Clearly, there are the occasional idiots in the Senate and Congress ... at all levels (State and Federal and local). Maybe more to politics and idiocy mixing than I would have thought possible:srellim234 wrote:This has actually been proposed by a Republican.
http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.....aspx
"...Kathy at Blogging For Michigan also notes that people can deduct expenses for their own medical care only if those costs exceed 7.5% of adjusted gross income, so the bill would give your pet's medical bills better tax treatment than your own... "
This is the kind of idiot that the Democrats are trying to appease? Maybe we can get health care reform if we tell the Republicans that our kids and spouses are actually our pets!
But it should still be said, and often.AZhitman wrote:If we said, "If you can't afford to raise a child, don't have sex", we'd be pummeled by screeching hordes.
Maybe its the new government health plan! I'm all for it, we've got 8 cats. And I also think its silly too, but I certainly wouldn't oppose it!AZhitman wrote:Studies show that pet ownership can reduce blood pressure, promote healing, and improves the quality of life for many Americans, especially shut-ins, the disabled, the chronically ill and the elderly. (I still think it's silly...)
I constantly battle with my general distaste for additional limitations on personal freedoms and my desire to get people to stop breeding willy-nilly.AZhitman wrote:If we said, "If you can't afford to raise a child, don't have sex", we'd be pummeled by screeching hordes.
Except for maybe the elderly that can't work or people on disability that have no other means of income.audtatious wrote:Simple, limit welfare to have a "child maximum". Hell, limit welfare completely to have a time clause. You'd be surprised how much work a hungry person will do when they want to eat.
Yeah, not very Christian of me....
But wouldn't that eliminate a lot of Honda owners...? j/kHashiriyaS14 wrote:
Unsolvable problem, unfortunately, unless we just start sterilizing people with IQ's below a certain level, which I'm certainly open to.
AZhitman wrote:If we said, "If you can't afford to raise a child, don't have sex", we'd be pummeled by screeching hordes.
HashiriyaS14 wrote:I constantly battle with my general distaste for additional limitations on personal freedoms and my desire to get people to stop breeding willy-nilly.
There *should* be some sort of audit process, although then people would just start having them "accidentally", and what would the government do, abort them?
Unsolvable problem, unfortunately, unless we just start sterilizing people with IQ's below a certain level, which I'm certainly open to.
There's actually a reason, well correlation would be a better word, for all of this. Those that are educated and make more money care more not about the quantity of children they have, but the quality of their children, so they have less. This allows them to give them a better quality of life. The other reason is that these people also focus more on their careers as well, so less children allows them to focus more. On the flip side, the ones who are poorer with fewer opportunities (the irresponsible ones) will have more children because they not only don't care more about quality, but it increases the chances of having a successful child and when you get into third world countries, it increases the chance of one of the children surviving.themadscientist wrote:I watched the movie idiocracy, at the beginning where they were contrasting the irresponsible people reproducing like rabbits and the educated responsible people winking out of existence I didn't laugh; it's happening.