Reply With Quote
free of charge? fkn wasting taxpayers money again
free of charge? fkn wasting taxpayers money again
If someone is in the position to have insurance, then why is this needed?
More micromanagement from the top?
So the women don't have to pay to play?? Do men get reimbursement from their insurance companies for their condom purchases?
This will go into effect right around the time that my wife no longer needs her breast pump...
What if...
What if we changed the laws so that anyone getting pregnant that didn't have a proper financial future could be subject to legal recourse?
I'm thinking something along two basic ideas. First of all, those who depend on the state to raise their children, that they were irresponsible to have to begin with. Would it be too much to mandate both the man and women have their tubes snipped if they cannot attempt and make their own finances work? If they cannot support one child, why should society bear the cost of a second? Wouldn't two operations be cheaper than another child?
The second idea has to do with abortions. Same basic idea though. If the government is to pay for an abortion, why not tie the woman's tubes too? We can make the normal rape and incest exceptions, but legal papers must be signed, and if later proven wrong... Well perjury is a crime too!
Tough to know whether youre serious or not, but assuming you are...
The birth rate in this country is buoyed almost solely by the poor. Any restriction aimed at reducing the birth rate of the lowest socio-economic bracket will ultimately negatively affect the nation's bottom line by having an overabundant senior class.
Basically, take all the folks who are 65+ today who are breaking the SS and Medicare systems as is, and increase it by (total guess) 50% should such a plan be ins uted on a national scale in the next say, 10 years. It would take about 20-30 years to see its detrimental effects.
Just my opinion. You white folks need to start having babies, period. Until the middle class (and higher) increase their birth rates to match or exceed those of Latinos and African Americans, this will always be an unsolvable problem.
If it truly was an important topic (it isnt) and if it really meant something to the middle class (it doesnt), then all you have to do is trade in your entire material lifestyle (cars, TVs, motor toys, hobbies, sports, cable, phones, vacations and basically everything else cool) and have lots of babies.
Boom. Problem solved. Thats what the low income folks are doing to the middle and upper classes now. Theyre outbreeding you (us) and it will not stop. Immigration policy has nothing to do with the rapidly changing ratio of ethnic makeup in this country, its all in the loins.
BTW, I wanted to use the word "gentrification" in the above post as a reference to an aging population, only to find out that the term strictly applies to the improvement of poverty stricken neighborhoods.
Didnt know that. I knew it was used that way, just didnt know that there is no other use for the word. Then again, maybe its that the word so closely resembles "geriatric" to me, tough to tell.
/sidetrack
forced abortion should be based on race alone.
He was merely repeating one of WC's less fortunate authoritarian 'solution' to the welfare problem.
misogynist "Christians" want to make contraception illegal, which would mean more unwanted pregnancies, and more abortions.
buy stocks in birth control
This is a step forward. Now we need to fix sex-ed in hs away from christian abstinence bs, and we can fix the ty teen pregnancy rate we have here in the states.
LOL...
Really now. You are equating the two? It still ends up as responsibility. Birth control if not 100% reliable, and few people use it properly to have the stated percentages of prevention. It still factors out that a person is irresponsible to have sex if they cannot afford to raise a child.
He either paraphrased or quoted something I said in a different thread.
Responsible people aren't breeders like the poor, of all racial groups. they have money because they are responsible, for the most part. There are exceptions, but in general, poor people are poor by their own fault and this lack of responsibility for ones future also is a lack of responsibility in having children.
Isn't the 2 child average appropriate?
Now that's the Ponzi scheme that was counted on in the day when it was normal to raise an average of maybe 5 children. We cannot continue that today with limited land and resources. Us responsible people know that. Apparently the breeders do not.
Does this make you a racist?
No, abstinence still needs taught, and I think there is less than 1% of the schools that teach abstinence only.
If every family had only 2 children, you'd have far too many senior citizens.
I dont what the sweet spot is, but if I had to guess, it'd be 3-4. You have to account for deaths.
Not every child born makes it to productive adult life. Also, a stagnant population is a stagnant nation.
Its pretty simple, middle class and higher people need to have more children.
Since that wont happen, there is nothing you can do about it unless you endorse authoritarian methods that run contrary to basic human rights enshrined in our Cons ution.
...but since the Cons ution means about -all to big companies profit margins with the current SCOTUS makeup, maybe those partisan hacks can craft some ruling on the sterilization of minorities, too.
Yes, you are right. We would still probably keep population growth low with our normal immigration numbers.
Well, I disagree. Our social security should not be counting on an ever growing population to support it.
The system will fail at some future time, because no one is willing to make the tough decisions.
Why are you targeting minorities?
its a racist statement.
and smart people wouldn't trust an abortion from a black surgeon.
Do you mean the SS program?
Or literally "...our social security"?
Caucasians being the minority to a collective majority soon doesnt strike me as a risk of position in so much that it reflects Caucasians affluence relative to other ethnicities.
Bottom line, white people are being outpaced in the breeding race simply because an average white person has more money, more education and material wants that rank above the production of children.
I dont think that makes them better, I just think its a priority difference.
All of this is said under the normal, assumed mantra of "There are exceptions to every rule".
Now, if you didnt mean anything about ethnicity or social makeup, I dont know what youre referring to at all.
In order to support the financial balance sheets of the American government, the productive population must increase forever and ever. Whether thats through increased education of young, existing citizens, the immigration of skilled talent or something(s) I havent stated, the population must increase.
Thats going to happen regardless of people's inability to support their children. I dont think breeding rights are the place to start when addressing a balance sheet problem. Matter of fact, I dont think breeding rights even enters the conversation's universe of spending in this country.The system will fail at some future time, because no one is willing to make the tough decisions.
Theyre easy targets that get easier with every bump in total population percentage figures.Why are you targeting minorities?
Last edited by DarkReign; 08-03-2011 at 11:00 AM.
That's one of a generalization.
Based on your previous responses, I assume that it is fueled by what you have seen, personally, in the "Capital of the North-Left Coast," but if you have anything more substantial to back up your idea that poor people are generally the agents of their own demise, I'd sure love to see it.
As an aside to that, there is a downside to the American belief of superiority. IMO, the social conscience cannot accept an idle economy, an idle government or an idle population.
From CEO, to President, to Hillbilly Joe, we as Americans must grow, grow, grow!
To us, if youre not growing, youre dying. I dont know if its sad or just reality, but in a capitalist environment, its very true.
is this generalization reserved for Americans only or is it a worldwide generalization?
Wow, just wow.
Why can't people be colorblind? Why are you and others always making things a race issue?
Statistically, correct. Funny how in general, planning of children is better.
I agree.
Social makeup, yes. Ethnicity, no.
That's not sustainable.
Not normally, but maybe it should since we are pushing the limits of social welfare programs. We cannot let them grow at the rates they have. Something must be done to reduce the need for government assistance.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
