Over 50% of US babies were born on Medicaid

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

Free money? How is something you worked for free?

The problem with you leftists is how you look at income. You believe all money belongs to government, and what money of yours they allow you to keep is a gift.

If we had a federal law where you could only own two television sets, but you had four when the law was passed, and government came and took two of your television sets away to give to others who had no television set, does that mean government gave you two television sets since they allowed you to keep two of them?

You have three kids. You make $50,000 a year. At the end of the year, you have $12,000 more spending money than someone who has no kids and makes the same $50,000 a year

Free money

Oh, I see the problem now. You don't understand tax deductions

I deal with tax deductions every year. It's not what you think. If I write-off $10,000 in deductions for my apartments, that does not mean that the government will give me that $10,000. What it means is I still had to pay that 10K, it's just that I don't have to pay taxes on that money when I earned it.

So let's say in one month I collect $2,000 in rent, but I spend that $2,000 on the property or apartments. That does not mean government will reimburse me that 2 grand. What it means is that it's income, just not subject to being taxed.

Total fail on your part.... You are talking about net profit

What I am talking about is you getting $4000 at the end of the year for every rug rat you have while you bitch about the poor getting reimbursed for their rug rats

Must be a comprehension problem. You don't get anything from government. Government just doesn't take as much away.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Used to be low skilled workers could support themselves and their families. A high school graduate could get a union job and support a family and eventually retire

But we sold out our working class. Gave employers huge tax cuts that did not make their way down to the workers.

The right wing prefers to "blame the poor for their poor lifestyle choices", that happen to make the poor poorer and the rich richer.

 

[rightwinger]

A sensible solution when there were ample good paying jobs

Used to be, you lived in the city, got a job at the manufacturing plant or steel mill. You never got rich, but you could support a family, buy a home, send your kids to college

Those jobs are gone. The people were left behind and nothing came in to replace those jobs

And they are not going to be replaced. That's why you can't follow that strategy anymore. The American consumer will not support high paying monkey jobs like we used to. The American consumer is obsessed with cheap--not where the product is made, who they put out of a job, or even the quality of the product. Just sell us the cheapest product you can.

Then don't blame the worker when they can't find those imaginary jobs of yours

Imaginary? Would you like me to link some want ads with those imaginary jobs? Would you like me to make you a video of all the industrial areas I go to that are littered with HELP WANTED signs week after week? Maybe a letter from my employer telling you how difficult it is to find workers that can pass a drug test?

Why don't you do that
Link to 30 million want ads for every family that receives government assistance

I have a job. Why would I go get another one? I never said there were 30 million jobs. What I said is that there are plenty of jobs for those who actually want to work. Most of the people on those programs don't want to work. That's the problem.

We have a nationwide problem with the availability of jobs that people can support themselves and a family. While there are "jobs" there are fewer and fewer "careers"

The solution involves tens of millions of careers not just some guy working harder

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Oh yes, the scammers are out there. Some even go through the trouble of getting a divorce to qualify for government programs.

Only because laissez-fair capitalism is so lazy regarding full employment and improving wages for Labor.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Poverty is a very simple problem with very simple solutions. Poverty is the state of not having enough money to live on if any money at all. The solution to poverty is money. To obtain money, you need to get a job.

There, poverty is now solved. But wait! There is more........

Once you have a job, save the money you make. Get an apartment with others in your situation or answer some ads of people looking for roommates to share expenses with. DO NOT HAVE ANY CHILDREN until you have a secure job and career. If you cannot get a good job or secure a career, don't have any children. Avoid going into debt and buying things you cannot reasonably afford. Instead of taking your money to buy the newest I-phone, put that money in your savings account.

If your savings account starts to accumulate into the thousands or tens of thousands, it's time to start thinking about investments. You have an array of investments to choose from. You can use your money to start your own business like lawn care. You can use that money for a trade school. You can invest that money in the stock market, commodities market, real estate, treasury bonds.....

There. Now tell me why anybody cannot do what I just wrote.

A sensible solution when there were ample good paying jobs

Used to be, you lived in the city, got a job at the manufacturing plant or steel mill. You never got rich, but you could support a family, buy a home, send your kids to college

Those jobs are gone. The people were left behind and nothing came in to replace those jobs

The right wing has nothing but repeal; otherwise they would have suggested a policy that fills, unfilled positions in the US, with US labor.

America has 5.8 million job openings

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And they are not going to be replaced. That's why you can't follow that strategy anymore. The American consumer will not support high paying monkey jobs like we used to. The American consumer is obsessed with cheap--not where the product is made, who they put out of a job, or even the quality of the product. Just sell us the cheapest product you can.

Then don't blame the worker when they can't find those imaginary jobs of yours

Imaginary? Would you like me to link some want ads with those imaginary jobs? Would you like me to make you a video of all the industrial areas I go to that are littered with HELP WANTED signs week after week? Maybe a letter from my employer telling you how difficult it is to find workers that can pass a drug test?

Why don't you do that
Link to 30 million want ads for every family that receives government assistance

I have a job. Why would I go get another one? I never said there were 30 million jobs. What I said is that there are plenty of jobs for those who actually want to work. Most of the people on those programs don't want to work. That's the problem.

We have a nationwide problem with the availability of jobs that people can support themselves and a family. While there are "jobs" there are fewer and fewer "careers"

The solution involves tens of millions of careers not just some guy working harder

And I agree with you which is why younger people should get the training needed to secure one of those many jobs. Blue collar jobs are on their way out. Industry wants to replace humans with machines.

But to be honest, our customers ask us all the time if we know people who are looking for a job. Yes, these are starting positions that don't pay too badly for non-skilled labor. Plus most of the companies offer incentives and promotions within the company. They can't find these people who can pass a drug test and willing to work.

 

[TheDude]

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.

I call it nation building, and it's a legit reason to provide those incentives. It's another reason "gay marriage" doesn't suit intent.

 

[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.

I call it nation building, and it's a legit reason to provide those incentives. It's another reason "gay marriage" doesn't suit intent.

I don't follow your logic

 

[danielpalos]

Then don't blame the worker when they can't find those imaginary jobs of yours

Imaginary? Would you like me to link some want ads with those imaginary jobs? Would you like me to make you a video of all the industrial areas I go to that are littered with HELP WANTED signs week after week? Maybe a letter from my employer telling you how difficult it is to find workers that can pass a drug test?

Why don't you do that
Link to 30 million want ads for every family that receives government assistance

I have a job. Why would I go get another one? I never said there were 30 million jobs. What I said is that there are plenty of jobs for those who actually want to work. Most of the people on those programs don't want to work. That's the problem.

We have a nationwide problem with the availability of jobs that people can support themselves and a family. While there are "jobs" there are fewer and fewer "careers"

The solution involves tens of millions of careers not just some guy working harder

And I agree with you which is why younger people should get the training needed to secure one of those many jobs. Blue collar jobs are on their way out. Industry wants to replace humans with machines.

But to be honest, our customers ask us all the time if we know people who are looking for a job. Yes, these are starting positions that don't pay too badly for non-skilled labor. Plus most of the companies offer incentives and promotions within the company. They can't find these people who can pass a drug test and willing to work.

Yet, the right wing doesn't care about the "abomination of hypocrisy"; how amoral.

 

[TheDude]

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.

I call it nation building, and it's a legit reason to provide those incentives. It's another reason "gay marriage" doesn't suit intent.

I don't follow your logic

The government provides incentives for marriage & kids to promote stability and reproduction.

 

[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.

I call it nation building, and it's a legit reason to provide those incentives. It's another reason "gay marriage" doesn't suit intent.

I don't follow your logic

The government provides incentives for marriage & kids to promote stability and reproduction.

Don't understand your concern about gays

 

[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.

I call it nation building, and it's a legit reason to provide those incentives. It's another reason "gay marriage" doesn't suit intent.

I don't follow your logic

The government provides incentives for marriage & kids to promote stability and reproduction.

Unfortunately, they provide much better incentives to have children people can't afford to have, and that's why this one-fifth of our population is producing over half of the babies.

 

[TheDude]

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.

I call it nation building, and it's a legit reason to provide those incentives. It's another reason "gay marriage" doesn't suit intent.

I don't follow your logic

The government provides incentives for marriage & kids to promote stability and reproduction.

Don't understand your concern about gays

Because gay marriage advocates tried to portray homosexuality equal heterosexuality.

 

[rightwinger]

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

I call it nation building, and it's a legit reason to provide those incentives. It's another reason "gay marriage" doesn't suit intent.

I don't follow your logic

The government provides incentives for marriage & kids to promote stability and reproduction.

Don't understand your concern about gays

Because gay marriage advocates tried to portray homosexuality equal heterosexuality.

Why isn't it?
Homosexual marriages put little burden on society. Homosexuals pay taxes but use few public services

Those marriages are equal under the law....that is the point

 

[Dragonlady]

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

I call it nation building, and it's a legit reason to provide those incentives. It's another reason "gay marriage" doesn't suit intent.

I don't follow your logic

The government provides incentives for marriage & kids to promote stability and reproduction.

Don't understand your concern about gays

Because gay marriage advocates tried to portray homosexuality equal heterosexuality.

No they didn't. They quite rightly said that gay people want the stability and commitment of marriage, and that not all people get married for procreation.

They also want the legal protections that marriage gives: the right to participate in decisions regarding their spouse when the spouse can't speak for themselves, family health insurance rates and tax incentives available for joint filing.

 

[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.

Oh yes, the scammers are out there. Some even go through the trouble of getting a divorce to qualify for government programs.

Only because laissez-fair capitalism is so lazy regarding full employment and improving wages for Labor.

People don't start businesses to employ people. They start businesses to make money.

If you want to improve wages get rid (or greatly cut) of welfare. Big corporations are not paying people a living wage because they can off load pay to the tax payers.

If you cut welfare workers would have greater leverage to ask for higher wages. No adult will take a job under a true living wage because what is the point?

We could also stop importing no skilled workers

 

[Clementine]

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.

Another huge problem is that too many can't pass a drug test to qualify for jobs. And you are right that many have no desire to even apply for work. The left has made it so much easier not to do anything.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Oh yes, the scammers are out there. Some even go through the trouble of getting a divorce to qualify for government programs.

Only because laissez-fair capitalism is so lazy regarding full employment and improving wages for Labor.

People don't start businesses to employ people. They start businesses to make money.

If you want to improve wages get rid (or greatly cut) of welfare. Big corporations are not paying people a living wage because they can off load pay to the tax payers.

If you cut welfare workers would have greater leverage to ask for higher wages. No adult will take a job under a true living wage because what is the point?

We could also stop importing no skilled workers

That is nothing but "right wing hate on the poor". Why not cut off corporate welfare in Right to Work States, to "set an example".

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Another huge problem is that too many can't pass a drug test to qualify for jobs. And you are right that many have no desire to even apply for work. The left has made it so much easier not to do anything.

lol. only the right wing has nothing but repeal.

drug users get to do it over again until they get it right. find the appropriate tasks.

 

[Vandalshandle]

One thing I would like to know, Ray. I have heard you complain bitterly about how your employer dropped your group insurance plan because of ACA. I have also heard you complain endlessly about poor people who can not afford to have a family, but do not work to improve their skills to earn a good living on their own. My question is this. How much time do you spend per month complaining on this message board about ACA that you can not afford, and welfare taxes that you are burdened with, vs. how much time do you spend per month improving your skills so that you can afford insurance and the onerous taxes you have to pay? I ask, because I don't even work, and I have neither of those problems, and it seems to me that you belong in the same category as the others that you complain about.