AuthorTopic: Texas Voters Elect Live Pimps....Or Top Ten Reasons We Only Vote For Douchebags  (Read 689 times)

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17439
    • View Profile
Dude, I'm a pediatric dentist. No way you've seen or know more about little kids than I do. Good try though. No cigar.

And I understand very well what projection is. I'm the most CFS person you know.

A Dentista only sees one kid at a time.  My groups averaged around 8-10 in size and I had them for an average of 2-3 hours a day, wheras they only sit in your dental chair for maybe 30 minutes, most of which time you are in another patient's room drilling that one.  I beat you hands down, it is no contest.  For my prized gymmies, the ones who made it to Nationals and on the Elite circuit competing internationally, I spent 8-10 hours with them every day both coaching them to be the fearless and adept kind of person I used to be and teaching them their academics as well.  The only thing they went "home" for was to eat dinner and go to sleep.  You think you have been with more kids for more time than me?  I seriously doubt it.

RE

My kids were all in gymnastics. Not the advanced stuff, but the typical "anybody can sign up" lower level classes. But I don't remember any of them being enrolled in gymnastics in the first 18 months of life. No wonder they never made the cut for the Olympics.

D2, the one I just mentioned, was the youngest to take any training. She started swimming at 6 months, and could float on her back fully clothed, including soaking diaper, for as long as you cared to watch her do it, by 11 months. I have some great VHS tapes of that. She and her older sister were both on the Dr. Red Duke Show. He's dead now.

« Last Edit: November 07, 2018, 02:00:34 PM by Eddie »
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline K-Dog

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3034
    • View Profile
    • K-Dog
WTF did I see Surly1 notice that Ashvin claimed aborortion was killing babies who could be contributing to society?

Oh, yea, all those Nobel prizes unwanted kids could have earned.  Boggles  the mind.  I’m at ‘Arby’s’ having a roast beef sandwich.  While I was waiting ‘Detroit’ was ranting about something, don’t know what.  The counter staff had to tell him to pipe down.  He was off standing off by himself concocting ways to save the world no doubt.  Working out differential equations as the dim witted rest of us who were at least wanted, sort of, walked on by.  The rest of us who don’t have not knowing where you are going sleep tonight motivate them to do great things.

If only.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2018, 01:40:41 PM by K-Dog »
Under ideal conditions of temperature and pressure the organism will grow without limit.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 37245
    • View Profile
Sure you may have written about on a few online forums, but what have you ever done to support this all-important need for infant population control?

I didn't have any children.  Problem solved for me.  In the current society, exposing infants and leaving them to die would be considered murder, so it's not a wise idea at the moment if you want to stay out of prison.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Ashvin

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 2644
    • View Profile
And I'd argue back that a lack of family planning is part and parcel of wealth inequality.

Yes of course it is. But it's not the whole story, and that's the point. There are many other things which factor into wealth/status inequality. Also, family planning does not necessarily equate to legal access to abortions. Perhaps more emphasis should be put on personal responsibility when engaging in sexual relationships.

Quote
I see it in action, close up and personal, each and every day of my working life. People make really bad choices, or fail to make any plan at all, and they end up in worse poverty than they might have. Actions have consequences. The consequences of having sex is having children. Children are expensive. Especially when you have multiples. You didn't make that mistake when you were young, but you had guidance and role models. And young women are not as able to avoid the consequences of their actions as young men are, for obvious reasons.

I too see this in action every day - extremely bad financial choices, no plans, waiting until the last possible moment to do anything about it. I also see that I do these people a huge disservice to be kind, gentle and tell them everything is OK and I can make their problems go away. I need to be more critical and blunt - these people need to be aware of how they went down the wrong financial path and how they may be able to avoid doing so again in the future. They need to learn that blaming the banks, or their ex-spouse or the world in general is only going to make them less resilient.

Since the invention of contraceptives and birth control pill, the consequence of sex is not always having children. Most people have no excuse for unwanted pregnancies except a complete failure of personal and familial responsibility. Obviously their various role models play a part in their development, but the solution is not to reinforce that habit of bad decision making by offering an easy out. Now you may say the benefits of legal abortion outweigh the cost of promoting a lack of personal responsibility, but the latter is undeniable.

Quote
Look  if ANYBODY at all, in the entire world, happens to be "pro-abortion" I don't think they'd be dumb enough to admit it.  But Dubner  and Levitt made a very compelling case for the drop in crime being tied to the passage of Roe v. Wade.....and although I've read a number of articles by people (with your POV,I believe)  trying to debunk it, none of them are remotely persuasive. It's not like I didn't look at both sides before I made up my mind.

I'm sure you've probably read Freakonomics, or at least that you're very aware of what I'm talking about.

I was thinking about the research by Martin Daly a few years ago which is summarized here:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/08/income-inequality-murder-homicide-rates

Quote
The connection is so strong that, according to the World Bank, a simple measure of inequality predicts about half of the variance in murder rates between American states and between countries around the world. When inequality is high and strips large numbers of men of the usual markers of status – like a good job and the ability to support a family – matters of respect and disrespect loom disproportionately.

Inequality predicts homicide rates “better than any other variable”, says Martin Daly, professor emeritus of psychology and neuroscience at McMaster University in Ontario and author of Killing the Competition: Economic Inequality and Homicide.

This includes factors like rates of gun ownership (which also rise when inequality does) and cultural traits like placing more emphasis on “honor” (this, too, turns out to be linked with inequality). “About 60 [academic] papers show that a very common result of greater inequality is more violence, usually measured by homicide rates,” says Richard Wilkinson, author of The Spirit Level and co-founder of the Equality Trust.

According to the FBI, just over half of murders in which the precipitating circumstances were known were set off by what is called the “other argument” – not a robbery, a love triangle, drugs, domestic violence or money, but simply the sense that someone had been dissed.



Quote
Abortion is always a "lesser evil" decision. I believe it's a lesser evil to terminate a pregnancy, than to bring a child into the world who doesn't have a decent chance at a decent life.

I also believe that moralistic people have no right to impose their value judgments and religious biases on young women who are already in a terrible position with few good options.

I say that...and I never have and never will advise any of the women (or men) in my sphere of influence to have an abortion.

But the truth is that the people whom I might influence wouldn't ask me anyway, because the small amount of money it costs to terminate a pregnancy is not a deterrent for girls from families with money. They often don't even ask, or tell. I know this all too well, actually.

My kids graduated from the richest public high school in this town....which coincidentally has a higher rate of abortions than any of the poorer schools in other parts of town.

Why is abortion always a lesser evil? Who defines a "decent" chance of a "decent" life?

Let's be clear, I'm not arguing that no abortions should ever take place under any circumstances. Clearly they should. But your argument is framed as if abortions should be allowed to take place under almost any circumstances, because somehow we know it will be a net positive for society if those children never exist, and also because any regulation of abortion amounts to an intolerable imposition of value judgments on young women. If I have that wrong please help me understand your position better.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 37245
    • View Profile
Dude, I'm a pediatric dentist. No way you've seen or know more about little kids than I do. Good try though. No cigar.

And I understand very well what projection is. I'm the most CFS person you know.

A Dentista only sees one kid at a time.  My groups averaged around 8-10 in size and I had them for an average of 2-3 hours a day, wheras they only sit in your dental chair for maybe 30 minutes, most of which time you are in another patient's room drilling that one.  I beat you hands down, it is no contest.  For my prized gymmies, the ones who made it to Nationals and on the Elite circuit competing internationally, I spent 8-10 hours with them every day both coaching them to be the fearless and adept kind of person I used to be and teaching them their academics as well.  The only thing they went "home" for was to eat dinner and go to sleep.  You think you have been with more kids for more time than me?  I seriously doubt it.

RE

My kids were all in gymnastics. Not the advanced stuff, but the typical "anybody can sign up" lower level classes. But I don't remember any of them being enrolled in gymnastics in the first 18 months of life. No wonder they never made the cut for the Olympics.

D2, the one I just mentioned, was the youngest to take any training. She started swimming at 6 months, and could float on her back fully clothed, including soaking diaper, for as long as you cared to watch her do it, by 11 months. I have some great VHS tapes of that. She and her older sister were both on the Dr. Red Duke Show. He's dead now.



That mustache looks familiar...lol.

Mommy & Me classes usually start at 18 months.  However, in several gyms I worked in I ran movement classes for newborns as well, there you stretch them (gently!) to prepare their bodies for a greater range of motion.  This is an old Ruskie trick, I learned it from my grandma.  Unless exceptionally gifted genetically with loose fitting joints, you'll never get complete flexibility without doing this.  How many of your kids can do over-splits?

Gymnastics is an early development sport, it has to be hard wired in during the growing phase.  Just about all Elite gymnasts start by the age of 5.  I made my picks mostly from 3-4 year olds I watched in the Mommy & Me classes.  I liked to boast I could pick out a gymmie from 100 yards away fully clothed in winter gear.  Once you know what you are looking for, it's not that hard.  They move differently from most people.  I have only trained 2 kids to level 10 who started in their teens.  Unbelievably naturally gifted athletes, it was truly amazing to me.  They both made L10 inside of 2 years from no training at all.  This is so rare it's like winning the Lotto.  1:1000 kids probably has the gifts necessary to make Elite if you start young enough, but only 1:1000000 can do this starting so late in life.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 37245
    • View Profile
Since the invention of contraceptives and birth control pill, the consequence of sex is not always having children. Most people have no excuse for unwanted pregnancies except a complete failure of personal and familial responsibility. Obviously their various role models play a part in their development, but the solution is not to reinforce that habit of bad decision making by offering an easy out. Now you may say the benefits of legal abortion outweigh the cost of promoting a lack of personal responsibility, but the latter is undeniable.

This is complete nonsense and does not reflect reality at all.  First off, abortion is hardly an "EZ Out" for anyone.  It's probably the most difficult decision anyone has to make, ever.  Women who choose an abortion often agonize over the decision, sometimes waiting too long for a relatively EZ one.

Second, "family planning" is a lot of bullshit, particularly in countries where your only security is in the children you have.  Even in this country the amount of money a woman receives in social assistance is geared to how many kids she has.  More kids gets you more money.  If you really wanted fewer babies born to poor people, you would be better off paying them NOT to have kids rather than paying them to have them.  This is straightforward economics and has about nothing to do with "personal responsibility".

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17439
    • View Profile
The two older kids started swimming when we moved to Houston in '85, at a place that was one of those first infant swim outfits, the ones that were in Life Magazine in the 60's.

It was owned by a former U of H swim coach named Phil Hansell. He was not around anymore, at least we never met him, but his name was on the door of the facility. My kids were trained by a lady named Leslie,who had been doing it for a long time. They'd trained the kids of royalty and the kids of rock stars and movie star's kids.

The walls had testimonial letters about kids they'd trained who had subsequently survived accidents....like a baby who fell through an open manhole and floated in the sewer ten feet below street level until help came.

One kid fell through a small hole in a boat dock that had lattice on the sides and adults couldn't get to him for some time. He floated until somebody could come with tools and break a big enough access to rescue him.

We lived at some nice apartments that UT built for dental students and medical students and residents. It had a small gym and an olympic size pool. The kids lived in the pool, and people were always trying to "rescue" them or call us down because we weren't holding on to them or putting them in water wings or any of that  bullshit. Word got around about the amazing swimming babies, and one day Dukes TV crew showed up and filmed them for a half hour. The actual TV spot wasn't very long of course, but it was a claim to fame. Duke was on the 6 o'clock news every night.

Later, we moved to West University, the old Rice U. Neighborhood, and I occasionally  saw Red out in his front yard. He lived in a big white house near the U., which I drove past on my way home from the hospital. I was at Texas Children's and then at MD Anderson my second year.

I didn't realize he was dead until I went looking for that pic I posted. He passed away in 2015. Quite a character. Larger than life. Maybe my mustache is a bit of an homage. I thought he was a cool guy. He was and still is a legend in Houston.



if you want more, scroll down and watch the video on this page:

http://www.memorialhermann.org/rememberingred/

What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline Ashvin

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 2644
    • View Profile
Since the invention of contraceptives and birth control pill, the consequence of sex is not always having children. Most people have no excuse for unwanted pregnancies except a complete failure of personal and familial responsibility. Obviously their various role models play a part in their development, but the solution is not to reinforce that habit of bad decision making by offering an easy out. Now you may say the benefits of legal abortion outweigh the cost of promoting a lack of personal responsibility, but the latter is undeniable.

This is complete nonsense and does not reflect reality at all.  First off, abortion is hardly an "EZ Out" for anyone.  It's probably the most difficult decision anyone has to make, ever.  Women who choose an abortion often agonize over the decision, sometimes waiting too long for a relatively EZ one.

Compared to the majority of human history, when there was absolutely NO out possible for women, either before pregnancy or after, it is an easy out. Psychologically it's a very difficult decision, as it should be, but as Eddie pointed out before, it happens all the time, especially among people with money, and MOST of the time it is NOT because the child will be born into a life of substantial economic deprivation.

Quote
Second, "family planning" is a lot of bullshit, particularly in countries where your only security is in the children you have.  Even in this country the amount of money a woman receives in social assistance is geared to how many kids she has.  More kids gets you more money.  If you really wanted fewer babies born to poor people, you would be better off paying them NOT to have kids rather than paying them to have them.  This is straightforward economics and has about nothing to do with "personal responsibility".

RE

People are not responsible for whether they will bring children into the world for increased welfare benefits? Maybe you can make a case for this in the poorest of countries, where the welfare benefits are the children themselves, but not for the men and women in this country.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 37245
    • View Profile
Compared to the majority of human history, when there was absolutely NO out possible for women, either before pregnancy or after, it is an easy out. Psychologically it's a very difficult decision, as it should be, but as Eddie pointed out before, it happens all the time, especially among people with money, and MOST of the time it is NOT because the child will be born into a life of substantial economic deprivation.

For most of human history, exposure was an option.  You couldn't afford the infant, you simply left it to die.  Human infants don't last long when left to the wolves.

Quote
People are not responsible for whether they will bring children into the world for increased welfare benefits? Maybe you can make a case for this in the poorest of countries, where the welfare benefits are the children themselves, but not for the men and women in this country.

I don't need to make the case, the statistics make the case.  Here's a breakdown for you.  You apparently are unaware of the math here, so I will clue you in.  Consider it a gift.  :icon_sunny:  Perhaps you can still be saved, although I'm not very hopium filled with this outcome. :( You have been pwned by Satan, and it is very hard to bring a person back from that.

https://www.creditdonkey.com/welfare-statistics.html

Quote
pdated May 23, 2016
23 Shocking Statistics of Welfare in America
By Rebecca Lake
Read more about Kids and Money

Who receives welfare and how much do they get? We uncovered 23 shocking statistics about public assistance in America. What you read may surprise you.

    Who Receives Welfare
    Household Demographics
    Costs

© mrhayata (CC BY-SA 2.0) via Flickr

Welfare Statistics

Curious about what kind of people receive welfare in America? The answers we found may not be what you think.

Read on for the breakdown on the % of Americans on welfare, including by race, by welfare abuse, and by how much welfare pays.

In today's economic climate, millions of Americans find themselves struggling to make ends meet. Despite improvements in the job market and a housing bounce back, there are still many people who need help to stay afloat financially. In many ways, the America of today mirrors that of the Depression-era, when the first national welfare system was introduced.

Welfare programs were originally designed to help stabilize the economy and get struggling families back on their feet, a goal that's often overshadowed by the stereotypes and misconceptions people tend to have about the system in general.

In an effort to separate some of the fact from fiction, CreditDonkey conducted a comprehensive study of key welfare statistics.
WHO RECEIVES WELFARE?

People who have never had to rely on welfare sometimes tend to have a set idea in their minds of who the average recipient is. To put things into perspective, we begin our study with some basic numbers on just who is reaping the benefits of welfare programs.

    What percentage of Americans are on welfare?
    Through the fourth quarter of 2012, there were nearly 110 million Americans receiving some form of government assistance. That's right around 35% of the total U.S. population.

    How many Americans receive food stamps?
    As of September 2014, about 46.5 million people (or 15%) were receiving food stamps through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

    How many get Medicaid benefits?
    Medicaid is a health care program that provides free or low-cost care to qualifying individuals and families. As of 2012, there were some 83 million people (or 26%) receiving Medicaid benefits.

    What is the gender breakdown of those receiving welfare?
    Women are more likely to seek help through welfare programs. Close to 25% of those aged 16 to 64 were receiving benefits as of 2011. Among men in the same age range, slightly more than 19% received some type of welfare.

    What percentage of children are on welfare?
    Children are more likely to be on welfare than adults, with 38% of kids aged 5 and under living in households that receive public assistance. Almost 35% of kids aged 6 to 10 and 32% of those in the 11- to 15-year-old range are on welfare.

    What state has the highest number of welfare recipients?
    As of 2012, California topped the list for welfare recipients, with nearly 515,000 relying on government-funded programs. Alaska, however, has the highest per capita rate with about 7% of households getting benefits.

    What state has the most people on food stamps?
    Approximately 145,000 Washington, D.C., residents receive food stamps. That's nearly 22% of the district's total population.

    How long do most people participate in the program?
    About 31% of people receiving any kind of public assistance stay in the program for a year or less. 43% receive benefits between 3 to 4 years. Housing assistance programs see the most long-term participants (over 3 years), while cash assistance program tend to have the most short-term participants (under a year).

    What do most people on welfare spend the money on?
    Many people stereotype welfare receivers as spending the money unwisely, but data shows that for families receiving assistance, 77% of the budget is used towards basic necessities such as housing, food, and transportation (compared to 65% for families not receiving assistance). Entertainment only accounts for 4.4% of the budget.

WELFARE HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICS

Aside from looking at the age and gender of welfare recipients, we wanted to take things one step further. We focused on some specific demographics to paint a more accurate image of who in America gets help through public assistance.

    How do ethnicities break down?
    For 2011, here's the breakdown of welfare recipients: 16.3% of Non-Hispanic Whites. 39.7% of Non-Hispanic Blacks. 36.4% of Hispanics. Hispanics represent the fastest rate of growth for any demographic group (a 15% increase since the year 2000).

    Note: Recipiency is defined as living in a family with receipt of any amount of AFDC/TANF, SSI or SNAP during the year.

    What percentage of welfare recipients are immigrants?
    There are approximately 40 million immigrants living in the U.S., both legal and illegal, and a decent number of them receive some form of welfare. For example, 20% of adult immigrants and nearly half of children from immigrant households had Medicaid coverage in 2011. About 30% of non-citizens received food stamps that same year.

    How many senior citizens are on welfare?
    Seniors are often overlooked in discussions about welfare. Just shy of 13% of adults aged 65 and over are drawing some type of government benefit.

    How many families seek benefits?
    About 14.6% of households headed by a married couple were on welfare in 2011. That's double the number that received benefits in 2000.

    How many single mothers receive welfare?
    Households headed by single mothers are the most likely to be on welfare. In 2011, single moms represented 55% of the total welfare population, compared to just 37% in 2000.

    Is there a correlation between welfare recipients and education level?
    About 37% of people who did not graduate high school received welfare resistance, with about half of them needing aid for over 3 years. About 22% of high school graduates and 10% of those who attended college for at least a year received aid.

ADDING UP THE COST

One of the biggest complaints that critics of welfare have concerns the cost. A tremendous amount of money is spent on welfare programs each year and recipients benefit more in some states than others.

    How much cash assistance do families get?
    As of 2012, the median monthly payout for a family of three was $427 . Mississippi pays the least, at $170, while Alaska pays the most, at $923.

    What's the average amount of food stamps received?
    Some states are more generous than others when it comes to food stamps but on average, families get just over $133 per person each month.

    What about Medicaid?
    As of 2011, Medicaid spending averaged $5,790 per person enrolled in the program nationwide. On an individual level, the average benefit for elderly participants was $13,249 while an average of $16,643 was spent annually on individuals with disabilities.

    How much does the government spend on welfare programs?
    There are dozens of state and federally sponsored welfare programs. When you consider them all collectively, it comes to around $1 trillion in spending each year.

    Which state offers the highest welfare payout?
    Due to an extremely high cost of living, residents of Hawaii receive the most in welfare benefits, averaging a hair over $49,000 annually.

    Which state pays the least?
    Mississippi consistently ranks as the poorest state in the U.S. and welfare recipients feel the pinch. Here, the average benefit package comes in at slightly less than $17,000 per year.

    How rampant is welfare fraud?
    Gauging the scope of the welfare fraud problem is difficult. One federal agency estimates that on average, 8% of welfare payments are issued improperly, either due to fraud or government error.

    How much does welfare fraud cost?
    Altogether, improper welfare payments cost the government about $50 billion annually. The food stamp program claims the largest share, at $2.7 billion.

CONCLUSION

While there are inevitably going to be some bad apples in the bunch, many of the people who get help from welfare programs do so as a short-term fix while they take steps to improve their financial well-being. Hopefully, by looking at the big picture, we've been able to shed some light on what the realities of welfare are for those who benefit from it.

Sources and References:

    U.S. Census Bureau
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
    U.S. Department of Agriculture
    Kaiser Family Foundation
    CATO Institute
    U.S. Senate Budget Committee
    Government Accountability Office
    Bureau of Labor Statistics[/quoter]
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Ashvin

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 2644
    • View Profile
Compared to the majority of human history, when there was absolutely NO out possible for women, either before pregnancy or after, it is an easy out. Psychologically it's a very difficult decision, as it should be, but as Eddie pointed out before, it happens all the time, especially among people with money, and MOST of the time it is NOT because the child will be born into a life of substantial economic deprivation.

For most of human history, exposure was an option.  You couldn't afford the infant, you simply left it to die.  Human infants don't last long when left to the wolves.

True, and abortion is a much easier out than exposure. We're talking about an easier out for women AND men, especially men. And young men are usually the ones most in need of the personal responsibility message.

Quote
Quote from: Ashvin
People are not responsible for whether they will bring children into the world for increased welfare benefits? Maybe you can make a case for this in the poorest of countries, where the welfare benefits are the children themselves, but not for the men and women in this country.

I don't need to make the case, the statistics make the case.  Here's a breakdown for you.  You apparently are unaware of the math here, so I will clue you in.

What do the statistics have to do with whether personal responsibility comes into play? I wasn't denying people in this country heavily rely on welfare benefits and more children can help increase those benefits. I come across people on such benefits all the time. The question is whether a message of personal responsibility has any role to play in making these people more resilient to life's suffering and tragedies. I would say it has a fundamental role to play.

https://www.creditdonkey.com/welfare-statistics.html

Quote
pdated May 23, 2016
23 Shocking Statistics of Welfare in America
By Rebecca Lake
Read more about Kids and Money

Who receives welfare and how much do they get? We uncovered 23 shocking statistics about public assistance in America. What you read may surprise you.

    Who Receives Welfare
    Household Demographics
    Costs

© mrhayata (CC BY-SA 2.0) via Flickr

Welfare Statistics

Curious about what kind of people receive welfare in America? The answers we found may not be what you think.

Read on for the breakdown on the % of Americans on welfare, including by race, by welfare abuse, and by how much welfare pays.

In today's economic climate, millions of Americans find themselves struggling to make ends meet. Despite improvements in the job market and a housing bounce back, there are still many people who need help to stay afloat financially. In many ways, the America of today mirrors that of the Depression-era, when the first national welfare system was introduced.

Welfare programs were originally designed to help stabilize the economy and get struggling families back on their feet, a goal that's often overshadowed by the stereotypes and misconceptions people tend to have about the system in general.

In an effort to separate some of the fact from fiction, CreditDonkey conducted a comprehensive study of key welfare statistics.
WHO RECEIVES WELFARE?

People who have never had to rely on welfare sometimes tend to have a set idea in their minds of who the average recipient is. To put things into perspective, we begin our study with some basic numbers on just who is reaping the benefits of welfare programs.

    What percentage of Americans are on welfare?
    Through the fourth quarter of 2012, there were nearly 110 million Americans receiving some form of government assistance. That's right around 35% of the total U.S. population.

    How many Americans receive food stamps?
    As of September 2014, about 46.5 million people (or 15%) were receiving food stamps through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

    How many get Medicaid benefits?
    Medicaid is a health care program that provides free or low-cost care to qualifying individuals and families. As of 2012, there were some 83 million people (or 26%) receiving Medicaid benefits.

    What is the gender breakdown of those receiving welfare?
    Women are more likely to seek help through welfare programs. Close to 25% of those aged 16 to 64 were receiving benefits as of 2011. Among men in the same age range, slightly more than 19% received some type of welfare.

    What percentage of children are on welfare?
    Children are more likely to be on welfare than adults, with 38% of kids aged 5 and under living in households that receive public assistance. Almost 35% of kids aged 6 to 10 and 32% of those in the 11- to 15-year-old range are on welfare.

    What state has the highest number of welfare recipients?
    As of 2012, California topped the list for welfare recipients, with nearly 515,000 relying on government-funded programs. Alaska, however, has the highest per capita rate with about 7% of households getting benefits.

    What state has the most people on food stamps?
    Approximately 145,000 Washington, D.C., residents receive food stamps. That's nearly 22% of the district's total population.

    How long do most people participate in the program?
    About 31% of people receiving any kind of public assistance stay in the program for a year or less. 43% receive benefits between 3 to 4 years. Housing assistance programs see the most long-term participants (over 3 years), while cash assistance program tend to have the most short-term participants (under a year).

    What do most people on welfare spend the money on?
    Many people stereotype welfare receivers as spending the money unwisely, but data shows that for families receiving assistance, 77% of the budget is used towards basic necessities such as housing, food, and transportation (compared to 65% for families not receiving assistance). Entertainment only accounts for 4.4% of the budget.

WELFARE HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICS

Aside from looking at the age and gender of welfare recipients, we wanted to take things one step further. We focused on some specific demographics to paint a more accurate image of who in America gets help through public assistance.

    How do ethnicities break down?
    For 2011, here's the breakdown of welfare recipients: 16.3% of Non-Hispanic Whites. 39.7% of Non-Hispanic Blacks. 36.4% of Hispanics. Hispanics represent the fastest rate of growth for any demographic group (a 15% increase since the year 2000).

    Note: Recipiency is defined as living in a family with receipt of any amount of AFDC/TANF, SSI or SNAP during the year.

    What percentage of welfare recipients are immigrants?
    There are approximately 40 million immigrants living in the U.S., both legal and illegal, and a decent number of them receive some form of welfare. For example, 20% of adult immigrants and nearly half of children from immigrant households had Medicaid coverage in 2011. About 30% of non-citizens received food stamps that same year.

    How many senior citizens are on welfare?
    Seniors are often overlooked in discussions about welfare. Just shy of 13% of adults aged 65 and over are drawing some type of government benefit.

    How many families seek benefits?
    About 14.6% of households headed by a married couple were on welfare in 2011. That's double the number that received benefits in 2000.

    How many single mothers receive welfare?
    Households headed by single mothers are the most likely to be on welfare. In 2011, single moms represented 55% of the total welfare population, compared to just 37% in 2000.

    Is there a correlation between welfare recipients and education level?
    About 37% of people who did not graduate high school received welfare resistance, with about half of them needing aid for over 3 years. About 22% of high school graduates and 10% of those who attended college for at least a year received aid.

ADDING UP THE COST

One of the biggest complaints that critics of welfare have concerns the cost. A tremendous amount of money is spent on welfare programs each year and recipients benefit more in some states than others.

    How much cash assistance do families get?
    As of 2012, the median monthly payout for a family of three was $427 . Mississippi pays the least, at $170, while Alaska pays the most, at $923.

    What's the average amount of food stamps received?
    Some states are more generous than others when it comes to food stamps but on average, families get just over $133 per person each month.

    What about Medicaid?
    As of 2011, Medicaid spending averaged $5,790 per person enrolled in the program nationwide. On an individual level, the average benefit for elderly participants was $13,249 while an average of $16,643 was spent annually on individuals with disabilities.

    How much does the government spend on welfare programs?
    There are dozens of state and federally sponsored welfare programs. When you consider them all collectively, it comes to around $1 trillion in spending each year.

    Which state offers the highest welfare payout?
    Due to an extremely high cost of living, residents of Hawaii receive the most in welfare benefits, averaging a hair over $49,000 annually.

    Which state pays the least?
    Mississippi consistently ranks as the poorest state in the U.S. and welfare recipients feel the pinch. Here, the average benefit package comes in at slightly less than $17,000 per year.

    How rampant is welfare fraud?
    Gauging the scope of the welfare fraud problem is difficult. One federal agency estimates that on average, 8% of welfare payments are issued improperly, either due to fraud or government error.

    How much does welfare fraud cost?
    Altogether, improper welfare payments cost the government about $50 billion annually. The food stamp program claims the largest share, at $2.7 billion.

CONCLUSION

While there are inevitably going to be some bad apples in the bunch, many of the people who get help from welfare programs do so as a short-term fix while they take steps to improve their financial well-being. Hopefully, by looking at the big picture, we've been able to shed some light on what the realities of welfare are for those who benefit from it.

Sources and References:

    U.S. Census Bureau
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
    U.S. Department of Agriculture
    Kaiser Family Foundation
    CATO Institute
    U.S. Senate Budget Committee
    Government Accountability Office
    Bureau of Labor Statistics[/quoter]

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 37245
    • View Profile

True, and abortion is a much easier out than exposure. We're talking about an easier out for women AND men, especially men. And young men are usually the ones most in need of the personal responsibility message.

Incorrect.  Exposure doesn't risk the life of the mother, assuming she delivered the infant successfully.  It only kills the infant.

Quote from: Ashvin
People are not responsible for whether they will bring children into the world for increased welfare benefits? Maybe you can make a case for this in the poorest of countries, where the welfare benefits are the children themselves, but not for the men and women in this country.

Quote
What do the statistics have to do with whether personal responsibility comes into play? I wasn't denying people in this country heavily rely on welfare benefits and more children can help increase those benefits. I come across people on such benefits all the time. The question is whether a message of personal responsibility has any role to play in making these people more resilient to life's suffering and tragedies. I would say it has a fundamental role to play.


I would say you are completely deluded and "personal responsibility" has about nothing to do with this in the face of the economics of the situation, which are dominant.  The Stats tell the story of what really goes on here, although like most stats produced by Da Goobermint I don't think they are entirely accurate.  Nevertheless, people behave in such a way that best benefits them economically, and poor women having more kids is of economic benefit to them.  That is straightforward math.

RE
« Last Edit: November 08, 2018, 05:22:14 AM by RE »
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Ashvin

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 2644
    • View Profile

True, and abortion is a much easier out than exposure. We're talking about an easier out for women AND men, especially men. And young men are usually the ones most in need of the personal responsibility message.

Incorrect.  Exposure doesn't risk the life of the mother, assuming she delivered the infant successfully.  It only kills the infant.

Early stage abortions don't risk the life of the mother either. Psychologically, it's much more difficult to let your infant be killed by exposure than to have an abortion.

Quote
Quote from: Ashvin
People are not responsible for whether they will bring children into the world for increased welfare benefits? Maybe you can make a case for this in the poorest of countries, where the welfare benefits are the children themselves, but not for the men and women in this country.

Quote
What do the statistics have to do with whether personal responsibility comes into play? I wasn't denying people in this country heavily rely on welfare benefits and more children can help increase those benefits. I come across people on such benefits all the time. The question is whether a message of personal responsibility has any role to play in making these people more resilient to life's suffering and tragedies. I would say it has a fundamental role to play.


I would say you are completely deluded and "personal responsibility" has about nothing to do with this in the face of the economics of the situation, which are dominant.  The Stats tell the story of what really goes on here, although like most stats produced by Da Goobermint I don't think they are entirely accurate.  Nevertheless, people behave in such a way that best benefits them economically, and poor women having more kids is of economic benefit to them.  That is straightforward math.

RE

The stats tell you what is the case, not what ought to be. It tells you absolutely nothing about what policies are needed, on the societal, familial or individual level, to make people more resilient to the bad shit which happens from a combination of bad choices and bad circumstances. A return to emphasis on personal responsibility is absolutely needed for that.

Offline Ashvin

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 2644
    • View Profile
Let me be clear, I'm not trying to prove to anyone that Roe v. Wade should be overturned or that legalized abortion is the worst thing ever - I just don't think the Democratic/Liberal side should be nearly as convinced of its merits as they seem to be.

Okay, I'll bite.

Nevertheless, the argument that legalized abortion is a good thing because it prevents population increases, which in turn "leads to the rise of lawless gangs", is extremely specious. For one thing, there is very solid social scientific research that urban violent crime is driven primarily by wealth/status inequality.

And I'd argue back that a lack of family planning is part and parcel of wealth inequality. I see it in action, close up and personal, each and every day of my working life. People make really bad choices, or fail to make any plan at all, and they end up in worse poverty than they might have.

Yes certainly lack of family planning is part and parcel of wealth inequality, as you say. It's not the whole thing and it's


Quote
Actions have consequences. The consequences of having sex is having children. Children are expensive. Especially when you have multiples. You didn't make that mistake when you were young, but you had guidance and role models. And young women are not as able to avoid the consequences of their actions as young men are, for obvious reasons.



Look  if ANYBODY at all, in the entire world, happens to be "pro-abortion" I don't think they'd be dumb enough to admit it.  But Dubner  and Levitt made a very compelling case for the drop in crime being tied to the passage of Roe v. Wade.....and although I've read a number of articles by people (with your POV,I believe)  trying to debunk it, none of them are remotely persuasive. It's not like I didn't look at both sides before I made up my mind.

I'm sure you've probably read Freakonomics, or at least that you're very aware of what I'm talking about.

Abortion is always a "lesser evil" decision. I believe it's a lesser evil to terminate a pregnancy, than to bring a child into the world who doesn't have a decent chance at a decent life.

I also believe that moralistic people have no right to impose their value judgments and religious biases on young women who are already in a terrible position with few good options.

I say that...and I never have and never will advise any of the women (or men) in my sphere of influence to have an abortion.

But the truth is that the people whom I might influence wouldn't ask me anyway, because the small amount of money it costs to terminate a pregnancy is not a deterrent for girls from families with money. They often don't even ask, or tell. I know this all too well, actually.

My kids graduated from the richest public high school in this town....which coincidentally has a higher rate of abortions than any of the poorer schools in other parts of town.
[/quote]

Offline Ashvin

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 2644
    • View Profile
Sure you may have written about on a few online forums, but what have you ever done to support this all-important need for infant population control?

I didn't have any children.  Problem solved for me.  In the current society, exposing infants and leaving them to die would be considered murder, so it's not a wise idea at the moment if you want to stay out of prison.

RE

Fair enough. As Nietzsche pointed out, 'most morality is cowardice'. I wonder, though, how many people would expose infants to die if it was not considered a crime of any sort?

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 37245
    • View Profile
I wonder, though, how many people would expose infants to die if it was not considered a crime of any sort?

It would vary depending on the resource availability.  Plenty of resources (aka FOOD), not many.  Few resources, many.  In fact many would use the children as food in a resource scarce environment.  There are stories about that in the Bible.

Quote
Lamentations 4:10

With their own hands compassionate women
have cooked their own children,
who became their food
when my people were destroyed.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
32 Replies
7505 Views
Last post January 26, 2014, 12:10:09 PM
by agelbert
54 Replies
7630 Views
Last post April 27, 2015, 03:28:33 PM
by agelbert
1 Replies
101 Views
Last post November 07, 2018, 04:50:32 AM
by Surly1