Should families with 3+ children receive ...

[syracusa]

....further tax credits, health insurance advantages and all kinds of other pro-natalist policies?

I have been lurking on a very different forum lately, one that has little to do with "intellectualism and debates", and everything to do with:
BABIES AND "TTC STUFF" (trying to conceive)
Fun, fun, fun! (My husband and I kind of reached this stage and ...anyway, you won't believe the cool techniques that are out there - but that's off topic).

What really shocked the Buhjesus out of me is to see all these women who simply want YET another kid (when they already have 3, 4 even 5, etc) as if they want a new doll. Beause they are sooo cute and they just want another one. Literally.

The process is fun, it's all about pinky/blue baby dust, taking temperature, making colorful charts, guessing the gender by looking at the chart - etc. They have a freakin' ball!
But I see little to no thought given to the future lives of these human beings that they are about to create (some MONUMENTAL SHIT, I would argur) by playing "getting preggy" on forums and tricking the dumb husband into BD-ing..

((FYI, BD stands for "baby-dancing")

There was this woman bitching and moaning about her husband not wanting to start TTC their 4th (the guy told hold her flat out that they cannot afford anymore&#33 and she was having a hissy fit that she couldn't get her wish. Of course all the other chikies stepped in to bitch about how difficult men are, how they get impossible about having another child and how they have to "work" them into accepting it. (Uggh...duuuuuugggh! - when the poor guy is expected to provide for an army).

I was just flabbergasted to see how much pureposeful stupidity, immaturity and irresponsibility there is out there - and how these people are given full, unfettered license to fuck up human lives AND the world around them, just to get their selfish little desires met.

Of course, a few days later the woman pops back on the forum and says that she got a bfp (pregnancy sign) and now... how is she going to tell the husband? Apparently the husband BD-ed without protection...even though he refused to have a 4th ....so "he must have wanted another baby subconsciously!!"

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE F***-ing WORLD?

That being said, this takes me back to China.
No, I cannot stop people from being irresponsible morons and no, I cannot stop them from "baby-dancing" so they can have another live doll to play with (though I would if I could - and we probably SHOULD be working in that direction!!&#33 - but I can at least stop giving freaking tax incentives to larger and larger families.

A family like mine (who would never even conceive the notion of having more than 2) has to make huge sacrifices to put the mother and one baby on husband's health insurance; yet a family who decides to BD without restriction, can continue to add 12 other "live dolls" on the same plan just because they like to BD. No problem...they get "cheaper by the dozen", don't they? !
(Talk about kitchy, populist movies with the wrongest messages possible).

Give me a freaking break and let's stop giving incentives to these nasty morons who insist on making this world an even nastier place than it already is.
In a country that bitches and moans about welfare and that advocates pesonal responsibility in everything, this should hold out pretty nicely, shouldn't it?
How about we stop subsidizing their insane baby-dancing?

And don't even get me started with the school of thought that says we need lots of labor force for the economy. Read the article below.

It makes sense: we don't. We will need a smaller labor force that is very well educated and skilled to fit the complex jobs of tomorrow's economy.

Quantity always attacks quality.

[syracusa]

Two Is Enough
Why large families don't deserve tax breaks.

(Dalton Conley is director of NYU's Center for Advanced Social Science Research and author of The Pecking Order: Which Siblings Succeed and Why)

The U.S. government encourages families to have children, as many of them as possible. Child tax credits, child-care tax deductions, and family leave policies all reward parents with big broods. The pro-child policies are based partly on romantic notions about mom, family, and apple pie, but they also have a rational goal: We subsidize kids so that our next generation of workers is ready to win in the global economy.
Problem is, these two goals—more kids and better-prepared kids—are at odds. If we really care about kids' welfare and accomplishment, the United States should scrap policies that encourage parents to have lots of children. As my recent research shows, having more than two children is tantamount to handicapping their chances for academic, and thus economic, success. In this information economy, what we ought to be doing through the tax code is making it easier for parents to ensure the quality of their first one or two children, not stimulating quantity. Pro-fertility tax policy is an outdated notion from an industrial era when we needed bodies to fill manufacturing plants. Today we need fewer, highly skilled kids who will compete with our rivals in math and science.
It's long been known that kids from large families perform worse in school, but it has been impossible to explain why. That's because research about the relationship between family size and children's educational achievement has been plagued by a nagging issue: Large families tend to be different from small families on a number of fronts—religiosity, commitment to education, orientation to the future, maybe even intelligence level. So it has been hard to assess the impact of the number of children in a family as distinct from these other differences. (Maybe Johnny can't read because he has unintelligent parents, not because he is the sixth of nine kids.) After all, with all due respect to Chairman Mao, we can't randomly assign parents to have different numbers of offspring for the purposes of social experimentation—that is, to find out if additional kids handicap offspring.
Here's where my research comes in. I deploy a natural experiment: I examine which sexes parents get for their first two children—a seemingly random event. The key is that families with two kids of the same sex are 17 percent more likely to go on and have a third than those with two kids of the opposite sex. As it turns out, no matter what most people say on surveys (or when their kids pop out), many parents desire at least one of each kind. So my research strategy boils down to the following: comparing children from families in which the first two were of the same sex ("treatment group") to those in which the first two were of the opposite sex ("control group") in order to see who fares better educationally. In other words, while only some of the variation in who goes on to have a third child is accounted for by the sex mix (that 17 percent), that variation is "pure"—that is, unbiased by all the other factors that determine family size and determine achievement—since it is a result of the random event of the sex mix. Its lack of bias is bolstered by the fact that it does not matter which sex the first two are—either way, parents are more likely to go on to have additional kids in search of a complete set.
With the addition of the third child, firstborns don't appear to suffer on the educational front. But middle-borns are severely hurt by the addition of another mouth to feed: His parents are 25 percent less likely to send him to private school, and he is several times more likely to be held back a grade. The third child is also less likely to receive parental financial investment in his or her education and can suffer from elevated risk of academic failure. Evidently, only firstborns get off scot-free.
The reasons that additional siblings hamper the intellectual growth of children (and particularly middle-borns) are fairly obvious—parental resources are a fixed pie, and children do better when they get more attention (and money). The conclusions to be drawn are more controversial. For example, we always talk about the goal of raising test scores and the overall "intellectual" or "human" capital of our population to fit the needs of the new information economy (and to compete with other nations in math and science), yet our tax policy does the exact opposite: It gives tax credits for additional kids. We have to confront the possibility that a more powerful educational (and antipoverty) policy is a tax structure that acts as a disincentive to have more children. Research has long shown that family background is a lot more important than school conditions in predicting academic success or failure. Just about the most controllable aspect of family background is how many kids are in that family. So it stands to reason that a more effective education policy may be to provide economic disincentives to large families.
Perhaps a suitable compromise would be to have a declining tax credit—granting a big subsidy for the first kid, a bit less for the second, then cutting back to nothing (not unlike the current system for the Earned Income Tax Credit). Such an adjusted tax credit (and associated deductions) makes economic sense since the addition of the first kid is the most expensive. It makes educational sense, and last of all, it makes common sense. After all, do we really want to subsidize kid No. 9?
Such a fertility-unfriendly policy would put us at odds with European nations that are desperately trying to stimulate population growth by increasing the tax incentives to have more kids; but then again, if we can't find common ground with the Europeans in foreign policy, what should make domestic policy any different? (Unlike most of Europe, we have a steady influx of immigrants to sustain population growth.) More important, the antibrood tax policies would anger those on both sides of the political aisle here in the United States. Religious conservatives—who see procreation as a divine imperative—may take offense at the notion that the government would not do all it could to facilitate this goal. Similarly, many on the left will protest that such a policy is class-biased, allowing rich people who would be less fazed by the additional expenses to have as many children as they please while leaving poor people to feel the extra pinch. Americans of all political stripes might take offense at the notion of the government getting involved in the sacred sphere of family life. But the truth is that we already are meddling with family fertility through our tax code. We're just not acknowledging it, and, furthermore, we're doing it the wrong way. We need honest discussion about the trade-offs between child quantity and quality.
.

[Suburbanite]

no they shouldnt recieve a damn thing, for any number of children.

[caspian88]

Suburbanite, I agree.

[syracusa]

Uhp...I guess then we all agree on this one. :)

I just couldn't help posting ...'cause it's really scary to see FIRST HAND how so many people approach the making of a HUMAN BEING.
Quite pathetic.
And then they get to vote.

Arghhhhhh...

[Snouter]

syracusa, the infantile selfishness that manifests itself in various ways in this day and age is disgusting. Some females actually turn to lesbianism as a result of the infantilism.

Also, I have heard of broads who wanted to be impregnated out of wedlock just so they could have a child before they got too old. (I was actually approached for this service and declined of course.) The kid would automatically be a bastard, but the stupid bitch was more concerned with fulfilling selfish desires.

Originally posted by syracusa,

Quantity always attacks quality.

Another concern is the demographic changes in the USA as a result of the huge illegal immigration problem and stupid people generally having more children than intelligent people. What if home owners decided to cut their own grass like they did 20 years ago? Where would all the low IQ and non-English speaking invaders occupying the land and using valuable resources go? Just this fact makes bringing children into the world a concern.

[PatrickHenry]

From a taxpayer's perspective, I would say that additional people utilize additional government services.

I would recommend that there be a per capita tax for all families and that the smaller families pay less, while larger families pay more.

[Suburbanite]

I don't have a problem with everyone having 5000 kids each, as long as they can take care of them, afford them, and dont ask me for help in any way.

[prettyredhead]

Who cares. Let them have as many as they want. I will help feed them, on my measly salary. But, hey I like kids. All kids. As they are the future of this country, and need to sort the mess we will leave them.
I know Suburbanite will trumpet that I WAS ONCE ON (GASP) WELFARE> Oh My God. And I am a WHITE IRISH_CZECH woman . Not a BLACK PERSON OR MEXICAN> I am a citizen, and luckily so. America still clings to the notion of caring for the poor. But not much longer with the Rebublican Fat Piggies using slave labor and hording it all for their Spolied Republican Whitetrash. and little "Piggy" Jr who will be facist like dear old Dad. The drain has been pulled on this country in 1940's and it has neared the bottom of the sink. It is spinning faster and faster and the "richest" people are scrambling to hold and horde it all.
I have to leave. I hate the Republican nasties on here. :rolleyes:

[syracusa]

Originally posted by Snouter,

Another concern is the demographic changes in the USA as a result of the huge illegal immigration problem and stupid people generally having more children than intelligent people.

Woouw! Try to even REMOTELY SUGGEST this one on such baby-obssessed forums. You burnt your bridges!  Of course, I didn't do that over there, I know better, besides those are not "debate" forums, those are "support" forums, women talking "baby and preggy" stuff.  .

..but despite the fact that this is an extremely politically incorrect idea - it remains as true as TRUTH itself. On average, IT IS the stupid people, often the completely powerless people, who keep reproducing b/c this is their only source of power and authority in this world, where they never get to be questioned, restricted or held responsible in any way.
Society still believes that you have unlimited unlimited reproductive and parenting rights no mater what. 
How many people actually get in trouble for "bad parenting"? How many are required to show some sort of "parenting readiness" proof before they become parents?  And you have to do something really horrific for social services or the police to come hold you responsible.

Other than that...it's your kingdom, baby!

In most other areas of life, these people are - unfortunately - kept by life with their heads down - but boy, is it cool or not to just make your own human beings to boss around and feel in charge of...if life didn't put you in that position otherwise?...

If you try to ask them why anybody in the 21st century would get upset about not having a 4th child when they already have 3 perfectly fine kids...they cannot give you a coherent, rational answer.
They just kept telling me how I am immature and devoid of any wisdom b/c I don't have any children yet and I don't know what it feels like...and how money doesn't matter, only "love" does.

When I asked why a family of 4 (AND with some college funds growing&#33 would have any less "love" in it than a family of 6,7 or 8...still no coherent answer, actually more like no answer at all. It is pathetic what's going on.
It scares me beyond belief to see how many women want "mini-me's" and how few actually THINK fully about the life (not just "cute baby" but also FUTURE ADULT&#33  that they are just about to create.

Besides, I am starting to understand more and more why women have been historically considered "stupid".Hey..maybe on average, they really ARE, when compared to men.
Eurika!

I am a woman myself - staunch liberal, as everybody has probably caught on by now    ; have had my share of "gender studies" and have accumulated enough "baby fever" to last me a lifetime.
HOWEVER, I find it impossible to relate to the way so many women approach the act of creating a life.  No brain, no true sacrifice or concern for that future young Johnny boy, only frill and animalistic instinct. That's pretty much it. Some were even advising some idiot that had tricked the boyfriend into getting prg. - to leave him and keep the baby if he still doesn't want the baby. But they were of course, terribly adamant about "not having an abortion", under ANY circumstances!

As liberal as I am....and I still see how I would not want my kid to grow up without a father, PERIOD. Fathers are humangously important in children's lives and I certainly don't need some wacky self-righteous conservative to teach me that.
I want an IDEAL situation for that darn kid when I decide to make him ....and I will have it. 
Yet.. respectable, "traditional" women like these...would rather throw a life into some sucky circumstances than cool down their stupid "baby" instincts until they find themselves in the right situation and with enough brain in their heads to actually have that. And then they like to fancy themselves as "caring mothers".

Yes, it sounds elitist - we established that long time ago.
I just wonder why are people nowadays screaming "elitism" as if they scream "blody murder" instead of trying to make their way into the elite?  If not by riches, at least by brain and by observing the stinking world around them?

I gotta say my liberal "soft spot" for the weak, the stupid, the God-forsaken and the "unassuming" is just about to burst.

After witnessing these elections too...I really think the lefties may do themselves a favor by minding their "elitist Ivory castles" and forgetting for a while about the "weak" who simply do not want to be helped after all.  You can't force LOVE AND CONCERN onto people and you can't save them from themselves.
This has got to be the mega "boo-boo" in the leftist ideology.

(OK, let me know if I really sart to sound like a conservative...       )

Sira

[syracusa]

Originally posted by prettyredhead,
I hate the Republican nasties on here. :rolleyes:

I have my days...believe me.

[Suburbanite]

You being white does not make a difference, not even a little. Paying to feed someone legally or illegally doesn't make a difference to me, not even a little. What I don't like is that somehow you're still under the impression that you have a right to criticize anyone. Your life is owed to everyone in the country, Republicans too. If you’re typing on a computer that you own, I think that you should sell the computer and walk house to house in your entire city and pay back as much money to these people as you can, and then you’ll have the right to criticize. Until then you’re in debt.