Should we put a cap on how many children per family is allowed?
This could be decided by earnings, or perhaps religion political views maybe.
Several different thoughts are taking form in my mind as I consider your very interesting question.
First let me mention the worker to beneficiary ratio for Social Security. In 2005 it was 3.3 workers for each person receiving SS benefits. In 2040 that ratio will be 2.1 to 1 (U.S. Social Security Administration, Office of Policy). That is without the cap you have mentioned. With such a cap, it is possible that we could easily get even closer to a 1 to 1 ratio or even 1 to 2 or more.
Constitutional rights would definitely come into play on this issue. Birth control and abortion would necessarily be used to enforce such a cap on the number of births allowed per family. This would violate the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States because many oppose birth control and abortion on religious grounds.
In China, about 36% of the population is subject to such a cap. It is estimated that this resulted in 200,000 fewer births between 1979 and 2009. This policy has created what is called the 4-2-1 problem. One child will eventually/potentially be responsible for the financial support of two parents and four grandparents. Again, this only applies to the 36% of the population strictly held to one child per family.
These are just a couple of red flags that pop up for me as I consider this idea. I'll be interested in reading what others have to say on the matter.
Correction to the above comment regarding China: It is estimated that this resulted in 200,000 fewer births between 1979 and 2009. It should read 200 million.
I totally agree. China is having a problem beyond the 4-2-1 because of their preference for boys. The one child policy resulted in choosing to forgo baby girls. Nowadays, in some villages, there are so many young men unable to find partners.
I seem to recall back when they graduated the retirement ages for Social Security that they were projecting with the aging Babyboomers a ratio of 10 to 1, meaning 10 drawing for every 1 working.
No . I was one of 4 Children, Have an older brother + 2 younger sisters and loved growing up having them to play with . My Brother had 3 sons. One of my sisters & I have 3 daughters & the other one stopped at 2 girls. I love the fact that my daughters had 2 sisters to spend time with. My daughter has a daughter + son . I feel sad for only children growing up without a sibling or 2 to play with-grow up with etc. As adults they have not got used to sharing and can be a bit more selfish than children having to share all their life. It is cruel putting a number on a family if they can afford to have them.
Hogwash, only children are happy. They also have MORE educational & cultural opportunities than those w/siblings. Only children are the ones must likely to pursue tertiary & higher levels of education. 1-child families have the LOWEST stres
Higher education etc doesn't always bring happiness . Many big families are very happy having lots of family. As parents get older having siblings share responsibility takes the stress of just one person. Everyone has different ideas tho.
In my opinion this is something people should consider for themselves for the sake of the world before the government has to start making that decision for us. China already does it. 2 to 4 children is a good average size family, but when couples have 10, 12 or 18 children, it is going beyond ridiculous. As I wrote in my hub about this same subject, back in the days when families had farms and family businesses it was a popular thing. But these days, with the cost of living as it is, most of the time the children don't have the opportunities they might have in a smaller family. There is really a lot to be said about this subject from food and water supplies to places to live in the future. A lot to think about. My opinion, Greg.
In a country with no social security system a large family is your social security.
But large families can also be the downfall of a country, if not the world. Greg
Large families are the DOWNFALL of countries. In countries where there are sizable large families, there is a massive amount of poverty. Think Mexico, Guatemala, India, & African countries where large families are common. With such families, come poverty. In countries where small families are the norm, the standards of living are higher w/socioeconomic affluence. To reiterate, there should be an established, mandatory cap on how many children a couple has. 1-2 children is okay, perhaps 3-4 children at the limit. Anymore than that, massive tax penalties should be applied to such irresponsible couples who elect to have more than 4 children.
You have the cart before the horse. Where there is poverty there are large families, not the other way around. Large families do not cause country wide poverty, but poverty is causal to large families.
This is because in the past, large families were required to keep the farm going, particularly after so many of them died. It was the only to survive in times with rampant poverty. And as poverty eased, so did family size...except for those still in poverty, where large families remain the norm.
Obvious conclusion? End poverty and you will end large families (as a norm, not in every, specific case).
Good God, man. Where is the logic? Large families do cause poverty. The more children one has, the more impoverished a family becomes. In large families, it is normal for children to do without, even the necessities. In large families, there is no monies for health care. Children in large families have to depend upon OUTSIDE assistance to keep them afloat. Parents can't support a LARGE number of children by THEMSELVES, outside aid is needed to keep the family in reasonable socioeconomic fashion. Large families= poverty.
I know that you REFUSE to ACKNOWLEDGE this (typical LFL) but IT IS THE TRUTH & DENIAL ISN'T A RIVER IN EGYPT. Children in large families are more likely to be poor to impoverished while children in small families aren't likely to be impoverished. DO THE MATH, MAN!
So you want to put a massive tax on people who have almost nothing? How is that going to work out?
If there was massive tax on people who ELECT to have more than 4 children, they would THINK BEFORE having SO MANY children. Having more than 4 children in this postmodern time is well, IRRESPONSIBLE. I wasn't referring to third world countries(such countries need a MASSIVE education of women & TEACHING the IMPORTANCE of using birth control). I was referring to people in America who IRRESPONSIBLY have more than 4 children. It is totally inexcusable to have more than 4 children today. 1-2 would suffice.
gregas, China has practiced infanticide for 2,500 years since before the days of Confucius. They have always feared over-population. Aside from on TV, I have never seen families with 12 or 18 children. The most I have seen is one w/ 9 and one w/ 10.
You have taken the words out of my mouth. Large families are ridiculous. It denotes an obsessive psychosis. What are such parents "thinking"? NOT!
So, rich people can have more children? Or Christians can have more children? In the US, that would never fly.
I also think this would never make it into law in the US because it would cause a potential increase in the use of the morning after pill, and abortions. The Christian Right would never stand for that.
I wonder, though, if society isn't reducing the birth rate on its own. If you look at the birth rate data from The World Bank, it's declining in almost every country. As countries become more developed, the trend is to have fewer children. In the US, the birth rate per 1,000 people has declined since 1980, from 16 to 13.
I think you are on to something there, re: people lowering the birth rate on their own. Familes are having less. Many are opting to no kids at all, or one or two if any. Ive heard teens talk about with this crazy world, why have kids at all?
With a birth rate of 1.8 why would you propose to limit births?
Rather than put a cap, I believe in a HUGE education program teaching birth control and parenting skills. That way, people can make informed decisions on the size of their families, or even whether or not to have one in the first place.
In the US, many people have babies through ignorance. Girls get knocked up in their teens, adults have kids with no thought of what they have to offer them, they are ignorant about birth control and get skittish about it, and they give absolutely no thought about what sort of backgrounds they come from, which means they simply pass abuse and dysfunction to the next generation. There has been talk about a law putting drug-addicted women on the Implant; some people protest that as Nazi-ism! But is it really better to bring crack-addicted babies into the world?
Yes, we need earners to support social security, but quantity does not equal quality.
Deciding how many children someone should have based on their earnings, their religion, or their political views? No, that's horrifying and immoral. Horrible.
Actually, none of those reasons. It is really depending on what the world is going to support in the future and if we the people don't start thinking about that someday soon, our future children will suffer. It might be in the distant future, but it
It's been said already, but I'll say it again. The birth rate in the US is at 12.6 per 1000 people. China's birth rate is 12 per thousand. We are matching them without any cap. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.CBRT.IN
They don't have the immigration influx that we do either. Greg
Well I guess I wouldn't have been born. 9th out of 10 children.
I would say no, we should not put a cap on such a thing. I can't see any good or sufficient reason for doing so. We should, as a community help our fellow man and like another person said, help in education programs, etc. Life is precious, and we have enough government oversight as it is. To take away this freedom seems harsh and over reaching in my opinion.
If people don't control themselves now, or at least in the near future, there will come a time when some kind of control will have to be implemented. Not in our lifetime, and probably not even in the lifetime of our grandchildren, but somewhere down
I hear what you are saying, but I think that we see enough problems like geological ones, atmospheric ones with severe weather, pandemics, etc, that I just have a hard time seeing us hitting true overpopulation.. What limit do you suggest?
Thanks to, if we should even refer to as thanks, plagues, wars and world tragedies we aren't over populated already. But these days we do come up with ways to avoid some of these and the ones we don't avoid don't take as many. Greg
This is a true ethical issue, a moral one I think. Its very serious & implications are bigger than people realize. I think the idea alone needs to be put on a back burner, for all the other current big problems we have. Too dangerous I think,
It annoys me when people have more children than they can afford but a cap would be impossible to implement without draconian policies.
I honestly don't know many people that want to go to the trouble of raising more than two kids. It's a lot of work for one household. I don't think it's a problem.
"Old" Empresario, you haven't been around very long. There are many families with 5 and more kids, some with as many as 10 and 12 and one in the news a year or so ago that had just had their 18th. There are more of those than you might think. Greg
I loved having 3 girls and didn't' find it a lot of work.Having 2 sisters is awesome ! It was very sad losing our 4 child and we would have coped fine .With love + discipline well behaved children are a joy to have. I am amazed at how many struggle
gregas, for the record I have five children plus a step-child. I can afford them. That said, I am clearly an exception. I know, because I interact with parents all the time. You're getting your information from television; not reality.
For the record, I have no problem with having children. I had 2 girls and a boy myself and raised them just fine. And it isn't a matter with the ability to afford them. I am just thinking of what most people don't think of, and that is the future.
Old Empresario, with 3-4 children, parents still have the reins. The problem is when there are 5-6 or more children. The parents DON'T raise them at all it 's the OLDEST/OLDER children who raise the younger siblings. Smart people have small families.
Sure, let's tell people how many children they can have according to income. Maybe my income cannot even support one child. Let the government come and make sure my wife and I have no children. Of course I am a believer and follower of Jesus Christ also. That would take care of two problems at one time.
I am not a liberal, so that makes threee problems solved with one fell swoop.
I think a better idea would be to outlaw sex completely. No more sex for anyone at all. If they get the urge, let them play monopoly or rummy.
You know, I have read many times that there is no such thing as a stupid question. I have to disagree with that because this one is pretty stupid.
The world can handle more people that many think. There is a lot of land that is uninhabited in the world. The US alone could grow enough food to feed the whole world. We have gotten so far away from God that it is not even funny.
The population of the world will decrease, but not in the way you suppose. The next world war will take care of much of the world's population.
Good points, hard to rebut. Acres and acres of empty land, we are not even close to becoming overpopulated on the planet. Its just an idea that is tossed about a lot, without a lot of thought to the morality of it. It leads to dangerous places.
You have to think about food and water for all of those people that you are putting on all that open land. Especially water. Greg
The US govt pays farmers not to plant certain crops. Farmers could grow enough food to feed the world. Greed is the problem.
Or decided by the whim of Big Brother.
The problems of the world have nothing to do with population, but with selfishness (ego, self-concern). The psychopathic elite would love to have this control.
Definitely! Anywhere from 1 to 4 children per family is fine for couples granted that they are prepared socioeconomically, emotionally, & psychologically for parenthood. I believe that socioeconomic factors play a very important part in having children. Poor people SHOULDN'T have children as they are unable to provide their children w/a high quality of life. For a poor person to have children would be the utter height of selfishness & abuse. Children born into socioeconomically poor environment are doomed from the start.
Small & medium sized families(1-4 children per household) provide the idea environment for children to grow up in. There is more monies allocated per child. Children in such families received more parental attention & love. Each child is treated on an equal parity. There is opportunity for each child to enjoy a normative childhood/adolescence. There are also more educational/cultural opportunities in small/medium-sized families.
No couple should have more than 4 children. In medium large(5 children) & large families(6-more children), children will not receive the prerequisite parental attention. Also parents could not effectively raise such a large number of children which means oldest/older children will assume parenting duties forfeiting their own childhood/adolescence. Poverty is rife in such families as there is little monies for each child. That means children will have to work p/t & weekend jobs in childhood to get the things normal children have. It isn't unusual in large families for children to forgo secondary& tertiary education to work to help support parents & siblings. Children in medium large& large families end up to be the LEAST educated while children in small/medium sized families end up to be the MOST educated because they have more opportunities to pursue their education.
I remember hearing of a government campaign in a large country that had a large population of poor people.
Since most of the poor were also illiterate the government made up a poster which showed two families.
On one side was a family with two children. They looked healthy, clean, happy, well- fed and well-clothed. On the other side it showed a family with six children. They looked sickly, dirty, sad, undernourished and dressed in rags.
The people looked at he pictures and said, "Look at those poor people... they only have two children."
Excellent point. A great many people put love and family ahead of money.
It isn't an excellent point. It is an illogical point. The governmental ad is trying to educate these people regarding THE IMPORTANCE of FAMILY PLANNING. These people are illiterate & uneducated, refusing to acknowledge that they are IMPOVERISHED because of their LARGE families. They are further condemning their children to a LIFE OF POVERTY because of their REFUSAL TO LEARN ABOUT FAMILY PLANNING! Remember, the poor are AT THE BOTTOM of the world & can be easily exploited.
Poverty is wrong & pathological. Impoverished families are victims of exploitation, slavery, trafficking, & other ills. Impoverished parents sell their children in order to supplement income! Such families have no love- they are EKEING an existence! To such families, children are burdens as they have FAR TOO MANY! What ARE YOU "thinking", Wilderness? Please use inductive & deductive logic! What DID YOU LEARN IN COLLEGE???? You are glorifying abject poverty which has deleterious effects on people! Talk about Luciferian inference i.e. stating that bad situations are good.
Wilderness, POVERTY ISN'T A GOOD THING. Repeat after me, SOCIOECONOMIC POVERTY ISN'T A GOOD THING- SOCIOECONOMIC WEALTH IS A GREAT THING. I suggest that you read some books on economic wealth.
What am I thinking? I'm thinking that your gross exaggeration, trying to make it sound like anyone with 3 or more children must live under a bridge, in torn clothing falling from their bodies, with extended bellies from near starvation, is so far out of touch with reality as to be meaningless.
I'm thinking that your lack of siblings and familial love and caring has left you completely out of touch with what others enjoy and cherish. I'm thinking that your professed love of money is the controlling factor in your life and that it is truly sad.
To educate you, large families are impoverished. Studies have confirmed this. Please read a book. I have studied families. I grew up around large families & they were impoverished. They didn't have even the rudiments. They had to receive OUTSIDE help to stay socioeconomically afloat. You are so far from reality, it quite laughable. In my circle, you would be considered to be clueless, unknowledgeable, & backwards in your thinking. Larger families=poverty while smaller families DON'T.
I have familial love- from my late parents, my cousins & friends. My cousins & friends keep in constant contact w/me. One doesn't need siblings to have love. I know people who have siblings who don't give a damn about them. In fact, I know plenty of people w/siblings who NEVER contact them at all. My late mother had siblings- they only called her only when THEY NEEDED MONEY! Again, you have demonstrated cluelessness.
Money is very important in this society & culture. To educate you yet again, money is needed for a civilized way of life. Money provides for the future. As my late father stated, some people are HARD TO LEARN. You are HARD TO LEARN. You are the one DIVORCED from reality- you believe in poverty & want. You are content being impoverished. I have had PLENTY of love in my life. Being from a small family affords love. Children in larger families don't have that parental love. I grew up around people in larger families- they stated that they NEVER HAD THE LOVE from their parents that I & others from small families had! My mother even stated that her mother never gave her the attention that I had which made her quite needy. I never was needy because I received parental attention as a child. One of my cousins is calling me to go see a play & then go out to a restaurant. Another cousin is going to take me to a restaurant on New Year's Eve-see I am quite busy. You are WRONG again about only children- ENVY is a toxic thing, Wilderness. What you DON'T know makes ANOTHER WORLD. Hang around some only children & it will dispel your HATRED of them! Only children are LOVELY people.
It is nice that you are happy as an only child and have achieved a comfortable economic status. That does not mean, though, that everyone shares your priorities. Some people find happiness through large families and care little about money. Live and let live.
That may be true but I don't believe that children should be brought up in poverty. The average large family receives OUTSIDE assistance to stay afloat at the basis level. Children in large families don't even have the basics- many go to bed hungry & without even the basic things. Children should live comfortable lives w/myriad educational, cultural, & socioeconomic opportunities. No child should live in socioeconomic poverty in the midst of plenty- that to me is a mortal, damnable sin. If one knows better, do better. There is no excuse for large families in the postmodern era of advanced birth control. I am passionate about this subject. I have seen children impoverished, hating their parents because their parents were IRRESPONSIBLE enough to constantly reproduce children, knowing that they can ill afford to do so.
C'mon Pretty, you are a liberal, educated woman. I staunchly, even vehemently believe in birth control & small families because such provide a high quality of life & choices for children. Even religious people use birth control & have small families these days. No caring, thinking person wants to subject their children to poverty, struggle, & hardship which is what large families subject children to on a constant basis. The people I know from large families weren't happy. They weren't happy w/ the lack of privacy, crowded living conditions, & having to work to buy things that other normal children had. They always wanted to borrow things because their parents didn't have money to buy them school supplies such as pencils, rulers, & erasers. They also hated children who had more than they did- so much that one girl from a large family destroyed another girl's dress.
Pretty, there is an underside to large families. The poverty & want. Little or no parental attention or affection. No hugs nor kisses. Neglect is rife in large families. Children from large families raise themselves &/or each others as parents are stretched thin. In large families, children have to learn to navigate the familial waters in order to survive. Many large family environments are akin to concentration camps. Yes, I said concentration camps. If a child isn't strong in the large family environment, h/she will fall through the familial cracks- I saw this w/my maternal uncle. There is no such thing as individualized parent-child attention in large families. In fact, there is little or no parent-child interaction in large families as it is in small families. I don't know of anyone from a large family who is CLOSE with his/her parents. However, I know plenty of people from small families who are EXTREMELY CLOSE with their parents.
I have studied the family in college. I also read books on families & observe large families through childhood friends, acquaintances, & extended family members. I wouldn't wish large families on the proverbial Satan.
I don't think kids should be raised by wealthy individuals who send them off to boarding schools and what not. The fact is, however, it's really none of my business. I don't know what large families you know, but..wow.
I saw nothing wrong w/wealthy parents sending their children to boarding schools It gives such children great perspectives & they learn about different cultures. Boarding schools make children broad-minded & makes them independent. While you criticize the wealthy & how they raise their children, you fail to criticize poor people who irresponsibly have children when they can ill afford it. I see the latter as irresponsible, even evil. These wealthy parents have plenty to offer their children in terms of opportunities & culture while poor parents only have to offer their children want, struggle, no opportunities, & generational impoverishment.
Well, you prove my point here. We don't all agree on the best way to raise children...and that's fine. At any rate, I'm not stating every parent who sends their kid to boarding school is a bad parent. I'm stating there are other ways to see these things...that you are just refusing to take into account. Poverty can help build character, and appreciation of life, in ways that being born wealthy will never bring. I had a very wealthy friend in college who spoke of this often. He sometimes envied those of lesser means...and I could understand why when he explained it.
I think I finally agree with Onusonus on something. It's scary to know people think they know how to raise other people's children.
There is some truth to everything you say, but it is not your place, or anyone's place, to tell other people how many children they can have.
I've been following this discussion, and was going to add something almost identical to this. I just grow tired of having to state the same type of thing in so many discussions here. I think that we, as a people in general, are far too concerned with stereotypes and thinking we know what is best for everyone else. The ones who are happiest are the winners. I think we've all known some miserable wealthy people and some happy low income people. Of course, it's difficult to be happy when your starving, but as Wilderness pointed out, that's just not the case with MOST people in "developed" nations. We need to keep it that way.
Yeah, the uneducated who made that illogical remark are THE ONES people are sending money to SUPPORT. It is the unintelligent who BELIEVE THIS way, not knowing that outside agencies are SUPPORTING them as they CAN'T support themselves adequately. In essence, such people are LOST & NEED to be educated regarding birth control, even FORCIBLY.
The government poster has confirmed my point ad infinitum. It is the unintelligent, uneducated or less educated who have larger families. They view families as insurance & view their children as THEIR financial support system. They feel that their children should live FOR THEM. There is NO LOVE in such families, just a burdensome, hellish way of life! The same applies to people in more affluent nations such as America who have larger families. They have a more primitive, atavistic philosophy. They feel that their children are there to SUPPORT them. They also lead a burdensome, hellish life, not knowing where their next meal comes from or if they have enough rudiments-this is prevalent in larger families. They could care less about the children they bring into the world. The more intelligent & educated people are, the SMALLER the families. In small families, children have a high standard of living beyond the basic rudiments. Time to become educated!
To intelligent, forward thinking people, it shows that small families LIVE BETTER. The people who made the negative remarks are the uneducated ones who need to be educated on the BENEFITS of the small family. These are the illiterates who continue to live impoverished & their children will follow such negative patterns. Countries w/large families are the MOST IMPOVERISHED countries. People have to be TAUGHT that LARGE FAMILIES EQUAL POVERTY & POVERTY EQUALS LESS SOCIOECONOMIC & EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES. Let's use LOGIC HERE!
Liberals love telling people how to run their lives. The correct answer is to stop giving free money to people and they'll think twice about getting knocked up.
Well, that makes sense; however, people must be educated to the CONSEQUENCES of IRRESPONSIBLE behavior. Since some people are irresponsible, MORE DRASTIC measures have to be IMPLEMENTED in order to teach IRRESPONSIBLE people LESSONS. Such people need to be...……..FORCIBLY STERILIZED- PROBLEM SOLVED!
If people are irresponsible regarding reproduction, FORCE has to be implemented. As some parents say to their irresponsible teenagers, if you act like a child, I WILL TREAT YOU AS A CHILD. Irresponsible people must be treated as children because they act like children. I know you agree w/me!
Not in the least. People should get to decide how to run their own lives and deal with the consequences without government assistance. The reason you don't like my answer is it's too simple, it shrinks government instead of making big daddy the solution to your problems. The government only subsidizes irresponsibility and entitlement.
I TOTALLY AGREE with you. If people are irresponsible by themselves, let them rot. But if they have children, why should children suffer because of stupid, unintelligent, & irresponsible parents. That is why there should be licensing for parenthood(we have licenses for almost everything else) & those who are deemed irresponsible, should be forcibly sterilized.
Your sentiment is completely based on status and wealth. 99% of the rest of the world make less money than the average American. Do they deserve to die? Is poverty a fate worse than death?
No one deserves to die but living conditions can & should be improved so that people can live a comfortable life worthy of human dignity. No human should live in impoverished conditions.
Again your focus is on wealth. I would say that no human should have to live under the guise of a dictator who decides what will make others happy. We are endowed by our creator with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not your version of happiness, you don't get to decide what makes people happy, they do. And as long as it doesn't infringe on my right to life, liberty, or property, let them live freely as they choose.
This is why I think there is still hope for America even under Trump. If the majority of those who would/will vote for him, still think like this, threats to our individual freedoms will ultimately be dealt with. We need to deal with a lot of them NOW. Unfortunately, I don't see either party willing to step up for the rights of individuals that don't have the means to those rights. And, I mean middle class here, not just those in poverty. I think some liberals find ideas, such as the ones GM is presenting to be reasonable. We have people who think they can, or would trust the govt, to make decisions on who can or cannot have children?!?!? GM admittedly comes from a middle class background but yet just knows that all those in poverty are so miserable they could never be as happy as someone with means, lol. I know A LOT of people who just live simply and enjoy it.
I guess any real Buddhist should just die? I think this is a prime example of how people talk about liberals just being jealous of the wealthy. In the words of Bob Dylan: " It ain't be babe." I just want basic human rights.
Don't you feel that everyone should be AT THE MINIMUM middle class? Let's be humane here, no one should be in poverty. That is my belief. I was raised in a middle class environment & I argue that people should at have a middle class standard of living. Poverty is evil & it has deleterious effects on those involved. I have known poor, even impoverished people-a few classmates, ex-childhood friends, & extended relatives. They were miserable. They HATED being poor. The smart ones got out of poverty while the others complained about their fate. NO ONE should be poor in America. This is why people are constantly implementing ways to reduce, if not end poverty in the United States. If I had my way, no one would be poor or impoverished. If you cared for people, you wouldn't want them to be poor or impoverished either.
I just want basic human rights. Where that crosses with "poverty" than I agree. The fact is, as pointed out several times in this thread, most Americans in poverty are not starving to death. This talk of "all poor people are miserable" is nonsense, at least in America. I do feel healthcare is a basic human right though. One that any society will always adequately reward providers, so there's no need to demonize some who don't put as much into the system as others. If we do, than we must demonize those with means who have ailments that mean they take more than they put in. That's another subject though.
The "smart ones" are the happiest ones. You cannot judge that. That is my belief. The wealthiest guy in our neighborhood is a miserable, lonely, old dude..you see? Take care
I was taught that poverty is evil. I was taught that people ought to have human dignity & poverty is antithetical to human dignity. I believe that everyone(who isn't upper or upper middle class) should be at the minimum middle class. Have people live like human beings not subsisting on an animal level. Yes, there are poor people who go to bed hungry. WAKE UP. Stop glorifying poverty. Poverty isn't a walk in the park. From the people I have encountered, it is a hellish existence. Let's us bring all Americans(who are poor) to a minimum middle class level life.
To the wealthy guy who is miserable, I would tell him to thank God for his wealth for he has been blessed. He should use this wealth to help others. He also should visit homeless shelters where people suffer. He can also volunteer to help the poor. You should tell him to stop the crap & count his blessings. Everyday I count my blessings although I am middling class. I am thankful for everything I have for it cam be much worse. I was looking at a youtube video by Dhar Mann -the scene was a man who was unhappy because he didn't have a luxurious car. Then a second man looked at the first man's luxurious car, wishing that his average car was like his. Then the second man bumped into a woman who had no car but had to take the bus to work. She missed the bus & bumped into a man who had a bicycle. The man with the bicycle, complained about the bicycle as he couldn't afford to take the bus then he saw a lady in the wheelchair. The lady in the wheelchair told him be glad that he had the use of his legs. One must always be thankful for what one has, especially if h/she is well off. Yes, I would tell the wealthy man to count his blessings for he can lose it by his negative attitude. God bless hard sun & have a Great New Year!
I recently shared a meme with cartoon pics playing out that exact same scene! I think we can agree that poverty is not often desired, especially when it truly is of the type where you don't know where your next meal will come from. However, as your example points out, we can almost always be thankful for something, and this is so often where real happiness comes in. --- Happy new year to you as well.
Every single time in history somebody has tried to eliminate poverty through government means, they have increased it. The only truly effective way to reduce poverty is to be charitable. you yourself, not through a bureaucratic system.
Can't say I agree with onusonus. His assessment doesn't go far enough in describing the evil contained in your comment.
If we advocate forced sterilization I'd be inclined to advocate it for anyone expressing such hateful views.
The comment isn't evil in the least. It is a truthful comment. There are irresponsible people out there. These people won't listen to correction. They aim to continue in their destructive, dismal lifestyle. Such people need to be sterilized. Think of the people on welfare who continuously have children on tax dollars- yes, I SAID IT- such people should be forcibly sterilized & put to work!
The good news is those such as yourself are relegated to online rants. You'll never be in a position to drive policy with such unhinged ideas.
There are people who think as I do. These people are highly educated (Masters Degrees) & who have careers. These ideas aren't unhinged in the least. Such ideas have been around since the 1970s, even before. There are people who contend that those who are irresponsible should be forcibly sterilized. You don't read much do you? There were the eugenics movement & Social Darwinism in the early 20th century.
In high school, there was a book by Dr. Paul Ehrlich called THE POPULATION BOMB. I suggest that you purchase the book & READ IT THOROUGHLY. I read the book. This book was published in 1971. During that time in America, there were forward thinking people who contended that people should have no more than two children & that anyone who had more than two children should be penalized through taxes & some extremists suggest that such people be forcibly sterilized. Again, there should be a limit as to how many children couples should have. Intelligent, educated couples practice limits whereas those who are more irresponsible should have mandatory birth control. This premise is nothing new! Many people believe as I do but are fearful of voicing this. Well, I have never been afraid to voice my well thought out opinion. If a person is irresponsible, h/she shouldn't be a parent!
Yes. The ideas aren't new. Nazi sympathizers had them. They used the 'highly educated' argument to justify their hatred too.
Only fools fell for it then. Even fools know better now.
There are irresponsible people out there. You know it & I know it. Such people are unfit to become parents. Yes, such people should be sterilized as such people will only be detrimental to their children. Are you capable of using elementary inductive & deductive logic????? A smart six year old can understand this point!
Sounds like an argument a six year old might put forth. When raised by Nazis.
So you believe that people can be as irresponsible as possible, becoming parents & raise their children in harmful environments then? What inverse logic you have! Your philosophy is the reason why there is child protective services & human resources...…. We have these things in New York City for people who are irresponsible parents(if reported). In New York, your opinions would be deemed as......BACKWARDS OR WORSE, especially in my middle class, educated circle! You would be a laughing stock! No one thinks as you do.
No GM. I think people should be left alone to make their own decisions and not have to listen to people ignorant of anything but love of money degrade them.
I come from a family with 4 kids. I choose to have 1. Neither decision makes either me or my parents superior to the other.
Nothing is wrong w/money. Money makes life sweet. Money means more choices in life. I am for people having myriad choices in life, not having to struggle. People shouldn't have to struggle in life. I want the best for everyone, particularly our precious children. Children should grow up in the most comfortable circumstances & have myriad educational & socioeconomic opportunities. I don't want children to suffer. Although I am single & childfree, all children are my children. I believe that children should have the best possible life ever. I cry when I see children suffer. In spite of everything, God bless you Livetolearn & have a BLESSED NEW YEAR.
P.S. I meet very interesting people here in the forums & on HubPages in general. It is good to spar w/ you & Wilderness- it exercises my mind. The more the mind is exercised, the more acute it becomes. God bless you & your family this coming year.
Is it wrong for me to sometimes, quietly, cheer for global warming?
As I stated before, the cap should be on 2 children well perhaps 3-4 children but NO MORE.
I think Dolly Parton said it best:
"So with patches on my britches and holes in both my shoes
In my coat of many colors I hurried off to school
Just to find the others laughing and a making fun of me
In my coat of many colors my mama made for me
And oh I couldn't understand for I felt I was rich
And I told them all the love my mama sewed in every stich
And I told them all the story mama told me while she sewed
And how my coat of many colors was worth more than all their clothes
But they didn't understand and I tried to make them see
One is only poor only if they choose to be
Now I know we have no money but I was rich as I could be
In my coat of many colors mama made for me
Made just for me"
Really??? Are you in the land of OZ? Well, I am going to bring you from LA LA land into reality. Let's get REAL here! It is just a song- a song, not reality. Dolly wasn't happy but wanted to rationalize her abject circumstances in a song. Don't you know the difference?! Well, I guess not!
I knew people from large families in the same circumstances & they were MISERABLE. No one in his/her right mind rejoices in poverty & misery. That is the definition of masochism. A mentally healthy person doesn't want to be poor nor rear his/her child in poverty & want. What are people "thinking" here??????? (Nonplussed at the inverse logic presented). Yet another case of Luciferian inference- that is believing that bad is good. Well, bad ISN'T good. What you are stating is akin to a person who stated that being in a gulag is a good thing, an abused woman stating that her husband is the best husband imaginable...…..C'mon be logical- no one is happy growing up & living impoverished with scraps. One has to be masochistic to be happy impoverished. Use logic, people! It isn't THAT HARD. USE A LITTLE LOGIC- NO ONE IS HAPPY BEING POOR-IMPOVERISHED! I suggest that you read some book on the deleterious effects of poverty on children. Read & learn!!!! (scratching my head & rolling my eyes).
Dealt with poor to impoverished children as a child in elementary school. They weren't happy. In fact, they were miserable. We middle class children had to help them by donating clothing etc. These poor children from large families, of course, had to have OUTSIDE assistance to be afloat. C'mon people, YOU ALL KNOW BETTER to spout this malarkey that there are rich, miserable people & there are happy, poor people. Nope. The rich people I know were happy & grateful, using the money to enjoy life, provide opportunities for their children, & to help others. The poor people I know are miserable, worried about bills, & where they will sleep. Stop living in dreamland, hardsun. Reality is that wealth is good, even great while poverty is evil. If poverty wasn't evil, people wouldn't implement steps to reduce, even stop poverty. To paraphrase Cher, stop the CRAP!
Happiness is in the mind. That is clear. I've been happier, at times, when I was impoverished, than when I had relatively good means. I learned these things at a very young age. Your passionate diatribes and shouting are not helping your case. Comparing having mom knit you a dress to being a gulag is just silly IMO. How did Dolly grow up to be wealthy? I'm not stating monetary wealth is bad... I am stating it's sad that some seem to think that it's the only kind of wealth. You are stating everyone who is officially in "poverty" is miserable? I see otherwise on a daily basis.
That's a great point. It's a matter of perspective. I was born poor, my family had great financial success so by the time I was a young teenager I had many perks which came with money. But, my great memories are when we were poor.
My dad had more time to spend with us kids, we made our own fun (and it was way more fun than the fun money provides).
I feel sorry for people who judge value of anything by how much money you have. It's a very unsatisfying way to live...always counting who has what, material wise.
Dearie, wake up to REALITY. People are valued by how much money they have. They are also treated by others by how many money they have. Socioeconomic classes DO exist. If one is rich, h/she is treated better & more deferentially than if one is poor then h/she is treated insignificantly. Were you taught this? Have you heard of net worth? Yes, net worth exists. People, READ! You are living in LALA land. Note: you are no longer in OZ but the real world where money has SIGNIFICANT value. Good God people...…….(rolling eyes & scratching head). Where are YOU PEOPLE FROM?! Mars? On earth, money is important & determines a person's value! If one is poor, h/she is a NOBODY-I was taught that!
Circumstances helped lead me to the point I am now. However, I've now also made a conscious choice to make a little less money in order to spend more time with my kids, teach them how to change a fuel pump, grow a robust garden, etc. These things makes us rich, and noone can tell me otherwise. Many of my kids' friends don't get the same kind of education, and are raised by youtube cause mom and dad have to make $150 grand a year to feel good about themselves.
It sounds like your dad may have made the same type of choice.
I don't fault my parents their choices. As I always expected them not to fault mine. I have a sister who was traumatized for life,according to her, because of that early poverty. But she was older and of a different mindset. (She might be GM. Who knows?) So, it takes all kinds. Life would be boring without the diversity.
This is exactly how I feel, and why I try not to judge other parents. Family dynamics are kind of like any relationship. It's very difficult to know how things really are unless you really are there all the time. And, some kids react very differently to be raised one way, than another kid will, just as your example with your sister. As a parent, all I can do is try the best I can to understand each child.
Ultimately, it's up to that child though. We all know the kid who was raised in a clearly horrendous situation that turns out to be a well-adjusted architect. This doesn't excuse the parents' actions that lead to a clearly bad environment, but I think it outlines the point.
Basically, I'm not stating parents who do things differently than me are wrong (within reason)... it's just not how I do things.
Family dynamics is a complex thing. Many things goes into family dynamics such as the family paradigm, family size, family background-sociopolitical, sociocultural, religious, educational & socioeconomic, & birth order. Birth order is so crucial in families as one birth order determines how one is treated by parents. There is also the issue of favoritism- how one child is treated in comparison to the other children in the family if there are siblings. Within favoritism, there is the phenomena o the golden child i.e. the child who can do no wrong. On the flip side, there is the child who is disfavored, the outcast, or even the child who is scapegoated by parents & other family members. Then there is the old boogaboo-sibling rivalry which is caused by many things & can last a lifetime. It was nice talking to you hard sun.
The statement that poverty builds character is a feel good myth which has no basis in reality. Such a statement is fallacious on its face. In fact, poverty demoralizes a child. Poverty makes children hard & cynical. Children in poverty lean towards delinquent behavior. They indulge in illegal activities. Children in poverty grow up to be in gangs, drug runners, etc. Children who grow up in poverty tend to bully well-off children because they wish they were the latter. I have observed this & my mother, a nurse, told me stories of such children. Poverty never builds character but demoralizes it. That is why people are fighting to reduce, if not end poverty. If poverty was such a great thing, people wouldn't be fighting to REDUCE/END it.
I know children who were traumatized by early poverty, it made them very bitter & envious of those of better socioeconomic circumstances. I have an aunt born into poverty(this is my oldest aunt-she is deceased now). She was so traumatized by early poverty that she is envious of those who are well off. In fact, she has a HATRED of those who are socioeconomically better off. She never bothered to improve herself- all she did was complain about her poverty. My mother, on the other hand, was also born impoverished but she studied & work hard- becoming solidly middle class.
I was born solidly middle class. I have been solidly middle class all my life. I become upper middle class in the last years of my job. I now middle or middling class(retired) on a fixed income but am happy nevertheless. I don't envy anyone who is wealthier. I am happy w/what I have- live in a nice apartment, have loving cousins & friends who keep in constant contact. I read, sketch, dance, & cook as hobbies. If I want something, I know how to get it through writing. Some people thrive in circumstances while others are crushed by them. I have known & still know people who are better off than me socioeconomically- I am very glad for them. I don't envy anyone it is so toxic. I just want to be THE VERY BEST me.
I hope they haven't become as unhinged as your arguments make you sound.
My motto is 'there are no mistakes if we use experience as learning lessons for life.'
Not unhinged at all but passionate regarding beliefs. I have observed plenty from friends, associates, & extended family members in addition to studying the family extensively in college. I believe in family planning & small families. I also believe that couples shouldn't have children until they are financially, emotionally, & psychologically prepared. If people followed those principles, there would be significantly less societal problems. Remember the old saying a stitch in time saves nine. Or a better saying, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Sometimes mistakes can irreparably ruin lives. For example, getting fired from a job can ruin one's career chances as one is seen as damaged goods by future employers. I was taught to make as little mistakes as possible because mistakes can ruin one's life. I was further taught that being fired from a job is a career killer by my late parents.
Passionate in beliefs, yes. Particularly in the belief that you have, or should have, the right to dictate to others how they should live and what their priorities should be, even to the extent that you would surgically mutilate those that disagree with you or that do not share your priorities.
Thank goodness we don't live in that kind of country.
Again, we all have digressed. I am concluding that yes a cap should be put on as to how many children is allowed per family. There are irresponsible people out there who breed incessantly w/no regard for their present children's & future children's welfare. Think of the Duggars, Turpins, & other large families. In this postmodern society, anywhere from 1-4 children is reasonable but anymore than that is IRRESPONSIBLE. There are some who strongly contend that no one should have more than 2 children per family as replacement value & even 3 children per family is IRRESPONSIBLE. Intelligent, educated people have small families & know the importance & benefits of family planning.
How do you intend to enforce your law controlling how other people live? Forced surgical sterilization after the 4th child (and who gets to determine how many kids, for that matter)? Will you put large fines on families larger than you like, forcing them into poverty? Will you take the children from the parents, forcing society to care for them in the "system" that is such a failure?
It isn't within my capacity to do this. However, there are those in government & in powerful positions who advocate what I am saying. The Bilderburg group indicates that there are way too many people in the world. They advocate drastic means in order to decrease the population. Don't worry in the future, there will be the educated & affluent who will rule the world & the poor who with their excessive population will destroy themselves from within through crime brought on by their socioeconomic impoverishment.
Think of the people that would never have been born if your compulsory sterilization program were enacted. People like Abraham Lincoln, Jesus and Crocodile Dundee come to mind.
But we only get a lying, arrogant, imbecile in the WH.
I'm curious as this seems really nonsensical. Who is going to "save" us then? You can say we can only save ourselves, but how are we to do that if not through a politician? Is this advocating some sort of revolution? If so, how are we then supposed to guarantee that we get all these things done? If they want to jail me for weed, I can't just say "no, you can't do that." I also cannot take on the police force with me and a few of my buddies. The only thing we can do is put pressure on our representatives, or our politicians. Are libertarians saying we should give up on the only thing that gives most of us any sort of power whatsoever when it comes to our federal and state governments?
The free market.
Yes, the free market is good. However, poverty is a problem in America. The poor have to educated with the desire to improve themselves educationally & socioeconomically. They have to see higher goals in life. Psychologists & social scientists have stated that the poor have a limited trajectory of life. It is called the culture of poverty. People who are impoverished see only immediate gratification but not long term goals which they feel are fantastical but not realistic. They live for & act in the moment without being concerned for future consequences.
Onusonus is right stating that governmental programs only make the poor lose incentive to improve themselves thus becoming more dependent. It is an ingrained mentality of the poor that they are victims who feel that others are holding them back & are out to get them. In order to get out of poverty, ONE has to HAVE THE DESIRE to improve himself/herself educationally & socioeconomically. The poor have to reeducated to want more in life beyond the rudiments but that will be long process. Philosophies & mindsets are THE MOST DIFFICULT to change.
There are people out here who are officially in poverty who rely on no govt programs and are very happy. Likely not in less developed nations, but, yes here in America, this exists. I understand that you just don't want to read this, or acknowledge this fact, but it doesn't make it untrue.
What if I desire to improve myself by doing more things for myself thus making it easier to live with less? You see, I can remodel my own bathroom, fix my own car, etc. thus saving me money but not adding to my bank account. Money is ABSOLUTELY not the key to happiness and fulfillment.
People want to live a civilized lifestyle beyond rudimentary struggle. I hope so. I know I DO. Money is the key to happiness & fulfillment. One can't live a fulfilling life w/o money. Money is crucial to good living. Money rules the world. Basics like food, clothing, & shelter cost. These are the necessities. If one want culture & travel, it costs. Nothing is FREE. To live minimally requires at least a middle class salary. People who live in poverty hardly have monies for the bare rudiments. In fact, they are living below water socioeconomically. On average, they receive outside assistance although they won't admit aid. Even middle class families get aid. One has to be at the minimum upper middle class to live decently- with money for necessities & beyond. Even the middle class are having it hard socioeconomically.
It is fantastical supposition to contend that there are "people in poverty" but "are happy". That is adolescent thinking as adolescents have an idealistic view of life because they don't experience the everyday work world. When one experiences the work world, that idea changes- one learns that the MORE MONEY, the MORE CHOICES!
Nah uh, people in socioeconomic poverty are struggling just to survive. It is very difficult for them to survive. Many have to choose between rent & food- many have to go hungry because food is so expensive. If they do eat, it is low quality food because quality food is expensive & beyond the purview of low income people. Hell, it is sometimes difficult for solidly middle class people to get good quality food.
Housing costs are expensive for middle class people, let alone for poor people. The only people who aren't experiencing difficulties are upper middle class people. What you are stating is fallacious in scope. Poor people are constantly struggling to make ends meet. Sometimes, they are drowning socioeconomically. Life isn't easy for anyone except the upper middle & upper classes. Money does buy a life of choices which is a happy life!
Yes, you do (want a civilized lifestyle of leisure and luxury).
But not everyone worships money and what it can buy, and no matter how you spin it your lifelong struggle for more money is not a better goal than what others have. Seem to me that the majority of the people have decided that the endless pursuit of wealth is NOT a worthwhile goal; that it is actually very detrimental to both humanity in general and individual people.
Mr. Henry David Thoreau, you advocate the simple, primitive life w/just rudiments for everyone; however, there are people who want more from life than a primitive existence. There is nothing wrong w/working & wanting more from life than an animalistic, primitive existence. If people followed you, they would still be living in caves.
"Seem to me that the majority of the people have decided that the endless pursuit of wealth is NOT a worthwhile goal; that it is actually very detrimental to both humanity in general and individual people". Uh huh, but these are the SAME people who complain about rising food, medical, clothing, & housing costs. They complain about things being expensive. They complain, complain, complain about their socioeconomic status but refuse to take socioeconomic responsibility for their lives. They would rather waste their lives- looking at the idiot tube & pursuing other inane social pursuits. People can do better if they want to do so but they are too lazy to do so.
It is NONE of your business if people want to pursue wealth & success. I admire ambitious people. At least, they are taking charge on their lives instead of being the sheeple who accept their socioeconomic predicament. My Caribbean born father(he is deceased) instilled this philosophy in me. He believed in educational & socioeconomic improvement & achievement He stressed that work & success were the most important things in life & that social life was a sign of idleness. To him, anyone who wasn't pursuing goals, was a lazy wastrel unworthy of life. He furthermore stated that this person was an utter failure.
My mortgage is $310 a month...for a three bedroom house. We live cheap cause we can. I love it. Life is only as easy or hard as you make it. Life is very hard for some very rich people. Your insistence that people cannot be happy if they don't have much money is very odd IMO. I hope you truly are enjoying your life.
It is NONE of your business if people want to pursue a life of self sufficiency that's relatively free from the fruitless rat race of more for the sake of more. I admire these ambitious people.
I don't think anyone stated people shouldn't be free to pursue a life filled with as much wealth as they can get. It does seem you're stating people should not be free to drop out of the rat race. Live and let live.
In New York City, 3 bedroom apartments cost at least $1000 monthly & in some areas, $3000 monthly-W0W!
Yeah. I wouldn't want to make 30 grand a year in NYC. That's a different story. My point is that there are people who live on relatively little means and do so very well.
There are plenty of people,including some college graduates, who make that a year. They have it hard. Some must have assistance to make ends meets. Thank God for food pantries & bargain stores. New York City is one of the most expensive cities to leave. In rural areas, it is easier to live on less. In New York City, one must earn at least $50K to live somewhat decently.
I'm in the middle of a small city, not the best neighborhood but not the worst as I see it. It's definitely considered urban. Cost of living here is very low and that's why I live here. It allows for the lifestyle we want. I think cost of living is much more a regional issue as opposed to rural vs urban. Of course, there are always caveats. I know it's not always easy getting out of an overpriced area, but for those who can, it might be the best choice. Then maybe it will be easier for them to see how they can live happily without having to chase money down 24/7. Poverty can be crushing, I'm not arguing that..only that it's not best to paint everyone officially in poverty as lacking in some way. There's motivation for many other things besides making money. Some people prefer to live more truly self-sufficiently.
This is so true. In upstate New York, the cost of living is way cheaper. Things are becoming more expensive. People are working long hours to get that paycheck. Others are working two jobs to stay socioeconomically afloat. Even the solidly middle class are either working LONG hours or even working another job. Forget about the lower class who are working massive. The only people not affected by the socioeconomic crisis are upper middle class people & of course, the rich. Another group of people who aren't affected are those who saved or invested their monies & of course, those who are living off the grid..
I don't disagree with any of that. Carving out a niche of having enough money and time to avoid having to use money for so many things is how we've been able to be happy, given this economy and the situation we are in. I can say that I am happier now, overall, than I was when making a bit more as a bank asst manager. I still work a main job and some side gigs, but I have more autonomy and can better choose my time off. There are trade offs though. It would be nice not to be rich and not forced into such trade-offs. However, I don't envy the rich either.
GOOD for you. I am retired now & am comfortable. Hopefully before I transition, I will write some books. I love to create.
Thanks. I say just go for it! That lack of being impoverished you speak of does give you the luxury to do such things, and so you really should if that's what you want to do. You certainly have the ability to garner interest in a subject and look at it from different angles.
You make it sound like most of the country is working 60 hours per week. In truth, in 2018 the average number of hours worked per year was 1786, or 34 hours per week.
The mythical free market is not going to prevent unjust laws. Human nature doesn't even allow for a truly free market.
Besides, who would you rely on to keep that market "free?" Politicians, and judges are the only ones in that position.
Government is a necessary evil. We can only fight to make it as less evil as possible.
Politicians make the market free???
Politicians are the ones who create laws that cause cronyism. They get the kick backs, they ensure nepotism, they kill small businesses by setting an unsustainable minimum wage and now are starting to force employers to pay for extended maternity leave. They are literally going to pay for an employee to be gone for months. No small business can support this.
I'm not sure you're understanding my point. Politicians are unavoidable in the real world. If we had none, I guarantee you that we would have some the next day. This pie in the sky libertarian wild west notion is quaint, but the fact is even the real wild west had politicians and laws.
Of course there is corruption. This is one BIG reason why markets will never be free. Laws can be anti-free market and they can be pro-free market. Do you really think things like kickbacks would not happen if we had no government? Without pro-free market laws, we have nothing even resembling a free market.
Having no politicians would only make it less likely to have a free market... unless you consider corporate crony capitalism, paying to have the competition murdered, etc., to be part of a free market. I've lived in lawless environments...it's no fun. To maintain a free market, you need a government, which means you would need politicians.
Once again though, there is no such thing as a truly free market on a scale larger than a few people. There are only levels of market systems...but not 100% free market as some think they would cherish so much.
Government may be a necessary evil which is why it should be as small as possible. And I can think of twenty trillion reasons why.
We need governments to instill laws & to curb corruption. That is understood by me at least. I believe in corporations & business-however, such things should be run ethically. Sadly, most people aren't evolved enough to apply business principles ethically which explains why there must be governmental controls over business. We need laws because most people aren't self-regulated. If there are no laws or no government, chaos would reign. At this level of humanity, government & laws are needed as many people are like children who would be out of control if such things didn't exist. That is one thing we agree on.
by Heather Jacobs 2 years ago
How many children would the average woman have in her lifetime if she did not use birth control?Assuming she was conceiving naturally. What do you think?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 5 years ago
(6 or more children per household) in the postmodern, 21st century United States, being fully cognizant of the fact that they will be subjecting their children to an extremely rudimentary and primitive socioeconomic living standard, even socioeconomic penury and poverty? Countless studies...
by Charlu 7 years ago
Does SS Disability and Medicare need to be reformed or the people and to many agencies governing it?Recently having seen the brutal fight one has to go through to get SS or SSD, Medicaid or Medicare I was in shock. The mere fact you have to deal with SSI, Office of Disability...
by Rodric Anthony 6 years ago
Should there be a limit to the amount of children one family should have in the US?We know in some countries like China the government tells people the amount of children to have. Should we look into that for America?
by Money Fairy 5 years ago
Do you think a woman with more than 8 children has a mental problem?Isn't it just a little insane to have so many children? Unless you are a gazillionaire how on earth could you afford so many children? And how much time would you really have to spend with them ?Just curious if anyone else thinks...
by Cassie Smith 7 years ago
Sandra Fluke at a democratic hearing complained that she and her fellow female law school students at Georgetown are burdened by having to pay $3,000 for their own contraceptives, which is why she agrees with including contraceptives as part of medical insurance. Getting a law degree must be...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|