Lucky... 0 #26 December 5, 2009 QuoteI think a good start would be to stop the tax breaks and subsidies for people that have a bunch of kids. Yes and give those breaks to corporations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #27 December 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteI think a good start would be to stop the tax breaks and subsidies for people that have a bunch of kids. How about not increasing benifits for those that collect any government or dissabilty payments that have more kids. better yet reduce those payments if you do have more kids. I would prefer that the government neither encourage nor discourage people from having children. this doesn't discourage them from having kids, only from having government supported kids. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #28 December 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI think a good start would be to stop the tax breaks and subsidies for people that have a bunch of kids. How about not increasing benifits for those that collect any government or dissabilty payments that have more kids. better yet reduce those payments if you do have more kids. I would prefer that the government neither encourage nor discourage people from having children. this doesn't discourage them from having kids, only from having government supported kids. So I guess you support government aid to children in rural areas.... just not urban areas right??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #29 December 5, 2009 Quote Giving the government control of your reproductive habits, or making certain abortions mandatory, seems like a bad idea. shouldn't this go in the anti-government-contol of healthcare threads?-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #30 December 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI think a good start would be to stop the tax breaks and subsidies for people that have a bunch of kids. How about not increasing benifits for those that collect any government or dissabilty payments that have more kids. better yet reduce those payments if you do have more kids. I would prefer that the government neither encourage nor discourage people from having children. this doesn't discourage them from having kids, only from having government supported kids. So I guess you support government aid to children in rural areas.... just not urban areas right??? no, I said not to give additional aid to parents that have additional kids. nothing said about were they may live. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #31 December 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI think a good start would be to stop the tax breaks and subsidies for people that have a bunch of kids. How about not increasing benifits for those that collect any government or dissabilty payments that have more kids. better yet reduce those payments if you do have more kids. I would prefer that the government neither encourage nor discourage people from having children. this doesn't discourage them from having kids, only from having government supported kids. So I guess you support government aid to children in rural areas.... just not urban areas right??? no, I said not to give additional aid to parents that have additional kids. nothing said about were they may live. So you just want to punish kids for the poor judgment of their parents.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #32 December 5, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote I think a good start would be to stop the tax breaks and subsidies for people that have a bunch of kids. How about not increasing benifits for those that collect any government or dissabilty payments that have more kids. better yet reduce those payments if you do have more kids. I would prefer that the government neither encourage nor discourage people from having children. this doesn't discourage them from having kids, only from having government supported kids. So I guess you support government aid to children in rural areas.... just not urban areas right??? no, I said not to give additional aid to parents that have additional kids. nothing said about were they may live. So you just want to punish kids for the poor judgment of their parents. It's not punishment it's just not giving additional gov't funds for more children. Too many people use kids as pawns which only ends up in encouraging additional poor judgement. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #33 December 5, 2009 Quote So you just want to punish kids for the poor judgment of their parents. As opposed to the current system of rewarding the parent's poor judgement?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #34 December 5, 2009 QuoteQuotePlease, feel free to offer up a better suggestion for breaking the cycle. Breaking the cycle? How about improve schools, create jobs, reduce gang violence, abandon the War on Drugs, reduce minimum sentencing guidelines for non-violent offfenders, improve access to pre- and post-natal care? All of those things will help reduce the cycle of poverty. Sterilizing people treats a symptom, not the disease. It is also morally questionable. All of your suggestions are better than the suggestion of sterilizing anyone receiving government assistance.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
