Over 50% of US babies were born on Medicaid

[francoHFW]

That's what happens when your precious GOP wrecks the nonrich for 35 years and then start a corrupt world depression...The bottom 50% of the USA is a gd mess...Great job!

 

[francoHFW]

Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia
Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia
In 2013, child poverty reached record high levels in the U.S., with 16.7 million children living in food insecure households. Many of the neighborhoods these children live in lack basic produce and nutritious food. 47 million Americans depend on food banks, more than 30% above 2007 levels.
‎Poverty and demographics · ‎Factors in poverty · ‎Concerns regarding ...
3 TVs and No Food: Growing Up Poor in America - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/.../3-tvs-and-no-food-growing-up-poor-in-america.html
Oct 30, 2016 - PINE BLUFF, Ark. — Here's the kind of person whom America's presidential candidates just don't talk about: a sweet, grinning, endangered ...
America's poor vs. the rest of the world.
www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/.../america_s_poor_vs_the_rest_of_the_world.html
Jan 5, 2015 - You might be under the impression that America's poor are only poor by American standards. After all, the United States is a rich nation, and ...

 

[The Original Tree]

Since 47% of Americans pay no taxes and 50% of the babies born are paid for by Medicaid WTF does your question have to do with anything?

Let's address that issue instead of trying to create a false strawman that really doesn't speak to the issue of an overbloated welfare state.

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

Sorry bub I don't even have to read the article it's not all poor people without a job that get medicaid for the
first year of life. I know for a fact in my state regardless if the woman makes $50,000 or $5,000 a year if they have no insurance the baby is born with Medicaid and normally stays on a year or two. So your bullshit article of lazy no good poor people is wrong. And it's been run by republicans for many years and also red.

I would sure love a link that states women who make 50K a year get Medicaid. If that is the case, then this country is in need of some serious overhauling. The idea that working people have to pay taxes to pay for the childbirth of a mother that makes 50K a year is what's wrong with Democrats and socialism.

You spew your bullshit and you want me to provide a link, do your due diligence and research what state will cover a working woman, if uninsured, by Medicaid when she is pregnant cover the baby at birth and then cover the mother up to 1 year and then the mother is kicked off. Like I said not all are fat poor people as you think. Some just down on their luck and don't have insurance.

 

[RightyTighty]

 

[jasonnfree]

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 would be cheaper in the long run to give bonuses to low income and ghetto women to not have any more babies by way of sterilization. Might sound cruel but hey, we know of one woman not thirty years old that's had three kids by three different men. She's never had a job other than as an escort when she was younger and prettier. What's even scarier is the huge number of muslims obama brought here so they can crank out millions of future american hating jihadists.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Cradle to grave government dependence was Obamas big sell and anybody that made objections was racist.
Trumps working to toss that and all the loathing of Trump here has a lot to do with that

Exactly. Trump's own administration proudly admitted they created 20 million more new government dependents on Commie Care. Add to that the 20 million more new government dependents he created on food stamps. Those two programs alone created over 40 million more new government dependents. It was no accident by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

View attachment 139792

Did you find this all by yourself on the Internetz?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It would be cheaper in the long run to give bonuses to low income and ghetto women to not have any more babies by way of sterilization. Might sound cruel but hey, we know of one woman not thirty years old that's had three kids by three different men.

I don't think it's cruel. After all, what do working people do when they can't afford any more children? One or both get themselves fixed. All I am asking is that welfare people do the same as us working people, and that means getting fixed when you apply for any social program.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Keep in mind that the Kaiser report was based on data from 2010-2016. If you look at the list of states, New Mexico was right up there at the top with 72%. And being a border state, Mexican nationals were coming across on a daily basis to have their children, so they can have dual citizenship and qualify for US welfare.

The other states listed also show the sheer number of illegal who were coming into this country during the Obama years.

The other states listed are all red states. What a surprise!

 

[jasonnfree]

Or get an abortion ?

Medicaid pays for birth control...nice try

Which you are against I'm sure . Well righties want people to get married and have lots of babies . And righties tell young couples not to get Obamacare plans , even though it covers child birth.

So what's your plan???

Be responsible, you idiot. Birth control is everywhere at no charge, USE IT!!!

Good grief do you ever think before you post? If you're on Medicaid don't get PG you're in no financial shape to be raising kids. Trust me it takes a ton of money.

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

I'm not a conservative, used to be a demorat till that party went batshit crazy anti white, anti american. Anyway, why don't the people that are all for babies being brought into the world by parents who can't afford them, start up their own fund for taking care of these babies? obama and the clintons could easily come up with the first billion or two. Now that's compassion. Will they do it? Hell no.

 

[bodecea]

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

We know that children are not important to con-servatives from the moment of birth. Thank you for verifying that.

 

[Snouter]

It is grotesque low IQ, unproductive individuals get free medical care to reproduce themselves while intelligent, productive people have to pay tens of thousands of dollars. Seems like it actually might be part of the "left's" intentional policy to genocide Whitey.

 

[Seawytch]

"Pro-lifers" attacking babies and their Medicaid. LOL

More appropriate term, "pre-lifers" Once the kid has popped out, fuck 'em.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

Of course, this is the way the world works. And.....?

The right demand that the poor have babies, they want Planned Parenthood taken down because they promote contraception and abortions, and then the right get pissy because the poor ARE HAVING BABIES.

You couldn't make this shit up.

They're like Sybil.

And who is Sybil?

 

[francoHFW]

Since 47% of Americans pay no taxes and 50% of the babies born are paid for by Medicaid WTF does your question have to do with anything?

Let's address that issue instead of trying to create a false strawman that really doesn't speak to the issue of an overbloated welfare state.

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

Sorry bub I don't even have to read the article it's not all poor people without a job that get medicaid for the
first year of life. I know for a fact in my state regardless if the woman makes $50,000 or $5,000 a year if they have no insurance the baby is born with Medicaid and normally stays on a year or two. So your bullshit article of lazy no good poor people is wrong. And it's been run by republicans for many years and also red.

I would sure love a link that states women who make 50K a year get Medicaid. If that is the case, then this country is in need of some serious overhauling. The idea that working people have to pay taxes to pay for the childbirth of a mother that makes 50K a year is what's wrong with Democrats and socialism.

You spew your bullshit and you want me to provide a link, do your due diligence and research what state will cover a working woman, if uninsured, by Medicaid when she is pregnant cover the baby at birth and then cover the mother up to 1 year and then the mother is kicked off. Like I said not all are fat poor people as you think. Some just down on their luck and don't have insurance.

Absolutely wrong, superdupe. Too bad you had to try a "fact"...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g

 

[francoHFW]

It is grotesque low IQ, unproductive individuals get free medical care to reproduce themselves while intelligent, productive people have to pay tens of thousands of dollars. Seems like it actually might be part of the "left's" intentional policy to genocide Whitey.

Those are called the unfortunate, and a nation is judged on how it treats them. Under the New BS GOP- bad!

 

[francoHFW]

Since 47% of Americans pay no taxes and 50% of the babies born are paid for by Medicaid WTF does your question have to do with anything?

Let's address that issue instead of trying to create a false strawman that really doesn't speak to the issue of an overbloated welfare state.

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

Sorry bub I don't even have to read the article it's not all poor people without a job that get medicaid for the
first year of life. I know for a fact in my state regardless if the woman makes $50,000 or $5,000 a year if they have no insurance the baby is born with Medicaid and normally stays on a year or two. So your bullshit article of lazy no good poor people is wrong. And it's been run by republicans for many years and also red.

I would sure love a link that states women who make 50K a year get Medicaid. If that is the case, then this country is in need of some serious overhauling. The idea that working people have to pay taxes to pay for the childbirth of a mother that makes 50K a year is what's wrong with Democrats and socialism.

You spew your bullshit and you want me to provide a link, do your due diligence and research what state will cover a working woman, if uninsured, by Medicaid when she is pregnant cover the baby at birth and then cover the mother up to 1 year and then the mother is kicked off. Like I said not all are fat poor people as you think. Some just down on their luck and don't have insurance.

Absolutely wrong, superdupe. Too bad you had to try a "fact"...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjd4OHXwJnVAhVBGz4KHYspDVYQFghFMAw&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g

The one tax graph you really need to know




By Ezra Klein September 19, 2012

At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

Wonkbook newsletter

Your daily policy cheat sheet from Wonkblog.



But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

That's really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.

 

[francoHFW]

Since 47% of Americans pay no taxes and 50% of the babies born are paid for by Medicaid WTF does your question have to do with anything?

Let's address that issue instead of trying to create a false strawman that really doesn't speak to the issue of an overbloated welfare state.

Sorry bub I don't even have to read the article it's not all poor people without a job that get medicaid for the
first year of life. I know for a fact in my state regardless if the woman makes $50,000 or $5,000 a year if they have no insurance the baby is born with Medicaid and normally stays on a year or two. So your bullshit article of lazy no good poor people is wrong. And it's been run by republicans for many years and also red.

I would sure love a link that states women who make 50K a year get Medicaid. If that is the case, then this country is in need of some serious overhauling. The idea that working people have to pay taxes to pay for the childbirth of a mother that makes 50K a year is what's wrong with Democrats and socialism.

You spew your bullshit and you want me to provide a link, do your due diligence and research what state will cover a working woman, if uninsured, by Medicaid when she is pregnant cover the baby at birth and then cover the mother up to 1 year and then the mother is kicked off. Like I said not all are fat poor people as you think. Some just down on their luck and don't have insurance.

Absolutely wrong, superdupe. Too bad you had to try a "fact"...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjd4OHXwJnVAhVBGz4KHYspDVYQFghFMAw&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g

The one tax graph you really need to know




By Ezra Klein September 19, 2012

At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

Wonkbook newsletter

Your daily policy cheat sheet from Wonkblog.



But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

That's really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.

That's what Reaganism has done, dupe.

 

[Snouter]

...a nation is judged on how it treats [retarded criminals who rape each other]...

Who is judging? Yahweh?

 

[francoHFW]

...a nation is judged on how it treats [retarded criminals who rape each other]...

Who is judging? Yahweh?

intelligent humans and God...