China's "One Child Policy" and the U.S.

[ntdz]

We don't have an over population problem here in the USA. Our country is one of the least densely populated first world countries.

 

[nutxo]

Meh. Offer all females 50k to be voluntarily sterilized at 18 years old. Since it's voluntary no one could complain. Only the poor will accept and it would be cheaper on the government in the long run. :beer:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: jrenz
You'd have bleeding hearts jumping off of buildings if anyone even suggested that.

I would think conservatives would oppose this measure far more, as it smacks of society trying to impose its will on how parents raise their children. While you may think it's reasonable to limit how many kids poor people can have, I think it would be just as reasonable to suggest limiting the number of kids parents who have other "unsuitable" characteristics that might be harmful to a child...perhaps "bad" ideology... Aren't you a little concerned about where this kind of thinking could lead?

Of course I'm assuming you're not one of these new "big government conservatives".

 

[d3n]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: jrenz
You'd have bleeding hearts jumping off of buildings if anyone even suggested that.

I would think conservatives would oppose this measure far more, as it smacks of society trying to impose its will on how parents raise their children. While you may think it's reasonable to limit how many kids poor people can have, I think it would be just as reasonable to suggest limiting the number of kids parents who have other "unsuitable" characteristics that might be harmful to a child...perhaps "bad" ideology... Aren't you a little concerned about where this kind of thinking could lead?

Of course I'm assuming you're not one of these new "big government conservatives".

Heck yeah, keep the Gov, out of my life. What makes this country great imho is that it has the best system in place to keep it that way. Doesn't mean it couldn't be better.

 

[DrPizza]

Just a couple of points - one, someone mentioned something about quality of life - I think it can be argued that the quality of life of most children in the US, even in the slummiest inner-city areas is FAR better than the quality of life in many 3rd world countries where children starve to death daily. Are you suggesting that not only do we ban people from having children if they "can't afford them" but also, entire countries in the world should neuter every male citizen?

Another point - forced male contraception as a condition of gov't handouts. Maybe a lot of people would cease using condoms under such conditions (since they can't get their partner pregnant) - leading to an increase in AIDS. What costs more? Raising a child to an adult age, or 40 years of AIDS medications?

Maybe, just maybe the solution has something to do with breaking the chain - figure out how to get the kids better educated so they don't repeat what their parents are doing. Intensive efforts might work; and make them conditional on welfare services. i.e. your little kindergartner misses 20 days of school in a year - you lose your benefits (of course, with the ability to appeal under extenuating circumstances - but that would call for people with a backbone to say, "I'm sorry - you had a hangover and slept past the time you should have taken your child to school is not an extenuating circumstance. Kidney dialysis weekly - that's an extenuating circumstance."

 

[d3n]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Just a couple of points - one, someone mentioned something about quality of life - I think it can be argued that the quality of life of most children in the US, even in the slummiest inner-city areas is FAR better than the quality of life in many 3rd world countries where children starve to death daily. Are you suggesting that not only do we ban people from having children if they "can't afford them" but also, entire countries in the world should neuter every male citizen?

Another point - forced male contraception as a condition of gov't handouts. Maybe a lot of people would cease using condoms under such conditions (since they can't get their partner pregnant) - leading to an increase in AIDS. What costs more? Raising a child to an adult age, or 40 years of AIDS medications?

Maybe, just maybe the solution has something to do with breaking the chain - figure out how to get the kids better educated so they don't repeat what their parents are doing. Intensive efforts might work; and make them conditional on welfare services. i.e. your little kindergartner misses 20 days of school in a year - you lose your benefits (of course, with the ability to appeal under extenuating circumstances - but that would call for people with a backbone to say, "I'm sorry - you had a hangover and slept past the time you should have taken your child to school is not an extenuating circumstance. Kidney dialysis weekly - that's an extenuating circumstance."

QFT

Breaking the chain is the key and something that is not easy to do. I think that many parents are ill prepared and raise kids in environments with bad emotional stimulus, simply because that is the way they were brought up. I have seen welfare moms that have kids taken away literally go get knocked up the next week just so they can have another baby to qualify for the program. I have also seen parents that have an expectation that Government schooling is going to cover the bases and enable their child in society. It will have to be parents and community first. Government and schools are not a fix that is going to work.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
and make them conditional on welfare services. i.e. your little kindergartner misses 20 days of school in a year - you lose your benefits (of course, with the ability to appeal under extenuating circumstances - but that would call for people with a backbone to say, "I'm sorry - you had a hangover and slept past the time you should have taken your child to school is not an extenuating circumstance. Kidney dialysis weekly - that's an extenuating circumstance."

That would never fly with the radicals... If you tried to cut off or deny benefits to people, even if they didn't "meet the criteria", you'd have groups all over screaming about intolerance and racism and bigotry and all sorts of other stupid crap.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Just a couple of points - one, someone mentioned something about quality of life - I think it can be argued that the quality of life of most children in the US, even in the slummiest inner-city areas is FAR better than the quality of life in many 3rd world countries where children starve to death daily. Are you suggesting that not only do we ban people from having children if they "can't afford them" but also, entire countries in the world should neuter every male citizen?

Another point - forced male contraception as a condition of gov't handouts. Maybe a lot of people would cease using condoms under such conditions (since they can't get their partner pregnant) - leading to an increase in AIDS. What costs more? Raising a child to an adult age, or 40 years of AIDS medications?

Maybe, just maybe the solution has something to do with breaking the chain - figure out how to get the kids better educated so they don't repeat what their parents are doing. Intensive efforts might work; and make them conditional on welfare services. i.e. your little kindergartner misses 20 days of school in a year - you lose your benefits (of course, with the ability to appeal under extenuating circumstances - but that would call for people with a backbone to say, "I'm sorry - you had a hangover and slept past the time you should have taken your child to school is not an extenuating circumstance. Kidney dialysis weekly - that's an extenuating circumstance."

You live in a world of victim mentality though. Kids are brought up thinking the world is against them because there parents teach them that. They go on knowing they will fail because the world wants them too. How do you break that chain? It is hard to get poor kids better education when they go to this new education expecting to fail because they have been taught that everyone wants them too.

 

[steppinthrax]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't see anything wrong with subsidizing those kids. It's investment in the future of your own country. What can be more important?
Look at other countries where people have stopped breeding because they are too busy with their careers, or they aren't ready, or they don't have big enough house, etc.
Their birthrates are plummeting, and they won't have enough people working to replace and support the aging population.
You just have to make sure that you invest the resources wisely and that these kids grow up to be productive members of society, then you don't have to worry about subsidizing them, since they will more than return on the investment.

It's not an invetsment for our country when these same kids don't have good parents in the first place to even have them. They allow their kids to run all over the ghetto involving in guns drugs, sex etc... Eventually this kid becomes an adult and ends up in "the system" (prison) and not only did the state pay for his birth. The state is now paying for 40 years of his room/board/medical. What is the investment in that. It's not an investment it's a "however long his lifespan is" bill to the state. Where the state is consistentley paying. This is the point of the type of thing I'm talking about.

 

[steppinthrax]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Just a couple of points - one, someone mentioned something about quality of life - I think it can be argued that the quality of life of most children in the US, even in the slummiest inner-city areas is FAR better than the quality of life in many 3rd world countries where children starve to death daily. Are you suggesting that not only do we ban people from having children if they "can't afford them" but also, entire countries in the world should neuter every male citizen?

Another point - forced male contraception as a condition of gov't handouts. Maybe a lot of people would cease using condoms under such conditions (since they can't get their partner pregnant) - leading to an increase in AIDS. What costs more? Raising a child to an adult age, or 40 years of AIDS medications?

Maybe, just maybe the solution has something to do with breaking the chain - figure out how to get the kids better educated so they don't repeat what their parents are doing. Intensive efforts might work; and make them conditional on welfare services. i.e. your little kindergartner misses 20 days of school in a year - you lose your benefits (of course, with the ability to appeal under extenuating circumstances - but that would call for people with a backbone to say, "I'm sorry - you had a hangover and slept past the time you should have taken your child to school is not an extenuating circumstance. Kidney dialysis weekly - that's an extenuating circumstance."

Do me a favor and look up the city Pembrooke, IL. It is a small of a ****** town/city in IL. It is considered one of the poorest cities in the United States. If you drive through it you would think your in Africa or Iraq. There is no road paving. Just dirt roads and no zoning. Most of the houses are converted trailors with tarps substituting their roofs. They did a special on TV regarding this city. They did a special regarding this city. Most of the people have no running water but us a 5gal bucket to bring water in every morning from a community well. The average income in that town was reported to be like $5,000 a year. What I see in every house that they visited was one very common thing. Every household there had like 6 children. WTF do you need 6 children for if you can't even support yourself. Unfortunatley every one of those children were on govt benefits. We all know govt benefits are not the best. Nor will the government take care of EVERYTHING. I mean by this what to eat and how to behave and when you bedtime is. Some of these kids were obese.

As far as your teaching the public goes. It is ovbious from this case and many others that it's not really working that well. A more effective solution is needed and imposing a similar "Child policy" in the United States would effectively fix this.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Legend
US population with US born citizens is decreasing. But sure, let's ****** all over the constitution and make a socialist regime and take away civil liberties. WTF.

More tinfoil for your hat sir? Or perhaps a lesson in looking outside your tunnel vision?

According to the CIA, the US fertility rate right now is 2.09.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html">https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fa...ok/rankorder/2127rank.html</a></a></a>

2.1 is the maintenance level. Or population is decreasing when you remove immigration. And yet some of you rather take away liberty to fix some nonexistent problem.

Excellent post.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: beyoku

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: beyoku
What do you think would be acceptable means to 'support' a child? $$?

Uh, yes?

I know you mean money. I wanted to see a figure. What do you think is acceptable for
single partent 1 kid
single parent 3 kids
dual parent 3 kid

thats not even right. besides the fact that cost of living changes (widely) from place to place who is to say what is acceptable amount? i am sure Modonna's kids wouldnt like what I live on.

what happens to a 2 family income with 3 kids and one dies? do the kids get taken away?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: jrenz
You'd have bleeding hearts jumping off of buildings if anyone even suggested that.

No you wouldn't.

I'd take it a step further and get people fixed as well.