Sit at Home Moms!!

[masoudA]

It is the latest fued here in America between Democrats and the Republicans.......
As I said before - the Obama machine, which is uncapable of anything else other than propaganda, keeps trying to keep the American mindset off the economy........
but on the issue of Sit at Home Moms - I agree with most Democrats......A woman must have a career other than just a Kadbanoo - no matter how insignificant and regardless of making money.

 

[Fatso]

It is the latest fued here in America between Democrats and the Republicans.......
As I said before - the Obama machine, which is uncapable of anything else other than propaganda, keeps trying to keep the American mindset off the economy........
but on the issue of Sit at Home Moms - I agree with most Democrats......A woman must have a career other than just a Kadbanoo - no matter how insignificant and regardless of making money.

Women having a career is fine and honorable., but I disagree. Motherhood and staying-at-home is extremely difficult. I have alot more respect for a mother (or father) who stays at home than some i-banker.
Why should she(he) be looked down upon because they want to take care of their kids.

 

[Niloufar]

Oh lord.. What happened again? Why are U.S politicians put their nose into everything to buy votes?!

What is it have to do with Democrats or Republicans whether there should be stay-at-home moms or just career-oriented moms?

Instead they discuss affordability of day cares and their quality, so a mom can afford leaving her child at kindergarten-preschool..

 

[Flint]

A woman must have a career other than just a Kadbanoo - no matter how insignificant and regardless of making money.

I assume you call yourself pro-coice too. That choice seems to extend to only one decision.

 

[masoudA]

Good point flint -
then let me ask you - should a man have the same choice? And if all stayed home to attend to the matters inside the house - then who is going to tend to the outside?
Besides - I consider writing ONE GOOD book a career.

 

[Bache Tehroon]

A woman's place is in the kitchen either against the sink or the stove.

امام بچه تهرون - رحمت الله علیه

من خودم رفتم خودمو شهید کنم

 

[ME]

They must tax people for having kids, at least for more than a certain number like one or two. Everyone should also earn a license before reproduction. They must also enforce some sort of third party insurance coverage mandatory for bringing a kid, to ensure parents afford the cost of raising a child including full medical and educational expenses. It is just like having car insurance before having the priviledge to drive a car. Idiots who bring babies but can't take care of them or put the burden on the society deserve penalty not support. Unfortunately it is exactly the opposite.

 

[IranZamin]

^I've always thought it's batshit insane that you can't buy a Coors Light before you turn 21, but are considered perfectly qualified to bring as many humans into this world as you want before you even graduate high school.

One of my patients recently was an 18-year-old heroin-addict who had 2 kids and was stripping at the time to afford diapers for the younger one. Last I saw her, she had stopped stripping because she was pregnant with a 3rd child! How shit like this is just accepted in society is beyond me.

 

[Flint]

It is easy to enforce drinking laws. How do you keep people from sleeping together? Your other point that having children out of wedlock is "accepted in society" is too broad. Who is accepting it? May be the ones who actually fund this behavior and have it written into laws but that is not everybody. The moment government checks started flowing to unwed mothers, signal was sent that men aren't necessary anymore.

 

[Farsi Zaban]

The moment government checks started flowing to unwed mothers, signal was sent that men aren't necessary anymore.

Why? does your state also provide unwed mothers with turkey basters full of semen?

 

[IranZamin]

It is easy to enforce drinking laws. How do you keep people from sleeping together?

The point is not to keep them from sleeping together. But to enact laws (like the ones mentioned by ME) that will force people to exercise more responsibility by increasing the personal costs of having kids you can't afford.

Your other point that having children out of wedlock is "accepted in society" is too broad. Who is accepting it?

You're right and I should have been more specific. Not everyone does, but they are usually branded as intolerant and old-fashioned for "not respecting people's choices".

 

[Flint]

You're right and I should have been more specific. Not everyone does, but they are usually branded as intolerant and old-fashioned for "not respecting people's choices".

Let's not beat around the bush. The sole architect of promoting and funding irresponsible social behavior are non other than Democrats and those who vote for them. They have been at it for 40 years and were only partly stopped by Gingrich and a reluctant Bill Clinton in the 90s. So let's not talk in codes, like "society".

 

[IranZamin]

^ I wasn't trying to 'talk in codes', but you're generally right. Both the government policies and the politically correct culture that enable this nonsense are pushed by the left.

 

[Niloufar]

They must tax people for having kids, at least for more than a certain number like one or two. Everyone should also earn a license before reproduction. They must also enforce some sort of third party insurance coverage mandatory for bringing a kid, to ensure parents afford the cost of raising a child including full medical and educational expenses. It is just like having car insurance before having the priviledge to drive a car. Idiots who bring babies but can't take care of them or put the burden on the society deserve penalty not support. Unfortunately it is exactly the opposite.

not too fast dude! do you think in long-term it makes economic sense to that? considering the Aging societies in North America? Imagine if U.S tax ppl for having kids..in 5-10 yrs lots of families will either not have a child at all or 1 child and U.S population will stay the same for decades to come..! does it make economic sense?!
How about investing more in Educating teenagers at school and later on in uni, to think 10 times before having kids..how about being more restrict and actually criminalizing Neglect and other types of abuses that poor families do to their children?

 

[YePaDoPa]

how about illegal immigrants? I guess they are off the hook since there is no way of tracking them? right?

They must tax people for having kids, at least for more than a certain number like one or two. Everyone should also earn a license before reproduction. They must also enforce some sort of third party insurance coverage mandatory for bringing a kid, to ensure parents afford the cost of raising a child including full medical and educational expenses. It is just like having car insurance before having the priviledge to drive a car. Idiots who bring babies but can't take care of them or put the burden on the society deserve penalty not support. Unfortunately it is exactly the opposite.

 

[ME]

not too fast dude! do you think in long-term it makes economic sense to that? considering the Aging societies in North America? Imagine if U.S tax ppl for having kids..in 5-10 yrs lots of families will either not have a child at all or 1 child and U.S population will stay the same for decades to come..! does it make economic sense?!
How about investing more in Educating teenagers at school and later on in uni, to think 10 times before having kids..how about being more restrict and actually criminalizing Neglect and other types of abuses that poor families do to their children?

Trust me, the demographic column will remain just fine if every 2 people repoduce only 2 people! Plus, work is really done by machines these days and it will be increasingly so in the future, no need for too much man power. Also who said that there are certain people who should take on the challenge of bringing kids to the world? If the working part of population is not overworked to pay tax to take care of the little bastards of the bum, they will have also time to help out in the challenge!

 

[ME]

how about illegal immigrants? I guess they are off the hook since there is no way of tracking them? right?

Honestly I have no idea. I don't know the stats about them. Some argue that they also work harder than the average American, but it could be wrong. From a humanixtic point of view, these are people who are trying their best to survive and I think this actually must be appreciated as long as they work and they don't do crimes.

Making 6 babies for leisure, for the joy of parenthood, or because Jesus dislikes rubber is a different stroy though, unless the parents afford to pay to the last penny.

 

[#8]

It is utter nonsense & rubbish argument to blame the left for the irresponsible behavior. Who is dead-set against pro-choice idea? Who is against contraceptive? Left or conservatives & religious nuts ?!!
If social safety net is responsible for lax & irresponsible reproduction behavior, than countries like Sweden, Norway or Denmark must have been dealing with population explosion and not worrisome decline!!

 

[IranZamin]

It is utter nonsense & rubbish argument to blame the left for the irresponsible behavior. Who is dead-set against pro-choice idea? Who is against contraceptive? Left or conservatives & religious nuts ?!!

The religious stance against contraception is certainly stupid, and as a pro-choice person I disagree with their opposition to abortion too. But you can't tell me the single mothers popping out multiple kids before the age of 25 don't have access to condoms or are too religious to use them. And these individuals far outnumber those large Christian families when it comes to poverty and receiving welfare.

The religious right always stood against contraception and abortion. But this explosion of single mothers, deadbeat fathers and broken homes started only about 4 decades ago, not before it when the culture was far more conservative. The moral relativism and "don't judge" culture that calls single-parenthood just another lifestyle choice, that views single mothers as martyrs without considering the irresponsibility that has got them where they are and labels people who condemn this as "backward" and "judgmental" has contributed to this problem a whole lot more than Jesus Freaks preaching their morality.

If social safety net is responsible for lax & irresponsible reproduction behavior, than countries like Sweden, Norway or Denmark must have been dealing with population explosion and not worrisome decline!!

Entitlement programs by themselves are not responsible. But they do make it too easy for people who can't afford kids to keep having them anyway. And there are major cultural differences between Scandinavians and Americans, especially the poorer segments of the latter.

 

[Niloufar]

Trust me, the demographic column will remain just fine if every 2 people repoduce only 2 people! Plus, work is really done by machines these days and it will be increasingly so in the future, no need for too much man power. Also who said that there are certain people who should take on the challenge of bringing kids to the world? If the working part of population is not overworked to pay tax to take care of the little bastards of the bum, they will have also time to help out in the challenge!

But you said "they should tax anyone who wants to have kids", therefore as if its not expensive enough already(but still is way below the joyous feeling of being parents), this policy will eventually change ppl's demographics by adding burden for young families and hence stalls reproduction rates in U.S.

All those support groups, nursing and free services for newborns and children in general are Rights for parents, not a 'favour' by govt. bc we know, govt knows that having quality care for children means better America. Or else imagine a future society of unsupported(by govt or other services) for ill children or with special needs or neglected children. Imagine a future society that wth this policy, discriminates against its own classes,with excluding certain part of society from having children(poor families), yet giving the exact right to well-off or whoever can afford extra taxes(whom will be high middle income families)..while we all know how poor most of geniuses and successful entrepreneurs of today's U.S were in childhood.