So we'll find out what the people whose babies use up hysterical amounts of the world's resources think about what resources the poor's babies will use.
Is it ok having babies you can't afford ?
- Thread starter Pasta
- Start date
This is quite to the point, though: poor people tend to see and have a very limited scope of what to do in life, in general, not just in terms of recreation.
Cowboy,
much talk of the taxpayer, whydo you think we pay takes? do you actually agree with taxation at all?
Yes, however, if we invest in education to the extent that is needed, we get a double benefit.
1) A better educated populace
2) Fewer messes to clean up
And that will snowball. IOW, you will have better educated parents and so on and so on.
The bottom line is what we are doing right now is expensive and very short sighted.
Punishing them for being poor ?:shrug:
This displays a very bourgeois attitude.
Many great creative talents and even business leaders have come out of poor communities.
Poor people often see as much as anyone, they are restricted on what they can do by their poverty. Viewing them as spending all dfay f**king in a hut full of screaming children cos they cant think of anything else to do is stereotyping to the extreme.
Of course there are two types of poor people, those who are poor through circumstance and those who are poor because of very low mental ability or physical / mental handicaps. This second group will not be helped by education
They have very short lists of hobbies and interests, I see.
Well, that's what Natalist seems to think is appropriate to think and do. He/she/it is the expert on procreation.
In other news, this is a very successful poll. Seems the overwhelming majority doesn't think breeding like rabbits is a good thing for humans to be engaged in.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Well of course the rich like sex too. In fact, I question the Demographic Transition theory that claims as societies modernize, birthrate and natural increase population growth goes down, as somebody said, There's nothing about having money in one's pockets, that magically sterilizes the reproductive organs. The Demographic Transition theory, is but a cover for the evil rampant unnatural contraceptive eugenics pushing.
Rather the observation goes, that the poor especially seem to like sex. The poor can't seem to afford as many distractions from sex, as the rich can.
But of course children are worth far more than money, so who then really is poor and who is rich? Most people wouldn't sell their children for money, so aren't the largest families the most rich, in what really matters?
No.
They are not the most rich.
Try growing up as one of 6 or 8 when your mom and dad have scarcely enough attention to go around.
I'll never forget one of my next door neighbours giving out to me for not seeing to her child when he was trying to eat something off the pavement. Even though I barely knew her.
She had so many children she could scarcely look after them all properly, and she felt it was others' job to do a share.
You're not rich if you have a family like that.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
So perhaps what you want, is a huge government monopoly school boondoggle to propagandize people to be robbed of their blessings of having children?
Have you not heard of how runaway government interference has helped to inflate all sorts of unstable economic bubbles that are destabilizing our economy? Among these was the real estate bubble, the soon-to-burst commercial real estate bubble, and the huge college (and education) bubble we have now. We have a huge excess of college graduates with degrees than we have matching good jobs to justify supposedly such degrees.
While education may indeed help many things, we have a huge problem with education bait-and-switch malpractice, in which "education," or government fad or propaganda is substituted for truth, and of more government being seen as the answer to every problem, including the problem of too much government spending.
I support breaking up the underperforming government monopoly in education, selling off the government monopoly schools, and allowing for more more free market behaviors to emerge and solve problems as they see fit to trade with who best meets people's needs or wants. Let parents pay tuition to the school of their choice, or homeschool, and not have to pay the unjust income and property taxes. Let schools compete for student, rather than whine of having not budgeted for maintenance, phony marxist liberals thinking they can just sucker the already overburdened taxpayer for ever more money, and stop whining about supposed overcrowding.
I heard from a police officer, at a wrongful, 4th Amendment violating driver's license or DUI checkpoint, claim that they are trying to keep people honest. That is not the job of government. It's not even the job of the government to educate people. At least the Federal government was supposed to have very limited enumerated powers under our U.S. Constitution. I see nothing in the Constitution nor the Bible, authorizing government to run schools. The job of government is to punish evildoers and to build roads and bridges. Not to usurp the place of God and Church to make people be good or to "keep us honest." We are supposed to keep government accountable and honest. Most of what government does these days, is unconstitutional and thus immoral and illegal.
And education has become far more about fad and government state religion, and not about how to think for oneself and ask the right question and search out the truth.
So let's examine how and if, education can help, before just throwing money down an endless government "education" and other waste hole. Throwing money at a problem, rarely is an adequate solution. Money must be spent, more wisely, and often far more sparingly, especially if it's not even your money to spend.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Uh, I don't think the children are screaming inside the hut that much. Children probably talk and yell and scream more, when they are outside playing somewhere?
A lot of the reason why government spending is out-of-control, is because of this insane "entitlement" idea of today's phony marxist liberals, that people have no right to fail. (That somehow poor people have "rights" that our U.S. Constitution never listed, to steal indirectly from their neighbors via taxation social engineering policies, to supposedly be less poor.) People must have the right to fail, to be more enabled to make good choices and succeed. (Government can't be everywhere to hold people's hands and make all their decisions for them.) But it seems we aren't allowed to fail nor succeed. Is it even legal to obtain an axe, and build a log cabin somewhere, with no running water and no electricity? (And yet our countries founders were largely self-reliant like that.) If you are successful, you are taxed through the nose. But if you are too poor, the government begs you to get on government assistance so as to buy off our votes. What an evil and despicable corrupt system!
What we need is to get government out of our pockets and out of our business. Then maybe we can solve our own problems more readily.
"Government governs best which governs least." Thomas Jefferson
And maybe there wouldn't be so many shantytowns in the world, if there was more true land reform, rather than denying poor people any way to obtain land of their own. Why build a nice home, if any day it might be bulldozed? People can accumulate wealth and freedom a lot easier, where there is the predictable rule-of-law, and property rights are protected by the government. But endless government spending and bailouts, worsens the problem of moral hazard, in which the irresponsible are rewarded and the responsible punished. Is it any wonder we have so many irresponsibly behaving people, and no longer enough responsible?