Where was this Mitt when he was running for President?

[Fanatical Meat]

On the surface seems like a fair deal, typical Mitt jumping on what’s popular. Tax large estates, basic income for kids.

Mitt Romney and Michael Bennet just unveiled a basic income plan for kids

There is now a bipartisan bill for a child allowance.

www.vox.com

 

[ElFenix]

no.

enough with the social engineering.

 

[feralkid]

no.

enough with the social engineering.

Not sure what your point is.

 

[nakedfrog]

Not sure what your point is.

I think the implication is that people will pop out more babies for that sweet cheddar?

 

[FerrelGeek]

If Mittens somehow gets the rep nomination, he'll bend over and grab the ankles in the general just like he did in 2012.

 

[snoopy7548]

As a single guy without any kids, on the surface I'm against this but I do understand that even $1.5k/year is almost nothing compared to the cost of raising a child. At some point I'd love to have a "no child" tax credit for those responsible adults who choose not to have kids.

IMO, if you don't want to or can't handle the financial burden of raising kids, don't have them. I understand that mistakes happen, though, but it's not the government's job to support your children.

 

[fskimospy]

As a single guy without any kids, on the surface I'm against this but I do understand that even $1.5k/year is almost nothing compared to the cost of raising a child. At some point I'd love to have a "no child" tax credit for those responsible adults who choose not to have kids.

IMO, if you don't want to or can't handle the financial burden of raising kids, don't have them. I understand that mistakes happen, though, but it's not the government's job to support your children.

Pretty sure America needs more people having kids, not fewer.

Having a kid today is vastly more expensive than it was 30-40 years ago and the cost of child care has skyrocketed in large part due to Baumol's cost disease. If you guys want fewer people to have children that's fine but don't be shocked when retirement programs are slashed when you come of that age - it's an inevitable consequence.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

no

stop allowing women to give birth in hospitals, no medical care for newborns


enough with the social engineering.

 

[snoopy7548]

Pretty sure America needs more people having kids, not fewer.

Having a kid today is vastly more expensive than it was 30-40 years ago and the cost of child care has skyrocketed in large part due to Baumol's cost disease. If you guys want fewer people to have children that's fine but don't be shocked when retirement programs are slashed when you come of that age - it's an inevitable consequence.

To be honest, I'd much rather take the amount I pay into Social Security and either be able to invest it myself or be able to dump it into my 401k. I'm not counting on it being there when I retire.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

Pretty sure America needs more people having kids, not fewer.

Having a kid today is vastly more expensive than it was 30-40 years ago and the cost of child care has skyrocketed in large part due to Baumol's cost disease. If you guys want fewer people to have children that's fine but don't be shocked when retirement programs are slashed when you come of that age - it's an inevitable consequence.

I'm curious how many "responsible people" who don't want to support "others" having children, or their education, are also against immigrants taking jobs. But also want a growing economy, secure retirement programs, and higher-scoring students and more innovators..?

 

[fskimospy]

To be honest, I'd much rather take the amount I pay into Social Security and either be able to invest it myself or be able to dump it into my 401k. I'm not counting on it being there when I retire.

Well sure, you're probably reasonably well off and the purpose of social security is primarily to alleviate poverty among the elderly. If you're doing well then social security isn't a very good deal for you, similarly to how food stamps isn't a good deal for someone not on them.

All that aside, social security will be there although the benefits will probably be modestly reduced due to the fact that our fertility rate as a nation has kind of cratered.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm curious how many "responsible people" who don't want to support "others" having children, or their education, are also against immigrants taking jobs. But also want a growing economy, secure retirement programs, and higher-scoring students and more innovators..?

It is very confusing to me. Generally speaking if you look at Japan their growth 'problem' is mostly explained by demographic decline. They just kind of stopped having kids but they are super xenophobic so immigrating there is very hard. Basically Japan's stagnation is our future if Trump and the anti-immigrant people get their way.

 

[IronWing]

Pretty sure America needs more people having kids, not fewer.

I'm 100% positive that you are wrong.

 

[Zorba]

Pretty sure America needs more people having kids, not fewer.

The planet needs far fewer. The best thing you can do for the long term health of the Earth is have less kids.

Capitalism and resources are coming to a crossroads, and I personally think we need to chose the planet over infinite growth capitalism.

 

[fskimospy]

The planet needs far fewer. The best thing you can do for the long term health of the Earth is have less kids.

Capitalism and resources are coming to a crossroads, and I personally think we need to chose the planet over infinite growth capitalism.

Nah, it's changing the nature of how people live that is the important part. Population controls will not save us. Personally I think the hard economic times that will fall on industrialized countries from demographic stagnation will cause a retreat from sustainability that's far more dangerous than more people.

 

[Zorba]

Nah, it's changing the nature of how people live that is the important part. Population controls will not save us. Personally I think the hard economic times that will fall on industrialized countries from demographic stagnation will cause a retreat from sustainability that's far more dangerous than more people.

Even if a new born kid in America would only ever use 100% renewable energy, it would not offset their other massively negative impacts to the planet and use of resources. 1 Billion people burning coal is better than 15 billion using solar if you look at total impact on the planet.

Economic systems need to start shifting to the reality that there is no enough resources for infinite growth.

 

[fskimospy]

Even if a new born kid in America would only ever use 100% renewable energy, it would not offset their other massively negative impacts to the planet and use of resources. 1 Billion people burning coal is better than 15 billion using solar if you look at total impact on the planet.

Economic systems need to start shifting to the reality that there is no enough resources for infinite growth.

I didn't say anything about renewable energy specifically, just sustainability in general.

 

[shortylickens]

the main issue with the GOP is they insist you support their agenda rather than actually do what your constituents want you to do. Thats why McCain wasnt very popular too. Mitt was forced to play ball with them when he ran for president which meant saying what they wanted, not what he really thought. I suspect he's had a change of heart since then.

I could be wrong.

 

[Zorba]

I didn't say anything about renewable energy specifically, just sustainability in general.

Really, the US is becoming less sustainable in a lot of ways, not more. Our trash production is up, recycling is dieing now that China won't accept everything. Or land use and miles driven is also increasing. Trash production also shows rate of resource useage. Then don't forget our massive misuse and over use of water.

To make capitalism work, you must always keep consuming more and we've done very little to make any of it outside of wood sustainable.

 

[fskimospy]

Really, the US is becoming less sustainable in a lot of ways, not more. Our trash production is up, recycling is dieing now that China won't accept everything. Or land use and miles driven is also increasing. Trash production also shows rate of resource useage. Then don't forget our massive misuse and over use of water.

These are all choices, there's nothing inherent to our society that requires it. Sending ourselves into a demographics crisis also doesn't seem like a great answer.

To make capitalism work, you must always keep consuming more and we've done very little to make any of it outside of wood sustainable.

I wouldn't agree with that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm 100% positive that you are wrong.

Absolutely wrong and that applies.

Look at when warming started in human history. It began before the industrial revolution as we change whatever we put a mind to simply because we can. Hell, we started the Sixth Extinction event a hell of a long time ago with megafauna, we're just faster now.

We haven't the native intelligence now nor never to control the environment and not send it careening off some disastrous direction. The best option is to decrease the population dramatically in a couple of generations while taking active measures to reduce our environmental impact. I'm going to suggest a global population of about ten million. Why so dramatic a decline? Because we are the only creatures that manipulate globally in ignorance. We don't need more people (heaven forbid) except people want to protect the value of their personal wealth. I get that, I don't want to suddenly find that all I have is worthless, but that's addressed by other paradigms regarding "value". Hell, bartering is better than our consumerism.

Get the world back on track, enforce and maintain control over wreckless actions and a sufficiently restrained society can live in conditions that the great kings of old could not afford- advances in science, the end of scarcity without plunder.

Or we'll just die off out of stupid. I'm betting on the latter.

 

[fskimospy]

Absolutely wrong and that applies.

Look at when warming started in human history. It began before the industrial revolution as we change whatever we put a mind to simply because we can. Hell, we started the Sixth Extinction event a hell of a long time ago with megafauna, we're just faster now.

We haven't the native intelligence now nor never to control the environment and not send it careening off some disastrous direction. The best option is to decrease the population dramatically in a couple of generations while taking active measures to reduce our environmental impact. I'm going to suggest a global population of about ten million. Why so dramatic a decline? Because we are the only creatures that manipulate globally in ignorance. We don't need more people (heaven forbid) except people want to protect the value of their personal wealth. I get that, I don't want to suddenly find that all I have is worthless, but that's addressed by other paradigms regarding "value". Hell, bartering is better than our consumerism.

Get the world back on track, enforce and maintain control over wreckless actions and a sufficiently restrained society can live in conditions that the great kings of old could not afford- advances in science, the end of scarcity without plunder.

Or we'll just die off out of stupid. I'm betting on the latter.

A reduction in population to around 10 million people would be an unmitigated catastrophe the likes of which mankind has never seen and would probably overall risk massive war and/or extinction of the species as a whole. Even if we survived human progress would grind to a halt and then likely start going backwards, leading to some sort of The Postman style gradual decline.

Also, I don't know what sort of tyrannical system it would take to reduce the population of the world by 99.9% but I know it's nowhere I want to live.

 

[Paratus]

Pretty sure America needs more people having kids, not fewer.

Having a kid today is vastly more expensive than it was 30-40 years ago and the cost of child care has skyrocketed in large part due to Baumol's cost disease. If you guys want fewer people to have children that's fine but don't be shocked when retirement programs are slashed when you come of that age - it's an inevitable consequence.

I think that’s too basic of an analysis.

There are many different trajectories for population to take. It’s possible to have an infinitely increasing or decreasing population that never increases above or below a certain population size (see limits in calculus or Zenos paradox).

Also since retirement programs and other benefits rely on money produced by the population, increasing productivity in a per capita basis can offset declining population for certain trajectories of population and productivity change.

Basically neutral to slowly declining population helps the environment, coupled with robust productivity growth means a still increasing pie per capita.

Two caveats. One I’m talking about global population so increasing US population via immigration doesn’t change that.

Two I’m not saying this is the all time ideal for human population but I think it’s pretty good target to work towards over the next several decades.

 

[fskimospy]

I think that’s too basic of an analysis.

There are many different trajectories for population to take. It’s possible to have an infinitely increasing or decreasing population that never increases above or below a certain population size (see limits in calculus or Zenos paradox).

Also since retirement programs and other benefits rely on money produced by the population, increasing productivity in a per capita basis can offset declining population for certain trajectories of population and productivity change.

Basically neutral to slowly declining population helps the environment, coupled with robust productivity growth means a still increasing pie per capita.

Yes, it is theoretically possible for that to happen but I see no evidence of such a trajectory in productivity growth as I think we've averaged somewhere around 1% productivity growth per year in the last decade. I mean improved productivity cures basically all ills because it's the only real way to improve human living conditions. It's also exceptionally hard to achieve.

Two caveats. One I’m talking about global population so increasing US population via immigration doesn’t change that.

Two I’m not saying this is the all time ideal for human population but I think it’s pretty good target to work towards over the next several decades.

Neutral to declining population could help the environment, depending on whether productivity growth was done in an environmentally neutral way. What's your reason for believing that the current population is somewhere near optimal?

 

[obidamnkenobi]

Even if a new born kid in America would only ever use 100% renewable energy, it would not offset their other massively negative impacts to the planet and use of resources. 1 Billion people burning coal is better than 15 billion using solar if you look at total impact on the planet.

Economic systems need to start shifting to the reality that there is no enough resources for infinite growth.

Do you ahve a citation for this? I know the IPCC show calcs based on various "societal" scenarios, but not sure anyone have done calcs on impact per human, or something similar to support your statement?

Besides, having fewer than 2.1 children will still lead to a declining population. So with 2.0 children I'm doing my part, my parents with 3.0 were bastards