Can families designate who will be the foster parent? So for example, if X and Y have Z for a kid, but 1) X and Y aren't married, and 2) Y claims to state that Y can't care for Z and designates X as the caretaker, can X and Y essentially get a "rebate" from the state for taking care of their own kid? Why can't we all do this? I'd go through hoops for a child rebate. I get liquidity rebates, why not child rebates? How does this work? .0025*x per child, .0002*x if child improves NBBO?
Just what does "welfare" mean these days? It's become so broad, I have no idea what it means. If it means some sort of an assistance from the government (eg. "handouts"), is it then limited to a targeted demographics, both socially and economically disadvantaged--irregardless of race and gender? Why is it that when the rich receives a financial assistance from the government in the form of a tax deductions and/or tax credits (better known as a tax-loophole), it's considered an incentive but when the piss-poor socially disadvantaged receives a help it's called a welfare? Regardless, shouldn't the $700 billion TARP bailout qualify as the biggest handout by the government at the exclusion of both middle class and the poor? What about the unemployment checks received by countless people who got fired for no fault of their own mistakes but that of those greedy banks on Wall Street, who received the generous alms from Uncle Sam? Should not unemployment benefits be considered welfare as well?
It didn't exclude the middle class at all. In fact TARP was a bailout directly targeted at Main Street. They weren't the ones who got the checks - but they were the ones who benefited from the bank supports by not having their homes lose 90% of their value.
Do you even think before you speak? You realize if this happened, you never would have been born. You DECENDED from the very people you hate so much.
Well, most of those who lost 90% of their home value were foreclosed upon. And to stem the tide of foreclosure, Obama administration created $75 billion loan modification program but, last time I heard, banks were being sued for refusing to modify loans. Plus, what's happened to the rest of the $700 billion? The economy seems no better off for the middle class. Nevertheless, middle class as a whole have benefited. But were we to compare apples to apples, there's no question the biggest beneficiary are the wealthy and their ilks on Wall Street.
It's not the "loan modifications" that stemmed the tide, it was the hundreds of billions thrown at Freddie/Fannie and all the other huge players in the mortgage secondary markets to keep them and the mortgage market afloat that stemmed the tide. Personally, I would have preferred a different path for bailing out Main Street - but there is no doubt about it - TARP was mostly about keeping J6P from going into armed revolt. The economy is FAR better off now than it would have been with a "let it all burn" policy. Far, far better off....and that's always good for Main Street. Whether it stays that way, or for how long, is a different question.
1) There's a reason why population exploded after the Industrial Revolution. Higher population is an effect of higher living standards, up to a point. The bigger issue is demographics and the distribution of scarce resources. 2) The idea of over-population is quite old and has been proven wrong many times over. There's a reason why people use the term Malthusian pejoratively. 4) The U.S. tried Eugenics in a number of states about a century ago, sterilizing 1000's of people. It was funded by Harriman and Rockefeller money. Guess where all that "science" found a home in the 1920's and 1930's? 4) People have a right to breed, there is no ethical way around this. Otherwise, who gets to decide? A super-special committee of wise-men? More birth control and education may help a little. Those who deem themselves decent, intelligent, healthy, and succesful should make an effort to breed more...so get to work. 5)There will be economic leaches with or without welfare. Does subsidizing poverty make sense? No. But that's not going to change under a democratic system where the majority can loot the economic minority while an even smaller minority of plutocrats can do the same. Basically the politically-connected super-rich and the rabble tag-team the productive classes who don't have the votes, funds, or connections. 6)Welfare should be scaled back to sustenance levels; basically enough to survive. People don't have a right to it but it's one of those things that humane societies tend to approve of: a small violation of property rights so people aren't starving to death en masse. That solves the problem of incentivizing failure without being inhumane.
"Why is it that when the rich receives a financial assistance from the government in the form of a tax deductions and/or tax credits (better known as a tax-loophole), it's considered an incentive but when the piss-poor socially disadvantaged receives a help it's called a welfare?" Excellent point. This is not capitalism, nor socialism, nor social policy-ism. In fact, why does are government do this anyways? Is is lobbying or victim-hood, or there really is a secret cabal that runs the world? If so, how does one get in the cabal?
Thank you for pointing out : " This is not capitalism, nor socialism, nor social policy-ism. " You are so right! What we have in the U.S. is what unbriddled capitalism can lead to. A type of corporate fascism. You can have capitalism and corporate fascism simultaneously, but they are not they same. I am fully in favor of capitalism, but also fully in favor of the government's playing its proper role of assuring that markets are open to competition. Capitalists despise competition and "free enterprise" and if left to their own devices will eliminate competition and form monopolies and cartels. If allowed to, Capitalists will use their money and the money they control to influence the political process and turn it in their favor.
Even though production has increased and there is an ability to provide more resources to people it does not seem to solve the problem. There are many reasons for this. Poor distribution, squandering wealth on non essentials but the main thing in my opinion and the thing that eliminates any increase in production is increased population. ------------------------ Perhaps it looks like an increase in population but maybe it is the result of generational welfare. Welfare mom #1 has 2-3 whatever amount of kids, they grow up collecting welfare each of them having several kids who will then collect welfare. A pyramid. Secondly, welfare beauracracy creates need to justify their own existence. More funding, more ways to spend those dollars by qualifying a larger % of people. (currently food stamps in the US has increased) As SA mentioned the amount of welfare dollars may not have changed over the years but additions such as heating oil assistance, food stamps, etc. have increased costs. Perhaps asking people who receive benefits to earn a portion through work, volunteer would reduce this number, but no one will ask anything of them. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if many of them said yes but no one will even ask. I give my kids allowance and ask for chores to be done (learning experience) yet we hand out free money to anyone who fit some model, no questions asked.