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.
Our, (u.s.) welfare, ss, system is set up so that the younger workforce payroll taxes, pay for the older generation ...
^^ you just did. The tax system in your opinion, gives you the right to tell other people when they can and can not procreate ... They have to ask your permission.
We are talking about money, not murder ...
The bolded is irrelevant.
My example shows that shaming isn't inherently wrong, which is what you were implying.
Quote:
If the trough wasn't there, then what? Would you still feel the same to encroach on other's family planning business ... ?
In life we all know the best laid plans can blow up on a person. Where as, you can be doing all things the right way in making a plan; then something happens ... always worried about the 'something', is no way to live ... scared and in fear. In the 30's those that fell on hard times, blamed themselves, thinking they had done something wrong ... 87 years later, people are going to make sure they believe it.
It is called taking a risk ... which stands to reason in this game of risk, less population, less workforce, less possibility of taxes being kept up to standards, which leave those in the workforce to pick up the slack and their payroll taxes will increase.
More children the greater possibility given the odds that some? will enter the workforce as opposed to the none, you'd like to see?
My children are paying for my retirement, you nor yours don't enter the equation. The people not having babies are putting a strain on the system.
Once again, we are all slaves in this tax system. When the government approved welfare (taking care of its citizens), they created the fight among the classes and an excuse for people to believe they could rule over other's lives. And that is fine by all those of you who do not think it is your life being effected by the outcry of the other slaves ... Rather than come together in support of one another, the government created a (money) division among the citizens by creating the poor, the middle and the elite classes, distinct, where as, in all reality no one is any better than the other in this world, we just think we are; you've been brainwashed, through government bureaucracy.
The u.s. use to believe in the family ... what happened? btw: not doing so will end us.
Re the bolded that you asked me, no. I personally wouldn't. If someone is completely paying for their own kid, I think it would be none of my business how many kids they have.
Because the article included that the decrease in migrants also impact the population to reproduce itself, you want to just talk about migrants? Did you know they too are having fewer babies? So there you go ...
The "logic" exhibited by liberals is just mind-blowing.
Let's break it down into an analogy that even you might understand: Let's say that 100 people are staying at a hotel, and the cost per person is $150 a night - or a total of $15,000. Of those people, only half are paying, so the paying half has to pay $300 each to cover themselves as well as the non-payers.
OK....you with me so far? How would it help the paying half to import another 20 people who can't pay for their hotel room? NOw you have 50 people supporting 70, rather than 50. So now instead of paying $300 a night, the paying half (now it's less than half) have to pay $360 a night.
When you open the hotel doors to people who cannot afford to pay, the cost will go upon those that can.
I can't simplify it anymore than that. It's equivalent to the 3rd grade "word problems" I did as an 8-year-old.
But what did they do to deserve having to grow up poor? Nothing. They didn't do anything to deserve that.
Who said they deserved it? But if they stayed away from drugs, didn't have a baby at 16, studied hard, and went to college or a vocational program, they went from poverty to at least lower-middle-class in 10 years.
Who said they deserved it? But if they stayed away from drugs, didn't have a baby at 16, studied hard, and went to college or a vocational program, they went from poverty to at least lower-middle-class in 10 years.
I asked that question because I didn't think the person I was replying to, who wasn't you, would be able to come up with anything.
What a poor kid may end up being able to do doesn't address whether they should have been put in that position in the first place.
I asked that question because I didn't think the person I was replying to, who wasn't you, would be able to come up with anything.
What a poor kid may end up being able to do doesn't address whether they should have been put in that position in the first place.
I guess it depends on how poor. My dad, my he RIP, was born during the Depression to poor LEGAL immigrant parents WHO NEVER TOOK A DIME OF RELIEF. But he never went hungry. And he grew up to earn an advanced degree and live an upper-middle class lifestyle. I'm glad he was "put in the place" of a poor child.
The issue, which I believe we both agree on, is whether poor people should expect, or are entitled, to have other people support their children, and on the same level as working-class parents earning their own. EverythingI have suggested to bring down the costs has been poo-poohed here:
I said that welfare-dependent single mothers with one or two young children should be "doubled up" in 3-bedroom apartments, even if it means three kids have to share a bedroom. (When I grew up in, that wasn't uncommon.) All sorts of excuses came out from liberals.....what if the mothers don't get along, it's not fair to put three kids in a bedroom, and so forth.
I also suggested having food vouchers redeemable for only fresh meat, veggies, fruits, milk, eggs, and bread. Again the liberals attacked, saying Inhad no right to decide what other people could eat....and how would I like it if people restricted what *I* ate? (Never mind that I am paying for my own food.)
Sorry, but people who live off of other people's money are not ENTITLED to live as working-class people who support themselves.
The "logic" exhibited by liberals is just mind-blowing.
Let's break it down into an analogy that even you might understand: Let's say that 100 people are staying at a hotel, and the cost per person is $150 a night - or a total of $15,000. Of those people, only half are paying, so the paying half has to pay $300 each to cover themselves as well as the non-payers.
OK....you with me so far? How would it help the paying half to import another 20 people who can't pay for their hotel room? NOw you have 50 people supporting 70, rather than 50. So now instead of paying $300 a night, the paying half (now it's less than half) have to pay $360 a night.
When you open the hotel doors to people who cannot afford to pay, the cost will go upon those that can.
I can't simplify it anymore than that. It's equivalent to the 3rd grade "word problems" I did as an 8-year-old.
Great post. I would love to see anyone who could respond intelligently to that.
Of course, my guess is that some will say that this doesn't matter at all because the real fault is with those hotel owners who charge so much to begin with and so the poor should not have to pay anything. SMH!!
I was raised (born in the second half of the baby boom) in a liberal area (the SF Bay Area), but I was still raised that you don't have children without being married because it is wrong, and because it is a low class thing to do.
Reading this post made me think about something. Of the top 10 states with the highest out of wedlock births, 6 are in what we would call "conservative" states (the states with an *asterick next to it). This is data as of 2017.
Mississippi*
Louisiana*
New Mexico
Nevada
Delaware
Alabama*
Florida
South Carolina*
West Virginia*
Arkansas*
States with the highest out of wedlock birth rates in 2005.
New Mexico
Mississippi*
Louisiana*
Delaware
South Carolina*
Arizona*
Florida
Nevada
Georgia*
Tennessee*
Alabama, West Virginia, Arkansas, those states have seen spikes in their out of wedlock birth rates.
Reading this post made me think about something. Of the top 10 states with the highest out of wedlock births, 6 are in what we would call "conservative" states (the states with an *asterick next to it). This is data as of 2017.
Mississippi*
Louisiana*
New Mexico
Nevada
Delaware
Alabama*
Florida
South Carolina*
West Virginia*
Arkansas*
States with the highest out of wedlock birth rates in 2005.
New Mexico
Mississippi*
Louisiana*
Delaware
South Carolina*
Arizona*
Florida
Nevada
Georgia*
Tennessee*
Alabama, West Virginia, Arkansas, those states have seen spikes in their out of wedlock birth rates.
Now, refine that by race/ethnicity. Produces a clearer picture of what's going on.
Now, refine that by race/ethnicity. Produces a clearer picture of what's going on.
Then explain Arkansas and West Virginia. Arkansas is 75% White and West Virginia is 92% White.
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.
poetic justice, is sweet.
I was raised (born in the second half of the baby boom) in a liberal area (the SF Bay Area), but I was still raised that you don't have children without being married because it is wrong, and because it is a low class thing to do.
