Why Should We Support Your Habit?

[Milton Bradley]

Why Should We Support Your Habit!


Many people in the US postpone having children until they are sure they can afford to have children.


Why should these people now be asked to help you raise your children? ( Through socialists leaning legislation. )


Can you not see why people are against investing in your progeny when they have yet to invest in their own?


How can you, in good conscience, ask people who percieve themselves as being to poor to raise children, to ask them for financial support for your own shortsightedness, or poor planning? ( Because if that is not that at the root of your problem, it must be as we claim, an attempt to dodge your personal responsibility. )


I see family oriented legislation as some of the most egregious, pernicious legislation floating about in Washington. Every single recommendation that comes down from these people is totally at odds with constitutional authority.

[Milton Bradley]

Partucularly, I ask you to consider the people between the baby booms, and how some of you out there have the taxpayer subsidising the corporations, the original baby boomers, and the new baby boom as well.


When will they ever get the chance to enjoy their own life free from your requests?

[Technosoul]

Why Should We Support Your Habit!


Many people in the US postpone having children until they are sure they can afford to have children.


Why should these people now be asked to help you raise your children? ( Through socialists leaning legislation. )


Can you not see why people are against investing in your progeny when they have yet to invest in their own?


How can you, in good conscience, ask people who percieve themselves as being to poor to raise children, to ask them for financial support for your own shortsightedness, or poor planning? ( Because if that is not that at the root of your problem, it must be as we claim, an attempt to dodge your personal responsibility. )


I see family oriented legislation as some of the most egregious, pernicious legislation floating about in Washington. Every single recommendation that comes down from these people is totally at odds with constitutional authority.

A valid point.

Family planning however is being apposed by one major religion and the Pope is not about to change his mind. And married people do not want to reframe from sex until they are rich enough to afford children. The Pope has effected the a family tree plan simular to what we saw in that movie Idiotracy (hope I speelled the title right?).

Here is another factor to concider.

A fellow works hard and gets promoted and can now afford children, he and his wife produce three kids. Suddenly his company moves to Mexico and he is layed off, unemployed and soon-to-be flat broke.
Suddenly overnight he shifts from being a middle class fellow to being a poor man. His children need food, shelter, clothing. But he cannot find another job paying those nice union wages (or perhaps can find no job at all for a long while). His unemployment checks run out and his savings are used up. What then? When he was not at fault for his new circumstances? Is your point still valid in his case?

[HelioPrime]

Support family oriented legislation because its the right thing to do?

Just like mentioned above, what if someone can afford a family but then loses their job? You can't offer assistance to just some people, then deny others. Doing so would have to create just another massive government structure where people are emloyed just to shift through all the requests for aid and determine who gets it. All of this will of course still be paid for by the taxpayer.

The other option is the selfish one, just oh well thats to bad John Doe about your job and all, but I'd rather keep that extra cash so I can get a bigger size in my morning starbucks run.

Like the Principle asking Homer Simpson, do you want to pay 34 cents to support school arts? Homer - "Hell no, I want a new boat!"

In short, people forget any of us can fall from grace, and need help sometimes. People get too selfish with their money. Too many people fall into the "If I earn it why should I have to support others" mentality.

[grandpa]

Support family oriented legislation because its the right thing to
do?
Just like mentioned above, what if someone can afford a
family but then loses their job?

And what if it's a family with no other income (as far as I know, those have existed)?

Of course, there are alternatives to existing social programs, entailing a re-organization of society. But capitalists and state socialists aren't hearing that--and problems persist.

Grandpa h.

[Chancellor]

Support family oriented legislation because its the right thing to do?

Why is it the right thing to do? This is the United States of America: we don't believe in the nanny state!

Just like mentioned above, what if someone can afford a family but then loses their job?

That's what families and private charities are for.

You can't offer assistance to just some people, then deny others.

The government has no business offering assistance to anyone.

Doing so would have to create just another massive government structure where people are emloyed just to shift through all the requests for aid and determine who gets it. All of this will of course still be paid for by the taxpayer.

All the more reason for the government to keep its nose out of it and let families take care of their own and private charities take care of the ones that have no family.

The other option is the selfish one, just oh well thats to bad John Doe about your job and all, but I'd rather keep that extra cash so I can get a bigger size in my morning starbucks run.

There is no obligation to help others but for those who want to help then there are charitable organizations and there's simply providing the help to the person directly. The government has no place in it.

Like the Principle asking Homer Simpson, do you want to pay 34 cents to support school arts? Homer - "Hell no, I want a new boat!"

I wasn't aware that principles asked questions. But as far as what Principal Skinner asked Homer goes, why is it assumed that there must be arts in school and that taxpayers must pay for it? Shut down the government indoctrination centers (public schools) and let parents provide for their children's education.

In short, people forget any of us can fall from grace, and need help sometimes. People get too selfish with their money. Too many people fall into the "If I earn it why should I have to support others" mentality.

The objection is to having to support them through some unconstitutional government program and, for that matter, being forced to support them instead of allowing us to do it voluntarily.

[Milton Bradley]

A fellow works hard and gets promoted and can now afford children, he and his wife produce three kids. Suddenly his company moves to Mexico and he is layed off, unemployed and soon-to-be flat broke.
Suddenly overnight he shifts from being a middle class fellow to being a poor man. His children need food, shelter, clothing. But he cannot find another job paying those nice union wages (or perhaps can find no job at all for a long while). His unemployment checks run out and his savings are used up. What then? When he was not at fault for his new circumstances? Is your point still valid in his case?

Ah, but see, it most likely is his fault for being politically ignorant, and supporting the two major parties, or for outright support for those same two entities.


Hopefully nobody wishes to contend all of the afore mention problems do not stem from the fact that both major parties are the votes for sale to the highest bidder, and that our elected officials do not represent the people on most issues.

[Milton Bradley]

Look Technosoul, I'm not say the example you gave could never be accounted for, I'm just pointing out that our government was never empowered to act in that manor.


Why couldn't this person buy "Family Insurance"? I realize that seems a seems a littel odd, but in the Land of Opportunity, is it not more odd that something like that doesn't exist? They're trying to sell me everything else, logical, or otherwise.


Individual rights = individual resposibilities.


Your real issue should be why your precious politicians didn't try harder to leverage the big corporations to maintain that standard of living you're generation was always bragging about.


Grinding your axe on the wrong stone doesn't produce the desired result.

[Technosoul]

[QUOTE=Milton Bradley;426919]Look Technosoul, I'm not say the example you gave could never be accounted for, I'm just pointing out that our government was never empowered to act in that manor.


Why couldn't this person buy "Family Insurance"? I realize that seems a seems a littel odd, but in the Land of Opportunity, is it not more odd that something like that doesn't exist? They're trying to sell me everything else, logical, or otherwise.


Individual rights = individual resposibilities.

********************** technosoul's response below ++++++++++++++++

Acturally an unemployment check from the Department of Human Resources is supposed to be enough to tide one over so they can find another job. Which made sense when we had enough jobs to support our population. The Consitution makes sense if we have a wilderness and can go fishing and hunting without expensive permits, in order to feed our family if we do not wish to work for someone else (or got laid off).

But nowadays it is questionable if unemployment benifits are worth the paper they are writen on, and clearly we have run out of animals and wilderness areas open to the public for getting food, clothing, or tember to build shelter.

Some fault could be directed at how things came about to be this way, but we cannot turn back the hands of time to the good old days (which were not all that good). But that does not acturally put food in the mouth of a crying baby.

It is possible that responsibility is not just a private matter anymore. Of course we have individual responsibility to our family, but perhaps also a collective responsibility for the kind of society we wish to dwell in.

The complexity of the situation demands more then a simplistic answer.

I do not personally see governmentally funded and controlled socialism as the best answer, that is also 'old hat' stuff that has many faults. Socialism must be a part of private industry to be effective. In other words in the future social programs and safty nets must be spearheaded by Big Corperations instead of Big Government. Corperations should take advantage of that responsibilty to supply this demand on the part of the working population. Some companies have already adopted such an approch and found out it added growth to the company and was a good captitalistic plan as well. For one thing the companies offering the best perks get the cream of the crop workers and that gives them an advantage relative to competition. Some companies offer shared profit plans, in-house child care facilities, on site doctors and nurses, on property resturants with healthy food seclections on the menu and a gym to work out in after hours. Plus a good retirement package. Not just for high level employees but for everyone hired. The workers are so happy they put forth lots of energy to be productive and to improve the company which becomes like their extended family. They do tend to become dependant and therefore loyal but also work hard to safeguard their dependancy. plus they get a decent wage.

All we need is for more companies in the private sector to adopt that kind of philosophy and we could say bye bye to those ineffective governmental programs and safty nets. Not by forcing them to do so but by educating them about how effective such a plan has been for companies that have already tested it and use it.

That was always the plan for socialists who are intelligent ( and not lazy) and they fisrt attempted to do that via unions, but the union idea was also ineffective because barganing led to seperation, and made the worker and the boss enemies of each other, rather then creating a family like situtation spearheaded by the free will of the employer, where the employed respected the boss and were loyal and productive out of their free will.

Workers should not be beggers and emloyers should not be slave drivers or mean dictators. Mutural free will is the the true answer, idealistically.

The best way towards that long term solution is to have collages introduce that wisdom and philosophy in their classes on business and management. Meanwhile we must also deal with a clear and present problem with a quick fix, but in a way so as not to make the fix it project into some sort of long term establishment.

Perhaps Ron Paul would agree?

A bird has two wings, a left wing and a right wing, but it is the same bird. (in reponse to the grindstone anology).