I wonder what's the name of this imaginary government program that grants children welfare until they reach adulthood...
WC is an ass-hat.....but proportionally, poorer districts do have larger needs than richerer districts...
I propose that the parents of kids who are sent to alternative schools or referred for discipline a set number of times have their federal tax exemption for the kids taken away as well as their eligibility for welfare based on the kid be temporarily suspended, and that the money be used to hire qualified social workers who will be responsible for disciplining the kids..
i think the better question is using wilddumbass' method, what is the rate of defense, corporate and farm subsidy spending now versus 1960.
Cue OMG!!!!
Are you saying it isn't any more expensive to help support 2 or more children than it is none or one?
This type of program would be a deterrent, helping to stop some people from having children unless they can afford them, and stopping others from having multiple children being paid for by us.
How could that not save money?
Are you saying that parents raising their children under these programs don't get assistance for them until they are adults?
I'm saying the "18 years of assistance program(s)" is a canard.
There's programs (WIC) that start when the mother is pregnant and until the children are 5 years old. There's other programs (SNAP) that are based on income and household size, and have nothing to do with the age of participants.
AFAIK, there's no specific child welfare program that starts at child conception and ends when the child reaches 18 years old.
What is the name of this imaginary program?
You've been changing the goalpost over and over from the start. I'm concerned more about the total spending for welfare type services. not just one. And I have already proven the two different sets of examples you provided was more spending per capita, adjusted to a normalized value, not less.
It's funny. You lost on the money part of it, and you don't even realize it.
Shut up bag. You started this nonsense as a tangent in your justifications for wanting to sterilize the poor. Him talking about specifics within your asshattery is not moving the goalposts. Quit just parroting the fallacies other's point out in you.
Its like when you looked stupid saying there was no high farad caps and after I explained to you how to increase the rating you started babbling about caps in series trying to deflect.
You cannot even come to discuss variables verus rational functions and the subs utions of both so you just left that alone but hes wrong and doesn't even know? off, dumbass.
No one buys it.
That's a completely different topic. You were arguing about how the rate spent per child has raised since 1960, didn't you? So what makes that figure correct?
I'm taking you at your word. What is the name of this imaginary program?
If I would make the claim "Everything Wild Cobra says is a bunch of ", I'm sure you would want the specifics on how I reached that conclusion.
Conversely, when you claim "having two or more children requiring government aide for 18 years each and possibly their lifetime too" as some sort of fact, I want to know the specifics that made you reach that conclusion.
We are simply spending so much more money in normalized dollars, per capita in recent years, than before. Why is that so difficult? I showed in ElNono's first example, where he presented the article saying we spend <10% in 1960, and it dropped by 6 percentage points in 2009, that this wan more money. I believe my numbers were 14% more for that lone example. Every example you can find, we are spending more money, per capita, in constant (normalized) dollar, on social services than in the past.
To properly address this, I just tried to find data on 1960 to today, the percentage of children in this country, or some other number. I didn't find it right away, so I gave up. I will hope that you agree with the premise that as a percentage, children are either about the same, or a smaller percentage of the population today, as people are surviving to older ages. The comparisons I made were by total population rather than by the number of children. I'll bet if we find numbers to factor in children that my numbers will show even a greater spending not only because people live longer, but family sizes are now smaller on the average.
WTF...
I was using your examples and the official OMB data.
Yes, I already agreed with you. Do you have a reason why it's "wrong" that we're spending more per child now than we did before? Or are you just looking at the lower 1960 number and saying, "We should be back at that number!" without looking at some of the reason why spending per child might be up?
Have you looked at that same argument used in other areas? For instance, our Defense Department is significantly smaller than it used to be personnel-wise. Are we spending more "per soldier" than we used to?
Where in my examples or the official OMB data is such a program listed?
What is the name of this imaginary program?
Are you going to answer the question or we have to take you at your word again?
He gave no examples of 18 year long federal childrens welfare programs. You claimed they exsited.
Try again.
LOL.... The reason... More people were responsible about having children back than, than now. Government programs have made it easier to have children when you can[t afford them. Except for responsibility, little else has change. we have family crises, deaths of a breadwinner, and many factors that can cause needs for safety nets. I remember the 60's. Do you? If the total amount spent of the total government charity via "other people's money" wasn't so blatantly has compared to past levels, i wouldn't care. However, it's about 25 times for total welfare programs than 1960. The data I calculated the 24 times went back to 1962. It is tables 4.1 and 4.2 from the OMB historical data.
I graphed that out last night at work. I would have to do it again at home as I cannot move data storage in and out of work without risk of losing my job. The line designated "Department of Defense--Military Programs" in table 4.2 maintained a long term level spending when adjusted for fixed 2005 dollars. It was higher during Viet Nam and the Gulf War, and ed even higher in recent years after 9/11. This is before being adjusted for population, which I didn't take the time for. Besides, our military doesn't need to grow as population does.Notes on Section 4 (Federal Government
Outlays by Agency)
Section 4 displays Federal Government outlays
(on- and off-budget) by agency. Table 4.1
shows the dollar amounts of such outlays, and
Table 4.2 shows the percentage distribution.
The outlays by agency are based on the agency
structure currently in effect. For example, the
Department of Homeland Security
was established
by legislation enacted in 2002. However,
these data show spending by the Department
of Homeland Security in previous years that
consists of spending attributable to predecessor
agencies in earlier years, but now attributable
to the Department of Homeland Security.
I think I linked the graph already, the one that only goes back to 1962... That's as far back as table 4.2 goes. It shows a decline of military spending over the years, but again, when set to constant 2005 dollars, overall average, it is flat. I made that graph June of last year.
edit add:
The military spending also increased during the Reagan years, and dropped when we won the Cold war. Forgot that one when I wrote the above.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-08-2012 at 04:04 PM.
I used your linked material you were using to argue with.Where in my examples or the official OMB data is such a program listed?
What is the name of this imaginary program?
Are you going to answer the question or we have to take you at your word again?
Did you read it? Now if you are talking about something other than the numbers you supplied, please tell me specifically what you want. We have discussed a few different examples.
WC, I'll respond to the rest later, just a quick note on this one:
I remember reading just recently that the Air Force, manpower wise, is smaller than it's been in decades. So there's a good chance that our "per soldier" cost is more than it was in the 60's.This is before being adjusted for population, which I didn't take the time for. Besides, our military doesn't need to grow as population does.
Agreed, considering the toys are more expensive, computerized, etc.
I'm probably not going to calculate a "per soldier cost." If you think that's relevant, then you can use the same data I am, and use historic soldier numbers.
The data I started to compile goes from 1962 to 2016, but 2011 on are estimated. I couldn't locate my original excel data, it;s lost in a directory somewhere, but don't know what the file date is or what I named it. I'm going to make it flexible to adjust with or without population and 2005 dollars. If you can find me clear data breaking down military and civilian DOD, or other figures, I may include them. However, the way agencies overlap, unless it is under the same federal lines as indicated in tables 4.1 and 4.2, it may not be accurate.
wc trying to put the slam dunk on poor children.
you better run your ass back over to that atheist thread.
And by the same token, it might be that social services for children cost more because of the same reasons.
If I work out some time, I'll try to do some for the Air Force for the past 30 or so years.
We're suppossed to spend more on kids nowadays. China is going to surpass us a the largest economy in the world this decade. That to go along with a incredibly amount of scientist and engineers being pushed to succeed by their govt.
You think our govt is wasteful and corrupt?? Just wait until the Chinese communist party starts exerting their will.
Old pieces of like WC are just content with giving children more debt instead.
yeah teachers unions suck
yeah we could spend the money better.
Most social warriors like this fool don't have the answers because they are fools themselves.
This thread is pointless
Where in my examples or the official OMB data is such a program listed?
What is the name of this imaginary program?
Are you going to answer the question or we have to take you at your word again?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
