On 2/24/2024 12:00 AM, John B. wrote:
> ... charity payments (which make up more then
> 50% of the U.S. National Budget...

? You must be using a VERY loose definition of "charity payments."

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/24/2024 11:52 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/24/2024 12:00 AM, John B. wrote:
>> ... charity payments (which make up more then
>> 50% of the U.S. National Budget...
>
> ? You must be using a VERY loose definition of "charity
> payments."
>

Not a trivial thing to people who have become dependent on
the payments. Also not trivial to the minority of US
citizens who pay taxes. Also not trivial to the health of
the dollar and the impending fiscal catastrophe.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 12:52:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/24/2024 12:00 AM, John B. wrote:
>> ... charity payments (which make up more then
>> 50% of the U.S. National Budget...
>
>? You must be using a VERY loose definition of "charity payments."

Charity payments are supposed to be for people ho cannot support
themselves. More and more they're going to losers who simply don't
want to support themselves.

On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 08:01:42 -0500, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/23/2024 9:46 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 2/23/2024 4:35 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>> On 2/23/2024 5:07 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 07:52:25 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/22/2024 6:05 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 09:03:18 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/22/2024 8:51 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2024 7:15 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 10:52 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 10:40:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 9:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:40 AM, zen cycle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> True, but the false narrative that the US government is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> paying women
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to have babies and paying them more if adult mares are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> kicked out of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the home is really, really, fucking stupid, but par for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dumbass
>>>>>>>>>>>>> course.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Moynihan raised that alarm in the 1960s:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/moynihan-report-1965/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> but no one listened and it hasn't gotten any better
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://singlemotherguide.com/state/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, aid exists. You haven't presented information proving
>>>>>>>>>>> women are
>>>>>>>>>>> having babies and kicking out fathers for economic gain.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I know or have known several single mothers, a couple who did
>>>>>>>>>>> divorce
>>>>>>>>>>> abusive husbands. Are you suggesting that a woman should stay
>>>>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>>>> marriage and endure frequent beatings so your taxes are lower?
>>>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Another Krygowski strawman...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <eyeroll>
>>>>>>>>> Another floriduh dumbass demonstration of willful ignorance. The
>>>>>>>>> strawman is "the USA has had a government policy of paying women
>>>>>>>>> to have babies and paying them more if the kick any adult males
>>>>>>>>> out of
>>>>>>>>> their home. "
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What is "Straw Man" and Why Do Narcissists Use It?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <snipped-cut-n-paste>
>>>>>>>>> <eyeroll>
>>>>>>>>> ye another dumbass cut-n-paste he clearly doesn't understand
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Overview:
>>>>>>>> https://www.vox.com/2016/6/20/11789988/clintons-welfare-reform
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   From your link:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "But the program really did have deep problems. The three most common
>>>>>>> criticisms made of AFDC were:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1.    It caused poor adults who could work to not work.
>>>>>>> 2.    It caused dependency; rather than using it as a temporary
>>>>>>> safety
>>>>>>> net, some people embraced it as a way of life.
>>>>>>> 3.    It encouraged having children out of wedlock and discouraged
>>>>>>> marriage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The first of these claims was definitely true, the second was kind of
>>>>>>> true, and the last might have been true but the effect was very, very
>>>>>>> small."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Still no evidence that the program was a "policy of paying women
>>>>>>> to have
>>>>>>> babies and paying them more if the kick any adult males out of
>>>>>>> their home. "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Err   You don't know about the benefits for "single parent birth"?
>>>>>> > It's been paid for quite a number of years now
>>>>>
>>>>> Which isn't "a government policy of paying women to have babies "
>>>>>
>>>>>> and I believe that
>>>>>> single parent births now account for about 40% of all U.S. births,
>>>>>
>>>>> Which has nothing to do with this discussion, and certainly isn't any
>>>>> evidence that "the USA has had a government policy of paying women to
>>>>> have babies "
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well... if they have the baby they get paid and if they don't have the
>>>> baby they don't get paid...
>>>
>>> I shouldn't be surprised that someone who hasn't lived in the US for
>>> 40+ years has sch a myopic understanding of the situation.
>>>
>>> There is no government policy of paying women to have babies.
>>
>> A semantic difference. You are both correct.
>
>Nope, you and john claim the policy states women are getting paid to
>have babies, they are, there is no such policy
>
>>
>> Mr Slocumb described the actual policy while you set up a strawman and
>> then knocked it over.
>
>bullshit. What he posted in no way supports the strawman "the USA has
>had a government policy of paying women to have babies "
>
>To make it clear - the strawman here is "the USA has had a government
>policy of paying women to have babies ". I didn't set that up, you did.
>I did knock it down, all it took was a noting a simple fact - the USA
>does not and never did have a government policy of paying women to have
>babies.
>
>"the USA has had a government policy of paying women to have babies" is
>your trope, not mine.

As reality is that an unmarried woman who gives birth can receive
federal and or state funds, referred to as "aid to unwed mother's",
while an unmarried woman who does not give birth gets nothing, and
this has been going on since the '1930's must lead to one or another
conclusions. (1) The Mass Fool, really is a Fool, or (2) he is dumber
then Adam's off Ox.... Or (3), he is simply a liar.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 08:03:54 -0500, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/24/2024 12:00 AM, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 20:46:32 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/23/2024 4:35 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/2024 5:07 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 07:52:25 -0500, Zen Cycle
>>>>> <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/22/2024 6:05 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 09:03:18 -0500, Zen Cycle
>>>>>>> <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2024 8:51 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2024 7:15 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 10:52 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 10:40:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 9:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:40 AM, zen cycle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True, but the false narrative that the US
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government is paying women
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to have babies and paying them more if adult
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mares are kicked out of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the home is really, really, fucking stupid, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> par for the dumbass
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Moynihan raised that alarm in the 1960s:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/moynihan-report-1965/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but no one listened and it hasn't gotten any better
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://singlemotherguide.com/state/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, aid exists. You haven't presented information
>>>>>>>>>>>> proving women are
>>>>>>>>>>>> having babies and kicking out fathers for economic
>>>>>>>>>>>> gain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I know or have known several single mothers, a
>>>>>>>>>>>> couple who did divorce
>>>>>>>>>>>> abusive husbands. Are you suggesting that a woman
>>>>>>>>>>>> should stay in a
>>>>>>>>>>>> marriage and endure frequent beatings so your taxes
>>>>>>>>>>>> are lower? Really?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Another Krygowski strawman...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <eyeroll>
>>>>>>>>>> Another floriduh dumbass demonstration of willful
>>>>>>>>>> ignorance. The
>>>>>>>>>> strawman is "the USA has had a government policy of
>>>>>>>>>> paying women
>>>>>>>>>> to have babies and paying them more if the kick any
>>>>>>>>>> adult males out of
>>>>>>>>>> their home. "
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What is "Straw Man" and Why Do Narcissists Use It?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <snipped-cut-n-paste>
>>>>>>>>>> <eyeroll>
>>>>>>>>>> ye another dumbass cut-n-paste he clearly doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Overview:
>>>>>>>>> https://www.vox.com/2016/6/20/11789988/clintons-welfare-reform
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   From your link:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "But the program really did have deep problems. The
>>>>>>>> three most common
>>>>>>>> criticisms made of AFDC were:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1.    It caused poor adults who could work to not work.
>>>>>>>> 2.    It caused dependency; rather than using it as a
>>>>>>>> temporary safety
>>>>>>>> net, some people embraced it as a way of life.
>>>>>>>> 3.    It encouraged having children out of wedlock and
>>>>>>>> discouraged marriage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The first of these claims was definitely true, the
>>>>>>>> second was kind of
>>>>>>>> true, and the last might have been true but the effect
>>>>>>>> was very, very
>>>>>>>> small."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Still no evidence that the program was a "policy of
>>>>>>>> paying women to have
>>>>>>>> babies and paying them more if the kick any adult males
>>>>>>>> out of their home. "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Err   You don't know about the benefits for "single
>>>>>>> parent birth"? > It's been paid for quite a number of
>>>>>>> years now
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which isn't "a government policy of paying women to have
>>>>>> babies "
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and I believe that
>>>>>>> single parent births now account for about 40% of all
>>>>>>> U.S. births,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which has nothing to do with this discussion, and
>>>>>> certainly isn't any
>>>>>> evidence that "the USA has had a government policy of
>>>>>> paying women to
>>>>>> have babies "
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well... if they have the baby they get paid and if they
>>>>> don't have the
>>>>> baby they don't get paid...
>>>>
>>>> I shouldn't be surprised that someone who hasn't lived in
>>>> the US for 40+ years has sch a myopic understanding of the
>>>> situation.
>>>>
>>>> There is no government policy of paying women to have babies.
>>>
>>> A semantic difference. You are both correct.
>>>
>>> Mr Slocumb described the actual policy while you set up a
>>> strawman and then knocked it over.
>>
>> :-) You don't have to live in a country to see the results of their policies.
>>
>> Example: Because non citizens are forbidden to work in Thailand
>> without special documentation, and taxes, unemployment is in the less
>> then 1% range. Because essentially everyone is employed there are,
>> essentially, no government charity payments (which make up more then
>> 50% of the U.S. National Budget). Because there is far less handed
>> out, far less is required to be handed in. Thus personal and business
>> taxes are far, far, lower, and thus cost of doing business is lower.
>>
>> And, as businesses are far cheaper to start, more are started and thus
>> more jobs are created. And round and round it goes :-)
>
>wow, you claim one doesn't need to live in a country to understand
>results of their polcies, then you use an example of the country you
>live in? That's some floriduh dumbass "logic" right there...

On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 12:26:05 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 2/24/2024 11:52 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 2/24/2024 12:00 AM, John B. wrote:
>>> ... charity payments (which make up more then
>>> 50% of the U.S. National Budget...
>>
>> ? You must be using a VERY loose definition of "charity
>> payments."
>>
>
>Not a trivial thing to people who have become dependent on
>the payments. Also not trivial to the minority of US
>citizens who pay taxes. Also not trivial to the health of
>the dollar and the impending fiscal catastrophe.

I wonder what Frankie calls it when the government hands out money to
people that don't work for it?

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 2/24/2024 5:59 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 12:26:05 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2/24/2024 11:52 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2024 12:00 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>> ... charity payments (which make up more then
>>>> 50% of the U.S. National Budget...
>>>
>>> ? You must be using a VERY loose definition of "charity
>>> payments."
>>>
>>
>> Not a trivial thing to people who have become dependent on
>> the payments. Also not trivial to the minority of US
>> citizens who pay taxes. Also not trivial to the health of
>> the dollar and the impending fiscal catastrophe.
>
> I wonder what Frankie calls it when the government hands out money to
> people that don't work for it?

I wonder what you're labeling "charity" in the federal government.
Please give a list.

As one example, I get a social security check. I worked for it.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/24/2024 5:56 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 08:03:54 -0500, zen cycle
> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/24/2024 12:00 AM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 20:46:32 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/23/2024 4:35 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>> On 2/23/2024 5:07 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 07:52:25 -0500, Zen Cycle
>>>>>> <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/22/2024 6:05 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 09:03:18 -0500, Zen Cycle
>>>>>>>> <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2024 8:51 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2024 7:15 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 10:52 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 10:40:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 9:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:40 AM, zen cycle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True, but the false narrative that the US
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government is paying women
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to have babies and paying them more if adult
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mares are kicked out of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the home is really, really, fucking stupid, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> par for the dumbass
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Moynihan raised that alarm in the 1960s:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/moynihan-report-1965/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but no one listened and it hasn't gotten any better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://singlemotherguide.com/state/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, aid exists. You haven't presented information
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proving women are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> having babies and kicking out fathers for economic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> gain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know or have known several single mothers, a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple who did divorce
>>>>>>>>>>>>> abusive husbands. Are you suggesting that a woman
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should stay in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> marriage and endure frequent beatings so your taxes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are lower? Really?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Another Krygowski strawman...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <eyeroll>
>>>>>>>>>>> Another floriduh dumbass demonstration of willful
>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance. The
>>>>>>>>>>> strawman is "the USA has had a government policy of
>>>>>>>>>>> paying women
>>>>>>>>>>> to have babies and paying them more if the kick any
>>>>>>>>>>> adult males out of
>>>>>>>>>>> their home. "
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What is "Straw Man" and Why Do Narcissists Use It?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <snipped-cut-n-paste>
>>>>>>>>>>> <eyeroll>
>>>>>>>>>>> ye another dumbass cut-n-paste he clearly doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Overview:
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.vox.com/2016/6/20/11789988/clintons-welfare-reform
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   From your link:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "But the program really did have deep problems. The
>>>>>>>>> three most common
>>>>>>>>> criticisms made of AFDC were:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1.    It caused poor adults who could work to not work.
>>>>>>>>> 2.    It caused dependency; rather than using it as a
>>>>>>>>> temporary safety
>>>>>>>>> net, some people embraced it as a way of life.
>>>>>>>>> 3.    It encouraged having children out of wedlock and
>>>>>>>>> discouraged marriage.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The first of these claims was definitely true, the
>>>>>>>>> second was kind of
>>>>>>>>> true, and the last might have been true but the effect
>>>>>>>>> was very, very
>>>>>>>>> small."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Still no evidence that the program was a "policy of
>>>>>>>>> paying women to have
>>>>>>>>> babies and paying them more if the kick any adult males
>>>>>>>>> out of their home. "
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Err   You don't know about the benefits for "single
>>>>>>>> parent birth"? > It's been paid for quite a number of
>>>>>>>> years now
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which isn't "a government policy of paying women to have
>>>>>>> babies "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and I believe that
>>>>>>>> single parent births now account for about 40% of all
>>>>>>>> U.S. births,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which has nothing to do with this discussion, and
>>>>>>> certainly isn't any
>>>>>>> evidence that "the USA has had a government policy of
>>>>>>> paying women to
>>>>>>> have babies "
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well... if they have the baby they get paid and if they
>>>>>> don't have the
>>>>>> baby they don't get paid...
>>>>>
>>>>> I shouldn't be surprised that someone who hasn't lived in
>>>>> the US for 40+ years has sch a myopic understanding of the
>>>>> situation.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no government policy of paying women to have babies.
>>>>
>>>> A semantic difference. You are both correct.
>>>>
>>>> Mr Slocumb described the actual policy while you set up a
>>>> strawman and then knocked it over.
>>>
>>> :-) You don't have to live in a country to see the results of their policies.
>>>
>>> Example: Because non citizens are forbidden to work in Thailand
>>> without special documentation, and taxes, unemployment is in the less
>>> then 1% range. Because essentially everyone is employed there are,
>>> essentially, no government charity payments (which make up more then
>>> 50% of the U.S. National Budget). Because there is far less handed
>>> out, far less is required to be handed in. Thus personal and business
>>> taxes are far, far, lower, and thus cost of doing business is lower.
>>>
>>> And, as businesses are far cheaper to start, more are started and thus
>>> more jobs are created. And round and round it goes :-)
>>
>> wow, you claim one doesn't need to live in a country to understand
>> results of their polcies, then you use an example of the country you
>> live in? That's some floriduh dumbass "logic" right there...
>
> Lets see..., I state that "You don't have to live in a country to see
> the results of their policies". I then use as an example a country
> that you don't live in as an example.... and you miss the beat.

On 2/24/2024 5:48 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 08:01:42 -0500, zen cycle
> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/23/2024 9:46 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 2/23/2024 4:35 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/2024 5:07 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 07:52:25 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/22/2024 6:05 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 09:03:18 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2024 8:51 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2024 7:15 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 10:52 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 10:40:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 9:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:40 AM, zen cycle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True, but the false narrative that the US government is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paying women
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to have babies and paying them more if adult mares are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kicked out of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the home is really, really, fucking stupid, but par for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dumbass
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Moynihan raised that alarm in the 1960s:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/moynihan-report-1965/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but no one listened and it hasn't gotten any better
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://singlemotherguide.com/state/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, aid exists. You haven't presented information proving
>>>>>>>>>>>> women are
>>>>>>>>>>>> having babies and kicking out fathers for economic gain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I know or have known several single mothers, a couple who did
>>>>>>>>>>>> divorce
>>>>>>>>>>>> abusive husbands. Are you suggesting that a woman should stay
>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>>>>> marriage and endure frequent beatings so your taxes are lower?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Another Krygowski strawman...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <eyeroll>
>>>>>>>>>> Another floriduh dumbass demonstration of willful ignorance. The
>>>>>>>>>> strawman is "the USA has had a government policy of paying women
>>>>>>>>>> to have babies and paying them more if the kick any adult males
>>>>>>>>>> out of
>>>>>>>>>> their home. "
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What is "Straw Man" and Why Do Narcissists Use It?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <snipped-cut-n-paste>
>>>>>>>>>> <eyeroll>
>>>>>>>>>> ye another dumbass cut-n-paste he clearly doesn't understand
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Overview:
>>>>>>>>> https://www.vox.com/2016/6/20/11789988/clintons-welfare-reform
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   From your link:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "But the program really did have deep problems. The three most common
>>>>>>>> criticisms made of AFDC were:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1.    It caused poor adults who could work to not work.
>>>>>>>> 2.    It caused dependency; rather than using it as a temporary
>>>>>>>> safety
>>>>>>>> net, some people embraced it as a way of life.
>>>>>>>> 3.    It encouraged having children out of wedlock and discouraged
>>>>>>>> marriage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The first of these claims was definitely true, the second was kind of
>>>>>>>> true, and the last might have been true but the effect was very, very
>>>>>>>> small."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Still no evidence that the program was a "policy of paying women
>>>>>>>> to have
>>>>>>>> babies and paying them more if the kick any adult males out of
>>>>>>>> their home. "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Err   You don't know about the benefits for "single parent birth"?
>>>>>>>> It's been paid for quite a number of years now
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which isn't "a government policy of paying women to have babies "
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and I believe that
>>>>>>> single parent births now account for about 40% of all U.S. births,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which has nothing to do with this discussion, and certainly isn't any
>>>>>> evidence that "the USA has had a government policy of paying women to
>>>>>> have babies "
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well... if they have the baby they get paid and if they don't have the
>>>>> baby they don't get paid...
>>>>
>>>> I shouldn't be surprised that someone who hasn't lived in the US for
>>>> 40+ years has sch a myopic understanding of the situation.
>>>>
>>>> There is no government policy of paying women to have babies.
>>>
>>> A semantic difference. You are both correct.
>>
>> Nope, you and john claim the policy states women are getting paid to
>> have babies, they are, there is no such policy
>>
>>>
>>> Mr Slocumb described the actual policy while you set up a strawman and
>>> then knocked it over.
>>
>> bullshit. What he posted in no way supports the strawman "the USA has
>> had a government policy of paying women to have babies "
>>
>> To make it clear - the strawman here is "the USA has had a government
>> policy of paying women to have babies ". I didn't set that up, you did.
>> I did knock it down, all it took was a noting a simple fact - the USA
>> does not and never did have a government policy of paying women to have
>> babies.
>>
>> "the USA has had a government policy of paying women to have babies" is
>> your trope, not mine.
>
> As reality is that an unmarried woman who gives birth can receive
> federal and or state funds, referred to as "aid to unwed mother's",
> while an unmarried woman who does not give birth gets nothing, and
> this has been going on since the '1930's must lead to one or another
> conclusions. (1) The Mass Fool, really is a Fool, or (2) he is dumber
> then Adam's off Ox.... Or (3), he is simply a liar.

lol...johnny-boy is still unclear on the policy of welfare in the US -
again, not surprising. Single childless women can indeed qualify for
benefits, including but not limited to food stamps, social welfare, and
housing assistance. They may get _more_ money of they have children, but
"an unmarried woman who does not give birth gets nothing" is completely
wrong.

On 2/24/2024 1:45 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 12:52:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2/24/2024 12:00 AM, John B. wrote:
>>> ... charity payments (which make up more then
>>> 50% of the U.S. National Budget...
>>
>> ? You must be using a VERY loose definition of "charity payments."
>
> Charity payments are supposed to be for people ho cannot support
> themselves. More and more they're going to losers who simply don't
> want to support themselves.

While that's true, and especially so for SSDI [1], [2]:
https://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/

the real dollars are in 'middle class entitlements' which
are both fiscally imprudent and also wildly popular,
politically. There is no obvious or feasible solution and
the trend is growing not ameliorating.

[1] SSDI is not funded through the Social Security scheme
but it is administered by the SSA. Funds are from general
revenues not payroll withholding (which is now not even
sufficient for SS payments).

[2]Once a small program for amputees, the blind and so forth
(a very popular and reasonable solution), the huge growth is
in fake medical, psychological or cultural disability. The
incentive is that unlike any other program, a disability
ruling is forever; there is no review for changed
circumstances. That made sense for amputees; maybe not so
much for malingerers.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 2/24/2024 4:48 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 08:01:42 -0500, zen cycle
> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/23/2024 9:46 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 2/23/2024 4:35 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/2024 5:07 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 07:52:25 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/22/2024 6:05 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 09:03:18 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2024 8:51 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2024 7:15 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 10:52 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 10:40:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 9:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:40 AM, zen cycle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True, but the false narrative that the US government is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paying women
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to have babies and paying them more if adult mares are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kicked out of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the home is really, really, fucking stupid, but par for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dumbass
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Moynihan raised that alarm in the 1960s:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/moynihan-report-1965/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but no one listened and it hasn't gotten any better
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://singlemotherguide.com/state/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, aid exists. You haven't presented information proving
>>>>>>>>>>>> women are
>>>>>>>>>>>> having babies and kicking out fathers for economic gain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I know or have known several single mothers, a couple who did
>>>>>>>>>>>> divorce
>>>>>>>>>>>> abusive husbands. Are you suggesting that a woman should stay
>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>>>>> marriage and endure frequent beatings so your taxes are lower?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Another Krygowski strawman...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <eyeroll>
>>>>>>>>>> Another floriduh dumbass demonstration of willful ignorance. The
>>>>>>>>>> strawman is "the USA has had a government policy of paying women
>>>>>>>>>> to have babies and paying them more if the kick any adult males
>>>>>>>>>> out of
>>>>>>>>>> their home. "
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What is "Straw Man" and Why Do Narcissists Use It?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <snipped-cut-n-paste>
>>>>>>>>>> <eyeroll>
>>>>>>>>>> ye another dumbass cut-n-paste he clearly doesn't understand
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Overview:
>>>>>>>>> https://www.vox.com/2016/6/20/11789988/clintons-welfare-reform
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   From your link:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "But the program really did have deep problems. The three most common
>>>>>>>> criticisms made of AFDC were:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1.    It caused poor adults who could work to not work.
>>>>>>>> 2.    It caused dependency; rather than using it as a temporary
>>>>>>>> safety
>>>>>>>> net, some people embraced it as a way of life.
>>>>>>>> 3.    It encouraged having children out of wedlock and discouraged
>>>>>>>> marriage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The first of these claims was definitely true, the second was kind of
>>>>>>>> true, and the last might have been true but the effect was very, very
>>>>>>>> small."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Still no evidence that the program was a "policy of paying women
>>>>>>>> to have
>>>>>>>> babies and paying them more if the kick any adult males out of
>>>>>>>> their home. "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Err   You don't know about the benefits for "single parent birth"?
>>>>>>>> It's been paid for quite a number of years now
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which isn't "a government policy of paying women to have babies "
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and I believe that
>>>>>>> single parent births now account for about 40% of all U.S. births,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which has nothing to do with this discussion, and certainly isn't any
>>>>>> evidence that "the USA has had a government policy of paying women to
>>>>>> have babies "
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well... if they have the baby they get paid and if they don't have the
>>>>> baby they don't get paid...
>>>>
>>>> I shouldn't be surprised that someone who hasn't lived in the US for
>>>> 40+ years has sch a myopic understanding of the situation.
>>>>
>>>> There is no government policy of paying women to have babies.
>>>
>>> A semantic difference. You are both correct.
>>
>> Nope, you and john claim the policy states women are getting paid to
>> have babies, they are, there is no such policy
>>
>>>
>>> Mr Slocumb described the actual policy while you set up a strawman and
>>> then knocked it over.
>>
>> bullshit. What he posted in no way supports the strawman "the USA has
>> had a government policy of paying women to have babies "
>>
>> To make it clear - the strawman here is "the USA has had a government
>> policy of paying women to have babies ". I didn't set that up, you did.
>> I did knock it down, all it took was a noting a simple fact - the USA
>> does not and never did have a government policy of paying women to have
>> babies.
>>
>> "the USA has had a government policy of paying women to have babies" is
>> your trope, not mine.
>
> As reality is that an unmarried woman who gives birth can receive
> federal and or state funds, referred to as "aid to unwed mother's",
> while an unmarried woman who does not give birth gets nothing, and
> this has been going on since the '1930's must lead to one or another
> conclusions. (1) The Mass Fool, really is a Fool, or (2) he is dumber
> then Adam's off Ox.... Or (3), he is simply a liar.

It's semantic.
Mr Funk is correct that an explicit conditional contract
offer 'If you get pregnant we will pay you' is not made, but
rather you are correct that once pregnant the funds appear.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 2/24/2024 7:50 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/24/2024 5:59 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 12:26:05 -0600, AMuzi
>> <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/24/2024 11:52 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2024 12:00 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> ... charity payments (which make up more then
>>>>> 50% of the U.S. National Budget...
>>>>
>>>> ? You must be using a VERY loose definition of "charity
>>>> payments."
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not a trivial thing to people who have become dependent on
>>> the payments. Also not trivial to the minority of US
>>> citizens who pay taxes. Also not trivial to the health of
>>> the dollar and the impending fiscal catastrophe.
>>
>> I wonder what Frankie calls it when the government hands
>> out money to
>> people that don't work for it?
>
> I wonder what you're labeling "charity" in the federal
> government. Please give a list.
>
> As one example, I get a social security check. I worked for it.
>

I'm not making a personal argument, and you paid as much as
anyone.[1]

But SS withholding doesn't cover SS payments. This has been
true for years and moreso of late.

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/trust-funds-summary.html

Basically the 'trust fund'[2] is liquidating as the result
of decades of expansion of payout criteria with insufficient
withholding increases (one notable exception in the mid-1980s).

[1] If we're crying and moaning about what we paid, I picked
up the employer half for 40~50 people per year for 40 years.
I did not make an SS claim myself. YMMV; it's a personal
decision.

[2] an accounting fiction but a useful fiction as it's so
far functional; This will end see note above.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 2/25/2024 11:25 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> It's semantic.
> Mr Funk is correct that an explicit conditional contract offer 'If you
> get pregnant we will pay you' is not made, but rather you are correct
> that once pregnant the funds appear.

As usual, I wonder how the issue is handled in other countries.

I think it's much, much better for kids to have two married parents. But
"She's not married. Let the baby starve" seems harsh.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/25/2024 1:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/25/2024 11:25 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>
>> It's semantic.
>> Mr Funk is correct that an explicit conditional contract
>> offer 'If you get pregnant we will pay you' is not made,
>> but rather you are correct that once pregnant the funds
>> appear.
>
> As usual, I wonder how the issue is handled in other countries.
>
> I think it's much, much better for kids to have two married
> parents. But "She's not married. Let the baby starve" seems
> harsh.
>

IIRC no one here made any statements of advocacy one way or
another. We've just described the situation as it is (with
perception variance)

--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sun Feb 25 14:57:10 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/25/2024 11:25 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >
> > It's semantic.
> > Mr Funk is correct that an explicit conditional contract offer 'If you
> > get pregnant we will pay you' is not made, but rather you are correct
> > that once pregnant the funds appear.
>
> As usual, I wonder how the issue is handled in other countries.
>
> I think it's much, much better for kids to have two married parents. But
> "She's not married. Let the baby starve" seems harsh.
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski
>

So according to Frank, the US is incompetent and you can ONLY discover the correct way to do things by referring to other countries. This is yet another demonstration of the illness of Frank.

On Fri Feb 23 17:35:27 2024 Zen Cycle wrote:
> On 2/23/2024 5:07 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 07:52:25 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/22/2024 6:05 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 09:03:18 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2/22/2024 8:51 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>> On 2/22/2024 7:15 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2/21/2024 10:52 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 10:40:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 9:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:40 AM, zen cycle wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> True, but the false narrative that the US government is paying women
> >>>>>>>>>> to have babies and paying them more if adult mares are kicked out of
> >>>>>>>>>> the home is really, really, fucking stupid, but par for the dumbass
> >>>>>>>>>> course.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Daniel Moynihan raised that alarm in the 1960s:
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/moynihan-report-1965/
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> but no one listened and it hasn't gotten any better
> >>>>>>>>> https://singlemotherguide.com/state/
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yes, aid exists. You haven't presented information proving women are
> >>>>>>>> having babies and kicking out fathers for economic gain.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I know or have known several single mothers, a couple who did divorce
> >>>>>>>> abusive husbands. Are you suggesting that a woman should stay in a
> >>>>>>>> marriage and endure frequent beatings so your taxes are lower? Really?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Another Krygowski strawman...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <eyeroll>
> >>>>>> Another floriduh dumbass demonstration of willful ignorance. The
> >>>>>> strawman is "the USA has had a government policy of paying women
> >>>>>> to have babies and paying them more if the kick any adult males out of
> >>>>>> their home. "
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What is "Straw Man" and Why Do Narcissists Use It?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> <snipped-cut-n-paste>
> >>>>>> <eyeroll>
> >>>>>> ye another dumbass cut-n-paste he clearly doesn't understand
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Overview:
> >>>>> https://www.vox.com/2016/6/20/11789988/clintons-welfare-reform
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> From your link:
> >>>>
> >>>> "But the program really did have deep problems. The three most common
> >>>> criticisms made of AFDC were:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. It caused poor adults who could work to not work.
> >>>> 2. It caused dependency; rather than using it as a temporary safety
> >>>> net, some people embraced it as a way of life.
> >>>> 3. It encouraged having children out of wedlock and discouraged marriage.
> >>>>
> >>>> The first of these claims was definitely true, the second was kind of
> >>>> true, and the last might have been true but the effect was very, very
> >>>> small."
> >>>>
> >>>> Still no evidence that the program was a "policy of paying women to have
> >>>> babies and paying them more if the kick any adult males out of their home. "
> >>>
> >>> Err You don't know about the benefits for "single parent birth"? > It's been paid for quite a number of years now
> >>
> >> Which isn't "a government policy of paying women to have babies "
> >>
> >>> and I believe that
> >>> single parent births now account for about 40% of all U.S. births,
> >>
> >> Which has nothing to do with this discussion, and certainly isn't any
> >> evidence that "the USA has had a government policy of paying women to
> >> have babies "
> >
> >
> > Well... if they have the baby they get paid and if they don't have the
> > baby they don't get paid...
>
> I shouldn't be surprised that someone who hasn't lived in the US for 40+
> years has sch a myopic understanding of the situation.
>
> There is no government policy of paying women to have babies.
> --
> Add xx to reply
>

Isn't that sort of backwards? Women who DO have babies cannot receive welfare if there is a working man in the house. Where did you get the idea that women were being paid to have babies? The EFFECT is the same but the actual policy is entirely different.

On 2/25/2024 3:30 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Fri Feb 23 17:35:27 2024 Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 2/23/2024 5:07 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 07:52:25 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/22/2024 6:05 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 09:03:18 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/22/2024 8:51 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/22/2024 7:15 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 10:52 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 10:40:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 9:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:40 AM, zen cycle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> True, but the false narrative that the US government is paying women
>>>>>>>>>>>> to have babies and paying them more if adult mares are kicked out of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the home is really, really, fucking stupid, but par for the dumbass
>>>>>>>>>>>> course.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Moynihan raised that alarm in the 1960s:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/moynihan-report-1965/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> but no one listened and it hasn't gotten any better
>>>>>>>>>>> https://singlemotherguide.com/state/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, aid exists. You haven't presented information proving women are
>>>>>>>>>> having babies and kicking out fathers for economic gain.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I know or have known several single mothers, a couple who did divorce
>>>>>>>>>> abusive husbands. Are you suggesting that a woman should stay in a
>>>>>>>>>> marriage and endure frequent beatings so your taxes are lower? Really?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Another Krygowski strawman...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <eyeroll>
>>>>>>>> Another floriduh dumbass demonstration of willful ignorance. The
>>>>>>>> strawman is "the USA has had a government policy of paying women
>>>>>>>> to have babies and paying them more if the kick any adult males out of
>>>>>>>> their home. "
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What is "Straw Man" and Why Do Narcissists Use It?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <snipped-cut-n-paste>
>>>>>>>> <eyeroll>
>>>>>>>> ye another dumbass cut-n-paste he clearly doesn't understand
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Overview:
>>>>>>> https://www.vox.com/2016/6/20/11789988/clintons-welfare-reform
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From your link:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "But the program really did have deep problems. The three most common
>>>>>> criticisms made of AFDC were:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. It caused poor adults who could work to not work.
>>>>>> 2. It caused dependency; rather than using it as a temporary safety
>>>>>> net, some people embraced it as a way of life.
>>>>>> 3. It encouraged having children out of wedlock and discouraged marriage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The first of these claims was definitely true, the second was kind of
>>>>>> true, and the last might have been true but the effect was very, very
>>>>>> small."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still no evidence that the program was a "policy of paying women to have
>>>>>> babies and paying them more if the kick any adult males out of their home. "
>>>>>
>>>>> Err You don't know about the benefits for "single parent birth"? > It's been paid for quite a number of years now
>>>>
>>>> Which isn't "a government policy of paying women to have babies "
>>>>
>>>>> and I believe that
>>>>> single parent births now account for about 40% of all U.S. births,
>>>>
>>>> Which has nothing to do with this discussion, and certainly isn't any
>>>> evidence that "the USA has had a government policy of paying women to
>>>> have babies "
>>>
>>>
>>> Well... if they have the baby they get paid and if they don't have the
>>> baby they don't get paid...
>>
>> I shouldn't be surprised that someone who hasn't lived in the US for 40+
>> years has sch a myopic understanding of the situation.
>>
>> There is no government policy of paying women to have babies.
>> --
>> Add xx to reply
>>
>
>
>
>
> Isn't that sort of backwards? Women who DO have babies cannot receive welfare if there is a working man in the house. Where did you get the idea that women were being paid to have babies? The EFFECT is the same but the actual policy is entirely different.

Although that was the position (no male in household) in the
1960s and 1970s I don't know that to be the case today. I
very much doubt it remains.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 06:56:20 -0500, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/24/2024 5:56 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 08:03:54 -0500, zen cycle
>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/24/2024 12:00 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 20:46:32 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/23/2024 4:35 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 5:07 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 07:52:25 -0500, Zen Cycle
>>>>>>> <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2024 6:05 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 09:03:18 -0500, Zen Cycle
>>>>>>>>> <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2024 8:51 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2024 7:15 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 10:52 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 10:40:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 9:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:40 AM, zen cycle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True, but the false narrative that the US
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government is paying women
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to have babies and paying them more if adult
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mares are kicked out of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the home is really, really, fucking stupid, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> par for the dumbass
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Moynihan raised that alarm in the 1960s:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/moynihan-report-1965/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but no one listened and it hasn't gotten any better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://singlemotherguide.com/state/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, aid exists. You haven't presented information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proving women are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having babies and kicking out fathers for economic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know or have known several single mothers, a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple who did divorce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abusive husbands. Are you suggesting that a woman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should stay in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> marriage and endure frequent beatings so your taxes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are lower? Really?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another Krygowski strawman...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <eyeroll>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Another floriduh dumbass demonstration of willful
>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance. The
>>>>>>>>>>>> strawman is "the USA has had a government policy of
>>>>>>>>>>>> paying women
>>>>>>>>>>>> to have babies and paying them more if the kick any
>>>>>>>>>>>> adult males out of
>>>>>>>>>>>> their home. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is "Straw Man" and Why Do Narcissists Use It?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <snipped-cut-n-paste>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <eyeroll>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ye another dumbass cut-n-paste he clearly doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Overview:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.vox.com/2016/6/20/11789988/clintons-welfare-reform
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   From your link:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "But the program really did have deep problems. The
>>>>>>>>>> three most common
>>>>>>>>>> criticisms made of AFDC were:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1.    It caused poor adults who could work to not work.
>>>>>>>>>> 2.    It caused dependency; rather than using it as a
>>>>>>>>>> temporary safety
>>>>>>>>>> net, some people embraced it as a way of life.
>>>>>>>>>> 3.    It encouraged having children out of wedlock and
>>>>>>>>>> discouraged marriage.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The first of these claims was definitely true, the
>>>>>>>>>> second was kind of
>>>>>>>>>> true, and the last might have been true but the effect
>>>>>>>>>> was very, very
>>>>>>>>>> small."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Still no evidence that the program was a "policy of
>>>>>>>>>> paying women to have
>>>>>>>>>> babies and paying them more if the kick any adult males
>>>>>>>>>> out of their home. "
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Err   You don't know about the benefits for "single
>>>>>>>>> parent birth"? > It's been paid for quite a number of
>>>>>>>>> years now
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which isn't "a government policy of paying women to have
>>>>>>>> babies "
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and I believe that
>>>>>>>>> single parent births now account for about 40% of all
>>>>>>>>> U.S. births,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which has nothing to do with this discussion, and
>>>>>>>> certainly isn't any
>>>>>>>> evidence that "the USA has had a government policy of
>>>>>>>> paying women to
>>>>>>>> have babies "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well... if they have the baby they get paid and if they
>>>>>>> don't have the
>>>>>>> baby they don't get paid...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I shouldn't be surprised that someone who hasn't lived in
>>>>>> the US for 40+ years has sch a myopic understanding of the
>>>>>> situation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no government policy of paying women to have babies.
>>>>>
>>>>> A semantic difference. You are both correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mr Slocumb described the actual policy while you set up a
>>>>> strawman and then knocked it over.
>>>>
>>>> :-) You don't have to live in a country to see the results of their policies.
>>>>
>>>> Example: Because non citizens are forbidden to work in Thailand
>>>> without special documentation, and taxes, unemployment is in the less
>>>> then 1% range. Because essentially everyone is employed there are,
>>>> essentially, no government charity payments (which make up more then
>>>> 50% of the U.S. National Budget). Because there is far less handed
>>>> out, far less is required to be handed in. Thus personal and business
>>>> taxes are far, far, lower, and thus cost of doing business is lower.
>>>>
>>>> And, as businesses are far cheaper to start, more are started and thus
>>>> more jobs are created. And round and round it goes :-)
>>>
>>> wow, you claim one doesn't need to live in a country to understand
>>> results of their polcies, then you use an example of the country you
>>> live in? That's some floriduh dumbass "logic" right there...
>>
>> Lets see..., I state that "You don't have to live in a country to see
>> the results of their policies". I then use as an example a country
>> that you don't live in as an example.... and you miss the beat.
>
>I have never claimed to have an in-depth understanding of the policies
>of countries - or even other states in the US - where I don't live. Your
>one-paragraph description of description of the relationship between
>Thai foreign worker policies, tax base, and cost of doing business is
>hardly an in-depth tutorial that one can glean an in-depth understanding
>from.
>
>>
>> If you are married ask your wife for help and is you aren't appeal to
>> the lady next door for help as you are too stupid to continue in this
>> line of conversation.
>>
>>
>> "Mass Stupid",indeed.
>
>I agree, "ask your wife for help and is you aren't appeal to
>the lady next door for help" is stupid indeed. Try reading you message
>before you hit send next time
>
>You have no understanding of the welfare system as it currently exists
>in the US, especially if you by into the straw man of 'the US has a
>policy to pay women to have babies'.
>

On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 10:25:41 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 2/24/2024 4:48 PM, John B. wrote:
>> As reality is that an unmarried woman who gives birth can receive
>> federal and or state funds, referred to as "aid to unwed mother's",
>> while an unmarried woman who does not give birth gets nothing, and
>> this has been going on since the '1930's must lead to one or another
>> conclusions. (1) The Mass Fool, really is a Fool, or (2) he is dumber
>> then Adam's off Ox.... Or (3), he is simply a liar.
>
>It's semantic.
>Mr Funk is correct that an explicit conditional contract
>offer 'If you get pregnant we will pay you' is not made, but
>rather you are correct that once pregnant the funds appear.

There's more.

1. The EMTALA law requires hospitals to treat anyone who enters the
hospital with an emergency without consideration of their ability to
pay. Just about any reason to be admitted to a hospital is considered
an emergency.

"Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA)"
<https://www.cms.gov/medicare/regulations-guidance/legislation/emergency-medical-treatment-labor-act>

"In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act
(EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of
ability to pay."

2. Anyone born in the US is automatically granted citizenship. This
is sufficiently beneficial that pregnant women will "visit" the US in
order to have the baby born in the US. Being able to do this without
being able to pay makes it look even better. While the parents will
not be considered citizens, the baby will receive a US birth
certificate.

"U.S. Citizens by Birth or Through a U.S. Citizen Parent"
<https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/us-citizens-by-birth-or-through-a-us-citizen-parent>
"Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution directs
that all persons born in the United States are U.S. citizens. This is
the case regardless of the tax or immigration status of a person’s
parents."

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 10:20:36 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 2/24/2024 1:45 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 12:52:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/24/2024 12:00 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>> ... charity payments (which make up more then
>>>> 50% of the U.S. National Budget...
>>>
>>> ? You must be using a VERY loose definition of "charity payments."
>>
>> Charity payments are supposed to be for people ho cannot support
>> themselves. More and more they're going to losers who simply don't
>> want to support themselves.
>
>While that's true, and especially so for SSDI [1], [2]:
>https://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/
>
>the real dollars are in 'middle class entitlements' which
>are both fiscally imprudent and also wildly popular,
>politically. There is no obvious or feasible solution and
>the trend is growing not ameliorating.
>
>[1] SSDI is not funded through the Social Security scheme
>but it is administered by the SSA. Funds are from general
>revenues not payroll withholding (which is now not even
>sufficient for SS payments).
>
>[2]Once a small program for amputees, the blind and so forth
>(a very popular and reasonable solution), the huge growth is
>in fake medical, psychological or cultural disability. The
>incentive is that unlike any other program, a disability
>ruling is forever; there is no review for changed
>circumstances. That made sense for amputees; maybe not so
>much for malingerers.

As I've repeatedly written, "The surest way to be elected is the
campaigning speech that begins, "If elected I will give you..."

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 2/25/2024 4:14 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Sun Feb 25 14:57:10 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 2/25/2024 11:25 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>
>>> It's semantic.
>>> Mr Funk is correct that an explicit conditional contract offer 'If you
>>> get pregnant we will pay you' is not made, but rather you are correct
>>> that once pregnant the funds appear.
>>
>> As usual, I wonder how the issue is handled in other countries.
>>
>> I think it's much, much better for kids to have two married parents. But
>> "She's not married. Let the baby starve" seems harsh.
>>
>> --
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> So according to Frank, the US is incompetent and you can ONLY discover the correct way to do things by referring to other countries. This is yet another demonstration of the illness of Frank.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTjMqda19wk

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 10:25:41 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 2/24/2024 4:48 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 08:01:42 -0500, zen cycle
>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/23/2024 9:46 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/2024 4:35 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>> On 2/23/2024 5:07 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 07:52:25 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/22/2024 6:05 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 09:03:18 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2024 8:51 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2024 7:15 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 10:52 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 10:40:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 9:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2024 4:40 AM, zen cycle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True, but the false narrative that the US government is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paying women
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to have babies and paying them more if adult mares are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kicked out of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the home is really, really, fucking stupid, but par for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dumbass
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Moynihan raised that alarm in the 1960s:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/moynihan-report-1965/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but no one listened and it hasn't gotten any better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://singlemotherguide.com/state/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, aid exists. You haven't presented information proving
>>>>>>>>>>>>> women are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> having babies and kicking out fathers for economic gain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know or have known several single mothers, a couple who did
>>>>>>>>>>>>> divorce
>>>>>>>>>>>>> abusive husbands. Are you suggesting that a woman should stay
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> marriage and endure frequent beatings so your taxes are lower?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Another Krygowski strawman...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <eyeroll>
>>>>>>>>>>> Another floriduh dumbass demonstration of willful ignorance. The
>>>>>>>>>>> strawman is "the USA has had a government policy of paying women
>>>>>>>>>>> to have babies and paying them more if the kick any adult males
>>>>>>>>>>> out of
>>>>>>>>>>> their home. "
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What is "Straw Man" and Why Do Narcissists Use It?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <snipped-cut-n-paste>
>>>>>>>>>>> <eyeroll>
>>>>>>>>>>> ye another dumbass cut-n-paste he clearly doesn't understand
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Overview:
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.vox.com/2016/6/20/11789988/clintons-welfare-reform
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   From your link:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "But the program really did have deep problems. The three most common
>>>>>>>>> criticisms made of AFDC were:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1.    It caused poor adults who could work to not work.
>>>>>>>>> 2.    It caused dependency; rather than using it as a temporary
>>>>>>>>> safety
>>>>>>>>> net, some people embraced it as a way of life.
>>>>>>>>> 3.    It encouraged having children out of wedlock and discouraged
>>>>>>>>> marriage.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The first of these claims was definitely true, the second was kind of
>>>>>>>>> true, and the last might have been true but the effect was very, very
>>>>>>>>> small."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Still no evidence that the program was a "policy of paying women
>>>>>>>>> to have
>>>>>>>>> babies and paying them more if the kick any adult males out of
>>>>>>>>> their home. "
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Err   You don't know about the benefits for "single parent birth"?
>>>>>>>>> It's been paid for quite a number of years now
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which isn't "a government policy of paying women to have babies "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and I believe that
>>>>>>>> single parent births now account for about 40% of all U.S. births,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which has nothing to do with this discussion, and certainly isn't any
>>>>>>> evidence that "the USA has had a government policy of paying women to
>>>>>>> have babies "
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well... if they have the baby they get paid and if they don't have the
>>>>>> baby they don't get paid...
>>>>>
>>>>> I shouldn't be surprised that someone who hasn't lived in the US for
>>>>> 40+ years has sch a myopic understanding of the situation.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no government policy of paying women to have babies.
>>>>
>>>> A semantic difference. You are both correct.
>>>
>>> Nope, you and john claim the policy states women are getting paid to
>>> have babies, they are, there is no such policy
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mr Slocumb described the actual policy while you set up a strawman and
>>>> then knocked it over.
>>>
>>> bullshit. What he posted in no way supports the strawman "the USA has
>>> had a government policy of paying women to have babies "
>>>
>>> To make it clear - the strawman here is "the USA has had a government
>>> policy of paying women to have babies ". I didn't set that up, you did.
>>> I did knock it down, all it took was a noting a simple fact - the USA
>>> does not and never did have a government policy of paying women to have
>>> babies.
>>>
>>> "the USA has had a government policy of paying women to have babies" is
>>> your trope, not mine.
>>
>> As reality is that an unmarried woman who gives birth can receive
>> federal and or state funds, referred to as "aid to unwed mother's",
>> while an unmarried woman who does not give birth gets nothing, and
>> this has been going on since the '1930's must lead to one or another
>> conclusions. (1) The Mass Fool, really is a Fool, or (2) he is dumber
>> then Adam's off Ox.... Or (3), he is simply a liar.
>
>It's semantic.
>Mr Funk is correct that an explicit conditional contract
>offer 'If you get pregnant we will pay you' is not made, but
>rather you are correct that once pregnant the funds appear.

On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 16:56:50 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 10:25:41 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>>On 2/24/2024 4:48 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> As reality is that an unmarried woman who gives birth can receive
>>> federal and or state funds, referred to as "aid to unwed mother's",
>>> while an unmarried woman who does not give birth gets nothing, and
>>> this has been going on since the '1930's must lead to one or another
>>> conclusions. (1) The Mass Fool, really is a Fool, or (2) he is dumber
>>> then Adam's off Ox.... Or (3), he is simply a liar.
>>
>>It's semantic.
>>Mr Funk is correct that an explicit conditional contract
>>offer 'If you get pregnant we will pay you' is not made, but
>>rather you are correct that once pregnant the funds appear.
>
>There's more.
>
>1. The EMTALA law requires hospitals to treat anyone who enters the
>hospital with an emergency without consideration of their ability to
>pay. Just about any reason to be admitted to a hospital is considered
>an emergency.
>
>"Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA)"
><https://www.cms.gov/medicare/regulations-guidance/legislation/emergency-medical-treatment-labor-act>
>
>"In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act
>(EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of
>ability to pay."
>
>2. Anyone born in the US is automatically granted citizenship. This
>is sufficiently beneficial that pregnant women will "visit" the US in
>order to have the baby born in the US. Being able to do this without
>being able to pay makes it look even better. While the parents will
>not be considered citizens, the baby will receive a US birth
>certificate.

I have a nephew and niece that did that. They were attending collage
in the U.S. (Thai Citizen) fell in love and all that and with their
parents consent married, once in the U.S. and a second time in
Thailand.

They did a lot of finger counting and the son was born in the U.S..
They then applied for a "resident visa" to allow them as non citizens
to raise this U.S. citizen in the U.S.

They ultimately became U.S. Citizens and ran a (I guess successful)
business in California till the Covid and after looking at the U.S.
and Thai death rates moved back to Thailand.
--
Cheers,

John B.