@SayGen I don't know what it is in the US, but the 'tax incentive' in Canada, is not sufficient for people to have children exclusively to get more money. The entire reason there are tax breaks is having children in an industrial society and beyond, children are an economic drain. Having lots of children is already a huge financial burden without needing draconian taxes to punish people that want a larger family. Heck, every "family rate" is designed for 4. 2 parents and 2 children.
There is no current encouragement right now to have children. It's just to alleviate the discouragement of a having a larger family than 1 child.
As for all your questions. The only answer is... because you want children. It is its own reason. People may try to wait until they are more financially stable, but if there is no hope of improving, that desire isn't necessarily going to shut off as though you were data algorithm that spits out if you should or should not have a child.
And sure, make sure contraception is widely available so people don't accidentally have children when they're not ready.
edit This also doesn't really feel like a "government stay out of people's lives" argument. Most of the time in this thread, I don't feel like a very conservative, Conservative when I watch the anarcho-capitalists and libertarians go at it, but in this case this really feels like government intrusion on who should have families and just how many in a family is ideal for a society.
On November 11 2012 09:27 ZeaL. wrote: If anything, the last couple pages show that you yourself have to work on getting your message across because I see absolutely no one agreeing with you. And possibly consider that people aren't agreeing with you because of some other reason.
this is a very liberal site. I'm not surprised that liberal posters generally disagree with conservative assertions.
I can see why you think that you lack communication skills, but you might look at other things to blame than liberal bias on the site and bad communication skills. You lack good well-founded and sourced arguments. You need to read broadly and better understand the issues you discuss. There is not that much more to it.
On November 11 2012 08:54 oneofthem wrote: saying that poor babies is a drag on society is not the particular angle one might take on that, being callous and all. not trying to help them is even worse.
If one wants to be serious about fixing our civilization, one can not afford ot be politically correct, or worried about offense.
Poor babies arn't the problem, rather the poor parents who choose to bring them into the world knowing that lack the capability to give them a fair shot are the problem.
The fact they do this for selfish reasons is dispicable. There is no reason, none--- to have kids when you can not afford the time to raise them, feed them, shelter them, and clothe them.
The desire to have children is despicable if you are poor? I'd think it's a very human thing. Even if you're poor, a person may still desire to have children despite all the sacrifices. Is that really selfish? Children is reason enough to have children. I don't think it's reasonable to say if you fall below a certain poverty line, you should just never have children. Poverty doesn't kill that desire even if it is impractical. We are not robots. We are not rational creatures, only creatures capable of rationality. (I feel like there's some comparison to art, but that feels like it downplays children.)
And maybe we can do something about how to increase economic mobility instead. Rather than worrying about how many babies poor people have.
I wouldn't go as far as to say poor people shouldn't have kids (though I'd be lying if I said I would be against such an initiate) I think we should remove the incentive to have children, and potentially tax (see China) anyone who has more than 1 kid. I however don't think we are at a critical stage that taxing should be needed, though it would be a card to hold onto. Is the desire to have kids, any more or less than to want the best for your child? If you know you lack the time to raise a child- why have one? If you know you lack the funds to feed a child, why have one. If you know you can't keep a roof over your head, why would you allow your-soon-to-be child to without one as well?
If we simply stop encouraging the poorest and stupidest (no not all poor are stupid, but statically there is an intelligent gap there) to reproduce in excess many problems would be solved. Millions of dollars saved--it's uncalculatable. Justice system costs --Prisons/jails --judges/public attorneys --Section VIII housing --Welfare checks --Added disability checks
and if you want to stretch a little bit imagine the lower carbon footprint for all the kids who wouldn't be driving--not because they were killed in a womb, but because the parents cared enough not to bring them into the world when they could not care for them.
On November 11 2012 09:32 Feartheguru wrote: This is your argument on the military issue.
Democrats buy poor people because they are giving them money PURPOSELY. Republicans aren't buying military related people. They are giving them money, I admit but it's not ON PURPOSE.
Am I wrong?
yes, you are wrong.
Democrats are, in my opinion, only pushing welfare because they want the votes of those constituents. not out of any real desire to extend welfare benefits or to uplift the poor. this could be called buying votes.
Republicans are, in my opinion, pushing military spending because they want stronger defensive capabilities, not out of any desire to get military votes. this could not be called buying votes.
On November 11 2012 09:32 Feartheguru wrote: This is your argument on the military issue.
Democrats buy poor people because they are giving them money PURPOSELY. Republicans aren't buying military related people. They are giving them money, I admit but it's not ON PURPOSE.
Am I wrong?
Democrats are, in my opinion, only pushing welfare because they want the votes of those constituents. not out of any real desire to extend welfare benefits or to uplift the poor. this could be called buying votes.
this is where you are right
Republicans are, in my opinion, pushing military spending because they want stronger defensive capabilities, not out of any desire to get military votes. this could not be called buying votes.
this is where you are wrong
edit; see, you are thinking too much in terms of INTENTION. there is no intention, there is only strategy.
On November 11 2012 09:27 ZeaL. wrote: If anything, the last couple pages show that you yourself have to work on getting your message across because I see absolutely no one agreeing with you. And possibly consider that people aren't agreeing with you because of some other reason.
this is a very liberal site. I'm not surprised that liberal posters generally disagree with conservative assertions.
I can see why you think that you lack communication skills, but you might look at other things to blame than liberal bias on the site and bad communication skills. You lack good well-founded and sourced arguments. You need to read broadly and better understand the issues you discuss. There is not that much more to it.
I think my communication skills are fine. my communication skills while speaking with people who are only interested in misrepresenting me... not so good.
On November 11 2012 09:32 Feartheguru wrote: This is your argument on the military issue.
Democrats buy poor people because they are giving them money PURPOSELY. Republicans aren't buying military related people. They are giving them money, I admit but it's not ON PURPOSE.
Am I wrong?
yes, you are wrong.
Democrats are, in my opinion, only pushing welfare because they want the votes of those constituents. not out of any real desire to extend welfare benefits or to uplift the poor. this could be called buying votes.
Republicans are, in my opinion, pushing military spending because they want stronger defensive capabilities, not out of any desire to get military votes. this could not be called buying votes.
again, stop being insulting.
Ah so finally we're gotten to the core of your logic. In your mind the Democrats are running a conspiracy while the Republicans truly care about the country. I'm glad we've cleared this up.
On November 11 2012 09:32 Feartheguru wrote: This is your argument on the military issue.
Democrats buy poor people because they are giving them money PURPOSELY. Republicans aren't buying military related people. They are giving them money, I admit but it's not ON PURPOSE.
Am I wrong?
Democrats are, in my opinion, only pushing welfare because they want the votes of those constituents. not out of any real desire to extend welfare benefits or to uplift the poor. this could be called buying votes.
Republicans are, in my opinion, pushing military spending because they want stronger defensive capabilities, not out of any desire to get military votes. this could not be called buying votes.
this is where you are wrong
edit; see, you are thinking too much in terms of INTENTION. there is no intention, there is only strategy.
well, of course, if I accept the premise that they are trying to get military industry shareholder votes (lol, what like all 200 of them?) than I would accept the conclusion that they are buying votes.
But really let's go back to the original argument: Are Republicans in your opinion offering tax cuts to the rich to get their votes (AND more importantly their monetary support)? Ok, perhaps the fact that the republicans in power are also rich has something to do with all this as well.
On November 11 2012 09:32 Feartheguru wrote: This is your argument on the military issue.
Democrats buy poor people because they are giving them money PURPOSELY. Republicans aren't buying military related people. They are giving them money, I admit but it's not ON PURPOSE.
Am I wrong?
yes, you are wrong.
Democrats are, in my opinion, only pushing welfare because they want the votes of those constituents. not out of any real desire to extend welfare benefits or to uplift the poor. this could be called buying votes.
Republicans are, in my opinion, pushing military spending because they want stronger defensive capabilities, not out of any desire to get military votes. this could not be called buying votes.
again, stop being insulting.
Ah so finally we're gotten to the core of your logic. In your mind the Democrats are running a conspiracy while the Republicans truly care about the country. I'm glad we've cleared this up.
On November 11 2012 09:38 silynxer wrote: But really let's go back to the original argument: Are Republicans in your opinion offering tax cuts to the rich to get their votes (AND more importantly their monetary support)? Ok, perhaps the fact that the republicans in power are also rich has something to do with all this as well.
I think that would be unlikely because there are far more poor voters than rich ones. (monetary support... well,,, maybe. I doubt it though. Obama still got more money than Romney did)
republicans support tax-cuts, in my opinion, because they think that tax-cuts will benefit the economy.
On November 11 2012 08:54 oneofthem wrote: saying that poor babies is a drag on society is not the particular angle one might take on that, being callous and all. not trying to help them is even worse.
If one wants to be serious about fixing our civilization, one can not afford ot be politically correct, or worried about offense.
Poor babies arn't the problem, rather the poor parents who choose to bring them into the world knowing that lack the capability to give them a fair shot are the problem.
The fact they do this for selfish reasons is dispicable. There is no reason, none--- to have kids when you can not afford the time to raise them, feed them, shelter them, and clothe them.
The desire to have children is despicable if you are poor? I'd think it's a very human thing. Even if you're poor, a person may still desire to have children despite all the sacrifices. Is that really selfish? Children is reason enough to have children. I don't think it's reasonable to say if you fall below a certain poverty line, you should just never have children. Poverty doesn't kill that desire even if it is impractical. We are not robots. We are not rational creatures, only creatures capable of rationality. (I feel like there's some comparison to art, but that feels like it downplays children.)
And maybe we can do something about how to increase economic mobility instead. Rather than worrying about how many babies poor people have.
I wouldn't go as far as to say poor people shouldn't have kids (though I'd be lying if I said I would be against such an initiate) I think we should remove the incentive to have children, and potentially tax (see China) anyone who has more than 1 kid. I however don't think we are at a critical stage that taxing should be needed, though it would be a card to hold onto. Is the desire to have kids, any more or less than to want the best for your child? If you know you lack the time to raise a child- why have one? If you know you lack the funds to feed a child, why have one. If you know you can't keep a roof over your head, why would you allow your-soon-to-be child to without one as well?
If we simply stop encouraging the poorest and stupidest (no not all poor are stupid, but statically there is an intelligent gap there) to reproduce in excess many problems would be solved. Millions of dollars saved--it's uncalculatable. Justice system costs --Prisons/jails --judges/public attorneys --Section VIII housing --Welfare checks --Added disability checks
and if you want to stretch a little bit imagine the lower carbon footprint for all the kids who wouldn't be driving--not because they were killed in a womb, but because the parents cared enough not to bring them into the world when they could not care for them.
Uhm, you are ignoring the primal imperative instinct of every single organism on this planet, procreate. No logic will help against that. Only education seems to help against having lots of kids.
On November 11 2012 09:38 silynxer wrote: But really let's go back to the original argument: Are Republicans in your opinion offering tax cuts to the rich to get their votes (AND more importantly their monetary support)? Ok, perhaps the fact that the republicans in power are also rich has something to do with all this as well.
I think that would be unlikely because there are far more poor voters than rich ones. (monetary support... well,,, maybe. I doubt it though. Obama still got more money than Romney did)
republicans support tax-cuts, in my opinion, because they think that tax-cuts will benefit the economy.
You should look whose SuperPAC got more money (because of the limitation on per person donations to the campaigns this is a pretty good indicator)... [EDIT]: Additionally perhaps you should realize how much less money Romney would have gotten without donations by the super rich (for fairness you can look at the same number for Obama but I'll bet that the difference will be stark).
On November 11 2012 09:32 Feartheguru wrote: This is your argument on the military issue.
Democrats buy poor people because they are giving them money PURPOSELY. Republicans aren't buying military related people. They are giving them money, I admit but it's not ON PURPOSE.
Am I wrong?
yes, you are wrong.
Democrats are, in my opinion, only pushing welfare because they want the votes of those constituents. not out of any real desire to extend welfare benefits or to uplift the poor. this could be called buying votes.
Republicans are, in my opinion, pushing military spending because they want stronger defensive capabilities, not out of any desire to get military votes. this could not be called buying votes.
again, stop being insulting.
Ah so finally we're gotten to the core of your logic. In your mind the Democrats are running a conspiracy while the Republicans truly care about the country. I'm glad we've cleared this up.
not exactly, but yeah, kind of.
Well this explain how you justify the most ridiculous arguments(in my opinion, evidently supported by most here) to yourself as reasonable. If you go into every argument with the premise that the Democrats are running a conspiracy.
Personally, I think Republicans are willing to see America burn to get back into power (as stated by Boehner not quite as obtusely). However, I don't let that cloud my arguments.
On November 11 2012 09:33 Falling wrote: @SayGen I don't know what it is in the US, but the 'tax incentive' in Canada, is not sufficient for people to have children exclusively to get more money. The entire reason there are tax breaks is having children in an industrial society and beyond, children are an economic drain. Having lots of children is already a huge financial burden without needing draconian taxes to punish people that want a larger family. Heck, every "family rate" is designed for 4. 2 parents and 2 children.
There is no current encouragement right now to have children. It's just to alleviate the discouragement of a having a larger family than 1 child.
As for all your questions. The only answer is... because you want children. It is its own reason. People may try to wait until they are more financially stable, but if there is no hope of improving, that desire isn't necessarily going to shut off as though you were data algorithm that spits out if you should or should not have a child.
And sure, make sure contraception is widely available so people don't accidentally have children when they're not ready.
In America if you are under a certain bracket (the lowest) you can file your taxes having put literally nothing in and get thousands back. if you have 1 kid, the tax incentive is not worth it, since you'd haveto buy baby items that you do not own. However the 2nd child is worth it, as the costs of food/diapers/etc are easily covered. The costs of new cloths is mitigated by the previous child. I odn't know that many poor people that have only 1 child. I know many who have 2 or 3. (after 3 in some places you lose the state part of the tax incentive, like in my home state of Ky they don't give you mroe money after 2).
I do completly agree with you that having children reguardless of other factors will not stop some, but if we can stop even 10% of them from doing it, that would be progress. Right now we need a start, something to get the ball moving so to say.
a family size of 4 can be a good thing or a bad thing. 4 means stabization but only if every single child also follows the 4 family unit path. Immigration, child-less death are external factors and may not balance each other out. Also while most Catholics ignore their 'law' (not exactly how they view it since I'm not one) won't use BC, but stick to a calander system (based on PMS cycle) which does not offer perfect coverage. America has several million catholics many of which have large families. one of my families in-laws is Catholic and he has 9 sisters/brothers.
On November 11 2012 09:32 Feartheguru wrote: This is your argument on the military issue.
Democrats buy poor people because they are giving them money PURPOSELY. Republicans aren't buying military related people. They are giving them money, I admit but it's not ON PURPOSE.
Am I wrong?
Democrats are, in my opinion, only pushing welfare because they want the votes of those constituents. not out of any real desire to extend welfare benefits or to uplift the poor. this could be called buying votes.
this is where you are right
Republicans are, in my opinion, pushing military spending because they want stronger defensive capabilities, not out of any desire to get military votes. this could not be called buying votes.
this is where you are wrong
edit; see, you are thinking too much in terms of INTENTION. there is no intention, there is only strategy.
well, of course, if I accept the premise that they are trying to get military industry shareholder votes (lol, what like all 200 of them?) than I would accept the conclusion that they are buying votes.
strategy necessitates intention.
how cute, you think everybody gets one vote ^.^
let me try to be more clear about "strategy"
intention is irrelevant. It is mere epiphenomenon
the strategic imperative of each party is the line which it must take given its position in the structure of things. The idea of intention is meaningless because, here, all moves are forced. Whether or not a given actant is sincere or duplicitous is ultimately irrelevant, because they act the same way regardless. The D must act as they do because if they didn't somebody else would be the democratic party. It is the same for R.
On November 11 2012 08:54 oneofthem wrote: saying that poor babies is a drag on society is not the particular angle one might take on that, being callous and all. not trying to help them is even worse.
If one wants to be serious about fixing our civilization, one can not afford ot be politically correct, or worried about offense.
Poor babies arn't the problem, rather the poor parents who choose to bring them into the world knowing that lack the capability to give them a fair shot are the problem.
The fact they do this for selfish reasons is dispicable. There is no reason, none--- to have kids when you can not afford the time to raise them, feed them, shelter them, and clothe them.
The desire to have children is despicable if you are poor? I'd think it's a very human thing. Even if you're poor, a person may still desire to have children despite all the sacrifices. Is that really selfish? Children is reason enough to have children. I don't think it's reasonable to say if you fall below a certain poverty line, you should just never have children. Poverty doesn't kill that desire even if it is impractical. We are not robots. We are not rational creatures, only creatures capable of rationality. (I feel like there's some comparison to art, but that feels like it downplays children.)
And maybe we can do something about how to increase economic mobility instead. Rather than worrying about how many babies poor people have.
I wouldn't go as far as to say poor people shouldn't have kids (though I'd be lying if I said I would be against such an initiate) I think we should remove the incentive to have children, and potentially tax (see China) anyone who has more than 1 kid. I however don't think we are at a critical stage that taxing should be needed, though it would be a card to hold onto. Is the desire to have kids, any more or less than to want the best for your child? If you know you lack the time to raise a child- why have one? If you know you lack the funds to feed a child, why have one. If you know you can't keep a roof over your head, why would you allow your-soon-to-be child to without one as well?
If we simply stop encouraging the poorest and stupidest (no not all poor are stupid, but statically there is an intelligent gap there) to reproduce in excess many problems would be solved. Millions of dollars saved--it's uncalculatable. Justice system costs --Prisons/jails --judges/public attorneys --Section VIII housing --Welfare checks --Added disability checks
and if you want to stretch a little bit imagine the lower carbon footprint for all the kids who wouldn't be driving--not because they were killed in a womb, but because the parents cared enough not to bring them into the world when they could not care for them.
Uhm, you are ignoring the primal imperative instinct of every single organism on this planet, procreate. No logic will help against that. Only education seems to help against having lots of kids.
education fosters logic. are you contradicting yourself, or am I missing something.
On November 11 2012 08:54 oneofthem wrote: saying that poor babies is a drag on society is not the particular angle one might take on that, being callous and all. not trying to help them is even worse.
If one wants to be serious about fixing our civilization, one can not afford ot be politically correct, or worried about offense.
Poor babies arn't the problem, rather the poor parents who choose to bring them into the world knowing that lack the capability to give them a fair shot are the problem.
The fact they do this for selfish reasons is dispicable. There is no reason, none--- to have kids when you can not afford the time to raise them, feed them, shelter them, and clothe them.
The desire to have children is despicable if you are poor? I'd think it's a very human thing. Even if you're poor, a person may still desire to have children despite all the sacrifices. Is that really selfish? Children is reason enough to have children. I don't think it's reasonable to say if you fall below a certain poverty line, you should just never have children. Poverty doesn't kill that desire even if it is impractical. We are not robots. We are not rational creatures, only creatures capable of rationality. (I feel like there's some comparison to art, but that feels like it downplays children.)
And maybe we can do something about how to increase economic mobility instead. Rather than worrying about how many babies poor people have.
I wouldn't go as far as to say poor people shouldn't have kids (though I'd be lying if I said I would be against such an initiate) I think we should remove the incentive to have children, and potentially tax (see China) anyone who has more than 1 kid. I however don't think we are at a critical stage that taxing should be needed, though it would be a card to hold onto. Is the desire to have kids, any more or less than to want the best for your child? If you know you lack the time to raise a child- why have one? If you know you lack the funds to feed a child, why have one. If you know you can't keep a roof over your head, why would you allow your-soon-to-be child to without one as well?
If we simply stop encouraging the poorest and stupidest (no not all poor are stupid, but statically there is an intelligent gap there) to reproduce in excess many problems would be solved. Millions of dollars saved--it's uncalculatable. Justice system costs --Prisons/jails --judges/public attorneys --Section VIII housing --Welfare checks --Added disability checks
and if you want to stretch a little bit imagine the lower carbon footprint for all the kids who wouldn't be driving--not because they were killed in a womb, but because the parents cared enough not to bring them into the world when they could not care for them.
Uhm, you are ignoring the primal imperative instinct of every single organism on this planet, procreate. No logic will help against that. Only education seems to help against having lots of kids.
education fosters logic. are you contradicting yourself, or am I missing something.
I would argue that the reason most people are "poor" is because of the divide between the wealthy and the rich. Of course you'll get the argument "But they're bums and beggars! they stay on welfare to get money for free1 but the majority of poor people are working as hard as they can to make ends meet. The problem is equalizing shares of wealth, not regulating production of babies from the non-wealthy. I'm all for abortions, but not for such a ridiculous reason as to negate people the ability to procreate freely.
On November 11 2012 09:32 Feartheguru wrote: This is your argument on the military issue.
Democrats buy poor people because they are giving them money PURPOSELY. Republicans aren't buying military related people. They are giving them money, I admit but it's not ON PURPOSE.
Am I wrong?
yes, you are wrong.
Democrats are, in my opinion, only pushing welfare because they want the votes of those constituents. not out of any real desire to extend welfare benefits or to uplift the poor. this could be called buying votes.
Republicans are, in my opinion, pushing military spending because they want stronger defensive capabilities, not out of any desire to get military votes. this could not be called buying votes.
again, stop being insulting.
Ah so finally we're gotten to the core of your logic. In your mind the Democrats are running a conspiracy while the Republicans truly care about the country. I'm glad we've cleared this up.
not exactly, but yeah, kind of.
Well this explain how you justify the most ridiculous arguments(in my opinion, evidently supported by most here) to yourself as reasonable. If you go into every argument with the premise that the Democrats are running a conspiracy.
Personally, I think Republicans are willing to see America burn to get back into power (as stated by Boehner not quite as obtusely). However, I don't let that cloud my arguments.
but what exactly was ridiculous about the arguments? if it was only the assumption of what they are intending, than the logic of the arguments is applicable, by your own admission.
looking at the evidence: how many votes has the Republican support of the military gotten them? how many votes has the Democrat support of welfare gotten them? I think we can all agree that there are more welfare recipients than military members or military industry shareholders. now, if we're talking about funding... yeah, that changes things.
tbh, I should back off a bit. there are a shitload of Republicans who are only interested in buying votes with their support of specific policies (tax cuts, military, ect.) my natural partisan self is finding it hard to open my eyes to the fact that the GOP is as much a bunch of snakes as anyone else. so in a way, you are right, and I am wrong. both parties buy votes, the Democrats are just much, much, much better at it.
On November 11 2012 09:32 Feartheguru wrote: This is your argument on the military issue.
Democrats buy poor people because they are giving them money PURPOSELY. Republicans aren't buying military related people. They are giving them money, I admit but it's not ON PURPOSE.
Am I wrong?
Democrats are, in my opinion, only pushing welfare because they want the votes of those constituents. not out of any real desire to extend welfare benefits or to uplift the poor. this could be called buying votes.
this is where you are right
Republicans are, in my opinion, pushing military spending because they want stronger defensive capabilities, not out of any desire to get military votes. this could not be called buying votes.
this is where you are wrong
edit; see, you are thinking too much in terms of INTENTION. there is no intention, there is only strategy.
well, of course, if I accept the premise that they are trying to get military industry shareholder votes (lol, what like all 200 of them?) than I would accept the conclusion that they are buying votes.
strategy necessitates intention.
how cute, you think everybody gets one vote ^.^
let me try to be more clear about "strategy"
intention is irrelevant. It is mere epiphenomenon
the strategic imperative of each party is the line which it must take given its position in the structure of things. The idea of intention is meaningless because, here, all moves are forced. Whether or not a given actant is sincere or duplicitous is ultimately irrelevant, because they act the same way regardless. The D must act as they do because if they didn't somebody else would be the democratic party. It is the same for R. + Show Spoiler +
EPT
