Comments on: Nancy Pelosi & Jonathan Porritt: Two Ps in a population control pod

By: McLaren

McLaren — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 21:28:02 +0000

Alexei: Mortality rates would reduce that number measurably. Also, since the current “Social Security” system is basically a pyramid scheme designed to fail, and since demagoguing politicians won’t allow a serious debate on its solvency, what alternative is there?

By: Kitten

Kitten — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:36:19 +0000

By the way: Good guys – 1
Obama/Daschle —–0

By: Kitten

Kitten — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:33:50 +0000

For crying out loud they say we need illegal workers because we don’t have enough children to work. So we import all the problems that the south of the border workers bring instead of having an educated population.

By: Alexei

Alexei — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 10:12:19 +0000

Gravitas —
Taking your advice — say, 4 children per family on average — that’s a doubling of the population every 25-30 years.
You reckon that could work?! For how long, pray? For how much of today’s world?!

It may seem fair to reward financially those choosing to birth and raise children. And to punish financially those choosing otherwise. This is already happening, to an extent. Maybe you’d like to see more of that.
But there are reasons to be careful. Were 4+ kids to become a common family choice, see the above.

By: Gravitas

Gravitas — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 06:43:50 +0000

We all know the Social Security contributions paid by one retiree are not enough to support him/her — not if he/she survives very long into retirement — since Congress raids Social Security funds for other pet projects and the money is not being invested.

Since our Social Security contributions are not kept “in the bank”, someone currently working is subsidizing someone who is retired. Actually, it takes several someones to produce those dollars.

Sooo, sweet Nancy, whose kids are going to produce Social Security checks for two aging parents who DIDN”T have more than two kids? You say *my* five kids are going to subsidize them? You are picking THEIR pockets? Who’s being irresponsible here, Nancy? You are, my dear: those of us who “reproduce irresponsibly” are the only ones who ARE responsible. We are providing for our own. What a concept!

After all, since it doesn’t go into mutual funds or a lock box, shouldn’t those who want to qualify for Social Security be required to have enough children to support their own retirement?

If a gynecological exam shows you can’t have more than two — then you are a charity case, and your retirement would be subsidized by families who do who have more children than Nancy’s prescribed limit. …

And in fact, it IS. Those who have voluntarily chosen to have smaller families are leeching off those who have larger families. Do the math; it has to come from somewhere, Nancy. If Congress cannot keep it’s sticky fingers off Social Security funds, then we have to keep on reproducing.