Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 07:05:15 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: welfare is deforming children  (Read 9109 times)
FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
May 11, 2011, 08:08:37 PM
 #21

If I were president, I would make smoking during pregnancy a criminal offense.
Seriously, smoking during pregnancy? What kind of fucked up mothers do we have on this planet?

Smoking is bad imo, and people and fetuses will be healthier if they aren't exposed. Are you going to put women in prison? Take their time and money? Now it seems like you are damaging people and fetuses to me. I am not going to hurt you over it, that won't help. People want to do good when they can figure out how and if you want to make things better, help them.

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480748715
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480748715

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480748715
Reply with quote  #2

1480748715
Report to moderator
1480748715
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480748715

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480748715
Reply with quote  #2

1480748715
Report to moderator
1480748715
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480748715

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480748715
Reply with quote  #2

1480748715
Report to moderator
Grinder
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1269


View Profile
May 11, 2011, 09:18:18 PM
 #22

That's a red herring. The fact that they don't stop smoking while pregnant can be considered starting smoking or smoking more compared to what the average woman would be doing without Medicaid.
That's just stupid.

If you want to claim that they are smoking more because they are poor rather than because they are on Medicaid. You need to back that up.There's clearly a correlation between Medicaid and smoking during pregnancy. Can you show the same correlation with poverty, with and without Medicaid?
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.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
May 11, 2011, 09:24:15 PM
 #23

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.

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.
DATA COMMANDER
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
May 18, 2011, 03:28:02 AM
 #24

OP: Welfare is deforming children!

Posters: [Citation needed]

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

Posters: GTFO

Tips are appreciated (very tiny tips are perfectly okay!) 13gDRynPfLH3NNAz3nVyU3k3mYVcfeiQuF
benjamindees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288


View Profile
May 18, 2011, 08:38:40 AM
 #25

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

Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics
caveden
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106



View Profile
May 18, 2011, 11:52:58 AM
 #26

OP: Welfare is deforming children!

Posters: [Citation needed]

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

Posters: GTFO

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

18rZYyWcafwD86xvLrfuxWG5xEMMWUtVkL
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
May 18, 2011, 06:15:27 PM
 #27

OP: Welfare is deforming children!

Posters: [Citation needed]

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

Posters: GTFO

What's your point?
BitcoinStars.com
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


View Profile
May 18, 2011, 06:18:05 PM
 #28

If you care about children donate!!!  Smiley
Grinder
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1269


View Profile
May 19, 2011, 06:36:34 PM
 #29

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
Confirmation bias is a wonderful thing.
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
May 19, 2011, 06:54:34 PM
 #30

Confirmation bias is a wonderful thing.

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

Activity: 28


View Profile
May 21, 2011, 11:53:20 PM
 #31

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.

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

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.
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344



View Profile
May 22, 2011, 05:24:36 AM
 #32

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
Andris
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
May 22, 2011, 05:51:10 AM
 #33

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

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.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
May 28, 2011, 05:50:12 AM
 #34

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!

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
epi 1:10,000
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
May 28, 2011, 11:59:42 PM
 #35


I had no problem finding the source with Google. I don't see what the big problem is. Of course, it's still your job to back up your claim with evidence but it's not that hard to find public information. Anyways, here's the only website Google could find that mentions a "4 ounces on average" statistic: http://thefunkymonk.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/the-effect-of-smoking-and-the-birth-weight-of-newborns/

Your source is some guy's blog. I don't think that's very credible.

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.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
May 29, 2011, 04:54:23 AM
 #36


I had no problem finding the source with Google. I don't see what the big problem is. Of course, it's still your job to back up your claim with evidence but it's not that hard to find public information. Anyways, here's the only website Google could find that mentions a "4 ounces on average" statistic: http://thefunkymonk.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/the-effect-of-smoking-and-the-birth-weight-of-newborns/

Your source is some guy's blog. I don't think that's very credible.

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.

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.
epi 1:10,000
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
May 29, 2011, 05:41:38 AM
 #37


I had no problem finding the source with Google. I don't see what the big problem is. Of course, it's still your job to back up your claim with evidence but it's not that hard to find public information. Anyways, here's the only website Google could find that mentions a "4 ounces on average" statistic: http://thefunkymonk.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/the-effect-of-smoking-and-the-birth-weight-of-newborns/

Your source is some guy's blog. I don't think that's very credible.

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.

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.

Sorry misunderstood.  I am still unpersuaded by you argument.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
May 29, 2011, 06:12:29 AM
 #38

I am still unpersuaded by you argument.

Do you plan on telling me why?
epi 1:10,000
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
May 29, 2011, 07:42:49 AM
 #39

I am still unpersuaded by you argument.

Do you plan on telling me why?

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.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
May 29, 2011, 07:56:09 AM
 #40

Your lack of through supporting evidence and use of emotive character attacks on the subjects you so disdain betray your biases.

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.

It appears you are looking for validation of your oversimplified and possibly irrationally cruel beliefs.

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

Your characterization of these people as parasites and subsequent dehumanization does nothing to help the situation.

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

This fleeting indiscretion is forgivable but I certainly will not validate your belief.

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.
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!