why do we encourage poor people to reproduce?

[JKing106]

What does it say about you, when confronted with someone you disagree with, your thought is to have them killed :\

It doesn't seem to be problem if that someone is a Muslim, does it?

 

[Craig234]

Well, incorruptible, whoever it really is, goes on ignore as a useless troll.

 

[alzan]

On a per-post basis this is the stupidest thread I have ever seen in my 12+ years on this forum.

That generally happens when you have the triplets (cybrsage, Nehalem256 & Incorruptible) tag-posting.

 

[Gintaras]

why do we want people who struggle to support themselves take on a greater financial burden caring for yet another person?
then have that child who's born into poverty struggle to break out of it, and have the vicious cycle continue?

it doesn't make sense to me. surely someone has the answer to such a simple question.

Who told you that you are rich? Then, not all live in US with their financial scam:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Total Debt Per Person: $183,336

Can you support yourself? How much you've to earn and how long will it take you to pay debt off $183,336?

Maybe you should be sterilized in order not to go more into debt?

 

[nehalem256]

It doesn't seem to be problem if that someone is a Muslim, does it?

Why are you bringing muslims up? I have said nothing about them. But at the very least I dont think they have the same problem with bastard children that we do in America.

 

[Craig234]

Why are you bringing muslims up? I have said nothing about them. But at the very least I dont think they have the same problem with bastard children that we do in America.

They don't have all kinds of problems we do - rates of teen pregnancy, one parent households, drug abuse, drunk driving, alcoholism, violence, crime, etc.

 

[rchiu]

The right wing wants to make America a place with massive poverty and a few very wealthy people, where many are forced to be poor and not have things like children or healthcare - and blame them for not having them. They want policies that ensure those problems, with policies such as aboloshing Medicare and Social Security.

Progressives want America with a safety net, where people are rewarded for contributing to the economy, with wealthy and poor - but where everyone can have important things like children if they want to, where we don't create massive social suffering and costs with short-sighted policies to not care for and educate children.

'The American Dream' was meant to be available to all. Only progressives support that.

Well isn't that statement a little bit contradicatory? safety net is for those who for some reason cannot contribute to economy, such getting lay off, having health problem, or simply lack the skill to find jobs. The safety net put up by liberals is exactly design to reword those who does not contribute to the economy.

There is no black and white answer to this debate. Too much of a capitalism is not good and like wise, too much socialism is not good either. The question is where is America in this spectrum and is America's position optimal and sustainable.

The fact speaks for itself. There is no one in America starving. The social net is enough. America is hugely in debt, and getting more in debt by the trillions under Obama admin. This is certainly not sustainable.

 

[senseamp]

Why do we encourage anyone to reproduce? I mean we give people a tax deduction for having kids, when in fact they use more government resources. Shouldn't we increase their taxes instead? If they can't afford the higher taxes, they shouldn't be having kids.

 

[Gintaras]

Why do we encourage anyone to reproduce? I mean we give people a tax deduction for having kids, when in fact they use more government resources. Shouldn't we increase their taxes instead? If they can't afford the higher taxes, they shouldn't be having kids.

Too bad, your parents didn't consider that....Or did they....and we do have an abortion leftover comment?

Too bad, gynecologist was too bad to get rid of you for your parents - an abortion went bad.....

And now we have an abortion leftover commenting about LIFE of others......

 

[rchiu]

Why do we encourage anyone to reproduce? I mean we give people a tax deduction for having kids, when in fact they use more government resources. Shouldn't we increase their taxes instead? If they can't afford the higher taxes, they shouldn't be having kids.

Stupid idea. Those who makes enough money to pay tax is the exact people we should encourage to reproduce.

Those who don't make money and is on welfare on the other hand should not have free pass and all the incentives to make more welfare babies.

 

[Craig234]

Well isn't that statement a little bit contradicatory? safety net is for those who for some reason cannot contribute to economy, such getting lay off, having health problem, or simply lack the skill to find jobs. The safety net put up by liberals is exactly design to reword those who does not contribute to the economy.

There is no black and white answer to this debate. Too much of a capitalism is not good and like wise, too much socialism is not good either. The question is where is America in this spectrum and is America's position optimal and sustainable.

The fact speaks for itself. There is no one in America starving. The social net is enough. America is hugely in debt, and getting more in debt by the trillions under Obama admin. This is certainly not sustainable.

No, it's not contradictory, which is an issue you on the right don't understand.

Quite the opposite, the right doesn't know how to make a prosperous society.

A safety net is both humanitarian and important to helping people be productive members of society - in contradiction to right-wing ideology. It's not that there's not any truth to that - it's that the right-wing 'solution' is much more destructive than the 'entitlement' concerns. The language the right uses shows their ideological error, calling the safety net a 'reward'; it's not. The rewards are for people who leave the safety net and earn more money. Progressives support that system, rewarding leaving it.

When you say neither too much capitalism nor too much socialism is good - funny, you put yourself pretty much at odds with the modern right and in agreement with progressives.

It's Republicans who have done things to try to tear down the prosperity of average Americans in things like unions, who have done things like the corrupt support for the Marianas Islands' slave labor, all in the name of more profit for the few wealthy at the expense of the people, not having the balance you mention.

You are falling for the right-wing agenda that always shifts more wealth to fewer people.

In the long run we can't afford the debt; but there are 'fixes' for that on the backs of Americans and fixes involving more prosperity for more people.

Progressives are the only group supporting the latter, though they all say they are 'for the people'.

The shifts in America are more to the right, more for de-regulating finance, more for protecting the plutocracy, and we see the results in wealth's movement since Reagan.

 

[Craig234]

Stupid idea. Those who makes enough money to pay tax is the exact people we should encourage to reproduce.

Those who don't make money and is on welfare on the other hand should not have free pass and all the incentives to make more welfare babies.

I just repeat, all you can do on the right is create an underclass in America who either is denied having children or who raises them in poverty; the left is for people not to be poor.

 

[nehalem256]

I just repeat, all you can do on the right is create an underclass in America who either is denied having children or who raises them in poverty; the left is for people not to be poor.

Actually it was the left who destigmatized divorce and bastard children. Look up the poverty rate of children raised by single mothers. Its not pretty.

And what has the left done to eliminate poverty?

 

[nehalem256]

Progressives are the only group supporting the latter, though they all say they are 'for the people'.

The shifts in America are more to the right, more for de-regulating finance, more for protecting the plutocracy, and we see the results in wealth's movement since Reagan.

Actually one the liberals on this forum posted a link that showed that wealth's movement to the top began BEFORE reagan

http://lanekenworthy.net/2012/03/11/is-decoupling-real/

The chart below offers one way to see this. It shows trends in GDP per capita and median family income, with each series displayed as an index set to equal 1 in the initial year. From the late 1940s through the mid-to-late 1970s, the two moved in lockstep. After that, GDP per capita continued its steady upward march (through 2007), but median income rose much less rapidly.

It does however line up with the increase in the labor force participation rate cause by women entering the workforce. Who was it that thought it was important for women to work just like men?

You can see discussion beginning at the bottom of this page: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2243581&page=6

 

[alzan]

Actually it was the left who destigmatized divorce and bastard children. Look up the poverty rate of children raised by single mothers. Its not pretty.

And what has the left done to eliminate poverty?

Didn't Jesus say that there would be poor always?

How dare you doubt or question the word of your lord and savior?

Well Jesus' mother wasn't married when she was impregnated with Jesus. And Jesus was poor. The gold, frankincence and myrrh didn't last as long back then.

So then he was stuck working in his adopted father's carpentry sweatshop for the majority of his life.

So all poor people are like Jesus.

We need more of them.

 

[Craig234]

Actually it was the left who destigmatized divorce and bastard children. Look up the poverty rate of children raised by single mothers. Its not pretty.

And what has the left done to eliminate poverty?

I'll give you five of the things. You'll ignore them and waste my time having asked.

1. Public education greatly increased
2. Improved the financial markets from constant crash cycles to steady with regulation
3. Increased the prosperity of the people directly and indirectly with workers' rights/unions
4. The War on Poverty permanently reduced the poverty rate in the US by 1/3
5. Social Security reversed an elderty poverty rate of 90%

Yes, nearly all women were married young into marriages to raise children at home in the past, in far more often miserable and violent relationship, and destitute far more than now if they had to leave the marriage. People's lives were destroyed, girls sent out of state, for unwed pregnancy. The good old days. Now women can do more, since Mary Tyler Moore.

You think it's better to have a 'stigma' for 'bastard children'. How practical and humanitarian of you.

That's the point - the right simply creates poverty and suffering for everything, they have no solutions. The left has 'imperfect' solutions, the right has actively harmful ones.

The poverty rate among single mothers IS very bad. You don't have a magic forumla for everyone to be happily married; you have only punishments to hurt people.

The left will at least provide a safety net for the mother and child giving her and the child a better chance for the 'American Dream', education and nutrition and so on.

Under your system the child will be unhealthy, uneducated, likely imprisoned before long. But hey, you sure taught him for choosing a single mother.

 

[Craig234]

Actually one the liberals on this forum posted a link that showed that wealth's movement to the top began BEFORE reagan

http://lanekenworthy.net/2012/03/11/is-decoupling-real/

No, it doesn't. First, it's not a chart about 'movement to the top'. Second, it shows it did start the shift it does show, just before Reagan took office.

Look at your chart - just before 1980 - the last time the two lines are very close:

(Also note that the best period post-Reagan was following the passage of the tax increase on the rich under Clinton that IIRC every Republican opposed).

There's a reason it uses its baseline in the following statement in 1979, and Reagan was elected in 1980:

"The share of income going to the top 1% of households jumped from 8% in 1979 to 17% in 2007."

It does however line up with the increase in the labor force participation rate cause by women entering the workforce. Who was it that thought it was important for women to work just like men?

Who was it? I'd say it was both feminists who wanted women to have more rights and power to have the choice to work and make money; and the wealth who own the businesses who liked the idea of having a lot more workers, which increases the labor pool for them, not only driving down labor costs but supplying a second labor force paid less than the first one, who could profit from that labor and boost to the economy at the expense of the quality of home life for two income households.

Having both parents work increased national productivity - but the increase went into the pockets of the wealthy while the couples had to both work to get what they had earlier.

You can see discussion beginning at the bottom of this page: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2243581&page=6

 

[nehalem256]

Yes, nearly all women were married young into marriages to raise children at home in the past, in far more often miserable and violent relationship, and destitute far more than now if they had to leave the marriage. People's lives were destroyed, girls sent out of state, for unwed pregnancy. The good old days. Now women can do more, since Mary Tyler Moore.

You think it's better to have a 'stigma' for 'bastard children'. How practical and humanitarian of you.

That's the point - the right simply creates poverty and suffering for everything, they have no solutions. The left has 'imperfect' solutions, the right has actively harmful ones.

The poverty rate among single mothers IS very bad. You don't have a magic forumla for everyone to be happily married; you have only punishments to hurt people.

They could get abortions couldnt they?

And the stigma is primarily for the woman not the child. Making decisions that cost society $10,000s in bailouts should have a stigma attached to them.

The left will at least provide a safety net for the mother and child giving her and the child a better chance for the 'American Dream', education and nutrition and so on.

Under your system the child will be unhealthy, uneducated, likely imprisoned before long. But hey, you sure taught him for choosing a single mother.

Have you looked at the prison rate of children raised by single mothers? So much for women not needing men though huh?

 

[nehalem256]

No, it doesn't. First, it's not a chart about 'movement to the top'. Second, it shows it did start the shift it does show, just before Reagan took office.

Look at your chart - just before 1980 - the last time the two lines are very close:

(Also note that the best period post-Reagan was following the passage of the tax increase on the rich under Clinton that IIRC every Republican opposed).

There's a reason it uses its baseline in the following statement in 1979, and Reagan was elected in 1980:

"The share of income going to the top 1% of households jumped from 8% in 1979 to 17% in 2007."



Who was it? I'd say it was both feminists who wanted women to have more rights and power to have the choice to work and make money; and the wealth who own the businesses who liked the idea of having a lot more workers, which increases the labor pool for them, not only driving down labor costs but supplying a second labor force paid less than the first one, who could profit from that labor and boost to the economy at the expense of the quality of home life for two income households.

Having both parents work increased national productivity - but the increase went into the pockets of the wealthy while the couples had to both work to get what they had earlier.

And what does basic economics tell happens if you increase the supply of labor?

Hint: Its value goes down. Exactly what was observed. Feminism (ie liberalism) has consequences. Sorry if you dont like them.

 

[Bitek]

What does it say about you, when confronted with someone you disagree with, your thought is to have them killed :\

The irony doesn't penetrate into your little troll brain does it? Cry about that while advocating forced sterilization and prevention of millions of births of children you don't like?

I say have at it. 16 of the top richest states per capita are blue states. Of the 20 poorest, 3 are blue states, and only NM is in the bottom 10. Otherwise its southern dipshits.

Red states also have higher teen pregnancies, while the bluest states have the lowest.


So go ahead. Have your "small govt" doctors start gouging out the ovaries of the poor rednecks and lets watch the electoral college delegates for the red states crater. Then maybe we can get this country moving again without all the uneducated inbreeders of the GOP dragging the anchor.

In the meantime we can at least force all the fundies to convert to Mormonism. UT is the only red state with its shit together.

 

[Craig234]

I'll give you five of the things. You'll ignore them and waste my time having asked.

Man, you got that right.

Totally ignored in his non-response. So, enough wasted time on that guy.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

More sex due to less money for extra curriculars. Such as taking the yacht out, flying the private jet to France, stuff like that.

 

[nehalem256]

The irony doesn't penetrate into your little troll brain does it? Cry about that while advocating forced sterilization and prevention of millions of births of children you don't like?

I only advocated for the sterilization of women who ABUSED their children.

And its not that I dislike the children. If the parents cannot take care of the children then they should be having them.

 

[nehalem256]

1. Public education greatly increased
2. Improved the financial markets from constant crash cycles to steady with regulation
3. Increased the prosperity of the people directly and indirectly with workers' rights/unions
4. The War on Poverty permanently reduced the poverty rate in the US by 1/3
5. Social Security reversed an elderty poverty rate of 90%

1.) Because public education is such as success story... http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2245254
2.) Except for the S&L crash of the 80s, the Dotcom crash of 2000, and the Realestate crash of 2008
3.) So we have to reach back 80+ years to find something.
4.)

That would be a lie. The poverty rate was plummeting BEFORE the War on Poverty.
5.) Again we have to reach back 80+ years to find something.

So its seems to me that liberals should have just disbanded in 1945

 

[nehalem256]

Yes, nearly all women were married young into marriages to raise children at home in the past, in far more often miserable and violent relationship, and destitute far more than now if they had to leave the marriage. People's lives were destroyed, girls sent out of state, for unwed pregnancy. The good old days. Now women can do more, since Mary Tyler Moore.

Oh, and by the way you might have a better argument if you stopped pretending that women were all perfectly little angels and the only problem in marriages were attributable to men.

It sounds like liberals want me to pay for the consequences of women who decide to have children with violent/abusive men, or out of wedlock.

Seems that a better solution would be to stop breeding with violent men and having children out of wedlock.