"Stop the War on Texas! Go back to California!" (transfer, bankrupt)

[twange]

Originally Posted by mark311

The first Freebirds was opened in Santa Barbara. I think most people think that it was started in Texas.

That's funny. When I first moved here I remember how disappointed someone was when I told them that we had several Half-Priced Books in the Cleveland area (for years). They thought it was an Austin-only thing. Now I know that they are a family-owned chain started in Dallas but I found it hypocritical that it's OK when chains originating in Texas, spread to other states (killing off their local businesses) but God forbid someone brings a Trader Joe's, In-an-Out Burger, etc...from another state. Especially California. The gall!

Hilarious. And sad.

[jobert]

Originally Posted by twange

That's funny. When I first moved here I remember how disappointed someone was when I told them that we had several Half-Priced Books in the Cleveland area (for years). They thought it was an Austin-only thing. Now I know that they are a family-owned chain started in Dallas but I found it hypocritical that it's OK when chains originating in Texas, spread to other states (killing off their local businesses) but God forbid someone brings a Trader Joe's, In-an-Out Burger, etc...from another state. Especially California. The gall!

Hilarious. And sad.

One place I loved in Dallas: the 55,000 sf Half-Price Books at NwHwy and Greenville (HQ). It is to bookstores what Whole Foods on 6th street is to groceries. You could get lost for days in that place - it had distinct geographic regions even with different climates (not really, but felt like it).

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by orbius

When you make a vague attack on an entire group of people it sounds a lot like prejudice.

Originally Posted by orbius
Frankly I think most of this kind of stuff is total ignorant, baseless, prejudice. No other way to put it. It springs from the 60's and 70's when California was home to the anti-war movement and the hippie movement was in full swing. A certain group of people in Texas hated this aspect of California, and pigeon holed the entire state as something negative.

Now anytime they see or hear anything related to California it taps into these old prejudices and their common sense gets short circuited.

Interesting to see these two posts so close together.

[sxrckr]

Probably mad about the changes in regulation and especially noise ordinance.

[mimimomx3]

Originally Posted by JayBrown80

Basically that there are too many people.

So....who should we get rid of- you're not volunteering, are you?

[JayBrown80]

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

So....who should we get rid of- you're not volunteering, are you?

Typical.

It's not about GETTING RID of anyone, that's what people like you advocate mimimom. It's about adding fewer. No subtraction, just less addition. At no point have I ever said anyone needs to go. Although, if I recall correctly, you have posted that you believe that "death panels" exist, so I guess I should cut you some slack.

So, enjoy the children you got, just please don't have anymore. OR, have as many as you want, but stop complaining about how Californians are crowding the state. Texans are crowding it too. Did you read the thread at all mimimom?

[jobert]

Originally Posted by JayBrown80

Typical.

It's not about GETTING RID of anyone, that's what people like you advocate mimimom. It's about adding fewer. No subtraction, just less addition. At no point have I ever said anyone needs to go. Although, if I recall correctly, you have posted that you believe that "death panels" exist, so I guess I should cut you some slack.

So, enjoy the children you got, just please don't have anymore. OR, have as many as you want, but stop complaining about how Californians are crowding the state. Texans are crowding it too. Did you read the thread at all mimimom?

The problem isn't too many people, it's the people who can't afford children that are having too many.
If you're a lawyer pulling in 200K a year, then go ahead, have 8 kids. If you're making $10/hr, you have no business having 8 kids - the sad part is that the couple with one spouse making $10/hr would never have been able to raise those kids if it wasn't for YOUR tax money.


I'll take it one step further:
if you have kids and you want money from the government, then you must voluntarily have yourself fixed.

[Jennibc]

Originally Posted by jobert

The problem isn't too many people, it's the people who can't afford children that are having too many.
If you're a lawyer pulling in 200K a year, then go ahead, have 8 kids. If you're making $10/hr, you have no business having 8 kids - the sad part is that the couple with one spouse making $10/hr would never have been able to raise those kids if it wasn't for YOUR tax money.

If you're a lawyer bringing in 200K a year (and that's a rare lawyer), you don't have time for eight kids and your spouse has probably already left you because you don't have time for him/her.

[JayBrown80]

Originally Posted by jobert

The problem isn't too many people, it's the people who can't afford children that are having too many.
If you're a lawyer pulling in 200K a year, then go ahead, have 8 kids. If you're making $10/hr, you have no business having 8 kids - the sad part is that the couple with one spouse making $10/hr would never have been able to raise those kids if it wasn't for YOUR tax money.


I'll take it one step further:
if you have kids and you want money from the government, then you must voluntarily have yourself fixed.

I understand that it is frustrating for tax payers to foot the bill for irresponsible breeders, but I don't know if I would go this far. I mean, there is any number of effective and safe birth control methonds that reliably lasts up to 5 years. I don't think we need to go the full sterilization route. And how would you regulate men with sterilization? I mean; mother's baby, fathers maybe. What do you do with the guys who say it's not theirs? It seems like that system would only be punitive towards women.

And how do you enforce it? If you are leaving the program as VOLUNTARY, then you have to accept the fact that there are going to be children that will starve to death because their mothers are stupid. Are you willing to make an example of those children, to deny them innoculations, and food, and shelter, just to show that you mean buisness with irresponsible mothers?

The fact of the manner is, taxation is a huge incentive/disincentive system that the government uses to provide funds, but also to regulate behavior. Right now the government incentivises having children. And due to the policies of our previous president and many of our churches, we devaule safe sexual practices. This is the real root of overpopulation. We have an 18th century mentality towards children and sex, but we live in a 21st century world. The best way to discourage people having children is to provide them with safe, effective and Cheap birth control, and stop the taxation policies that encourage them to have kids. The earned income credit comes to mind.

We are no longer in a place as a species that we need to encourage women and families to have as MANY children as possible because you are hedging your bets against catastrophe (childhood illness or death). It's reasonable to believe that your one kid is going make it to adulthood.

I have always believed that we as a society teach the wrong things in high school. Instead of some of the fluff classes we have, I really wish we would teach 3 month courses during the school year on what I call "practical skills". 3 months on how to balance a checkbook, how to read a credit card application, 3 months on how much it costs (both monetarily and emotionally) to have a baby, and yes 3 months on how to practice safe sex.

Safe sex to include abstinence as well as how to use birth control as well as helping young adults understand that there is a multitude of sexual practices out there that can be fun and satisfying and not put you at any risk for STD's or pregnancy.

If people had access to birth control, and knew uncle sam wasn't going to foot the bill for their babies, then I think that's much more effective then strapping people down for sterilization.

[G Grasshopper]

Originally Posted by jobert

The problem isn't too many people, it's the people who can't afford children that are having too many.
If you're a lawyer pulling in 200K a year, then go ahead, have 8 kids. If you're making $10/hr, you have no business having 8 kids - the sad part is that the couple with one spouse making $10/hr would never have been able to raise those kids if it wasn't for YOUR tax money.

I am not in agreement at all because if you can afford to have 8 children, your paying for them only lasts until they or 18. It is the community and all its taxpayers that have to pay for infrastructure for those 8 people and all their resultant progeny. And the resources that are required by all those kids, grandkids, etc. keeps increasing through the generations. That certainly is not "paid for" by the original parents. What you are advocating is a very short term approach, and short term thinking never yields good solutions, in my opinion.

I agree with Jay that the government should not be in the business of giving incentives for excess reproduction. I think the tax code should give exemptions for 2 children and none after that. If you choose to have more, Uncle Sam should not be rewarding you. I have trouble with telling people they can't have more than 2 kids. That seems a little draconian. But the tax code should not reward people who reproduce irresponsibly.

Austin's population problems are very similar to places all over the country, mostly cities. (I realize that not all cities are growing, but many are, and are having the same sprawl problems.) There are just too many people. It isn't sustainable. I have recently heard that some people think that the reproductive rate is going down world-wide. But if that is true, I don't think we are going to see any effect from that trend in Austin for a long time, especially since we have an economy that is dependent on constant growth rather than a leveled-off, sustained activity.