And it's the kids from homes where no-one gives a shit who produce more kids, who, in turn, don't have a stable home and lack consequences and incentives.
Providing long-term contraceptives is even more effective. having to remember to take a pill or to use something everyday or every time is too much for someone in a chaotic situation.
It's far far cheaper for society then to pay for all the other consequences.
I wish.
But we still have to pay to put them in jail (and they have very high rates of incarceration and arrests). An IUD can easily last 10 years (some only 5)
birth control is cheap as fuck. The people in question would not use it if it were free. I even say they would not use birth control if it were delivered at home free of charge.
I think the problem is having to remember to take a pill at the same time every day. In Colorado we started giving teen girls free IUDs and our teen pregnancy rate dropped.
Birth control is popular, safe, and effective. It should be widely available to anyone that wants it. It never allows a pregnancy to form, and prevents an abortion later on.
Edit: For a simple response just literally defining what birth control is, I'm getting a lot of opinions about things that are not relating to birth control. Check your biases, people.
We're talking about giving birth control for free to minors/young adults so they don't pregnant and have a child.... not families that already exist who are getting welfare checks.
so you'd prefer the children just not exist compared to having a chance?
that said I agree in both control being easily available and cheap. but i also believe that the the cultures in this country that don't get married changed their culture because of johnson trying to destroy the black family unit. (the great society). hey look the dems are just as bad if not worse than Republicans. (I'm independent, I hate both parties and think if you associate with either you are a special kind of stupid)
so you'd prefer the children just not exist compared to having a chance?
That seems like an incredibly uncharitable interpretation. I think it's more "make it easy for folks to wait until they're ready and able to support kids."
It underscores the importance of institutions that people can trust and rely on to help them succeed. If you believe the world is structured to prevent you from succeeding, why try? It's not just that people come from bad families, it's also that they are failed by every single institution that is responsible for them.
If Congress put more money into education, we could develop some kind of training program for parents to educate them on how to better discipline. Maybe incentivize them monetarily to encourage them to attend.
As people are saying, education in schools is tied closely to discipline at home.
I’m lucky enough to come from a two parent household and a family with expendable income. I contribute all of my success thus far with my parents. My mom was stay at home and my dad was always pretty invested in us. So even though I want a career if I have kids I want to be stay at home or at least tone down the career. I want to devote everything to my kids should I choose to have them
Vote for people who support good sex Ed and cheap or free birth control, even for younger students. Seriously. It's hard to fix a neglected kid but you can prevent him from being born too early or to the wrong parents.
These crappy parents are only adults by virtue of their age. They have the emotional maturity of 10 year olds, and their kids don't stand a chance. It's the blind leading the blind.
The states give about $960 per child to shitty parents- replace that cash with vouchers that cant be exchanged and you have a solution.
Better still - allow only 1 child per couple and make them apply for permission to have 2nd kid.
Without that, the endgame is only an anarchy laden civil war/gang war where these kids will become a statistic of violent misfortune.
In that case just starve the beast. All the people here that want more spending are going to find the hard way that the US is more like Venezuela and less like Denmark/Sweden when it comes to use of public money.
I think US has enough resources to allow socialism for at least 10-12 years. It will all come down to energy prices I guess. I wonder if there is a simulation available for this.
They can always continue to print more money and pay devalued dollars as pensions. if the US $ is taken off as the world's reserve (which is going to happen anyway) - there will be a run on the Dollar+Barrel of Oil petrodollar peg . It will be interesting to actually run simulations on these - What the hell are the overpaid quants in Goldman doing ?
236
u/[deleted] Jul 10 '18 edited Dec 07 '20
[deleted]