posted on September 26, 2002 08:10:55 PM new
All it seems like you're saying, Saabsister, is that you're seeing a liability to yourself now. You're right, there is a liability to you now. What you're missing, or refusing to take into account, is the benefit you're also reaping/will reap in the future.
Let's say you put an ad in your paper. You want someone to come and move some boulders around on your property. A guy shows up at your door. You think a fair wage for this work is $10.00 an hour. He works for 10 hours, you pay him $100.00, he goes away, you're both happy.
What you haven't seen is the cost to bring him to your door. All those years when he wasn't self sufficient, when he wasn't able to provide labor for wage. All those years when he was only a consumer, a drain on society. The cost of the years of schooling so he could read your ad.
Yes, you have to pay for that too, it's part of the cost of producing people who will be useful to you. People are not sprung, full grown, ready for your utility.
posted on September 26, 2002 08:44:08 PM new
I realize that, Donny. However, those children who are here also have restricted bike paths, shortened library hours, fewer soccer fields. I hate to say this because I sincerely wish it weren't so, but some of those children are not going to be a benefit to society. I wish we could save them all, but I'm not naive. We have some of their parents to blame. (For about two years I lived next door to a woman, her child, and her boyfriend. The first time I met them, they asked to use my phone to call the police. One of their "friends" had assualted the woman and smacked her child when she tried to help her mother. They were both bruised. But I can't begin to tell you how many times the mother said in front of the daughter, "I wish I had never had a kid. It was the stupidest thing I did." These folks stayed up all night partying during the school year, smoked dope in front of the daughter, had a series of drunken roommates with whom they left their daughter , and didn't give a damn about her school. I mentioned their living conditions to a teacher I knew who responded that all too many of her students had similar backgrounds but to call CPS if I suspected physical abuse. After they moved, the boyfriend hung himself and the little girl found him. I didn't see them for a couple years after that until I ran into them in town one day. Mom had her daughter all tarted up. It was a cycle doomed to repeat itself.)
Society often pays a price as well as receiving benefits from children.
posted on September 26, 2002 09:34:47 PM new
Well, unfortunately for you, and fortunaely for me, you can't pick and choose which children you deem will be of benefit to you later and discard the rest.
My husbands parents were, from all accounts, pretty sorry people. They both drank, the father was abusive, to the mother at least, and, I'd imagine, to the children as well. My husband's youngest sister was always sickly, exactly what was wrong with her my husband doesn't know. She died young, in their living room, no parents around because neither of them could be persuaded to fall off the bar stool and come home to see to her.
After a time, the father just left. As far as I know, no one ever saw him again. Their mother did as best as she could, I suppose, and it wasn't very good. Ketchup soup was a standard meal and, from his recollection, she entertained a stream of male visitors. I suspect she was doing a little cut-rate prostitution. And, she was still a drunk, and abusive as well.
He escaped at 17 by joining the Navy, 2 other brothers joined the Air Force and Army, his eldest brother escaped by commiting suicide. My husband sent his money home to his mother with the understanding that she would save it for him. When he came back, he found she'd spent every cent and he had to reenlist.
Want a nurse when you go the hospital? Sorry, you can't have one, you didn't produce one. My husband did. Want to get mail? Sorry, you can't, unless your parents produced someone who does this. His parents did. Want the benefit of up to date geo-political information? Sorry, you can't enjoy this benefit, unless your parents produced someone who studies this. His parents did. Etc., etc.
posted on September 26, 2002 09:49:55 PM newDonny: somehow I don't think you need to worry about care when you're elderly--whether or not you produced a child specifically intended to be your slave and caretaker in your old age...
posted on September 26, 2002 09:54:00 PM new
And, do you think these well-cared for children of sweet-smelling parents, whose youths have been halcyon days of green soccer fields and long afternoons in the library are going to show up at your door in response to your ad for a $10.00 an hour boulder mover? Not likely.
You'll be happy to live an attractive, privleged life on the backs of the underclass, but God forbid you should have to spend your tax dollar to bring these future wretched drones, of wretched parents, to adulthood, lest your bike path becomes weedy or there's not a new painting in the gallery.
posted on September 26, 2002 09:57:16 PM new
If the odds were in favour of children from 'bad' backgrounds turning out as well as your husband, then there wouldn't be much to debate donny.
posted on September 26, 2002 10:09:44 PM new
Well, if we're going by odds, let's decide that at least 51% of the world's population, and that includes 51% + of everyone here, has to disappear off the face of the earth right now. Most people suck.
posted on September 26, 2002 10:24:36 PM new
Oh! Now we're talking Rapture!
You make good points Donny but just like some people do not want to pay for others abortions or birth control some people do not want to pay for others to have huge families. They can have them..all they want.. but we as a society should not have to provide anything other than the necessities .Nothing fancy. Parents of huge families should not get tax breaks so that they are paying no taxes but using way more resources than the rest of us. Multiple natural births exempted as well as adopted children.That is different than someone that just breeds and breeds. Rabbits are for eatin' not emulating.
posted on September 26, 2002 10:55:05 PM new
I think you're missing the point, Rawbunzel.
Children do not remain children. The benefit of having children is not merely to the parents. The benefit is to all of us, when they become adults, stronger and more able than we are then.
You see parents who have many children as selfish, perhaps? There's a family with 5. I have 2. Why should I have to support those children? It's an unfair drain on me.
Twenty years later, my house catches on fire, just as someone is breaking in. Rushing to the phone, I break a nail. On top of that, I have surgery scheduled at 3, the garbage is piled up, tomorrow is trash pick-up day, and I've just ordered a pizza, and the dog is having a difficult time delivering her puppies. Will I turn away the benefits the now adult large family siblings provide? My two kids have grown up to be a policeman and a garbageman. So far, so good, but the house is still on fire, I need that surgery, I want that pizza, and I have to have my nails done! And what about those poor puppies?
Happily, those five children have grown up to be a fireman, a doctor, a pizza delivery guy, a manicurist, and a vet.
Begrudge the burden of helping to support them in childhood, then, to be fair, you have to sit around sick and hungry in a burned out shell of a house, with a broken nail, and no puppies.
posted on September 26, 2002 11:09:30 PM new
This list has been deliberately abbreviated, in the hope that you'll add to it and carry the point. These are all people who were born into poverty, yet contributed greatly to the world.
Charles Dickens
Harriet Tubman
Michelangelo Buonorotti
Evita Peron
Abraham Lincoln
Perhaps -- if you choose to play along, that is -- we'll compile a long list; then we can discuss which of the distinguished persons on it should not have been born.
posted on September 26, 2002 11:16:47 PM new
Perhaps where you live it is different than it is here. Here they are trying to put a 10cent additional tax on a latte "for the kids". We are taxed to death "for the kids". Things they do not need. Things no one needs. Our schools are full to bursting and not enough teachers to teach. Not enough tax dollars to go around. Yet our property taxes and sales taxes are the highest in the country. Too many children from parents that are not contributing enough for their spawn are a part of the problem.
I have said I don't care how many kids people have and I don't as long as I don't lose my house to support thier choices. Selfish that I should want to be able to live in my home? I guess so. Do I care if when I turn 80 and fall and break my hip that someone youthful comes to scoop me up? Hardly.Would be more of a blessing to be left there than to end up in a nursing home for the rest of my life.
Get a grip Donny. You just don't get it.Other peoples children are not the salvation of your old age and there will be plenty of people still even if everyone cut down to two and we know that isn't going to happen.And they still won't want to change your diaper when you're living in the home.
posted on September 26, 2002 11:22:14 PM new
Now Pat. I didn't say they shouldn't have been born just that if they came from a huge family I don't want to pay thier way. I seriously doubt that they had benfit of monies from others when they were growing up. I'll bet that their parents worked hard to earn enough to raise them and didn't expect the nighbors to do it for them.Why, they may have even had to work in the field to eat. That's the way it was.
By the way..were these first and second borns or were they number eight or more? They might still have been here if their parents had only had two.
Dang it Donny you snuck that last part in on me!
I have never had my nails done so no loss there. Vets don't make puppies...adult dogs do. So I could still have a pet and since I buy my vaccines online I could keep them from getting most deadly things. If they broke a leg or something I guess I'd have to go find me an old vet instead of some young stud. Poo.
A lot of folks live where they rely on themselves if the house catches fire. No fire depts you know. So that could happen now.I doubt I'd be hungry since I grow a lot and could grow more and I know a thing or two about chickens and rabbits.And I know how to can. As far as being sick..well maybe. But then my family is generaly long lived and healthy while doing it so who knows. No one is going to live forever.
Try again.
[ edited by rawbunzel on Sep 26, 2002 11:29 PM ]
posted on September 26, 2002 11:25:39 PM new
I disagree, Rawbunzel. Other peoples' children are the salvation of my old age. I made an example of a specific situation. The larger picture is that children, not just mine or yours, but all of them, are the future of the whole human race.
10 cents on a latte! ... Do you mean that frou-frou coffee stuff? Well hell, that's outrageous. Why should we have to pay for school lunches, let them eat cake.
posted on September 26, 2002 11:30:56 PM new
By the way, I could have done without Evita Peron. That would have prevented Madonna singing "Don't cry for me Argentina," and, if I'd never heard it, it would never have annoyed me, and I'd be somewhat less cranky than I've turned out to be. Everyone else on the list could stay.
posted on September 26, 2002 11:33:50 PM new
The children are the future. But we don't need billions more of them to do the job. Unless you want to live like ants. Really. I couldn't even stand to live like they do in Hong Kong. I need space. And few people. Call me curmudgeon. I am. When I am old I hope I die before I have to have someone else wipe my as*. I don't want anyone to have to take care of me. Ever. Not you or your kids or anyone elses kids. Specially the ones next door...or the ones across the street! ACK! The horror.
posted on September 26, 2002 11:35:12 PM new
If other people's children are your salvation in old age donny, how do the children that grow up needing public assistance benefit you?
posted on September 26, 2002 11:36:11 PM new
Oddly Donny, We agree. I was going to suggest that perhaps if I had to choose I would have choosen Evita to be the one not born.Too late now that she is dead of course.
posted on September 26, 2002 11:44:23 PM new
Why thank you Donny! If you lower the ratio to say....47% to stay will I still be one? LOL!
This has been fun. I always enjoy a good "debate" [loose at best!] especially when I am tired and am not sure even I believe what I am typing. I'll read it tomorrow to see if I do.
Nice playing with you Donny. You too Pat.You also Krafty!
[ edited by rawbunzel on Sep 26, 2002 11:47 PM ]
posted on September 27, 2002 12:20:36 AM new
Heh, well no one liked the Madonna Evita, but she was an incredible force for democracy in her country at one time.
New rule! You can't take someone off the list unless you replace them!
Okay, all kidding -- and sarcasm -- aside, I am with you in the taxed-to-death syndrome. But there's only one way to change it and unless we're willing to write serious, well-constructed letters to our representatives demanding tax reform, (and then march ourselves into the streets if need be, just to make the point), we'll go on having the ever-dwindling population of taxpayers so overburdened with carrying a disproportionate load to run this country that at some point we'll all either say to heck with it and get on the dole ourselves or we'll have real riots in our cities.
Krafty, I worry about the small stuff: what's it going to be like when ten billion people (that world population figure is due to become a reality in 2025) flush their toilets at the same time? I'm serious! Has anyone done the math on the sheer volume of waste and garbage we'll be generating when we reach that number? Aren't oceanographers already warning us that we've endangered our oceans with the volume of dumping (heh, no pun intended) we do now?
Phooey, I've sprung a headache and it's all your fault, Donny! Ever since I read your post up there, I've had "Don't Cry For Me, Argentina" screeching in my brain!
posted on September 27, 2002 12:36:14 AM newDon't cry for me Argentina....
Night Pat.
The new rule comes too late for poor Evita. There will be no replacement for her. I won't cry for her though. She's asked me not too.She did it through Madonna...channeled from beyond as it were.
Yes, we need to write long letters of disgust to our government about taxes. But marching in the streets? Hel*! That's for the young!
Slaps self on forehead!!! I guess we do need them for something after all!
posted on September 27, 2002 05:59:49 AM new
Two more for the 49% worthy list. But, as Rawbunzel suspects, the criteria might become stricter, especially as everyone jumps on the dump Evita bandwagon.
I'm not sure exactly what the standards will be, but I suggest that anyone involved in producing country music and/or beets make a direction change immediately. Jazz standards and asparagus would be good choices.
posted on September 27, 2002 06:12:25 AM new
One of the few fights my husband and I have had involved my lack of appreciation of country music. Some things are worth being called a barbarian. I also thought George Strait was the owner of Strait Music Shop in Austin. And I grew up in Tx.
I could definitely live with the jazz under the starlight with some fresh steamed asparagus. I'm not too fond of the canned stuff. Dump lima beans. You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on September 27, 2002 06:45:23 AM new
Right you are, lima beans have to go. No matter how hard we, as a society, try, a lima bean is gonna remain a lima bean. Its parents were lima beans, and its offspring will be lima beans as well. Similarly, lima bean farmers will, no doubt, give birth to yet more lima bean farmers. Start calling them "has beans," they're outta here.
