GOP

1…1920222425…445

Comments

  • static111
    static111 Posts: 5,112
    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.
    Scio me nihil scire

    There are no kings inside the gates of eden
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,887
    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
    static111 Posts: 5,112
    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 🤦‍♂️ 
    Scio me nihil scire

    There are no kings inside the gates of eden
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,887
    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
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,853
    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.  
    hippiemom = goodness
  • Merkin Baller
    Merkin Baller Posts: 12,818
    edited February 2021
    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
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,887
    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
    Merkin Baller Posts: 12,818
    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
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,887
    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
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,606
    edited February 2021
    this discussion lends to the argument that by and large its not pro-life its pro-birth. After that get a fucking job kid.....
    Post edited by mickeyrat on
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,887
    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
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,606
    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.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,853
    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.  
    hippiemom = goodness
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,887
    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
    Merkin Baller Posts: 12,818
    edited February 2021
    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
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,887
    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
    DewieCox Posts: 11,432
    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
    Merkin Baller Posts: 12,818
    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
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,887
    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
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,887
    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?
This discussion has been closed.

Categories