On Sun 14 Sep 2008 12:21:24p, Omelet told us...

> In article 7>,
> Wayne Boatwright > wrote:
>
>> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 09:35:19a, Omelet told us...
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > Dave Smith > wrote:
>> >
>> >> > There are some who are making every effort to pull themselves up
>> >> > by their bootstraps and to work or actively seek employment.
>> >> > Unfortunately, they seem to be in the vast minority.
>> >>
>> >> I don't know what the solution is. You can't let them starve, but I
>> >> resent having to help support people who will not support themselves
>> >> and those who cannot support themselves and then have more children
>> >> than they cannot afford. I also resent the attempts to insinuate
>> >> that those who point out the obvious are passed off as sexist and
>> >> racist by claiming that most welfare recipients are single white
>> >> men. The facts do not support that. In fact, it is the exact
>> >> opposite.
>> >
>> > The vast majority are the children of unwed mothers.
>> >
>> > Outlaw reproduction outside of wedlock?
>>
>> Simple choice, enforced birth control and receive welfare, or no
>> welfare. I don't give a damn if they're lying in the gutters. I'm
>> sick of paying for benefits that others receive. Welfare recipients in
>> AZ have the benefit of AHCCCS, which provide absolutely free health
>> care to any extent. Many times I cannot even afford the copay for my
>> medications.
>>
>> That's fair?
>>
>> BS
>>
>> It's almost an inviting proposition to quit my job and live off the
>> dole.
>
> With my current health issues, I could probably qualify for SSI
> disability... but I'd not make anywhere near as much money. What ever
> happened to ambition? Sheesh!
>
> I'm not selling my property to live in an apt. or trailer, thank you!
> I'll put up with the pain. <g> And use a TENS unit. And live in my
> almost paid for house. 3 years left on the morgage. Yay!
>
>>
>> > Yah, right.
>> >
>> > <sigh>
>> >
>> > The solution is education. Truly.
>> >
>> > Statistically, educated women have fewer children. That's especially
>> > been proven in India.
>>
>> We not in India, and we hardly have the same culture.
>
> That was not my point babe.
> Educated women don't end up on welfare as OFTEN as high school dropouts.
>
> With our current welfare system, you get paid by the unsupported child.
> It rewards unwed fecundity.

It certainly does. The "rewards" should be eliminated altogether. The more
kids you have, the less money you should get.

--
Wayne Boatwright

*******************************************
Date: Sunday, 09(IX)/14(XIV)/08(MMVIII)
*******************************************
Countdown till Veteran's Day
8wks 1dys 11hrs 33mins
*******************************************
You can name your salary here. I call
mine Fred.
*******************************************

In article 7>,
Wayne Boatwright > wrote:

> > With our current welfare system, you get paid by the unsupported child.
> > It rewards unwed fecundity.
>
> It certainly does. The "rewards" should be eliminated altogether. The more
> kids you have, the less money you should get.

You wish. <g>
--
Peace! Om

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:28:21 GMT, Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 12:21:24p, Omelet told us...
>>
>> With our current welfare system, you get paid by the unsupported child.
>> It rewards unwed fecundity.
>
> It certainly does. The "rewards" should be eliminated altogether. The more
> kids you have, the less money you should get.

the 'rewards' are a pittance,:


Many conservatives criticize welfare because it increases benefits when a
mother has another child. This, they argue, is an economic incentive to
have more children, an ill-considered policy which inflates the rolls of
our welfare programs. As columnist Ellen Goodman wrote: "A family that
works does not get a raise for having a child. Why then should a family
that doesn't work?" (1)

Unfortunately, this argument is incorrect. Working families do receive
"financial incentives" to have more children, and far larger ones than
welfare provides. A working family receives a $2,450 tax deduction per
child, and can claim up to $2,400 in tax credits to offset the costs of
child care. By comparison, a welfare mother can only expect about $90 per
month in increased AFDC payments for another child.

Not surprisingly, these "incentives" are too small to influence the
behavior of potential parents, especially in a decision as life-altering
and important as having a child. Ten major studies have been conducted on
this issue in the last six years alone, and not one has found any
connection between the level of payments offered and a woman's decision to
bear children. (2)

Just one of these studies' findings is that states with higher benefits do
not see higher birthrates among its welfare mothers. According to a 1992
study by Child Trends Inc., the five states with the highest birth rates
among 18- and 19-year-old women -- Arizona, Arkansas, Mississippi, Nevada
and New Mexico -- all have AFDC benefits below the national median. The
four states with the lowest birth rates among 18- and 19-year-old women --
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Dakota and Vermont -- all have AFDC
benefits above the national median.

The average AFDC family is virtually the same size as the average American
family. Of all welfare families, 73.9 percent have two children or less.
(3) Of all American families with children, this figure is 79.1 percent.
(4) (Families without children are not qualified for welfare, even though
they may need it, so there are conceptual problems with adding childless
families to either side of this comparison.)

And, contrary to popular belief, the size of welfare families has been
declining over the decades:

(more at:

<http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfaremothers.htm> )

do you think you can make a 'profit' on ninety dollars a month to raise a
kid? not unless you can turn him out in the back yard to scratch for his
food like a chicken.

your pal,
blake