But he’s working for NASA so he’s still leeching off our tax dollars!!
That’s sad.
I refer to it as their SS because that is what it is - their SS account. The fact that it doesn’t have their particular money in it doesn’t mean that the government isn’t keeping track of how much each person puts in and when they retire/become disabled. Are you not old enough to get your annual statement from them, about your account?
You should read it again. I have a low opinion of those who choose to live off of our tax dollars.
As I said earlier, in this state I think it is at least 20% because deciding to live off of the various welfare programs is abuse of the system.
I think that is the whole problem here - different ideas of what the different welfare programs are intended for. Do you feel that a minor child having and keeping a baby is what the welfare system is supposed to be covering? How about if she goes ahead and has another baby every three years or so? And/or if she doesn’t finish high school, get a GED or go to trade school? Never works? And then when her eldest daughter has her first child at 15? This is not what was originally intended and these folks are definitely not using it as a safety net.
I’m not sure that would work since it takes far more than one doctor to qualify for SSDI! It’s certainly possible to game the SSDI system, but I don’t think it is as easy to do.
I only ask because you’ve expressed discomfort with people having more than one vehicle, having internet access, etc. and the thread is about feeding those on assistance the aforementioned gruel. I was wondering if there were any other things about welfare beyond simply spending an extended period of time on it that (to use the colloquialism)knotted your knickers.
Actually, I’m not so sure. How do you feel about the 80% that are not living off the system?
Depends on what the family situation regarding her parents is, but yes.
This is where things get interesting. I’m going to assume you’re thinking along the welfare queen train of thought and that our mother in question is merely “popping them out” with little regard to economic circumstance. I would say that I don’t think that welfare should cover her, but how does one regulate against such activities? Do we poll parents for intent to separate the bad parents from parents with bad luck? Do we put a baby cap on the welfare programs? Do we accept that helping the 80% is worth tolerating the 20% sponges?
Again, we find ourselves in the precarious position of putting strings on the proverbial purse. You can put an education requirement for continued benefits, but how then does our welfare queen take care of the child during education hours? Children, much like geese, can be troublesome. Putting a graduation cap on benefits would put those with children (well intentioned or welfare queens) at a disadvantage.
Do you think the system could be altered to cut back on abuse? How so?
I’m not at all knowledgable in the ins and outs of SSDI. I was simply putting the scenarios on a level field for the purposes of clarity.
I thought it was about pitting Bri1600BV. Anyway, I haven’t expressed discomfort about those things, I have asked questions about them and stated that when I was poor, I didn’t own those things and if I had, I’d have sold them in order to buy food/gas/whatever. It simply appears to me that poor people these days expect to have more than they did 30-40 years ago when I was poor.
Technically, anyone on welfare is living off the system. The 80% are those who I don’t think intend to continue to do it for very long, for as short a time as possible. These are the folks that don’t make excuses, they just get to work on taking care of themselves.
You think welfare is intended to support children having children? What does the family situation have to do with it?
It’s very simple - you don’t pay for any babies that are born while their mother is on welfare. The bleeding hearts freak out at that suggestion because it is “cruel and inhuman” to the “innocent babies”, but really - how humane is it to raise a baby while one is living on welfare to begin with? Or to birth one addicted to crack, suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome, infected with AIDs? The government is paying women to have babies like this - how is that a good thing?
No. That 20% not only costs us for themselves, they also create a new generation of sponges. We need to go back to some sort of welfare to work program and quit listening to the excuses.
What’s wrong with that?
She finds someone to watch them. It cannot be true that the average welfare mother is with her children 24/7, so if she can get away from them now, she can do it to get an education.
So the taxpayer should continue to pay out for generations simply because these women think they have the right to have multiple children they cannot afford? Children who will most likely end up being some sort of drain on society themselves? “Having children” has got to stop as an excuse for not being able to work, not being able to go to school, not being able to do anything but live on welfare.
Despite what many here would like to think, it is far easier to get the various welfare programs to pay you than it is to get your SS early. Part of the problem is that the federal definition of “disabled” is not “unable to work at any job”. So those who want to get on SSDI are generally having to hit a moving target, and as far as I can tell from the scores of people I’ve talked to, the fed denies all but the most obvious cases on the first application.
Now, I’m sure there must be some people gaming the SSDI system - well, I know one who I think is - but it would take quite a bit of work to do so.
Umm,
Step 1?: How much would that be per month?*
Step 2?: How much would that be per month?
Step 2a: Simple math.
Step 2b: Take the disparity between retirement age and life expectancy and assuming a high (and most likely unrealistic) rate of return on investment had Step 1 not occurred and assume the money in Step 1 had actually been invested, do more simple math.
Step 3 (New): Say “See? It’s extremely likely that you’ll get your money back, and more! So stop complaining about having to pay for other folks SS (et al.)!”
Step 4 (New): Make some changes to the current system. (Like, say, removing the FICA cap?)
Step 5 (New): Less whining?!
But since I’m not a tax thingy guy what do I know?
CMC fnord!
*
And remember, there are different forms of Social Security. RSDI (Retirement, Survivors, Disability Insurance) and SSI (Supplemental Security Income). RSDI is based on what you’ve paid in (FICA), SSI fills the gaps. Once RSDI ends, you end up total SSI which is essentially federal welfare.
SSI
If I get hit by a bus, RSDI will kick in for X many years, then as what I paid in to FICA is used, it will first be partially supplemented by SSI (at a lower amount than the full RSDI), then I would eventually be straight SSI.
RSDI can be garnished. RSDI can be levied. SSI cannot be touched. It is federal welfare, no matter how you look at it.
That sound you hear is the sound of Curlcoat furiously backpedalling.
What have you misunderstood that makes you think that?
The phrase children having children puts us in a rather interesting place. I say that it depends on the family situation because, if we’re going by your later statement as our age gauge, the child having the child is aged 15 which places her squarely as a minor and under her parents care. Should she somehow manage to come from a home life screwed up enough for a judge to emancipate a pregnant fifteen year old, I’d think welfare is in order. I don’t think it was intended specifically for that purpose, but I don’t see how it would be prohibited.
This paragraph seems rather harsh. Probably just the comparison between children born to parents on welfare and children born addicted to crack, born brain damaged, or born with a nasty and potentially fatal virus. Of course, the difference is that children born to parents on welfare can have the circumstances of their life changed (parents get jobs, more money, and the like) whereas the crack baby can only look forward to a job hosting a show on fox news. I think your comparison in this case needs work.
And if I may ask more questions, what percentage of people in that 80% do you think will have kids during their time on welfare? Accidents happen. People may be pregnant before they fall on hard times. Is it only the 20% that breed while on welfare?
My other question (gotta have one since I pluralized the word and all) is about abortion/sex ed/contraceptives, and you can tell me to stuff it if you don’t feel like answering. I’m asking because of your views on people having kids while on welfare simply to get an idea on where you stand. Are you for or against abortion, relatively detailed sex ed in schools vs. abstinence only, medicaid funding for contraceptives/abortions given that this is about those on welfare? Your answer isn’t necessary if you don’t want to get into it but it would be appreciated.
According to wiki, the federal program expired in 2004 but I think that some states do have provisions in place. If anyone can find any info on this, it’d be appreciated as my google fu has abandoned me. Do you think that a majority of kids born to sponges will grow up to continue life as a sponge?
Nothing really, but the implementation of such things can be troublesome.
If we’re going to continue with our emancipated minor mother, her family is likely right out as possible baby sitters. Does she leave the kid/s to go to work or get an education? If she can’t find or can’t trust her friends, what does she do? I think the government does assist on day care. Is that kosher for you?
Not at all. I think we just have different views on how the system is performing. I feel that, while not ideal, the 20% sponge rate is tolerable to help the 80%. It would be better to remove that 20%, but not by changing things to the detriment of the 80% who are using the system properly. Am I correct in saying you disagree with this statement?
ISTM that if tacoloco actually misunderstood something in your posts, he would be unaware of doing so. That said, it might be interesting to have tacoloco quote what you have posted and point out the bits that strike him as constituting backpedaling. If you are really interested in learning why he made the remark, asking him to do that is probably a more polite way of finding out.
If you’re really only interested in smacking him around with an accusation that he has “misunderstood” your posts, well, carry on, I guess.
Did you torture earthworms in a past life so that in this one you’re doomed to try to wrangle curlcoat?
This is the thing. Apparently it isn’t at all necessary for the girl to be living apart from her parent(s), much less be officially emancipated. Why is the government more responsible for this girl and her baby than her parents?
I couldn’t find any cites regarding babies born on welfare overall, but there are some out there regarding the likelihood of babies born to teenage mothers on welfare suffering from things like that. The logic is there as well - a mother who is living on welfare, if she has been doing it for very long, most likely has an alcohol or drug abuse problem, and if she is turning tricks to make money she is more likely to have AIDs.
I like to believe that most people are intelligent enough and rational enough to not have a child(ren) at a time when they obviously cannot afford to raise them, but history proves that to be foolish. And not only do these folks go ahead and have these babies, society supports them by paying for it, and by the general belief that everyone has a right to have children, no matter how dirt poor, drug addicted or abusive they are.
Pro choice, as much sex ed as possible, yes to Medicaid funding for contraceptives and abortions.
Mine did too, tho I am less likely to have the patience to follow things around since it takes so long to do it. I think you are right that some states have a sort of welfare to work program going on, but they seem to be having trouble with those that don’t think that the mothers of young children should be forced to work, as well as the problem with those addicted to drugs.
Yes, I do think that. I can’t seem to find any indication that anyone has had a look at it, but if nothing else, children tend to repeat what they grew up with.
I really doubt that there are many emancipated minors living on welfare, without being at least in foster care.
Not really, but it appears to be a necessary evil. An outgrowth of society placing the most importance on the idea of babies but not on the realities.
I am not really sure. It would depend on what you think a detriment would be.
Oh please. He says I’m backpedaling, based on nothing at all, and you think I should call him out politely?
Besides, I’m well aware that he will do nothing of the sort. I’ve asked for people to prove all kinds of things that they think I’ve said and so far - nada.
While a 15 year old is still under their parents’ care, the parents are under no legal obligation to financially support the grandchild that 15 year old parents. They also don’t automatically assume legal custody nor responsibility in other regards for that grandchild. Parenthood automatically emancipates/empowers in important ways, for instance, a minor who is pregnant is the sole arbiter of her obstetric care, just as an adult woman would be. A minor who maintains custody of their own child is similarly the ultimate giver of consent for medical procedures for their child. They also have the ultimate responsibility to provide food, clothing, shelter and medical care for their child, as needed. And that is why minors who are the custodial parents of their own children are eligible for public assistance benefits just like parents who are of/over the age of majority – in order to ensure that the child is not materially neglected and so that there isn’t a penumbra of people – the parents of procreating minors – who become financially responsible for a child that is not theirs and over whom they have no legal authority.
I could elaborate at this point on my perspective of a person who has no children blithely suggesting that anyone who becomes pregnant under less than ideal financial or age-related circumstances, should either terminate the pregnancy or simply give the child away, (also recommended for children with illnesses, as demonstrated in the most cold-hearted thing I’ve read on these boards, right here in this thread) as if these are simple things, no different from throwing away a tattered shirt. The nihilism of this perspective is pretty appalling to me, and I’m a champion cynic. But that gets too close to directly addressing that person, and I’ve vowed not to do that.
Yes, I do. I’m not in a position to assess whether his assertion is based on nothing or something, since I’m finding most of your posts to be tldr material, but if you really want to know what left him feeling comfortable enough to level the accusation (and you did ask, however aggressively), I think you should ask him politely.
Tends to work for me, even in the Pit. Which, come to think of it, might be relevant to your second paragraph:
Cheers! 
Ah yes, another glimpse into the Magical World of curlcoat, where childcare is cheap and plentiful, and finding someone to babysit for one hour is the same as finding someone to babysit for eight or more hours.
I can’t wait until the day your brain explodes from all the stupidity and ignorance, leaving you in a permanent vegetative state.
I take it then, you see no problem with parents abdicating their responsibility to their children simply because there is government assistance their underage child can get? It is better for a penumbra of strangers (the taxpayers) to become financially responsible for children that are not theirs and over whom they have no legal authority, rather than the parents that had and raised that underage mother?
Snort. Perhaps if you actually read what I write, you wouldn’t end up with these ass-umptions. Unless that is the intent? I don’t agree with your “baybees are all important” stance, so you have to twist things around?
What I actually said was that those women who become pregnant while on welfare (far from “less than ideal financial circumstances”) or those 12-15 year olds (far from “less than ideal age-related circumstances”) would better serve themselves, the potential baby and society by either aborting or giving the baby up for adoption. Simply because you have emotional issues with those choices doesn’t mean that the women who make responsible, rather than emotional, choices are cold-hearted nihilists.
But then, it’s no fun and it doesn’t serve your agenda to stay on point, does it?
Sure you are - there was nothing in his post to indicate even what he thought I was back pedaling about, much less any proof. It was simply another driveby insult made by someone who cannot come up with any intelligent answer to my posts.
And no, I don’t really care about his answer - I do that merely to point out how many times people say things like that when they cannot back it up. For the amusement factor.
Just because it’s not in his post doesn’t mean he doesn’t have anything. It simply means that he didn’t put in his post.
Ah. Only interested in smacking him around it is, then. Glad we got that cleared up.
Carry on, then. Charles Shaw.
A poor person in the Roman Empire lived in a highly flammable, squalid house and might have to abandon a newborn baby in the street. His only meal of the day came after he earned a penny for going to the circus.
A poor person in 19th century England probably did some time in Newgate.
A poor person in the 60s went to Viet Nam.
So tell us, what should poor people expect to have today? What would be a reasonable and rationally defensible standard of living? I would prefer a standard other than “what I went through in the 70s”. But if you did answer that way, at least it would be honest.