OLD PEOPLE: Social Security and Medicare are by far the biggest Parasites to the system and it's not an investment in them, in fact it's worse than sunk costs. We spend money(medicare) to keep these people alive so that we can pay them Social security? It's counter intuitive.That's the culture of death at a glance. A war veteran, a retired worker, a parent and a grandparent, in their eyes those are mere parasites who are there to take away from their precious fun.
The sickest, the one's who would want to die, are the biggest Cash Windfall for the medical professionals. They get to prescribe endless amounts of drugs and countless repeat visits to get another refill (pain meds), all the while billing and billing and billing the tax payer to get there $250k+/year pay checks and 100K/year nurse arm candy, while getting hand fed their lunch by a 100k/year hooker with a pharmaceutical name badge on and some free pens.
Let's get Euthanasia in place so that it becomes far more acceptable (even en vogue) by the time the fricking Baby Boomers start getting the free ride and sap what little there's left. Those pie chart segments are only going to get wider for them and narrower for the others, the future.(here)
But there is an alternative - the culture of life. There is another way to address the aging crisis - encouraging more births, defending life from conception to natural death. Sure, our opponents are likely to dismiss the pro-life proposals as "uncertain in their impact, not to mention politically controversial". But we've just seen the kind of solution they propose, haven't we?
4 comments:
Do you honestly think that ending abortion will help ease costs of an aging society?
Most of the aborted children would be very likely to have gone on to live in low-income families (who didn't want them in the first place) who as it stands pay little to no tax. The poor don't pay taxes and there's absolutely no coherent reason so suggest that the children of the poor and un-educated are going to be anything but poor and un-educated, generally speaking.
So, you believe that the right to be born is in fact a privilege that should only be available to those whose chances to become taxpayers are certain? And you are sure that if someone is born in a low-income family, there's absolutely no chance for him to succeed in life?
Somehow we, the pro-lifers, are a lot more optimistic. We believe that everyone deserves to live. We believe, that everyone has a chance to realize his full potential - including those whose parents can't afford the newest XBox or PlayStation.
As for the "unwanted" babies - there's no such thing. A pregnancy may be "unwanted" or "unplanned", but there are no unwanted babies. There are thousands of families eager to adopt a baby - they'll take good care of him, if that concerns you.
Finally, if you're so preoccupied with counting the money in someone else's pockets and if you believe that those babies, if allowed to be born, will become a drain on the nation's tax coffers - consider this:
"When you eliminate human beings, you eliminate their creativity, you eliminate their discoveries, and you are placing yourself in great jeopardy, because you cannot just stay still. You will go back economically."
Fair enough, Leonard but the article you gave us a link to specifically mentioned ending abortion as a way to ease the cost of aging Canadian society and ensure our living standards. It seems to me that's a rather utilitarian argument. I'm not going to bother debating the morality of abortion since we've both made up our minds so I'll just stick with addressing the utilitarian argument.
Poverty, low-educational attainment and low IQ tend to breed more poverty, low-educational attainment and low IQ. Many of the families in Toronto's Regent Park housing project, for example, have been stuck in the poverty trap for as many as four generations. The poor, aboriginals and non-white immigrants and their descendants account for most of Canada's births if their over-representation in our public schools is any indication.
Despite your optimistic view, Leonard - I don't expect to find many of Canada's future Nobel-prize winning phycisists or millionaires among many of these people - but I certainly do see erosion of Western culture, lots of janitors, menial labourers, ethnic gangsters, a huge need for social workers and many, many incarcerations, .
This coming generation will be the first since the industrial revolution to actually experience an overall decline in living and health standards. Present-day abortion-on-demand as it stands affects low-income and presumeably low-IQ people to a greater degree than the few higher-IQ Canadians who actually do decide to engage in child-rearing at a rate of more than 1.3 per fertile mother.
I do think our birth-rate needs a major boost like Mr. Leishman, however I do not see non-white immigration as a realistic solution to our population woes for the exact same reason I don't see stopping a higher proportion poor and low-IQ people from having abortions as being beneficial.
You can't ease the cost of aging population without increasing the number of working people per senior. And there are only 3 ways to do achieve that:
1) Import more workers. (That will only provide short-term relief as most newcomers are already in their mid-30s, not to mention that only 45% of them come as skilled workers.)
2) Reduce the number of seniors. (Beyond discussion.)
3) Allow every baby to be born. Let them be raised here in Canada and enter the job market once they finish high school or college. This is so far the most humane and most reasonable option.
Poverty tends to breed more poverty? Only in a welfare state, where there are hardly any incentives for those people to succeed. Not to mention all those "anti-poverty" lobby groups that encourage them to become professional victims and the numerous nanny state establishments that would rather perpetuate the problem, so that their clientele doesn't decrease.
Reform the bureaucracy, ignore those lobby groups, get back to the simple principle that the best safety net is the family and the best solution against poverty is a full-time job - and poverty rates will plummet.
After all - we used to have a lot more poverty 75-80 years ago, during the great depression, didn't we? And even during the baby boom years, some of those multi-child families would be considered quite poor even according to the standards of those days. Yet, most of the children from those families turned out to be quite successful, didn't they? Even those who grew up to be janitors and menial laborers, (guess what - the economy can't be all white collar jobs,) enjoy much higher standards of living than in so many other countries.
So don't hurry up and write off the children from the poor families. If they're taught the right things and the right values - they can and will become successful.
Post a Comment