Embracing Caesarism for Cities

[Lowe0]

Yeah, life is so much better when we can whelp and then kill off our offspring like Zeus. yummy, yummy offspring. Responsibility? What the heck is that? This country is obviously better off without family values.

Perhaps liberals could stop telling us that after your mommy dropped you anything you want to do now is okay.

Me? I'm the party of death. You want to kill your offspring? Okay, you shouldn't procreate. You want me to pay for it? Then you need to be sterilized. After you've made it past the 'birth barrier' if you screw up then off to the felon zapper with you.

Apply purple where you need.

Back on thread...good article.

Talking about the way you think things should be does very little to solve the problems of how things are.

 

[indiucky]

Here's a thought: perhaps conservative politicians could stop telling us that all life is precious and must be protected? You already acknowledged abortion and contraception; it boggles my mind that we still rail against these and then wonder why we have more people than we have resources to care for.

I believe all life is precious and must be protected....We don't have more people than we have resources to care for in the US...It's just that people think they need more resources than they actually do...

A modern day American's idea of poverty is a flip phone and basic cable...

 

[silverspoon]

Ridiculous!!!! In the '70's we "boomers" achieved zero population growth by actually using newly developed, effective birth control measures and legalized abortion to maintain effective fiscal responsibility down to the individual household level. Since it was realized that more people lived longer households were self limited to self supporting sizes. The Government starting treating the SS savings account like a personal bank account and "borrowed" billions, never to be returned, to establish funding for the Viet Nam war and establish entitlement programs to feed the mouths of baby mommies and their ever increasing broods of the worthless, forever dependent on handouts to survive.
The SS Disability tree needs to be shaken so the millions of fat currently unemployables find a job and pay into the system. The undocumented and documented aliens so eagerly accepted into the country need to pay taxes into the system instead of exploiting it. Kids that feel that higher education ensures a six figure job better get their heads on straight and get their ass out their parents basement and realize in our downward spiraling economy they'll be fighting for jobs at Mcdonalds unless they learn a trade or dig a straight ditch. I fully expect the next administration to start forgiving student loans, burdening the boomers with more dept to go unpaid.
My payments into SS track back 45 years. If our Goverment had invested that money as promised I'd be rollin in dough. At least I'm getting back what I put in the system because my generation was fiscally responsible. You people are screwed.
Here's a thought. Bullet wounds average $35,000 per incidence amounting to billions wasted in treatment for the morons in Chicago alone. Why not place some blame for the current fiscal situation on a segment of society that sticks out like the nose on your face.

My exact thoughts. Couldn't have said it better.

 

[silverspoon]

Silly person. You proved my point in the first two sentences and don't even realize it.

He may have proved your point but your point was basically null and void to the argument you applied it to. The reason Social Security is broke and is in desperate need of repair isn't because of the stagnant population growth but because the Federal Government has borrows billions if not trillions from the fund since the 80's to "balance the budget" and have repaid nothing.

 

[Thor]

Talking about the way you think things should be does very little to solve the problems of how things are.

Ummmm, yeah, and commenting on the interwiz here is doing what new? I guess once you can't make a point there's no point I discussion? No problem, I'm out...doing useful things you have no idea of.

 

[Expat]

I remember back about 10-15 years ago my little town decided to embark upon a $1M project that it would have never undertaken but for the federal behemoth offering to pay 90%. It wasn't something that was really needed but the consensus of city government seemed to be they would be leaving money on the table if they didn't do it. None of them seemed to worry that it wasn't needed, that it was still our tax money that was being spent. Multiply that by thousands of other little towns that I am sure jumped on the opportunity to bring in all that federal largesse and you are talking about serious money.

 

[Lowe0]

I believe all life is precious and must be protected....We don't have more people than we have resources to care for in the US...It's just that people think they need more resources than they actually do...

A modern day American's idea of poverty is a flip phone and basic cable...

We absolutely have more people than we can support. Forget cable, we can't even figure out health care or education for children. And even if we did, we have no jobs for them when they reach adulthood. What's the point in adding more people to an already overburdened population?

 

[Woobie]

We absolutely have more people than we can support. Forget cable, we can't even figure out health care or education for children. And even if we did, we have no jobs for them when they reach adulthood. What's the point in adding more people to an already overburdened population?

If only there were a way for people to pay for their own and their children's healthcare. And wouldn't it be nice if education were cheaper so people could afford it? Hmm, I'm sure subsidies aren't artificially inflating the price at all.

And we should definitely make sure we kill off the future work force before they have the chance to fund Social Security. Otherwise, they might be a burden now. This model is working out very well in Europe. Many of them have even been able to successfully achieve negative population growth!

 

[Leadeye]

I remember back about 10-15 years ago my little town decided to embark upon a $1M project that it would have never undertaken but for the federal behemoth offering to pay 90%. It wasn't something that was really needed but the consensus of city government seemed to be they would be leaving money on the table if they didn't do it. None of them seemed to worry that it wasn't needed, that it was still our tax money that was being spent. Multiply that by thousands of other little towns that I am sure jumped on the opportunity to bring in all that federal largesse and you are talking about serious money.

Spot on. Cities can't govern themselves without federal money, taxes required to pay for the benefits government machines provide to stay in power would drive many residents away, leaving the ugly end game of taxing the people living off the taxes. Since they can't print their own money they will be forever connected to the federal government.

 

[BugI02]

Here's a thought: perhaps conservative politicians could stop telling us that all life is precious and must be protected? You already acknowledged abortion and contraception; it boggles my mind that we still rail against these and then wonder why we have more people than we have resources to care for.

It IS important that all life is given a chance. But once again you confuse equal opportunity with equal outcome. The government SHOULD guarantee you a chance at life. After that it is up to your parents and ultimately you to make something of that choice. You are not guaranteed success through any other medium besides continuous hard work

 

[Lowe0]

It IS important that all life is given a chance. But once again you confuse equal opportunity with equal outcome. The government SHOULD guarantee you a chance at life. After that it is up to your parents and ultimately you to make something of that choice. You are not guaranteed success through any other medium besides continuous hard work

I'm not talking about equal outcomes, just setting a lower bound. There is x amount of resources to go around, for y people. There are only two ways to maintain the standard of living: add more x, or reduce y. Hard and fast math, no way around it. Taking more x would be wealth redistribution. So with that ruled out, what's left?

 

[Old Prof]

If the higher level of government is not backing the debt they should not impose controls on the lower level, and they should not bail them out if they go under. Having governments go bankrupt will make bond purchasers more careful about loaning them money in the future. Having bailouts will make them realize their is little or no risk in loaning to nearly bankrupt municipal entities. In short, give them their freedom and hold them responsible for their actions. Kind of like government should treat everything.

 

[Woobie]

I'm not talking about equal outcomes, just setting a lower bound. There is x amount of resources to go around, for y people. There are only two ways to maintain the standard of living: add more x, or reduce y. Hard and fast math, no way around it. Taking more x would be wealth redistribution. So with that ruled out, what's left?

People have been crying about overpopulation for decades. And the doomsday number just keeps going up as we realize we can handle the old doomsday number. There's a pesky little thing called technology that keeps making our resources stretch farther. As population increases, so does the opportunity for increasingly refined levels of specialization. This is a good thing, from an economics point of view. Don't sweat it.

 

[BugI02]

I'm not talking about equal outcomes, just setting a lower bound. There is x amount of resources to go around, for y people. There are only two ways to maintain the standard of living: add more x, or reduce y. Hard and fast math, no way around it. Taking more x would be wealth redistribution. So with that ruled out, what's left?

Be careful what you wish for. Once the goal becomes 'managing' total population through killing it would be just as effective to cull millenials to achieve that goal as it would be to cull the unborn. There only seems to be disparity in that calculus from your viewpoint of having already been granted life and feeling deserving of it

 

[BehindBlueI's]

We absolutely have more people than we can support. Forget cable, we can't even figure out health care or education for children. And even if we did, we have no jobs for them when they reach adulthood. What's the point in adding more people to an already overburdened population?

We've got political and economic limitations. We don't have resource limitations. People aren't starving due to lack of food or farm land, for example. We use less and less land to feed more and more people. People are hungry because of political and economic limitations to how the food is distributed.


That's all I've got. I thought this was going to a thread about a new chain of salad-centric restaurants.

 

[Lowe0]

Be careful what you wish for. Once the goal becomes 'managing' total population through killing it would be just as effective to cull millenials to achieve that goal as it would be to cull the unborn. There only seems to be disparity in that calculus from your viewpoint of having already been granted life and feeling deserving of it

So if we also want to take killing people off the table, then we're left with preventing conception in the first place. Now, someone will go "let em pay for their own pills!", but again, we can link arms and block the idea because it's the dreaded government using money for something, or we can look at the cost savings. To me, the conservative direction is to pursue results, not principle.

 

[steveh_131]

There is x amount of resources to go around, for y people. There are only two ways to maintain the standard of living: add more x, or reduce y. Hard and fast math, no way around it. Taking more x would be wealth redistribution. So with that ruled out, what's left?

This is so silly and illogical that I'm not sure how to respond.

Obviously the solution is to create more wealth so that there is enough X for Y. And, also obviously, a free market is the proven best way to create wealth.

Infanticide and wealth redistribution are not the only two options.

 

[indiucky]

We absolutely have more people than we can support. Forget cable, we can't even figure out health care or education for children. And even if we did, we have no jobs for them when they reach adulthood. What's the point in adding more people to an already overburdened population?

We must live on a different planet......I thought you were talking about Earth...Mea Culpa...

 

[Lowe0]

This is so silly and illogical that I'm not sure how to respond.

Obviously the solution is to create more wealth so that there is enough X for Y. And, also obviously, a free market is the proven best way to create wealth.

Infanticide and wealth redistribution are not the only two options.

Creating wealth requires capital. The people who already have capital aren't really affected by these problems, nor do they have any incentive to help solve them. I'm not begrudging their wealth or suggesting that we confiscate it, but making them wealthier still leaves us with the same problems and the same limited pool of resources with which to solve them.

The left looks at wealth inequality and wants to start redistributing it. If you don't want that to be the solution, then perhaps it's time to stop being squeamish about the alternatives.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The people who already have capital aren't really affected by these problems, nor do they have any incentive to help solve them.

How about we abolish the capital gains tax then?