Maybe liberals on the forum can explain this to me and others

Sorry but sending money to help care for children is not the same as paying women to have children. Actually the majority of citizens favor Obamacare. Younare speaking of those who don't want to psy for their insurance and would prefer to go without and then stick the taxpayers with outrageous emergency room bilks should they require care.

So we have now disproved all your claims. Done here unless you want to try some more imaginary proofs of your silly claims. And let me refresh your memory as to your original statement:

" That said, big government has destroyed millions of families by displacing the family and creating a permanent underclass. Or as Democrats call them, their base."

 

They do pay women to have children. It's a quid pro quo. I have some relatives that are gaming the system. 1 is a professional breeder. She works no more than 2 months a year here and there.

 

i would suggest that your relative possibly is the exception although I doubt she is living high on her child support. . Has she actually told you she is having the children for the money? But just for curiosity how much does she get a month and how many children does she have.

And how is any of that the government displacing the family? Women have been having children outside of marriage almost forever. It is just now we don't let them starve or put then in the poorhouse. That said I guess if you object to the government's role in supporting the children you and the rest of her family could always assume the responsibility.

 

Greed is fine and is what drives the free market. But someones the free market doesn't work correctly and greed can result in prices that are too high, bad products, or wages that are too low. That is why we have reasonable government regulations to reduce these problems.

 

In South Africa - Liberalism has shown its true complexion. Persone di colore had proven us how good can be a Liberal Government. Take one's land, give it to another. Free of charge. A modern communistic system. Ai ai ai mamita..

 

If the government didn't pay her for having children there a good chance she would have stopped before her 5th.

That said. I didn't interrogate her. I didn't give her truth syrum or waterboard her for information. But I know how she lives, as a professional breeder.

 

Reasonable regulations are necessary.

Many, perhaps most regulations are not intended to be reasonable.

 

You got it. We need to get rid of more regulations than we add. That needs to be a rule. We also need to look at existing regulations and see if they are effective and whether we need to replace them with more effective regulations or regulations that are a bit less effective but better for the economy. The free market screws up in ways that we are not properly handing and we need better regulations for that.

I want fewer better regulations.

 

Most regulations are political in nature, not economic. They primarily reward donars, not citizens. Of that majority of regulations, some are partially helping the citizens, and most do not.

 

So to put it simply your one piece of evidence has no actual basis in fact. Think we can put to rest your claim of government displacing families and destroying millions of families as the product of a politically distorted intellect unsubstantiated by any actual evidence whatsoever.

 

it's called welfare, their check increases proportionally to each child they produce... spread legs, earn a payment and a wic increase...

 

Look, I understand some of you live at such a low level of existance that you really believe people make that kind of life choice but to put it simply you are just judging behaviors based on your own standards.

 

Actually, my piece of evidence is a factual example of how Government subsidies INTENTIONALLY effect behavior.

This cousin of mine was certainly not the only person to figure out how the system works....

The most basic law of economics is that if you subsidize an action you increase it, and if you tax an action you decrease it.

Government taxes responsibility and subsidizes irresponsibility. You don't have to be a genius to see the problem with that.

 

seems more like a 'lack of understanding'... some family/friends work at the dept of social services and they hear these people (not everyone of them, but a fair amount non-the-less) blatantly talk about 'poppin anutha kid out' to get a benefit increase, this being the norm rather than the exception...

 

Sorry but anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all. But I am curious as to what the $ benefit actually is since you have friends in social services.

 

Since you seem unable to answer even the simplest questions about the dollar benefits I think we can safely disregard your anecdotal evidence.

 

You can ignore any facts you want.

If you don't think people are having kids for the handout money, you're not a serious person anyway.

 

Thank you for demonstrating that you don't actually know what a " fact" is. When asked simple questions to back up your supposed information all you can do is duck. Believe you have demonstrated conclusively that your so called evidence is a fiction of your own imagination.

 

Nobody with a 9th grade education can believe people are not having children for welfare.

It's common and invasive.

Instead of dodging the obvious and looking for excuses to divert attention, you might want to give a big-boy explanation for your position.

 

My position is you made a statement that you are totally unable to prove. That is a fact. And now you are resorting to the " everybody knows" defense which is the last refuge of the person who cannot back up statements with evidence.

Not to mention of course you original claim which was that big government is displacing the family which even if we accept your unproven welfare queen claim remains unproven. Or to put it more simply even if we accept that government is paying women to have children how does that demonstrate thst government is displacing the family?

Here is a definition of displace


dis·place
disˈplās/
verb
gerund or present participle: displacing

1. take over the place, position, or role of (someone or something).
   "in the northern states of India, Hindi has largely displaced English"
   synonyms: replace, take the place of, supplant, supersede
   "English displaced the local language"
   • cause (something) to move from its proper or usual place.
     "he seems to have displaced some vertebrae"
     synonyms: dislodge, dislocate, move, shift, reposition; More
     
     
   • force (someone) to leave their home, typically because of war, persecution, or natural disaster.
     "thousands of people have been displaced by the civil war"
     
     
     I have seen no evidence so far that would prove that if it weren't for the government paying women to have children ( a premise that so far remains unproven except by anecdote) the family would be paying women to have children.

 

The government requires that the mother not be married to get the biggest payment.

Therefore the government displaces the father and becomes the primary breadwinner.

You goofed up with the dictionary. It proves you wrong.

 

the dollar amounts are different for each applicant, the one thing in common is that benefit amounts are based on family size & the number of children under the age of 18, there is no actual chart (that i'm aware of) that shows the incremental increases as more children are born, each case is dealt with on it's own 'merits' (term used loosely)...

 

The cost should not be borne equally but on a cost to benefit ratio. The society makes rules that allow some citizens to create more wealth than others. So they can create laws that when that person benefits from those laws greater than the average they pay more than the others.

you want to tax a person's worth that he already paid taxes on to acquire? How is that fair? What would be fair is no federal taxes till you get to 150% of the poverty line (with regional adjustments similar to fed jobs pay structure) then a flat tax on all income earned and invested no deductions but for a ira/401 retirement supplement capped at 10 percent of the national average of personal income. The home interest deduction would be decreased by 5% per year till eliminated.

 

No you do a continuing wealth tax. Low percentage and has nothing to do with paying taxes on worth you have already paid taxes to acquire.

A flat tax no matter how you slice it is regressive. The rich are already doing incredibly well in America despite the supposedly progressive rate structure now in existance.

 

no responsible person on the flat tax argument is saying that anyone below the poverty line should pay federal income taxes. they don't pay it now and won't under any tax reform.

What I would like to see is a reverse progressive tax base system. Where the lower income people pay 40% of income after fed poverty levels, people making 1mill or more pay 35% and the 10 mill or more pay 30%. No corporate income taxes or matching SS benefits or health insurance benefits. all dividends are taxed at your income levels foreign ownership would need to be addressed as to tax rate

But with these stipulations. Medicare for all, federal guaranteed income of 150% of the poverty level in retirement.1 perm deduction for 401 up to 10% of the 2x average household income. Housing deduction to be eliminated over a period of years.

The working poor get health insurance and enough to eat when they retire. A "well off" /somewhat comfortable family making 200,000 per year will pay 40% on $150,000 of income (after 401 and poverty level deduction) 0r $60,000 but that is offset that they are no longer paying 25,000 is SS and medicare taxes as they are now, or health insurance. The employees at corporations that now contribute to health insurance as part of your wage benefit package should expect to recieve most of those costs put into their weekly paychecks as is all public sector employees. The law can even mandate a 75 of those costs now claimed on their taxes to be added to thier employees wages.