Single mothers
-
At home, we have enclaves of fourth generation unemployed people, raising kids in poverty, whose best and most viable life option is to have a kid as early as possible ( I would guess median age at 15 ), so they get a baby bonus payment ( more money that their family ever sees in one place otherwise ) and a pension for life. Then I see them on TV, saying things like 'raising a child is not easy, we don't live a life of luxury'. No, you don't. But, that doesn't mean I should be paying for your life, not when you chose it. Now, IVF is taxpayer funded to people who want a kid without sex ( lesbians being the obvious one ). What the hell is going on ? And, the other issue is, the kids are rarely properly raised, and tend to turn out like CSS. So, there is no upside for society.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
You are not paying for their life. You are paying for the hope that the kids will have a real one. If we could get good fosters, I'd say take them and give them to fosters, and charge the parents the cost. I don't think we have enough fosters, as it is, and this would make it worse, until the 'parents' start figuring out they can be fosters, too. Then A has more kids for B to foster, and vise versa. There is no system that can not be gamed.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
You are not paying for their life. You are paying for the hope that the kids will have a real one. If we could get good fosters, I'd say take them and give them to fosters, and charge the parents the cost. I don't think we have enough fosters, as it is, and this would make it worse, until the 'parents' start figuring out they can be fosters, too. Then A has more kids for B to foster, and vise versa. There is no system that can not be gamed.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
You are paying for the hope that the kids will have a real one.
That's a hell of a poor investment. Either way, I am creating an incentive for them to live dead end lives, being bad mothers, chain smoking and watching TV while their kids light fires and terrorise the neighbourhood.
RichardM1 wrote:
There is no system that can not be gamed.
A system that says you have to pay for your own mistakes, can't be gamed.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
At home, we have enclaves of fourth generation unemployed people, raising kids in poverty, whose best and most viable life option is to have a kid as early as possible ( I would guess median age at 15 ), so they get a baby bonus payment ( more money that their family ever sees in one place otherwise ) and a pension for life. Then I see them on TV, saying things like 'raising a child is not easy, we don't live a life of luxury'. No, you don't. But, that doesn't mean I should be paying for your life, not when you chose it. Now, IVF is taxpayer funded to people who want a kid without sex ( lesbians being the obvious one ). What the hell is going on ? And, the other issue is, the kids are rarely properly raised, and tend to turn out like CSS. So, there is no upside for society.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
That what socialism does. It breeds domesticated degenerate sheep
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
People bleat about the right to have children, but it is not a right, it is a priveledge. And Lesbian and Gay people moan about Their rights to raise a family, and that is fine, but what of the child's rights to have a mother and a father? And why, given the massive overpopulation in this world are we paying for IVF? If you want it, you pay for it. In the UK there is Child Allowance, a universal benefit for anyone who has had a child. Far from giving Child Allowance, I would abolish it and put a Tax on having children, that would stop the feckless from shagging their way into publicly funded housing and cut the number of feral children who come out of school after 11 years for free education barely able to scratch their name on a dole cheque and who communicate in grunts and whistles.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Dalek Dave wrote:
I would abolish it and put a Tax on having children
So you want the family will have a lower standard of living? What happens if the parents don't pay the tax on their children?
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
That what socialism does. It breeds domesticated degenerate sheep
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
Perhaps. I mean, I would agree that in this case, we have too much socialism. Your problem is typically that you assume that anything that isn't the opposite of socialism has to be bad, and that all capitalism is good, taken to whatever extreme possible.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Perhaps. I mean, I would agree that in this case, we have too much socialism. Your problem is typically that you assume that anything that isn't the opposite of socialism has to be bad, and that all capitalism is good, taken to whatever extreme possible.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Liberty, property rights, and free-markets is the only system that works. It not only works, it allows society to thrive.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
I would abolish it and put a Tax on having children
So you want the family will have a lower standard of living? What happens if the parents don't pay the tax on their children?
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
Then the children are taken away, and the parents are sent to forced labour camps.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Liberty, property rights, and free-markets is the only system that works. It not only works, it allows society to thrive.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Liberty, property rights, and free-markets is the only system that works.
Yes, those elements need to exist, I agree. However, a completely free market only works for the chosen few. You forget that the winners write history. No-one cared about the people dying and being oppressed by that system.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Liberty, property rights, and free-markets is the only system that works.
Yes, those elements need to exist, I agree. However, a completely free market only works for the chosen few. You forget that the winners write history. No-one cared about the people dying and being oppressed by that system.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
However, a completely free market only works for the chosen few.
You have it backwards, the chosen few win in a rigged economy. There are still laws in a free-market. You cannot falsely advertise, steal, break contracts, kill people. In a free-market, with liberty and property rights, you have the perfect balance.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Christian Graus wrote:
However, a completely free market only works for the chosen few.
You have it backwards, the chosen few win in a rigged economy. There are still laws in a free-market. You cannot falsely advertise, steal, break contracts, kill people. In a free-market, with liberty and property rights, you have the perfect balance.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You have it backwards, the chosen few win in a rigged economy.
If the economy is too rigged, then perhaps, to some degree. My point is, there are clear losers in a pure capitalistic system, and they are the poor and under privileged. That is plainly true, from history.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
There are still laws in a free-market. You cannot falsely advertise, steal, break contracts, kill people. In a free-market, with liberty and property rights, you have the perfect balance.
None of this stops companies from taking advantage of people, and creating a system that the poor cannot escape, where their lives are cut short and rendered not worth living.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You have it backwards, the chosen few win in a rigged economy.
If the economy is too rigged, then perhaps, to some degree. My point is, there are clear losers in a pure capitalistic system, and they are the poor and under privileged. That is plainly true, from history.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
There are still laws in a free-market. You cannot falsely advertise, steal, break contracts, kill people. In a free-market, with liberty and property rights, you have the perfect balance.
None of this stops companies from taking advantage of people, and creating a system that the poor cannot escape, where their lives are cut short and rendered not worth living.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
there are clear losers in a pure capitalistic system
As there should be.
Christian Graus wrote:
and they are the poor and under privileged
The poor can get a job, and better their lot so their children and grandchildren can be "privileged".
Christian Graus wrote:
None of this stops companies from taking advantage of people
Taking advantage of cheap labor and low prices is a good thing.
Christian Graus wrote:
and creating a system that the poor cannot escape, where their lives are cut short and rendered not worth living.
This is just a your made up bullshit.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Christian Graus wrote:
there are clear losers in a pure capitalistic system
As there should be.
Christian Graus wrote:
and they are the poor and under privileged
The poor can get a job, and better their lot so their children and grandchildren can be "privileged".
Christian Graus wrote:
None of this stops companies from taking advantage of people
Taking advantage of cheap labor and low prices is a good thing.
Christian Graus wrote:
and creating a system that the poor cannot escape, where their lives are cut short and rendered not worth living.
This is just a your made up bullshit.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
As there should be.
Well, I don't expect everyone to have an equal lifestyle. I just think that my awesome lifestyle should not be built on pushing down my cost of living, by not paying the people who provide me with goods and services, enough to live on. Capitalism does not care about that.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The poor can get a job, and better their lot so their children and grandchildren can be "privileged".
This is a fantasy. If the poor are not given access to free education, and if they spend all their time trying to make enough money to stay alive, there's really no chance for the kids to get out of that system.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Taking advantage of cheap labor and low prices is a good thing.
For the companies and the consumers, yes. You've shown many times that you don't care who suffers for you to get ahead. That's the difference between us. The irony is, I'm more successful than you could ever hope to be.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
This is just a your made up bullsh*t.
And this sort of talk is how you hide from facts that don't suit you.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
As there should be.
Well, I don't expect everyone to have an equal lifestyle. I just think that my awesome lifestyle should not be built on pushing down my cost of living, by not paying the people who provide me with goods and services, enough to live on. Capitalism does not care about that.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The poor can get a job, and better their lot so their children and grandchildren can be "privileged".
This is a fantasy. If the poor are not given access to free education, and if they spend all their time trying to make enough money to stay alive, there's really no chance for the kids to get out of that system.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Taking advantage of cheap labor and low prices is a good thing.
For the companies and the consumers, yes. You've shown many times that you don't care who suffers for you to get ahead. That's the difference between us. The irony is, I'm more successful than you could ever hope to be.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
This is just a your made up bullsh*t.
And this sort of talk is how you hide from facts that don't suit you.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
not paying the people who provide me with goods and services, enough to live on. Capitalism does not care about that.
Guess who are also capitalists, out to make as much money as they can? Regular workers.
Christian Graus wrote:
If the poor are not given access to free education, and if they spend all their time trying to make enough money to stay alive, there's really no chance for the kids to get out of that system.
Free government education is just as bad or worse as no education. Look at all these welfare parents, living in wretched poverty, and stupider than a rock. In a free-market system, those people would be out to make a buck, and they would be developing necessary skills because THEY HAVE TO.
Christian Graus wrote:
For the companies and the consumers, yes.
And that leaves out nobody, for everyone is a consumer
Christian Graus wrote:
And this sort of talk is how you hide from facts that don't suit you.
Except when you do it of course :rolleyes:
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
RichardM1 wrote:
You are paying for the hope that the kids will have a real one.
That's a hell of a poor investment. Either way, I am creating an incentive for them to live dead end lives, being bad mothers, chain smoking and watching TV while their kids light fires and terrorise the neighbourhood.
RichardM1 wrote:
There is no system that can not be gamed.
A system that says you have to pay for your own mistakes, can't be gamed.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
That's a hell of a poor investment.
Yes, it is, but it has a slightly better outcome than not doing it. I don't see how you can be so worried about someone taking your money, and so cavalier about someone taking my guns. They are both in the name of a better society, the only difference is no one is taking your guns.
Christian Graus wrote:
A system that says you have to pay for your own mistakes, can't be gamed.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: You SHOULD go into stand up comedy! Every system can be gamed. In your system, it has to do with defining "your own mistakes".
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
not paying the people who provide me with goods and services, enough to live on. Capitalism does not care about that.
Guess who are also capitalists, out to make as much money as they can? Regular workers.
Christian Graus wrote:
If the poor are not given access to free education, and if they spend all their time trying to make enough money to stay alive, there's really no chance for the kids to get out of that system.
Free government education is just as bad or worse as no education. Look at all these welfare parents, living in wretched poverty, and stupider than a rock. In a free-market system, those people would be out to make a buck, and they would be developing necessary skills because THEY HAVE TO.
Christian Graus wrote:
For the companies and the consumers, yes.
And that leaves out nobody, for everyone is a consumer
Christian Graus wrote:
And this sort of talk is how you hide from facts that don't suit you.
Except when you do it of course :rolleyes:
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Guess who are also capitalists, out to make as much money as they can? Regular workers.
This sort of statement pretends that a guy with no real skills beyond manual labour can negotiate as an equal with Ford or BP. It's not the case.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Free government education is just as bad or worse as no education
Rubbish
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Look at all these welfare parents, living in wretched poverty, and stupider than a rock.
Sure - some people are stupid. Take away the schools, that would make them smarter ?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
In a free-market system, those people would be out to make a buck, and they would be developing necessary skills because THEY HAVE TO.
You say that like some people prefer to starve, and die. It might be true to a point, but only to a point.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
And that leaves out nobody, for everyone is a consumer
That is just so stupid. Everyone WANTS to be a consumer, some people just don't have the money to participate, or, in a pure capitalist system, the wherewithall to ever get it.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Except when you do it of course Roll eyes
Like when ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
That's a hell of a poor investment.
Yes, it is, but it has a slightly better outcome than not doing it. I don't see how you can be so worried about someone taking your money, and so cavalier about someone taking my guns. They are both in the name of a better society, the only difference is no one is taking your guns.
Christian Graus wrote:
A system that says you have to pay for your own mistakes, can't be gamed.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: You SHOULD go into stand up comedy! Every system can be gamed. In your system, it has to do with defining "your own mistakes".
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
I don't see how you can be so worried about someone taking your money, and so cavalier about someone taking my guns.
Because money isn't used to kill people. Duh.
RichardM1 wrote:
They are both in the name of a better society, the only difference is no one is taking your guns
Well, I think that is BS.
RichardM1 wrote:
Every system can be gamed.
How can someone who is not paid to have children they can't afford, game the system ? There's nothing to game.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Guess who are also capitalists, out to make as much money as they can? Regular workers.
This sort of statement pretends that a guy with no real skills beyond manual labour can negotiate as an equal with Ford or BP. It's not the case.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Free government education is just as bad or worse as no education
Rubbish
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Look at all these welfare parents, living in wretched poverty, and stupider than a rock.
Sure - some people are stupid. Take away the schools, that would make them smarter ?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
In a free-market system, those people would be out to make a buck, and they would be developing necessary skills because THEY HAVE TO.
You say that like some people prefer to starve, and die. It might be true to a point, but only to a point.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
And that leaves out nobody, for everyone is a consumer
That is just so stupid. Everyone WANTS to be a consumer, some people just don't have the money to participate, or, in a pure capitalist system, the wherewithall to ever get it.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Except when you do it of course Roll eyes
Like when ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
This sort of statement pretends that a guy with no real skills beyond manual labour can negotiate as an equal with Ford or BP. It's not the case.
No it does not, nor is it the case, I never said it was.
Christian Graus wrote:
Rubbish
You see, you have nothing to back up your case for big government.
Christian Graus wrote:
Sure - some people are stupid. Take away the schools, that would make them smarter ?
In a free market system, the government couldn't take away or take over schools. The government would have no say in private individual's schooling.
Christian Graus wrote:
You say that like some people prefer to starve, and die.
I did not say that. I said they will not prefer to starve and die, so they will have the incentive to do what is necessary to make a living.
Christian Graus wrote:
That is just so stupid. Everyone WANTS to be a consumer, some people just don't have the money to participate, or, in a pure capitalist system, the wherewithall to ever get it.
Everyone does want to be a consumer, and that is the drive for people to profit in some way or another. Either through sales, labor, or investments.
Christian Graus wrote:
Like when ?
Like now.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Christian Graus wrote:
one way or another, we need to stop giving the people with the least to offer the gene pool incentive to breed at our cost.
Idiocracy Quite a prophetic movie We are really screwed.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
RichardM1 wrote:
I don't see how you can be so worried about someone taking your money, and so cavalier about someone taking my guns.
Because money isn't used to kill people. Duh.
RichardM1 wrote:
They are both in the name of a better society, the only difference is no one is taking your guns
Well, I think that is BS.
RichardM1 wrote:
Every system can be gamed.
How can someone who is not paid to have children they can't afford, game the system ? There's nothing to game.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Because money isn't used to kill people. Duh.
Blatantly false. Duh.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, I think that is BS.
So taking guns is in the name of a better society, but feeding children isn't? I guess if they starve, I should be able to have my guns - you kill them your way, I kill them mine - and it's clear you will, on a routine basis, but I will not unless attacked. What side were you on in the social Darwinism argument?
Christian Graus wrote:
How can someone who is not paid to have children they can't afford, game the system ? There's nothing to game.
It broke. It's the father's fault. She said she was protected. He said he had a vasectomy. I could afford it, but I got fired. We could afford it, before the father died. Oh, I can afford the kid, it's me I can't afford. He's the father, but he is married, should I penalize his wife and kids for what he did? Or are you just going to make the kids pay for their parents' mistakes? That way they can grow up in even worse squalor, with even less education, and pump out ever more children.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Because money isn't used to kill people. Duh.
Blatantly false. Duh.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, I think that is BS.
So taking guns is in the name of a better society, but feeding children isn't? I guess if they starve, I should be able to have my guns - you kill them your way, I kill them mine - and it's clear you will, on a routine basis, but I will not unless attacked. What side were you on in the social Darwinism argument?
Christian Graus wrote:
How can someone who is not paid to have children they can't afford, game the system ? There's nothing to game.
It broke. It's the father's fault. She said she was protected. He said he had a vasectomy. I could afford it, but I got fired. We could afford it, before the father died. Oh, I can afford the kid, it's me I can't afford. He's the father, but he is married, should I penalize his wife and kids for what he did? Or are you just going to make the kids pay for their parents' mistakes? That way they can grow up in even worse squalor, with even less education, and pump out ever more children.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Blatantly false. Duh.
Only if someone ties someone down and stuffs money in their mouth until they choke. To quote Lynyrd Skynyrd, a gun is made for killing, it ain't good for nothin' else.
RichardM1 wrote:
So taking guns is in the name of a better society, but feeding children isn't?
You're one step removed from the issue. The issue is that the kids exist at all, to unfit parents who only have them for the money. Take away the incentive, and the kids don't even exist.
RichardM1 wrote:
I guess if they starve, I should be able to have my guns - you kill them your way, I kill them mine - and it's clear you will, on a routine basis, but I will not unless attacked.
You've just utterly missed the point - well done.
RichardM1 wrote:
That way they can grow up in even worse squalor, with even less education, and pump out ever more children.
This is as stupid as the 'people would get paid more without minimum wage' argument. If you take away the incentive to have kids, they'll have more kids to spite you ? Get real.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.