Ben Franklin on poverty

cornopeanDecember 8, 2012

Listen to Ben Franklin on how to best alleviate poverty:
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cornopean

...and he was right. public programs to help the poor don't end up helping the poor. They hurt the poor. They create dependency.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 10:45AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

So Ben Franklin thought that there shouldn't be any public programs to help the poor.

And?

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 10:45AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
marshallz10(z9-10 CA)

I remember the Poor House run by the County back in my youth. The local courts would sentence debtors to the County Farm for good honest work slopping the pigs. Lots of complaints when the County closed the farm from lack of debtors sentenced.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 10:53AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

Ok, no food stamps, no TANF, no help with heating, rent, Medicaid for health care, and you'd have, I dunno, what, lets use the number of people on food stamps as a guide - 48,000,000 hungry, cold, homeless, sick people. About 10,000,000 of them laid off, unable to find work for years now.

Why don't you trot out with a megaphone, hop up on a soap box and address them, tell them to get snappy, work for themselves, because Ben Franklin said so.

Oh, and all that support money that these poor people were paid wasn't stuffed under their mattresses. It went to pay hospitals, doctors, nurses, medicine, buy food, buy fuel, pay rent, and all that. So stopping all that spending would cause a major dip in the economy, hurting the people who invested in farms, stores, buildings, and so on.

But hey, Ben Franklin said it was a good idea.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 11:10AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jodik_gw

You can't just cherry pick from a source... you have take that source as a whole. Ben Franklin, as I understood it, had a bit more of a heart... but then, our founding fathers and cohorts do not live in the 21st century, and wouldn't even recognize what greed and lacking ethics have done to this nation... and the world, as a whole.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 11:15AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
momj47(7A)

And what did Ben Franklin say about wealth?

What about the really, really rich... we should eliminate the programs that allow them to become even richer.

Do we ever "earn" ourselves out of government subsidies, benefits and entitlement programs?

Do businesses become big enough that we shouldn't continue to give them tax breaks, etc.

Lets face it, the wealth of the 1% doesn't do much for the rest of us. It's not invested in making American better, it's not creating new jobs, it's not being spent at small businesses in the community? It's being invested, and protected in other countries.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 11:16AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cornopean

let's add in a few additional factors. more than 70% of federal spending goes to welfare programs. ALL that money would be in private hands and when money is in private hands, it multiplies. private people and entrepreneurs create wealth. the govt never creates wealth. so all the 48 million people that now live in misery and near slavery, would be working in good jobs making a living and living a respectable life. in fact, they would be creating wealth themselves just like all private people do when they work and create and innovate.
this is the picture that liberals are incapable of seeing. they just assume that if we didn't have welfare, all those people would be starving on the streets. the opposite is the case, if there were no welfare, those 48 million people would be working.
as it is, our govt is flat broke b/c of its efforts to alleviate poverty. and Obama, more than any previous president, has multiplied anti-poverty programs, but to what purpose? we are worse off for all these programs, not better.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 11:22AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
pnbrown

Good catch, mom: BF was not in favor of an elite ultra-rich class with massively disproportionate control over resources and politics. That is in fact just what he and others were attempting to avoid.

Let's get rid of social services precisely when the elites are divested of their control.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 11:24AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jodik_gw

Give it up, Mom... I am... it's just more right wing rhetoric...

And who was it, I ask, that allowed the country to slip so deeply into the recessions it now can't climb out of? Obama didn't do that. He was left with a giant mess and a group that won't work with him to clean it up!

Reality and facts suck, don't they?

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 11:28AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

You need to back up your "factors" with real facts. No where near 70% of federal funding goes to welfare unless you consider the military, SS and Medicare welfare...even then you fall short.

Where on earth do you get your info?

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 11:30AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

more than 70% of federal spending goes to welfare programs

Ok, this is getting silly. Social security is now a welfare program? So I guess that buying an annuity that invests in US treasury bonds is not a welfare program, but paying the govt the same money to invest in the same US Treasury bonds is?

when money is in private hands, it multiplies. Hows that, exactly?

And here I thought that In a modern economy, money 'multiplies' because the Federal Reserve creates it, or when inflationary pressures are high, starts pulling money out of the system by manipulating interest rates.

that liberals are incapable of seeing

Nothing like a day old poster spewing off bumper sticker slogans about 'libruls' and what they are capable of or not, while putting forth a simpleton quote from Ben Franklin as all thats needed to sort out the US economy.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 11:36AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cornopean

Here is the data I was relying on. http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/federal-spending-dependence-programs

Is this chart incorrect?

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 11:45AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
marshallz10(z9-10 CA)

Where is Hay to set this new poster aright about the US economy? Maybe there is confusion by citing Chinese percentages instead of US ones?

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 11:49AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
labrea_gw

There's a dandy thing on the bottom of your post when you preview it. It's a space for a link paste the link there! Other than that your commentary on dependency is pure blather!

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 11:51AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

So you believe that Social Security and Medicare is welfare spending and you would privatize both of them? I think there are a good many conservatives who would disagree with you on that.

Even with those two the spending doesn't come to 70% . Too bad those folks don't tell you what exactly they are counting in their figures.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 11:54AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

Wait a minute. Jim? Jim DeMint? is that you? Getting started at you new job, since you're quoting from the Heritage Foundation?

(The same Heritage Foundation that came up with the health insurance mandate, until Obama took it up, then abandoned it)

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 11:55AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cornopean

sorry about the link thing. just figured that out. I told you I was disabled. :)

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 11:55AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ohiomom

Once again I say why bother, remember the tale of the two year old.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 11:56AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ninamarie(4Ont.)

Yeah, let's starve the poor into prosperity. Or crime.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 11:59AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cornopean

I wouldn't privatize Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare, I would eliminate them as federal programs and turn them over to the states. My basic principle is the Jeffersonian idea that govt should be as close to the people as possible.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 12:02PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cornopean

it keeps coming. this time from ninamarie. W/o welfare programs, all the poor would starve or turn to crime. Isn't that a little offensive to the poor? You don't seem to have a very high opinion of these folk.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 12:08PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

corn, then be careful of your statements. You said 70% of Federal spending is welfare and you said that " ALL that money would be in private hands and when money is in private hands, it multiplies. private people and entrepreneurs create wealth. the govt never creates wealth."

Did you not read the article you quote? Did you not realize that they included SS, Medicare and Medicaid?

By the way many States can't afford those programmes. Where will they get the money? Guess where......from you.

Additionally, do you think that there should be different standards in different States? What happens when someone moves? Talk about bureaucracy , it will grow exponentially not shrink.

Remember your wise words...."unintended consequences"

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 12:09PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
shymilfromchi

How many great minds are doing important things because their families had help? So many talented people are now left without funds to feed their families because they were laid off and can't find another job due to their age or lack of the education needed in the new economy? Do you really want to take away their food and housing? The other day I heard, but can't prove it, that about 2 to 3% of the people on welfare are lazy bums taking advantage of the system. There will always be those people. I would vote for providing help for everyone, so that no one who really needs it won't go hungry.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 12:10PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cornopean

I did realize that they included SS, Medicare/Medicaid. I don't see your point here.

and if states can't afford these programs, then they shouldn't implement them. Isn't that what we do when we can't afford things? and, I would suggest, in keeping with wise old Ben, that such programs are unnecessary and counter productive.

If the govt has to be involved in redistributing wealth, then just write everyone a check every month. Don't try to manipulate and shape society into the way you think it should look. Charles Murray actually suggested a plan like this sometime ago.

Here is a link that might be useful: Murray's plan for welfare reform

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 12:15PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

My point is simple.

You said that:

"more than 70% of federal spending goes to welfare programs. ALL that money would be in private hands and when money is in private hands, it multiplies. private people and entrepreneurs create wealth."

Then you said :

"I wouldn't privatize Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare"

So either you want to privatize SS, Medicare and Medicaid, OR you didn't realize that the Heritage foundation was including them in their 70% welfare number.

Simply trying to understand which it is?

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 12:28PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg(Z-7)

Maybe ol' Ben didn't see the poor in welfareless countries because they were all dead? Adds a new twist to the War on Poverty.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 12:32PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ninamarie(4Ont.)

Well, perhaps I'm just more aware than you are that without food, the human body will starve. And, since you propose cutting off income for the poor, you are proposing that they starve.
Unless you believe that food and shelter should be free.
And without income, I would starve or turn to crime to support myself? What would you do? Freeload?
Grow food in December?
In the meantime, the ideas that you pretend are new have been in practice for about forty years now. Privatization continues, the tax burden on the poor through to the middle class increases, and the tax burden on the wealthy decreases. And none of these policies have brought us to the lotus land. They have made things worse;', much, much worse for most humans.
And I understand that state control is a right wing mantra. But that's merely because it is much easier to dismantle services at the state or local level. Or haven't you been watching?

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 12:38PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri_cles

The OP is filled with false information and far Right wing ideology...two things that intersect and fester in minds of Fox Newzers like rotting garbage.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 12:51PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cornopean

@chase you got me there. I was inconsistent. Let me clarify. My own personal view is that the jurisdiction of the federal govt is strictly limited by the constitution. All other areas of governance are ceded to the states. Hence, SS etc. should all be given to the states as per the constitution.

My own personal view is that SS, Medicare, and any other welfare type policy is bad policy and should be eliminated at all levels of govt.

and btw...I get welfare so I am voting against my own immediate best interests here.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 12:54PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
esh_ga

Hence, SS etc. should all be given to the states as per the constitution.

That just takes it out of one government's hands and puts it into another's. The money is still being spent. What is this, a shell game?

Besides, of course, people pay INTO Social Security and Medicare. Paying the money back out is not a welfare program.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 1:02PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
frank_il

"and btw...I get welfare so I am voting against my own immediate best interests here."

Then you should decline it because it goes against your moral beliefs.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 1:06PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cornopean

@esh_ga It takes it out of one govt's hand and puts it into another govt's hand but that govt is much closer to the people than the Federal govt. That's important.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 1:15PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

Its kind of like going to the local hospital at the rehab center. The place is full of geezers with their Medicare-supplied wheel chairs sucking Medicare-supplied oxygen with physical therapists paid by Medicare helping them recover from their heart attacks brought on by a life of bad decisions re fat-laden diets, there they are complaining about cutting government spending, and how awful that socialist Obamacare is.

Conservatives all. The most hypocritical bunch alive today. Do as I say, not as I do.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 1:18PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cornopean

@frank_il how does one decline welfare? Is there a way to opt out of Obamacare? Social Security? I'm all for it.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 1:20PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jmc01

There was NOT a way to opt out of Social Security in 1995 when my dad tried to do just that. It was forced on him. Has the rule changed yet? i don't know.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 1:32PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
esh_ga

I'm sure there's a way for you to send your Social Security money back to the government if you would only look into it.

So, instead, I asked my son, Nathan, the law student, to find out how one can decline Social Security. Fortunately, there is a very simple way. (And, it is not an irrevocable election. So, if down the road you may encounter unforeseen reversals, your Social Security payments can be reinstated.)

My hope is that those of us who are fortunate enough to not need that safety net, fill out this simple one-page form. Note that the form looks like a photocopy but it is, in fact, the Official Form that the Social Security office provides. You simply mail it or hand deliver it to your local Social Security Office.

Sorry, I don't buy your "let one government do it instead of another" concept. As I said, that's just a shell game.

Here is a link that might be useful: how to do it, link to form is included

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 1:35PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
frank_il

The best way, I imagine, to not collect Social Security would be not applying for it in the first place.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 1:37PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cornopean

They are still going to take SS out of my paycheck. Can I opt out of that?

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 1:48PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
esh_ga

Why don't you contact them yourself and find out? I am not your retirement adviser. ;)

You could change jobs. My dad worked for the government for years and never contributed to Social Security. He doesn't get it now, of course, just a pension from the civil service.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 1:55PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cornopean

I just don't see why the govt has to do our retirement planning for us. ? Our Founders would have laughed themselves silly if someone had suggested this at the Constitutional Convention. :)

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 2:02PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
esh_ga

Talk to the architects of Social Security. So, are you going to contact them about declining yours?

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 2:04PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
pnbrown

Another Franklin quote:

"I have lately made a tour through Ireland and Scotland. In these Coun- tries, a small part of the Society are Landlords, great Noblemen and Gen- tlemen, extremely opulent, living in the highest Affluence and Magnifi- cence: the Bulk of the People Ten- ants, extremely poor, living in the most sordid Wretchedness in dirty Hovels of Mud and Straw, and cloathed only in Rags. I thought often of the Happiness of New England, where every Man is a Freeholder, has a Vote in publick Affairs, lives in a tidy warm House, has plenty of good Food and Fuel, with whole Cloaths from Head to Foot, the Manufac- tury perhaps of his own Family. Long may they con- tinue in this Situation!" (Franklin to J. Babcock, Janu- ary 1772)

Sound like he is favorable to an extremely inequitable distribution of wealth and access to resources? Eighteenth and nineteenth century style Ireland is where the current trajectory of wealth concentration is headed. What Franklin was observing was that Poorhouse type of welfare does little good, because it does not address the problem of lack of access to resources. The tidy New England yoeman had access, hence no poverty.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 2:22PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bboy(USDA 8 Sunset 5 WA)

Another thread explaining the patently obvious to a poor person who has bought into - and come here to promulgate -propaganda that benefits only the very wealthy.

A bunch of peasants got together and tried to reverse the French Revolution, too.

Knowledge empowers, ignorance disables.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 3:53PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cornopean

@pnbrown The reason the New Englanders were better off is b/c they were free people. The reason the French and English were worse off was b/c of monopolies which the govt granted to certain merchants. This was what Thomas Jefferson railed against as well. The colonists hated those monopolies and protested bitterly against them.

It's the same thing we see throughout all history. Poverty is caused by govt action. When people are left free, they rise out of poverty and squalor. Govts put people back in squalor.

The French Revolution was a massive protest against a govt that is scarily like our own. The govt financed today's debt using tomorrow's dollars. It was a hopeless situation.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 4:06PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

The French Revolution was a massive protest against a govt that is scarily like our own

Oh, do give us some details.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 5:38PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cornopean

The parallels I am referencing are particularly the runaway spending and the unsustainable debts.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 5:57PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
duluthinbloomz4

Do we now have to have comparisons between Louis XVI - the "Sun King" - and Pres. Obama? Maybe corn is anticipating pitched battles between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 6:02PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
duluthinbloomz4

Do we now have to have comparisons between Louis XVI - the "Sun King" - and Pres. Obama? Maybe corn is anticipating pitched battles between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 6:03PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
october17(5chgo)

If the age for social security (and medicare) is going to be raised, then there should be a cut-off age for baby mamas. Or, do they need us poor working slobs to keep paying longer (and more) so more baby mamas can join the welfare rolls or stay on for a lifetime and another generation or two?

If we could end the baby mama welfare epidemic, there would be loads of money for health care for everyone.

I think Ben Franklin would be appalled at the welfare in this country. And also by the blantent hijacking of the government by corporations.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 6:12PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cornopean

The welfare system has created an incentive for people to have more babies. Again, people respond to incentives.

and it's not the corporation's fault. It's the govt's fault for constantly giving them tax breaks, subsidies, etc.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 6:21PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

myths:

"1. Poor women have more children because of the "financial incentives" of welfare benefits.

Repeated studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women's choice to have children. (See, for example, Urban Institute Policy and Research Report, Fall/93.) States providing relatively higher benefits do not show higher birth rates among recipients.

In any case, welfare allowances are far too low to serve as any kind of "incentive": A mother on welfare can expect about $90 in additional AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) benefits if she has another child.

Furthermore, the real value of AFDC benefits, which do not rise with inflation, has fallen 37 percent during the last two decades (The Nation, 12/12/94). Birth rates among poor women have not dropped correspondingly.

The average family receiving AFDC has 1.9 children -- about the same as the national average. end quote

Now, if you have actual data, other than repeated urban mythology, that shows anything else, please trot it out. Or maybe you really believe that for an extra $23.33 a week, they have another baby.

Here is a link that might be useful: 5 myths about welfare

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 6:37PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
demifloyd(8)

More liberal arguments that do not address the crux of the matter.

Forget trying to establish WHY people have children, and ask yourself this question:

If a woman knew that she would be 50% responsible for the financial care, feeding, housing, diapers, transportation, doctor visits, inoculations and daycare of each of the children she births and the male that she spread her legs for to produce that child would be 50% responsible for the same, and if he was not, she would have to shoulder HIS responsibility, as well, WOULD SHE STILL HAVE THE CHILD OR ADDITIONAL CHILDREN?

Me thinks not.

Not unless people enjoy watching children suffer from lack of medical care, lack of a warm place to live and a roof over the head, no diapers, no food, no day care.

Get real.

There is a growing number of people that do the irresponsible, indulgent thing knowing full well that responsible people will take up their slack and do their job for them--and those responsible people will even kick in enough to take care of the irresponsible, indulgent parents, too.

Thanks to Democrats and President Obama and people like them.

You get more of what you subsidize--illegitimate births and irresponsible "parents" that will not do what it takes to take care of what they produced.

So excuse me if I don't agree with "why" women have children.

It's a moot point.

The point is, births would go down if someone else did NOT take up that slack.

I predict it would only take one or two cycles of dying children or children removed from the home permanently to nip this little problem in the bud.

Not that I advocate it.

But in practice, I think it would work.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 6:47PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

I predict it would only take one or two cycles of dying children or children removed from the home permanently to nip this little problem in the bud.

Not that I advocate it.

But in practice, I think it would work..

Well, not really. In countries where there is no safety net and no gvt help exists, people who can't afford their children abandon them. And these places have some of the higher birth rates in the world. Its a widely recognized correlation - more poverty = higher birth rates.

The opposite is true as well - the higher the income, the lower the birth rate.

Here is a link that might be useful: link. Note how the poorest countries top the list

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 7:18PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jerzeegirl(9)

If a woman knew that she would be 50% responsible for the financial care, feeding, housing, diapers, transportation, doctor visits, inoculations and daycare of each of the children she births and the male that she spread her legs for to produce that child would be 50% responsible for the same, and if he was not, she would have to shoulder HIS responsibility, as well, WOULD SHE STILL HAVE THE CHILD OR ADDITIONAL CHILDREN?

How crude.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 7:29PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
demifloyd(8)

What's crude is how these people choose to live their lives, fail to provide for their children, and shirk their responsibilities by taking advantage of people that have responsibilities of their own.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 7:33PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

Eh, its our monthly commentary from the usual forum conservatives reveling their astounding ignorance about how poor women actually live, and with the bonus commentary on how they'd run other people's lives if they ever got the chance.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 7:36PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jillinnj

I agree, jerzeegirl.

the male that she spread her legs for

from the same woman that doesn't use the words "hate" and "shut up".

But this is ok.

It's those true colors again.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 7:38PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jillinnj

the bonus commentary on how they'd run other people's lives if they ever got the chance.

Right, by apparently allowing their children to die or be taken away just because they had the audacity to be poor and give birth.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 7:40PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
demifloyd(8)

Posted by jillinnj (My Page) on
Sat, Dec 8, 12 at 19:38

I agree, jerzeegirl.

the male that she spread her legs for

from the same woman that doesn't use the words "hate" and "shut up".

But this is ok.

It's those true colors again."

*

Hate is a negative emotion.

Shut up is rude.

Spreading one's leg's is quite accurate what these people do when they have absolutely no regard for the child they will bring into the world.

The truth isn't so pretty, is it?

"True colors" has nothing to with me.
The truth is these people are using taxpayers and playing then like fools.

Would it make you feel better to characterize these women as "full of love for their paramours that just happened to reproduce and woe is me I cannot care for this child?"

Whatever makes you feel good.

The truth apparently is not something some of you care to look at--the fact is the only victims are the taxpayers and the children.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 7:52PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ohiomom

Part II of the game ... spout disgusting outrageous things (yanking chain) and when the expected results are achieved (outrage) whine about personal attacks on character.

Next....

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 8:09PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

Spreading one's leg's is quite accurate what these people do when they have absolutely no regard for the child they will bring into the world.

'Spreading one's legs' is what all women do when attempting to conceive a child by natural means. There's is no us or them in this act; natural conception works the same for every socio-economic class.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 8:15PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
susanilz5(z5 IL)

"Spreading one's leg's is quite accurate what these people do when they have absolutely no regard for the child they will bring into the world"

What makes you think that they have no regard for the children they bring into the world?

"What's crude is how these people choose to live their lives"

Many mothers with difficulty meeting the financial needs for their children (you refer to them as "these people") are victims of divorce or violence.

Do you think people get married and start a family knowing full well that someday dad will skip town and mom will have to support 2 kids on minimum wage? That this is the way they chose to live?

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 8:33PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Circus Peanut

Nancy, apparently Demi conceived cross-legged using a turkey baster. Must be a nouveau-riche thing.

The blatant and ugly misogyny of some of these conservative women never ceases to amaze.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 9:03PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cornopean

If welfare doesn't incentivize child bearing, then why the need for a family cap law?

Here is a link that might be useful: family cap law

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 9:07PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
pnbrown

Government causes poverty when it is simply oppression in a cloak, as it was in Ireland until fairly recently, iow, colonialism. Yes, we traded colonialism for a less oppressive form, far from ideal, but for a while a pretty good engine of wide-spread prosperity. If you want to have thread about Franklin's views then you need to stay historical to be OT. It doesn't apply to today's plutocracy in a decaying Empire.

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 9:24PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cornopean

When and where was the govt an engine of wide-spread prosperity?

    Bookmark   December 8, 2012 at 9:27PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
pnbrown

Gosh, so many examples, just here in NA.

How about in the southeastern US, when the Federal government very actively removed the Tribes of the southeast and these lands, some fabulously rich in timber and crop productivity were given to white citizens? Do you think you could manage to be prosperous if a thousand acres of mature timber was taken form whomever owns it now and was given to you for a song? Sure, you might have to get off your butt and do some work, but the government meanwhile is maintaining an economic climate where you can have that timber cut and floated down-river to a port where you can sell it and make your fortune without excessive interference from others.

Multiply that sort of thing by thousands and millions of times and would you say that is prosperity? You bet, for some. For the Cherokee the US government was an extreme oppressor and engine of destruction and murder. Government worked very, very well for a long time for a certain segment of citizenry, and now that the pickings are about done that segment, its descendants and its grovelings wants to eliminate government.

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 8:25AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jmc01

"When and where was the govt an engine of wide-spread prosperity?"

How about when land grants were given to railroad companies in the 1800s for expansion west/southwest/northwest?

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 8:42AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

How about the internet and space exploration .

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 9:00AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
markjames

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

We see this often when people have lived off numerous freebies/subsidies, insurance, unemployment extensions, disability, windfalls and/or family support for long periods of time.

Many won't do for themselves until they're forced to and even then many will do the minimum to survive.

I've personally helped make dozens of our non immediate relatives weak and dependent by doing "too much" for them. Since I'm cutting off their support, I've done my best to try to motivate and help them to become self-sufficient, disciplined, work hard, save and invest so they can live well.

I recently bought a tax auction property with several holdover tenants - mostly adult children of the former owner. Although they were in their 30s and 40s, they had lived at home their entire lives, so they didn't know how to survive without family support. Although they knew they were being evicted, they didn't even look for a place to live, so they had be physically removed.

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 9:27AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
markjames

Another Ben Franklin quote that applies to much of our population:

"Laziness travels so slowly that poverty soon overtakes him."

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 9:34AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

Same old arguments over and over. I'm really tired of them and have no desire to repeat over and over again the same counter-arguments. It's all pointless. As corno was at least honest enough to say (slightly paraphrased to include context): "If the studies contradict [what I claim], they are wrong."

We certainly know that others on this forum believe the same thing--if you don't agree with me, you are in the wrong. Regardless of what facts are accumlated and argued!

Arguing just to be arguing (since no one intends to change his/her views) does seem rather pointless. I think we are all stuck in a rut.

Fortunately, Obama was re-elected, so we will be going ahead with some sensible and necessary measures, regardless of our new poster's Heritage-derived theories (which are rejected by Heritage whenever the Democrats agree with them). The simple fact is that it is not about who is right--it is about politics--who will attain and wield all that power.

Which is another reason why these repeated arguments are largely pointless. As Romney showed, Republicans will just flip-flop--no matter how persuavsively they argued their opposite opinion earlier.

It's all about winners, not who is right.

Kate

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 9:39AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
pnbrown

Still a mystery to me why upstate NY in mark james' environs is so over-run with lazy useless people. No place that I am familiar with is like that.

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 10:00AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
duluthinbloomz4

And how do they all happen to be MJ's "non immediate relatives"?

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 10:10AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

Still a mystery to me how mark james can possibly have 100s and 100s of "relatives" -- all on the dole.

I agree with pn--no situation that I am familiar with.

Kate

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 10:12AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
labrea_gw

Me thinks there may be a stronger dollop of that heretic calvin there than Franklin!

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 10:25AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
markjames

Many people are lazy, overweight, obese, out-of-shape, unhealthy, uneducated, unskilled etc, but they're not useless.

Even many mentally/physically handicapped workers are capable of performing many service industry jobs.

People that are unwilling to support themselves, or incapable of supporting themselves create more and more jobs and investment opportunities.

Much opportunity wouldn't exist if everyone was more self sufficient.

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 10:28AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
susanilz5(z5 IL)

"I recently bought a tax auction property with several holdover tenants - mostly adult children of the former owner. Although they were in their 30s and 40s, they had lived at home their entire lives, so they didn't know how to survive without family support. Although they knew they were being evicted, they didn't even look for a place to live, so they had be physically removed."

Let me take a wild guess, a tax auction property, the family fell on hard times and couldn't pay property taxes so they lost their home. And they didn't move out because they didn�t "know how to survive" or because they couldn�t come up with first and last months rent?

This post was edited by susanilz5 on Sun, Dec 9, 12 at 10:58

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 10:52AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
labrea_gw

Hmm didn't you used to jerry-rig people computers from some old posts I remember or is that someone else? Key readers spy ware kind of stuff?

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 10:54AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ENMc

"Still a mystery to me how mark james can possibly have 100s and 100s of "relatives" -- all on the dole.
I agree with pn--no situation that I am familiar with."

Kate

I find it difficult to read threads once the gloating starts in with his shiftless-lazy-good-for-nothing relatives. And if that weren't bad enough, now he is lording it over his shiftless-lazy-good-for-nothing non relatives

Seriously, it's enough to make you wince.

Or roll your eyes.

E

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 11:12AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
demifloyd(8)

Again--no cogent responses to the points made by the OP, we we have people talking about the poster instead.

Elbow nudge, elbow nudge, wink, wink, dig, dig.

It's no substitute for cogent responses.

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 11:13AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
labrea_gw

No your right so little respect! Probably going to continue along that line?

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 11:16AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
markjames

Let me take a wild guess, a tax auction property, the family fell on hard times and couldn't pay property taxes so they lost their home. And they didn't move out because they were they didn't "know how to survive" or because they couldn't come up with first and last months rent?

I don't know what series of events caused the former owner to lose the home.

For whatever reasons, many tenants with leases, month to month tenants and foreclosure/tax auction holdovers don't look for a place to live, nor attempt to sell, give away, or store their possessions.

When many move out, or they're evicted, many don't even bother to turn off the electric, gas, cable, phone and/or return rented/leased equipment.

When I took possession of this home, the gas, electric, cable and internet were still active, the cable boxes hadn't been turned in and the majority of their possessions were still in the home. Many of the possessions were worth quite a bit of money had they attempted to sell them.

Many people don't submit a change of address either.

IMO, many people facing foreclosure, tax seizure or eviction are still in the denial stage.

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 11:18AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

"So Ben Franklin thought that there shouldn't be any public programs to help the poor."

Nope. He simply observed that comfort is a disincentive for change.

We saw in Obama's first term that government transfers of wealth from one individual to another individual do not create "prosperity."

But the electorate wanted to give the president more time to make the plan work. So government will keep doing what it's doing. And we'll keep getting what we're getting.

By the way, comfort is subjective. Just because no woman here would have a child in order to get more government benefits doesn't mean it's an unattractive option to all women.

For an immature, uneducated woman or teen, having a child provides an immediate source of independent income. The value of the benefit grows with every child. What "makes sense" when you come from one background can be a powerful motivator to do something that, from a different background and perspective, looks completely stupid and irresponsible.

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 11:37AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
marquest(z5 PA)

Same old arguments over and over

Kate I agree. I have not been able to bring myself to address any post of a "just signed up yesterday poster" that use a bunch of right wing charts and talking points for argument sake is a waste of time.

To add to a own self loathing when you say you are on Welfare and post arguments of the government is the problem is beyond rational thought. It is a useless waste of time to discuss issues with this type of mindset. The medical Psychiatric need of people like that is above my tolerance meter.

Really, how successful are you if your claim to fame is coming on HT and talk about how much money you have, and you are better than those poor people that do not have personal responsibility. That just sounds like someone that did not have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of and stumbled into a few pennies and think they have arrived at some special place. You can put an expensive dress on a pig and it cannot hide that it is a pig.

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 11:50AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jillinnj

Let me take a wild guess...nik didn't read David's post at Sat, Dec 8, 12 at 19:18.

Facts really do not seem to penetrate with some.

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 11:53AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

For an immature, uneducated woman or teen, having a child provides an immediate source of independent income. The value of the benefit grows with every child. Urban mythology once again.

As I posted yesterday: "Repeated studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women's choice to have children. (See, for example, Urban Institute Policy and Research Report, Fall/93.) States providing relatively higher benefits do not show higher birth rates among recipients.
In any case, welfare allowances are far too low to serve as any kind of "incentive": A mother on welfare can expect about $90 in additional AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) benefits if she has another child.
Furthermore, the real value of AFDC benefits, which do not rise with inflation, has fallen 37 percent during the last two decades (The Nation, 12/12/94). Birth rates among poor women have not dropped correspondingly.
The average family receiving AFDC has 1.9 children -- about the same as the national average."

http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/five-media-myths-about-welfare/

So you think that women have babies for an extra $90/4 weeks..... $22.50 a week.

Oh, well maybe food stamps. I'm sure you believe that they, you know, THEY always cash in their food stamps and use the money on drugs. Thats a US average of $133 a month per person. Divided by 4, $33.25 a week to feed a person, $4.75 a day.

Now, you can't buy diapers pr baby clothes with food stamps.
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?cat=1&ind=26

But if you buy formula, that costs about $120 a month.

http://www.kidsource.com/maternal.conn/cost.feeding.html

So I tell you what, anyone who wants to keep repeating this BS about women having babies so they can continue to make oodles of cash. Show some actual statistics with sources. Or maybe it might dawn on you that its just bigoted garbage.

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 11:55AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jillinnj

Or maybe it might dawn on you that its just bigoted garbage.

Wishful thinking.

They will not respond with any facts of any kind.

Then the next time the subject comes up, they say the same thing, we (David) starts all over again proving them wrong and their statements absurd...and around and around we go.

I admire your persistence, David.

Some of us do pay attention to your posts and your links and appreciate it.

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 12:08PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jlhug

If you work just enough but not too much, a second child may be worth an additional $1000 in child tax credit and as much as $1,999 in Earned Income Tax Credit. Plus you may get additional money for subsidized housing, WIC (for five years, I think), more money in food stamps, additional assistance for utilities, etc. There are many benefits available to low income families that are based on family size over and above "welfare" payments.

I have had clients ask me how much more they would get back if they had an additional child. It is no surprise when that person will tell me what other additional benefits they can get if they have an additional child and even give a dollar value. Nor is it a surprise when they come to get their taxes done the next year with a baby in their arms. Many don't think beyond the first couple of years of a child's life. They only consider the immediate future.

I suspect the truth is there are more babies being born to get more support from the government that most here care to admit. You aren't going to find that kind of information in stats because most people won't admit that getting more is at least part of the reason they had another child.

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 12:47PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
marshallz10(z9-10 CA)

There remains a distressing insistence on ignoring facts or cherry-picking information and "opinions" supporting talking points from the extremes, especially the self-proclaimed conservatives. Thank you (again), David, for you due diligence on bringing to HT factual materials.

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 12:48PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jillinnj

jlhug - are you an accountant? And you do people's taxes? Are you saying that people on welfare pay you to have their taxes done?

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 12:53PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

Seems the maximum EITC for 2012 you can get is $5,891 with three or more qualifying children. For a family that size, the earnings limit seems to be $45,060 ($50,270 married filing jointly) with three or more qualifying children.

Thats hardly the poor, single, minority baby-factory women that we're wringing our hankies about so they learn better breeding habits.

Here is a link that might be useful: IRS website

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 1:11PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lily316(z5PA)

David has a point. Corn suddenly joins here on the day Jim DeMint resigns to join the Heritage Foundation. Hmmmmm .Maybe he has some spare time now...lol. Every time any right winger on TV or radio mentions the think tank, Heritage foundation, I flip him off. Completely off the wall figures skewed to suit their arguments

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 1:26PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
marquest(z5 PA)

The same year the business owner hires part time employees so he/she does not have to include health care so he/she can get more money from the government. Both clients are aware of how much more they will get back from the government of how they operate.

What is your point?

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 1:30PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jmc01

Jill, I know all sorts of people who have asked accountants what the impact of an additional child would be. The people I know appear to be just as wealthy..or wealthier than you...however wealthy that is.

And when I was collecting unemployment, an accountant did my taxes. It's my choice for how I spent my money, wouldn't you say?

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 1:48PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
pnbrown

Oh, a cogent response to the OP?

The OP is a random B.Franklin quote, as if that were his last word on the issue of poverty. That quote offers no solution, other than "leading and driving", whatever that might mean. Additionally, there is the fact that what was poverty in Franklin's time doesn't exist now, in the US or Canada, what we call poverty would then have seemed luxury. How is there a cogent response to a confused and non-sensical OP?

Regarding mark james' implication that the masses of lazy undereducated people sucking off the government creates good opportunities for the smart and motivated would seem to be at odds with the obvious fact that such people are a huge cost to the productive. If everyone was "self-reliant" (presumably everyone not very young or old, we aren't expecting babies and people in their decline to be autonomous are we?), goods and services of all kinds would be cheaper and taxes would be lower. It would simply be easier to live because there would be less burden overall on society. IOW, it's circular logic because it amounts to saying that if everyone was productive then a productive person would be less notable. Similarly if everyone was rich then being rich would be normal, we'd have to have a new rich.

So yes, if one wants to measure oneself on a scale of cripples of some kind then one can place pretty high. Have at it (and have you applied to compete in the special olympics?). I'm going to stay over here where most everyone is motivated and I appear less wonderful.

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 2:16PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
susanilz5(z5 IL)

David, I admire your ability to provide facts in a form that is easy for all to comprehend. Mom always said patience was a virtue, I think she was talking about you!

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 2:54PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jlhug

Jill, I am an enrolled agent (federally licensed tax practitioner who specializes in taxation), not an accountant or CPA. I've been doing taxes for about 18 years now.

Yes, people who have been on welfare for a portion of the year and worked for part of the year still need to file if their income is over the filing threshold for their filing status. I've met more people who game the system to maximize their tax refunds than I care to remember. They work for a part of the year up to the point where they maximize their EITC, then they quit and go on the public dole. I have no statistics to back up my experience but it is a very real experience. When someone asks how much can I make before my EITC starts to decrease, I know exactly what they are doing. These people are smart. If they put their "smarts" to work at gainful employment instead of figuring out game the system, they would have far more money. They are also the group of taxpayers who are taken advantage of by the refund anticipation loan scam because they want their money from the government NOW - not in 10 days but NOW!

The question that I get at least once a year that really raises my blood pressure is "But I made $17,000 last year and my refund is only going to be $7,000?"

Those of you who have never worked in a tax office in a low income neighborhood really should do so. It would be an eye opening experience.

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 4:38PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jlhug

That is not correct, David. You have misinterperted the information on the IRS website.

The amounts of EITC form a bell curve. At lower incomes, there is less EITC. For 2011, it increases to the max of $5,751 for people with either AGIs or earned income of between $12,750 and $ 21,800. For 2011, if your income is over $49,078, you do not qualify for EITC. Please note that the EITC for incomes between $49,050 and $49,078 with three children is $3. I've given you a link to the EITC book for 2011. I can't find similar tables for 2012 on the IRS website

Here is a link that might be useful: 2011 EITC

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 4:53PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

You're the expert. :-) But all in all, isn't the EITC limit for three kids, maxing out at $5,891?

So making lots of babies - in excess of 3 - isn't going to make a whole lot of difference.

As for what percentage of the budget now is taken up by "welfare", the total annual Federal budget is 2.6 trillion, looks like 'welfare' - adding up TANF, EITC, and the child tax credit, is about $110 billion, so, roughly, 4%.

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 5:11PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jillinnj

Jill, I know all sorts of people who have asked accountants what the impact of an additional child would be. The people I know appear to be just as wealthy..or wealthier than you...however wealthy that is.

And when I was collecting unemployment, an accountant did my taxes. It's my choice for how I spent my money, wouldn't you say?

Huh? The discussion was about demi's idea on how to teach welfare moms to stop having babies. My question to jlhug was whether these welfare moms were paying her/him to do their taxes.

What in the world does that have to do with people in general questioning an accountant about the impact of having a child on their taxes? Or how wealthy or not I am??? And where did I tell anyone or even imply how they should spend their money?

No idea what you are talking about.

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 5:21PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

David why would you call EITC and the child tax credit welfare? Aren't they legitimate deductions under the tax code?

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 5:28PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jlhug

Chase, they are not deductions but refundable credits. I agree with David that both are a welfare program administered by the IRS.

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 5:38PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

isn't that a matter of interpretation? Do you consider all tax credits to be a form of welfare or just the ones that benefit the working poor?

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 5:39PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Nancy: "'Spreading one's legs' is what all women do when attempting to conceive a child by natural means. There's is no us or them in this act; natural conception works the same for every socio-economic class."

Absolutely; completely natural. So saying it is not a big deal. if "crude" is the issue, well then so is saying things like "spew" (Hannity word; I don't like it much), "vomit", "BS", "carp", etc. This sort of language is used here frequently.

So the phrase about "leg spreading" is indelicate. So is the subject matter of this thread.

IMO, Brown and Corn both make great points.

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 6:05PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
esh_ga

Tax credits that are by their very nature meant to go people with low incomes would appear to me to be designed to be a form of welfare for someone.

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 6:10PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

What would you call tax credits that go to corporations and wealthy people?

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 6:11PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

David: "Urban mythology once again."

No myth. It's a way of life with a long history spanning generations.

If you want your own place and an independent source of income, unmarried pregnancy puts you on the fast track. Much faster than staying in school and becoming employable.

The notion that unmarried girls could not possibly find pregnancy an attractive option to living at home with rules (or mom's boyfriends) is ludicrous.

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 6:17PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

Or the home mortgage deduction? Isn't that welfare for the middle class?

Interesting article at the link about a poor kid growing up in PA. Talks about some of these same issues - if the girl leaves home, her mother loses her insurance (medicaid) and housing subsidies.

Here is a link that might be useful: link

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 6:40PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

David: "Urban mythology once again."
No myth. It's a way of life with a long history spanning generations.

If you want your own place and an independent source of income, unmarried pregnancy puts you on the fast track. Much faster than staying in school and becoming employable.

Ok, I'm sure you can find statistics, numbers, actual incidence, all that to counter what I've posted. All the information is easy to find: how much you get for food stamps, TANF for 5 years, rent subsidies, all that, and you should be able to show - pretty close - how many people pop out those babies for financial gain. Go for it.

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 6:47PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
esh_ga

Tax credits that go to corporations are usually to encourage investment - such as tax credits to make factory investments or equipment purchases more desirable.

I am not sure about tax credits to the wealthy. Is there an example of one?

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 7:17PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jlhug

Jill, JMC was responding to your post at 12:53 today. As far as I know there is no rule restraining a poster from responding to a post directed to a third poster. You were the one who brought up accountants doing tax returns for welfare recipients.

David, yes there is a limit of three qualifying children for EITC. At There is a huge jump in EITC from zero children to one child and another jump from one to two. Add that with the additional child tax credit, extra SNAP, housing subsidy, extra assistance with utilities, etc. and there is more financial gain than just the difference in welfare benefit. We did an estimate in the office once of the difference and we were all amazed at how much it was. Unfortunately it is at work if I saved it. That really was the only point I was trying to make. There is far more to be gained financially by having another child than just the increase in welfare payment.

Chase I consider the refundable credits to be welfare programs. A refundable credit is one allows you to get a refund in excess of your withholding. For example a single mom make $17,000 in wages, have no Federal income tax withholding and have two children and still receive a refund from the IRS of around $7,000 in addition to the other benefits such as subsidized housing, utilities, child care, medicaid, free lunches and breakfasts for school age children, etc.

Before anyone starts jumping down my throat, I believe that EITC is a great program and truly helps the working poor. It provides an incentive to work by increasing one's refund to more than one's withholding. However the abuse, fraud and manipulation by taxpayers to maximize EITC is a huge problem. The IRS estimates that something like 25% of returns claiming EITC are fraudulent costing the US taxpayer about $11 billion a year.

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 7:28PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
labrea_gw

Urban myth!

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 8:01PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jlhug

labrea, who are you addressing with your last comment?

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 9:12PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jillinnj

Jill, JMC was responding to your post at 12:53 today. As far as I know there is no rule restraining a poster from responding to a post directed to a third poster. You were the one who brought up accountants doing tax returns for welfare recipients.

Yes, I know jmc was responding to my post. I didn't say, nor do I believe, that posters cannot respond to a post not addressed to them. I was pointing out that I didn't understand their post. I asked if people on welfare pay you to do their taxes. I asked because I would be surprised that someone on welfare pays a professional to do their taxes. JMC turned that into I was telling people how to spend their money and something about my wealth or lack of wealth. Like I said, I didn't understand what they were talking about.

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 9:33PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jlhug

Jill, your post sounded to me like you were surprised that someone who had a low income would choose to have a tax practitioner prepare their taxes. I think JMC took it the same way.

That demographic keeps the big three tax prep chains in business. They have low income, want the huge refund and they want it yesterday.

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 9:50PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
demifloyd(8)

That demographic keeps the big three tax prep chains in business. They have low income, want the huge refund and they want it yesterday.

*

My MIL was a tax preparer for HR Block for decades, before she retired just several years ago.

She said the same thing--many clients always trying to find a way to hide the fact that someone was living with them, providing more income than would be allowable, and wanting to lie on the forms to get the EITC and everything they could get out of the government (taxpayers).

Why this is a surprise to someone is astounding to me.

    Bookmark   December 9, 2012 at 10:15PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

"Why this is a surprise to someone is astounding to me."

Demi, I doubt it's a surprise.

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 12:07AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ohiomom

This is just so much fun isn't it? Whack a poor person, yep fun fun fun.

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 7:54AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
october17(5chgo)

David - No one here said having more babies would bring oodles of money. But it does bring MORE money in benefits. AND it makes the benefits last longer. You are a fool if you think it is not a way of life for millions of women and children. And the baby daddies benefit too. It's not "all in my head."

Why do YOU think they have more babies? It was just so easy and so much fun with the first one (being poor)? Or, oopsie! Another baby to raise?

You can spout studies and statistics all day long. I don't trust any of them. No one in government (politicians and their appointees) is willing to even about the failure of welfare. I trust my own eyes and my lifetime experiences. I've worked with and supervised many baby mamas. Believe me, they know the system and how to work it.

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 8:09AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

Interesting--when a rich person "knows the system and how to work it," he (sometimes a she) is considered a smart cookie, a go-getter, a savvy entrepreneur, a success!

When a poor person "knows the system and how to work it," she (more often she?) is a lazy bum, a moocher, a fraudster, or some other derogatory term.

Kate

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 9:04AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
pnbrown

It has to do with the only unforgivable sin.

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 9:21AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

We shoud start numbering the 'bash the poor' threads.

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 9:52AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
demifloyd(8)

Yes, I am confounded by the knee jerk dead wrong assumptions and false talking points--that conservatives think all liberals are "moochers" and that conservatives think women have babies for the sole purpose of getting government money.

I have yet to see where any conservative has said that, but liberals spend a large portion of their time not defending their positions but falsely defining the conservatives' positions and then responding to that--Saul Alkinsky type tactics at work, it's become second nature.

I guess it's easier to respond to a weak, hole filed argument that one makes themselves than to respond to the actual arguments made by conservatives.

That is--I don't think there are many that actually say to themselves, "I could use a little more government money so I'm going to have a baby."

My point is--when someone KNOWS that someone else is going to be there to take on their responsibilities--they aren't as careful and mindful of their future and their responsibilities as they would be if their were entirely responsible for their decisions.

So, if a woman decides not to take the pill or use other precautions and becomes pregnant, she's not too worried because her sister or cousin or mother or baby daddy will drive her down to whatever government office will sign her up for benefits and the diapers and car seats will be free, the inoculations will be free, taxpayers will pay the hospital bill when that baby arrives, free breakfasts at school, free lunches at at school, and unless someone in the child's life decides to do right by the child and be responsible--and it does happen--that child will be another statistic most likely, doing poorly in school and having no role models of anyone actually working and succeeding in life, wake up one day at lunch, shove a gun in his pocket, get his friends, and break in the house of an elderly man, beat him in the head until he's comatose with a gun, and take what they want from him and run like the lying thieves they are (yes, a recent local anecdote). You should hear the wailing when baby mama sees what her son done done (some early morning yat for your reading pleasure).

So if baby mama knew that there were no benefits to go sign up for and she was looking at a hospital bill, debt collectors, no free diapers and a kid to feed, she might think twice before not using birth control or having sex.

That's what it was like in my day and it worked fairly well.

Look at illegitimate births since the Great Society.

You get more of what you subsidize.

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 10:00AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

David - No one here said having more babies would bring oodles of money. But it does bring MORE money in benefits. AND it makes the benefits last longer. You are a fool if you think it is not a way of life for millions of women and children. And the baby daddies benefit too. It's not "all in my head."
Why do YOU think they have more babies? It was just so easy and so much fun with the first one (being poor)? Or, oopsie! Another baby to raise?

You can spout studies and statistics all day long. I don't trust any of them. No one in government (politicians and their appointees) is willing to even about the failure of welfare. I trust my own eyes and my lifetime experiences. I've worked with and supervised many baby mamas. Believe me, they know the system and how to work it.

I hope you don't mind if I deconstruct this a bit, and answer you questions.

Why do people have babies, even if they're poor? Well, after working in desperately poor countries with desperately poor people, I can safely say that the big reason they do so is because they like having babies and children around the house. You mentioned somewhere you don't have children - well, many human beings have found enormous pleasure in the love of a family, and its a huge part of the human experience. Even if you're poor.

On the one hand you say you don't trust studies and statistics. but then tell us that you know that millions of people do this. I do hope you realize the contradiction here?

At the link is even more of those statistics that contradict your beliefs, from the US census. Shows the average family size. For whites, its 2.9. Blacks, 3.34, Hispanics 3.8. Not exactly a huge difference, huh.

Here is a link that might be useful: .pdf re family size done by ethnicity

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 10:46AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

That is--I don't think there are many ["baby mamas"] that actually say to themselves, "I could use a little more government money so I'm going to have a baby."

As I liberal, I most certainly agree with that statement, demi. However, you are mistaken when you attribute the idea of "baby mamas" having babies in order to get more govt money to liberals. If you just check the above posts, it is the more conservative/right-wing/t-party type poster that believes "baby mamas" are deliberately getting pregnant in order to trick the govt out of more money. It is not the liberals who are arguing that position.

Why else would poor people have children? David provides one very good reason--poor people, like all other people, value having a family. Their other reasons for having babies probably run the full gamut of reasons why other human beings have babies. Poor people are as complex in their motivations and emotional needs as every other human being is.

That is the liberal position in most cases, I would guess.

Kate

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 12:42PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mylab123(z5NW)

I've often read where Ben Franklin had many "illegitimate" (in who's eyes?) children - Cornopean, do you know of Mr. Franklin freely supported every single one of them as equally as he did his "legitimate" children, or did he do them the 'favor' of forcing those small children into the work places where they belonged in order to learn at a very early age how to become self supporting adults, therefore doing his share of contributing to the general lessening of poverty stricken adults in his area.

(My apologies to Mr.Franklin if the "illegitimate children" dishing was simply rumor - perhaps started by one who happened to overhear a babymama chatting while using a snap card and complaining all the while about babydaddy Franklin not doing his fair share of support for her child - or any of his other many babies by babymommas.
That seems to be how rumors often become 'facts', perhaps his 'many illegitimate children' fact was also simply a rumor spread by an evesdropper who took that that tiny portion of the info needed to determine the accuracy of the full situation - and then ran with it.)

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 2:06PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

It looks as if Franklin had only one known illegitimate kid, prior to his marriage, and there is no historical record if he supported the baby momma or not.

Now Thomas Jefferson, OTOH, seems to have sired at least 7.

"Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor" Thomas Jefferson

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 2:38PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
labrea_gw

My point is--when someone KNOWS that someone else is going to be there to take on their responsibilities--they aren't as careful and mindful of their future and their responsibilities as they would be if their were entirely responsible for their decision

BIZZARO!

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 4:18PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
demifloyd(8)

Posted by labrea 7NYC (My Page) on
Mon, Dec 10, 12 at 16:18

My point is--when someone KNOWS that someone else is going to be there to take on their responsibilities--they aren't as careful and mindful of their future and their responsibilities as they would be if their were entirely responsible for their decision

BIZZARO!

*

What is "bizarro" about that observation?

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 4:31PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
labrea_gw

I would suggest it's a fantasy unless you provide the observed case & it's documentation!

I'm not suggesting it can't happen I am suggesting the manner in which it's written follows an internal dialogue that is the externalized on this forum!

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 4:46PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cornopean

No liberals are allowed to quote Thomas Jefferson. He wasn't one of you. He was one of us. :)

That govt governs best which governs least.

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 5:00PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
labrea_gw

I used to spout that around the house when i was 18 till my father threatened to throw me out. Then I grew up and abandoned that libertarian nonsense

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 5:09PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

"...it is the more conservative/right-wing/t-party type poster that believes "baby mamas" are deliberately getting pregnant in order to trick the govt out of more money."

I must have missed the post(s) about "trickery."

There is no need to "trick" anybody to get your taxpayer financed entitlements. If you want a baby, an apartment, and an independent source of income, get pregnant before you get an education. Or a husband. The rest will fall into place for you, just as it has for generations past. Whatever you subsidize, you get more of.

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 5:09PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
frank_il

"No liberals are allowed to quote Thomas Jefferson. He wasn't one of you. He was one of us. :)"

Do you guys also claim the slave-owning, philandering side of Thomas Jefferson, or just the cool quotes?

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 5:12PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

"When state lawmakers passed a two-year budget in 2011 that moved $73 million from family planning services to other programs, the goal was largely political: halt the flow of taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood clinics.

Now they are facing the policy implications - and, in some cases, reconsidering.

The latest Health and Human Services Commission projections being circulated among Texas lawmakers indicate that during the 2014-15 biennium, poor women will deliver an estimated 23,760 more babies than they would have, as a result of their reduced access to state-subsidized birth control. The additional cost to taxpayers is expected to be as much as $273 million - $103 million to $108 million to the state's general revenue budget alone - and the bulk of it is the cost of caring for those infants under Medicaid.

Ahead of the next legislative session, during which lawmakers will grapple with an existing Medicaid financing shortfall, a bipartisan coalition is considering ways to restore some or all of those family planning dollars, as a cost-saving initiative if nothing else.

"I know some of my colleagues felt like in retrospect they did not fully grasp the implications of what was done last session," said Representative Donna Howard, Democrat of Austin, who said she had been discussing ways to restore financing with several other lawmakers in both parties.

She added, "I think there is some effort they'll be willing to make to restore whatever we can."

Any such agreement would almost certainly exclude Planned Parenthood from future financing. Though the Planned Parenthood clinics that used to provide state-subsidized care never performed abortions, Republican lawmakers are enforcing rules in the state's family planning programs that ban providers "affiliated" with clinics that perform abortions. (By this logic, because some Planned Parenthood clinics provide abortions, none of them can receive state money.)

Senator Bob Deuell, Republican of Greenville, has been an advocate for getting Planned Parenthood off taxpayer financing, but he said last session's family planning cuts had gone too far. He said he had the support of some of Texas' leading anti-abortion groups to seek more money for birth control and reproductive health care in 2013 - as stand-alone services and as part of what he and Texas health officials hope will be a $70 million expansion of state-subsidized primary care.

"I've debated this in Republican clubs with people - people who say it's not the government's role to provide family planning," said Dr. Deuell, a primary care physician. "Ultimately, they're right. But you have to look at what happens if we don't."

The health agency's numbers, while alarming to some state lawmakers, are not unexpected. Last legislative session, while lawmakers debated the cuts, the nonpartisan Legislative Budget Board estimated that they would lead 284,000 women to lose family planning services, resulting in 20,000 additional unplanned births at a cost to taxpayers of $231 million. The cuts passed anyway, a price that socially conservative legislators were willing to pay in their referendum on Planned Parenthood.

The question now, with Planned Parenthood largely off the table, is whether there will be the political will to restore money for birth control, which has increasingly found itself lumped with abortion in Republican debates about family planning.

Asked whether Gov. Rick Perry would support returning money to family planning programs, his spokeswoman Lucy Nashed left the door open. "Last session the Legislature had to prioritize," she said, speaking of the state's budget woes.

"Every two years we take a fresh look at our resources and our needs." end quote

Here is a link that might be useful: Ideology is so helpful in practical matters

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 5:14PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
patriciae_gw(07)

Corno, I think we can amend that quote to what Conservatives mean by it

"that government governs best that governs ME least"

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 5:33PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
fouquieria(10b)

I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer.

As ambassador to France and an astute observer of precursor events to the French revolution, I'm sure old Ben was highly aware of what can happen in a society where little to no provisions are made for the poor.

-Ron-

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 5:40PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
october17(5chgo)

Ok, ok. I give up. Women on welfare only have more babies cause they love babies. It's the only possible reason. No one ever ever would even dream of having a baby to get bigger benefits. Not ever. Happy David?

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 5:41PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cornopean

@frank_il good point re Jefferson. definitely just his political philosophy!

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 5:46PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
demifloyd(8)

Posted by october17 5chgo (My Page) on
Mon, Dec 10, 12 at 17:41

Ok, ok. I give up. Women on welfare only have more babies cause they love babies

*

Or irresponsible sex.

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 5:49PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mylab123(z5NW)

This is what I hear when conservatives pass on their point of view about the general population of those who need help:

Don't have sex.

If you have sex, don't get pregnant.

Use birth control if you are going to have sex.

I won't pay for birth control, get your own.

But if you find a month where the money for birth control doesn't exist and you have that sex I TOLD you not to have and become pregnant-

Don't get an abortion. I'm a good Christian and I don't believe in abortion so I have determined that you shouldn't have one.

If you are bound and determined to have an abortion despite my active disapproval, I won't assist you in any way, including a kind word.

If you listen to me and don't get that abortion, don't ask me to help you support the child. After all, I warned you not to have sex, didn't I?

Get a job, get an education, don't ask me for help in doing either.

If you do, and you get any, I will look upon you with distain as I complain about my tax dollar going to undeserving you. I will repeatedly remind you of your bootstraps and their purpose in my life.

If you ask for help, and get it despite my disapproval I will refer to you as a blood sucker who wants to take what I have.

If you manage to get a job, don't ask for help for child care.

Or for day care.

If you do, I will look upon you with distain and speak of you as if you deserve no dignity.

I consider that if your child qualifies for a free school lunch, you are not doing your financial job as a parent and I will resent every penny of my tax dollar that goes to that free lunch your product of unprotected sex eats. And will complain about it and predict that yet another person is going to grow up and live off my tax dollar.

When your child grows up, having thrived on MY tax dollar I so resented his having, tell that child not to ask for help in their college education.
Or with birth control.
If that child ever asks for any assistance, I will look upon them with distain and speak of them as if they are undeserving of any dignity. And then (for their own good)if I am able, I will refuse them any assistance.

And remind them what I said about having no sex!

If you so choose, keep in your heart what Jesus said about helping others:
"Whatever you did unto one of the least, you did unto me."

BUT!

I, the conservative tax payer, may be a GOOD CHRISTIAN but keep in mind I am NOT Jesus - this is MY motto which you had darn well better keep in mind:
"you get more of what you subsidize."

Now, no excuses! Get off that bum that we both know is nothing but lazy and get a job.

P.S. And don't get sick, if you do that is your issue, don't try to make it mine. It was your personal responsibility to buy good coverage.

This, with the lack of compassion and emotion about the unknown person in question, is what I hear conservatives saying about/ to their fellow American human beings who are out there trying to survive and might be in dire need.

Is it any wonder that voting for a Republican wasn't even a possibility for me this year? This is what I keep hearing from conservatives - all about that 47% who want to take what you have.

How many others hear the same thing?

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 5:59PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

I get it, Mylab. Your mind is completely made up and closed; you have decided what ALL conservatives think and feel and value.

Talk about stereotyping. You may think it's okay to alienate every conservative who reads your post above; I don't think that was a very smart thing to do. Frankly, it's sanctimonious, condescending, and well, makes you look silly.

JMO.

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 7:48PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
frank_il

I thought that it made a lot of sense. If you don't want to be identified in that way, don't act that way.

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 8:01PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mylab123(z5NW)

I listened to conservatives here and the republican politicians who were running and this is what I heard.

Enough others heard it too, many who had voted republican all their voting lives - and voted the other way in this election, maybe the last election AND this election.

Conservatives must change their message and be mindful of their messenger - or the next elections will not go well either - because all of the above is what they will be hearing yet again if they don't.

Tell me one thing I said up there, Elvis, which hasn't been said right here in this forum many, many, many times and then repeatedly defended - with other conservatives chiming in on the defense.

The conservatives on this forum repeatedly tell me who they are, and after the first year here - I finally decided to believe them. Where do you think I got all those quotes?

Be careful what you say (and don't say) as it may defines who you are to a great many people.

If you don't like it, don't say it - and if you don't agree when it's said, say so.

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 8:20PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Sure Mylab. I'm sure you are convinced you are right, and that's fine for you.

As to Frank: Of course you do.

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 8:53PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
frank_il

Elvis, please demonstrate how Mylab is incorrect. Try to argue that conservatives have not argued exactly what Mylab brought up.

Can you honestly make that argument?

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 8:58PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

Talk about stereotyping. You may think it's okay to alienate every conservative who reads your post above...

elvis, please continue to defend the conservatives' stance on reproductive healthcare, childcare, and federal family assistance, and you can tell yourself that your candidate lost because of voter fraud, ACORN, Black Panthers, and a society of 'takers.' Meanwhile, those who heard the same rhetoric as mylab and Frank will look elsewhere when voting for president -- as they did in November 2012.

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 9:08PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mylab123(z5NW)

Just one thing, Elvis - just one? If you so disagree, tell me just one single thing that wasn't said more than, say, five times by conservatives in H.T. during this past year?

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 9:16PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
frank_il

"As to Frank: Of course you do."

Aren't you the one that always complains that people are being snarky for no reason? I don't mind snarky myself, but don't be hypocritical.

    Bookmark   December 10, 2012 at 9:17PM
Sign Up to comment
More Discussions
John McCain: "I’m Ashamed Of My Country "
Sen. John McCain said: “I’m ashamed of my country,...
dublinbay z6 (KS)
The Universe #2
Just starting up a second thread with mom47's last...
vgkg
Does "Bibi" really desire to communicate ..
...or merely play to the gallery? Communicating implies...
ronalawn82
Nuts
More odd topic than hot Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim Ji...
labrea_gw
Just went to the grocery store
and as we left a woman followed us out by less than...
don_socal
People viewed this after searching for:
© 2015 Houzz Inc. Houzz® The new way to design your home™