Contributor Post Created with Sketch. More Babies, Please

 

How does a country with over 38 million retirees and another 79 million on the brink of retirement find it in its best interest to implement antinatalist policies like this one?  Now, I’m not philosophically opposed to contraception, but for the love of all that’s good and right, we need more babies now if every last Baby Boomer is to cash out of the government-run Ponzi scheme in style.  Obama forcing  insurers to provide free contraception to every female is plain dumb.  If liberals expect to have their cake and eat it too, it’s time to bring Russia’s “Day of Conception” right here to the United States, and offer cash, cars and refrigerators to couples who contribute a future worker to help prop up the scam.  Since procreation is too offensive of a concept to liberals, they should think of it as a long-term plan to increase revenues in a balanced and sustainable way.

There are 35 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Crow's Nest Inactive

    A couple of issues that I want to disentangle here (some are entangled by nature and some by this particular policy, but I will address them separately).

    1) I’m pro-baby. We should be encouraging upper and middle income Americans to have more children. One way to do this is family-friendly tax reform. Increase the $ families keep via the Child Tax Credit.

    2) We cannot construct a functioning tax code on the premise that citizens will only fund the parts of programs that they morally support at a given moment. There are plenty of pacifists who think they shouldn’t be charged a dime for the common defense. The bureaucratic load and intrusiveness it would take to sort this out would render limited government impossible.

    3) Having said everything in Bullet 2, every citizen has a right to object to government using their tax dollars for programs that they do not support. The proper way of demonstrating this is to exercise 1st Amendment rights, and especially to vote the people who supported such programs out of office.

    4) Obamacare creates a whole host of perverse incentives and should be repealed by people elected to repeal it.

    • #1
    • August 2, 2011, at 2:55 AM PDT
    • Like
  2. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member
    Karen: Come on, if Viagra gets covered, than why shouldn’t birth control?

    Actually, I’ve just visited the Medicare site and the site for my federal health plan. Viagra is covered by neither, even with a co-pay. The interesting question is, if birth control for women is now covered, will Viagra, which actually treats a medical condition, now be covered for men? And when may I expect my free condoms?

    • #2
    • August 2, 2011, at 3:28 AM PDT
    • Like
  3. Profile Photo Member

    A more open and business-friendly immigration policy would help as well.

    • #3
    • August 2, 2011, at 3:28 AM PDT
    • Like
  4. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    The true perversity of this decision is that the normal functioning of the human reproduction system is now officially classified in the same category as a disease.

    • #4
    • August 2, 2011, at 3:29 AM PDT
    • Like
  5. Roberto, Crusty Old Timer LLC Member
    Roberto, Crusty Old Timer LLC Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member
    Diane Ellis, Ed.: Now, I’m not philosophically opposed to contraception, but for the love of all that’s good and right, we need more babies now ·

    I’m convinced, marry me Diane.

    On a somewhat more serious note, foolishness such as this latest out of Washington while morally offensive is not the cause of looming demographic catastrophe. The cult of youth which seems to be constantly preached in all mediums strikes me as closer to the mark if we are looking for a guilty party. Steyn touched on this somewhat in America Alone I believe.

    • #5
    • August 2, 2011, at 3:29 AM PDT
    • Like
  6. Diane Ellis Contributor
    Diane Ellis
    Basil Fawlty: The true perversity of this decision is that the normal functioning of the human reproduction system is now officially classified in the same category as a disease. · Aug 1 at 3:29pm

    Yes, I noticed that too. That’s indeed a much more depressing angle of the story.

    • #6
    • August 2, 2011, at 3:33 AM PDT
    • Like
  7. wilber forge Member
    wilber forge Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    The machine demands cheap labor sooner than the maturation rate of the young. Hence lax immigration enforcement. The real fly in the ointment is sold as needed diversity and multiculturalism at all cost…

    • #7
    • August 2, 2011, at 3:41 AM PDT
    • Like
  8. Southern Pessimist Member

    “If liberals expect to have their cake and eat it too, it’s time to bring Russia’s “Day of Conception” right here to the United States, and offer cash, cars and refrigerators to couples who contribute a future worker to help prop up the scam.”

    I had missed that “day of conception” initiative and look forward to seeing how others here can expound on that. Pat in Obamaland is right that immigration is key. I have read where Amity Schlaes has said that bringing in just 100,000 immigrants that earned at the top of the tax rates, along with minor inflation adjustments, would solve the solvency of social security.

    • #8
    • August 2, 2011, at 3:41 AM PDT
    • Like
  9. Mel Foil Inactive

    From a Catholic perspective, on your honeymoon, it’s okay to put a “Do Not Disturb” sign out for the hotel staff, but using contraception puts a “Do Not Disturb” sign out for God. In the Church’s view, God drew you together for His purposes–not just for yours. In this case, making it a threesome improves the quality of the marriage. And being open to procreation is how you keep the relationship with God alive.

    Fr. Barron comments on Marriage and Relationshipshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2fcNFHDzAE
    • #9
    • August 2, 2011, at 3:58 AM PDT
    • Like
  10. Profile Photo Member

    Sorry to quibble over the small stuff, but I love how the same folks that once said Obamacare would decrease health insurance costs for Americans, now believe that a new requirement for services provided to half the population without charge will not affect the cost of insurance. Would somebody please buy these guys a calculator, or at the very least explain to them the difference between free and offset costs?

    Wealth redistribution: 1, Arithmetic 0.

    • #10
    • August 2, 2011, at 4:00 AM PDT
    • Like
  11. tabula rasa Member
    tabula rasa Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    I am in total agreement. Our government now acts as though new human beings are a plague, at the same time they won’t touch entitlements. Perhaps the ultimate in cognitive dissonance.

    I did my part: five children, all but one dutifully paying social security and medicare taxes (the last one will finish college in a year–he’ll pay too if he can find a job). And I’m still paying as well. It’s good to remember that if you want the ultimate reward–grandchildren–there is an intermediate step. No kids, no grandkids.

    I don’t have the exact quote on me but Mark Steyn wrote something along these lines: the design flaw of the secular welfare states in Europe is that they must have a religious-society birth rate to be sustainable.

    • #11
    • August 2, 2011, at 4:16 AM PDT
    • Like
  12. Diane Ellis Contributor
    Diane Ellis
    etoiledunord: From a Catholic perspective, on your honeymoon, it’s okay to put a “Do Not Disturb” sign out for the hotel staff, but using contraception puts a “Do Not Disturb” sign out for God. In the Church’s view, God drew you together for His purposes–not just for yours. In this case, making it a threesome improves the quality of the marriage. And being open to procreation is how you keep the relationship with God alive. Fr. Barron comments on Marriage and Relationshipshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2fcNFHDzAE · Aug 1 at 3:58pm

    We Protestants differ in our opinions on this issue.

    • #12
    • August 2, 2011, at 4:36 AM PDT
    • Like
  13. Chris Johnson Inactive

    Ted Kennedy was convinced that we needed to transport the third world into the US. Now we will pay for females in this country to be infertile and require that we import an unassimilated population to finish us off.

    In the 1980s, a KGB jerk joined me in a basket being tranferred between Soviet ships, as we laid to off Alaska. He waved his arm to the crane operators and we stopped between ships, as we faced America. His words to me, then, suddenly in perfect English, “Everything you see before you was once Russia; it will be again.”

    I have had similar discussions with other communists, during which they felt free to tell me of their long term plans for America and just how they were going to upend us. One common theme has been that they would take us apart, from within. In my naivete, I have asked why they believed that we would allow that, when we had a loyal and powerfull military and a populace that was against them. They indicated that the populace would be changed and that they would, someday, be in charge of the military.

    We have patient, very determined enemies.

    • #13
    • August 2, 2011, at 4:42 AM PDT
    • Like
  14. Charles Mark Member
    Charles Mark Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    They may not be American but I expect each of my 5 kids to contribute to the Western economy in their individual ways.

    • #14
    • August 2, 2011, at 4:43 AM PDT
    • Like
  15. Roberto, Crusty Old Timer LLC Member
    Roberto, Crusty Old Timer LLC Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member
    Beasley: Wealth redistribution: 1, Arithmetic 0. · Aug 1 at 4:00pm

    Edited on Aug 01 at 04:05 pm

    I have been reflecting on that point often of late, simple basic math. There are times I wonder if the disputes between conservatives such as ourselves and liberals in the end sometimes come down to the point of an inability to do simple basic math. Wealth is infinite and free for the taking, the nation can spend and spend and spend and somehow…. it will just all work out. I look at such reasoning, if we can deign to call it such, and see that there’s an element of barbarism in this view. A present tense morality, or as many have said “eating the seed corn” a pox upon those who may follow us is the unspoken consensus.

    In my hopeful moments I wonder if basic financial accounting could be introduced into our hopeless schools and then 1/2 our calamitous problems would soon be remedied.

    • #15
    • August 2, 2011, at 4:50 AM PDT
    • Like
  16. Roberto, Crusty Old Timer LLC Member
    Roberto, Crusty Old Timer LLC Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member
    CJRun: I have had similar discussions with other communists, during which they felt free to tell me of their long term plans for America and just how they were going to upend us. One common theme has been that they would take us apart, from within. · Aug 1 at 4:42pm

    As all truths so bitter it is difficult to swallow. Why should our rivals hold their tongues? What do they have to lose? Plotting the downfall of our nation is hardly an activity of risk, in this day and age you are like to be rewarded for it. How much wealth has the PLA claimed from the coffers of American taxpayers while they preach terrorism?

    • #16
    • August 2, 2011, at 5:03 AM PDT
    • Like
  17. John Selmer Dix, M.A. Member
    John Selmer Dix, M.A. Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    You are correct that we are following the Europeans down the road to insolvency. As Mark Steyn has made clear, more people retiring earlier and living longer puts a strain on the welfare state. The fact that some countries are not even reproducing at a replacement rate means that the system is headed for total collapse.

    The final step on this path, which Europe is experiencing now, is mass immigration as a substitute for procreation. And they are learning that the societal changes that accompany these new workers is more than they bargained for.

    But do we need more babies? The latest figures say that 40% of all births in the U.S. are out of wedlock. What percentage of this cohort will be able to overcome this adversity and become producers? And what percentage will instead land in jail, or be on welfare, essentially being just as much a consumer of the metastasized state as our retirees – but for their entire lives, not just their twilight years?

    What we need is more parents willing and able to raise children to be productive members of society.

    • #17
    • August 2, 2011, at 5:10 AM PDT
    • Like
  18. Larry3435 Member

    Sorry, but I have to disagree with the premise. The answer to a Ponzi scheme is NOT to find more suckers to come in at the bottom of the pyramid. The answer is to put the people running the Ponzi scheme in prison.

    Besides, sooner or later the young people are going to figure out that working their whole life to support grandma’s social security is a losing game. Or the Democrats will just extend social security to everyone, from the womb to the tomb. I don’t see any way that this plays out well by making more babies and asking them to take care of us.

    • #18
    • August 2, 2011, at 5:13 AM PDT
    • Like
  19. Diane Ellis Contributor
    Diane Ellis
    Larry3435: Sorry, but I have to disagree with the premise. The answer to a Ponzi scheme is NOT to find more suckers to come in at the bottom of the pyramid. The answer is to put the people running the Ponzi scheme in prison.

    Yes, of course you’re right Larry. But I have no hope that there will be any meaningful entitlement reform in time to stave off major economic calamity. And I believe that my peers who’ve just graduated college in the past five years will suffer from unemployment and underemployment for years to come, and then when they finally have jobs, will be taxed under an oppressive tax schedule.

    When shaving $900 billion off the baseline over an entire decade proves to be such a production with wailing and gnashing of teeth, it’s time to wake up and smell the coffee: we young people are doomed. And so I resort to a little absurdism because I really don’t believe we’ll ever be able to change the way Washington does things — at least not enough for it to matter.

    I’m usually not this pessimistic. Hopefully tomorrow will be better.

    • #19
    • August 2, 2011, at 5:26 AM PDT
    • Like
  20. katievs Member
    katievs Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    We are rapidly gelling from soft to solid tyranny. How is it possible that the US government can require 1) that everyone buy health insurance and 2) that every health insurance plan provide free birth control, including abortifacients?

    I cannot express how this shocks and horrifies me. Unlike Diane, I am philosophically opposed to contraception. I see it as profoundly immoral and destructive. It is abusive of persons and corrosive of the common good. The severing between sex and procreation is the moral atom splitting that unleashed the sexual revolution and all its toxic effects on our society. It is at the root of the culture of death now overwhelming our world.

    I’d be happy to explain my views in another thread.

    Meanwhile, is it right that I and all who share my convictions be forced by law to pay for “services” we deem evil?

    • #20
    • August 2, 2011, at 5:49 AM PDT
    • Like
  21. wilber forge Member
    wilber forge Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    RE, Diane I’m usually not this pessimistic. Hopefully tomorrow will be better.

    What can generally be trusted is that the sun will come up in the morning…..

    Any day I can wake up and find that the gravedigger is not shovelling dirt on my face is a good start…

    And I am of the optomistic sort, kinda, Hmmm.

    • #21
    • August 2, 2011, at 5:54 AM PDT
    • Like
  22. Larry3435 Member

    Thanks for your response, Diane. I agree entirely. I try to take some solace in the fact that the last economic catastrophe we faced, which went by the nom de plume “Jimmy Carter,” proved to be something from which we could recover. This one is worse, and it will take a lot more than commissions and phantom cuts 10 years from now to get us out of this mess. But there is a law of economics that applies here — Anything that can’t go on, won’t go on.

    • #22
    • August 2, 2011, at 6:06 AM PDT
    • Like
  23. Southern Pessimist Member
    Diane Ellis, Ed.
    Larry3435: Sorry, but I have to disagree with the premise. The answer to a Ponzi scheme is NOT to find more suckers to come in at the bottom of the pyramid. The answer is to put the people running the Ponzi scheme in prison.

    I’m usually not this pessimistic. Hopefully tomorrow will be better. · Aug 1 at 5:26pm

    I am always that pessimistic but I take some solace in this. American decline is a choice.

    • #23
    • August 2, 2011, at 6:13 AM PDT
    • Like
  24. Karen Inactive

    Come on, if Viagra gets covered, than why shouldn’t birth control? And it isn’t only b.c., but includes breast exams, gestational diabetes screenings and breast-feeding support. As a mom pregnant for the 3rd time, I’m pretty sympathetic to the argument that women need better preventive and prenatal care. And I am not opposed to contraception, and I do not think my Christian faith contradicts that belief. Birth control is about women choosing when they get pregnant, not preventing them doing so. Giving women information, better preventive care and better prenatal care means healthier women, healthier babies and fewer complications, which translates to fewer costs to the taxpayers.

    In principle, I’d like for people to pay for their own healthcare, but government will only continue to expand in its subsidization of medical care. Currently, the federal gov’t pays for 50 cents of every dollar spent on healthcare. If I got to choose, I’d rather spend federal money on bringing healthier babies (and future workers) into the world, than putting the elderly through every conceivable treatment and test to extend their lives a few more weeks, while bilking Medicare in the process.

    • #24
    • August 2, 2011, at 6:18 AM PDT
    • Like
  25. katievs Member
    katievs Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member
    Karen: Come on, if Viagra gets covered, than why shouldn’t birth control?

    I’d also be opposed to the government mandating that private insurance companies cover Viagra. Likewise cosmetic surgery. Likewise sex change operations.

    But none of these is in the same order of concern.

    And whether you find contraception morally objectionable or not, you ought to be able to recognize and appreciate that millions of Americans do, and it is not okay–it is absolutely wrong and illegitimate–for the government to force us to pay for what we view as evil.

    Does anyone else recall the case a few years back of a Dutch court determining that the tax payers of some village were obliged to pay for a mentally handicapped resident’s monthly visits to a prostitute? His psychologist had certified that he was unable to attract women on his own and needed these professional services for his health and wellbeing.

    • #25
    • August 2, 2011, at 6:37 AM PDT
    • Like
  26. Doctor Bass Monkey Inactive
    Diane Ellis, Ed.

    I’m usually not this pessimistic. Hopefully tomorrow will be better. · Aug 1 at 5:26pm

    Welcome to the dark side. We have cookies.

    • #26
    • August 2, 2011, at 6:40 AM PDT
    • Like
  27. katievs Member
    katievs Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member
    Karen: Come on, if Viagra gets covered, than why shouldn’t birth control?

    Further, impotence is a real medical condition for which Viagra is (I gather) a remedy of sorts.

    Artificial birth control is not a remedy for anything. Neither is it “preventative care”, since, as Basil pointed out above, pregnancy is not a disease.

    Note, too, that since birth control became widespread there has been an absolute explosion in the number of “unwanted pregnancies”, not to mention 50 million abortions.

    • #27
    • August 2, 2011, at 6:41 AM PDT
    • Like
  28. Karen Inactive
    katievs
    Karen:

    Artificial birth control is a remedy. It prevents women from getting pregnant when they aren’t ready. And I respect Basil’s opinion, but this is not an endorsement of pregnancy as a disease, neither is breast feeding a disease. The federal government already provides birth control for free to female service members and military dependents, so you are already paying for it.

    There may be millions of people who object to the use of contraception on moral grounds, but there are millions more who don’t object to its use. So, why can’t you respect their opinions? And I don’t see how the advent of birth control relates to the increase in unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

    • #28
    • August 2, 2011, at 8:20 AM PDT
    • Like
  29. Emerson Member
    Karen: Come on, if Viagra gets covered, than why shouldn’t birth control?

    1. This isn’t about coverage, it’s about coverage mandates, with the added stick in the eye of disallowing co-pays or deductibles. The federal government has no business mandating what or how much insurance covers.

    2. On the individual level, contraception is about birth control and pregnancy choice, but at the federal level it’s about population control. Our demographics are already problematic, and these kind of policies will just make it worse.

    This policy reflects and encourages a disgusting view of humanity (already commonplace due to contemporary Keynesianism and radical environmentalism) in which people are nothing more than consumers and burdens. The fact is that every person has great worth and on the whole, every new birth only adds to the richness of our world.

    • #29
    • August 2, 2011, at 8:34 AM PDT
    • Like
  30. katievs Member
    katievs Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member
    Karen

    There may be millions of people who object to the use of contraception on moral grounds, but there are millions more who don’t object to its use. So, why can’t you respect their opinions?

    I do not argue for a legal ban on birth control; I object to the federal government requiring me to pay for it on pain of fines or even prison.

    • #30
    • August 2, 2011, at 8:45 AM PDT
    • Like

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.