Or take this situation. Family with many children getting 1,000 a month in food stamps after dad's plant is closed and jobs moved to Mexico. dad works one full time job at really bad pay. Goes to take a part time job and by reporting the extra income per month of 300....loses 500 in food stamps......................Again the system is flawed..........

What is your definition of profitable? I think gains less costs is fairly universal. The problem with these anecdotal arguments is that they don't point to anything specific. Show me the specific policies that would cause my financial situation to improve if I were to have a kid. If the government can make it worth a teenager's while for doing this I want to know.

 

You are trying to see this By thinking logically. Those on welfare just see a few more dollars and the need not to work. You just do not understand that there are people who think like this. I think this is a difference between conservatives and liberals.

Both are willing to help others in need, but conservatives see there are deadbeats and liberals cannot see that there are those who milk the system.

You are trying to see this By thinking logically. Those on welfare just see a few more dollars and the need not to work. You just do not understand that there are people who think like this. I think this is a difference between conservatives and liberals.

Both are willing to help others in need, but conservatives see there are deadbeats and liberals cannot see that there are those who milk the system.

 

Those who NEED and PROPERLY use it outnumber those who ABUSE it. That is what I think. I don't think there are existing statistics that can prove each argument.

The contention in this thread was that it would be profitable for this teenager to get pregnant and have a child. In other words, the amount of benefits she would receive for having a child would far outstrip the cost of raising a child, thus making it financially lucrative for her. If true, I would find that perverse and be something I would attempt to have changed.

 

That is a big jump from the original contention of this thread.

Those who NEED and PROPERLY use it outnumber those who ABUSE it. That is what I think. I don't think there are existing statistics that can prove each argument.

 

If you mean more than 50% of people on welfare actually need it and use it properly, I am VERY skeptical.

This is just based on my experience in the school setting.

 

That is a big jump from the original contention of this thread.

 

Glad to clear it up, then.

Glad to stir it up, then.

 

Fixed it for you.

Those who NEED and PROPERLY use it outnumber those who ABUSE it. That is what I think. I don't think there are existing statistics that can prove each argument.

 

My experience living in urban areas would dispute this statement.

If you mean more than 50% of people on welfare actually need it and use it properly, I am VERY skeptical.

This is just based on my experience in the school setting.

 

I understand the skepticism, but I think so much emphasis is put on those who abuse it, that those who actually need it are rarely seen or heard from. Again just my opinion. It would be nice to have some numbers to back either side of the argument.

I have a cousin who just built a 800,000 house on 15 acres... Owns his own business. Wife stays at home. They applied for and were approved for food stamps.

I love my cousin but this just makes me want to puke. The abuse is so widespread it is ridiculous.

I have a cousin who just built a 800,000 house on 15 acres... Owns his own business. Wife stays at home. They applied for and were approved for food stamps.

I love my cousin but this just makes me want to puke. The abuse is so widespread it is ridiculous.

 

What? How in the heck did they get approved?

What? How in the heck did they get approved?

The common trick is people having large amounts of unclaimed income. It's prevelant with a large number of people you would consider middle income earners.

I understand the skepticism, but I think so much emphasis is put on those who abuse it, that those who actually need it are rarely seen or heard from. Again just my opinion. It would be nice to have some numbers to back either side of the argument.

 

I believe you're right. As in many areas, a small group acting badly can infect a much larger group in the eyes of the public.

The common trick is people having large amounts of unclaimed income. It's prevelant with a large number of people you would consider middle income earners.

 

Maybe I read it wrong but I thought this person spent $800k on a house. Wouldn't the IRS start to wonder where the money was coming from to buy that house?

 

I realize there are a lot of people who make money in ways that aren't legal and still get help from the government. But I didn't realize someone who was spending that kind of cash could too.

What is your definition of profitable? I think gains less costs is fairly universal. The problem with these anecdotal arguments is that they don't point to anything specific. Show me the specific policies that would cause my financial situation to net improve if I were to have a kid. If the government can make it worth a teenager's while for doing this I want to know.

 

I posted the link already. Do you really want to know or just argue a point?