Posted on 09/16/2017 8:40:47 AM PDT by DIRTYSECRET
Our replacement level population growth is immigrants, mostly moozlems and Mexicans-not good. Our only hope is larger AMERICAN families. More stay at home moms, more religion. Whole lotta ideas to be examined. 1) Big tax credit for those married for 10 years. 2) Education vouchers for more home schooling. 3) Immigration confined to Europeans/Asians with 3 SMART kids. 4) Roth IRA'S for 14 YEAR OLDS working weekends at Burger King.
Cut spending drastically. FREE Catholic school online(read it somewhere). Empty our nations jails thru internal exile/deportation. Have them report to local cops and churches-plenty of work out there for them. Confine higher education spending to math and science courses. They can pay out of pocket for ethnic studies. 3 year degree programs would REALLY piss them(tell me who) off.
Talk to me.
How to encourage having that 3rd kid? Good question.
My wife and I stopped at two. Mother nature took care of things for us. We were open to having more, if you get my meaning, but it never happened for us.
Among other things, you would have to encourage people to want to have children, not use birth control, and ideally, if the goal is producing children, encourage early marriage. So many young people in peak fertility years in their 20s, are simply not married and having families at those ages. And that is due to a host of other issues going on in our culture. People are in college or grad school at those ages. People are making sure to use birth control as a woman that age is developing her career.
See what others may add to this discussion. An entire culture has grown around the idea that marriage and family and children are something to put off, to think about later, as young people grow to adulthood.
There’s more: How about a $2k gift at birth? $1k Health Savings Account and $1k Roth IRA put in the S&P500? Absolutely no access to the Roth until age 59. Make them watch it grow. Parents can monitor both and teach investment with minimum involvement. A REAL Great Society.
Got three, but we’re still going at it, so we might end up with more. Getting old, though.
I hope the “still going at it” part isn’t getting old.
:)
We have three. Let me tell you that zone defense is a different game than man to man coverage.
As people get older they realize the true value/meaning of family. You are nothing without one. That means go out and work your ass off to support yours. Women know this more than men. One had no problem letting her husband stray as long as they had that extra child. Children’s birthday parties were most fun for the single women present. So men do your duty. If you are married to a ‘career woman’ It’s your job to put a stop to that shit.
High taxes at every level + declining value of $ + increasing costs = reduction in family size as both couples work.
Without cheaply made Chinese stuff as placeholders for a middle class experience, it would even be worse.
Add on huge educational debt and fewer jobs, and you have an explanation of the state of things.
In many poor countries, they have lots of kids, treasure them and don’t chase paychecks.
Frankly, I’m surprised it hasn’t at all.
College is wasted money on half of those who attend. Better to encourage the skills and trades. Pay is good, life is good.
Setting up home starts earlier.
Your point is excellent inserted here. Young couples have babies and middle class lives have the cash to raise them.
On the flip side, lots of that tax money goes for social spending for immigrants. So families compete with the state directly, and immigrants indirectly.
If we want larger families we need to let them keep their money. So cut taxes.
If we want fewer immigrants, stop social spending. Get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, HUD, ED, and all the government alphabet soup. That's what attracts them.
Forgot to mention: Encouraging families to have that 3rd kid will encourage 1 child families to have that 2nd one.
"Hillary Clinton responded to a question about the controversy over pro-life Democratic candidates in a new interview by insisting that abortion is a 'fundamental human right.'
That such a declaration comes from the mouth of a person who sought the Presidency of the United States of America is surreal and unbelievable, given that it deeply offends such a large portion of the citizenry.
Just who does this person believe she is? We know that she is committed to that movement which self-identifies as "Progressive," further, we know that movement's economic ideas are Socialist by nature.
Perhaps the following excerpt may explain why the Democrat Party and Hillary Clinton insist on "population control." Please note especially the first paragraph highlighted and quoted below from the Liberty Fund Library "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":
Note the writer's emphasis that the "scheme of Socialism" requires what he calls "the power of restraining the increase in population"--long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.Most present-day Americans do not understand the explanation of the Progressive ideology, as explained so clearly in Robertson's essay.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
We have almost three times that and we are always open to more.
The problem is we incentivize the poorest and dumbest in our society to have as many children as possible. It’s reason why illegal immigrants from the third world and muslims can squirt out six kids per family so comfortably.
I’d be in jail today trying raise a kid. Between the nanny state trying to tell parents what discipline is, feeding 5 year olds lesbian masturbation techniques, feeding 12 year olds R-rated sexual and violent movies, I’d just lose it and kill some idiots that desperately deserve it.
The above may have an indirect effect on what the non-Muslim population, but it may start a wave of people who stop this years of living together nonsense, which has people deferring marriage indefinitely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alienation_of_affections
Bring back Alienation of Affections statutes.
Women typically initiate divorces and already have a man picked ready to saddle up.
New man gets to pay damages to the old husband which would help in his having to pay child support for those 3+ kids...
Not to nitpick but please don’t put all Mexicans as you put it in the same basket. My husband is Hispanic and of Mexican descent. His family has been here well over 100 years. And he is the most conservative person I know. We are not all a lost cause. And we have four kids. :)
Here is a simple fact. Getting pregnant after 30 and especially 35 is very difficult for most women. The female body was intended to have children early and often but mostly early, before thirty and even better before 25.
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.