Family Security Act

[BigPapaKain]

(02-11-2021, 12:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This post is 100% disingenuous bullshit.  You're not exactly making a great case for yourself in this thread.

That post was 100% tongue in cheek. Take it easy. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-11-2021, 12:19 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: You do know that there is a cut off on that tax credit, right? The government stops giving it after the 3rd child.

Source: my sister has 4 and my MIL has 6, and both only got credit for 3.

Great.  We're not talking about a tax credit in this thread though.

(02-11-2021, 12:20 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: That post was 100% tongue in cheek. Take it easy. 

It certainly didn't come off that way, but I'll take your word for it.

[GMDino]

(02-11-2021, 09:07 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, here is some data on SNAP recipients, which is one of the larger welfare programs in our country and for folks receiving other forms of welfare, it is almost assured that they will be receiving SNAP. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=s2201&tid=ACSST1Y2019.S2201&hidePreview=false

The most important thing to note, here is, that only 21.3% of households receiving SNAP benefits did not have anyone in the household working within the 12 months leading up to the data collection. Also, of the households receiving these benefits, around 48% have at least one disabled member.

Just some food for thought (get it?) when talking about welfare benefits.

I believe I've told the story before but by of our children were born three months premature and by virtue of the birth weight we were given SNAP and a state insurance card that picked up everything ours did not.  I didn't ask for it.  They gave it to us.  It was one of the first things that happened after their births.

I justified it because I was working and paying into the system.  And in the end that insurance card saved us.  We're talking over a million and a quarter between the two bills...and that was the late 90's, early 2000's.

The system is there to help. 

[BigPapaKain]

(02-11-2021, 12:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Great.  We're not talking about a tax credit in this thread though.


It certainly didn't come off that way, but I'll take your word for it.

Did you even read the article? Romney's proposal is a replacement for the tax credit. This entire topic is about the child tax credit.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-11-2021, 01:07 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Did you even read the article? Romney's proposal is a replacement for the tax credit. This entire topic is about the child tax credit.

Apologies, we're not solely talking about the task credit.  We are also not solely discussing Romney's proposed plan.

[BigPapaKain]

(02-11-2021, 01:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Apologies, we're not solely talking about the task credit.  We are also not solely discussing Romney's proposed plan.

You're discussing the task credit. I'm discussing the child tax credit.

We're in different books. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-11-2021, 01:27 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: You're discussing the task credit. I'm discussing the child tax credit.

We're in different books. 

Ugh, reread the article.  It's about replacing the tax credit with a monthly payment.  It's also about doubling the amount for some income groups.  However, what I believe you are missing is that it appears this new plan would not require an income, which a tax credit obviously does.  So, no, we are not in different books, you just don't appear to be grasping the full ramifications of the proposal at hand.

[BigPapaKain]

(02-11-2021, 07:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ugh, reread the article.  It's about replacing the tax credit with a monthly payment.  It's also about doubling the amount for some income groups.  However, what I believe you are missing is that it appears this new plan would not require an income, which a tax credit obviously does.  So, no, we are not in different books, you just don't appear to be grasping the full ramifications of the proposal at hand.

I did miss that part, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. But I counter it with 'so what?' It means we can have a stay at home parent which is something people seem to think is clearly lacking in society. More familial time is usually not a bad thing, and would - as I said before - help create more well adjusted adults. And much like the child tax credit, there is a cut off on the number of kids they'll pay you for, so it's not like it's a 'screw your partner's brains out and damn the consequences' card. 

The full ramifications seem to be better children, better homes for said children, better adults those children grow into, and it chips away at our country's ever growing poverty issue.

Will there be people who take advantage of it? Of course there will be; there are always people who take advantage of government assistance. Will it be a widespread issue? No more than we currently have (which is to say not as bad as you think).

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-11-2021, 07:46 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: I did miss that part, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. But I counter it with 'so what?' It means we can have a stay at home parent which is something people seem to think is clearly lacking in society. More familial time is usually not a bad thing, and would - as I said before - help create more well adjusted adults. And much like the child tax credit, there is a cut off on the number of kids they'll pay you for, so it's not like it's a 'screw your partner's brains out and damn the consequences' card. 

The full ramifications seem to be better children, better homes for said children, better adults those children grow into, and it chips away at our country's ever growing poverty issue.

Will there be people who take advantage of it? Of course there will be; there are always people who take advantage of government assistance. Will it be a widespread issue? No more than we currently have (which is to say not as bad as you think).

I don't disagree with your general sentiment.  What I'd like to see is built it protections against abuse.  Maybe even a fair percentage of the payouts coming in the way of food vouchers, so there can be some guarantee that the money is being used to actually benefit the children.  Yes, I am aware that someone could then sell the vouchers, so make them person dependent.  I think we're closer on this issue then earlier posts would suggest, I just don't think enough is done to prevent abuse of the system.

[BigPapaKain]

(02-11-2021, 08:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't disagree with your general sentiment.  What I'd like to see is built it protections against abuse.  Maybe even a fair percentage of the payouts coming in the way of food vouchers, so there can be some guarantee that the money is being used to actually benefit the children.  Yes, I am aware that someone could then sell the vouchers, so make them person dependent.  I think we're closer on this issue then earlier posts would suggest, I just don't think enough is done to prevent abuse of the system.

But the same can be done with any form of government assistance. I grew up in a pretty rough neighborhood and people were constantly selling off food stamps for 50 cents to the dollar. Some people are just going to always be shitty.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-11-2021, 09:02 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: But the same can be done with any form of government assistance. I grew up in a pretty rough neighborhood and people were constantly selling off food stamps for 50 cents to the dollar. Some people are just going to always be shitty.

You're making my point for me.  There's a middle ground between the Dems position of "oh well, some people are going to commit fraud", and the GOP position of rampant "welfare queens".

[BigPapaKain]

(02-12-2021, 11:58 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're making my point for me.  There's a middle ground between the Dems position of "oh well, some people are going to commit fraud", and the GOP position of rampant "welfare queens".

Maybe, except I don't use anecdotal evidence to shape my world view when much more viable data is readily available that squash the "rampant welfare queen" narrative the right loves to push.

I do agree there is a middle ground in there, though. I think it's further left than you'd like, if I'm being honest and making a few assumptions (which if I'm over stepping my bounds please tell me).

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-12-2021, 03:49 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Maybe, except I don't use anecdotal evidence to shape my world view when much more viable data is readily available that squash the "rampant welfare queen" narrative the right loves to push.

I have over twenty years of anecdotal evidence to fall back on.  During that time I've seen literally thousands of cases similar to what I discussed.  Are they statistically insignificant?  That's possible, but I'm damn sure not going to discount what I've seen with my own eyes.  Even if it is a small percentage, lets say 5%, why wouldn't you want to lower that number as much as possible instead of further enabling it?

Quote:I do agree there is a middle ground in there, though. I think it's further left than you'd like, if I'm being honest and making a few assumptions (which if I'm over stepping my bounds please tell me).

I want people to get the help they need.  I also want them to need it as little as possible.  I also don't want to perpetuate that need.  I don't think that's as extreme position on either end of the spectrum.

[BigPapaKain]

(02-12-2021, 04:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have over twenty years of anecdotal evidence to fall back on.  During that time I've seen literally thousands of cases similar to what I discussed.  Are they statistically insignificant?  That's possible, but I'm damn sure not going to discount what I've seen with my own eyes.  Even if it is a small percentage, lets say 5%, why wouldn't you want to lower that number as much as possible instead of further enabling it?


I want people to get the help they need.  I also want them to need it as little as possible.  I also don't want to perpetuate that need.  I don't think that's as extreme position on either end of the spectrum.

I'm not saying we don't want to lower it. I just don't see it as widespread as you believe it to be. And I shouldn't discount your anecdotal evidence, especially at such a scale as your presenting. Perhaps abuse is widespread where you're at, I can't say.

[GMDino]

(02-12-2021, 04:05 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: I'm not saying we don't want to lower it. I just don't see it as widespread as you believe it to be. And I shouldn't discount your anecdotal evidence, especially at such a scale as your presenting. Perhaps abuse is widespread where you're at, I can't say.

A few bad apples I suppose.  Different localities could have different situations.

I live in a very poor county in PA.  I haven't had to deal with the poorest of the poor in 20+ years since I changed jobs but I knew the ones who seemed to be "working the system" and the ones that needed the help whether they were working or not and I never thought we should do anything to hurt the ones that need it just because of the others.  I always thought we should invest MORE into the people who run the programs so they can catch more of the people abusing the system.  Seem elected officials feel the opposite and would rather cut.

When it comes to helping the least among us the right/conservatives get very upset about spending "their" tax money.  That's been a constant in America for decades.

[BigPapaKain]

(02-12-2021, 04:11 PM)GMDino Wrote: When it comes to helping the least among us the right/conservatives get very upset about spending "their" tax money.  That's been a constant in America for decades.

Which is ironic when you look at where most of the taxes come from, where most of them go, and where most the system abuses actually happen.