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.
56% of those families receiving public aid have someone working a job. Think about that.
Doesn't mean they can afford to have and support children. And especially NOT 3 times that of the working families who DON'T receive public assistance.
You know what, Lets touch base on what utter nonsense the information provided by informed consent, and how he is intentionally misleading people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
FALSE. The statistic is accurate. The demographic receiving public assistance has a birth rate 3 times higher than those who don't receive public assistance. Documented in this post, with links: //www.city-data.com/forum/40277525-post281.html
Lets look at that one. Its based on a pdf from....2006 first of all. Way to get recent and relevant numbers!
Now, is he right? Yup! women getting public assistence have a birth rate 3X higher the others. What he conveniently ignores is this part:
Public Assistance
Receiving public assistance . . . . . . . . . . . 1,742,895
Not receiving public assistance . . . . . . . . 74,429,612
the definition of receiving public assistance in the chart indicates that those folks are a TINY minority.
Huh....but...but...he said almost half of all births are paid for by medicare!
Again...it depends on the details. Heres a interesting statistic from that same link.
The birth rate of the poorest-those families making under 10K/year? Is the lowest of all the income rates.
Weird...if you cherry pick your data well enough you can come up with fun results.....so how about this:
According to the linked data this statement is also true:
The poorest people by income have the lowest birth rate.
But that too would be just as misleading as the nonsense that was posted earlier.
Doesn't mean they can afford to have and support children. And especially NOT 3 times that of the working families who DON'T receive public assistance.
The more people you have being taken care of by the government translates into more voters for those who support big government.
Doesn't mean they can afford to have and support children. And especially NOT 3 times that of the working families who DON'T receive public assistance.
Funny assumption on your part...that they had children while receiving said assistance. I mean thats the funny part here. Reality: Having a child is expensive, and can put you on public assistance. You are confusing correlation and causation. This is like saying:
Poor people often receive food stamps!And being shocked by it.
Hey did you know, most states limit public assistance to.....people with children? GASP. OMG!
All charity is voluntary. There's no such thing as compulsory charity. If it isn't voluntary, it isn't charity. Compulsary = conscription
Incorrect.
Government giving charity is public charity.
Government taxation is compulsory.
Ergo, socialist government dispensing public charity equates to COMPULSORY CHARITY.
Aka "redistribution of wealth."
. . .
All true. The problem is neither lack of sex ed, nor lack of access to free birth control (access to free birth control already exists via Medicaid or CHIP). Both have already existed for decades, and yes, the demographic receiving public assistance have a birth rate 3 times higher than everyone else. We need to start taking a hard look at eliminating the public assistance benefits incentives to bear child after child after child, not the least of which is the overlap and duplication of FNS benefits discussed in detail in this thread, which is making food stamp recipients MUCH more obese than even the poor who don't receive food stamps, and damaging their health:
What if the causality is reversed and they are on welfare and poor because they have kids rather than the idea that poor people are more irresponsible and promiscuous than the wealthy?
I think you're making the wrong argument here. The real argument is why do the people who hate paying for someone's food, shelter, job training, and healthcare when it's a part the welfare system, accept those same entitlements when it's part of the prison industrial complex?
You have people "mad" about someone getting $100/month in food benefits, so their solution is to lock them up for $30k/year.
I think they want to put them in labor camps or workhouses. Or just shoot them on sight.
I prefer sterilizing anyone who does not finish high school or is arrested more than twice in their life.
You'd probably like living under the Politburo, then.
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.
