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.
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.
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.
You did no such thing. Again, this phenomenon goes back centuries, even millennia. Centuries and millennia ago, there was no public assistance for poor people. Yet they still had more kids.
Another way to illustrate what I'm referring to in in modern world history: Poor nations have higher birthrates than richer nations. In most of these nations with fertility rates above, say, 4 or 5 kids/woman, there is little or no public assistance. But the women there churn out kids by the bucketful. Even within those countries, the poor have more kids than the rich.
That's how it was in Western societies 200, 300, 500 and 2000 years ago.
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.
^^^^^
A deflection that doesn't address my point that it isn't wrong for taxpayers (for any reason) to address how our money is being spent, which you indicated you feel is wrong.
Quote:
it isn't wrong for taxpayers (for any reason) to address how our money is being spent
Shaming people is and people should be ashamed for doing it.
And yet the number of medicaid births are now 50% of all births.
So what is poor? Affording only the basics or having to rely on government for your medical expenses. Or having to rely on the government for your medical expenses, food, shelter, utilities......
Large families were not the norm among the elite even by the Late Republic; the family of Clodius Pulcher, who had at least three sisters and two brothers, was considered unusual. The birth rate among the aristocracy declined to such an extent that the first Roman emperor Augustus (reigned 27 BCE–14 CE) passed a series of laws intended to increase it, including special honors for women who bore at least three children (the ius trium liberorum). Those who were unmarried, divorced, widowed, or barren were prohibited from inheriting property unless named in a will.
The other place I have read about this phenomenon was in (I seem to recall) Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. Somewhere he observed that authorities in Scotland in the mid-1700's kept statistics showing that the poor had more kids on average, or something to that effect. Maybe I'll see if I can find the passage later.
Not me. DFCS. They take children away from neglectful parents all the time.
You're making a critical mistake in your logic. An exponentially increasing population that pays no federal income tax will exacerbate the problem by using taxpayer-funded services and resources while not contributing by paying federal income tax. It's not sustainable. It will implode.
It's a numbers game ... as that is how the government set up the system ... the next generation is paying for the last generations retirement. No kids means the system will bankrupt ... odds are, the more births (people) have the greater the possibility for funding.
The government did not solve the problem without creating another ... class warfare and that is all this thread is, is an example of it; keep the slaves fight 'en amongst themselves.
We all work the fields together, none of us is more special, not even those who think they are in favor with the master.
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 ...
ANYONE can afford children - if they go to school, work a full time job after they graduate and don't have babies until they are married. 99% of Americans who follow this simple formula will be able to afford 2 kids in their late 20's.
And frankly, if you are so irresponsible that you have children before you can afford to pay for then, then you don't deserve to be called homo sapiens.
It's the only reason you're here is you think that some how a lower population will some how ease up your taxes, when in reality it will increase them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976
You think it doesn't matter what the earnings are of that higher population? If we allow 1 million people with a 10th grade average education to sneak into the country illegally, year after year, and they then have anchor babies, our taxes increase. We need to pay for Medicaid, food stamps, housing subsidies, and education (education for the non-anchor children, also).
Just having "more people" is not always helpful, just as "diversify" is not always a positive in and of itself.
So you don't know how to do the average on taxes, spreading it out over the population numbers, knowing that fewer wage earners means higher taxes for those working?
Trust, you will find out as the migrants that were here paying taxes with their wages have decreased, along with not enough children to take the place of their parents in the workforce ... Your taxes will go up, and the reason is staring right at you ... keep on advocating in the win to loose game; count your losses at the end of the day.
I don't get the mindset of having children when you can't afford them, I can't relate at all.
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.
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.
