"Make no mistake about it: the health care bill that moved forward to debate in the Senate on Saturday is simply a power play by the government to gain more control over how we live our lives. It could easily lead to government control over the continuation of our families. ... Still in force today, the technical policy requires IUDs for women of childbearing age with one child, sterilization for couples with two children (usually performed on the woman), and abortions for women pregnant without authorization. By the mid-eighties, according to Chinese government statistics, birth control surgeries--abortions, sterilizations, and IUD insertions--were averaging more than thirty million a year. ... China did not initiate their one-child policy to be cruel to their people, nor did they do it because they do not respect life. They initiated the policy simply due to the growing fiscal demands of a rapidly expanding population. ... We talked about 'death panels' in reference to the health care bills now under consideration by Congress, but another approach is simply to control the number of people entering the system--new births. ... As to whether or not it could happen in the [US] ... yes, it could", Robert Bonelli at American Thinker, 25 November 2009, link: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/after_a_takeover_of_healthcare.html.
Would such ban be enforced against illegal aliens? Would they be deported if population growth is a problem? Who are we kidding?
2 comments:
Uhm.
Someone should run the numbers on reduced population versus fiscal debt load per person ... with and without the illegal population numbers...
Anything is possible now... I don't rule anything entirely out anymore... although it's spooky to think about this... what the Chinese did...
I read a proposal for "federal fiscal stimulus" that included offering early retirement to school teachers to make way for younger, less expensive teachers (could be a very good possibility)... but the math entirely neglected the requirement to pay pensions to early retirees... which is often 40-60% of pay and benefits for an employee... the analysis totally missed that.
Anonymous:
You fell into the average trap. Fiscal debt load per person is meaningless. You can reduce it by bringing in millions of Somali Bantus who will largely collect welfare. What's more important is debt load per taxpayer. Look at California to see what I'm talking about. Even this calculation means little. The botton 50% of US taxpayers pay 3.5% of all federal income taxes. Check it out.
I have seen other calculations which ignore pension expenses. I believe Washington, DC is trying to force out older teachers. Steve Sailer may have done some analysis on the issue you raised. I'll see if I can find a post.
IA
Post a Comment