View Single Post
Old 02-28-2011, 01:01 AM   #96 (permalink)
Frank Lee
Frank Lee's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,744

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,579
Thanked 3,520 Times in 2,203 Posts
Au contraire, Mon frere!

Originally Posted by Jim-Bob View Post
How about eliminating AFDC, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid instead?
Why- are they related?

Your theory also has a flaw in that it seems to treat children as chattle instead of as human beings.
How do you figure? I'm about quality of life i.e. availability of clean open spaces and abundant resources; if anyone is treating children as chattle it is those that are in it for the tax breaks, the numbers game, and/or the ego trip.

I do support public education to a REASONABLE extent, but I also support school choice initiatives that would allow parents to opt out of the public schools and credit them the money that they would have paid in taxes towards those schools towards private schools instead.
Duplicate services doesn't save any money. School choice initiatives don't lower my property tax bill.

Private schools tend to provide better educations at a lower per child cost than public ones do because of the lack of waste. If they could be used to induce competition then maybe we could cut public school costs as well.
Private schools don't have to take all applicants and I'm told that serving special needs kids devours a disproportionate share of the budget. Nice try though.

As for me, I have no children. I wish I did but it takes two to tango and I have yet to find a dance partner at 37 so it is unlikely I ever will.
Don't feel bad. It isn't all it's cracked up to be. I wish more people would get a hobby or a pet instead of reproducing; judging by the quality of parenting out there it would ultimately be more rewarding anyway.

I also would ask what you would do to someone who had a child and could not afford to pay for their education? Put the child to death? Throw the parents into forced labor camps? Force the mother to have an abortion against her will before the child was born? Deny the child an education and condemn them to a life of poverty and citizenship in a crime-ridden underclass as an adult?
Again with the ridiculousness. I'm tempted to not respond to such silliness but here goes: This is what safety nets are for. Society takes care of the truly needy. I see no need to pay breeders in McMansions with giant SUVs and 100 miles commutes to have kids. I see no need to pay anyone to have kids. But if they truly can't afford it I'm sure there are several existing programs that would activate to help. Perhaps a lack of breeder subsidies, though, would help reduce the numbers of people that reproduce for govt money?

Your solution is overly simplistic and lacks enough details to deal with the realities of how life plays out. Therefore my analysis was legitimate because you make broad, open ended statements instead of writing well-reasoned, detailed arguments.
Self-serving crap statement if I've ever seen one!

The Following User Says Thank You to Frank Lee For This Useful Post:
mcrews (02-28-2011)