Sad that adoption takes so long. 1 reason why most parents keep their kids (if they don't want them or cant afford them) is because they watch crime shows & dont want their kids being sold to preditors. There are fake "adoption" & "rehoming" people that use kids for illegal crap. So that is why lots of parents keep their kids & are against abortion is because they dont want preditors hurting their kids (even if they dont want them) cus to them: keeping kids they can't afford is better than suffering.

I just have a problem with people having kids because a college education is NOT enough to raise a kid. You need almost 6 figures per year per parent. Thats just for regular kids. People can't afford 3 or more kids unless they got celebrity $. Is being against abortion worth losing what you worked hard to have? Most women have a certification or 1-2 degrees.

If they keep getting pregnant: they will have to quit their job & stay home. Getting a nanny is too much $. If they have 3+ kids but they dont finish college then they will be poor if their boyfriend didn't finish. Adult women will be stay at home moms, the husband is very stressed cus his job wont be enough to afford 3+ kids. Then they could end up poor & in shelters. Their degree is nothing more than a paperweight.

All those YT moms use their kids for $ cus if they didn't: they would be POOR & knocking on their fams door for shelter. Without YT $ & sponsors: they are as poor as the hood. Theres a 22 year old I follow with 4 kids & is 4 months with #5. No husband or bf. This isnt the best time to have 5 kids & im sure she has no college education. Another girl I follow 21 or almost 22 with 3 kids, nowhere near close to a full 2 years of college. If she gets pregnant a 4th time (she will) or with twins.. she would have to get an abortion, not have sex or put every kid up for adoption if she wants to be successful.

(June 8, 2020, 4:15 am)Thechickenlawyer Sad that adoption takes so long. 1 reason why most parents keep their kids (if they don't want them or cant afford them) is because they watch crime shows & dont want their kids being sold to preditors. There are fake "adoption" & "rehoming" people that use kids for illegal crap. So that is why lots of parents keep their kids & are against abortion is because they dont want preditors hurting their kids (even if they dont want them) cus to them: keeping kids they can't afford is better than suffering.

I just have a problem with people having kids because a college education is NOT enough to raise a kid. You need almost 6 figures per year per parent. Thats just for regular kids. People can't afford 3 or more kids unless they got celebrity $. Is being against abortion worth losing what you worked hard to have? Most women have a certification or 1-2 degrees.

If they keep getting pregnant: they will have to quit their job & stay home. Getting a nanny is too much $. If they have 3+ kids but they dont finish college then they will be poor if their boyfriend didn't finish. Adult women will be stay at home moms, the husband is very stressed cus his job wont be enough to afford 3+ kids. Then they could end up poor & in shelters. Their degree is nothing more than a paperweight.

All those YT moms use their kids for $ cus if they didn't: they would be POOR & knocking on their fams door for shelter. Without YT $ & sponsors: they are as poor as the hood. Theres a 22 year old I follow with 4 kids & is 4 months with #5. No husband or bf. This isnt the best time to have 5 kids & im sure she has no college education. Another girl I follow 21 or almost 22 with 3 kids, nowhere near close to a full 2 years of college. If she gets pregnant a 4th time (she will) or with twins.. she would have to get an abortion, not have sex or put every kid up for adoption if she wants to be successful.

>You need almost 6 figures per year per parent. Thats just for regular kids.
I know you're the village idiot of this site, but holy shit.

(June 8, 2020, 10:45 pm)THISISFUNNY

(June 8, 2020, 4:15 am)Thechickenlawyer You need almost 6 figures per year per parent. Thats just for regular kids.

I know you're the village idiot of this site, but holy shit.

That doesn't make him a village idiot. In some parts of the US, and for families accustomed to certain standards of living, that is a perfectly reasonable thing to say. I don't know from personal experience but it stands to reason that wealth will give a parent a considerable edge when it comes to raising children, while poverty or even just being "working class" can make it pretty miserable if things cave in on you. The US is woefully lacking in social support networks for parents.

The U.S. is lacking in actual parents. Some people making babies don’t have the slightest idea what they are getting themselves into. Money can’t buy happiness. While it makes providing for children easier it won’t make up for poor parenting skills.

We’ve got plenty of welfare programs in the U.S. As we have seen support programs will only go so far. Ultimately it’s the parents responsibility to provide for their children. I grew up on welfare and did without a lot as a kid. I was fortunate to have a mother and father who knew how to be parents. They made my less than perfect situation work.

The fact that I didn’t join a gang, end up in jail or dead is a testament to the fine job my folks did raising me and my siblings.

(June 9, 2020, 1:00 am)LTKNT101 The U.S. is lacking in actual parents. Some people making babies don’t have the slightest idea what they are getting themselves into. Money can’t buy happiness. While it makes providing for children easier it won’t make up for poor parenting skills.

We’ve got plenty of welfare programs in the U.S. As we have seen support programs will only go so far. Ultimately it’s the parents responsibility to provide for their children. I grew up on welfare and did without a lot as a kid. I was fortunate to have a mother and father who knew how to be parents. They made our less than perfect situation work.

The fact that I didn’t join a gang, end up in jail or dead is a testament to the fine job my folks did raising me and my siblings.

You're right, you're very fortunate that your folks did as well as they did. That's awesome. But you're incorrect in your statement that the US has adequate welfare programs for underprivileged children. Look at other industrialized nations and what they do for their citizens. The US falls flat yet again.

(June 9, 2020, 1:03 am)Akhenaten

(June 9, 2020, 1:00 am)LTKNT101 The U.S. is lacking in actual parents. Some people making babies don’t have the slightest idea what they are getting themselves into. Money can’t buy happiness. While it makes providing for children easier it won’t make up for poor parenting skills.

We’ve got plenty of welfare programs in the U.S. As we have seen support programs will only go so far. Ultimately it’s the parents responsibility to provide for their children. I grew up on welfare and did without a lot as a kid. I was fortunate to have a mother and father who knew how to be parents. They made our less than perfect situation work.

The fact that I didn’t join a gang, end up in jail or dead is a testament to the fine job my folks did raising me and my siblings.

You're right, you're very fortunate that your folks did as well as they did. That's awesome. But you're incorrect in your statement that the US has adequate welfare programs for underprivileged children. Look at other industrialized nations and what they do for their citizens. The US falls flat yet again.

 Before we can offer a sufficient solution to the problem we must first identify the root of the problem. Throwing welfare programs at the problem is not actually solving it. It’s putting a band aid on the cut. The government has already assumed the role of head of the household in most cases. The questions are why are these children underprivileged? Why are their parents unable to make ends meet? Why are families having to rely on the government to feed, house and clothe their children? What is the root cause of why some of the population is poor and some are doing just fine?

(June 9, 2020, 1:16 am)LTKNT101 Before we can offer a sufficient solution to the problem we must first identify the root of the problem. Throwing welfare programs at the problem is not actually solving it. It’s putting a band aid on the cut. The government has already assumed the role of head of the household in most cases. The questions are why are these children underprivileged? Why are their parents unable to make ends meet? Why are families having to rely on the government to feed, house and clothe their children? What is the root cause of why some of the population is poor and some are doing just fine?

Dude... careful... you're going to activate me...

   

(June 9, 2020, 1:16 am)LTKNT101

(June 9, 2020, 1:03 am)Akhenaten You're right, you're very fortunate that your folks did as well as they did. That's awesome. But you're incorrect in your statement that the US has adequate welfare programs for underprivileged children. Look at other industrialized nations and what they do for their citizens. The US falls flat yet again.

 Before we can offer a sufficient solution to the problem we must first identify the root of the problem. Throwing welfare programs at the problem is not actually solving it. It’s putting a band aid on the cut. The government has already assumed the role of head of the household in most cases. The questions are why are these children underprivileged? Why are their parents unable to make ends meet? Why are families having to rely on the government to feed, house and clothe their children? What is the root cause of why some of the population is poor and some are doing just fine?

What I have seen from OECD data that is based on income is that America’s bottom 10% are wealthier than most of other bottom 10% around the globe, except Australia, Canada, and Sweden from what I saw in the data. The top 10% of Americans are the richest in the world. Obviously, our capitalistic and mixed market economics have been doing something right, but I should mention something that is not measured from that data by the Economist: Benefits. Benefits like healthcare, welfare, and other things independent from income.

Instead of promoting the welfare state and making those who are poorer in our country rely more and more on their government, I believe we should instead invest in human capital. So many schools across this country are in terrible condition, and the staff are not going to fulfill their duty to their students. If we are going to make school attendance through high-school mandatory by law, why not invest so much in public schooling in order to make the students competitive in the international job market? If they are educated well and motivate impeccable work-ethic, they can eventually get the jobs they need to advance their station. I believe that will save the American Dream of the Meritocracy while making the people more dependent on their minds instead of the government.

(June 9, 2020, 9:04 am)Avarics

(June 9, 2020, 1:16 am)LTKNT101

(June 9, 2020, 1:03 am)Akhenaten You're right, you're very fortunate that your folks did as well as they did. That's awesome. But you're incorrect in your statement that the US has adequate welfare programs for underprivileged children. Look at other industrialized nations and what they do for their citizens. The US falls flat yet again.

 Before we can offer a sufficient solution to the problem we must first identify the root of the problem. Throwing welfare programs at the problem is not actually solving it. It’s putting a band aid on the cut. The government has already assumed the role of head of the household in most cases. The questions are why are these children underprivileged? Why are their parents unable to make ends meet? Why are families having to rely on the government to feed, house and clothe their children? What is the root cause of why some of the population is poor and some are doing just fine?

What I have seen from OECD data that is based on income is that America’s bottom 10% are wealthier than most of other bottom 10% around the globe, except Australia, Canada, and Sweden from what I saw in the data. The top 10% of Americans are the richest in the world. Obviously, our capitalistic and mixed market economics have been doing something right, but I should mention something that is not measured from that data by the Economist: Benefits. Benefits like healthcare, welfare, and other things independent from income.

Instead of promoting the welfare state and making those who are poorer in our country rely more and more on their government, I believe we should instead invest in human capital. So many schools across this country are in terrible condition, and the staff are not going to fulfill their duty to their students. If we are going to make school attendance through high-school mandatory by law, why not invest so much in public schooling in order to make the students competitive in the international job market? If they are educated well and motivate impeccable work-ethic, they can eventually get the jobs they need to advance their station. I believe that will save the American Dream of the Meritocracy while making the people more dependent on their minds instead of the government.

Whew. I don't want to get into this, there's no point, but lemme tell ya somethin. I was just like you 15 years ago. It took a while, but I figured out that everything you just said is bunk and that Americans are suuuuuper indoctrinated, just as badly as we claim communists do to their people, etc. Bet you think trickle-down economics works, too...

(June 9, 2020, 10:57 am)Akhenaten Whew. I don't want to get into this, there's no point, but lemme tell ya somethin. I was just like you 15 years ago. It took a while, but I figured out that everything you just said is bunk and that Americans are suuuuuper indoctrinated, just as badly as we claim communists do to their people, etc. Bet you think trickle-down economics works, too...

Straw-manning my argument solely on my age isn’t how you try to prove me wrong. I’d be more open to another suggestion that we could take. I don’t believe I even mentioned trickle-down economics, after all it is just a different from of wealth redistribution. Trickle-down motivates the private citizen to invest in their fellows instead of the government. We’ve already seen  that it doesn’t cut out to what it is supposed to be because it wouldn’t be enough. Private businesses and corporations don’t have the amount of income the US government does and how much it spends. 2019 fiscal year was $4.4 trillion. Almost half of that is social services, Medicare, welfare, etc.. That just doesn’t seem to be enough for me. I’d rather spend tons more on public schools than we do now. It’s something that has to be addressed from the local to federal levels. If the public schooling system stays, I’d say invest a lot into it. There’s no basis for making people get educated when they could instead go to a private school. I realize not all can afford that, I went to public school myself. But I think that the value from an education is undeniable. College isn’t for everyone. But schooling up to grade 12 is. Let’s make it as best as possible by making sure no school looks more like a dilapidated prison than a center for learning.

Like I said with this thread before though, I’d rather keep non-related debates out of it so this remains a good resource for all of us. I’d love to debate about any of this in a PM or in a related thread. Just don’t want to pollute the thread with my argumentative manner lol.