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.
It isn't until your take any one's money. Once you are financially dependent on others your business becomes their business as long as you are taking/using their money.
What?
Class warfare, again?
Unless some one comes to you and says, 'I need your help', it is no ones business what is going on in their life ... they are free to choose, same as you, no matter who or what your citizenship class status is ...
pretending you are to rule over their lives, is wrong.
Last edited by Ellis Bell; 08-30-2019 at 11:35 AM..
Any nonsense that was ended was reinstated by Obama.
You mean Obama actually rescinded Clinton's reforms in "Ending Welfare As We Know It Today" (memba that?) and putting back into place policies of giving money to a woman for each child she has plus rent vouchers, Section 8, food stamps, Medicaid, etc. ????????
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell If a person waits until they can afford them, they will never have them. Life is not perfect, waiting for perfection in marriage and children ... the person is going to be waiting a very very long time.
We are people, not money, I wish people would stop acting as if we were ...
That begs the question, if poor people were able to have more kids before the concept of public subsidies, why can't poor people now have kids without receiving public subsidies.
What do you want the government to do with your tax money? They are going to take if from you regardless, if it gets redistributed back into the economy through the safety nets ... so what do you really want to see happen here?
Maybe we should do a look back into the Great Depression and before and see what the government funded before it began to take care of its citizens.
We just pointed out that they aren't having more kids because they're being subsidized, because poor people were having more kids even before the concept of pubic subsidies of the poor existed. Poor people tend to have more kids because they're poor. It's just what poor people do, going back centuries or even millennia.
Quote:
Poor people tend to have more kids because they're poor.
Globally it is lifestyle and traditional family values ... marry, stayed married and have lot's of children. Developed countries have evolved, into a non-traditional family values ... women are having fewer children and waiting much later in life to have them. Also:
"The global average fertility rate is just below 2.5 children per woman today. Over the last 50 years the global fertility rate has halved. And over the course of the modernization of societies the number of children per woman decreases very substantially. In the pre-modern era fertility rates of 4.5 to 7 children per woman were common. At that time the very high mortality at a young age kept population growth low. As health improves and the mortality in the population decreases we typically saw accelerated population growth. This rapid population growth then comes to an end as the fertility rate declines and approaches 2 children per woman.2
The first section of the entry presents the global empirical perspective on the number of children per woman. The long second section presents the academic research that answers the question why the number of children per woman declined. Particularly important are 1) the empowerment of women in society and in relationships – through education, labor force participation, and strengthened women's rights – and 2) the increased well-being and status of children." (my bold)
_______________
When I look at this the world over, I see the developed countries possibly coming to the end of their era; where as, the under developed countries begin to evolve up in to the ranks ... (ancient civilizations are ancient [extinct] for a reason)
Quote:
they aren't having more kids because they're being subsidized, because poor people were having more kids even before the concept of pubic subsidies of the poor existed.
You're right and it is called life ... we live it, the best we can, while we can ...
I don't get the mindset of having children when you can't afford them, I can't relate at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Perhaps it can be explained by money madness.
Having children is just life seeking to make more abundant life. It has nothing to do with the sum and value of money tokens in circulation, or your ability to acquire them.
A primitive but sane culture would recognize that prosperity is acquiring one's necessities - food, water, shelter - from the lands and surrounding resources. A child is a blessing, and cannot be evaluated with money, at least not by sane people.
For what it's worth, poverty is caused by money, not cured by it. To illustrate, imagine what would happen if tomorrow, everyone awoke to the knowledge that they had a balance of 22 billion billion quatloos – a sum of money that would make them “set for life.” Who needs more money? Even the starving children are phenomenally rich.
If everyone decided they didn’t need to work anymore, civilization would collapse. That is “money madness” at work.
Modern money madness requires scarce money tokens and an indoctrinated urge to acquire ever more money tokens. And this need for money drives all activities, legal and illegal. It is so powerful, money madness can overpower moral codes so that one would "sell their grandmother" if the price was right. That is evil.
Eventually, people will have to embrace generating prosperity, not for money's sake, but that is what civilized people do - produce surplus goods and services, equitably traded and enjoyed. Then procreation won't be challenged because of the pricetag.
Having children is just life seeking to make more abundant life. It has nothing to do with the sum and value of money tokens in circulation, or your ability to acquire them.
A primitive but sane culture would recognize that prosperity is acquiring one's necessities - food, water, shelter - from the lands and surrounding resources. A child is a blessing, and cannot be evaluated with money, at least not by sane people.
For what it's worth, poverty is caused by money, not cured by it. To illustrate, imagine what would happen if tomorrow, everyone awoke to the knowledge that they had a balance of 22 billion billion quatloos – a sum of money that would make them “set for life.” Who needs more money? Even the starving children are phenomenally rich.
If everyone decided they didn’t need to work anymore, civilization would collapse. That is “money madness” at work.
Modern money madness requires scarce money tokens and an indoctrinated urge to acquire ever more money tokens. And this need for money drives all activities, legal and illegal. It is so powerful, money madness can overpower moral codes so that one would "sell their grandmother" if the price was right. That is evil.
Eventually, people will have to embrace generating prosperity, not for money's sake, but that is what civilized people do - produce surplus goods and services, equitably traded and enjoyed. Then procreation won't be challenged because of the pricetag.
Another theory often proffered is the fact that, in poor societies, children are both a form of labor, and a form of insurance. In agricultural societies children do a lot of the farm labor. Additionally, they are a form of old-age insurance to take care of you when you get older, in societies that have little or no safety net. It could be that poor people still carry the many-kids mindset with them for a while after having left an agricultural society.
Unless some one comes to you and says, 'I need your help', it is no ones business what is going on in their life ... they are free to choose, same as you, no matter who or what your citizenship class status is ...
pretending you are to rule over their lives, is wrong.
Not at all. Those who use medicaid to pay for their voluntary pregnancies and birth did come to me (me being government "we the people") asking for help because they did something they were not prepared for. So yes it is the business of "we the people" how tax dollars are spent.
Just like when one takes out a loan or applies for a government grant, your business becomes the lenders/givers business. Just like how a corporation conducts business is the business of its shareholder via the board of directors.
What do you want the government to do with your tax money? They are going to take if from you regardless, if it gets redistributed back into the economy through the safety nets ... so what do you really want to see happen here?
Maybe we should do a look back into the Great Depression and before and see what the government funded before it began to take care of its citizens.
You know I said it is the citizens business what taxes are being used for. I did not say I want to tell the government what I want my tax money to go for, right. Do you see the difference.
Not true. You have to name the father unless you had legal proof doing so would endanger your life.
Nope.
See post #197....and post #174.
There are probably a number of other relevant posts as well.
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.
