[DerbyX]

Jeeze Eyebrock. We seem to have a few roles reversed here. I'm sounding like a tax cut loving military wanting con and you sound like a hippie socialist Knee-dipper.

[bootlegga]

I didn't ask for anything from the government, I simply said that I CAN'T afford to have more than two kids.

[DerbyX]

bootlegga wrote:

I didn't ask for anything from the government, I simply said that I CAN'T afford to have more than two kids.

Actually what you are saying is that you can't afford to have more kids and give them all the things you want to. I think that can be true for any number of kids. I mean if I decide to only have 2 kids because I cannot afford to send 3 to a prestigious boarding school that I never got to attend I don't think that qualifies under my argument about people not having more children because they simply cannot afford to. For that it should mean that they cannot afford to properly feed and clothe another child. No offence but if you really wanted more kids you wouldn't let not be able to shower them in toys stop you.

[bootlegga]

EyeBrock wrote:

Boots,

It's well known that many sponsors are not fulfilling their commitments. I'm not trying to argue on this with you but as an immigrant, I have been exposed to the system on many levels. Also with my work I have been on joint investigations with Canada Immigration and others.

Sponsors reneging is a big problem. Another issue is sponsors themselves going on welfare with their charge also being on welfare. There is little likelihood that the Province will get back payments when sponsors etc are basically living in generational poverty.

I know what it says on the government websites, but the immigration ‘advisor’ lobby is powerful and they are now openly touting this OCA decision on their websites. The system is badly broken on many levels. Canada deserves better than having these lobby groups decide who stays and who goes and who gets in to Canada.

We have abrogated our sovereignty over immigration to political appointees on the Immigration and Refugee Board and we have courts that are successfully lobbied by immigration lawyers and ‘advisors’ with a vested interest in keep the broken status quo current.

Like I said, find some proof, or otherwise define "many".

I don't believe that even 1/3 of sponsors are abusers of the system. My guess is it's just like the old student loan system, 5% - 10%, which admittedly is higher than loan defaults (2-3% I believe), but still not high enough for me to hit the panic button.

[bootlegga]

DerbyX wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

I didn't ask for anything from the government, I simply said that I CAN'T afford to have more than two kids.

Actually what you are saying is that you can't afford to have more kids and give them all the things you want to. I think that can be true for any number of kids. I mean if I decide to only have 2 kids because I cannot afford to send 3 to a prestigious boarding school that I never got to attend I don't think that qualifies under my argument about people not having more children because they simply cannot afford to. For that it should mean that they cannot afford to properly feed and clothe another child. No offence but if you really wanted more kids you wouldn't let not be able to shower them in toys stop you.

Where did I say I wanted to "shower them in toys"?

I said I couldn't afford to give them a college education and extra-curricular activities like music lessons or ice hockey, to help them be successful down the road in life. I don't know if you've looked at how much college educations or music/language lessons, and/or hockey cost these days, but it's not possible for a one income family to provide that, unless that single income is over six figures.

Yes, I said I wanted to take them on nice vacations , but that was a 'whenever we can afford it' scenario, not every year. Nowhere did I even mention buying Nintendos, ATVs, or big screen TVs.

Big fucking difference.

Like I said, I came from a big family and we often did without (like paying for my own college education), and not going on summer vacations (EVER). I want to make sure my kids have all the advantages in life I never had. I don't want them paying off student loans at 30+ if at all possible. If that means having two instead of four, I'm prepared to make that sacrifice.

[DerbyX]

I guess I got that from this: No, us, my brother, several friends, are all of the same mind - have two (or three children) and provide the absolute best for them - instead the old way of having four or more and just feeding and clothing them.

That's not quite the same as saying you are having less children because you simply cannot afford more. You simply want to give less children more things/advantages.

Again, no offence but that's not the same as what Eyebrock is saying about more tax breaks will equal more children nor is it my point that the reason people are choosing to have less children isn't because they can't afford them.

I don't think my parents (coming from families of 12 and 6) were less advantaged then myself. They did say that they wanted me to do the things they didn't but It wasn't because of lack of opportunity. It was because they choose not to.

To me that is worlds away from people not having more children because they cannot afford them. They can afford them. They might think they cannot afford to give 1 or more children all the things they want but so what? Giving them life and a loving home should easily compensate.

Assuming you won the lottery, at how many kids would you stop? 3? 4? Would you go all Octo-mom?

The simple fact is that in todays culture people are deciding to have less children. Its actually gotten a little better from the 60s, 70s and 80s where smaller families were the goal of a parent centric lifestyle (the "me" generation) but we as a society have choosen to have much smaller families then did our grandparents. In fact the number of my cousins who have 3 or more children in their families is less then the number who have 1 and of my uncles and aunts, only 1 has 4. Both my grandparents had larger families then every single one of their children and their grand kids.

All of them made the choice to have families at that level and I don't know of any of them that used economics as their reason.

[Zipperfish]

bootlegga wrote:

I didn't ask for anything from the government, I simply said that I CAN'T afford to have more than two kids.

HINT: You get more if you sell them for parts.

[DerbyX]

Zipperfish wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

I didn't ask for anything from the government, I simply said that I CAN'T afford to have more than two kids.

HINT: You get more if you sell them for parts.

How much do you figure we could get for you if we sold your organs on the black market?

You live a healthy lifestyle right? Good liver. Good lungs. Throw in a few pre-sale sperm donations and we might just fetch a pretty penny for you.

[Zipperfish]

DerbyX wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

I didn't ask for anything from the government, I simply said that I CAN'T afford to have more than two kids.

HINT: You get more if you sell them for parts.

How much do you figure we could get for you if we sold your organs on the black market?

You live a healthy lifestyle right? Good liver. Good lungs. Throw in a few pre-sale sperm donations and we might just fetch a pretty penny for you.

Healthy lifestyle? You must be kidding. I drank and smoked and dropped acid all through Christmas, and don't even get me started on the fisting.

[EyeBrock]

I take it you don't have kids Derby?

[Zipperfish]

OK my jokes are going downhill fast. Time to get that frickin' paper I've ebeen putting off!

[andyt]

DerbyX wrote:

All of them made the choice to have families at that level and I don't know of any of them that used economics as their reason.

As women get better educated and more economically independent, they become less interested in being baby machines. Birth control helps too. But there are also plenty of couples who reduce the number of children they have because of the extra economic load. It's not either or.

It would be nice to return to the days of having one parent stay home with the tots, then having them only in part time day care as they get a bit older. There's no substitute for bonding with a parent. Instead of putting the kids in daycare asap, or for the better off, importing Phillipino or Carribean nannies. The kids from those nannies suffer, and the Canadian kids don't get the same either. To do so would require a shift of resources to the lower income groups, reduction in housing prices because of less inflow of immigrants, and people willing to do with materially less. If you go by Jeffery Rubin, it's coming whether we like it or not. (Peak Oil).

[bootlegga]

DerbyX wrote:

I guess I got that from this: No, us, my brother, several friends, are all of the same mind - have two (or three children) and provide the absolute best for them - instead the old way of having four or more and just feeding and clothing them.

That's not quite the same as saying you are having less children because you simply cannot afford more. You simply want to give less children more things/advantages.

Again, no offence but that's not the same as what Eyebrock is saying about more tax breaks will equal more children nor is it my point that the reason people are choosing to have less children isn't because they can't afford them.

I don't think my parents (coming from families of 12 and 6) were less advantaged then myself. They did say that they wanted me to do the things they didn't but It wasn't because of lack of opportunity. It was because they choose not to.

To me that is worlds away from people not having more children because they cannot afford them. They can afford them. They might think they cannot afford to give 1 or more children all the things they want but so what? Giving them life and a loving home should easily compensate.

Assuming you won the lottery, at how many kids would you stop? 3? 4? Would you go all Octo-mom?

The simple fact is that in todays culture people are deciding to have less children. Its actually gotten a little better from the 60s, 70s and 80s where smaller families were the goal of a parent centric lifestyle (the "me" generation) but we as a society have choosen to have much smaller families then did our grandparents. In fact the number of my cousins who have 3 or more children in their families is less then the number who have 1 and of my uncles and aunts, only 1 has 4. Both my grandparents had larger families then every single one of their children and their grand kids.

All of them made the choice to have families at that level and I don't know of any of them that used economics as their reason.

Like I said in my replies, it's about making sure my kids have more than just 3 meals and roof over their heads. I want them to eat 3 good meals, not KD and Coca-cola. I want them to go to university (started an RESP for my daughter just last week BTW). I want them to have music lessons if they are gifted in that department (Lord knows I'm not). I definitely want my children to speak at least English, French and Mandarin, maybe even Spanish if we can find the time for everything. If they want to play hockey, I want to be able to afford it, not force them to play soccer (like I did) because that's all we can afford. All of that costs big money, so we're having only two kids.

And who knows, maybe my daughter will want to be a ballerina or a speed skater or painter or whatever. I want to be able to say yes to that kind of stuff, not have to run to the bank and decide after checking my balance.

I remember how shitty I felt every September on the first day of school and other kids told the whole class about their wonderful summer vacations to Europe or California or wherever. When it got to me, I said I went to the waterpark at the mall. Whoopdy fucking do! Because of that, I DREADED the first day back every year. Now I don't expect to take my kids on a fancy vacation every year, but I expect to at least leave the city I'm living in and go somewhere, even if it's just the lake/camping for a week.

Honestly, I think if we won the lottery and didn't have to worry about the costs involved in raising more children, we would probably have four. However, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen...