The Tea Party LOVES America...

[Doktor Howl]

Well, gee, Pickle, you're right.  When you lose your job, you can just walk in, and tell your boss, "But I have two kids, you CAN'T fire me!" and he has to let you stay, right?

Jesus fucking Christ, if you're going to be an asshole, at least attempt to not be a STUPID asshole, would ya?

I was talking about the origins of people who would do that, outside of having any skill set that would help them support a family of four.

I was a child of a family of four that couldn't support themselves, BTW.  There were "Other Circumstances" that prevented them from doing that successfully, but we can pass them over for the sake of conversation even though they are completely relevant.

The root of my question is why a person not entirely secure (or at the least, reasonably secure) in their profession would CHOOSE to have children?  Especially two?  

Yes, layoffs happen.  Yes economic conditions in a particular region can mean you can't readily find a job in your field.

What exactly is the issue you have with my post?  That DITK family providers can get fired and not be able to find new work in their field?

I gotta ask ya, DP...Seriously, now...Are you actually of the mind that people will make rational decisions not to reproduce?

Or that people who knock up the girl next door give economics any thought at all, regardless of tax structures/assistance, or the lack thereof?  Because, if you do, you haven't spent any time observing primates, who breed faster when times are tough.  This is why we have a birth rate of ~ 1.6, and Central Africa has a birth rate of about 4.

We're not rich because we breed less, we breed less because we're rich.  We're reasonably certain that our 1.6 kids will survive to breed, so we have less kids to spread the resources around.  When people are uncertain about the future, they breed like rabbits.

Want the poor to slow their roll?  Alleviate the effects of their poverty.

[Triple Zero]

who the fuck has a "family of four" when they're below the poverty line in income and don't run a farm?

Why is that a good idea, and why should the people who don't do that sort of thing subsidize it?

Doesn't subsidizing it encourage population growth in low income families?

- Pickle,

Back in form that will get him shit from the board and ok with that.

I am kind of hoping you can answer that question yourself through a process called "deductive reasoning"

He is incapable.

[LMNO]

Doesn't subsidizing it encourage population growth in low income families?

No.

[AFK]

Not getting to the bottom of this thread yet but who the fuck has a "family of four" when they're below the poverty line in income and don't run a farm?

People with faulty birth control.  People who were gainfully employed and then thanks to the Economic Calamity of 08, are now NOT gainfully employed.  Young people who don't always make the best decisions and end up having twins.  There are a myriad of reasons and scenarios where poor people have children or people who have children become poor.  More than you can hope to collect and codify with welfare guidelines and stipulations. 

Why is that a good idea, and why should the people who don't do that sort of thing subsidize it?

For one it is a survivability mechanism.  Ever notice how fish have a shit ton of babies?  It's because fish tend to be easy prey and need to make a shit ton of babies to up the chance that their genes are perpetuated.  People in poverty don't face the risk of being literally eaten but there are a lot of challenges they face.  So on some level nature may kick in and more children may be born to up the chances of perpetuating the blood line.  Not that this is necessarily a deliberate and conscious course of action. 

As far as the subsidizing piece, you have it all wrong.  It's not about subsidizing procreation amongst the poor.  It's about taking care of the kids.  Societies have obligations and responsibilities related to the welfare of their children.  That's why poor people with children get extra support compared to those who don't.  It is all about giving the kids resources to be healthy and to have a chance to grow up and become healthy adults.  WHICH, by the way, is in the best interest of everyone if you want to look at it economically.  More kids who grow up to be healthy adults means more productive workers being introduced to the local economy.  Kids who are malnourished and who don't get healthcare will also be a drag as they will require more (costly) emergency and crisis services. 

So you can put in a little now to prevent those kinds of costs or you can decide to not invest in the welfare of children and pay for it many times more on the other end.  Nevermind the additional costs that communities will pay in terms of crime, drop-outs, mental health, substance abuse, etc., etc.,

You are going to pay for these kids one way or another.  Why not do it up front where you can A) help kids have a fighting chance at surviving in this hell hole called Earth and B) save money over the long haul. 

It's insane to NOT support poor kids. 

Doesn't subsidizing it encourage population growth in low income families?

No.  Not investing in the welfare of kids in poverty is going to encourage growth in all of the things I listed above and THAT is going to cost taxpayers even more.  Never mind the tax on your soul for being a cheap, insensitive bastard. 

[kingyak]

Not getting to the bottom of this thread yet but who the fuck has a "family of four" when they're below the poverty line in income and don't run a farm?

People with faulty birth control.  People who were gainfully employed and then thanks to the Economic Calamity of 08, are now NOT gainfully employed.  Young people who don't always make the best decisions and end up having twins.  There are a myriad of reasons and scenarios where poor people have children or people who have children become poor.  More than you can hope to collect and codify with welfare guidelines and stipulations. 

You left out the big one (at least here in the near South): Victims of abstinence-only education who don't use birth control because they've been told it's not effective anyway or who rely on birth control methods based on rumor because nobody ever told them that rumor is not, in fact, science.

[Triple Zero]

Not getting to the bottom of this thread yet but who the fuck has a "family of four" when they're below the poverty line in income and don't run a farm?

People with faulty birth control.  People who were gainfully employed and then thanks to the Economic Calamity of 08, are now NOT gainfully employed.  Young people who don't always make the best decisions and end up having twins.  There are a myriad of reasons and scenarios where poor people have children or people who have children become poor.  More than you can hope to collect and codify with welfare guidelines and stipulations. 

Why is that a good idea, and why should the people who don't do that sort of thing subsidize it?

For one it is a survivability mechanism.  Ever notice how fish have a shit ton of babies?  It's because fish tend to be easy prey and need to make a shit ton of babies to up the chance that their genes are perpetuated.  People in poverty don't face the risk of being literally eaten but there are a lot of challenges they face.  So on some level nature may kick in and more children may be born to up the chances of perpetuating the blood line.  Not that this is necessarily a deliberate and conscious course of action. 

As far as the subsidizing piece, you have it all wrong.  It's not about subsidizing procreation amongst the poor.  It's about taking care of the kids.  Societies have obligations and responsibilities related to the welfare of their children.  That's why poor people with children get extra support compared to those who don't.  It is all about giving the kids resources to be healthy and to have a chance to grow up and become healthy adults.  WHICH, by the way, is in the best interest of everyone if you want to look at it economically.  More kids who grow up to be healthy adults means more productive workers being introduced to the local economy.  Kids who are malnourished and who don't get healthcare will also be a drag as they will require more (costly) emergency and crisis services. 

So you can put in a little now to prevent those kinds of costs or you can decide to not invest in the welfare of children and pay for it many times more on the other end.  Nevermind the additional costs that communities will pay in terms of crime, drop-outs, mental health, substance abuse, etc., etc.,

You are going to pay for these kids one way or another.  Why not do it up front where you can A) help kids have a fighting chance at surviving in this hell hole called Earth and B) save money over the long haul. 

It's insane to NOT support poor kids. 

Doesn't subsidizing it encourage population growth in low income families?

No.  Not investing in the welfare of kids in poverty is going to encourage growth in all of the things I listed above and THAT is going to cost taxpayers even more.  Never mind the tax on your soul for being a cheap, insensitive bastard. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

You know what, if you're too tired to teach your children how to do things better than you did?

FUCK YOU

Your family and your children will get everything that's coming to them.

Your grandparents and THEIR grandparents did without your fucking TV and your car and your spoiled little shit's video games.

UGH.  

I do not fit in here.

This is, seriously, one of the most repulsively sociopathic things I think I've ever seen anyone post here. I think you might be right about not fitting in here: for one thing, you appear to be incapable of learning, and for another thing, you appear to have a literally monstrously low level of concern for the well-being of children who should, for the benefit of society, be given as decent a baseline head-start as possible, even if their parents are LITERALLY retarded selfish assholes.

It sounds a lot as if you would like to return to the days of poor farms and child labor, though, possibly on the off-chance that you might be able to "earn" a profit from it.

I don't think you understand the real issue here, Nigel.


What matters here is that it is a moral imperative to make sure that the children of the untermenschen are punished for daring to have parents who are shitty and poor (even though everyone knows that the two go hand in hand, AMIRITE LOL).


DPickle, I think you really need to drop the "I'm still learning" schtick and come clean. You've pretty consistently demonstrated that you have no real interest in changing your sociopathic worldview, since you keep bringing it up in the exact same form over and over again.

I think you're right. It's a punitive and immature worldview, and I think that rather than thinking "a healthy and prosperous society = more for me" he thinks "less for them = more for me".

He apparently hasn't yet figured out that it's better to be the poorest house on the rich block than the richest house on the poor block, for a multitude of reasons. Personally, I don't want to be King of Tin Can Alley... I do want to contribute to feeding and educating the poor, because evidence shows that when you educate the poor, they tend to stop being so damn poor, assuming economic opportunities exist. Call me selfish, but this isn't entirely out of compassion, and not because I want a free ride, but also because I don't wish to live in a society that consists largely of impoverished, uneducated people. Living in such a society doesn't benefit me or my children at all. For one thing, the poor are shitty customers if you're a small business owner (unless, of course, you're a parasite like a bail bondsman or a process server, in which case you have a personal vested interest in there being enough poor fuckups in your area to keep you in business).

The problem with relying on voluntary charity for assisting the poor is that it has been shown time and time again not to work. For one thing, people tend to naturally fall into the "somebody else's problem" mindset or the "why should I pay for their laziness?" mindset. Private charities are free to discriminate against people they decide lack virtue or merit. Taxes are (or should be) part of a social contract that is designed to create a healthy and prosperous social structure... and the main reason that is failing right now is because of the "more for me" mindset of the wealthy who do not care if their increased wealth comes at the expense of society as a whole.

[Precious Moments Zalgo]

What terrorism? 

Saying mean things = terrorism

Clearly, criticism = terrorism! Duh!

More stuff today: http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topics/threatening-the-left

Another friend of Tea Party Nation got a good taste of liberal love this week.  Melissa Brookstone wrote a blog on Tea Party Nation, which we featured on Tuesday.    The left hyperventilated over this one.   Keith Olbermann told his three viewers that Melissa was the worst person in the world.  Liberals went on Melissa's personal blog saying terrible things about her.  They attacked her business and wrote bad reviews about a book she has on Amazon, that they have never read.

...

As for Melissa, she is not a public figure, yet has had to put up with the full onslaught of liberal outrage.

She seems to be really upset about us writing bad reviews on her book.  If anything, we've helped call attention to it and may even turn out to have helped her sell a few copies.  She should be grateful, the ingrate.

[LMNO]

Clearly, this calls for insanely positive reviews on the Amazon page.

[Precious Moments Zalgo]

Well said, Nigel, and

(unless, of course, you're a parasite like a bail bondsman or a process server, in which case you have a personal vested interest in there being enough poor fuckups in your area to keep you in business).

I see what you did there.  

[Precious Moments Zalgo]

Clearly, this calls for insanely positive reviews on the Amazon page.

Fuck, yeah!

My review was positive, if semi-literate.

[Cain]

Reviews should be done along the lines of those for the Three Wolf Moon t-shirt.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

OH THE HYPOCRISY!

I love when people scream about how others expressing opposing viewpoints are trying to shut down free expression. STOP TRYING TO SUPPRESS ME BY ARGUING AGAINST ME, BIG MEANIE!!!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Clearly, this calls for insanely positive reviews on the Amazon page.

Man, I gave her five stars and a GLOWING review, and she isn't even grateful. (I did read the preview for the book, too. It was awful. Why do all these people write at a 6th-grade level? Oh wait.)

[Cain]

Clearly, this calls for insanely positive reviews on the Amazon page.

Man, I gave her five stars and a GLOWING review, and she isn't even grateful. (I did read the preview for the book, too. It was awful. Why do all these people write at a 6th-grade level? Oh wait.)

This is why.