Category Archives: Uncategorized

I found an interesting article in NY times about the number of people on welfare is declining even though we are in a recession.

Just a thought I would like to share with the class about something I noticed over the years. Now, I used to live by the projects in Coney Island, Brooklyn (not actually in the projects but close enough) for many years. Every time I used to go somewhere I always used to drive by the projects, and the thing that always caught my eye were the ridicously expensive cars that were always parked on the streets. Now i dont want to be judgmental but if i remember correctly governemnt subsidized housing such as the ones that are spread out around coney island are supposed to be there for people who need help affording living arrangments. And presumably i would estimate that 50% of the residents recieve some sort of governemnt help such as section 8 or even workfare for that matter. So how can these so called “welfare recipients” afford such luxuries. I literally at any point during the day see hundred thousand dollar Mercedes or expensive BMW, Infiniti’s….. etc. I cant begin to fathom where they get the money to afford these cars. Are they working off the books and recieving welfare illegally? I dont know. Maybe the governemnt should be more careful to whom they give away money too and make sure its going to the right place. Im not saying everyone in the projects drive expensive cars and im plenty sure that most dont. But the ones that do have the fancy “whips” are doing what……….to get these cars.?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/nyregion/26fraud.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin

I found this earlier today.  It just goes against alot of the stereotypes in the books and articales we’ve read in class. 

Welfare cheating has become a business for some people. People who would be making more than enough are stealing from the government, because they work for cash busniess it’s pretty unfair. 

Welfare cheats, come in all different colors and walks of life.

As promised….. Erik.

Now to be fair – he didn’t actually dress like this. We ended up at Jurgen’s family compound one night because it was too late to go back to town (Storuman) and when we got there it was FREEZING so we all found whatever clothes we could to put on to sleep in. Erik found a fur coat….

Senator John Labruzzo (R) member of the Louisiana State House believes that generational welfare is a major problem in Louisiana.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsRgp6qSKL4[/youtube]

Here are two other news clips on the same topic with some more detailed information:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_D9DvlIXT7o[/youtube]

and

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0z3zsLdL7o[/youtube]

Absent from these videos is the following discussion: Payment for the reversal of the tubes, and/or IVF (aka invitro – if normal intercourse is not an option due to tubal failure) – if the female choosesto have a child anytime after the process. According to Webmd.com, “The price [for tubal ligation reversal] is somewhere around $7,000-$10,000.” [http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/is-tubal-ligation-reversable] Socialfertility.com states that, “The cost of an IVF cycle has been remarkably stable over the past 10 years. In any reputable program across the country, a cycle of IVF costs about $10,000-$12,000 including medication.” [www.socalfertility.com/ivf–cost-information.html]

According to yourcontraception.com, “The cost of tubal ligation usually ranges from $1,200 to $6,000. It depends very much upon the state, region and private clinic.” [http://www.yourcontraception.com/birth-control-methods/tubal-ligation/tubal-ligation.html] At minimum, it should cost the government no less then aprx $30,000 per person in upfront fees should the individual need to exhaust all the means of having a child after accepting the original tubal ligation.

If the person chooses tubal ligation, then has it reversed and successfully has a child – all at the cost of the State – Will the state then offer an incentive to have the tubes tied a second time and will it pay to have them untied a second time? This question can go on forever. My view being – if the state were to offer such an incentive program to help cut its own costs, is it willing to subject itself to future costs associated with serving an end, it in itself aided in making impossible – having a child. Children build families, families build communities, communities build cities and cities build nations…if the State is to keep with the traditional model of human nature – it would have a social responsibility to incur those costs as a “welfare” to its citizens.

In conclusion, I feel this idea may seem economically pleasing and implementation may seem feasible but if the State were to take up this program and walk in the footsteps of tradition – then such a program requires to many unknown variables financially – predominantly – Will this person decide to have a child once her tubes are tied, how many times will she try to get pregnant, do we WANT her to have her tube tied again and at what cost?– These are costs that cannot be projected or approximated at any one point in time and are not budget compatible – instead, this type of program lends itself to what I like to call,” the rolling stone budget bug” – or those type of programs requiring funding with unrealistic projected figures, any approximation is viewed in too narrow of a time frame and will only present a budget crisis later on. The curse of economic relativity!

In end, if their arguement for Tubal Ligation is strictly economic, then it immediately fails my test.

One problem does not fix another. It simply costs more money later.

the last two readings that we read and touched on wednesday talked about some big issues in welfare possibly the biggest issue which is the children on and affected by welfare.  when i read through these readings it made me realize how much these children do get affected and that children are a really big part of why people get on welfare.  i feel that if someone is going to have a child that isn’t a spur of the moment decision, it’s a decision that should be planned for well in advance because of the money needed to support a child.  the idea of having a child is to give that child more than you had so they could have a better life. this includes things such as a better education which would give your child a better position to get a better job in the long run.  i understand that if you get pregnant by accident then there is really nothing you can do there unless you didn’t practice safe sex then you weren’t acting responsibly and should have to live with the outcome.  but a point that was brought up in class that i never even thought of was that maybe these women were never taught how to practice safe sex or what products are out there for them to use.  in that case you can’t blame them really because no one ever sat down with them and told them the facts.  then these children are born to women who are often young and don’t have the ability to provide that child with everything that it’s going to need.  so now this child is going to have a disadvantage meaning that down the road they are going to have a tough time paying for school and eventually college.  this child isn’t going to be in any kind of good position because the child will only have what they family can afford which probably won’t be much unless the mother is able to get a good job down the road.  you should bring a child into the world when you are able to give it everything that it’s going to need including a good education.  but a lot of the time people don’t think of the outcomes of their actions and then when something that they didn’t expect to happen happens then don’t know where to go and they need help or else they won’t survive.

This is an interesting article regarding the “Family Caps” that we spoke about in class. The article has a more conservative lean, which I thought might be appealing.  <http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=439>

My favorite part of the article is when the author points out that when a working family has more children, their employer doesn’t go and give them a raise—similarly, why would welfare recipients expect increased benefits when they have more children? It just doesn’t make sense.

Some highlighted points in the article:

“A system that tells a mother with two small children on welfare, “Go ahead, have more children, and we’ll give you more money,” is not doing the right thing for the mother or for her small children.”

“The more important effect of the cap was its moral message: The government will not subsidize irresponsible behavior. Of course, everyone…is still free to have as many children as they want, but not with a public cash bonus for having children at the wrong time in one’s life.”

“Under the family cap, a person who is already on welfare, and who then has additional children, does not get extra cash for having the additional children. The new children are still fully eligible for Medicaid and the family gets additional food stamps for them. The adults, however, do not receive extra cash.”

The article also has some statics which prove that unwanted pregnancy has decreased in states that have enacted the Family Caps program.

For those of you who haven’t seen this video, look at it when you have sometime. Its a nice comparison between the welfare systems of America and some countries in Europe. Its sad to see how crappy our health care system is, compared to Britain, Canada and France.

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=6GLO6VSV

So in “Let them eat Ketchup” I thought it was interesting how she refered to those women on welfare as”welfare Queens” because these women are never going to get off the system- insteasd of using this system as a stepping stone they just make it their lives. Another interseting point that the author made was that most people that are on welfare are whites – not Blacks or Hispanics

Comparing the candidate tax plans.

Today many of us declared out political stand points and i thought it would be interesting to connect that to the upcoming elections and the presidential candidates tax proposals

Here are some things that I found interesting from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411693_CandidateTaxPlans.pdf

· The two candidates’ plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain’s tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those whose taxes fall would, on average, see their after-tax income rise much less. In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise.

John McCain

· Extension and indexation of the 2007 AMT patch. Individuals must compute their taxes under both the regular tax and the alternative minimum tax. If the alternative minimum tax exceeds the regular tax, taxpayers must pay the higher amount. The AMT requires taxpayers to add a number of preference items (including personal exemptions and certain deductions) to their taxable income, but they may deduct a special AMT exemption. Since 2001, the AMT exemption has been temporarily increased for a year or two at a time to prevent large numbers of taxpayers from becoming subject to the tax. In 2007, the exemption was $66,250 for joint returns and $44,350 for singles and heads of household. But, in 2008, the AMT exemption is set to return to its 2000 level—$45,000 for couples and $33,750 for singles and heads of household—and the number of taxpayers subject to the AMT is projected to increase from 3.5 million in 2007 to 26.5 million in 2008.

· Dependent exemption increase. Taxpayers may claim exemptions for themselves, their spouses (on joint returns), and each dependent (usually children, but also certain other relatives and household members supported by the taxpayer). The exemption is $3,500 in 2008 and is indexed for inflation going forward. Senator McCain has proposed increasing the dependent exemption—but not the personal exemption for taxpayers themselves—by $500 each year beginning in 2010. Married couples filing a joint return reporting adjusted gross income of $50,000 or less would be eligible for the $7,000 exemption immediately (in 2009

Obama

· Partial extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Senator Obama has called for extending the tax cuts affecting the middle class while eliminating those benefitting the wealthiest Americans. According to the campaign, Obama would extend the child credit expansions; the changes to marriage bonuses and penalties; and the 10, 15, 25, and 28 percent income tax rates, as well as the lower tax rates on capital gains and qualified dividends for taxpayers in those four tax brackets. He would restore the 36 and 39.6 percent rates and increase the rate on capital gains and dividends for taxpayers in those brackets. To match the campaign’s stated revenue targets, we assumed a rate of 25 percent for capital gains and qualified dividends. 3 Obama would also restore the phaseouts of personal exemptions and itemized deductions, but set the income threshold at $250,000 for married couples filing jointly. As under current law, the thresholds for the phaseout of personal exemptions would be lower for singles and heads of households, but those for the phaseout of itemized deductions would not vary with filing status. The thresholds would be indexed for inflation as they are under current law. Senator Obama would also extend several smaller expiring tax cuts, including the adoption credit and the simplifications to the earned income tax credit. Certain other provisions would be modified, as described below.

· Exempting seniors earning less than $50,000 from income taxation. Senator Obama would exempt seniors earning less than $50,000 from income taxation. A tax unit would pay no income tax if the primary taxpayer (and the spouse for married couples) is age 65 or older and the tax unit’s adjusted gross income, untaxed Social Security benefits, and tax-exempt interest totals less than $50,000. Tax units entitled to a net refund from the government would remain entitled to that refund. The threshold would be the same for both single and married households and would not be indexed for inflation (so its value would erode over time). The eligibility threshold for seniors is a strict threshold—there is no phaseout.

Theres also this link which I found very intresting.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/candidates08/compare/

I guess I was into reading this because I’m pretty lost about whom I’m going to vote for and was hoping that this would in some way change my mind (it hasn’t, it’s just made me more confused and I’ll probably wind up flipping a coin when I go into vote)

This also kind of plays into our discussion about how everyone votes to cover their own ass, and for a lot of people especially during such shaky economic times, I might take my liberal views out of the equation and care more about my money.