[GOLFER54]

According to my calculations if a person has 10 kids under 5 that amounts to $3000 a month or $36,000 a year. Isn’t being dependent on the government GREAT !

[birdawg]

Originally Posted by Bay Kid

Did I hear correct that starting in July the govern will pay $3,000. per month, per child, for the poor?

Actually it will be us tax payers who will be giving them the money

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Yea, and that’s why it’s far less expensive than it’s being implied by some news organizations.

I'm confused. How can paying someone money they never put into the system be far less expensive than returning some of the money they did put into the system? If the parents of Dick and Jane aren't paying taxes into the system then the entire $600 "tax credit" is coming out of my pocket. Sure, it's less expensive for Dick and Jane's parents but it's more expensive for me and the rest of the tax-paying citizens.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

The reason people aren’t taking low-paying jobs is because they’re low paying. If you read the papers and pay attention to more than just Fox News, you’ll find out that lots of well-known companies are raising their lower end pay scales which has largely eliminated their inability to attract new employees. The economic law of supply and demand is working!

In your mind do you see a lot of people sitting at home with no income because they made a choice to go hungry rather than taking a low-paying job? In my mind I see an economic decision to take unemployment plus a $7.50/hour (based on a 40 hour week) Federal paycheck to sit at home rather than taking a $10/hour job.

A lot of well-known companies have been forced to raise their lower-end pay scales because they are competing against the Federal Government. Together, the State and Federal Governments are paying people more to stay home and so the companies have to increase wages to compete successfully. But it isn't quite a fair fight since the Federal Government has bottomless pockets - they don't have to earn a profit to pay for the wages, the Fed Govt just writes checks.

[Bay Kid]

Originally Posted by Carla B

No, per yesterday's newspaper, it is $3600. per year or $300.00 per month per child through age 5, then $3000.00 per year or $250. per child ages 6 through 17.

Thanks for the correction. Good reason to send all the children to the US and then the family will follow and be paid lots of money for all your children. Send them to school and get 2 free meals a day. Free health care, lodging, etc. Children can be a good business.

This isn't about the children, it is about the money and votes.

[4pocketz]

Originally Posted by Bay Kid

Did I hear correct that starting in July the govern will pay $3,000. per month, per child, for the poor?

I REALLY DO NOT think so!!!!
Believe it when you see it! WELFARE all over again and it’ll be PAID for by YOU!!

[Proveone]

Better to give it to our citizens, who have struggled through the pandemic, and didn't benefit from the big business/1%er's 2017 tax break, than to send our tax dollars to other countries!

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Proveone

Better to give it to our citizens, who have struggled through the pandemic, and didn't benefit from the big business/1%er's 2017 tax break, than to send our tax dollars to other countries!

To reiterate post #54----"Straight out of the far left play book since 1932, page 1"

How about those "citizens" work to earn what they get, rather than suck off the government teat. And speaking about business and the "1%ers", who do you think is going to hire all these new workers at $15/hr???? Welfare recipients????

So to quote Margaret Thatcher, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of OTHER people's money"

[MandoMan]

Originally Posted by charlieo1126@gmail.com

Always good to start a trouble thread with wrong information and it would be nice to use the word working poor and that includes a lot of people , if it works properly it could cut child hunger and needs by 50%

While I have a visceral reaction against giving away money like this, and while I am skeptical of this “child hunger” argument (given that I’ve seen plenty of overweight poor children, but I’ve NEVER seen a kid on the sidewalk in this country starving to death), there are a lot of people in this country who my Uncle Johnny used to call “pitiful poor.” (He grew up poor in southern Virginia without running water or a toilet, so “pitiful poor” was below that.) That sort of poverty doesn’t mean you can’t be happy or smile or laugh, but it grinds you down, and it hurts to not be able to buy anything or afford a little birthday present for your child.

The fact is, while plenty of this money will be used to by drugs, liquor, etc., nearly all of it will be used to BUY THINGS. When poor people who haven’t had enough money to buy things get a lot more, they buy a lot more. They spend it all. That means more things have to be made or cooked or whatever, and that means people have to be hired to make all this. Essentially, we the people are giving money to poor people so they will help grow the economy by consuming more. It sort of balances out, though it’s perhaps not a very efficient way of doing things.

One interesting point is that if the minimum wage were double what it is now, all those people earning minimum wages would have a lot more to spend without it having to come from the government. This would incentivise people to take jobs and work, and they might actually be paying taxes instead of receiving much more back as “refunds” than they ever pay in federal income tax. Business owners would have to charge more to cover the extra cost of the wages, yes, but that’s how it works. You and I would have to pay a little more to buy things. Maybe that pizza would cost a dollar more! But would you rather support people through fair wages or through government handouts? Also, if businesses were required to provide health insurance to workers, then yes, prices would go up, but the need for Medicaid would go down a lot. As it is, American taxpayers are subsidising all these businesses that pay so little that full-time workers still qualify for Medicaid, free lunches in school, big tax rebates, etc.

[whound68]

How dare those kids by being born.

[irishwonone]

This money is NOT just for poor!

[nn0wheremann]

Originally Posted by Carla B

No, per yesterday's newspaper, it is $3600. per year or $300.00 per month per child through age 5, then $3000.00 per year or $250. per child ages 6 through 17.

That’s one way to address the labor shortage, encourage folks to make more babies. And it’s redefining poor. MFJ with income up to $150K.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by MandoMan

While I have a visceral reaction against giving away money like this, and while I am skeptical of this “child hunger” argument (given that I’ve seen plenty of overweight poor children, but I’ve NEVER seen a kid on the sidewalk in this country starving to death), there are a lot of people in this country who my Uncle Johnny used to call “pitiful poor.” (He grew up poor in southern Virginia without running water or a toilet, so “pitiful poor” was below that.) That sort of poverty doesn’t mean you can’t be happy or smile or laugh, but it grinds you down, and it hurts to not be able to buy anything or afford a little birthday present for your child.

The fact is, while plenty of this money will be used to by drugs, liquor, etc., nearly all of it will be used to BUY THINGS. When poor people who haven’t had enough money to buy things get a lot more, they buy a lot more. They spend it all. That means more things have to be made or cooked or whatever, and that means people have to be hired to make all this. Essentially, we the people are giving money to poor people so they will help grow the economy by consuming more. It sort of balances out, though it’s perhaps not a very efficient way of doing things.

One interesting point is that if the minimum wage were double what it is now, all those people earning minimum wages would have a lot more to spend without it having to come from the government. This would incentivise people to take jobs and work, and they might actually be paying taxes instead of receiving much more back as “refunds” than they ever pay in federal income tax. Business owners would have to charge more to cover the extra cost of the wages, yes, but that’s how it works. You and I would have to pay a little more to buy things. Maybe that pizza would cost a dollar more! But would you rather support people through fair wages or through government handouts? Also, if businesses were required to provide health insurance to workers, then yes, prices would go up, but the need for Medicaid would go down a lot. As it is, American taxpayers are subsidising all these businesses that pay so little that full-time workers still qualify for Medicaid, free lunches in school, big tax rebates, etc.

Or maybe they would just be replaced by a machine

[petsetc]

Originally Posted by
[B

Lastly, since you can't stop the recipients from trying to sell their stamps for cash (to get beer, cigarettes and lotto tickets), make it a class B felony to BUY these stamps (punishable by 10-25 in state prison).[/B]
At least it would be a start.

The Florida Department of Corrections employs about 24,000 people and has an annual budget of more than $2 billion — less than 1% of the overall state budget. It costs the state about $22,000 a year for each inmate in custody.

Source: What you need to know about Florida's prisons - Florida Trend | Feature

[meridian5850]

Originally Posted by charlieo1126@gmail.com

Always good to start a trouble thread with wrong information and it would be nice to use the word working poor and that includes a lot of people , if it works properly it could cut child hunger and needs by 50%

See post #10

[meridian5850]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Pretty good joke! I don't have a problem with government payments for up to 2 children - but 2 ONLY, NOT more. If you have more that is your problem. The government should only encourage 2 children. The US needs to control its population based on "quality of life" calculations. Too much population is a BAD problem. There is probably a population number that maximizes "quality of life". That number needs to be calculated and then tax and immigration policy should be adjusted to achieve that population. The US population density and natural resources are limited. We don't want to end up like India and China!!!!!!!!!!

So you want us to be communist China now???

The USA birthrate is already below the replacement rate of those dying.