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.
As for the U.S... people who cannot afford to support themselves should NOT be having kids. When you say such a rule would wipe out people of color you are insulting people of color. You are saying all people of color live in poverty. That is not the case and has never been the case.
My thinking is more about what is good for society as a whole at the expense of some individuals. Your thinking seems to be about what's good for the individual at the expense of society. Guess what? When society fails.. ALL individuals fail. So better to look out for society.
If people vehemently disagree with you it is only because you're finding a way to put it across to lessen the impact of what you're proposing. Now you know that I know, as an African-American, that most people of color are working and have some autonomy. But there is also a huge underclass that does not, at least a fifth or a quarter of Blacks in the US. Just say it for what it is that you do not feel that me and you, and the rest of the working class needs to pay taxes to be put forward towards welfare and other entitlement programs, and if the children of the poor were not an issue the cities would be a lot cleaner, the crime less or virtually non-existent, and life would be better overall.
You don't like overpopulation. Simple as that. You're addressing overpopulation by taking on America's poor, as that would be the most obvious place to look because the rich and the middle class do not have more than a few kids from different situations, and they consume less resources than the poor.
If people vehemently disagree with you it is only because you're finding a way to put it across to lessen the impact of what you're proposing. Now you know that I know, as an African-American, that most people of color are working and have some autonomy. But there is also a huge underclass that does not, at least a fifth or a quarter of Blacks in the US. Just say it for what it is that you do not feel that me and you, and the rest of the working class needs to pay taxes to be put forward towards welfare and other entitlement programs, and if the children of the poor were not an issue the cities would be a lot cleaner, the crime less or virtually non-existent, and life would be better overall.
You don't like overpopulation. Simple as that. You're addressing overpopulation by taking on America's poor, as that would be the most obvious place to look because the rich and the middle class do not have more than a few kids from different situations, and they consume less resources than the poor.
There is a culture of poverty that is handed down from one generation to the next. If you think poor, act poor, make poor choices, make poor decisions, and do poor things, you will end up poor and stay poor. It is a vicious cycle.
They cycle starts with having kids you cannot afford to raise properly.
When it comes to understanding poverty, people seem to fall into one of two camps. On the Left, people argue that the poor are victims of circumstance, birthright or race.. and that we should feel sorry for them as their plight is not of their own making. And there is a nugget (a nugget) of truth to that.
On the Right, people point out that one reason poor people remain poor is that they make insanely idiotic choices with their money.. squandering instead of saving, buying bling and paying high interest rates for it. The people on the Left castigate the Right for "blaming the poor" for their misfortunes.
Sadly, this "shaming" technique does little to advance the debate, but just shuts down discussion, as those on the Left just accuse those on the Right as being "heartless bastards who hate the poor!" and discussion ends.
Similarly, on the Right, the argument used to stifle debate is that the Left just wants to "give away money to the poor".. usually to create a voting bloc to remain in power, and thus the Left is also shamed and discussion ended. This is not helpful either.
I suggest you write a letter to your councilmember then because there are already programs, that you are apparently opposed to, that assist those professions in being able to afford homeownership in the District.
You would be correct. Do I think it's fair I pay market rent whereas affordable housing people pay a third of what I pay? Um no. I don't see the benefit of having high income and low income people in the same building. The people who benefit from these programs are the developers who use HUD financing to keep their borrowing costs low and people who are approved through the program.
Yes values!!! And your values have nothing to do with how much money you make. It has everything to do with how you were raised, who and what you think is important in life. I love when someone disagrees with the pro- Gentrification crowd; their default argument is "oh you must be in a lower income bracket and that's why you're complaining" It's pure ignorance and it just so happens not to be true. Together my wife and I make over $200,000.00 a year and we have 5 degrees between us. Not that it's any of your business, but I felt compelled to tell you that because I know that those are the sort of things that give people validity in your mind. I can pretty much live wherever the hell I want in DC to be honest with you.
I have chosen to stay in my neighborhood because it allows me to associate with people of various income levels. An entire city should never only have just one socioeconomic class. Show me a great city and I'll show you a city where people of different income levels coexist. Just because somebody makes less money than you do, doesn't mean they don't have value in our society or that you're any better then them. Some of you people are so ignorant and arrogant it boggles the mind. Here's the thing... As a successful AA man I feel that I have a moral responsibility to help other AAs that are less fortunate than I am. Particularly, since they may not have the political, economic or educational advantages that I have. If you're not AA than you'll never understand this concept and I certainly don't expect you to. However, you do realize that there are many upper income Black people in this city that disagree with the pro-gentrification crowd's agenda right???
First off, income doesn't translate to wealth. And for you to assume I didn't grow up with values because I believe in the simple principle of supply and demand is ridiculous. 5 degrees don't give you common sense. I don't see the benefit of having low income and high income people in the same building. These programs typically benefit developers who want to use HUD financing to keep their costs low and minorities who lack ambition. Also, not surprised you're AA. Those are the ones that whine.
There is a culture of poverty that is handed down from one generation to the next. If you think poor, act poor, make poor choices, make poor decisions, and do poor things, you will end up poor and stay poor. It is a vicious cycle.
They cycle starts with having kids you cannot afford to raise properly.
When it comes to understanding poverty, people seem to fall into one of two camps. On the Left, people argue that the poor are victims of circumstance, birthright or race.. and that we should feel sorry for them as their plight is not of their own making. And there is a nugget (a nugget) of truth to that.
On the Right, people point out that one reason poor people remain poor is that they make insanely idiotic choices with their money.. squandering instead of saving, buying bling and paying high interest rates for it. The people on the Left castigate the Right for "blaming the poor" for their misfortunes.
Sadly, this "shaming" technique does little to advance the debate, but just shuts down discussion, as those on the Left just accuse those on the Right as being "heartless bastards who hate the poor!" and discussion ends.
Similarly, on the Right, the argument used to stifle debate is that the Left just wants to "give away money to the poor".. usually to create a voting bloc to remain in power, and thus the Left is also shamed and discussion ended. This is not helpful either.
Chriz I don't disagree with you. I believe I did on the last go round we had on C-D. I believe it was one you were the original poster on about what was so great about New York City. You did have some interesting points.
My thing is that you have a way of supporting arguments that aren't necessarily wrong. But they invalidate people's feelings. And they're often on about things that, at the end of the day, either aren't here or there, or come across as your intellectual superiority. And you already knew, because of the way that you prefaced your argument. You didn't do that then but you gave us the benefit of the doubt this time around.
You can't tell poor people not to have kids any more than you can tell us why we should believe that New York City is not as great as we like to think it is. And the reason I brought that up is because your argument is very similar. We have an inalienable right to think that NYC is great, just like poor people have that right to have kids they can't afford. Poor people engage in acts they can't afford. That will never change. It's human nature.
Those of us that are blessed to be in a situation where we have not succumbed to such base desires as lust, that calculate risk, use protection, and do not have any regrets, and no crazy babies mamas have a social responsibility to take care of people that can't help themselves. Whatever their sin.
I get it; I know too many women out there doing dumb things hooking up with the wrong men, impregnated. Some of them are poor. A few of them are not. But you can't argue with their right to make those mistakes. And you're doing the same thing now as you did then, conveniently ignoring the fact that people aren't looking into what we argue about on C-D with the depth and consideration that you do. It isn't that you're wrong, it's that you're willing to go to any length just to be right.
Chriz I don't disagree with you. I believe I did on the last go round we had on C-D. I believe it was one you were the original poster on about what was so great about New York City. You did have some interesting points.
My thing is that you have a way of supporting arguments that aren't necessarily wrong. But they invalidate people's feelings. And they're often on about things that, at the end of the day, either aren't here or there, or come across as your intellectual superiority. And you already knew, because of the way that you prefaced your argument. You didn't do that then but you gave us the benefit of the doubt this time around.
You can't tell poor people not to have kids any more than you can tell us why we should believe that New York City is not as great as we like to think it is. And the reason I brought that up is because your argument is very similar. We have an inalienable right to think that NYC is great, just like poor people have that right to have kids they can't afford. Poor people engage in acts they can't afford. That will never change. It's human nature.
Those of us that are blessed to be in a situation where we have not succumbed to such base desires as lust, that calculate risk, use protection, and do not have any regrets, and no crazy babies mamas have a social responsibility to take care of people that can't help themselves. Whatever their sin.
I get it; I know too many women out there doing dumb things hooking up with the wrong men, impregnated. Some of them are poor. A few of them are not. But you can't argue with their right to make those mistakes. And you're doing the same thing now as you did then, conveniently ignoring the fact that people aren't looking into what we argue about on C-D with the depth and consideration that you do. It isn't that you're wrong, it's that you're willing to go to any length just to be right.
What I try to do is offer unique and sometimes provocative ideas to make people think. My hope is that someone will learn from it or at least think about it.
Here is something to consider. You need a license to drive a car right? Why? So you don't kill people when you get behind the wheel. So why not a license to be a parent? Should having children be a "right" just because its biological? Walking around naked in public is not a right... but very biological. It is also far less harmful than raising kids in poverty.
My point is.. maybe we should think more as a society and not just assume something is right just because it was put in the law books 100 years ago.
What I try to do is offer unique and sometimes provocative ideas to make people think. My hope is that someone will learn from it or at least think about it.
Here is something to consider. You need a license to drive a car right? Why? So you don't kill people when you get behind the wheel. So why not a license to be a parent? Should having children be a "right" just because its biological? Walking around naked in public is not a right... but very biological. It is also far less harmful than raising kids in poverty.
My point is.. maybe we should think more as a society and not just assume something is right just because it was put in the law books 100 years ago.
What makes you think you are the first person to think of that? It is impossible to stop people from having kids. Do you really want police enforcing that? You want a police-state where we lose our freedoms? Others have thought about it already and have rejected that idea.
What makes you think you are the first person to think of that? It is impossible to stop people from having kids. Do you really want police enforcing that? You want a police-state where we lose our freedoms? Others have thought about it already and have rejected that idea.
I'm not talking about what I "want" I'm taking about what works to solve the problem. That is the only solution.
Also.. it is not "impossible" to stop people from having kids.
I'm not talking about what I "want" I'm taking about what works to solve the problem. That is the only solution.
Also.. it is not "impossible" to stop people from having kids.
Its like I said before. Compulsory sterilization is the easiest way. Most times people aren't even aware that it is happened, if it occurs when being treated for some other medical condition. If you aren't keen on that idea how do you propose that this is accomplished?
Short of a police state or a Big Brother scenario like they had in "1984" where the police are literally there to stop you from engaging in the act, how do you accomplish this?
I'm not talking about what I "want" I'm taking about what works to solve the problem. That is the only solution.
Also.. it is not "impossible" to stop people from having kids.
Yes it is impossible without a police state enforcing what you do in your bedroom.
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.
