The President is proposing to pay women to have children

[IM2]

Don’t your people continuously say…”We need more diversity”….aren’t they really saying “we need fewer white people”?
Don’t they encourage and embrace the replacement of white people?

Wrong. They are saying that whites need to stop only hiring white people. You need to get rid of that entitlement mentality.

 

[IM2]

Really? Do tell. They could have offered me 250K in my younger days to have kids and I would have told them to pound sand.

.

History shows this. If you don't call what has been done social engineering, then you're blind to reality.

 

[OKTexas]

History shows this. If you don't call what has been done social engineering, then you're blind to reality.

Most social engineering in relation to child bearing is done through the tax code and we didn't pay individual taxes till 1913.

.

 

[g5000]

The effect of low birth rates is less tax revenues.
The effect of more illiterate thirdworlders is less tax revenue and more spending on free shit.
We’re better off to let the population decline.

Are you sure you thought your post through Humberto?

View attachment 1103670

There is no bottom to your ignorance.

About 40 percent of our Ph.D. scientists and engineers were born in another country, Orrenius writes. People tend to focus on illegal or low-skilled immigration when discussing immigrants and often do not recognize the tremendous contribution of high-skilled immigrants.​

Dallas Federal Reserve


A new study, released last week, throws new information into the debate over foreign workers who arrive in the U.S. on such specialty visas.

The report, based on telephone surveys with 2,054 companies and projections by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley and Duke University, says about 25 percent of the technology and engineering companies launched in the U.S. in the past decade had at least one foreign-born founder.

Immigrants Become Founding Fathers


These immigrant founders tended to be highly educated - 96 percent held bachelor's degrees and 74 percent held graduate or postgraduate degrees, with 75 percent of these degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics-related fields. The vast majority of these company founders didn't come to the United States as entrepreneurs 52 percent came to study, 40 percent came to work, and 5.5 percent came for family reasons. Only 1.6 percent came to start companies in America.

Even though these founders immigrated for other purposes initially, they typically started their companies just 13.25 years after arriving in the United States. And, rather than settling in well-established immigrant gateways, such as New York or Los Angeles, they moved to a diverse group of tech centers across the country and helped fuel their growth.

http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/WadhwaTBook09.pdf
While 23 percent of the nation's cooks and 20 percent of its janitors were immigrants in 2000, 27 percent of new computer-software engineers were also immigrants, according to a recent Migration Policy Institute study.

Indeed, the more technically educated the group, the more likely immigrants are to be overrepresented in it. While the foreign born make up 15 percent of the overall workforce, according to the 2000 census, they constitute approximately 17 percent of those with a bachelor's degree in science and engineering occupations, 29 percent of those with a master's degree, and 39 percent of those with a doctoral degree.

As US nears milestone, a rising mix of immigrants - CSMonitor.com

 

[IM2]

Most social engineering in relation to child bearing is done through the tax code and we didn't pay individual taxes till 1913.

.

Social engineering is not your narrow definition. This society was structured in a certain way, denying certain groups rights while ensuring one group had rights. The country was engineered to provide the best outcomes for that one group. That's social engineering defined.

 

[Cassandro]

I MIGHT be more supportive of a tax credit for married couples but even that is fraught with peril.

Tax credits are welfare payments by another name. A better method would be to recognize the cost of raising children as a deductible "loss" on tax returns. For example, if it costs an average of $180,000 to raise a child through age 18, then a $10,000 per year deduction against income could be allowed for each child under that age. (This would mean that tax paying parents in a 22% federal tax bracket would pay $2200 less in federal income taxes every year for each child.)

This would not be "unfair" to low income parents, because a plethora of welfare programs already pays for these costs.

 

[bendog]

There’s a long history of some political voices accusing Black women of having children primarily for welfare benefits, often using this stereotype to justify restricting assistance. Now, with the proposed “baby bonus” policy from the Trump administration to encourage higher birth rates, the government is being asked to incentivize childbirth for the broader population.

It’s interesting to see how public attitudes toward government support for families can shift depending on which groups are perceived to benefit. Policies that were once stigmatized as “handouts” are now reframed as necessary incentives, reflecting deeper anxieties about changing demographics in America.

The push for women to have more children has a powerful ally: Trump​

The White House is emerging as a powerful ally of the burgeoning movement of people who want women to have more children, but there's little emphasis on the unique level of danger that birth poses in the U.S.

Why it matters: The U.S. population is aging, presenting complex economic and health care challenges that "pro-natalists" argue should be addressed through raising fertility rates. At the same time, the country is facing an ongoing maternal mortality crisis and a politically fraught debate over women's reproductive health that's had widespread ripple effects.

• The pro-natalist movement is splintered into factions with different views, including some with restrictive definitions of what constitutes a family. There's also infighting over exactly how women should be reproducing — with debate around IVF and genetic screening.
• Some of its most controversial adherents hold racist views that encouraging white people to have more babies could help maintain the race's stability.

https://www.axios.com/2025/04/22/trump-women-children-natalist-movement

SO WERE THE GOD DAM PROGS WITH THEIR STAY AT HOME WELFARE A/K/A ICYMI: Senator Reverend Warnock Introduces Most Ambitious Expansion of the Child Tax Credit » Reverend Raphael Warnock

 

[IM2]

SO WERE THE GOD DAM PROGS WITH THEIR STAY AT HOME WELFARE A/K/A ICYMI: Senator Reverend Warnock Introduces Most Ambitious Expansion of the Child Tax Credit » Reverend Raphael Warnock

This bothsideism has got to stop. Progressives never demonized people on welfare. They have always fought for increased assistance. So your link is irrelevant to me. Furthermore. I am all for more investment in low to moderate-income people of this country. Maybe we stop the idiotic bashing of the poor while the rich get to stay at home and get all kinds of welfare.

 

[MarathonMike]

Tax credits are welfare payments by another name. A better method would be to recognize the cost of raising children as a deductible "loss" on tax returns. For example, if it costs an average of $180,000 to raise a child through age 18, then a $10,000 per year deduction against income could be allowed for each child under that age. (This would mean that tax paying parents in a 22% federal tax bracket would pay $2200 less in federal income taxes every year for each child.)

This would not be "unfair" to low income parents, because a plethora of welfare programs already pays for these costs.

I agree, that would be a better approach to encourage couples to have more children.

 

[braalian]

He doesn't need to give $5000, he just needs to provide tax incentives and the like.

Mothers already get plenty of tax incentives. They don’t need more

 

[bendog]

I agree, that would be a better approach to encourage couples to have more children.

Why should the govt be involved in procreation? For that matter, who is the govt to tell us whom to love and when to have kids, if ever. OR are we russian or jinese? Our constitution provides for an historically proven means to increase population. Immigration. And we legally can limit it to certain countries and levels of education.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Social engineering is not your narrow definition. This society was structured in a certain way, denying certain groups rights while ensuring one group had rights. The country was engineered to provide the best outcomes for that one group. That's social engineering defined.

It pains you to hear it but this nation was founded by and built by White people for White people…That changed, laws changed…Ben Carson became a brain surgeon, Oprah a billionaire and the Kenyan was elected POTUS twice…Meanwhile there are black folks all over the internet still victimizing themselves.

 

[MarathonMike]

We don't have a birth rate issue in the first place.

We certainly don't have a population growth issue. We do have dropping birth rates among US citizen couples.

 

[candycorn]

There’s a long history of some political voices accusing Black women of having children primarily for welfare benefits, often using this stereotype to justify restricting assistance. Now, with the proposed “baby bonus” policy from the Trump administration to encourage higher birth rates, the government is being asked to incentivize childbirth for the broader population.

It’s interesting to see how public attitudes toward government support for families can shift depending on which groups are perceived to benefit. Policies that were once stigmatized as “handouts” are now reframed as necessary incentives, reflecting deeper anxieties about changing demographics in America.

The push for women to have more children has a powerful ally: Trump​

The White House is emerging as a powerful ally of the burgeoning movement of people who want women to have more children, but there's little emphasis on the unique level of danger that birth poses in the U.S.

Why it matters: The U.S. population is aging, presenting complex economic and health care challenges that "pro-natalists" argue should be addressed through raising fertility rates. At the same time, the country is facing an ongoing maternal mortality crisis and a politically fraught debate over women's reproductive health that's had widespread ripple effects.

• The pro-natalist movement is splintered into factions with different views, including some with restrictive definitions of what constitutes a family. There's also infighting over exactly how women should be reproducing — with debate around IVF and genetic screening.
• Some of its most controversial adherents hold racist views that encouraging white people to have more babies could help maintain the race's stability.

https://www.axios.com/2025/04/22/trump-women-children-natalist-movement

Trump is used to paying women to have intercourse. He can’t break the habit.

 

[Cassandro]

Why should the govt be involved in procreation? For that matter, who is the govt to tell us whom to love and when to have kids, if ever.

Are you now or in the future receiving Social Security and MediCare benefits? Who is going to pay for them?

 

[bendog]

Are you now or in the future receiving Social Security and MediCare benefits? Who is going to pay for them?

I'm sure there's some logical and constitutional connection to your post and mine. Naw, there isn't. lol

 

[Thinker101]

Seems the bigger problem here is the looney tunes liberals don't know what a woman is.

 

[initforme]

We certainly don't have a population growth issue. We do have dropping birth rates among US citizen couples.

Big whoop. A minor thing.

 

[initforme]

Is the birth rate any concern of a government?

 

[IM2]

It pains you to hear it but this nation was founded by and built by White people for White people…That changed, laws changed…Ben Carson became a brain surgeon, Oprah a billionaire and the Kenyan was elected POTUS twice…Meanwhile there are black folks all over the internet still victimizing themselves.
View attachment 1103838

The nation was stolen and it wasn't built by whites. Showing me a law that has been overturned doesn't mean squat. And naming 3 black people out of 48 million doesn't prove anything either. There are 9 black billionaires in America and Jeff Bezos has more money than all of them combined. So does the Afrikaner. Out of 20 million black households, 400 have a net worth of 1 million dollars. So when there are at least 77 million whites who believe they are victims of `imaginary genocide, oppression, and replacement, your comments show your true lack of intelligence. Think before you hit the post reply button, chump.