WARNING: This this thread will excite a lot of mixed feelings and is controversial. Reader discretion is advised...
I just read an article in the New York Times about how budget cuts are going to affect housing vouchers and baby formula supply for Poor Americans. This got me thinking about the effect the rise in world population has on the housing market in general. Now I just want to be absolutely clear before I say this: I am not wealthy, I come from a working class family, and I don't have anything against poor people. That being said...
In your opinion, should people below a certain income bracket have a cap on the amount of children they have until they have moved onto a higher income bracket in the United States?
I am not wealthy, I come from a working class family, and I don't have anything against poor people.
Ditto. However, my motto is "if you can't afford 'em, don't have 'em." It seems people don't buy into that. Just walk into a supermarket in "select" areas ... or just plain old observe.
In your opinion, should people below a certain income bracket have a cap on the amount of children they have until they have moved onto a higher income bracket in the United States?
what do you think? this is not a new issue and has been on the international stage for some time. i would recommend some background reading from wikipedia.
one option to address what you're concerned about would be to invest in planned parenthood, family planning, and making contraception available to low income people so they still have the right to make their own decisions regarding number, spacing and timing of their children, but they might be able to make better decisions and have the ability to implement said decisions. lots of people would be resistant to this course though.
another option would be for "private industry" to start self-regulating itself in such a way as to reduce the growing income gap and provide good paying jobs to people who want to work. that might reduce the number of poor people who can't afford children.
other than that, i'm not sure how you would 'cap' babies. i would be opposed to forcibly sterilizing people based on income, forced abortions based on income, and any law that tells people when they can have sex and/or who to have sex with. i would also be opposed to tax penalties based on number of children (if someone doesn't have enough money, taking more money away from them isn't going to help) or forced adoption.
Tackling the housing issue is a goal of mine over the course of my career, hopefully a good discussion forms! As a point to your growing population issue with regards to housing; we need to look back at the post war booms in child birth and see what was successful and what failed. I personally do not think government intervention should happen, the market should solve these issues. Something as simple as the case study movement opened thinking to affordable construction options in the housing market. We also have to think about smart re-models and getting those home builders our of the way. When you build a home that begins to break down after 10 years, you are only perpetuating the problem. Food production will need to be integrated. That alone will help our population tremendously. Sound eating habits not only benefit the body but the mind as well. Smart minds = good decisions = smart family planning. It's amazing how everything is integrated.
Population growth can't be treated with the "I know what's right for you, better than you do yourself" attitude. We already have enough of a riff between the haves and have nots and this kind of thinking is how we got here. I'm opposed to any regulations on your family size. I know plenty of friends who operate at the poverty line but take good care of their kids and don't take welfare. They simply defer their selfish desires and provide their children with what they need. My wife teaches in a downtown urban school district and she sees parents with Iphones, fake nails, fake hair, etc. while their kids are eating free breakfast that the school has to provide. Unfortunately, we can't trust everyone to make sound decisions - but that doesn't mean we should control them. That's the essence of our country.
Curtkram has some great points. Corporate welfare is pummeling us as much as social welfare. We in the middle, get screwed from both fronts. Getting the government out of business affairs will allow the correct industries to get moving and pay the right wages based on our markets. This will in turn increase purchasing power for everyone which helps that move that line of income disparity. Put a little money in someones pocket and they might buy a home... or a new flat screen TV, lol. Again, we can't count on people to take into account the community before they make decisions. I'm personally against taxation but I'd much rather have my tax money going to family planning efforts rather than corporate and social welfare. There are plenty of charitable organizations that can help this problem. As much as I would love to provide clean drinking water to the rest of the world, maybe we need to see what these funds could do on our home front.
This may be politically incorrect, but MANY people remark that the people who should NOT be having kids are having them, and the people who should be having kids are not. A lot of "two professional" couples are having 0, 1, or 2 children, because they have to attend to the demands of their professions. Others, who can't provide good homes nor good examples, are rather reckless in this department.
I think the most important thing to keep in mind with this as we find ourselves unable to continue paying for housing, health care, and food for our disadvantaged population, is that we should continue to import millions more impoverished people from around the world.
I think the most important thing to keep in mind with this as we find ourselves unable to continue paying for housing, health care, and food for our disadvantaged population, is that we should continue to import millions more impoverished people from around the world.
I don't know how the U.S. works, since I'm a native, but since I'm fascinated by Canada. I have heard that you have to provide records of how much "moolah" you have to get in. If you walk around areas of Montreal like Cote des Neiges or Snowdon, it's apparent that the eastern African (Ethiopian, Somalian, and Eritrean, mostly) populations are not of the moneyed set so, while Canada seems to pull in a lot of immigrants, it's hard to discern how financially secure or skilled they are. I am baffled by who gets into the U.S. these days. I don't know the criteria. The only thing I do know is that 1 out of every 4 immigrants indicates California as their destination domicile state.
Let me tell you all a brief story that I'm sure applies to many others who have come to this country... I came here as an immigrant. My parents busted their butts to make a decent living and are currently middle class- as am I. Mind you, while getting to where we are, we have never ever taken advantage of unemployment benefits or welfare of any kind. Why do so many people in this country rather take advantage of financial benefits rather than educational benefits? I don't understand... I went to public school, I used the library, I taught myself things... why do so many others lack the same initiative? I think that if this country put more emphasis on education, people would no be knocking each other up so much, we wouldn't have to be worried about being in so much debt, investing in social programs that would otherwise be unnecessary, and we would also perhaps in better control of our ability to grow as a country intellectually.
The vast majority of immigrants to the USA go straight on public assistance and stay there for a long, long time. We seem to be a lot less picky about immigrant self-reliance and quality than pretty much everywhere else in the world.
What criteria ... most who "get in" just sneak across the [porous] borders.
For many, that's the way it is today. And I imagine you are referring to our southern border. People from the Maple Leaf country don't want to come here, except for a few who covet the CA or FL sun. My parents were sponsored. They went to Australia first, because it was sort of "open." They didn't like it. They went back to Europe. They then got sponsored by an uncle living in NYC.
The amount of the federal budget that is spent on true welfare, ie not social security etc. is about 5 percent. Carry on with your Ayn Rand circle jerk.
Ok- as I said in my post above- I know this discussion will excite a lot of people, but please- lets keep this away from race, sexual orientation, origin, etc...
In your opinion, should people below a certain income bracket have a cap on the amount of children they have until they have moved onto a higher income bracket in the United States?
probably the most retarded thing I read all week. however there is the whole rodman-kim bromance...hard choice....nah this is the most retarded.
jla-x: care to elaborate? I was simply asking a question, not making an assertion. If you want to call my response to this question retarded (which is within itself politically incorrect) you would certainly make more sense... But you still haven't answered the question; and if you say its because its so "retarded" that you wasted time responding to it.. you have made it more important than you say it is...
how about we remove the testicles of anyone who makes less than 30k a year. We can then sell the testicles to mcdonalds....they can fry them up and sell them back to the poor! no welfare and a new meat product for the peasants.
fuck being politically correct! lets be morally correct. It's all the pussyfooting and verbal sugar coating that allows morally bankrupt people to go unnoticed. (not saying you are one)
I don't really care to elaborate, because if you don't see whats wrong with this idea you are probably hopeless.
I'm not saying this is the right way to go, but don't you see whats wrong with not planning for kids and just having them when you are struggling to find money to buy wipes for your ass and asking you neighbor to pay for it next time tax season rolls in because you have either accumulated too much debt or asked for too many giveaways? I'm not saying poor people shouldn't have kids but 3?4? 5- when you can't afford them? Suzy Orman agrees with what I'm saying- why don't you?
what was your solution bulgar? just have some involvement somewhere that makes what you perceive to be a problem no longer a problem? please be more specific. are we killing babies? killing parents? having McDonalds fry nut sacks? perhaps there is a gun control argument in here somewhere. hmm.
@BB - there are many issues in our democratic society that may not make much sense to a large proportion of the populace (such as, for example, the unfettered ability to buy "assault rifles") but efforts to put limitations on such issues quickly run up against other issues related to "freedom" and the "Bill of Rights".
In our democracy, "common sense" rarely - if ever - carries much sway when any significant group (usually a minority) feels their rights are being infringed.
yeah it is irresponsible, I snarl at the fatty at wal-mart with the seven dirty little fart bags too...stinking up the aisle and shit....then she goes and pays with food stamps.... It is the price we have to pay for liberty and freedom. A cap is a mandate. It is a regulation over reproductive rights. It is the most intrusive gov't policy imaginable, aside from forced sterilization. With all gov't, you give an inch and they take a yard. Before you know it, it's 2084 and we all live in plastic pods, feed on our own shit through iv tubes, and worship some suit and tie dictator. I would rather see a fat bitch with skinny jeans and 7 stank ass kids once in a while.
Amen. Political correctness is censorship. Many of those who "overbreed" do so because they are generally irresponsible and can't compute a budget if one bit them in the ass and/or their procreation is mandated by their religion, which happens to be, in many cases, the same religion I grew up in. Ever watch that Lisa Lampanelli comedy act where she tells Sarah Palin (in her trademark foul language) to keep her legs together? That was for another reason, and not Sarah Palin's inability to afford them, but that same message should get out to those who can't afford them and for which others will be picking up the tab. Also, for many people, procreation is a prop for their own self-esteem, because they are not gifted in many, if any, other areas.
the government IS involved... just in a different way... what do you call financial control over your ASSets... On one hand for example (I'm a democrat by-the-way) Republicans want to decrease the size of government and have rich people pay less taxes, on the other Democrats are okay with people fucking around and supporting mindless reproduction (bluntly speaking). And who gets to pay for it? People like me, probably people like you... bottom line... if you are poor or not wealthy enough to afford kids yet- WAIT! Your dick won't fall off in the next few years... now girls- I know you are on a clock- but do you really want to hit average tax-payers up for cash when you can't afford the hospital bill... or when you don't have enough baby formula? And think about the quality of life you will bestow upon these children... Why have kids unless you are sure you can at least provide them with some basic happiness?
no need to put a cap on it - we just need to relax child labor laws and have these kids work in factories to support their deadbeat parents. solves the problem of cheap offshore labor plus teaches them some responsibility. those that survive will be enlisted in the military as ground warriors - some of the more elite we can have fight to the death for our entertainment... after a while we will have to worry about the inevitable uprising, but we'll just utilize the computer implants in their brains to shut down their motor-control.
Good education would go a long way toward solving all kinds of problems, but in the US that is an iffy proposition at best. We've been breeding poverty and stupidity for generations.
Why is Planned Parenthood getting defunded across the country?
And don't forget religion: "be fruitful and multiply."
Reader Discretion is Advised...
WARNING: This this thread will excite a lot of mixed feelings and is controversial. Reader discretion is advised...
I just read an article in the New York Times about how budget cuts are going to affect housing vouchers and baby formula supply for Poor Americans. This got me thinking about the effect the rise in world population has on the housing market in general. Now I just want to be absolutely clear before I say this: I am not wealthy, I come from a working class family, and I don't have anything against poor people. That being said...
In your opinion, should people below a certain income bracket have a cap on the amount of children they have until they have moved onto a higher income bracket in the United States?
I am not wealthy, I come from a working class family, and I don't have anything against poor people.
Ditto. However, my motto is "if you can't afford 'em, don't have 'em." It seems people don't buy into that. Just walk into a supermarket in "select" areas ... or just plain old observe.
In your opinion, should people below a certain income bracket have a cap on the amount of children they have until they have moved onto a higher income bracket in the United States?
what do you think? this is not a new issue and has been on the international stage for some time. i would recommend some background reading from wikipedia.
one option to address what you're concerned about would be to invest in planned parenthood, family planning, and making contraception available to low income people so they still have the right to make their own decisions regarding number, spacing and timing of their children, but they might be able to make better decisions and have the ability to implement said decisions. lots of people would be resistant to this course though.
another option would be for "private industry" to start self-regulating itself in such a way as to reduce the growing income gap and provide good paying jobs to people who want to work. that might reduce the number of poor people who can't afford children.
other than that, i'm not sure how you would 'cap' babies. i would be opposed to forcibly sterilizing people based on income, forced abortions based on income, and any law that tells people when they can have sex and/or who to have sex with. i would also be opposed to tax penalties based on number of children (if someone doesn't have enough money, taking more money away from them isn't going to help) or forced adoption.
Tackling the housing issue is a goal of mine over the course of my career, hopefully a good discussion forms! As a point to your growing population issue with regards to housing; we need to look back at the post war booms in child birth and see what was successful and what failed. I personally do not think government intervention should happen, the market should solve these issues. Something as simple as the case study movement opened thinking to affordable construction options in the housing market. We also have to think about smart re-models and getting those home builders our of the way. When you build a home that begins to break down after 10 years, you are only perpetuating the problem. Food production will need to be integrated. That alone will help our population tremendously. Sound eating habits not only benefit the body but the mind as well. Smart minds = good decisions = smart family planning. It's amazing how everything is integrated.
Population growth can't be treated with the "I know what's right for you, better than you do yourself" attitude. We already have enough of a riff between the haves and have nots and this kind of thinking is how we got here. I'm opposed to any regulations on your family size. I know plenty of friends who operate at the poverty line but take good care of their kids and don't take welfare. They simply defer their selfish desires and provide their children with what they need. My wife teaches in a downtown urban school district and she sees parents with Iphones, fake nails, fake hair, etc. while their kids are eating free breakfast that the school has to provide. Unfortunately, we can't trust everyone to make sound decisions - but that doesn't mean we should control them. That's the essence of our country.
Curtkram has some great points. Corporate welfare is pummeling us as much as social welfare. We in the middle, get screwed from both fronts. Getting the government out of business affairs will allow the correct industries to get moving and pay the right wages based on our markets. This will in turn increase purchasing power for everyone which helps that move that line of income disparity. Put a little money in someones pocket and they might buy a home... or a new flat screen TV, lol. Again, we can't count on people to take into account the community before they make decisions. I'm personally against taxation but I'd much rather have my tax money going to family planning efforts rather than corporate and social welfare. There are plenty of charitable organizations that can help this problem. As much as I would love to provide clean drinking water to the rest of the world, maybe we need to see what these funds could do on our home front.
i blame this guy.
This may be politically incorrect, but MANY people remark that the people who should NOT be having kids are having them, and the people who should be having kids are not. A lot of "two professional" couples are having 0, 1, or 2 children, because they have to attend to the demands of their professions. Others, who can't provide good homes nor good examples, are rather reckless in this department.
I think the most important thing to keep in mind with this as we find ourselves unable to continue paying for housing, health care, and food for our disadvantaged population, is that we should continue to import millions more impoverished people from around the world.
I think the most important thing to keep in mind with this as we find ourselves unable to continue paying for housing, health care, and food for our disadvantaged population, is that we should continue to import millions more impoverished people from around the world.
I don't know how the U.S. works, since I'm a native, but since I'm fascinated by Canada. I have heard that you have to provide records of how much "moolah" you have to get in. If you walk around areas of Montreal like Cote des Neiges or Snowdon, it's apparent that the eastern African (Ethiopian, Somalian, and Eritrean, mostly) populations are not of the moneyed set so, while Canada seems to pull in a lot of immigrants, it's hard to discern how financially secure or skilled they are. I am baffled by who gets into the U.S. these days. I don't know the criteria. The only thing I do know is that 1 out of every 4 immigrants indicates California as their destination domicile state.
Let me tell you all a brief story that I'm sure applies to many others who have come to this country... I came here as an immigrant. My parents busted their butts to make a decent living and are currently middle class- as am I. Mind you, while getting to where we are, we have never ever taken advantage of unemployment benefits or welfare of any kind. Why do so many people in this country rather take advantage of financial benefits rather than educational benefits? I don't understand... I went to public school, I used the library, I taught myself things... why do so many others lack the same initiative? I think that if this country put more emphasis on education, people would no be knocking each other up so much, we wouldn't have to be worried about being in so much debt, investing in social programs that would otherwise be unnecessary, and we would also perhaps in better control of our ability to grow as a country intellectually.
@O: "I am baffled by who gets into the U.S. these days. I don't know the criteria."
What criteria ... most who "get in" just sneak across the [porous] borders.
observant,
The vast majority of immigrants to the USA go straight on public assistance and stay there for a long, long time. We seem to be a lot less picky about immigrant self-reliance and quality than pretty much everywhere else in the world.
Am I late for the Monday KKK lunch and learn?
What criteria ... most who "get in" just sneak across the [porous] borders.
For many, that's the way it is today. And I imagine you are referring to our southern border. People from the Maple Leaf country don't want to come here, except for a few who covet the CA or FL sun. My parents were sponsored. They went to Australia first, because it was sort of "open." They didn't like it. They went back to Europe. They then got sponsored by an uncle living in NYC.
You're just in time to start waving the red flag, Rusty.
The amount of the federal budget that is spent on true welfare, ie not social security etc. is about 5 percent. Carry on with your Ayn Rand circle jerk.
Ok- as I said in my post above- I know this discussion will excite a lot of people, but please- lets keep this away from race, sexual orientation, origin, etc...
In your opinion, should people below a certain income bracket have a cap on the amount of children they have until they have moved onto a higher income bracket in the United States?
probably the most retarded thing I read all week. however there is the whole rodman-kim bromance...hard choice....nah this is the most retarded.
brave new world
comming soon....
jla-x: care to elaborate? I was simply asking a question, not making an assertion. If you want to call my response to this question retarded (which is within itself politically incorrect) you would certainly make more sense... But you still haven't answered the question; and if you say its because its so "retarded" that you wasted time responding to it.. you have made it more important than you say it is...
how about we remove the testicles of anyone who makes less than 30k a year. We can then sell the testicles to mcdonalds....they can fry them up and sell them back to the poor! no welfare and a new meat product for the peasants.
or unpaid interns
"mc nutgets"
just for the record- that is your idea, not mine.
curtcram is right, this is not a new issue, no need to kill the messenger.
brave new world
comming soon....
I think a world without epsilons (or less epsilons than alphas) would not work.
For several reasons.
tooo late! ronald mcdonald and HamBulgarBlogger fryin up poor intern balls!
that shits forever.
(which is within itself politically incorrect)
fuck being politically correct! lets be morally correct. It's all the pussyfooting and verbal sugar coating that allows morally bankrupt people to go unnoticed. (not saying you are one)
I don't really care to elaborate, because if you don't see whats wrong with this idea you are probably hopeless.
I'm not saying this is the right way to go, but don't you see whats wrong with not planning for kids and just having them when you are struggling to find money to buy wipes for your ass and asking you neighbor to pay for it next time tax season rolls in because you have either accumulated too much debt or asked for too many giveaways? I'm not saying poor people shouldn't have kids but 3?4? 5- when you can't afford them? Suzy Orman agrees with what I'm saying- why don't you?
you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them but how do you enforce this 'cap'?
getting the gubm't involved in this is the scary part .. hello china!
what was your solution bulgar? just have some involvement somewhere that makes what you perceive to be a problem no longer a problem? please be more specific. are we killing babies? killing parents? having McDonalds fry nut sacks? perhaps there is a gun control argument in here somewhere. hmm.
@BB - there are many issues in our democratic society that may not make much sense to a large proportion of the populace (such as, for example, the unfettered ability to buy "assault rifles") but efforts to put limitations on such issues quickly run up against other issues related to "freedom" and the "Bill of Rights".
In our democracy, "common sense" rarely - if ever - carries much sway when any significant group (usually a minority) feels their rights are being infringed.
I'm just sayin' ....
yeah it is irresponsible, I snarl at the fatty at wal-mart with the seven dirty little fart bags too...stinking up the aisle and shit....then she goes and pays with food stamps.... It is the price we have to pay for liberty and freedom. A cap is a mandate. It is a regulation over reproductive rights. It is the most intrusive gov't policy imaginable, aside from forced sterilization. With all gov't, you give an inch and they take a yard. Before you know it, it's 2084 and we all live in plastic pods, feed on our own shit through iv tubes, and worship some suit and tie dictator. I would rather see a fat bitch with skinny jeans and 7 stank ass kids once in a while.
fuck being politically correct!
Amen. Political correctness is censorship. Many of those who "overbreed" do so because they are generally irresponsible and can't compute a budget if one bit them in the ass and/or their procreation is mandated by their religion, which happens to be, in many cases, the same religion I grew up in. Ever watch that Lisa Lampanelli comedy act where she tells Sarah Palin (in her trademark foul language) to keep her legs together? That was for another reason, and not Sarah Palin's inability to afford them, but that same message should get out to those who can't afford them and for which others will be picking up the tab. Also, for many people, procreation is a prop for their own self-esteem, because they are not gifted in many, if any, other areas.
the government IS involved... just in a different way... what do you call financial control over your ASSets... On one hand for example (I'm a democrat by-the-way) Republicans want to decrease the size of government and have rich people pay less taxes, on the other Democrats are okay with people fucking around and supporting mindless reproduction (bluntly speaking). And who gets to pay for it? People like me, probably people like you... bottom line... if you are poor or not wealthy enough to afford kids yet- WAIT! Your dick won't fall off in the next few years... now girls- I know you are on a clock- but do you really want to hit average tax-payers up for cash when you can't afford the hospital bill... or when you don't have enough baby formula? And think about the quality of life you will bestow upon these children... Why have kids unless you are sure you can at least provide them with some basic happiness?
no need to put a cap on it - we just need to relax child labor laws and have these kids work in factories to support their deadbeat parents. solves the problem of cheap offshore labor plus teaches them some responsibility. those that survive will be enlisted in the military as ground warriors - some of the more elite we can have fight to the death for our entertainment... after a while we will have to worry about the inevitable uprising, but we'll just utilize the computer implants in their brains to shut down their motor-control.
just watch the movie Idiocracy it explains all of what is ahead for us....
Good education would go a long way toward solving all kinds of problems, but in the US that is an iffy proposition at best. We've been breeding poverty and stupidity for generations.
Why is Planned Parenthood getting defunded across the country?
And don't forget religion: "be fruitful and multiply."
The bible also says not to do a lot of other things... amazing how people don't read between the lines... oh wait- they can't read...
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.