Over 50% of US babies were born on Medicaid

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why doesn't the left ever talk about people learning to be more responsible with their choices? That is never discussed but is at the root of many problems.

Because being a leftist means you have little or no logic. You can go to college for as many years as you like, but you can never learn logic. Common sense is as much of a gift as the ability to create art or be a musician.

Take these police shootings for example. In each case, the left wants to blame our protectors instead of the person they shot. Logic dictates that in nearly every case, the suspect didn't listen to the order of the police officer. If you have common sense, you know that the solution to these police shootings is just obey every command by the police.

But liberals will fight with you because they don't have the common sense to understand this. They would rather protest, riot, execute police officers, burn down cars and buildings instead of taking the easiest, less deadly, common sense approach and accomplish nothing in the process.

So again, the main problem with the left is they are void of logic and common sense.

 

[rightwinger]

When I get into debates with liberals about our social programs, it doesn't take long for a few to chime in and tell us about some unfortunate person who had children and then lost control over supporting them. Yeah, I'm sure that's the typical case.

On the right, we have asserted that this is not the typical case. The typical case is poor people having children knowing they can't afford them, but have them anyhow because we working people will have to support them.

That debate is now over. In over half of the states across the country, over 50% of babies are born using Medicaid, further proof that the so-called poor have more children than do the working on average. Either that, or half of the country is on Medicaid. Either way, something has to change.

In almost half of the United States, 50% or more babies born were on Medicaid

The truth is that the government encourages the poor to get knocked up and have lots of kids so that they qualify for cash assistance. The more of a burden you become, the more the government rewards you, but if you are struggling to get back on your feet to stay out of poverty and avoid becoming one of the chronically needy, the government hasn't a cent's worth of help to offer your way.

And then the government wonders why its social entitlement programs are going broke overflowing with dependees!

The government gives middle class families thousands of dollars in incentives to have children.

How ridiculous--even for you.

No middle-class family has children for a couple lousy tax deductions. That's much different than the government totally or mostly supporting your family instead of you.

Why should the taxpayers have to pay for you to have children? You have children, it is your problem. Don't you agree?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When I get into debates with liberals about our social programs, it doesn't take long for a few to chime in and tell us about some unfortunate person who had children and then lost control over supporting them. Yeah, I'm sure that's the typical case.

On the right, we have asserted that this is not the typical case. The typical case is poor people having children knowing they can't afford them, but have them anyhow because we working people will have to support them.

That debate is now over. In over half of the states across the country, over 50% of babies are born using Medicaid, further proof that the so-called poor have more children than do the working on average. Either that, or half of the country is on Medicaid. Either way, something has to change.

In almost half of the United States, 50% or more babies born were on Medicaid

It is a nationwide shame that so many employers pay such low wages and do not provide health insurance

Thank God for Medicaid

Oh, so now it's still not their fault, it's the employers fault.

Employers don't control what you earn--you control what you earn. If your skill set (whatever that may be) doesn't pay the kind of money you want to earn, you have to find another line of work.

You're not going to be able to support yourself stocking shelves, flipping hamburgers, sweeping floors, or cleaning toilets, and you certainly won't be able to support children. You have to get into a line of work that not everybody can do.

No, the market controls what you earn. 30 million people receive government assistance. There are not 30 million"better jobs" out there to be filled. Not everyone has the mental or physical capabilities to do more than low skilled labor
There was a time when low skilled jobs still paid enough for the workers to support themselves......they no longer do

That is why the taxpayer has to make up the difference

Well perhaps we don't have millions of jobs, but we do have thousands of them Americans won't do. Take my industry for example. We need tens of thousands of new drivers industry can't find. We will need even more in the future if our economy keeps in this direction and the baby boomers step out of the picture.

Now they are hiring immigrants to take these jobs because we have to many Americans that want to sit home in front of their big screen talking on their Obama phone and getting fat on food stamps. And of course, have babies on Medicaid.

We take care of our people who have mental and physical disabilities. Two of my tenants currently are on disability and both work part-time. They are doing fine.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When I get into debates with liberals about our social programs, it doesn't take long for a few to chime in and tell us about some unfortunate person who had children and then lost control over supporting them. Yeah, I'm sure that's the typical case.

On the right, we have asserted that this is not the typical case. The typical case is poor people having children knowing they can't afford them, but have them anyhow because we working people will have to support them.

That debate is now over. In over half of the states across the country, over 50% of babies are born using Medicaid, further proof that the so-called poor have more children than do the working on average. Either that, or half of the country is on Medicaid. Either way, something has to change.

In almost half of the United States, 50% or more babies born were on Medicaid

The truth is that the government encourages the poor to get knocked up and have lots of kids so that they qualify for cash assistance. The more of a burden you become, the more the government rewards you, but if you are struggling to get back on your feet to stay out of poverty and avoid becoming one of the chronically needy, the government hasn't a cent's worth of help to offer your way.

And then the government wonders why its social entitlement programs are going broke overflowing with dependees!

The government gives middle class families thousands of dollars in incentives to have children.

How ridiculous--even for you.

No middle-class family has children for a couple lousy tax deductions. That's much different than the government totally or mostly supporting your family instead of you.

Why should the taxpayers have to pay for you to have children? You have children, it is your problem. Don't you agree?

Totally. I don't think there should be any tax breaks for people that decide to have children.

 

[rightwinger]

When I get into debates with liberals about our social programs, it doesn't take long for a few to chime in and tell us about some unfortunate person who had children and then lost control over supporting them. Yeah, I'm sure that's the typical case.

On the right, we have asserted that this is not the typical case. The typical case is poor people having children knowing they can't afford them, but have them anyhow because we working people will have to support them.

That debate is now over. In over half of the states across the country, over 50% of babies are born using Medicaid, further proof that the so-called poor have more children than do the working on average. Either that, or half of the country is on Medicaid. Either way, something has to change.

In almost half of the United States, 50% or more babies born were on Medicaid

It is a nationwide shame that so many employers pay such low wages and do not provide health insurance

Thank God for Medicaid

Oh, so now it's still not their fault, it's the employers fault.

Employers don't control what you earn--you control what you earn. If your skill set (whatever that may be) doesn't pay the kind of money you want to earn, you have to find another line of work.

You're not going to be able to support yourself stocking shelves, flipping hamburgers, sweeping floors, or cleaning toilets, and you certainly won't be able to support children. You have to get into a line of work that not everybody can do.

No, the market controls what you earn. 30 million people receive government assistance. There are not 30 million"better jobs" out there to be filled. Not everyone has the mental or physical capabilities to do more than low skilled labor
There was a time when low skilled jobs still paid enough for the workers to support themselves......they no longer do

That is why the taxpayer has to make up the difference

Well perhaps we don't have millions of jobs, but we do have thousands of them Americans won't do. Take my industry for example. We need tens of thousands of new drivers industry can't find. We will need even more in the future if our economy keeps in this direction and the baby boomers step out of the picture.

Now they are hiring immigrants to take these jobs because we have to many Americans that want to sit home in front of their big screen talking on their Obama phone and getting fat on food stamps. And of course, have babies on Medicaid.

We take care of our people who have mental and physical disabilities. Two of my tenants currently are on disability and both work part-time. They are doing fine.

Not everyone is intelligent enough to drive a truck
They still get sick

Who should pay.......their employer or the government?

 

[NYcarbineer]

When I get into debates with liberals about our social programs, it doesn't take long for a few to chime in and tell us about some unfortunate person who had children and then lost control over supporting them. Yeah, I'm sure that's the typical case.

On the right, we have asserted that this is not the typical case. The typical case is poor people having children knowing they can't afford them, but have them anyhow because we working people will have to support them.

That debate is now over. In over half of the states across the country, over 50% of babies are born using Medicaid, further proof that the so-called poor have more children than do the working on average. Either that, or half of the country is on Medicaid. Either way, something has to change.

In almost half of the United States, 50% or more babies born were on Medicaid

The truth is that the government encourages the poor to get knocked up and have lots of kids so that they qualify for cash assistance. The more of a burden you become, the more the government rewards you, but if you are struggling to get back on your feet to stay out of poverty and avoid becoming one of the chronically needy, the government hasn't a cent's worth of help to offer your way.

And then the government wonders why its social entitlement programs are going broke overflowing with dependees!

The government gives middle class families thousands of dollars in incentives to have children.

How ridiculous--even for you.

No middle-class family has children for a couple lousy tax deductions. That's much different than the government totally or mostly supporting your family instead of you.

'Lousy' tax deductions? For one kid, for starters, you get a $1000 per year child tax credit, for 17 years. That alone can be one of the reasons many moderate income families with a couple kids pay NO federal income taxes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Republican policies have 47% of Americans receiving public assistance of some sort. You keep voting for governments that suppress wages to benefit corporations and their shareholders. Then you bitch that people don't pay their own way.

Most of the people on Medicaid and food stamps are working full time, but haven't seen a meaningful wage increase in 20 years.

Like a good Republican, you vilify the poor, not the policies that keep them dependent.

I don't know how it works in Canada, but in the US, government doesn't dictate wages outside of minimum wage. It's not the governments responsibility to force any employer to pay what government wants them to pay. In this country, everybody has individual choice. If you want to be poor, then work at McDonald's for the rest of your life or don't work at all. If you want to be middle-class, work hard at a company and advance yourself, or learn a trade. If you want to be wealthy, start your own business or go to college and get into a good paying field.

See, it's all individual choice in America.

 

[danielpalos]

Why doesn't the left ever talk about people learning to be more responsible with their choices? That is never discussed but is at the root of many problems.

Because being a leftist means you have little or no logic. You can go to college for as many years as you like, but you can never learn logic. Common sense is as much of a gift as the ability to create art or be a musician.

Take these police shootings for example. In each case, the left wants to blame our protectors instead of the person they shot. Logic dictates that in nearly every case, the suspect didn't listen to the order of the police officer. If you have common sense, you know that the solution to these police shootings is just obey every command by the police.

But liberals will fight with you because they don't have the common sense to understand this. They would rather protest, riot, execute police officers, burn down cars and buildings instead of taking the easiest, less deadly, common sense approach and accomplish nothing in the process.

So again, the main problem with the left is they are void of logic and common sense.

Having nothing but repeal instead of better or at least some solutions, really is worth-less for market based purposes, especially when no porn is involved.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When I get into debates with liberals about our social programs, it doesn't take long for a few to chime in and tell us about some unfortunate person who had children and then lost control over supporting them. Yeah, I'm sure that's the typical case.

On the right, we have asserted that this is not the typical case. The typical case is poor people having children knowing they can't afford them, but have them anyhow because we working people will have to support them.

That debate is now over. In over half of the states across the country, over 50% of babies are born using Medicaid, further proof that the so-called poor have more children than do the working on average. Either that, or half of the country is on Medicaid. Either way, something has to change.

In almost half of the United States, 50% or more babies born were on Medicaid

The truth is that the government encourages the poor to get knocked up and have lots of kids so that they qualify for cash assistance. The more of a burden you become, the more the government rewards you, but if you are struggling to get back on your feet to stay out of poverty and avoid becoming one of the chronically needy, the government hasn't a cent's worth of help to offer your way.

And then the government wonders why its social entitlement programs are going broke overflowing with dependees!

The government gives middle class families thousands of dollars in incentives to have children.

How ridiculous--even for you.

No middle-class family has children for a couple lousy tax deductions. That's much different than the government totally or mostly supporting your family instead of you.

'Lousy' tax deductions? For one kid, for starters, you get a $1000 per year child tax credit, for 17 years. That alone can be one of the reasons many moderate income families with a couple kids pay NO federal income taxes.

So lets see, 1K a year for 17 years.........why that would be 17K, is that right?

I have bad news for you, lowlifes who have government pay for their family will spend over 17K for that one child in less than six months.

So you were saying....................

 

[Mr Natural]

Totally. I don't think there should be any tax breaks for people that decide to have children.

Absolutely!

In fact, people should be penalized for having kids to pay for the extra burden they put on public resources.

 

[rightwinger]

When I get into debates with liberals about our social programs, it doesn't take long for a few to chime in and tell us about some unfortunate person who had children and then lost control over supporting them. Yeah, I'm sure that's the typical case.

On the right, we have asserted that this is not the typical case. The typical case is poor people having children knowing they can't afford them, but have them anyhow because we working people will have to support them.

That debate is now over. In over half of the states across the country, over 50% of babies are born using Medicaid, further proof that the so-called poor have more children than do the working on average. Either that, or half of the country is on Medicaid. Either way, something has to change.

In almost half of the United States, 50% or more babies born were on Medicaid

The truth is that the government encourages the poor to get knocked up and have lots of kids so that they qualify for cash assistance. The more of a burden you become, the more the government rewards you, but if you are struggling to get back on your feet to stay out of poverty and avoid becoming one of the chronically needy, the government hasn't a cent's worth of help to offer your way.

And then the government wonders why its social entitlement programs are going broke overflowing with dependees!

The government gives middle class families thousands of dollars in incentives to have children.

How ridiculous--even for you.

No middle-class family has children for a couple lousy tax deductions. That's much different than the government totally or mostly supporting your family instead of you.

'Lousy' tax deductions? For one kid, for starters, you get a $1000 per year child tax credit, for 17 years. That alone can be one of the reasons many moderate income families with a couple kids pay NO federal income taxes.

So lets see, 1K a year for 17 years.........why that would be 17K, is that right?

I have bad news for you, lowlifes who have government pay for their family will spend over 17K for that one child in less than six months.

So you were saying....................

The exemption is $4000 a child for up to 24 years
That is almost $100,000 for every child

That does not include what your state allows you

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When I get into debates with liberals about our social programs, it doesn't take long for a few to chime in and tell us about some unfortunate person who had children and then lost control over supporting them. Yeah, I'm sure that's the typical case.

On the right, we have asserted that this is not the typical case. The typical case is poor people having children knowing they can't afford them, but have them anyhow because we working people will have to support them.

That debate is now over. In over half of the states across the country, over 50% of babies are born using Medicaid, further proof that the so-called poor have more children than do the working on average. Either that, or half of the country is on Medicaid. Either way, something has to change.

In almost half of the United States, 50% or more babies born were on Medicaid

It is a nationwide shame that so many employers pay such low wages and do not provide health insurance

Thank God for Medicaid

Oh, so now it's still not their fault, it's the employers fault.

Employers don't control what you earn--you control what you earn. If your skill set (whatever that may be) doesn't pay the kind of money you want to earn, you have to find another line of work.

You're not going to be able to support yourself stocking shelves, flipping hamburgers, sweeping floors, or cleaning toilets, and you certainly won't be able to support children. You have to get into a line of work that not everybody can do.

No, the market controls what you earn. 30 million people receive government assistance. There are not 30 million"better jobs" out there to be filled. Not everyone has the mental or physical capabilities to do more than low skilled labor
There was a time when low skilled jobs still paid enough for the workers to support themselves......they no longer do

That is why the taxpayer has to make up the difference

Well perhaps we don't have millions of jobs, but we do have thousands of them Americans won't do. Take my industry for example. We need tens of thousands of new drivers industry can't find. We will need even more in the future if our economy keeps in this direction and the baby boomers step out of the picture.

Now they are hiring immigrants to take these jobs because we have to many Americans that want to sit home in front of their big screen talking on their Obama phone and getting fat on food stamps. And of course, have babies on Medicaid.

We take care of our people who have mental and physical disabilities. Two of my tenants currently are on disability and both work part-time. They are doing fine.

Not everyone is intelligent enough to drive a truck
They still get sick

Who should pay.......their employer or the government?

I'm just using one of many fields of work as an example. I'll use another one: my fathers.......

Several years ago still in lousy economic conditions, my father was solicited by his former union to help find new recruits for his trade which is bricklaying. The union couldn't find new young workers for anything. The people that were interested couldn't pass a drug test.

Bricklaying is hard work. I know, my father got me in the union when I was young, but I hated the work. My father has done very well for himself as a bricklayer. He's 85 now and has been receiving a pension since he retired at 62.

Two problems: younger people don't want to do physical work like my father, and two, they would rather sit home smoking dope instead of learning a new career with great pay and benefits.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The truth is that the government encourages the poor to get knocked up and have lots of kids so that they qualify for cash assistance. The more of a burden you become, the more the government rewards you, but if you are struggling to get back on your feet to stay out of poverty and avoid becoming one of the chronically needy, the government hasn't a cent's worth of help to offer your way.

And then the government wonders why its social entitlement programs are going broke overflowing with dependees!

The government gives middle class families thousands of dollars in incentives to have children.

How ridiculous--even for you.

No middle-class family has children for a couple lousy tax deductions. That's much different than the government totally or mostly supporting your family instead of you.

'Lousy' tax deductions? For one kid, for starters, you get a $1000 per year child tax credit, for 17 years. That alone can be one of the reasons many moderate income families with a couple kids pay NO federal income taxes.

So lets see, 1K a year for 17 years.........why that would be 17K, is that right?

I have bad news for you, lowlifes who have government pay for their family will spend over 17K for that one child in less than six months.

So you were saying....................

The exemption is $4000 a child for up to 24 years
That is almost $100,000 for every child

That does not include what your state allows you

24 years? When did that start and by which party?

Paying less in taxes is different than paying nothing and getting tax money on top of it. That's the difference between parents who work and parents that don't. Working parents are not getting anything from government, they are just paying less to government.

 

[rightwinger]

It is a nationwide shame that so many employers pay such low wages and do not provide health insurance

Thank God for Medicaid

Oh, so now it's still not their fault, it's the employers fault.

Employers don't control what you earn--you control what you earn. If your skill set (whatever that may be) doesn't pay the kind of money you want to earn, you have to find another line of work.

You're not going to be able to support yourself stocking shelves, flipping hamburgers, sweeping floors, or cleaning toilets, and you certainly won't be able to support children. You have to get into a line of work that not everybody can do.

No, the market controls what you earn. 30 million people receive government assistance. There are not 30 million"better jobs" out there to be filled. Not everyone has the mental or physical capabilities to do more than low skilled labor
There was a time when low skilled jobs still paid enough for the workers to support themselves......they no longer do

That is why the taxpayer has to make up the difference

Well perhaps we don't have millions of jobs, but we do have thousands of them Americans won't do. Take my industry for example. We need tens of thousands of new drivers industry can't find. We will need even more in the future if our economy keeps in this direction and the baby boomers step out of the picture.

Now they are hiring immigrants to take these jobs because we have to many Americans that want to sit home in front of their big screen talking on their Obama phone and getting fat on food stamps. And of course, have babies on Medicaid.

We take care of our people who have mental and physical disabilities. Two of my tenants currently are on disability and both work part-time. They are doing fine.

Not everyone is intelligent enough to drive a truck
They still get sick

Who should pay.......their employer or the government?

I'm just using one of many fields of work as an example. I'll use another one: my fathers.......

Several years ago still in lousy economic conditions, my father was solicited by his former union to help find new recruits for his trade which is bricklaying. The union couldn't find new young workers for anything. The people that were interested couldn't pass a drug test.

Bricklaying is hard work. I know, my father got me in the union when I was young, but I hated the work. My father has done very well for himself as a bricklayer. He's 85 now and has been receiving a pension since he retired at 62.

Two problems: younger people don't want to do physical work like my father, and two, they would rather sit home smoking dope instead of learning a new career with great pay and benefits.

Plenty of Mexicans will take those jobs

 

[danielpalos]

It is a nationwide shame that so many employers pay such low wages and do not provide health insurance

Thank God for Medicaid

Oh, so now it's still not their fault, it's the employers fault.

Employers don't control what you earn--you control what you earn. If your skill set (whatever that may be) doesn't pay the kind of money you want to earn, you have to find another line of work.

You're not going to be able to support yourself stocking shelves, flipping hamburgers, sweeping floors, or cleaning toilets, and you certainly won't be able to support children. You have to get into a line of work that not everybody can do.

No, the market controls what you earn. 30 million people receive government assistance. There are not 30 million"better jobs" out there to be filled. Not everyone has the mental or physical capabilities to do more than low skilled labor
There was a time when low skilled jobs still paid enough for the workers to support themselves......they no longer do

That is why the taxpayer has to make up the difference

Well perhaps we don't have millions of jobs, but we do have thousands of them Americans won't do. Take my industry for example. We need tens of thousands of new drivers industry can't find. We will need even more in the future if our economy keeps in this direction and the baby boomers step out of the picture.

Now they are hiring immigrants to take these jobs because we have to many Americans that want to sit home in front of their big screen talking on their Obama phone and getting fat on food stamps. And of course, have babies on Medicaid.

We take care of our people who have mental and physical disabilities. Two of my tenants currently are on disability and both work part-time. They are doing fine.

Not everyone is intelligent enough to drive a truck
They still get sick

Who should pay.......their employer or the government?

I'm just using one of many fields of work as an example. I'll use another one: my fathers.......

Several years ago still in lousy economic conditions, my father was solicited by his former union to help find new recruits for his trade which is bricklaying. The union couldn't find new young workers for anything. The people that were interested couldn't pass a drug test.

Bricklaying is hard work. I know, my father got me in the union when I was young, but I hated the work. My father has done very well for himself as a bricklayer. He's 85 now and has been receiving a pension since he retired at 62.

Two problems: younger people don't want to do physical work like my father, and two, they would rather sit home smoking dope instead of learning a new career with great pay and benefits.

End the drug test. Drug users get to do it over again, for practice.

 

[rightwinger]

The government gives middle class families thousands of dollars in incentives to have children.

How ridiculous--even for you.

No middle-class family has children for a couple lousy tax deductions. That's much different than the government totally or mostly supporting your family instead of you.

'Lousy' tax deductions? For one kid, for starters, you get a $1000 per year child tax credit, for 17 years. That alone can be one of the reasons many moderate income families with a couple kids pay NO federal income taxes.

So lets see, 1K a year for 17 years.........why that would be 17K, is that right?

I have bad news for you, lowlifes who have government pay for their family will spend over 17K for that one child in less than six months.

So you were saying....................

The exemption is $4000 a child for up to 24 years
That is almost $100,000 for every child

That does not include what your state allows you

24 years? When did that start and by which party?

Paying less in taxes is different than paying nothing and getting tax money on top of it. That's the difference between parents who work and parents that don't. Working parents are not getting anything from government, they are just paying less to government.

24 years as long as they are still in college

Paying less in taxes is still a gift for having children. So is your mortgage deduction....free money

Everyone complains about the benefits others receive.......as long as their own is off limits

 

[danielpalos]

Oh, so now it's still not their fault, it's the employers fault.

Employers don't control what you earn--you control what you earn. If your skill set (whatever that may be) doesn't pay the kind of money you want to earn, you have to find another line of work.

You're not going to be able to support yourself stocking shelves, flipping hamburgers, sweeping floors, or cleaning toilets, and you certainly won't be able to support children. You have to get into a line of work that not everybody can do.

No, the market controls what you earn. 30 million people receive government assistance. There are not 30 million"better jobs" out there to be filled. Not everyone has the mental or physical capabilities to do more than low skilled labor
There was a time when low skilled jobs still paid enough for the workers to support themselves......they no longer do

That is why the taxpayer has to make up the difference

Well perhaps we don't have millions of jobs, but we do have thousands of them Americans won't do. Take my industry for example. We need tens of thousands of new drivers industry can't find. We will need even more in the future if our economy keeps in this direction and the baby boomers step out of the picture.

Now they are hiring immigrants to take these jobs because we have to many Americans that want to sit home in front of their big screen talking on their Obama phone and getting fat on food stamps. And of course, have babies on Medicaid.

We take care of our people who have mental and physical disabilities. Two of my tenants currently are on disability and both work part-time. They are doing fine.

Not everyone is intelligent enough to drive a truck
They still get sick

Who should pay.......their employer or the government?

I'm just using one of many fields of work as an example. I'll use another one: my fathers.......

Several years ago still in lousy economic conditions, my father was solicited by his former union to help find new recruits for his trade which is bricklaying. The union couldn't find new young workers for anything. The people that were interested couldn't pass a drug test.

Bricklaying is hard work. I know, my father got me in the union when I was young, but I hated the work. My father has done very well for himself as a bricklayer. He's 85 now and has been receiving a pension since he retired at 62.

Two problems: younger people don't want to do physical work like my father, and two, they would rather sit home smoking dope instead of learning a new career with great pay and benefits.

Plenty of Mexicans will take those jobs

Capitalism is just plain useless to the right wing, if it does not directly contribute to their bottom line.

America has near record 5.8 million job openings

Public policy should be filling these positions with native, US Labor, not alleging the necessity of H1b visas.

 

[Mr.Blonde]

I just saw this post and I am not going to read every comments.

Many of these people who use Medicaid may make enough to not have to use the program.

I know people who make enough and have health insurance etc and when they find out the cost even with insurance it is still outrageously expensive. So what they do is the woman either quits their job or goes part time to qualify for Medicaid. Then after they qualify they go right back to where they were.

 

[JoeB131]

Employers don't control what you earn--you control what you earn. If your skill set (whatever that may be) doesn't pay the kind of money you want to earn, you have to find another line of work.

Says the guy who can't get health coverage from his job.

 

[Dragonlady]

When I get into debates with liberals about our social programs, it doesn't take long for a few to chime in and tell us about some unfortunate person who had children and then lost control over supporting them. Yeah, I'm sure that's the typical case.

On the right, we have asserted that this is not the typical case. The typical case is poor people having children knowing they can't afford them, but have them anyhow because we working people will have to support them.

That debate is now over. In over half of the states across the country, over 50% of babies are born using Medicaid, further proof that the so-called poor have more children than do the working on average. Either that, or half of the country is on Medicaid. Either way, something has to change.

In almost half of the United States, 50% or more babies born were on Medicaid

It is a nationwide shame that so many employers pay such low wages and do not provide health insurance

Thank God for Medicaid

Oh, so now it's still not their fault, it's the employers fault.

Employers don't control what you earn--you control what you earn. If your skill set (whatever that may be) doesn't pay the kind of money you want to earn, you have to find another line of work.

You're not going to be able to support yourself stocking shelves, flipping hamburgers, sweeping floors, or cleaning toilets, and you certainly won't be able to support children. You have to get into a line of work that not everybody can do.

Why do you continue to blame poor people for being poor? Why don't you try looking at the causes of poverty?

In the 1950's, you had a 20% chance of working yourself up from poverty to middle class. Today's you have a 2% chance. Why do you continue to blame those who don't succeed when the system has been totallly stacked against them?

While poverty and dependency has increased, more and more of the country's wealth and assets are being transferred to the top 5%, less and less money is going into public education in poor districts. It's like tossing the poor overboard with rocks tied to their feet and then criticizing them for not being able to swim to shore.