Replies

“No, that’s social engineering through the tax code. Conservatives know that’s a bad thing.”

Policies that are pro-family are conservative.

It’s ludicrous to call this “social engineering.” That’s no more than a knee-jerk reaction that could be applied to anything and everything, since every action taken by the government will affect the social order in some way or another.

Not offsetting the added financial burden on families of raising children, who contribute MORE to society, financially and in productivity and economic growth, could just as easily be considered “social engineering.”

Again, stagnant or declining population size has a direct impact on the economy and everyone’s pocketbook. In a free market, a growing population means increasing demand for goods and services, as well as appreciation in the value or real property and other tangible assets.

Socialism is often propped up artificially through the intentional reduction in population and confiscation of wealth to redistribute, in theory (though NEVER in reality), “equitably.”

Regional and national populations can be grown through families having more children than what is lost through attrition, or by importing more people.

Rather than labeling anything you don’t like as “social engineering” you should reserve such terms for where the actual harm is done, such as public education and attempts to redefine social norms like marriage.

Without major overhauls of fundamental policies on how people are taxed (such as shifting to a flat tax or national sales tax or an intellectual property tax), or public education, or “welfare” programs, tax credits for children are simply common sense.

What is not common sense is giving them to illegal aliens who are not actually paying into the system and are simply syphoning off money from the Treasury. That’s the social engineering that should concern us.