Flopper
Diamond Member
- Mar 23, 2010
- 31,678
- 8,799
You seem to be scraping the bottom of barrel, Breitbart News, CNS News, yet nothing addresses your subject, people that have more kids because it means more government handouts.There are lots of reason that people have more kids. People with low incomes may well say I'm going to get x more dollars in additional benefits just like someone in a higher income bracket will say, I'll get another tax exemption. However, is the extra tax exemption or another dependent on your DHS application going to be the reason to have another kid. The answer is absolutely, NO.I agree. I think abortion is a good idea particular for the poor. Contrary to popular beliefs, most poor people don't want big families but by time they figure this out they already have 2 or 3. Raising kids is hard even if you have money, job, and live in a nice neighborhood but if have none of these, it's really really hard which is why so many low income people just give up and those with any sense at all, don't hesitate to abort unwanted kids because being broke with a bunch kids is hell.
Let's set the record straight. The 3% of Planned Parenthood's budget that goes toward abortions are not being paid by the federal government. It is illegal.
Removing federal funding for planned parent parenthood which is 40% of their budget would reduce medicaid payments for contraceptives, testing for sexual transmitted diseases, sexually transmitted infections, cancer screening, and family planing counseling. The funding for abortions which is paid for out of state Medicaid funds in most states or private donations would continue. So removing federal funds from planned parenthood would not stop one single abortion, but would in fact prevent the distribution 3.5 million contraceptives a year which would increase the number of wanted pregnancies which would mean more unwanted births and abortions.
Without the 935,000 cancer screening a year, 4.5 million tests for sexually transmitted diseases, and 1.1 million pregnancy tests and prenatal screens done by planned parenthood, disease and healthcare costs among the poor would increase.
Planned Parenthood's Services - FactCheck.org
Here we go with that leftist ideology that it will cost us more later than if we don't give lowlifes the money or things they want now. Sorry, but I'm to the point I don't care anymore. If it isn't that, it's about the children. Sick of all the excuses to be quite honest.
Maybe that's the reason many people don't try harder in life; increase their income; do what they can to be more responsible with their choices in life. What ever they don't get for themselves, we will just give them, so why bother trying?
I've seen enough where I can say let them all die. I just don't care any longer. It's not that I'm a heartless person, but we don't just give to the needy any longer, we give to anybody that doesn't feel like working or taking personal responsibility. Maybe the best thing we can do for our society is thin the herd, not expand it.
View attachment 128881
I disagree. I know of people that had more kids because it meant more government handouts.
The more kids you have, the larger the SNAP's card, the more excuse you have not to work for a period of time, the large the welfare check, the larger the HUD house in the suburbs.
When I see these food stamp people, most of them have 3 kids or more. The average working family has about 2 kids.
Repeated studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women’s choice to have children. States providing relatively higher benefits do not show any higher birth rates among recipients than those with lower benefits.
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 benefits if she has another child and an average of an additional $70 in food stamps. Hud benefits do not necessary change. Studies show the poor are not willing to take on the care of an additional family member for $160 a month. Actually it is really a lot less because there are time limit on benefits, a maximum of 5 years. In some states, it is as short as 3 years.
Out of that $160/mo, the parents have to provide food, clothing, entertainment, possible childcare, toilet articles like diapers. The average family in America spends $500 to $1000 a year on just diapers. And what happens when the kid is 15 years old and and is eating $250 a month in food, allowances for food do not increase with age. The bottom line is anyone that would have a kid and raise it just to get $160/mo is crazy. Just the cost of food to raise a child to age 18 is over twice that amount.
Oh, so you like studies? Let me present a few of them I stored in my folder:
Cash value of welfare spending to households in poverty greater than median household income
Census: Americans in ‘Poverty’ Typically Have Cell Phones, Computers, TVs, VCRS, AC, Washers, Dryers and Microwaves
Study: NY Welfare Recipients Eligible For More In Benefits Than Teachers Earn - Breitbart
Census Bureau: Means-Tested Gov't Benefit Recipients Outnumber Full-Time Year-Round Workers
The Work versus Welfare Trade-Off: 2013