08-19-2004, 10:08 PM
Hi,
The difficult part is making sure that the state subsidy for the raising of children (not the benefit of parents) actually gets used to raise the kids, rather than simply being an incentive to have them.
Yeah. But since the "solution" is typically to give the money to the parents who didn't have enough sense to keep from having kids they couldn't afford in the first place, then the "solution" makes the problem worse. I have a few friends that are retired teachers. They all have stories of girls who figured that their future was made. Just have a few kids and the government will take care of them. After all, it worked for their mothers and grandmothers. And years ago, when I worked for the Census Bureau for a summer, I ran across a few such 'households' -- three or four generations of women, each with a passel of kids and none with any husbands (ever).
Yeah. Take care of the kids if the parents can't or won't. First, take them out of those homes where they have no future. Second, sterilize the parents (both of them, if the father can be found) using a reversible method. When the parent(s) show they are mentally and financially capable of taking care of the children, give them back (one time!). And if the parents want more children, then let them prove their financial ability by paying for their own sterilization reversal (think of it as a delayed fine).
But when I mention these concepts to my liberal friends, you'd think I was proposing genocide. When it is their policies implemented over the last 72 years that are causing the genocide -- the extermination of the self sufficient American.
--Pete
The difficult part is making sure that the state subsidy for the raising of children (not the benefit of parents) actually gets used to raise the kids, rather than simply being an incentive to have them.
Yeah. But since the "solution" is typically to give the money to the parents who didn't have enough sense to keep from having kids they couldn't afford in the first place, then the "solution" makes the problem worse. I have a few friends that are retired teachers. They all have stories of girls who figured that their future was made. Just have a few kids and the government will take care of them. After all, it worked for their mothers and grandmothers. And years ago, when I worked for the Census Bureau for a summer, I ran across a few such 'households' -- three or four generations of women, each with a passel of kids and none with any husbands (ever).
Yeah. Take care of the kids if the parents can't or won't. First, take them out of those homes where they have no future. Second, sterilize the parents (both of them, if the father can be found) using a reversible method. When the parent(s) show they are mentally and financially capable of taking care of the children, give them back (one time!). And if the parents want more children, then let them prove their financial ability by paying for their own sterilization reversal (think of it as a delayed fine).
But when I mention these concepts to my liberal friends, you'd think I was proposing genocide. When it is their policies implemented over the last 72 years that are causing the genocide -- the extermination of the self sufficient American.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?