Over 50% of US babies were born on Medicaid

[Markle]

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

You don't have a clue as to the difference between a tax credit and a tax deduction, do you? Frankly, I'm not surprised.

 

[Markle]

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

A single person, with nothing other than the allowed deductions other than the standard deductions, will pay about $4,876 in income taxes on an income of $50,000.

A single person with three kids and no other allowed deductions than the standard deductions will pay about $54.00.

As you can see, the person with three kids and no spouse has $4,822. in spending money, not $12,000.

Free Income Tax Calculator and Estimator

Personally, I couldn't live on $50,000 a year without any kids.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Ray From Cleveland, post: 17775965

if we made a regulation that states you can't get one dime from the government until you are fixed first, that would greatly reduce the amount of poor children being born that the taxpayers no longer have to support.

Forced sterilization for being poor is it? Is that state and federal assistance you are denying for the crime of being in povert?

 

[Markle]

Why is it necessary for every single worker in the US to pass a drug test? That's insane, unless you're operating heavy equipment or driving. What does it matter if your waiter smoked a joint with his friends last night?

Because that waiter is representing ME, the owner of that restaurant. I don't want someone representing me who was stoned the night before. If that's MY requirement for MY business and you want to work for me, those are the conditions. If you can live with that requirement, go down to my competitor's restaurant.

 

[Markle]

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

So their poor choices, say doing drugs, makes them poorer. How does that make the rich richer? Unless they're a drug dealer.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray From Cleveland, post: 17775965

if we made a regulation that states you can't get one dime from the government until you are fixed first, that would greatly reduce the amount of poor children being born that the taxpayers no longer have to support.

Forced sterilization for being poor is it? Is that state and federal assistance you are denying for the crime of being in povert?

Nothing is forced. If you don't want to be fixed, don't apply or accept taxpayer money. Get a job instead; buy your own birth control so you don't create the problems you would otherwise inflict on taxpayers.

 

[Markle]

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

Any, big or little corporation pays exactly the going wage for workers at that particular skill level. If someone wants higher pay, all they have to do is to improve their skills.

Glad to see you support the wall being built to keep out no skilled workers and truck loads of drugs as well.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray From Cleveland, post: 17761858,

What these statistics show is that lowlifes are having children they can't afford and know it. In the meantime, working people who limit their family size according to their income cannot have family sizes they would like.

So now you know every child born paid under Medicaid has parent's that our lowlifes.

No consideration for the hardworking poor.

Have you gone any depth into the statistics. What is the ratio of intentional lowlife's to unwanted pregnancies to young working families that qualify for Medicaid?

Did you study the stats?

If you don't have enough money to afford children but have them anyway, yes, you are a lowlife. Hard working poor do not have children they can't afford---at least the responsible ones anyway. I have more consideration for responsible people than irresponsible hard working people.

You see, the real problem I have here is non-working or low wage working people living better with less stress than responsible working people. Think about that for a second:

Non-working people have as many children as they like--working people can't.
Non-working or low wage people can live in the suburbs--some working people can't
Non-working of low wage people don't have medical coverage concerns--some working people do.
Non-working or low wage people are not concerned about their spending on groceries--working people do.
Non-working or low wage people have no concern about utilities--working people do.

If I have to support low wage or non-working people, that's fine. But they should not have a better and less stressful life than the working. I hope you can understand my position on this.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So you want someone else to work 3 jobs and support your children because you "won't," or can't?

I don't want anyone's children to die, but I want you to put forth, as you expect me to put forth, the effort to contribute to supporting your children's needs.

So what to do ? Simple question.

Simple answer: if you apply for any kind of public assistance, you don't get a dime until you are fixed first. Problem solved.

Well at lest that's an answer ! A terrible one , but an answer none the less.

Really ? How many people can afford to pay for child birth on your own.

You don't follow along very well, do you? As I said, if you plan on having children, make sure you have a health insurance plan that covers it.

And why is my solution so terrible?

So, you approve of an individual mandate?

No, I approve of personal responsibility, that's all.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually, why should insurance cover child care at all? It's totally elective . Might as well pay for nose jobs .

Why should other insured pay for it ? The only people who should have kids are those who can pay for it out of pocket .

Insurance has contracts. You BUY a contract that covers child birth. It will probably cost you more than buying insurance that doesn't cover child birth, but there is nothing wrong with insurance that wishes to offer such plans.

The ACA mandates that it's covered, fool.

Yes it does, even for people in their 50's or 60's.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Ray From Cleveland, post

And why is my solution so terrible?

That is your solution?

The working poor could not afford an insurance plan out of employer group plans prior to the ACA.

A private plan covering pregnancy and childbirth was probably a few thousand a month.

What are people in poverty supposed to do? Sell Drugs to make the payments.

That is no solution. You are a fraud.

Claiming you have posted solutions.

Well Duh! How about the solution being if you can't afford to have children, don't have them?

So, let's get right to the heart of your argument, Ray. What political solution do you propose for poor people having children? Let me guess. You would stop feeding the children. THAT would keep poor people from having sex, right? After all, they have already failed to feed them, so, somehow you think that withholding food from their kids is going to make them suddenly responsible for what they do on Saturday night with their sex organs? Seriously, Ray, I hear nothing but bitching, but no solutions from the Right.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Typical conservatives. You have all kinds of opinions but no SOLUTIONS!

Their solution is to let them die or force the father to work 3 jobs.

Conservatives are fucking evil

So you want someone else to work 3 jobs and support your children because you "won't," or can't?

I don't want anyone's children to die, but I want you to put forth, as you expect me to put forth, the effort to contribute to supporting your children's needs.

So what to do ? Simple question.

Simple answer: if you apply for any kind of public assistance, you don't get a dime until you are fixed first. Problem solved.

Yes, because being in need for a short period of time should cost you your ability to ever procreate.

Nothing that can't be reversed once you're off social programs.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Ray From Cleveland, post: 17775965

if we made a regulation that states you can't get one dime from the government until you are fixed first, that would greatly reduce the amount of poor children being born that the taxpayers no longer have to support.

Forced sterilization for being poor is it? Is that state and federal assistance you are denying for the crime of being in povert?

Hitler did this to non productive members of society. But, of course, it was only the beginning.....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray From Cleveland, post

And why is my solution so terrible?

That is your solution?

The working poor could not afford an insurance plan out of employer group plans prior to the ACA.

A private plan covering pregnancy and childbirth was probably a few thousand a month.

What are people in poverty supposed to do? Sell Drugs to make the payments.

That is no solution. You are a fraud.

Claiming you have posted solutions.

Well Duh! How about the solution being if you can't afford to have children, don't have them?

So, let's get right to the heart of your argument, Ray. What political solution do you propose for poor people having children? Let me guess. You would stop feeding the children. THAT would keep poor people from having sex, right? After all, they have already failed to feed them, so, somehow you think that withholding food from their kids is going to make them suddenly responsible for what they do on Saturday night with their sex organs? Seriously, Ray, I hear nothing but bitching, but no solutions from the Right.

You've read the solutions (at least from me) but refuse to acknowledge them. If people are on any kind of government assistance, it should be a fixed amount no matter if they have children or not. If that fixed amount does not give them the capability to support children, those children should be taken away and put into an orphanage.

As this OP points out, supposed poor people have children with no concern or pressure as to how to support them. In fact, they are rewarded by having those children. Take the reward away, and you'll create more responsible poor people.

 

[Markle]

Nearly 2/3 of seniors in nursing care depend on Medicaid as well.

Kindly show your reliable source and link to this claim.

 

[Markle]

My God you are a genius. Is your name June, husband Ward and two sons Wally and Beaver.

Why do you scorn personal responsibility and expect those who have no personal responsibility to be rewarded for that behavior?

 

[Markle]

People are not eligible for unemployment benefits, if fired for cause. At least not in the states where I have lived.

Sounds right. How is that a bad thing? Perhaps that will teach them a valuable lesson.

 

[Markle]

It stands to reason that if no government funds can go to PP because they do abortions, then doctors who agree to see Medicaid patients and are reimbursed by the government....but then, surely, you don't need me to explain this to you.

PP claims they do not use taxpayer funds for abortions. I am proposing a solution. What does a Medicaid patient have to do with Planned Parenthood performing an abortion?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Markle, post: 17776488

Why do you scorn personal responsibility and expect those who have no personal responsibility to be rewarded for that behavior?

I don't scorn personal responsibility.

I don't see public assistance as a reward in a country where the wealth gap is so wide.

There is a problem here but broad brush blame should not all be laid on the poor for lack of personal responsibility.

I scorn the folly of the OP.

It's a message of hate.

The OP and his admirers should take personal responsibility for that.

 

[Markle]

In Franklin's day, people were still going to debtors' prisons. Women whose husbands died frequently turned to prostitution to support themselves and their children. Attitudes towards social problems have evolved.

We don't have debtor's prisons. We don't put children in orphanages, and we provide a hand up for the poor. Making it more difficult to get out of poverty is an old fashioned notion which was abandoned because it doesn't work.

Since we have the same level of poverty as we had when former President Lyndon Johnson shoved the War on Poverty and his Great Society up our...throats has not decreased by our rate of poverty, obviously, your system is not working.

I strongly support a SAFETY NET but I abhor that it has become a hammock.