Welfare and unearned child credits. what do you think???

by iamnothere Posted 2011/09/18 02:05:46

Related Topics: Health, Family, Food Stamps, Health Care, Tax, Credit, Income, Baby, octomom, Kids, Legs, Welfare, Country

Read More

Read all 76 opinions

Congress in its infinite great society give away bent.. emphasis on being bent has determined that those below x $ income should receive child credits ..

So the question that comes to mind.. if the average number of children of a married couple is 2.5 kids (yes I know no such thing as a half a kid ) And this is because these families understand that is all that they can reasonably afford to have..
married couple 2 5 kidsnbsp kid nbsp families understand afford

married couple 2 5 kidsnbsp kid nbsp families understand afford

Why should we as a nation pay for all of those poor folks who continue to make babies out of wedlock.. who are on welfare.. case in point the octomom ... yes I am speaking of all of the country .. black white hispanic.. women who just keep making babies so they can suck up welfare, housing, food stamps, health care... All while taking zero responsibility for their proclivity to spreading their legs for the tax payer dole.

Why should we as tax payers pay for more than the national average number of children born to folks who are willing to take the real responsibility of birthing and raising kids?? for those Dumbocrats this is still 2.5 kids per family

KingdomNow 2011/09/18 02:09:26

+5
End it.

When you subsidize poverty you merely invest in it.
>> See Replies

More polls by iamnothere

dlsofsetx 2011/09/22 19:06:48 (edited)

+1
The Great Society encouraged illigitimacy among welfare recipients.

reply
iamnothere to dlsofsetx 2011/09/22 22:26:40

+1
just one of many unintended consequences of government screwing with people

reply
wow-really 2011/09/21 15:16:39 (edited)

+1
If they would do away with welfare benefits to "welfare babymakers"
(those who stay on welfare by producing more babies, which If they told welfare babymakers that they will only help out for a limited time, their first and only child, and any others produced while on welfare, would not automatically entitle them to more money, I'm sure they would think twice before popping out another one)
and illegal immigrants, (40 million of them) our country could begin to dig it's way out of the hole we've dug oursleves into by being being bleeding hearts who have enabled people into believeing it is their right to live off this society by not having to contribute, or make an attempt to strive to want more for themselves than a welfare check.
But no.. This country has taught many that it is acceptable to be ENABLED. In fact, it seems they prefer it that way. If they didn't, why do they allow welfare abuse to continue, and why have they done nothing to stop the gravy train? A government that can give you everything, can also take it away...
But nobody wants to hear that..
That's why things will continue as they have ...

reply
A Carpenter 2011/09/19 05:53:26

+1
awww come on and be fair. The democrats need to keep the democrat birthing machine as active as possible so OF COURSE they're gonna make sure the dole keeps on doling it out.

reply
iamnothere to A Carpe... 2011/09/19 13:09:20

+1
they are also the prime mover on abortions.. see how lucky we are?

reply
Angi 2011/09/19 00:29:55

Well those people who work pay taxes, so why not. The list of people you put down seems to miss out alot of other people. What of Widows and Widowers, it shouldn't matter if you are married or unmarried, just because your married dosen't mean you are going to be a better parent. Tax Credits tend to subsidise poor wages, so the answer is a stop to rubbish wages and a proper living wage.

reply
iamnothere to Angi 2011/09/19 13:14:02

it is not about wages.. you seem to have missed the idea of this blog entirely.. it is about giving incentive to those singles moms who make babies so they can collect off of those who work.. reading your comment one can only assume you are a poor product of public schooling.. lack of critical thinking skills.. bet you vote democrat also..

reply
Angi to iamnothere 2011/09/21 12:32:52

You refer to "poor folks" forgive me if I am wrong but there are a lot more poor folks in this world, due to the recession. Single Mothers come in all kinds of categories, most doing a good job with little resources. What I understand Child Tax Credits to be is a amount given to parents who are working. I don't see anything wrong with that. What would you do steralise people who are poor or make contraception compulsory if you earn below a certain amount. Now thats something else entirely, eugenics I think. Don't worry yourself about my education friend, and no I don't vote democrat. I suppose considering I am British citizen, must make me a socialist (by your reckoning) - go ahead storm away.

reply
iamnothere to Angi 2011/09/21 12:47:00

you bring up good points.. as proposed by those on the left.. Eugenics is a leftist view.. Abortion is a leftist view Many on the left self sterilize from having way to many abortions.

The Real point is.. when you give incentives.. people used them.. Giving free money.. to make babies.. you get more babies.. When there is a definitive cut off.. any more babies .. people are disincentivized to make more babies

reply
Angi to iamnothere 2011/09/21 13:28:01

I think the reason for child tax credits is preventing kids from living in poverty if you have to help parents stay in work thats got to be a good thing. But the wage level is the problem, higher wages, less welfare is needed. That is not going to happen in this economic climate. There is more to this than just your points.

reply
iamnothere to Angi 2011/09/22 01:26:21

well you would be wrong.. about keeping the kids out of poverty.

reply
Angi to iamnothere 2011/09/26 13:39:49

Well I do realise their are people living in poverty in the US who are in work and in receipt of welfare, so if it is because wages are too low then a bit more money would help these kids. Here if you got rid of Tax Credits people wouldn't be able to manage on just the wage.

reply
iamnothere to Angi 2011/09/26 13:47:10

hum wondering about wages being to low? 50% of some low income folks cannot find a job because the compensation is to high to bring them on. talk about a catch 22.//

then again if they did not have all of those extra mouths to feed and bodies to cloth, It might make it a bit easier actually paying bills

reply
Angi to iamnothere 2011/09/26 13:50:33

The thing is how many people have lost their jobs had to take a job that pays less. What if these people were pregnant while in work and lost their job. I think we agree on one point and thats people need a living wage. Also the people at the top have become far more wealthier than any other time in history.

reply
iamnothere to Angi 2011/09/26 14:08:01

and taxed far more .. Really the problem is not how much tax is collected.. it is how much is spent.. The saying goes.. all is well and good till you run out of other peoples money..

Reality..and I do encourage you to do your own research.. Though I am fully aware that you wont .. is to look at the real numbers.. You and the Debtocraps can suck 100% of the wealth (this is all of their assets , all of their homes, their planes, yachts, businesses. profits, other income.. from the top 10% of the wealthiest folks in the country and it would not pay for Obama and the Dems extra spending over and above the revenues to the government in a single year..

As to jobs.. if you go back and look at history.. periods of huge growth always occur during periods of stability from the government.. eg not changing the rules everyday as we are seeing with this regime ... 30000 new regulations in the 33 months this fool has been in office.. Most of which go against already existing regulations. The cost to businesses is that they cannot and will not hire.. They are not stupid..

Believe it or not .. businesses are there to earn a profit for their owners and share holders. You would not take a job that paid you 50% less than it costs you to live (intentionally if you had an option to make mor...

and taxed far more .. Really the problem is not how much tax is collected.. it is how much is spent.. The saying goes.. all is well and good till you run out of other peoples money..

Reality..and I do encourage you to do your own research.. Though I am fully aware that you wont .. is to look at the real numbers.. You and the Debtocraps can suck 100% of the wealth (this is all of their assets , all of their homes, their planes, yachts, businesses. profits, other income.. from the top 10% of the wealthiest folks in the country and it would not pay for Obama and the Dems extra spending over and above the revenues to the government in a single year..

As to jobs.. if you go back and look at history.. periods of huge growth always occur during periods of stability from the government.. eg not changing the rules everyday as we are seeing with this regime ... 30000 new regulations in the 33 months this fool has been in office.. Most of which go against already existing regulations. The cost to businesses is that they cannot and will not hire.. They are not stupid..

Believe it or not .. businesses are there to earn a profit for their owners and share holders. You would not take a job that paid you 50% less than it costs you to live (intentionally if you had an option to make more) Why should a business do the same??

I am not talking about people who are pregnant here. I am talking about women scamming the system.. that you do not seem to understand the difference is a very sad commentary about your world view
(more)

reply
Angi to iamnothere 2011/09/26 14:15:54

You band everyone together. You say I do not know the difference from someone in genuine need to someone scamming the system. But does it mean that because of the minority scamming that those in genuine need miss out. I do no know the difference but to label everyone in need as scamming the system is unfair, and thats the impression I get from what you say. No body is saying that the rich should be stripped of their assets. The thing is how in a economic climate like this one, when people are losing their jobs, public spending is cut, and people feeling the pinch, you still have people at the top raking it in. I am not talking about taking people's wealth I am saying the system is unfair, and stacked against the average individual.

reply
iamnothere to Angi 2011/09/26 15:14:55

here is a hint.. you make 10 babies all with different fathers have no skills other than you can spread your legs .. they are either the stupidest person to walk the earth.. or they are scamming the system

reply
Angi to iamnothere 2011/09/27 16:05:05

Yeah but they aren't everyone. Not everybody who claims or needs welfare fits this description.

reply
iamnothere to Angi 2011/09/28 00:38:39

If someone making above the threshold ... means test.. what difference.. if they are welfare mammas that pretty much amounts to theft

reply
Angi to iamnothere 2011/09/28 16:29:20

+1
Sometimes mean testing is unfair. I understand your points but every "mamma" on benefits/welfare is not a cheat. Also if you want people to get to work, you need jobs avaliable.

reply
iamnothere to Angi 2011/09/29 12:52:15

kind of hard to find a job when this regime is working over time to kill any incentive that a business might have to actually hire.. Reality.. If you do hire.. it is only after doing the pole vault.. Running a 26K then swimming from cuba to the Florida keys..

After that you need permission by the Kommissar. Pay your new Unemployment taxes.. Increased Health care taxes(increases due to Odumbocare) then make sure that you have all of the other regulations impossed in the last 30 years complied with.. most of which conflict with each other via different cabinet departments.. (hence the athletic comments)

reply
Angi to iamnothere 2011/09/29 16:47:58

I can't speak for US legislation but some rules in the work place need to be there. But when jobs are scarce like they are you need to help people employ people. I don't know exactly how that can be achieved, but here the Governments efforts are stagnating. Cutting everything just isn't working, we have no growth. People are losing their jobs all the time. Not good.

reply
iamnothere to Angi 2011/09/29 19:37:15

yup

reply
iamnothere to Angi 2011/10/03 14:34:34

beating up private business who are the ones who actually pay taxes.. What part of killing small business with regulations and more regulations and more regulations .. destroying businesses ability to hire with some kind of security is needed. Government is destroying this security.. they are doing everything they can to kill business and employment..

So do some reading .. and you may discover it for yourself

reply
iamnothere to Angi 2011/09/26 15:18:38

and the more that the government interferes with the free markets the more the system becomes stacked against the individual.

consider this.. how many normal average persons do you think can lobby congress to have special tax breaks and other entries to becoming a self employed entrepreneur? Now consider the other side of the block.. you are a GE.. who basically has an office inside of both the wh and congress.. (did you notice ge paid zero taxes this past year?)

Cut the spending.. cut the loop holes.. and frankly cut taxes.

reply
Angi to iamnothere 2011/09/27 16:06:44

I get your point, but sorry who is GE? Frankly I think that politics should be transparent, politicians should declare their interests. Politics should stay out of back pockets.

reply
iamnothere to Angi 2011/09/28 00:39:40

you really have zero clue who GE is? Wow.. no wonder you want more welfare state. General Electric

reply
Angi to iamnothere 2011/09/28 16:32:09

+1
Well if GE is a American company like it is, I would be asking a question. Also asking a question does not mean I haven't a clue. I never said anything about wanting more welfare state, I said that if you wanted less welfare, i.e. tax credits there needed to be a proper wage.

reply
iamnothere to Angi 2011/09/29 12:54:18

you said you did not have a clue.. asked me who is GE.

Wages have zero to do with welfare.. Welfare has everything to do with Socialism.. eg the great give away. Why work if big brother is going to support you?

reply
Angi to iamnothere 2011/09/29 16:55:04

Its not exactly like that. Even with welfare you can work, and some people claim welfare to top up their wages. It's like I said if you want less welfare wages need to improve. Also you need a safety net. For example. a miner died yesterday he went to work and died on his shift, a roof collapse. What happens to his wife and kids? Also another miner got injured he probably can't work for a while or will be disabled, I don't know, but he will need welfare. If it's socialism that provides a safety net for people, then I will happily be a socalist. A country needs a healthy work force, you pay your taxes. I think its a bit of give and take. In a ideal world they would be no welfare, because nobody would need it, but its far from perfect. The vast majority of people work, some don't and others can't. Some cheat, and it just so happens there are cheats at every level in society. I am not saying its ok.

reply
iamnothere to Angi 2011/09/29 19:38:12

we are not talking safety net.. we are talking gaming the system.. 10 children is gaming the system..

reply
Angi to iamnothere 2011/09/30 15:13:31

Well the safety net is taken advantage of by some, thats not reason to get rid of welfare. It may be necessary to target those who take advantage. The worry is that people in genuine need will be disadvantaged by those abusing the system.

reply
iamnothere to Angi 2011/09/30 15:15:40

I did not say get rid of welfare.. I said.. get rid of the child credits once you have more than 2.5 kids

reply
Angi to iamnothere 2011/09/30 15:18:46

That would be unfair to families who have more kids. You may think the Mothers, (what about the Fathers) are irresponsible but is it fair to target the kids, because thats what would happen by your proposal.

reply
iamnothere to Angi 2011/09/30 15:43:52

no one said life is fair.. and the great give away is not fair to those where the government takes that money at the point of a gun.. Stealing is not fair.. to the person who has his time stolen.. that person put in the time .. so they could earn the money.. how do you propose to give that person his time back? once it is gone.. it is gone..

Think about this.. seriously.. if you pay taxes.. you work till august to be done with all of the local the state and federal in many places (especially Blue states) .. so you are working 7 full months before you get to keep anything for yourself..

That is theft..

That is time taken from a person.. they can never get back..
YOU want to just let people leech.. that is morally and ethically wrong

reply
Angi to iamnothere 2011/10/02 12:44:41 (edited)

Well I don't know about over there, but its different here. I do understand regarding taxing people and people wanting fair taxes. Thats why its more important that the tax system is fairer. The top earners should pay their tax instead of putting it off shore. General people do not have the privilege of not paying taxes. And for those that cheat the system, they still pay taxes. Why reserve the vitriol for those at the bottom rung of the ladder who cheat the system, though.

reply
iamnothere to Angi 2011/10/02 13:57:10

here in the US.. the top ten percent of the population pays over 80% of the taxes.. the botton 47% pay zero income taxes. My bet is that in the UK it is similar

reply
Angi to iamnothere 2011/10/03 14:05:00

Well from what I understand the average earners pay percentage wise the most taxes. When you have top earners putting their company in their wife's name to get out of paying tax, and then they are employed by the Government to see how the country could save money. It dosen't sit well.

reply
WhereIsAmerica? ~PWCM~JLA 2011/09/19 00:21:55

+1
More and more people will be attracted to that which is subsidized, happens every time.

reply
magmaman 2011/09/18 20:40:11

+3
-
WAKE UP AMERICA 2012
"KNOWLEDGE IS POWER"
THE 2012 ELECTIONS WILL DECIDE AMERICA'S FATE
''STAND UP"
WE WILL REBUILD AFTER OBAMA

reply