It never ceases to amaze me at the checkout counter of the local grocery chain when the welfare food coupons come out of the purse of the mother and her 8-kids in front of me along with all of the junk food that's in their shopping cart.

And lo and behold here i am...carefully selecting only the groceries that we really need (not that we couldn't spend more but what's the point as i know i'll be back in a few days for something i forgot) and using coupons to boot just to save from overpaying.

It always dawns on me during that scenario that for every penny i just tried to save this welfare mother just stole from me with her 8-kids.

Un-freakin'-believable...i still can't get over the lunacy of this whole thing.

Or so it seems to me...

Personally, I think a person or a couple needs a license to have even one kid. And you should have to take parenting and child psychology classes before you can get one.

I think most people raise their kids they way they were raised, and that is not good in many many cases, and most of us need to be taught how to do it better.

Count me in on this line of thought as well.

As a law student I see first-hand the long-reaching effects of just too many people. It is maddening.

Foster kids who are imprisoned to abject neglect, hopeless people without anything, endless streams of humanity destined to a life of crime and poverty.

Then we punish and lash those people for having come into a world by no choice of their own, and society has nothing to offer them except punishment and suffering.

We regulate every damn thing down to the size of the holes in swiss freaking cheese.

Then we trumpet "the sanctity of life" when huddled masses don't have ANY life. It's shameful. And hypocritical.

George Carlin said it best-- Right-wingers will protect the unborn, but as soon as you are born, you're on your own!!!

The Institution of Mechanical Engineers just released a seminal report titled "One Planet, Too Many People?". It states: "Population is the defining challenge of the 21st century."

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/73630,news-comment,news-politics,only-engineers-can-save-us-from-overpopulation-#ixzz1AwVBzjxB


The problems are multi-layered, impossible to boil down to a few bullet points. But they are FORMIDABLE.

The only responsible thing is for everybody to STOP FREAKING MAKING SO MANY BABIES.

But that won't happen. I don't believe humanity is smart enough to solve the problem of our own survival. There are INDIVIDUALS who could solve the problem, but they will never be able to gain the power to carry out the solution.

I want to take some kind of child psychology class before I have kids, and read a book called: Happiest toddler on the block. It was advertised on the Dr. Phil show, and the author gave a mother one of his tips from the book for tantrums, and it worked wonders! What do you guys think?

Nope. The regulation has gotten to the point where they are deciding what kind of light bulbs I can buy. We also should get rid of the welfare system that encourages people to have more kids so they can get more money from the system.

If a person has to pay for those kids out of their own pocket, then the reality hits and things change. We enable to much stupidity and the stupid never learn the lesson.

+1

Either completely abolish the welfare system, or fix it so that it encourages people to NOT have more children. In other words, stop providing.

I remember in my mid 20's right out of the Army, I was single with NO children and worked 40 hours a week at a Substance Abuse Clinic and went to school 18 hours. I had NO health insurance because I couldn't afford it on my income there. Yet, all of the drug addicts could pop out 15 kids they coudln't afford, not work, live off food stamps, free college, etc. and afford Steaks and junk food and had health and dental care.

Kind of sets up our society to think...why work for what I have? When if I don't, and just spread my legs, I will get life taken care of?

save people from themselves, and you can't fix stupid. Many have tried, many have failed.

Could you imagine the stink that would be raised!

Although most Americans would rather watch Survivor (or whatever) I think this is an issue that would just infuriate people.

You can't fix stupid and enabling stupid at the expense of the public drags everyone down with the stupid. Sometimes they just have to touch the hot burner and find out for themselves. I'm tired of the big babysitter and safety police. Especially, when they don't care about babysitting or safety but more control and taxes.

Basic Economics 101 says that you can't have less INPUT (i.e. INCOME), then you have OUTPUT (i.e. Welfare, and all the other crap the government pays for).

Eventually you will run out of money....but...but...we can always just print more...right?

This is not China. Move there if you think that.

If the OP wants to think and say and try to get made into law that we should limit the amount of kids that each couple can have that is his or her right as an American and one of the best things about America.(and other countries similar which China is not one of)

Please stop saying things like this.

This is America. Silhoutte has the right to speak his/her mind and they did.

You contradict yourself in your post by telling he/she to "stop saying things like this."

When most people lived on family farms they wanted lots of children. Free farm hands you didn't have to pay.

Now we live in an urban society and children lay around and play X-Box, text message, or chat on Facebook. They cost us money and don't make any for us now. As insurance and the cost of food goes up and the dollar buys less, children become even more expensive.

Economics and our urban lifestyle has reduced the amounts of children we have. The LDS might be the rare exception but even then they are having less children then they did in the past.

China's one child policy is going to bite them in the ass hard. Everyone wanted a boy so they aborted or killed the girl children. Then they spoil their only boy child rotten.

I was having dinner in Shanghai with some friends and their little boy brat was mis-behaving horribly at dinner. I was expecting mom or dad to take the brat outside and thump him. I got thumped as a kid and it's effective. They just enabled it. This is the norm in China.

It's going to be a nation of spoiled men with not enough women to date or marry. It's a huge sociological disaster ready to snap.

Most the world has an even ratio of men and women. It's how nature wants it and the Chinese screwed with nature and they will reap the consequences.

Meddling in such things never works.

I did some research on this. The country is realizing this, and it is in process to start giving welfare checks to families who have women, and they are trying to encourage adults to keep their women, but since they have already been in this mindset for so long, let's see how it works.

another thing I heard about the little emperors is that most of the students at Tianamen Square were one child kids who got preferential treatment that allowed them into university.

So not only were those students killed, it basically wiped out all their families as well, as they were the end of the line.

But China's got a bunch of problems with all these young men coming into the cities looking for work and wives. The social contract is about to break down big time.

Meanwhile, they keep exporting unwanted girls. One would think that the laws of supply and demand would correct this.

What happens in closed environments when there is a huge imbalance between gender populations?

:-)

Each child is considered a deduction and gives one form of economic incentive to have more children (even though there are plenty of economic incentives to not have as many). If the tax code were changed to not provide deductions for children, it would not be economically beneficial (in one way) to have children.

While I don't agree with getting rid of welfare programs entirely, there might be something about only allowing welfare programs for parents with two children.

However, I doubt that Americans would be ready enough to vote for measures such as these.

As a recently divorced, single mother of two, I am eternally grateful for the welfare system in this country. I have worked hard my entire life and continue to work hard. Fortunately, the government is helping pay for food and daycare while I get some technical training so that I can have employment enabling me to take care of my family. I have very few people I can rely on to help care for the kids, including their TBM, temple-worthy father.
I agree that people should not have more kids then they can support, but when I had my two children, I could support them because I was married. My situation is different now. I never thought I would be here. Thank goodness the government has more compassion than most people. I'm afraid we might be homeless without it. (And for anyone wondering - I work and go to school, I'm not lazy and I'm not taking advantage and I'm not proud that I'm receiving help. I'm just glad someone is willing to help.)

I'm not against helping someone get back on their feet so they can be self-sufficient again. I'm agains multiple generations staying on the dole and all the social ills it creates. I lived in the welfare projects in the South Bronx as a missionary and saw firsthand the welfare system enslaves people.

In other words, for people in situations that you are in, through little/no fault of your own, would you be okay with a time limit for these types of support?

I have no problem with people utilizing welfare on an extremely limited basis. In other words, one to two years until their situation can be rectified through job/school.

What is NOT okay, is cyclic abuse of the welfare system, by generational abusers.

I think when "most people" copme off as cruel about welfare, they aren't referring to people in your situation. We, well myself at least, are referring to people who do nothing to change their situation, and just keep amassing more children and problems, and not taking care of themselves. In these situations, the system enables them....we need to EMPOWER people.

The other side of this coin, and not to sound harsh, because my mother used welfare temporarily while in school after my parents divorced (she was an at home mom with NO work experience), is that no one told you to have children before you received an education to support them. Your ex is a piece of crap. In your case, the state needs to go after him to recoup some of that money. I know with my mother, the state did ZERO to help get her court enforced child support, until she filed for welfare...then all of the sudden they cared.

I feel like we need to abolish the ideas in kids that its OKAY to not have an education/work experince/trade/skill regardless of marital status, before they procreate.

In other words, using this system set in place temporarily, to get back on your feet and better your situation is commendable. I highly doubt that those of us against the current welfare system are referring to situations like yours. Unfortunately, you are probably an extremely small percentage within that group.

There is no shame in accepting help!

Removing the economic incentives the U.S. and individual states provide that making having too many children attractive? Yes, please.

And wouldn't we just be punishing children more because they lost the ovarian lottery?

It looks like both sides of political spectrum are responsible for this mess we're in.

The right is firmly committed to providing for kids en utero and then later when they're in prison.

The left validates and enables this lifestyle by keeping their heads just above water for generation after generation.

And there certainly are economic incentives to have children - tax deductions for each child, as opposed to deductions only up to X amount, allocating public education tax burdens by real estate owned rather than by the number of children in the system, relative easy access to relatively spacious housing (by international standards) etc.

It's true, economic incentives are far from the only reason people have children, but there's little doubt disincentivizing having more than, say, two children, would reduce the number of people who choose to have more than two.

While I would like to see everyone be liscenced just to have any children, it IS totally unconstitutional and would never pass. And that's good because it is totally a Fascist policy. But, meh, it would be nice.

Because it is unconstitutional, removing any kind of economic incentive would be the better route to go. If children are a big economic decision, then having them will more likely be a more thoughtful decision.