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.
So many of our societal problems could be solved if only people would have the number of children that they could realistically afford to have.
yes i agree, would be nice to not shortcut the steps to having a safe secure financial and family life. being a single mom before they have spent time learning skills and knowledge will end up earning less which they cant afford a kid or two. i hear people complaining who work at Burger King, "How can i raise a family on this wage below $15 an hour" Well they cant. Fast food and temporary work part time jobs were not meant to raise a family as a persons career (unless they are maybe a manger). they were meant to give you work skills and experience.
used to be - go to school, go to college (or work your way up), then get married, then have kids,, if you skip these steps you will change your future forever, and maybe many many decades before you can catch up.
maybe if you live in a city or town where the cost of living is lower, you can afford it better. or maybe you have to live without things that people expect everyone ought to have - cell phones, technology, expensive fashions, etc. people in the old days did without and re-used things and repurposed things.
i dont think we can as a society go back to those days where you worked and saved up to buy things without credit.. but once you get caught in the credit trap, it will take years to recover. the thing you bought 5 years ago that you just had to have, but now are paying on credit with high interest, makes that thing that originally cost you $100, now you will have paid $500 on credit with interest over a few years. meanwhile, now 5 years has gone by and now you need something else. there you go on the merry go round of credit.
I know this would be wildly unpopular with many people, both liberals and conservatives,, but I think that any woman on SNAP who has at least two kids and is under the age of 45 should be offered $10,000 to have a tubal ligation, with the operation paid for by the taxpayers. MUCH cheaper in the long run with fewer children to support, and it would almost certainly eliminate some abortions.
It's soemthing of a perhaps more extreme variant of my suggestion. I think a provable long term birth control like an IUD or Deep-Provera wouldbe better because the mother may get her act together and should be able to have kids later if her cirumstances change and she no longer needs aid. Also, I not the unfortunate fact that both strategies focus on the mother, who is not the only person involved in creating the child. From a practical perspective, however, I can't see an anologue for the fathers.
So many of our societal problems could be solved if only people would have the number of children that they could realistically afford to have.
Another way of looking at it is our economy makes it too hard for people to afford to have kids.
If people only had the kids they could afford America would be two generations away from extinction. Right now, among people under the age of 40, only the upper class can really afford kids. The median wage in America is $34k a year. In most of America you can't raise a child on that.
The leading cause of poverty is having poor parents. All children should be sterilized at birth unless the parents pay a $200,000 deposit. We will eliminate poverty in one generation.
On the other hand, crack head Hunter Biden fathered 6 children, and could afford to do so because his daddy is connected and willing to sell out America to anyone with cash. Obviously he is just better and more deserving of the privilege of repopulating the planet! Right democrats?!
And multi-millionaire Hunter Biden was still sued for failure to pay child support. Go figure.
It's a thorny problem. Governmen assistance provides incentives for this behavior, so on one hand the easy asnwer is to eliminatethe incentives. On the other hand, these are innocent kids that didn't't ask to be put in the situation and it's hard to abandon them without some supportive assistance. I'd like to see something like tying assistance after someone has had one child to long term birth control (like an IUD, something that doesn't have to be taken every day), but I recognize the issues with that as well. A truly thorny problem.
I don't think most of the kids in this situation are the product of illegal immigration, I think the vast majority are born to US citizens.
The general public shouldn’t be bearing the cost though. Their situation isn’t the fault of the general public, it’s their parent’s fault.
A lot of single moms make good money now. But, I agree that far too many people have children they can't afford. If my income had been larger, I would have had more children. But, the thought of not being able to properly provide for them freaked me out.
I used to advance an idea that you must be issued a license to have a childr, but no one like it. In order to get a license, you must have health insurance, a stable residence, go through first aid training, take parenting classes, and some other stuff. Still a bad idea?
The general public shouldn’t be bearing the cost though. Their situation isn’t the fault of the general public, it’s their parent’s fault.
It’s also not the fault of offspring their bio parents engaged in unprotected sex without the emotional maturity nor financial ability to take care of the outcome.
It's soemthing of a perhaps more extreme variant of my suggestion. I think a provable long term birth control like an IUD or Deep-Provera wouldbe better because the mother may get her act together and should be able to have kids later if her cirumstances change and she no longer needs aid. Also, I not the unfortunate fact that both strategies focus on the mother, who is not the only person involved in creating the child. From a practical perspective, however, I can't see an anologue for the fathers.
Maybe the father of any child that is being supported by a mother on SNAP or welfare or who gets Medicaid should have a vasectomy. After all, a man could conceivably produce several children per day, but a woman can only produce one child every 10-12 months. Nip the problem in the bud.
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.
