Originally posted by AThousandYoungYour poor reading skills are a source of concern, given that you're a teacher.
[b]people like my parents who worked there whole life, and did there best, but would have a meager retirement if not for their children.
Children are either a luxury or an investment. They're expensive. I choose not to have them so I can have other luxuries and other investments. Your parents decided that children were where they wanted their extra money to go. That was their decision.[/b]
He said his parents would have had trouble in retirement had it not been for their children, who presumably help them out. My grand-parents were like that: worked at humble jobs all their lives and woke up to discover their retirement money was worth nothing. A very common story.
As for the cost of children -- they have become very expensive, but that wasn't always the case. My father, a typical example of his generation, left school at 16 and found work; his parents didn't spend a cent on him above food, clothes & schooling, which were all cheap. The same with his three brothers. But today, to get to where they got, you need a costly degree.
Wealth takes imagination and will.
Originally posted by duecerI don't think Bush minds how big the national debt goes. The more money the world has loaned to the u.s. the more amenable the world is to keeping the u.s. afloat and appeasing the u.s.
also has the effect of decreasing the funds neccessary to run our govt., hence increasing our national debt.
At some point, I see the u.s. defaulting on their national debt again.
D
5 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNo, he wrote "people like my parents who worked there whole life, and did there best, but would have a meager retirement if not for their children."
Your poor reading skills are a source of concern, given that you're a teacher.
He said his parents would have had trouble in retirement had it not been for their children, who presumably help them out. My grand-parents were like that: worked at humble jobs all their lives and woke up to discover their retirement money was worth nothing. A very commo y, to get to where they got, you need a costly degree.
Wealth takes imagination and will.
Why do you feel a need to restate what he wrote? Maybe because his English fluency is limited, and you wanted to help him out? But if that's the case, any flaws in my understanding his intent are on him, not on me.
Why you think financing 16 years of a growing dependent - several of them at the same time, it seems in this case - is financially unchallenging for someone with low pay is beyond me. I mean they gotta eat. They need a room to sleep in; at least a barn or a living room or something. They need medical treatment, they need clothes, etc. no matter how primitive things get. And that assumes the kid won't have emergencies and need Daddy to help out after that time.
Originally posted by darthmixINstead of giving money to people with no tax burden, couldn't we just give more money to taxpayers? Wouldn't that put the same amount of cash into the economy?
Didn't you just kind of answer your own question? The whole point is that everyone - not just those who pay taxes - has to get a sudden blast of cash to increase consumption and stimulate the economy. If the government just cut taxes, then the net effect on those people who don't pay taxes would be zero, and the potential economic stimulation would b ...[text shortened]... her point is that this is intended to be an emergency measure rather than a permanent tax cut.
Originally posted by KellyJayThat would be a relevant question if the we weren't talking about people with zero tax burden.
Do you know anyone who does not pay in some shape or form?
Kelly
In case you don't know what that means in America. That describes people who get back a tax refund that is more than the taxes they pay during the year. For many that inlcudes sales tax and even gasoline taxes.
Fact is, it's an income tax rebate going to people who didn't pay any income taxes.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungBecause I am having trouble understanding your take on this issue.
No, he wrote "people like my parents who worked there whole life, and did there best, but would have a meager retirement if not for their children."
Why do you feel a need to restate what he wrote? Maybe because his English fluency is limited, and you wanted to help him out? But if that's the case, any flaws in my understanding his intent are on him, not on me..
They would have a meagre retirement without their children--their children improve their quality of life in retirement. In other words, in retirement, they would be worse off without their children. Is that your understanding of duecer's statement, which to me is very plain?
Yes, kids need feeding, etc. But the cost of feeding them (etc) has risen a lot. I'd guess it's more expensive to raise a couple of kids now than it used to be to raise a whole brood.
Raising kids takes a lot of qualities that sometimes only emerge in people when faced with precisely that challenge and deprived of choice in the matter. It's a bit cliched, but being a father can truly make a man out of you.
4 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThat's not my understanding of the statement. Without children the man can fly off to Alaska on a whim to work in a fish cannery (or whatever) With children his expenses go up until they start working and he's stuck to them, limiting his options. Who's going to put kids on an Alaskan fishing ship? Who's going to take care of them while Daddy's at McDonald's working? Mommy? Since when can poor people afford a single income household?
Because I am having trouble understanding your take on this issue.
They would have a meagre retirement without their children--their children improve their quality of life in retirement. In other words, in retirement, they would be worse off without their children. Is that your understanding of duecer's statement, which to me is very plain?
Yes, hoice in the matter. It's a bit cliched, but being a father can truly make a man out of you.
The cost of feeding kids has gone up? It doesn't matter. Without kids the man can afford to feed an extra adult laborer. Poor people who have kids and then complain about staying poor get little sympathy from me, sorry.
They remind of of douchebags who drive gas guzzling, space taking SUVs and then complain about losing their house and the traffic. They have loud mouths so Mommy government is going to help them out. I guess I need to be LOUDER and MORE OBNOXIOUS to get any results.
2 edits
Originally posted by duecerI work with disadvantaged children (and live in) inner city Los Angeles. Either I know what poor is or it doesn't exist in my country.
people like my parents who worked there whole life, and did there best, but would have a meager retirement if not for their children. For the millions of blacks in the south who worked their wholw life in menial jobs, because that was the only job they could get. If you don't live in a poor community, then the poor become invisible to you. It takes effort to see them, even though they are right in front of you.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungthen you have most certainly seen poor people. Do you think its fair to punish the children of the poor? They didn't ask to be born, or born poor. So what are we to do with them? The answer is not as simple as you make it out to be. If we don't educate the children of poverty, and break the cycle of dependance, the problem will only escalate. You don't do that by cutting the parents off.
I work with disadvantaged children (and live in) inner city Los Angeles. Either I know what poor is or it doesn't exist in my country.