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.
And how often are these people going to medicaid providers before they get pregnant?
Why bother? They know they and their offspring are supported for free regardless of the consequences. There are no penalties for their own irresponsibility.
So to recap InformedConsent.... Your entire premise is based off the birth rates are static and welfare rates will only increase......
Both are true to date. So, your point is... what?
03-30-2014, 11:11 AM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by northbound74
One town in rural Kentucky. Wow.
Okay, but as someone who has lived ALL over the south I can say with absolute certainty that the vast majority of welfare recipients in those red states vote Democratic if at all. No doubt in my mind whatsoever. I've known a few of them personally and am even related to some.
Most in red states would welcome the reduction in federal aid, except for perhaps the politicians who made them that way.
DO NOT forget that these red states are considered red because of one thing: presidential elections. Otherwise, many of them have democratic congressman bringing in the federal dough. Although republicans don't exactly turn the money down, they are by no means the only culprit.
Then there is the generational poverty that has existed in those places longer before the modern day liberal-conservative rhetoric, and long before they (those states as a whole) ever voted Republican. There is a whole lot more going on there than what political silliness and child's play could ever hope to fix.
Do you have actual evidence?
I also grew up in the south and could just as easily make the opposite argument. In the places I lived, it was hateful, white right wing conservatives (registered D but never voted or acted that way) who were milking the system with false disability claims.
You can thank Obama for the weaker than expected economy. Obama's former Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, resigned in 2010 because she knew from her own work as a researcher in Economics that if Obama's tax increase policies were enacted they would blunt an already very weak economic recovery.
Romer's study examined all the legislated tax changes in the U.S. since World War II, and found that there is a negative correlation between increases in the level of taxation and the amount of tax revenue received by the government as a result of that change.
She also found that for every 1% increase in the tax rate, GDP declined by anywhere from 2.5-3%, and that "... stems in considerable part from a powerful negative effect of tax increases on investment." http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~dromer/pa...ERJune2010.pdf
Turns out she was right. We've had an extremely weak recovery.
Oh.... so the conservative planned "austerity" was not the way to go then.....
So was Obama responsible for the worst economic crisis in modern history?
Was Obama responsible for the decades long policies that undermined America's prosperity?
But let me guess..... it's the democrats/liberals fault..... They've had a dictatorship over this country for decades.....
You're such a good little lap dog..... just regurgitating what the far right want's you to believe.
Hopefully, you'll wake up and become an independent thinker.....
Why bother? They know they and their offspring are supported for free regardless of the consequences. There are no penalties for their own irresponsibility.
No penalties, that's a funny of looking at.....
So why are teen birth rates higher in bible belt states?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Both are true to date. So, your point is... what?
True to date? What does that mean? Birth rates and welfare rates are the same as in 1954? LOLZ..... don't be dishonest, won't work here.
Lastly, you assume that once on welfare.... always on welfare....
My point is your entire premise is based off of flawed, dishonest, assumptions. You are taking an snapshot in time and extrapolating from that in order for it to fit your pre-conceived notions......
The poor are having 3x as many babies as non poor.
It's 50% now, up from 45% in 2010, up from 40% in previous years.
It's expected to go even higher with expanded medicaid and the bump up to 138% of FPL.
Grim news for our future.
That is a total twisting of statistics. I even posted about this, just a few posts up. Three times as many women on public assistance had a baby within the past year as women not on PA. That is because public assistance usually has a maximum limit of two years after having a baby!
You know, you're getting back into your disingenuous phase again, like you did in the birther threads. You know damn well I meant the stat about women on PA having 3X the birth rate of "other" women.
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.
