Should people on goverment disability be allowed to have children?

[JSt0rm]

That's a terrible way to punish the planet, and long term ourselves, to solve a spending problem We've created.

We should a.) lock down the border so we don't let in 1/2 of countries and then all their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and so on long term, thereby vastly increasing our population, and b.) have incentives that make it very attractive to have no or less kids. Free birth control (including vasectomy and tubal's), free abortion (up to a certain developed point of fetus).

More kids...unreal...

If you actually looked into the subject you would realize that places with population decline have very real problems. It is in the best interest of the country to maintain a healthy population.

educate yourself...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline

 

[Infohawk]

If you actually looked into the subject you would realize that places with population decline have very real problems. It is in the best interest of the country to maintain a healthy population.

educate yourself...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline

Based on your posting history, you seem to be a liberal. Do you consider yourself a fan of the environment? If you do I think you need to look at this issue a little closer.

The problems people talk about with regard to population decline are only economic and even then mostly relating to how you're going to take care of the aging population. You don't really place gross economic output over all else do you? If you don't, you should be comfortable with a declining GDP as long as the GDP per capital stays the same. The retirement issue is a real one but population isn't the only factor. We're already seeing that the current elderly population's retirement is unsustainable. They likely need to live simpler lives in their retirements or more traditional lifestyles where they take care of the home while the younger generations work.

And all this ignores the positives that will likely come from a declining global population. We would all be much richer if there were only 1 billion people in the world. More natural resources to spread around to everyone. Never mind all the problems that come from overpopulation like disease and warfare. The world is grossly overpopulated. Much of the reason you see people treated like shit is precisely because there are too many people. In a sparsely populated world people would be more valued.

So chucky is correct despite alarmist articles by the Economist or other publications. We have a ways to go before we have a comfortable population again. China's one child population was a good step for that country. I think other countries would do good at a 2 or 3 child cap.

 

[Tom]

Supporting the disabled at the familial or tribal level is far different than supporting the disabled at the national level. For one, within the tribal unit, the member providing the support is usually the member also verifying the disability - thus, if the "disabled" really isn't disabled, the provider can cut off support. When you expand the scale to the national level, you lose that connection. I work with disability issues, and the abuse is ridiculous.

The way to solve the abuse issue is to properly fund the monitoring of the programs.

And it isn't all that different at any level. Reagan's "trust, but verify" applies to pretty much any endeavor.

In any case, the assholes are hopefully never going to get total control in this country, although it's pretty scary to see the same kind of people who brought these policies into effect in Japan and Germany 75 years ago gain traction in one of our major political parties.

 

[momeNt]

Based on your posting history, you seem to be a liberal. Do you consider yourself a fan of the environment? If you do I think you need to look at this issue a little closer.

The problems people talk about with regard to population decline are only economic and even then mostly relating to how you're going to take care of the aging population. You don't really place gross economic output over all else do you? If you don't, you should be comfortable with a declining GDP as long as the GDP per capital stays the same. The retirement issue is a real one but population isn't the only factor. We're already seeing that the current elderly population's retirement is unsustainable. They likely need to live simpler lives in their retirements or more traditional lifestyles where they take care of the home while the younger generations work.

And all this ignores the positives that will likely come from a declining global population. We would all be much richer if there were only 1 billion people in the world. More natural resources to spread around to everyone. Never mind all the problems that come from overpopulation like disease and warfare. The world is grossly overpopulated. Much of the reason you see people treated like shit is precisely because there are too many people. In a sparsely populated world people would be more valued.

So chucky is correct despite alarmist articles by the Economist or other publications. We have a ways to go before we have a comfortable population again. China's one child population was a good step for that country. I think other countries would do good at a 2 or 3 child cap.

It caps itself if government isn't allowed to redistribute wealth. Although most people probably could easier stomach a government enforced child cap than government not stepping in to feed families that outgrew their means.

 

[cybrsage]

And it isn't all that different at any level. Reagan's "trust, but verify" applies to pretty much any endeavor.

Interesting tidbit. Reagan got that from a common Russian phrase used a lot by Lenin and he invoked it often during negotiations with the USSR:

doveryai, no proveryai

I found that to be a bit of brilliance on his part. The Soviets could not say his use was evil, for it was a beloved phrase of Lenin.

 

[chucky2]

It caps itself if government isn't allowed to redistribute wealth. Although most people probably could easier stomach a government enforced child cap than government not stepping in to feed families that outgrew their means.

I'm not even talking about a child cap. People would be free to have as many kids as they want, their credit and then penalty would just kick in as they had each one. Something like:

0 Kids: $10000 tax credit to woman (or couple if married).

1 Kids: $6000 tax credit to mother (or couple if married).

2 Kids: $0 tax credit to mother (or couple if married).

3 Kids: $6000 (or x% of income, whichever greater) tax penalty to parents (split 75%/25% female/male if not married)

4 Kids: $10000 (or y% of income, whichever greater) tax penalty to parents (split 75%/25% female/male if not married)

5 Kids and Up: Add $5000 or z% of income (whichever greater) per pregnancy.

Obviously, having more than 1 kid during a pregnancy is not the parents fault, so, any kids more than 1 produced during that pregnancy would not count towards the next tier. Death of a kid before 18 would reduce your count by that 1 death.

The x/y/z% of income, whichever greater, amounts would have to be set, but they exist so richer women/couples do not have less financial burden than poorer women/couples do if they decide to have a kid/more kids.

If we started getting this through the political process now, so it could be enacted in 20 years or so (given how slow politics moves), maybe we wouldn't use up all the Earth's useful natural resources in the next few hundred years...just maybe...

 

[dank69]

I'm not even talking about a child cap. People would be free to have as many kids as they want, their credit and then penalty would just kick in as they had each one. Something like:

0 Kids: $10000 tax credit to woman (or couple if married).

1 Kids: $6000 tax credit to mother (or couple if married).

2 Kids: $0 tax credit to mother (or couple if married).

3 Kids: $6000 (or x% of income, whichever greater) tax penalty to parents (split 75%/25% female/male if not married)

4 Kids: $10000 (or y% of income, whichever greater) tax penalty to parents (split 75%/25% female/male if not married)

5 Kids and Up: Add $5000 or z% of income (whichever greater) per pregnancy.

Obviously, having more than 1 kid during a pregnancy is not the parents fault, so, any kids more than 1 produced during that pregnancy would not count towards the next tier. Death of a kid before 18 would reduce your count by that 1 death.

The x/y/z% of income, whichever greater, amounts would have to be set, but they exist so richer women/couples do not have less financial burden than poorer women/couples do if they decide to have a kid/more kids.

If we started getting this through the political process now, so it could be enacted in 20 years or so (given how slow politics moves), maybe we wouldn't use up all the Earth's useful natural resources in the next few hundred years...just maybe...

So as your expenses go up, your taxes go up?

 

[JSt0rm]

Based on your posting history, you seem to be a liberal. Do you consider yourself a fan of the environment? If you do I think you need to look at this issue a little closer.

We dont really have a over-population problem in America. I do agree the major problem with the planet is too many people but this is mostly 3rd world countries where the more kids you have the better your retirement is because they take care of you. We need to globally make sure people have enough opportunity to not feel the need to dump 12 kids on the planet.

 

[Infohawk]

We dont really have a over-population problem in America. I do agree the major problem with the planet is too many people but this is mostly 3rd world countries where the more kids you have the better your retirement is because they take care of you. We need to globally make sure people have enough opportunity to not feel the need to dump 12 kids on the planet.

Where is the cut-off for what is overpopulated? http://www.sitontop.com/KDImages/US_Lights.jpg The eastern part of the US is pretty much saturated. Fortunately the West still has some empty spaces but with your attitude those will be saturated too. The more people we have the more resources we are consuming. A lot of attention is paid to the environmental problems associated with this, but the reality is the rest of us are just poorer as a result of having to compete and pay more for natural resources. In my opinion the US is overpopulated. It's not about comparing to more populated countries, it's about what a good footprint is.

And you can't tell people in the third world to have less kids but then not do anything about it here. It's not just their problem.

 

[JSt0rm]

Where is the cut-off for what is overpopulated? http://www.sitontop.com/KDImages/US_Lights.jpg The eastern part of the US is pretty much saturated. Fortunately the West still has some empty spaces but with your attitude those will be saturated too. The more people we have the more resources we are consuming. A lot of attention is paid to the environmental problems associated with this, but the reality is the rest of us are just poorer as a result of having to compete and pay more for natural resources. In my opinion the US is overpopulated. It's not about comparing to more populated countries, it's about what a good footprint is.

And you can't tell people in the third world to have less kids but then not do anything about it here. It's not just their problem.

But we dont have the same problems as they do. We have our own set of problems. I think first we need to fix our borrow from future generations debt issues before we decide to reduce population in this country. If not you will crush that future generation.

When I was little they talked about borrowing from me and now we are talking about borrowing from them their in the future. Its dumb.

We need single payer healthcare, a reduction in the military industrial complex and then after those 2 big nuts have been cracked we need to reform welfare and SS and then we can talk about reduction in population but we wont. Religion wants big populations, let me know when their is a atheist in the whitehouse.

So while I do agree with you. I dont agree with its place in importance. If we have on average 2.2 kids per 2 people we arent ballooning our population as bad as some 3rd world country.

 

[chucky2]

So as your expenses go up, your taxes go up?

Absolutely. The point is to have women/couples chosing to have less kids, not more. You reward them for making the best choice for the country/World long term, and penalize them - at a certain point, 3 kids (if no multiple kids per pregnancy) - for not making the best choice for the country/World long term.

You don't tell them they can't have the kids, they can, you just don't make it attractive....basically the opposite of what we have now.

Then you make policy decisions on spending and tax rates to mitigate the gradual reduction in the population.

Chuck

 

[JSt0rm]

Absolutely. The point is to have women/couples chosing to have less kids, not more. You reward them for making the best choice for the country/World long term, and penalize them - at a certain point, 3 kids (if no multiple kids per pregnancy) - for not making the best choice for the country/World long term.

You don't tell them they can't have the kids, they can, you just don't make it attractive....basically the opposite of what we have now.

Then you make policy decisions on spending and tax rates to mitigate the gradual reduction in the population.

Chuck

You have it backwards chuck. We need to figure out how to support this greying populations medical before we attempt to reduce who will be supplying those people. We will destroy the economy. This is all pie in the sky stuff as not 1 candidate I know of has ever talked about this issue.

 

[chucky2]

That's because none of the politicians, and little of the public, ever consider things in a long term viewpoint. They need to bring up gun control, abortion, gay rights, etc. etc.

For healthcare, and it pains me to say it as someone who is conservative in nature, we need to get to a national healthcare system. Same payment scale (by market), same IT infra, etc. etc. Along with that the state and Fed needs to overhaul the amount of docs available and the manner in which they're produced/funded. We shouldn't have to import docs from overseas, we have plenty of know how and talent, we need to utilize it better.

So I respectfully disagree what I posted regarding US population control backwards, it's forward thinking. We just need to do other things as well to support this forward thinking population control policy.

Wow..I should make a comment related to the OP:

Sure they can have the kids...that's their right. We just don't fund them having them. They have a kid while they're on the gov dole, they're subject to the same things I posted in this thread. If they can't affrod those $$$$ amounts, then, they couldn't have afforded the kid anyways, and had no business having it.

Chuck

 

[JSt0rm]

That's because none of the politicians, and little of the public, ever consider things in a long term viewpoint. They need to bring up gun control, abortion, gay rights, etc. etc.

For healthcare, and it pains me to say it as someone who is conservative in nature, we need to get to a national healthcare system. Same payment scale (by market), same IT infra, etc. etc. Along with that the state and Fed needs to overhaul the amount of docs available and the manner in which they're produced/funded. We shouldn't have to import docs from overseas, we have plenty of know how and talent, we need to utilize it better.

So I respectfully don't have our US population control backwards, it's forward thinking. We just need to do other things as well to support this forward thinking population control policy.

Wow..I should make a comment related to the OP:

Sure they can have the kids...that's their right. We just don't fund them having them. They have a kid while they're on the gov dole, they're subject to the same things I posted in this thread. If they can't affrod those $$$$ amounts, then, they couldn't have afforded the kid anyways, and had no business having it.

Chuck

Well we agree to a point. i just think those other things need to come under control first.

 

[chucky2]

If by other things you mean national healthcare, locking down our southern borders, Absolutely. Gun policy, gay rights, those are fringe issues - when compared on a national affect level to the other issues - and need to take a back burner to the big boys.

But that doesn't mean we should take the next 15 years on national healthcare, finally get our hands around that beast, and then just start talking about population control, or about border control. Hemmoraging that time is not efficient or a good idea from a long term aspect. If we start in 10 or 15 years, all of Mexico will be here, thus our population will have ballooned (and this is a SWAG, but I will bet you it's not too far off) by 100M or so when looking at a 80-100 year view.

These (locking down the southern border and population control) discussions need to start happening, and they need to start happening in a serious - as in long term policy is put in place in 1-2 years for border control and within 10 years for population control - manner.

These POS Politicians we have suck so hard, on both sides, they just can't help doing effectively nothing...which is the last thing we need on either of these two issues.

 

[Infohawk]

But we dont have the same problems as they do. We have our own set of problems. I think first we need to fix our borrow from future generations debt issues before we decide to reduce population in this country. If not you will crush that future generation.

When I was little they talked about borrowing from me and now we are talking about borrowing from them their in the future. Its dumb.

We need single payer healthcare, a reduction in the military industrial complex and then after those 2 big nuts have been cracked we need to reform welfare and SS and then we can talk about reduction in population but we wont. Religion wants big populations, let me know when their is a atheist in the whitehouse.

So while I do agree with you. I dont agree with its place in importance. If we have on average 2.2 kids per 2 people we arent ballooning our population as bad as some 3rd world country.

We all share the common environmental and resources problems. We're all competing for oil and other natural resources and we're all going to suffer climate change problems even if it will be different on each continent. That and nobody's going to listen to us about shrinking the population if we're not doing it too. That and realistically the Americas always seem to take the rest of the world's excess population anyway...

You're absolutely right that there is basically nobody seriously discussing population reduction at this time and that the wacky religious right wants the population to keep increasing. But if you're not one of them I'm holding you to a higher standard. I don't think we can wait to start resolving these population and environmental problems, especially when they are part of the cause of the economic problems you're worried about. Honestly, so many of our problems really just come down to too many people competing for limited resources. If oil (basically free energy beyond the extraction) were cheaper the economy could be booming. If countries were underpopulated with shrinking resources people wouldn't feel the need to have huge standing armies. No amount of SS reforms is going to increase the amount of oil in the ground.

Anyway this is getting pretty off-topic but I still think you should re-assess the priority of the population problem. If we only had 300 million people in the world with the technology we have now we'd be living in a near-paradise compared to today.

 

[JSt0rm]

Well I plan on having 2 kids. I've chosen exceptional genetic material to have them with so I hope you will excuse me.

 

[momeNt]

Well I plan on having 2 kids. I've chosen exceptional genetic material to have them with so I hope you will excuse me.

Hope they feel the same.

http://www.doccool.com/cheated-on-husband-for-better-genes/

But Karen also had affairs because she wanted her children to have good genetics which she believed that her husband could not provide.

​

Nature wants us to mate with strong, virile men who can beat the shit out of the other men, have strong immune systems and produce the highest quality DNA sperm. But these types of testosterone driven men rarely, if ever, make good long-term partners.


My husband is a sensitive caring man with soft features. The men who fathered my children are much better looking, more masculine, and healthier than my hubby. If you were to ever meet my husband, you would agree that he is not the ideal man to mate with, but he would be a good dad.

She kinda failed to realize that it probably was something in his genes that made him incredibly successful financially enough to sadly and mistakenly land this whore. So while her offspring may offer great physical features, they won't be able to have the husband's smarts, and when he eventually finds out, his money.

​

 

[chucky2]

Well I plan on having 2 kids. I've chosen exceptional genetic material to have them with so I hope you will excuse me.

Not a bit, you'll see that my plan wouldn't penalize - or reward - you two for having two kids...even better, if you were to have your first pregnancy and have one kid, and then in the second pregnancy have twins/triplets/so on, you'd still be in the '2 Kids' tier, so you'd still be a wash.

Talk about fair huh?

 

[theeedude]

Not only allowed, but encouraged. If they are going to sit at home on disability, might as well have them raise a future taxpayer.

 

[chucky2]

Where's that 'Not Sure If Serious' pic.......

 

[Infohawk]

Well I plan on having 2 kids. I've chosen exceptional genetic material to have them with so I hope you will excuse me.

Not a bit, you'll see that my plan wouldn't penalize - or reward - you two for having two kids...even better, if you were to have your first pregnancy and have one kid, and then in the second pregnancy have twins/triplets/so on, you'd still be in the '2 Kids' tier, so you'd still be a wash.

Talk about fair huh?

Yeah 2 kids is below replacement if we set that as a max. Some people won't have kids at all or only 1 kid. Some kids will die...

 

[chucky2]

Well, not a "max", but rather, a $0 point. That way, no woman/couple can say, Uuze peen-al-eye-zun-in us po' folk!

They want to have 3 kids, 4 kids, 10 kids, no problemo! Just have to pay for them, that's all. Don't like that? Just have two pregnancies instead, your problems are magically solved....

 

[Infohawk]

Well, not a "max", but rather, a $0 point. That way, no woman/couple can say, Uuze peen-al-eye-zun-in us po' folk!

They want to have 3 kids, 4 kids, 10 kids, no problemo! Just have to pay for them, that's all. Don't like that? Just have two pregnancies instead, your problems are magically solved....

So rich people get to have as many children as they want? Don't think you'll find popular support for such a plan. Any depopulation plan needs to be equitable.

 

[chucky2]

They get to have kids, but you'll see that I didn't lock in hard $ amounts for Kids 3 and over. "Rich" people are going to have a % of both parents combined income (whether married or not) that is taken.

So if some couple with a $1M combined income decides to go for Kid 3, that's outstanding for them. That 15% tax on Kid 3 lets say will mean they pay an extra $150k, per year, for that absolutely necessary 3rd pregnancy.

Hope he/she was worth it....

Chuck

P.S. The %'s can be adjusted...maybe make Kid 3 20%, whatever. Point is, for those past a certain comfortable income, you make it d@mn painful for them...just like losing $6000, per year, would be for us peons.