Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (452675)	9/4/2003 4:22:12 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

There are exceptions to every rule of thumb, even the iron clad ones. Notwithstanding that, stealing less of people's money is not subsidizing their behavior.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (452675)	9/4/2003 4:25:23 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Actually, until very recently the tax exemption for children did not keep up with inflation. Birth rates are indeed a complex matter. Obviously, the baby boom after world war II and the subsequent baby bust caused large fluctuation in the U.S. birth rate. When the U.S. was an agrarian economy, children had economic value. They worked the farm, and in so doing helped the economic vitality of the family. As the U.S. moved into an industrial economy, a shift occurred and children were seen as less of an economic value. Raising children became costly, thus birth rates began to decline nationally. So, economics certainly played a large role in the U.S. birth rate.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (452675)	9/5/2003 5:55:49 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Welfare as Seen by Those Who Know By Ben J. Wattenberg Posted: Thursday, August 1, 1996 ON THE ISSUES AEI Online (Washington) Publication Date: August 1, 1996 A recent opinion survey of welfare recipients contains some surprising insights from those who know the system best. Does welfare encourage illegitimacy? Out of all the questions asked in the recent congressional debates on welfare reform, this may be the most crucial. After all, children in the households of never-married women are about eight times more likely to grow up beneath the poverty line. President Clinton has said that out-of-wedlock birth is our most serious domestic problem. He's right. About one out of every three children in America is born without a legal father. Only a few decades ago the rate was one out of 20. Illegitimacy is not only directly linked to poverty among children, but to crime, poor education, unemployment and second-generation welfare. How can the question be answered? By measuring what people think (via attitudinal survey research) or how they act (via statistically valid social science studies). As it happens, there is recent material from both realms, each suggesting a "yes" answer. (Yes, welfare encourages illegitimacy.) Now, there are times when it is silly to ask the public about their opinions. Questions like "Will China become a democracy?" lead directly to another one: "How would they know?" What about our question: "Does welfare encourage illegitimacy?" Answers from the general public might well be put aside. How would they know? But suppose the same question were asked of welfare recipients. If anyone would know about the matter from firsthand experience, these are the people who would. As it happens, the Public Agenda Foundation surveyed welfare recipients earlier this year. The following statement was read to respondents: "Welfare encourages teen-agers to have kids out of wedlock." Respondents were asked if they thought the problem was (1) "very serious," (2) "somewhat serious," (3) "not too serious," or (4) "not serious at all." Almost two-thirds (64 percent) of the welfare respondents said "very serious"! Remarkably, that was a somewhat higher score than was recorded by the general public (60 percent), blacks (59 percent), or whites (61 percent). Other tough statements in the poll showed a similar pattern of high "very serious" response by the public, with even higher rates by welfare recipients. For example: "The system undermines the work ethic and encourages people to be lazy" (57 percent of the public and 62 percent of welfare recipients) and "People cheat and commit fraud to get welfare benefits" (64 percent of the general public and 67 percent of welfare recipients). This is no conservative put-up job. The guiding spirit of the Public Agenda Foundation is the distinguished social scientist and survey researcher Daniel Yankelovich. "Moderate" or "moderate liberal" would be his most appropriate appellation. And among the grant-givers for the study was the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, whose general position would seem to be somewhere in the realm of "very liberal," "extremely liberal," and "you've got to be kidding." There is meat for liberals in the study as well. Solid majorities of both the public and welfare recipients favor "child care while mothers on welfare work or go to school" and "requiring enrollment in job training and education programs." The public has spoken. But what do social scientists say about the matter? Surprise! Liberal social scientists have said no, welfare does not encourage illegitimacy. Conservative researchers have said yes, it does too. So the National Academy of Sciences sponsored new research. An important paper by Professor Mark Rosenzweig, chairman of the Economics Department at the University of Pennsylvania, shows a clear correlation: Among young poor women, a 10 percent rise in cash welfare benefits yields a 12 percent rise in illegitimate births. Mr. Rosenzweig says it would work in reverse as well: a cut in benefits would reduce illegitimacy. Some other recent studies confirm the general direction of Mr. Rosenzweig's study. That academic argument goes on. But who knows best, the politicized scholars or those who ended up ensnared in the welfare trap? Asking the question answers it. Ben J. Wattenberg is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of Values Matter Most (Free Press, 1995).