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.
The problem with statistics like "6 out of 10 children born into povery" is that "poverty" is somewhat subjective. Many in american has no idea of what true real life poverty is.
Go to Mexico where you can see 4+ year olds digging through garbage dumps looking for things that can be resold for real poverty..
Most "poverty striken" americans, do without, but they are far from poverty..
Well - in a way it's simple. "Poverty" in the USA means the taxpayers give you Medicaid, they give you food stamps, free breakfasts and lunches at the schools they give you. They give you WIC, housing assistance, free cable tv and free utilities.
Poverty in the USA of course doesn't mean you go without, you certainly do not go without, you have everything you need and want but someone else pays for it for you.
So my point was 6 out of 10 children born into poverty means they are growing up on government handouts. 4 out of 10 children are growing up without them.
It wouldn't be this way if the idiotic Californian government didn't do everything in their power to drive business out of the state. This state has so many BS Laws, Regulations, and Ordinances that I can understand why only 144,000 are propping the state up.
California shows the folly of liberal public policy.
Part of this mess was due to deregulation of energy (Republican sponsored plan), the relatively low property taxes in which large landowners don't pay too much (Republican sponsored), the current 2/3 vote needed to pass the budget (Republicans want to keep this, but Dems want it out).
I agree that some of the mess was due to bulky liberal programs, but not all of it...
I think Texas is going to be right behind California. They reported recently that 6 out of 10 children is now born into poverty in Texas which of course means welfare handouts, free health care, free everything.
When those that take outnumber those that must give, big problems ahead.
Well 5 out of those 6 just may be illegal. Texas is not generous with it's social welfare programs and there are no plans to expand them like California did. Texas has a big illegal problem...you have kids walking over the borders in the morning getting on US school buses for pete's sake and no one is stopping them. They are getting food, education, medical care by just getting on that bus every morning.
Sorry to interrupt the circle jerk, but it's quite obvious that the more you make the higher your personal income taxes will be, and as California has many of the wealthiest individuals in the world, their contribution in income taxes dwarfs that of everyone else. IE: 144,000 people pay a disproportionate about of taxes because they make a disproportionate amount of income, grass is green and water is wet.
This in and of itself is not the doing of any governing body in California but the result of progressive taxation and incredible accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few. You can argue that the way they spend the money is irresponsible, but the way they get it is totally understandable.
Well - in a way it's simple. "Poverty" in the USA means the taxpayers give you Medicaid, they give you food stamps, free breakfasts and lunches at the schools they give you. They give you WIC, housing assistance, free cable tv and free utilities.
Poverty in the USA of course doesn't mean you go without, you certainly do not go without, you have everything you need and want but someone else pays for it for you.
So my point was 6 out of 10 children born into poverty means they are growing up on government handouts. 4 out of 10 children are growing up without them.
I know, my point is that we keep raising the "poverty" level so that more and more indivuals qualify for these programs without a need.
One of the healthcare programs, families making $65K can qualify for. Thats far from poverty..
Cut off what? They give more to the feds than they get back, what would you be cutting them off from?
They may give more to the feds than they get back, but federal mandates indeed put a burdeon on the states..
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.
