German women told: we need more babies

Telegraph UK ^ | January 28, 2006 | Kate Connolly

[Larry Lucido]

Nah, I'm xenophobic, and some of my best friends are crackpots. I'd have a beer with them but won't run them for public office.

I'll have a beer with Buchanan any time, although I imagine he'd see me in being in the "amen corner" of the Israel Defense Minstry. Heck, even Keyes, who I do think has a great mind but who I wouldn't run for dogcatcher, cornered Buchanan about his overt appeals to racism and antisemitism.

BTW, Buchanan, being something of an Arab-ophile, may wish to have a word about your screenname and tagline, but I guess politics does make strange bedfellows.

[television is just wrong]

there just seems to be a huge trend towards no kids in first world countries.

[television is just wrong]

the U.S. is backwards in it's priorities. We should reward families that stay together and raise children in a two parent environment.

Might help conventional marriages work out a little more often. We are all taxed out of our minds to help welfare recipients and the dead wood or our society.

I have friends who are single parents, and can't imagine being in their shoes.

[Clemenza]

Depends. When I was in South Carolina and Utah last month, I saw many families with five or more kids. These were native-born Americans btw.

Its places like Calipornia and New York where people choose to have few, if any, children.

[television is just wrong]

ok, but our government still has their priorities backwards, when they hand freebies out to the deadwood of society, and tax the heck out of two parent families and single parent families.

[john drake]

This has been the case since feminism and contraception and no fault divorce merged say, since the sixties and seventies. I am amazed by the number of women who think this way about there precious "careers." Talk about brainwashing; no children to love or to love them, from their youth through old age. Granted, most men these days have been brainwashed too, thinking that women are outlets for their lust and not much else. This is the flipside of the same coin, and just as sad. Commitment from either party, through thick and thin, forget it. Too much trouble. Our society is paying for it now and will pay more dearly in the future. A catastrophe in the making that future generations will see the tragedy for what it is, especially if Islam makes serious inroads.

[MHT]

Just like Hitler needed children to fill the ranks of his army, the modern Germans need more children to keep socialism going. Guess without the new ranks of patsies in their pyramid scheme, Germans won't get to retire at 55 and continue to live off the state until death do them part.

[RaceBannon]

Are you suggesting I should help somehow?

[MediaAnalyst]

"As it used to be?"

...and still is, at least to most people on this site (although maybe not to Dems and the MSM). The problem is that there is no pay for the work. It just can't compete now, given the other options available to women. Sure there are still families having children, but not as many, and not nearly enough (at least in Europe and free Asia).

---

"I'm not comfortable with the state assigning a financial amount to having or raising children. That's a slippery slope."

2 things - we already give some money in tax credits and deductions, and I'm sure that it is having some marginal effect in this country. And we are fortunate in having a lot of immigrant and Christian families that still look at children as a blessing.
But EVERY single advanced country is now depopulating their primary culture, some like Japan and Italy, so fast that they will be literally running out of people by the end of the century (assuming, in the case of Italy, that the majority Muzzies haven't already dispensed with the ethnic Italians by then). No advanced society has solved this problem, and now even Mexico and Latin America are starting to turn the corner on population.
The only societies that seem to be able to withstand this trend are Muslim, where they essentially keep their wives locked up at home, with the assignment of producing and raising children - which is not much different than Western cultures were until about 35 years ago - which is about when we stopped having kids. The connection - when women work they don't have kids. The solution, either send women back to the kitchen (which I don't advocate, being the nice guy that I am), or make child rearing competitive, financially. The level of incentives that we have now is a joke. When you get into the $5,000 to $10,000 per year, per child, range, you will encourage people to have kids.

The survival of a just society has to supersede all other priorities, for if the society dies out, what good is it. That is the reason why treason is the only crime called out with the death penalty in the US Constitution. The slippery slope is being on a downward population curve - trying to get off of it, while still maintaining freedome and justice is fine - at least to me.

If anyone has a better idea, it's time to get it implemented (it may even be too late).

[Gondring]

ok, but our government still has their priorities backwards, when they hand freebies out to the deadwood of society, and tax the heck out of two parent families and single parent families.

I would have loved to have kids, so please tell me where I can pick up my check as consolation?

While your statements are right, it seems to me you're aiming at the wrong target for this discussion--the government bias already is in favor of having children. The problem is in the productivity side, where lack of productivity is also favored.

[television is just wrong]

I'm just saying that our government supports the non productive end of society with welfare benefits. Lowering tax rates for families, two and one parent, would be of great benefit to allow them to keep their money rather than welfare, and social programs abounding.

[mikrofon]

Unless the birth rate rises, "we will have to turn out the light"

Und die Partei ist zu Ende.

[MinorityRepublican]

BTTT

[Gondring]

I'm just saying that our government supports the non productive end of society with welfare benefits.

Um, that's what I said...that it's not a question of parents vs. non-parents....it's a question of subsidizing lack of productivity. Totally different issue.

Lowering tax rates for families, two and one parent, would be of great benefit to allow them to keep their money rather than welfare, and social programs abounding.

So you're more socialist in your leanings? Why not make it lower taxes for everyone who is productive, regardless of children or no children?

Why should the government be involved in deciding to pass out money to those who have more children? If a couple can't afford to have children, then they shouldn't have them. (I.e., Why should a childless couple who can't afford children be forced to subsidize those who have children they can't afford--like our current system operates?)

Which consumes more public services (which is what taxes are for...common defense, public works, civil defense supplies, etc.): two people, or two people plus a child? So why should the two people be forced to contribute more to the public trough than two people plus a child?!?

The Infertility/Responsibility Tax is just one example of the creeping socialism that Eisenhower warned about--now even self-identified "conservatives" don't bat an eye at getting bribed by others' money.

Of course, dealing with this problem fairly and appropriately would involve having to stop illegal immigration and playing games with Social Security/reitirement, etc. And again, few have stomach for that.

[MediaAnalyst]

"So you're more socialist in your leanings? Why not make it lower taxes for everyone who is productive, regardless of children or no children?"

You're almost as bad as the MSM. You seem to not be aware of what's down the road in just a couple of decades in Europe, and much after that in the rest of the advanced countries of the world. To help get you up to speed, read this:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760

In that article, you'll see that unless drastic action is taken, Europe will essentially be Muslim-run, with an old and gray native population, in about 3 decades.

Your solution seems to say that bigger houses and bigger cars (i.e., more productivity) will compensate for the extinction of cultures. There is a lot more to this, and the stakes are much, much higher.

Again, there is no developed country in the world that has been able to even come close to maintaining its native population.

It is up to the developed societies to decide if they want to survive, and there are only 2 ways that I can see working (which is stick women back into the kitchen, or to make childrearing economically competitive). While your "fairness" concept may indeed appear just, it simply accelerates the end of our societies.

Either we step up to that, or there is no future, as Europe is showing the world, we can no longer have it both ways.

[Gondring]

Well, before sending me off to read, you can finish my own post, where I addressed your points in the last paragraph. Europe has allowed immigration to flood its cultures, for example. And are you not one who recognizes that if illegal immigration is lowered, wages of the lower pay scale will increase for Americans?

[MinorityRepublican]

BUMP

[shield]

Ban abortion.....I'm sure germany would have many more kids if many weren't killed before birth....

[MediaAnalyst]

...of course. But then you get into the Japanese model (which is virtually ignored by the MSM), where the population is in a huge tailspin, but with no immigrants, Muslim, legal, or otherwise, to make up for it. Japan now has to look across a small body of water at a China that is huge economically and militarily, and is getting larger, but Japan is virtually without anyone of fighting age (Japan is down to something like 0.95 kids per women, way below the 2.1 needed for population stability). That still doesn't work.

It still all comes back to to the incentives. To address an earlier comment of yours: Should a couple, childless through no fault of their own (or due their own choosing), be punished relative to a family that has kids. No. And what I talk about doesn't punish them, in that they can both have full-time careers, virtually without interruption, whereas a couple that does have children generally cannot have that option. So we level the playing field a bit and our society survives.

[LWalk18]

If I recall correctly, Germany's abortion rate is lower than ours- it is more than abortion, it is individual women in Germany and most other Western counties and Japan deciding that they do not want more than two children. Both sexes deciding also that they do not want to marry until their 30's as marriage in your 20's cannot possibly work. It is Western society's very high standard of living, demanding lots of time and money to be spent per child. It is taxes being so high that one parent staying home full-time is a pipe dream for most families.

There are numerous factors, with no one solution that will get Western women to have 3+ children again. Economics plays a role, but so does better conditions for women and children.