Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nothing is free, anywhere. Taxes are used to fund healthcare, child care, stipends and so on.
How much more are you willing to pay in taxes to ensure similar benefits for 315 million people?
Bottom line is, and the liberals don't want to admit it, is that there simply isn't the money to fund benefits for that many people. Many of the European countries who do make this work have fairly homogeneous, small well-educated, and productive populations (though this is changing as more immigrants move in). In America, we have large amounts of people who are plainly not very productive, educated, or frankly, very useful. I'm from Appalachia and government assistance is one of the largest forms of income. These folks are not economically useful and just end up being a drain on the system.
Good point. Well the wealthier and more educated a person is the less children they have according to sociological studies.
But shouldn't all families be able to afford having children? Not all families qualify for government assistance program.
Turn it around. Shouldn't all families be able to afford children, before having them?
More than 40% of all US births are paid for by Medicaid., mostly to single mothers. Those births are substantially more likely to qualify for other social programs that are intended to benefit te children of low income parents.
Two people engaging in unprotected sex is not a family.
Strange thing with this report was the largest "expense" was "housing costs."
While I understand buying larger homes for a larger family, I do think this "value" is over inflating the total. If you go on a month by month basis, this total includes $500 a month for "housing and transportation." Basically it looks like an accounting cost estimate for a single bed room per month. Even if someone bought a house with "one extra bedroom," I doubt the extra mortgage cost, with all other things being the same, would cost $300-400 more a month. Maybe in the rental market you would see this in some areas, that would be my only thought.
The total cost IMO needs to come down at least $200 a month, or $43,200 to be a more realistic "burden" on families.
Likely my parents had no business having children because of finances. We moved every year due to increases in rent. Family of 4 lived in a 1 br apartment. I never considered us poor although I knew others who seemed better off.
A family with 12 kids lived down the block in a single family home with a yard. Dad was a fire fighter and mom stayed home. I thought they had it good.
Decades later I looked up that property in the tax records, 2 bedrooms , 1 bath, less than 1000 square feet and there was once a family of 14 living the good life, inside.
Last edited by middle-aged mom; 08-18-2014 at 03:44 PM..
"The government" shouldn't do anything. As a matter of fact, it's state and local regulations adding to the cost of day care.
Nothing is "free," BTW, even in France. The government produces nothing, and gets revenue from taxes. What you are proposing is that taxpayers foot even more of the bill for other people's kids.
Health care, day/child care have gone up while wages not kept up with inflation.
What should the government do? Free health care and/or child care? Or any other tips?
Not only rich people should have children.... Many middle class families are struggling too.
European families could afford having children because of their free health care, some countries giving each child certain amount of money per month, free/low cost day care, and other benefits.
Why is it not the government's responsibility? We are living in a society. Do you want to degrade to the level of those third world countries? Do you want to see children starving like those poor Africans?
I'd be gladly to vote to use other people's money to pay for your children!
When people make third world choices relative to engaging in unprotected sex and expect others, not party to their choices, to pay for it, something is out of whack.
Last edited by middle-aged mom; 08-18-2014 at 03:46 PM..
Hmmm guys didn't we win WWII against the master race? You know the guy with the little facal hair under his nose, you know the one who said the only ones who had a right to live and reproduce where white blond/brown haired individuals.
There is no excuse for ignorance. Hmmm ok.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawaiian by heart
So what if they don't have blond/brown hair and white? Can they have kids?
Feel free to support others' children. You are too late to help me raise mine. Not that I needed any help. My societal responsibility ended with raising mine to be self sufficient an successful adults. Mine are now responsible adults, paying for their own. We have all arranged our lives to pay the legal minimum in income taxes. So, no we don't do any more than necessary to support others. The fittest survive and thrive.
See children starving? I just change the channel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer
Why is it not the government's responsibility? We are living in a society. Do you want to degrade to the level of those third world countries? Do you want to see children starving like those poor Africans?
I'd be gladly to vote to use other people's money to pay for your children!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
