GOP

static111

Smellyman said:

the world doesn't need more people

Agreed and furthermore the world doesn’t need more Americans lol. Less people means more resources. And if we aren’t forcing people not to have kids, or killing kids then a smaller population is great.

mrussel1

static111 said:

Smellyman said:

the world doesn't need more people

Agreed and furthermore the world doesn’t need more Americans lol. Less people means more resources. And if we aren’t forcing people not to have kids, or killing kids then a smaller population is great.

So what about helping existing families,  pulling them out of poverty? The birth rate issue is how you get conservatives on board. 

static111

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

Smellyman said:

the world doesn't need more people

Agreed and furthermore the world doesn’t need more Americans lol. Less people means more resources. And if we aren’t forcing people not to have kids, or killing kids then a smaller population is great.

So what about helping existing families,  pulling them out of poverty? The birth rate issue is how you get conservatives on board. 

Hey I’m all for helping pull people out of poverty, but tying it to increasing birth rates would be ridiculous, and outside of a bubble would lead to plenty of other problems.  Fucking conservatives man.  Like why not just help raise people out of poverty because it’s the right thing to do and not to make “sky daddy” happy that your country’s population is growing and glorying his name 🤦‍♂️ 

mrussel1

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

Smellyman said:

the world doesn't need more people

Agreed and furthermore the world doesn’t need more Americans lol. Less people means more resources. And if we aren’t forcing people not to have kids, or killing kids then a smaller population is great.

So what about helping existing families,  pulling them out of poverty? The birth rate issue is how you get conservatives on board. 

Hey I’m all for helping pull people out of poverty, but tying it to increasing birth rates would be ridiculous, and outside of a bubble would lead to plenty of other problems.  Fucking conservatives man.  Like why not just help raise people out of poverty because it’s the right thing to do and not to make “sky daddy” happy that your country’s population is growing and glorying his name 🤦‍♂️ 

If you like the proposal,  why do you care what the GOP incentive is?  If Bernie Sanders put out that plan while just saying " It's to help lower and middle class families raise their children", would your reaction have been the same?  Would you have been against it?

cincybearcat

static111 said:

Smellyman said:

the world doesn't need more people

Agreed and furthermore the world doesn’t need more Americans lol. Less people means more resources. And if we aren’t forcing people not to have kids, or killing kids then a smaller population is great.

I agree with the "not needing more people" portion for sure.  I dislike any program that incentivizes having kids.  

Merkin Baller

I'm a fan of helping families who need it, but I don't know that I'm on board with a program that incentivizes having kids either. 

I also believe many conservatives are Anti Choice for no other reason than to secure the Pro Life votes; I don't believe a higher birth rate would move the needle for them on a program like this. 

mrussel1

Merkin Baller said:

I'm a fan of helping families who need it, but I don't know that I'm on board with a program that incentivizes having kids either. 

I also believe many conservatives are Anti Choice for no other reason than to secure the Pro Life votes; I don't believe a higher birth rate would move the needle for them on a program like this. 

Same question.. you're for helping families but not incentivizing having children.  There's no real way to do the former without the risk of the latter. So because the direct payments may end up doing that, are you against the plan/program?
People have been arguing for years that welfare incentivizes people to have kids.  Whether that's true or not, I cannot say.  But it didn't make me against helping the people that do have children. 

Merkin Baller

mrussel1 said:

Merkin Baller said:

I'm a fan of helping families who need it, but I don't know that I'm on board with a program that incentivizes having kids either. 

I also believe many conservatives are Anti Choice for no other reason than to secure the Pro Life votes; I don't believe a higher birth rate would move the needle for them on a program like this. 

Same question.. you're for helping families but not incentivizing having children.  There's no real way to do the former without the risk of the latter. So because the direct payments may end up doing that, are you against the plan/program?
People have been arguing for years that welfare incentivizes people to have kids.  Whether that's true or not, I cannot say.  But it didn't make me against helping the people that do have children. 

"I don't know that I'm on board" - I'm not declaring one way or the other, I just don't outright support it without reading more into it.

I firmly believe the second part of what I said, that conservatives wouldn't go for it regardless - they're not pro life, they're anti choice. Upward mobility for the lower class isn't part of the GOP's agenda, so I disagree that a higher birth rate would make the difference for them with a program like this. 

mrussel1

Merkin Baller said:

mrussel1 said:

Merkin Baller said:

I'm a fan of helping families who need it, but I don't know that I'm on board with a program that incentivizes having kids either. 

I also believe many conservatives are Anti Choice for no other reason than to secure the Pro Life votes; I don't believe a higher birth rate would move the needle for them on a program like this. 

Same question.. you're for helping families but not incentivizing having children.  There's no real way to do the former without the risk of the latter. So because the direct payments may end up doing that, are you against the plan/program?
People have been arguing for years that welfare incentivizes people to have kids.  Whether that's true or not, I cannot say.  But it didn't make me against helping the people that do have children. 

"I don't know that I'm on board" - I'm not declaring one way or the other, I just don't outright support it without reading more into it.

I firmly believe the second part of what I said, that conservatives wouldn't go for it regardless - they're not pro life, they're anti choice. Upward mobility for the lower class isn't part of the GOP's agenda, so I disagree that a higher birth rate would make the difference for them with a program like this. 

Well it is the Romney's plan.  Yes, he is a moderate, growing more moderate by the day.  Whether it has a chance, I cannot say.  I'm more curious about people's reaction to what is fundamentally a welfare reform and middle class entitlement program. 

mickeyrat

this discussion lends to the argument that by and large its not pro-life its pro-birth. After that get a fucking job kid.....

mrussel1

mickeyrat said:

this discussion lends to the argumentbthat by and large its not pro-life its pro-birth. After that get a fucking job kid.....

People who believe in choice also have kids, and also need help with the expense of raising a child.  I assume the last sentence is sarcasm, but what's your real opinion?  Are you against this type of help for lower/middle income families?

mickeyrat

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

this discussion lends to the argumentbthat by and large its not pro-life its pro-birth. After that get a fucking job kid.....

People who believe in choice also have kids, and also need help with the expense of raising a child.  I assume the last sentence is sarcasm, but what's your real opinion?  Are you against this type of help for lower/middle income families?

the argument that welfare or whats proposed "incentivizes  having more kids" is bullshit imo.

cincybearcat

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

this discussion lends to the argumentbthat by and large its not pro-life its pro-birth. After that get a fucking job kid.....

People who believe in choice also have kids, and also need help with the expense of raising a child.  I assume the last sentence is sarcasm, but what's your real opinion?  Are you against this type of help for lower/middle income families?

Yeah not real sure how abortion became a part of this.  

mrussel1

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

this discussion lends to the argumentbthat by and large its not pro-life its pro-birth. After that get a fucking job kid.....

People who believe in choice also have kids, and also need help with the expense of raising a child.  I assume the last sentence is sarcasm, but what's your real opinion?  Are you against this type of help for lower/middle income families?

the argument that welfare or whats proposed "incentivizes  having more kids" is bullshit imo.

Agreed, then that would make the right wing support of the bill welcome, but ultimately fruitless for their purposes. 

Merkin Baller

cincybearcat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

this discussion lends to the argumentbthat by and large its not pro-life its pro-birth. After that get a fucking job kid.....

People who believe in choice also have kids, and also need help with the expense of raising a child.  I assume the last sentence is sarcasm, but what's your real opinion?  Are you against this type of help for lower/middle income families?

Yeah not real sure how abortion became a part of this.  

For me it was when it was when the birth rate issue was presented as motivation for conservatives to get on board. 

I inferred from that that conservatives might get behind it as it might mean less abortions. 

If I misinterpreted, that's on me. 

mrussel1

Merkin Baller said:

cincybearcat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

this discussion lends to the argumentbthat by and large its not pro-life its pro-birth. After that get a fucking job kid.....

People who believe in choice also have kids, and also need help with the expense of raising a child.  I assume the last sentence is sarcasm, but what's your real opinion?  Are you against this type of help for lower/middle income families?

Yeah not real sure how abortion became a part of this.  

For me it was when it was when the birth rate issue was presented as motivation for conservatives to get on board. 

I inferred from that that conservatives might get behind it as it might mean less abortions. 

If I misinterpreted, that's on me. 

Maybe it means less abortions to them, maybe it just means a higher birth rate.  But either way, why does it matter what their motivation is if you agree with the concept.  That just makes it more likely to pass.  Like I said earlier, if Bernie rolled this exact same program out, not talking about birth rates, would we D's support it reflexively?  I think maybe so.  Just because Bernie rolls it out doesn't make it more less likely to incentivize having babies or reducing abortion.  And at the end of the day, is there anyone against fewer abortions?  

DewieCox

Neither GOP voters nor candidates truly care about fewer abortions or it wouldn’t really be an issue. People that vote on it want 0 abortions and will twist the logic to serve that narrative.

Merkin Baller

mrussel1 said:

Merkin Baller said:

cincybearcat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

this discussion lends to the argumentbthat by and large its not pro-life its pro-birth. After that get a fucking job kid.....

People who believe in choice also have kids, and also need help with the expense of raising a child.  I assume the last sentence is sarcasm, but what's your real opinion?  Are you against this type of help for lower/middle income families?

Yeah not real sure how abortion became a part of this.  

For me it was when it was when the birth rate issue was presented as motivation for conservatives to get on board. 

I inferred from that that conservatives might get behind it as it might mean less abortions. 

If I misinterpreted, that's on me. 

Maybe it means less abortions to them, maybe it just means a higher birth rate.  But either way, why does it matter what their motivation is if you agree with the concept.  That just makes it more likely to pass.  Like I said earlier, if Bernie rolled this exact same program out, not talking about birth rates, would we D's support it reflexively?  I think maybe so.  Just because Bernie rolls it out doesn't make it more less likely to incentivize having babies or reducing abortion.  And at the end of the day, is there anyone against fewer abortions?  

I don't think either of the boldfaced things would motivate conservatives to vote for such a program, because I genuinely believe the majority of them don't care as much about those things as they let on. 

FWIW, I didn't reflexively support it before I knew who presented it... I only found out it was Romney when you mentioned that in a reply, so your point about Bernie doesn't really apply, at least not to me. 

mrussel1

Merkin Baller said:

mrussel1 said:

Merkin Baller said:

cincybearcat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

this discussion lends to the argumentbthat by and large its not pro-life its pro-birth. After that get a fucking job kid.....

People who believe in choice also have kids, and also need help with the expense of raising a child.  I assume the last sentence is sarcasm, but what's your real opinion?  Are you against this type of help for lower/middle income families?

Yeah not real sure how abortion became a part of this.  

For me it was when it was when the birth rate issue was presented as motivation for conservatives to get on board. 

I inferred from that that conservatives might get behind it as it might mean less abortions. 

If I misinterpreted, that's on me. 

Maybe it means less abortions to them, maybe it just means a higher birth rate.  But either way, why does it matter what their motivation is if you agree with the concept.  That just makes it more likely to pass.  Like I said earlier, if Bernie rolled this exact same program out, not talking about birth rates, would we D's support it reflexively?  I think maybe so.  Just because Bernie rolls it out doesn't make it more less likely to incentivize having babies or reducing abortion.  And at the end of the day, is there anyone against fewer abortions?  

I don't think either of the boldfaced things would motivate conservatives to vote for such a program, because I genuinely believe the majority of them don't care as much about those things as they let on. 

FWIW, I didn't reflexively support it before I knew who presented it... I only found out it was Romney when you mentioned that in a reply, so your point about Bernie doesn't really apply, at least not to me. 

Well I can tell you the the conservative intelligentsia are lining up behind this program.  I mean people like Ramesh, Douthat, Dreher and other non Trumpy conservatives.  From their view, the birth rate is a reason they are putting forth.  Now they aren’t voting senators, but these guys influence senators.  

So do you think this is a good idea or bad one?

mrussel1

DewieCox said:

Neither GOP voters nor candidates truly care about fewer abortions or it wouldn’t really be an issue. People that vote on it want 0 abortions and will twist the logic to serve that narrative.

Again, why do their reasons matter if the left like the outcome of financial support for struggling families?