Topic: welfare is deforming children - page 2. (Read 9930 times)

First of all the only article you cited states that early medical intervention and education as a goal and supports the premise that the difference in smoking rates could be attributed to a disparity in education and support structure.  I find your very premises unjust under modern ethical systems that take into account modern cognitive neural biology, psychology, and current human knowledge.  In particular the your insistence on an inflexible objectivist construct the consequence of which leads you to see these people as parasites.  Demoralizing this group is counterproductive to your goal "not wanting to encourage children to be deformed" and it can be construed that you are coming from a position of privileged in rights theory.  An yeah "I am mad bro"

If you are unaware of some of the consequences of demonizing/harshly punishing underprivileged and/or ignorant humans you might want to start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monster_Study

I have provided evidence though. Women receiving government medical care smoke during pregnancy at higher rates. Claiming I'm biased is nothing more than an ad hominem. It doesn't matter why I believe what I believe if I'm right. If I believe that 2+2=4 because I'm biased does that suddenly mean that 2+2=5? No.


There's nothing cruel about not wanting to encourage children to be deformed. I would say that's the opposite of cruelty.


What else do you call someone that receives stolen money to live off of instead of obtaining money in a legitimate manner?


I'm not looking for validation. I'm looking for accuracy. If you've got some rational argument to make then please do so and let's leave the emotionally charged language out of this.

Your lack of through supporting evidence and use of emotive character attacks on the subjects you so disdain betray your biases.  It appears you are looking for validation of your oversimplified and possibly irrationally cruel beliefs.  Your characterization of these people as parasites and subsequent dehumanization does nothing to help the situation.  This fleeting indiscretion is forgivable but I certainly will not validate your belief.

Do you plan on telling me why?

Sorry misunderstood.  I am still unpersuaded by you argument.

I'm not using that link as a source. I was accusing someone else of doing so. They denied it, however. I suggest that you read the thread again since you're taking comments out of context as well as attributing arguments to the wrong parties.

This is in no way an authoritative publication. For all I know it could be completely fabricated. Until it is ethically and properly structured for scientific publication and review you are seeriosly undermining your argument by referencing this as data.  Call me crazy but I think education on the cost and consequences of smoking while pregnant and an adequate support structure for quiting smoking would be a more rational and equitable approach.

Paying military retirements is welfare in the most socialist form. The US military is voluntary, not conscripted. They should invest in 401Ks like the rest of the working stiffs. We can't even pay our teachers a retirement anymore and they protect our future from idiocracy. Welfare is deforming children indeed!

It's much worse if you're childless. And even worse if you're self employed.

Those hike points you see there aren't an accident - they're designed, usually, to kick in once someone gets full time work at the prevailing wage. It saves the states money, but the net effect of course is to make people choose between being more productive and continue receiving a service that they may have legitimate need for.

I think this article is a real eye-opener to anyone who thinks welfare, as currently implemented in the US, is a good idea....

http://mises.org/daily/3822

The thing that disgusts me the most about so much of our modern welfare program in the US, as a liberal, is that it does not actively encourage escaping from it. If you make more than a certain point, you lose your benefits, and these numbers are often ridiculously low. I'd much prefer expanding programs like America Works and EIC, where the more you make the more you earn until you are weaned off of it.

That and I think irresponsible parents ought to get vasectomies and tied tubes rather than be allowed another child, but I have to wonder how politically feasible that is.


He's mixing in the entire welfare budget and assigning the money only to those who were actually on the TANF.

Doesn't quite work that way, according to his own source.

The welfare budget includes
- Unemployment
- Child tax credits that exceed liability
- EIC that exceeds liability (which pretty much means you have a child)
- Food assistance programs (now feeding 43 million people, most of whom are working)
- etc.

I think that's an honest mistake on his part, as if he were really dishonest he'd note that the figure doesn't actually include Medicaid (at $260 billion).

That $664 billion did not go to two million people. It went to something closer to sixty million people. Or more. The biggest programs are health care, unemployment and food assistance, and in many cases there isn't going to be overlap.

Or about $11,000 per recipient, on average, at the most.

So, $260 billion went to nearly sixty million persons in 2005, for health care.
$50 billion went to nearly forty million persons in 2005, for food assistance.
~$20 billion went to the two million families on the TANF program the guy quoted, or about ten thousand per family.
~$40 billion went to the seven million people who are on supplemental security income.
~$50 billion went to EIC and Child credits that exceeded tax liability. This is just about everyone in poverty with a child, so tens of millions, probably.
~$65 billion went to Unemployment
~$20 billion went to worker's comp

That's just for the number of beneficiaries. His efficiency argument is even worse since the codes for direct payments are given in his source. Some of the descriptions are a bit excessively vague but in the worst possible case scenario we're looking at ~80% efficiency for government welfare outside of Medicaid. Most of the overhead, if it's there, is in the E79 code. I would like to know what's going on with that, but it's not a $300 billion question.

I hear statists are immune to confirmation bias and are completely incapable of forming fallacious arguments!

Confirmation bias is a wonderful thing.

If you care about children donate!!! 

What's your point?

The OP has a point. The incentive is crystal clear. It's impossible to know how many women change their decisions with the help of such incentives, but certainly in a population of 300million there may be some. Some women hate the idea of quitting smoking during pregnancy, if you add a financial benefit for them not to, it may change their mind, why not?

Anyways, I believe there are worse consequences of welfare than this one particularly.

If you are among those who think state welfare is fundamental in helping those in greater need, you should consider watching this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwTDKt_k9kQ

I wonder how many posters in this thread actually know anyone on welfare who has children.

OP: Welfare is deforming children!

Posters: [Citation needed]

OP: Well, there's an incentive...and these correlations...um...

Posters: GTFO

Nevertheless, the question remains, are these women on Medicaid smoking during pregnancy because they are on Medicaid, because they are poor or a mixture of both? If it's a mixture, what's the proportions? You can say what you want about what "everybody knows" but unless you can back it up, it's just idle speculation.

That's just stupid.

This is just stupid too. Everybody knows (or at least should know) that there's a correlation between low income and smoking, and between low income and being on Medicaid. If you by any chance don't it's trivial to find tons of information about it with Google. You are the one making a totally new claim which you are obviously unable to document.