Just now, toolg said:

No.

then who pays for their food, housing and medical?

look i'm just saying, either way somewhere along the line, the taxpayers get the bill. that said, i'm not saying cut them off, but with so many abusing the system, we need to come up with ideas to counter it.

2 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

then who pays for their food, housing and medical?

look i'm just saying, either way somewhere along the line, the taxpayers get the bill. that said, i'm not saying cut them off, but with so many abusing the system, we need to come up with ideas to counter it.

I really like the fewer kids idea.

Globally.

6 hours ago, MidMoFo said:

It is insane.

When my daughter was born, she’s 16, my wife, mom and grandma were talking about how much each delivery cost. My daughter was around $14k, my wife was born in the 70s cost around $250 (no insurance), my mom was born in the 50’s was around $150 no insurance and my grandmother was born in the early 30’s had the doctor do an in home delivery for 2 chickens and a loaf of bread.

Seems like when we started cutting taxes for the rich prices for everything exploded. 🤔

Not sure what the cost is but I'd suggest women look into midwives. My great grandmother was a midwife in the Richmond VA area (Caroline, Henrico, King&Queen and Chesterfield counties), she helped thousands of young women deliver their children. Matter of fact, she brought me into the world.

2 hours ago, toolg said:

No. They won't stop having kids. Just more dead bodies.

Good luck with that. You have just committed endless funding to the state to care for kids nobody wants.

I agree with toolg here. It really won't discourage them. Irresponsible people don't think ahead regardless of the consequences. I am however, not opposed to taking children away from deadbeat parents, but just letting kids to fend for themselves will just drive poverty and crime up. The cities are overrun with delinquents as it is. There have been successful programs in the past that have removed kids from bad situations and given them fresh starts that have shown success. They are probably all of the ones Musk got rid of so he can write off his next yacht.

5 hours ago, vikas83 said:

You're giving MAGA way too much credit. There's no long term plan. There's no short term plan. There's just the daily whims of a madman.

No, there is a plan, they want white women to have more children, they're afraid of becoming a minority in the US, abortion backfired on them, white women get more abortions than any other group.

It's not MAGA, it's MAWA......white again!!

I’d ask someone from England. How did the debtor prison's work out. History sorta shows sending people over unpaid debts to prison, didn’t work out so well. I think that gave way to all the social safety nets we have today. Then you had indentured servants hired to pay off their debts. This was of course highly abused. Children had to carry the debts of their parents. How to bring these people out of poverty ? We’ve been working on this problem for centuries. Welfare, education, seems we can’t come to a common conclusion.

If we applied all of your rules to yesteryear, none of our ancestors would have been able to move here.

My ancestors came over here to farm and mine coal. None of them were rocket scientists or doctors. There was a market for their labor, just as there is a market for immigrant labor now.

So long as you aren’t a POS, yeah come on in.

50 minutes ago, EagleVA said:

No, there is a plan, they want white women to have more children, they're afraid of becoming a minority in the US, abortion backfired on them, white women get more abortions than any other group.

It's not MAGA, it's MAWA......white again!!

4 hours ago, Gannan said:

Philosophically I don't think people who cross the border illegally should get due process. I understand that's what the law says but it's a ridiculous law. When that law was drafted, there were no such things as smart phones and apps, where millions of people could just cross the border with an app and claim asylum status. While Trump is abusing the spirit of the law, so are the millions of people who crossed illegally and now are claiming asylum because they don't like the ish hole country they came from. Technically they are supposed to seek asylum in the nearest country, but they come here to leech off the system. For example those leaving gang violence in Venezuela had to cross through several countries to get here. Our asylum laws say they should go there first. They are flouting the law too.

However, since the law is the law, I agree that Trump should work with congress to change it instead of thumbing his nose at the courts. I also don't think they should be sent to a gulag, merely returned to their country of origin. Ideally legit asylum seekers should wait there for their case to be heard. The idea of we the US tax payers taking care of the every financial need for millions of illegals until they get their case heard is an absurdity. It's the exact reason why Trump won. I want this situation solved so we don't get President Vance next.

We have some nuanced rules based on how far from the border someone is apprehended. Those laws provide some very strict rules on the ability to deport.

In any case, I don't see much that we disagree on. My sole issue is in the legality of the deportation process in this specific case and far more important the consistency of the Trump WH to follow the law.

Total Fertility Rate (average # of kids born to a woman in a lifetime) by county.

Yeahhhh...those grey and red ones aren't exactly known for their strong welfare programs. Methinks there might be a flaw in your logic.

13 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Total Fertility Rate (average # of kids born to a woman in a lifetime) by county.

Yeahhhh...those grey and red ones aren't exactly known for their strong welfare programs. Methinks there might be a flaw in your logic.

Also where HIV is most prevalent. So yeah I would think if one of the world's deadliest viruses didn't deter a population from putting their P's into the Vagee's, then government enacted social policy probably won't get the job done either.

35 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Total Fertility Rate (average # of kids born to a woman in a lifetime) by county.

Yeahhhh...those grey and red ones aren't exactly known for their strong welfare programs. Methinks there might be a flaw in your logic.

Now I know what they mean by "Africa hot"

jeepers

5 hours ago, Arthur Jackson said:

I really like the fewer kids idea.

Globally.

Fewer kids means funding for birth control and Planned Parenthood.

Each generation needs more to pay for stuff.

The younger people spend money.

Middle age invests money.

Old people take money out.

Each level needs more people below it in order for capitalism to work the best. People aren’t having kids so we need immigration to solve that problem.

Either you make it easier for people to have kids (dramatically lower the cost of housing and childcare) or you have immigration.

There’s no secret third option.

This whole story is just weird to me. Are they trying to tell women what they can do with their bodies again? That has worked out well.

Are women going to be shunned into some sort of punishment for not having children?

All these ideas these folks have simply don't relate to an average Amercian and their values. These thinkers have their own children that they hardly raise themselves. They are rich and can afford to pay someone else to do it for them. I really wish they would just shut up. Little to racey for me.

14 hours ago, Arthur Jackson said:

More like

29 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Biden trounced him, and he knows it. He will never get over it. Biden may have lost a step, and been pushed out by his party, but he can live out the rest of his days knowing that he lives rent free in Trump's head.

13 hours ago, toolg said:

Fewer kids means funding for birth control and Planned Parenthood.

keep it in church, wokie

She can't even secure her own purse, yet she's somehow qualified to her job?

Donnie Dementia strikes again.

1 hour ago, Mike030270 said:

Hit.

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Hit.

Crockett? Because the first one gives me big Sponge Bob eating a chocolate bar vibes.