Flowing sort of from the health care thread . . .

[Pilgrim]

How about this archaic proposition:

 

If you can't afford to get married, don't, and if you can't afford to support kids, don't have 'em. Indeed, two cannot live as cheaply as one, and three takes a LOT more.

 

Pilgrim

[leikam]

Sorry Pilgrim, it's anti-American.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

According to The American Dream, "pursuit of happiness" means getting married, having kids and buying a house. King George III might have supported your proposition, but we have a right to bear arms in order to prevent just this sort of thinking.

[smiller]

We could try limiting families to one child, I hear that works well.

[marcopolo]

We could try limiting families to one child, I hear that works well.

 

I hear the Chinese have just such an enlightened approach.

[lawnchairboy]

I think that was the point...

[Joel]

I'll drink to that, maybe because it resembles this:

 

"Common sense ain't all that common."

 

- Will Rogers

[bmwdude]

If you can't afford to get married, don't, and if you can't afford to support kids, don't have 'em. Indeed, two cannot live as cheaply as one, and three takes a LOT more.

 

That's just not going to fly in today's society. It's "me, me, me" and "I want to eat my cake and have it, too" nowadays...."and if I can't afford to do it on my own then I will have government take some more money from others and give it to me so that I can continue on making ego-centric decisions...."

 

It seems as if the age of personal responsibility was relatively fleeting and our government (yes, the one that we have all voted in to represent us) is infantilizing us and more and more people are expecting to do less while government tries to do more and more---more and more badly.

 

Can't we just talk about guns?

[Eschelon1]

Well, if you think about it, our "Enlightened Society" has really come full circle with the solution to this.

 

The earth has been in existance for Billions of years. But human activity (Americans to be politically correct) has damaged the earths delicate eco system and atmosphere that we are headed for certain doom. I meen jeez, we breath in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, the number one cause of global warming.

 

So if human activity is the problem, the solution is less human activity.

 

So with that said, if you favor taxpayer funded health care for those who are not reponsible enough for themselves or their children, aren't you really contributing to global warming by enabling them to displace oxygen (good) with carbon dioxide (bad)for a longer time than they might otherwise?

 

[skinny_tom (aka boney)]

How about this archaic proposition:

 

If you can't afford to get married, don't, and if you can't afford to support kids, don't have 'em. Indeed, two cannot live as cheaply as one, and three takes a LOT more.

 

Pilgrim

 

You must now put a dollar in the logic jar.

[tallman]

Not just "support" the kids, but contractually uphold parental responsibility or forfeit tax deductions and go immediately to jail.

One option, relinquish custody of a truly incorrigible child who will immediately become a part of the collective.

Definition of parental responsibility, or how to succeed in marriage will not be found in Hollywood.

[SageRider]

So with that said, if you favor taxpayer funded health care for those who are not reponsible enough for themselves or their children, aren't you really contributing to global warming by enabling them to displace oxygen (good) with carbon dioxide (bad)for a longer time than they might otherwise?

 

 

For that matter, if you are a true environmentalist, wouldn't you commit suicide to prevent the environmental damage you cause just by living?

[Ron_B]

For that matter, if you are a true environmentalist, wouldn't you commit suicide to prevent the environmental damage you cause just by living?

 

As a species, the The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement think it's a swell idea.

 

[Ron_B]

As to Kent's proposition, I don't think he's advocating government intervention, just a little voluntary personal responsibility. What a novel concept.

[Pilgrim]

As to Kent's proposition, I don't think he's advocating government intervention, just a little voluntary personal responsibility. What a novel concept.

 

Exactly. Thank you, Ron.

 

Unfortunately, it appears to be being bred out of the populace.

 

Pilgrim

[Smoky]

I can't build a garden shed in my yard without a permit.

 

I can't have fire in my yard without a permit.

 

I can't fish in a stream without a licence.

 

I need a permit to drive a scooter.

 

However, I can father all the children I like, without showing any talent in my ability to raise them.

 

I say put birth control in the public water system, and give the antidote only to those financially and emontionaly qualified!!!

 

Pilgrim for president!

[JerryMather]

I say TAX the living S%!$ out of everyone that decides to bring another human into this world or at least limit couples to one child only! Not the other way around, by giving parents TAX breaks, because they want to fulfill some internal desire and unwittingly help destroy the world by over population.

 

I saw the writing on the wall 35 years ago with over population and it's effects on the world as a whole and opted not to have children, why the heck did it take all of you so long to see this coming?

[smiller]

OK, resolved: People should not have children they can't afford. And of course the same with the corollaries... people should always predict whether any circumstances in their life will ever change in a way that will negatively affect their ability to support their children, and that their children should never need medical that they can't afford, etc.

 

OK, having established the easy part... what happens if they do anyway?

 

Mr President..?

[JerryMather]

OK, having established the easy part... what happens if they do anyway?

 

Mr President..?

 

Soylent Green, Forced euthanasia at a mandatory age, unless you can afford to stay alive.

[Ken H.]

As a species, the The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement think it's a swell idea.

Ron, where DO you find these things!?! Who would have thunk it?

 

And I guess I'm a member (childless) and didn't even know it! Gee, I'm so excited.

[sgendler]

Who says 2 isn't cheaper than 1? Living as a couple was way cheaper on a per-capita basis than living singly, by a long shot. My rent now is actually $200 more than it was when I was married, and I no longer have her salary to contribute to expenses. Utilities and such aren't significantly lower. I eat out a lot more now, since I can't really cook. Living as a couple was way cheaper than living by myself. It also allowed a much greater amount of free time.

[DiggerJim]

Unfortunately, it appears to be being bred out of the populace.

Precisely. Consider what it takes to be "successful" and then consider how many kids those successful people have.

 

Contrast it to the number of kids produced by people who are unable to achieve "success" and are thus reliant on the kindness or support of strangers (usually thru taxation, social programs, etc.).....

 

Genetically success is much different than what most of us would define success to be...genetically speaking, I'm apt to spread more of my genes if I'm unemployed(able), uneducated (or stupid), and unmotivated. Employed, educated, motivated people aren't having enough children to counterbalance the impact of those who aren't. As a species we are involved in a highly sophisticated program of diseugenics.

 

With that thought....have a sparkling day

[Dave McReynolds]

As a species we are involved in a highly sophisticated program of diseugenics.

 

It seems logical, but I don't see it happening. In my CPA practice, I see wealthy, successful people having children with room temperature IQ's that seem to just want to cruise through life. OTOH, I see people from poor backgrounds who grab life and run with it. Others, of course who don't.

 

But from my own experience as a CPA, which I'm sure gives me eminent qualifications in genetics , I've come to the conclusion that the gene pool has been mixed enough that you are as likely to find a smart, successful person from one background as another.

 

Of course, take two equally endowed people, and give one the advantages of a good education and better cultural connections, he is likely to come out on top. Reverse that and the other one is likely to come out on top.

[smiller]

Of course, take two equally endowed people, and give one the advantages of a good education and better cultural connections, he is likely to come out on top. Reverse that and the other one is likely to come out on top.

Oh Mortimer, you'll never learn...

[Pilgrim]

OK, resolved: People should not have children they can't afford. And of course the same with the corollaries... people should always predict whether any circumstances in their life will ever change in a way that will negatively affect their ability to support their children, and that their children should never need medical that they can't afford, etc.

 

OK, having established the easy part... what happens if they do anyway?

 

Mr President..?

 

You start from a false premise, Seth. My thought relates to people who blindly get married and start a family without the faintest notion of how they're going to carry the financial burden. They just have this touching faith that somebody will make it turn out all right.

 

Nobody can foresee changed circumstances that will, in hindsight, show it to have been a bad decision. However, they could (and too often don't) make plans around the near-certainty that something is going to happen at some point to upset the apple cart to some degree.

 

It is within my life's recollection hearing young, unmarried couples say "We can't afford to get married yet." I'm far enough away from the parenting scene and contact with young adults that I don't know if that thought process still exists. I don't see much evidence of it. Maybe it does.

 

Pilgrim

[smiller]

You start from a false premise, Seth.

Future problems weren't really my premise, rather just a side comment. The question remains the same even when restricting conditions to that in your original statement... if a couple gets married without a mature consideration of how they're going to carry the financial burden (as young people are unfortunately wont to do on occasion), what happens then if they need assistance? I guess they hope that someone will find them truly needy and that they are not left gasping for air like a fish on the beach, because one way or the other there will be an unavoidable cost to society. Not liking the situation won't change that, and thinking that we can just ignore the problem and save money is an illusion. That's true in general, and it's often even true when you carefully restrict your premise to a single example to make a point.

[Ken H.]

I'm apt to spread more of my genes if I'm unemployed(able), uneducated (or stupid), and unmotivated. Employed, educated, motivated people aren't having enough children to counterbalance the impact of those who aren't.

Yikes! There's a broad sweeping class-based generalization if I've ever seen one.

 

And one which rather conveniently ignores the fact that some of humanity's greatest leaders and achievers came from some of the most humblest and impoverished of backgrounds.

[russell_bynum]

I'm apt to spread more of my genes if I'm unemployed(able), uneducated (or stupid), and unmotivated. Employed, educated, motivated people aren't having enough children to counterbalance the impact of those who aren't.

Yikes! There's a broad sweeping class-based generalization if I've ever seen one.

 

And one which rather conveniently ignores the fact that some of humanity's greatest leaders and achievers came from some of the most humblest and impoverished of backgrounds.

 

The thing about generalizations is that they are generally correct.

 

Not always and not in every case, but as a rule of thumb...correct.

[decorbin]

When I first got married, we agreed we would not have children until we could afford them. We both worked hard, saved, paid cash for everything we could, and then 11 years later had our first child and two years later our second and last.

 

Both of my kids, OTOH, decided they could have them right away. Now they wonder why it is so hard to make ends meet. I guess it really isn't all that hard for them....they've still got a telephone!

[DiggerJim]

Nobody can foresee changed circumstances that will, in hindsight, show it to have been a bad decision.

My wife & I thought we made good decisions about kids that have turned out in retrospect to have been bad ones -- we spaced our kids at least 4 years apart thinking that way we'd only have 1 in college at once so as to avoid having to come up with massive piles of money. What we didn't discover until the first went off to school is that financial aid is determined in part by how many kids you have going to college at once - the more you have, the more you qualify for financial aid. Since we only had one at a time, you can guess at the result.

 

I now sit in judgement in the distribution of scholarship dollars for my town's high school each year and you wouldn't believe the number of apps that suggest that because they have siblings in school at the same time, they deserve to have someone else pay for it. You can guess how well that argument goes over in my decisions

[smiller]

The flaw with generalizations is that they are often extremely subjective and that characteristic doesn't exactly enhance accuracy. In particular, I don't think that the generalization that most recipients of public assistance are fat, ignorant, emotionally-stunted losers devoid of any self respect is necessarily correct. No doubt some are, but many, probably even most, would love to get out of that existence if they could. Would you or I do a better job of it, or better yet avoid that situation in the first place? Maybe, but I'm not sure what bearing that has on anything. Yes, people should carry their own weight and no, people shouldn't get married unless they can afford it, but those statements alone aren't an answer, just complaints.