Welfare Parasites Can Support More Children than Billionaires: Big pink elephants 1 - How Governments Plan to Pimp Out Your Daughters and Enslave Your Sons to Voters. Read online

“Inspirational Life Stories 1” or “Inspirational Life Stories 2,” I mentioned a story of a country with 2 main religions. One group worships Chultu. The other worships flying spagethy monster. To make things short, the Chultu worshipper get $1k subsidy for every children they make. Flying spagethy monster’s worshipper has to pay $50k per month for every child they make. Cost of actually raising a child is $500 per month for both group.

  Which group can afford more kids? Which group will produce more kids? That’s kind of obvious right. The one that’s subsidized for having more children will make more kids.

  Does a silly discrimination actually happen in real life?

  Yes. Welfare parasites get tons of money for very children they have. Rich smart males are forced to pay higher child support simply because they are richer.

  Is it strange that the poor ended up producing more children?

  I am not joking. This has been going on for so many years.

  The fact is majestic welfare kings and queens produce more children the rich. The politically correct explanation is that the rich, being smarter, doesn’t want many kids.

  The poor, being dumb, makes more kids. That explanation presumes that kids are undesirable “accidents” equally for all.

  The politically correct explanation is that the rich don’t want too many children. C’mon.

  “Saying a welfare recipient can afford 20 children more than a billionaire is retarded.Your concept of afford is what, homeless, struggling to feed said 20 children? Of course a billionnaire can afford 20 children, but the problem lies in that usually, there are exceptions but usually billionaires are very smart and the smarter a person is, the less likely they are to have children, or more than a couple of children. Welfare recipients are for the most part (again there are excpetions) lower class, lower IQ, lower educated populace.” – Barbara Hofmockel Mensa Administrator for Mensa Group in Linked in

  We need a little suspension of beliefs here. Evolutionary psychology dictates that all species, from chimps, to ants, to bacteria, maximize reproductive success. You mean out of millions of millionaires, not one want to have 20 children? I know plenty of welfare parasites with 20+ children.

  When people do not get subsidy, they get only what they need and only if they want it more than what it costs.

  So the politically correct explanation is correct but misleading and vague. When we said we want A, what we really mean are we prefers A than other things, say getting B amount of cashes. Also whether that takes into account political pressures or not is vague.

  We’ll get back to that.

  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2224570/Stop-hysteria-Why-state-pay-women-benefits-children.html

  But the kids will be poor you said. Well, the standard of living of even the least productive people in our society is already more than typical standard of living of our ancestors. After all, what truly matter when raising a child is

  1.Would the child have a reasonable chance to be rich

  2.Will the child likely reach reproductive age

  Socialists decree that all kids deserve “equal” chance. Not only the child of the poor will have a reasonable chance to be rich too, their chance will be roughly equal to the chance of the hard working diligent people’s children.

  It doesn’t matter how hard you work for your child’s future or how bright your child is. Libtards, or should I say liberal geniuses, have dictated that your child do not deserve better chance than some other guy that simply drop kids at babies drop boxes.

  Obviously each child can easily reach reproductive age. Not to mention that the poor tend to breed faster because they do not have to work hard to make money first.

  First of all, let’s examine the obvious. How many kids’ can make welfare parasites make? Is there any statutory limitation that the state would stop giving funding to welfare parasites after X number of child?

  No.

  The more kids they make the more money they make. Each of their kids will have about the same chance to be rich as the kids of hardworking people. If hardworking is an inherited trait, then it will be an extinct trait soon. If it’s not an inherited trait, it’ll go extinct even sooner.

  So, what’s the alternative?

  Well, the alternatives are not that simple.

  If government simply decree that poor people cannot breed, it won’t be long before government have power to decree that anyone disagreeing with big government cannot break. This seems to add power to government rather than reducing it.

  Another “libertarian” solution is to just let the kid starve thinking that those poor people will stop breeding if they know their kids will starve. The thing is, what about the children? Even mass murderers got much more humane death.

  Also birth rates in most productive advance countries are in decline. Without subsidy for children all achievements in advance countries will simply be inherited to people in other countries. Being in a developing country, I don’t mind. But obviously this is an issue.

  However, there is another natural alternative that actually results in less government. That means:

  1.Less welfare

  2.More babies

  3.Less abortion (pro-life people would still hate it)

  4.Keep abortion legal (pro choices people would still hate it)

  5.Each babies have equal chances

  It’s simple. Why not allow women to choose the terms and the men she wants to breed kids with.

  You mean now they can’t?

  That alternative is so politically incorrect, it won’t be done. We’ll get back to that in the next chapter.

  Pro Life is Really Just Anti Choice and Pro Choice is Really Just Anti Life

  The reason why pro-abortion is anti-life is obvious. They’re poor. Why would you want to live in poverty? Obviously the poorer a person the less he wants to live and reproduce.

  But why would the pro life anti choice? Oh they do not want mothers to have choices to kill their babies. Hmmm...

  This explanation doesn’t make sense. Humans are selfish. Those are not their babies. Most aborted babies are aborted because there is no financially responsible biological dad to support the babies. Why would typical pro life people care? Because of the, ew, sanctity of life? Excuse me while I stop laughing.

  What about if there is a way those future mothers have more choice and yet there are less abortion?

  Remember the issue with government having power to decide who can’t breed? Well, actually government has that power and uses that extensively. Government doesn’t say this guy can’t breed. That’s rare. Governments simply subsidize certain people to breed and make breeding artificially expensive for the other.

  Government actively prevents rich smart males from producing many children.

  Am I serious?

  Sure.

  Let’s for comparison just look at how easily it used to be done in ancient China. Say a rich man want to have many children in China at that time, how would he do so?

  He would have tons of concubines and has many children. Voila. More children without government subsidy. Problem solved. Because the richer men grab more women, there aren’t enough women for the poor. So the poor have fewer children. Tada, less welfare.

  Can women pick such rich men now?

  Let’s see, one way to do it is marriage route.

  Marriage is actually a no option because government regulates marriage. Anything too heavily regulated by government must contain rules that favor parasites. Marriage laws in all westernized countries are actually designed to bankrupt rich smart males.

  Let’s forget marriage. As long as marriage is not privatized and government still regulates it, it’s a bad sign anyway. It’s like becoming an employee. It’s hard to get rich becoming employee because government regulate employment. Anything governed by government rather than market mechanism is dangerous for the productive.

  So why not just pay the woman outside marriage? Great. Most, if not all ways, to pay women
outside marriage is illegal under anti-prostitution laws. It doesn’t matter you and the girl like one another. It doesn’t matter that you plan to live together for quite some time and produce babies. It doesn’t matter she has a side job as programmer and don’t need your money. Feminazis would claim that it’s exploitation, slavery, and scream bloody murder as if you’re some rapists.

  Okay, what about financially support a sugar baby? This will actually work to my surprise. You can visit sites https://freemarketforever.com/uncategorized/why-sugar-daddy-babies-relationship-is-better-than-marriage/ to see why. Somehow, a Chinese businessman managed to come up with a business innovation that really works out.

  However, there is still something that gets in the way.

  Remember my analogy where Chultu worshiper get $1k subsidy for every babies they make? Imagine if government decides that the amount of child support you got to spend is proportional to your income?

  Yes, that’s actually what happens.

  “We calculate each parent’s child support income, which is a parent’s adjusted taxable income minus a self-support amount. Income

  We add both parents’ child support incomes together to get a combined child support income. Income

  We divide each parent’s individual child support income by the combined child support income to get an income percentage.” https://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/child-support/child-support-assessment/working-out-child-support-using-the-basic-formula

  This is actually the actual child support laws in most western or westernized country. The richer you are the higher the