 per month, did you? I'd much rather feed a child than buy unneeded equipment which will never be used.
Lots of kids are on Medicaid because they have specific health issues. Or they live in a state where there is pseudo-Medicaid - public health insurance for kids who are otherwise uninsured, but where they don't fall into quite the Medicaid income guidelines... where the parents have to pay a sliding scale fee for their insurance. I'm assuming, for these intents, that you're going to lump all state health insurance into one - even if their family's income isn't strictly that low, but falls under, say, 300% of the poverty guidelines. So right, these parents should also be prohibited from expanding their family?
Too complicated. Remove the benefits altogether and make the parents pay for their own children. Why should others be forced to do so through taxation. If people want to voluntarily help then they can (and it would happen more if the state got out of that business), but real taxpayers should not be forced to compensate deadbeats.
Sucks for the kids, but then again people would be more responsible about having them in the first place if the "safety net" of old wasn't the "luxurious handout hammock" that it's become.
Too complicated. Remove the benefits altogether and make the parents pay for their own children. Why should others be forced to do so through taxation. If people want to voluntarily help then they can (and it would happen more if the state got out of that business), but real taxpayers should not be forced to compensate deadbeats.
Sucks for the kids, but then again people would be more responsible about having them in the first place if the "safety net" of old wasn't the "luxurious handout hammock" that it's become.
especially because somehow these kids are still going without. Horrible parents selling their benefits for drugs stop rewarding them. Give them a box of food nothing else.
Lots of kids are on Medicaid because they have specific health issues. Or they live in a state where there is pseudo-Medicaid - public health insurance for kids who are otherwise uninsured, but where they don't fall into quite the Medicaid income guidelines... where the parents have to pay a sliding scale fee for their insurance. I'm assuming, for these intents, that you're going to lump all state health insurance into one - even if their family's income isn't strictly that low, but falls under, say, 300% of the poverty guidelines. So right, these parents should also be prohibited from expanding their family?
For families with relatively high incomes that qualify for Medicaid only due to a child with a disability or condition, my proposal would have little to no effect. Why? Because the benefits are due to the disability and not to support the family as a whole. Hence the marginal benefit of the next child(ren) would be very small and the effect of this policy (good or bad) is next to non-existent.
I also object to your usage of "prohibited" in the last sentence of your post - you're almost trying to make it sound like a Communist China one-child policy. Far from it. I am only proposing that the system be tweaked so that the parents are not literally rewarded for the extra child(ren). This is not even close to a "prohibition"!
I propose that all benefits related to children be cut by 40% on any children born to parents drawing food stamps, housing vouchers, or Medicaid within the 2 years prior to the child's birth (excluding a period of 9 months prior to the child's birth).
For example, if a couple has 2 kids and gets on food stamps, and then a year later has a third, they will get the full benefits for their first two children only, plus 60% of the difference between three-child benefits and two-child benefits.
If the third child is born 3 months after they first get the benefits, then the family gets the full benefits of 3 kids because it falls within the 9 month exclusion period.
Thoughts?
My thought is that the less you spend on welfare and early intervention programs, the (exponentially) more you pay for prisons and the effects of crime.
My thought is that the less you spend on welfare and early intervention programs, the (exponentially) more you pay for prisons and the effects of crime.
You're assuming that they'd still have the same number of kids.
You're assuming that they'd still have the same number of kids.
I'm not a fan of eugenics. There's already a cap on benefits anyway.
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.
