Posted on 09/15/2005 9:28:57 AM PDT by qam1
My point is that people who are not, can't claim to be self-supporting.
Most of the U.S. data indicates that Gen-Xers are rejecting the Boomer "Me,Me,Me" navel-contemplating, and instead are planning on having traditional families (as well as rejecting abortion). And the Y-Gen just coming up, apparently, are in large numbers rejecting the no-holds-barred sexual promiscuity of the sixties as well.
So maybe the terminology sounds the same, but reflects very different trends in the U.S. and Australia.
When ancient Greeks were learning and researching geometry and astronomy, it didn't contribute to commerce either. Two thousand years later, it made it possible to navigate ships across the oceans and led to Kepler's and Newton's discoveries of laws of motion.
It is very frustrating that the general public (that includes our congressmen and senators) thinks the purpose of education is to teach people skills (as in vocational education) instead of teaching them how to think.
By the way, I recently had to install a round mirror in a narrow corner. To determine where I need to drill holes, I used trigonometry.
Marriage is not simply a pact between two people.
Rather it is a pact between two people and society.
The decline of marriage in the West has more to to with the unfaithfulness of society to marriage.
When one examines history, one sees that this decline of traditional values is always accompanied by the fall and/or conquest of that society.
Societies, like individuals, grow soft and weak without the exercise of struggle, and are soon replaced by struggling societies that are lean, hungry, tough, fit, and aggressive.
People and society are both destroyed by ease.
But I do agree with you, qam1, that the earth is overpopulated.
And that overpopulation means there is shortage in the world, which means somewhere people are struggling and becoming lean, hungry, tough, fit, and aggressive.
The current crop of would be choice-and-master-spirits of our age, hope by spreading prosperity to all nations to thereby enervate them, and so bring peace to mankind by making the world too fat for war.
Anyway, that's their scheme.
Lord help us. Lord have mercy.
I need every penny I can get, so I do claim my kids on my W4.
Did you take free schooling for them?
No. With the exception of public school, I've paid for day care and pre-K when I needed it without using any government program. And we do not participate in the free lunch program either.
Stop by the library with them recently?
Nope. I go to the second-hand bookstore to purchase books for my kids. And don't folks without kids go to the library too? What a stupid point.
Take them to the county pool?
Definitely not. And again, I see plenty of childless people in those pools. Which is why my kids don't use them.
Use those neighborhood parks or athletic fields?
My kids go to our private community park which is maintained through association fees since it is not county-owned. And once again, childless people use those parks too.
How about I just take it to the next level, and let you know you're obviously a pompous Pharisee who doesn't like being caught at it!?!?
How about I take it to the next level and tell you that you are a jerk who should have stayed in exile.
OH! By the way, how does it feel to support a party that never ever wins? Seems like it's made you a wee lil' bit bitter.
Walk a mile in my shoes before you start talking. You have proven yourself to be an ignorant fool.
Hey butthead, how 'bout I call you a pompous moron who needs a government program to get his shoes tied? Did you drive to work today on a public road you lowlife government sponge?
I've known Ruthy for three years. And I know a lot more about her personal story than you'll ever be privileged to know. She works her backside off to provide for her family. And she does it without government handouts.
If you knew how she has personally fought for the cause of freedom in this country you would bow in awe.
But don't you see...? Merely *having* a military and living under its protection from invaders makes us all dirty thieving socialists! ;-)
Yeesh. The Libertarians are proof that you can take a few interesting ideas and spin them into a totally unworkable system if you try hard enough. They keep getting mixed up with anarchism instead of conservatism.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Thank heaven for men like you who prove that chivalry and decency is alive and well.
Love ya.
No, your claim is basically that anyone using any government services is not self-supporting - whether it be public schools or public parks. However I see no where in your claims of non-self supporting taxpayers and comments about those that use public roads. I have numerous taxpaying friends who enjoy the local public parks, the public library, and the public roads - but have no children - do you consider them to be not self-supporting?
I am beyond speechless about the horrible things that have been said on this thread.
When those of us who have been screwed by the system in a total opposite manner they claim is the norm, they turn around and attack us for being leeches at the government teat because we may just choose to utilize something the taxes we pay permit the government to provide.
Convenient conservatives make me ill.
Children are clearly a liability to their parents. It's not clear that they're a liability to society in general; most will become taxpayers, and one may find a cure for cancer. Of course, some will become criminals or welfare parasites as well. I recall seeing a study a while back that tried to compute the total externalities of a newborn child, and it came out very close to zero.
I have often wondered what life will be like for so many when the when the situation becomes like the above. How very tragic.
BWWWWAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAA
My 7yo daughter, who's nearest blood relative lives 100 miles away, is the absolute darling of her teachers and everyone anywhere we go. We live in the middle of nowhere, our nearest neighbors are 150,000+ chickens.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
I fail to see how your response is in any way a logical reply to my post.
Actually, my response was far more logical than your claim of only children growing up without family is tragic.
My comment was in response to the above situation, When it exists en masse. I was not commenting on individual children who are currently in such a situation or were in the past. I am particuarly concerned about when the majority of adults are ONLY children and these generations reach old age and find themselves with no extended families, a deceased spouse and one or no children, a circumstance also discussed briefly, by the author.
I realize exactly what the article was discussing - however the discusion had drifted away from the article itself and that was the reasons for my comment.
BTW - I stopped using an "s" in my name when I was 13 - I'll be 45 next week ;)
I had a very late night last night and a long day today - I'm hitting the sack - not ignoring questions.
good night all
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.