Do any conservatives disagree with this?

Author: bmdrocks21 ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 44
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 1,854
    4
    6
    10
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    I feel like a lot of conservatives jump on the "fiscal responsibility" and "low spending" bandwagons, while the conservative movement throughout history has centered around the family.  Almost a quarter of abortions are because of monetary concerns.

    Many married couples both have to work to be able to buy a house, car, and the average age for having a first child now is 26.9 years old. This number was 21.4 in 1970. This includes a lot of concerns such as decreasing fertility and parents having less children. This has resulted in an aging population and people with an average birth rate of 1.77, which is below replacement. So, our population is decreasing without considering immigration, leading to a cultural shift.

    Based on a shifting culture and many people having to put work over children for a significant point of their life, I think that below is a great position that conservatives in America should support.

    So, Hungary has recently released a seven-point plan to support families.  It goes as follows:
    • 1.     Every woman under the age of forty who gets married for the first time will be eligible for a preferential loan of up to HUF 10 million($32,000). Repayment of the loan will be suspended for three years after the birth of a child, and for another three years after a second. In addition, one third of the principal of the loan will be written off after the birth of a second child. If a third child is born, the remaining debt will be cancelled in its entirety.
    • 2.    Preferential loans available under the already established family housing benefit scheme will be extended. At present families with two children can receive low interest loans of HUF 10 million($32,000) for the purchase of new homes, while families with three or more children have access to corresponding preferential loans of HUF 15 million($48,000). In the future, families with two or more children will also be able to use such loans for the purchase of existing properties.
    • 3.    Up until now the Government has provided mortgage repayment relief of one million forints for large families when a third child is born, and a further one million forints($3,200) for each subsequent child. From now on the Government will provide this relief of one million forints($3,200) when a second child is born, a further HUF four million ($13,000) for the birth of a third child, and one million forints ($3,200) after the birth of every subsequent child.
    • 4.    He said that women who have given birth to and raised four or more children will be exempt from personal income tax for the rest of their lives. 
      • 5.    He also announced the introduction of a car purchase program for large families. The Government will provide families raising at least three children with a non-repayable grant of HUF 2.5 million ($8,000) for the purchase of new cars with at least seven seats.
      • 6.    Mr. Orbán went on to say that universal crèche care will be made available. Over a period of three years, 21,000 new places will be created in crèches(childcare facilities): 10,000 this year, 5,000 in 2020 and 6,000 in 2021. This means that by 2022 every family will be able to place their young children in crèche facilities.
      • 7.    The seventh point of the action plan is the introduction of childcare payments for grandparents: if parents so decide, grandparents will be able to receive childcare payments instead of them. He also announced the modernization of language teaching in secondary schools, which will enable every secondary school student to attend two-week language courses abroad in the summer breaks of their 9th and 11th years in education.
      Is there anything you would like to add or criticize if you would consider yourself a conservative? (The libs and lefties can offer input, too, I guess. I'm assuming you would have different reasons for supporting or criticizing such a policy than that I have outlined, though).

    • Greyparrot
      Greyparrot avatar
      Debates: 2
      Forum posts: 9,716
      3
      3
      8
      Greyparrot avatar
      Greyparrot
      We already have too many people.
    • bmdrocks21
      bmdrocks21 avatar
      Debates: 6
      Forum posts: 1,854
      4
      6
      10
      bmdrocks21 avatar
      bmdrocks21
      --> @Greyparrot
      The US currently has 4% of the world population, and our native population is dying. If anything, the Third World should be having less kids, not us.
    • zedvictor4
      zedvictor4 avatar
      Debates: 15
      Forum posts: 3,680
      3
      3
      3
      zedvictor4 avatar
      zedvictor4
      --> @bmdrocks21
      Nowadays certain women think it's cool to have kids when they are either old and past it, or not at all.

      So certain sub-cultures are wittingly under-breeding themselves out of contention, as it were.

      Homogenization is clearly the way forwards, probably with a future tendency towards a slightly darker skin tone and Asiatic features.

      And what we think, will have long since become irrelevant.

      Maybe.
    • bmdrocks21
      bmdrocks21 avatar
      Debates: 6
      Forum posts: 1,854
      4
      6
      10
      bmdrocks21 avatar
      bmdrocks21
      --> @zedvictor4
      I'm afraid that I don't follow. Are you advocating for the destruction of individual cultures?
    • Greyparrot
      Greyparrot avatar
      Debates: 2
      Forum posts: 9,716
      3
      3
      8
      Greyparrot avatar
      Greyparrot
      --> @bmdrocks21
      We can import as many people as we need. We just have to insist on assimilation.
    • bmdrocks21
      bmdrocks21 avatar
      Debates: 6
      Forum posts: 1,854
      4
      6
      10
      bmdrocks21 avatar
      bmdrocks21
      --> @Greyparrot
      Why do that when you can make Americans at home and skip over that whole "assimilation" business?
    • Greyparrot
      Greyparrot avatar
      Debates: 2
      Forum posts: 9,716
      3
      3
      8
      Greyparrot avatar
      Greyparrot
      --> @bmdrocks21
      Can also import babies like Celebrities do.
    • n8nrgmi
      n8nrgmi avatar
      Debates: 0
      Forum posts: 1,000
      2
      2
      3
      n8nrgmi avatar
      n8nrgmi
      --> @bmdrocks21
      i'm not fundamentally against paying people to have kids. but what if instead of this scheme above, you helped with child care? i'm kinda conservative, so i balk at child care but am more receptive to the above plan. i dont have a good reason, though. once u get into the realm of paying people a monthly check, or assisting in that sorta way... you get into "welfare" arguments and such. this is getting into style arguments instead of substance. 
    • Dr.Franklin
      Dr.Franklin avatar
      Debates: 32
      Forum posts: 8,847
      4
      7
      11
      Dr.Franklin avatar
      Dr.Franklin
      --> @bmdrocks21
      of course I agree, conservatives only cared about economics and small gov since reagen

      the family is struggling, eveyone knows this but most chose to ignore it
    • thett3
      thett3 avatar
      Debates: 1
      Forum posts: 665
      2
      2
      7
      thett3 avatar
      thett3
      I strongly support this, and other pro-natalist policies. Population growth and sustainment needs to come from the existing people, not through immigration. 
    • Greyparrot
      Greyparrot avatar
      Debates: 2
      Forum posts: 9,716
      3
      3
      8
      Greyparrot avatar
      Greyparrot
      --> @thett3
      How do you feel about paying 3rd world countries to import babies for Americans to raise?
    • TheDredPriateRoberts
      TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
      Debates: 0
      Forum posts: 3,360
      3
      3
      6
      TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
      TheDredPriateRoberts
      --> @bmdrocks21
      throwing government money at anything rarely has the intended effect imo, essentially I see that scheme as a form of government prostitution, which I only object to because the government is involved and pulling the strings.
      I'd rather see tax breaks or a system that encourages employment and children from employed people.  There's a way to accomplish or encourage without strong government intervention or bribery.
    • Death23
      Death23 avatar
      Debates: 20
      Forum posts: 612
      3
      4
      7
      Death23 avatar
      Death23
      --> @bmdrocks21
      Financial barriers are a problem for the poor. If increasing the birth rate is desireable (or reducing the abortion rate) there is evidence from the fracking boom that increasing incomes among non-college educated men results in significantly more births.

      We confirm that these localized fracking booms ledto increased wages for non-college-educated men. A reduced form analysisreveals that in response to local-area fracking production, both marital andnon-marital births increase
       
      The point estimate implies that one thousand dollarof fracking production per capita is associated with an increase of 5.96 birthsper 1000 women (standard error of 0.96). In the peak years of the boom,simulated production per capita in the most intensive fracking counties wasbetween $500-$600 per capita, which would suggest that total births increasedby 3-3.6 births per 1000 women, or around three percent. This is consistentwith a positive income effect of income on fertility, as has been found in previouswork

      TBH I'd argue that deporting illegal aliens would probably do the trick, as this group of immigrants significantly depresses wages among those without college educations.
    • bmdrocks21
      bmdrocks21 avatar
      Debates: 6
      Forum posts: 1,854
      4
      6
      10
      bmdrocks21 avatar
      bmdrocks21
      --> @n8nrgmi
      I think that conservatives lose by focusing on  being against "welfare" policies. Their goal is to support the family, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with this program in my eyes. Building childcare facilities, making homebuying more affordable for families, and providing low-interest loans can help them get their lives in order.
    • bmdrocks21
      bmdrocks21 avatar
      Debates: 6
      Forum posts: 1,854
      4
      6
      10
      bmdrocks21 avatar
      bmdrocks21
      --> @Greyparrot
      Well for one, I don't support subsidizing the Third World having far more children than they can handle.

      Second, it is good to have children with strong roots in the country. I don't subscribe to that "nation of immigrants" silly business.
    • bmdrocks21
      bmdrocks21 avatar
      Debates: 6
      Forum posts: 1,854
      4
      6
      10
      bmdrocks21 avatar
      bmdrocks21
      --> @TheDredPriateRoberts
      Well we already have some tax credits, but they aren't significant. And unless you plan on making it a refundable and large tax credit, it probably wouldn't help people unless they are fairly wealthy. But then, refundable credits are more like reimbursements and that assumes people have the money to spend upfront. Preferential loans provide the capital upfront so that the program can be used widespread.
    • bmdrocks21
      bmdrocks21 avatar
      Debates: 6
      Forum posts: 1,854
      4
      6
      10
      bmdrocks21 avatar
      bmdrocks21
      --> @Dr.Franklin
      If the GOP doesn't get their head out of their rear end and start supporting pro-family policies soon, then they are finished, and rightly so. A classical liberal movement masquerading as a conservative movement doesn't deserve to last.

    • bmdrocks21
      bmdrocks21 avatar
      Debates: 6
      Forum posts: 1,854
      4
      6
      10
      bmdrocks21 avatar
      bmdrocks21
      --> @Death23
      Financial barriers are a problem for the poor. If increasing the birth rate is desireable (or reducing the abortion rate) there is evidence from the fracking boom that increasing incomes among non-college educated men results in significantly more births.

      We confirm that these localized fracking booms ledto increased wages for non-college-educated men. A reduced form analysisreveals that in response to local-area fracking production, both marital andnon-marital births increase
       
      The point estimate implies that one thousand dollarof fracking production per capita is associated with an increase of 5.96 birthsper 1000 women (standard error of 0.96). In the peak years of the boom,simulated production per capita in the most intensive fracking counties wasbetween $500-$600 per capita, which would suggest that total births increasedby 3-3.6 births per 1000 women, or around three percent. This is consistentwith a positive income effect of income on fertility, as has been found in previouswork

      TBH I'd argue that deporting illegal aliens would probably do the trick, as this group of immigrants significantly depresses wages among those without college educations.

      That is actually a very interesting point. I had no clue that something as simple as fracking could have such a profound effect on births.

      I certainly would agree with deporting illegal aliens, and I also favor restricting legal immigration. Creating a tight labor market can increase wages and could perhaps reduce part of the need for the program I listed above.
    • Dr.Franklin
      Dr.Franklin avatar
      Debates: 32
      Forum posts: 8,847
      4
      7
      11
      Dr.Franklin avatar
      Dr.Franklin
      --> @bmdrocks21
      pretty much, but to them-nothings wrong, they dont see the incredible loss of the American Dream
    • TheDredPriateRoberts
      TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
      Debates: 0
      Forum posts: 3,360
      3
      3
      6
      TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
      TheDredPriateRoberts
      --> @bmdrocks21
      I see it working like financial aid, you get it, use it, even if you flunk out, don't use the degree or find a job, you don't have to pay it back.
    • n8nrgmi
      n8nrgmi avatar
      Debates: 0
      Forum posts: 1,000
      2
      2
      3
      n8nrgmi avatar
      n8nrgmi
      --> @bmdrocks21
      if u support financial aid for child rearing, and support affordable housing and such.... how are you different than a liberal? is it more your style? do you feel u r pushing smart policy whereas liberals push throwing money at problems?
    • RationalMadman
      RationalMadman avatar
      Debates: 310
      Forum posts: 9,302
      10
      10
      11
      RationalMadman avatar
      RationalMadman
      What on Earth did I just read? He wants you to pay tax money to pay people to have kids but is then going to turn around and be against benefits or welfare for parents who are poor.

      He wants to PAY people to reproduce, to STOP abortions and then to be right-wing about the entire financial support post-birth.

      Yeah, I don't even know how to explain how many levels of wrong are involved in this.
    • bmdrocks21
      bmdrocks21 avatar
      Debates: 6
      Forum posts: 1,854
      4
      6
      10
      bmdrocks21 avatar
      bmdrocks21
      --> @n8nrgmi
      if u support financial aid for child rearing, and support affordable housing and such.... how are you different than a liberal? is it more your style? do you feel u r pushing smart policy whereas liberals push throwing money at problems?

      I mean, like I said at the top, I don't really think that a truly conservative movement is just about the government not spending money.

      It could be considered some sort of centrist policy I guess, because this is a conservative goal. Supporting the family and raising population domestically, instead of importing foreigners, to maintain cultural homogeneity is important.

      This isn't designed to be some liberal "take care of you for life and coddle you" type program. It is offering good financial incentives to get you started out. Frontloading some low-interest loans and some grants to help you buy cars and a home for your kids seems a lot more conservative than saying "sucks to suck. You're poor, so I guess you just can't have kids".
    • bmdrocks21
      bmdrocks21 avatar
      Debates: 6
      Forum posts: 1,854
      4
      6
      10
      bmdrocks21 avatar
      bmdrocks21
      --> @n8nrgmi
      So I guess what separates this is that people are still expected to be decently self-reliant. It simply makes it possible for younger couples have children. Then, if they choose, it is possible to have more children than would otherwise be possible if they start at age 30, when fertility starts rapidly declining.

      It also helps kids have a better life since parents are more likely to own homes, not raising kids in a small apartment. The American Dream includes owning a house :^) Overall, I would rate this as a conservative and pro-American policy. Even if it hypothetically wasn't conservative, I would still favor it.