The Big Fat Compendium Of Russiagate Debunkery

[coracle]

"There will always be poor and disadvantaged,nothing one can do to change that,........
There are no easy answers".

I think there is an easy long term answer Richard. Instead of paying them to have children, pay them [[more?) to not have children. After a few generations of not reproducing more of themselves to be poor they will gradually "die out" and those left will be "rich". The savings in costs of not having an ever increasing poor population would be phenominal; housing, schools, police, health, jails, food et al.

The democrats will never do it because they want their votes.

[Honky Tonk]

The democrats will never do it because they want their votes.

Exactly. "Here's a few fish for you. Don't forget elections are this Tuesday, if you want more fish."

[noise]

Exactly. "Here's a few fish for you. Don't forget elections are this Tuesday, if you want more fish."

Are the Republicans working hard to pay economically disadvantaged people to not have kids?

[Richard]

Are the Republicans working hard to pay economically disadvantaged people to not have kids?

Or maybe on a pay to play plan?

[Honky Tonk]

Are the Republicans working hard to pay economically disadvantaged people to not have kids?

I don't think either party is working hard @ anything but keeping themselves in office.

[Richard]

That's why the big issues never got resolved outside of a 4 or 8 year plan,they were long term stewing problems that have now come to head.

[coracle]

"There will always be poor and disadvantaged,nothing one can do to change that,........
There are no easy answers".

I think there is an easy long term answer Richard. Instead of paying them to have children, pay them [[more?) to not have children. After a few generations of not reproducing more of themselves to be poor they will gradually "die out" and those left will be "rich". The savings in costs of not having an ever increasing poor population would be phenominal; housing, schools, police, health, jails, food et al.

The democrats will never do it because they want their votes.

Just imagine going to the local "Non Procreation Office" and making a claim that you want payments for not having 6 kids and your neighbor comes in and and trumps you by claiming she's not going to have 12. I suppose you could even elect somebody to not have 'em for you, so you can still have the fun but without the consequences of losing your Non Procreation payments.

Probably the Authorities could base the maximum number of kids you can't have on a formula of one every two child bearing years from 10 to 60. [[Bloody hell; I think I'd sign up for that, and I'm a male!)

And of course if you happen to slip occasionally and get knocked-up; instead of getting a Child Allowance you lose one.

It obviously has to be thought out or we won't spend enough money and the rich will get richer.