I get food stamps, and I’m not ashamed — I’m angry

[Derec]

15 years ago i could get a quarter pounder for 75 cents. prices go up and as time moves forward, that is the nature of economy and yet McD's still does brisk business.

And that is called inflation. McD and other businesses having to raise prices due to having to pay "living wage" to every short order cook and cashier would result in an increase in inflation.

 

[Derec]

The problem there is that he children didn't ask to be born, and by society not supporting them, we would be neglecting citizens in need, put there though no fault of their own.

I understand that. The problem is to find the balance between taking care of those children and not incentivising people to have children they can't afford.

You may think that by not supporting these children through child tax credits and the like you may dissuade other parents from making poor decisions, but is it worth those children being neglected?

My point was that people like the woman in OP already have access to many government benefits yet she is still whining and demanding more. In addition to SNAP, WIC etc. she also gets thousands in tax benefits. Let's go through them:

- a person with 2 dependent children gets $7,900 in federal tax exemptions for those children. That makes her taxable income, if she makes $20k, pretty much 0 when you add exemption for her and the standard deduction.
- a person with 2 dependent children making $20k gets $5,300 in EITC.
- a person with 2 dependent children making $20k gets $2000 in child tax credit.
The latter two are "refundable", meaning that they can (and in the case of low income people most definitely do) result in a negative tax rate, or getting more in tax refund than one has paid in withholdings. In her case she gets more than $7k in free money from the IRS.

Those pretty generous tax benefits were not even acknowledged (she even shamelessly calls herself a "taxpayer") in the pity-piece in the OP.

 

[prideandfall]

And that is called inflation. McD and other businesses having to raise prices due to having to pay "living wage" to every short order cook and cashier would result in an increase in inflation.

yes, and it completely destroys this idiotic story you people are trying to peddle about prices going out resulting in the business apocalypse.

 

[Derec]

yes, and it completely destroys this idiotic story you people are trying to peddle about prices going out resulting in the business apocalypse.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Yeah, people are different. But good jobs can be had in a variety of fields, not only in office settings and not only in analytical fields. And we know she has no major trouble with language skills.

And lastly, I don't believe having children is a choice. I think it is 100% instinct. We might rationalise the "choice". But I don't think it is.

It's definitely not 100% instinct. Rational thought can override instincts you know. If that wasn't the case, family planning would not exist.

- - - Updated - - -

And you know this how?

I read her article.

You know that in 16 years she has not developed any skills or ever tried for better employment? And you know this because in the article is her entire human history?

 

[ksen]

 

[prideandfall]

yes, and it completely destroys this idiotic story you people are trying to peddle about prices going out resulting in the business apocalypse.

 

[Derec]

Seriously though, why are black people so offended about those two words?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I understand that. The problem is to find the balance between taking care of those children and not incentivising people to have children they can't afford.

And what if there is no balance, only a choice? Your statement sounds well reasoned, logical, even compassionate, but what if it cannot be done? The "not incentivising people to have children they can't afford" part always means cutting money to the "taking care of those children."

Not to mention, no one ever describes how to determine what "incentivising people to have children they can't afford" and how that squares with the rights of people to do what they will with their own bodies. How do you prove that a person having a baby was "incentivised" to do so and not because she simply wishes to be a mother? Do we pass laws that limit people's reproductive rights to meeting a financial means test? And what do we do if people break those laws?

And what about the children, here and living in the mean time?

 

[Playball40]

I understand that. The problem is to find the balance between taking care of those children and not incentivising people to have children they can't afford.

You may think that by not supporting these children through child tax credits and the like you may dissuade other parents from making poor decisions, but is it worth those children being neglected?

My point was that people like the woman in OP already have access to many government benefits yet she is still whining and demanding more. In addition to SNAP, WIC etc. she also gets thousands in tax benefits. Let's go through them:

- a person with 2 dependent children gets $7,900 in federal tax exemptions for those children. That makes her taxable income, if she makes $20k, pretty much 0 when you add exemption for her and the standard deduction.
- a person with 2 dependent children making $20k gets $5,300 in EITC.
- a person with 2 dependent children making $20k gets $2000 in child tax credit.
The latter two are "refundable", meaning that they can (and in the case of low income people most definitely do) result in a negative tax rate, or getting more in tax refund than one has paid in withholdings. In her case she gets more than $7k in free money from the IRS.

Those pretty generous tax benefits were not even acknowledged (she even shamelessly calls herself a "taxpayer") in the pity-piece in the OP.

It depends on the ages of her children.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I understand that. The problem is to find the balance between taking care of those children and not incentivising people to have children they can't afford.

And what if there is no balance, only a choice? Your statement sounds well reasoned, logical, even compassionate, but what if it cannot be done? The "not incentivising people to have children they can't afford" part always means cutting money to the "taking care of those children."

Not to mention, no one ever describes how to determine what "incentivising people to have children they can't afford" and how that squares with the rights of people to do what they will with their own bodies. How do you prove that a person having a baby was "incentivised" to do so and not because she simply wishes to be a mother? Do we pass laws that limit people's reproductive rights to meeting a financial means test? And what do we do if people break those laws?

And what about the children, here and living in the mean time?

Now, THESE are good questions I don't have answers for.

Any way you cut this you are going to tread on some pretty fundamental freedoms. Would some sort of incentive for those under a certain income level not to have children help any? Would that be a moral thing to do?

 

[Playball40]

Is that Rick Scott??? No, he would be a snake!

 

[laughing dog]

I understand that. The problem is to find the balance between taking care of those children and not incentivising people to have children they can't afford.

Do you have any actual evidence that measures the extent of this alleged "incentivising people to have children"? Seriously, because anyone who has had to raise even one child for a short period of time understands how utterly unrealistic that notion is.

 

[ksen]

You know what's the best incentive to not have a lot of children?

The first child.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I understand that. The problem is to find the balance between taking care of those children and not incentivising people to have children they can't afford.

Do you have any actual evidence that measures the extent of this alleged "incentivising people to have children"? Seriously, because anyone who has had to raise even one child for a short period of time understands how utterly unrealistic that notion is.

LOL Indeed. I agree it is pretty nutty to think that people who don't want kids suddenly decide to have children because of tax breaks etc.

Derec can correct me if I am wrong, but I think he meant to say something like "people shouldn't have kids they know they won't be able to support"... and I am inclined to agree.

The problem then is how do you discourage that without trampling on some very fundamental freedoms.

 

[DrZoidberg]

And lastly, I don't believe having children is a choice. I think it is 100% instinct. We might rationalise the "choice". But I don't think it is.

It's definitely not 100% instinct. Rational thought can override instincts you know. If that wasn't the case, family planning would not exist.

The instinct for sex is a different instinct than the instinct to have children. The fact that family planing lowers pregnancies is not evidence against wanting children as 100% pure instinct.

I don't think our rational faculties can over-ride any of our instincts. I think rationality can arguably only operate in circumstances where strong instincts aren't triggered... at that time. At best it's short windows now and again. But personally I don't think that ever happens. My argument is human behaviour. If solving problems or being correct didn't make us happy we wouldn't do it = instinct. It's with the help of happiness (ie the corresponding neurotransmitters) that our instincts control us. We simply have an instinct to be cleverer than other humans. And if we're clever enough we might be so clever as to manage to fool ourselves into believing we have any control over what we do... the hubris muahahaha. I seriously don't think our conscious mind controls shit.

 

[Axulus]

It's definitely not 100% instinct. Rational thought can override instincts you know. If that wasn't the case, family planning would not exist.

The instinct for sex is a different instinct than the instinct to have children. The fact that family planing lowers pregnancies is not evidence against wanting children as 100% pure instinct.

I don't think our rational faculties can over-ride any of our instincts. I think rationality can arguably only operate in circumstances where strong instincts aren't triggered... at that time. At best it's short windows now and again. But personally I don't think that ever happens. My argument is human behaviour. If solving problems or being correct didn't make us happy we wouldn't do it = instinct. It's with the help of happiness (ie the corresponding neurotransmitters) that our instincts control us. We simply have an instinct to be cleverer than other humans. And if we're clever enough we might be so clever as to manage to fool ourselves into believing we have any control over what we do... the hubris muahahaha. I seriously don't think our conscious mind controls shit.

50% of pregnancies that occur in the US are unintended. Let's get this number down first before we worry about the people who willingly attempt to get pregnant without first having financial security to afford the child.

 

[arkirk]

The instinct for sex is a different instinct than the instinct to have children. The fact that family planing lowers pregnancies is not evidence against wanting children as 100% pure instinct.

I don't think our rational faculties can over-ride any of our instincts. I think rationality can arguably only operate in circumstances where strong instincts aren't triggered... at that time. At best it's short windows now and again. But personally I don't think that ever happens. My argument is human behaviour. If solving problems or being correct didn't make us happy we wouldn't do it = instinct. It's with the help of happiness (ie the corresponding neurotransmitters) that our instincts control us. We simply have an instinct to be cleverer than other humans. And if we're clever enough we might be so clever as to manage to fool ourselves into believing we have any control over what we do... the hubris muahahaha. I seriously don't think our conscious mind controls shit.

50% of pregnancies that occur in the US are unintended. Let's get this number down first before we worry about the people who willingly attempt to get pregnant without first having financial security to afford the child.

There should be no before on this. The same situation would be the outcome. The same medicine can be applied to each condition. Thinking about just what somebody intended can get you into real trouble. I have always felt that we as a society need to perfect inasmuch as possible contraception. In that aspect I am against there being any other than needed abortions. The unintentional pregnancy is the source of almost all abortions. Abortion opponents do themselves a great disservice when the also oppose contraception.

 

[prideandfall]

Abortion opponents do themselves a great disservice when the also oppose contraception.

[derail]
that's because "abortion opponents" don't exist, there are only anti-sex, anti-woman forced birthers who want to ensure that pregnancy is a consequence of whores enjoying intercourse.
[/derail]

 

[angelo]

50% of pregnancies that occur in the US are unintended. Let's get this number down first before we worry about the people who willingly attempt to get pregnant without first having financial security to afford the child.

There should be no before on this. The same situation would be the outcome. The same medicine can be applied to each condition. Thinking about just what somebody intended can get you into real trouble. I have always felt that we as a society need to perfect inasmuch as possible contraception. In that aspect I am against there being any other than needed abortions. The unintentional pregnancy is the source of almost all abortions. Abortion opponents do themselves a great disservice when the also oppose contraception.

Hypocritical is too nice a word for those bums. Luckily most people ignore them.