i agree w/ everyone about not loaning the $5200 to your in laws.

maybe they could get help w/ down payment assistance somewhere else?? have they gone to hud dot gov to look??

if the government assistance they’re now getting is in the form of housing, there is a program to help people in public housing buy their own home, for example.

there is also the “good neighbor” program, which helps you buy a hud house for 1/2 price if you are a firefighter, teacher, etc.

there are other programs, too.

xoxo

I know Trent doesn’t advocate that, he does things regularly for entertainment.

Doing things that you enjoy and that make you happy are important. Instead of an all or nothing approach perhaps you should try a more moderated approach.

Instead of cutting out all entertainment, figure out what it is that gives you the most pleasure and focus on that.

Instead of NO DESSERTS! try dessert only once a week and make it a really nice dessert that you enjoy. I’ve found I’d much rather spend a little bit more on something really nice than have a bunch of not so great things.

So instead of buying something quick or cheap the grocery go to a bakery or a nice restaurant and order a great dessert and indulge.

Seriously though, no idea. Maybe it’s a way to justify or validate his own reproductive choices?

If there is one group of people who should not be having children, it is people who don’t want children. And I still think it’s weird that Trent keeps trying to convince people who don’t want children to have them anyway, and I still wonder what he’s trying to accomplish.

That being said, from an environmental perspective, Americans & Europeans use many times more resources than those in poorer countries, so an American who chooses to not have children is making a big impact on the environment.

On the topic of 70% of your income paying taxes, Trent is right, you can argue until you’re blue in the face about whether this is true or not. What’s important is what would happen if we paid 0 taxes, and coming up with a more progressive tax system would help. The teabaggers forget the benefits that they and the rest of us enjoy because we pay taxes.

Incidenteally, if they can’t come up with $5000 for a downpayment then very likely they can’t afford to really buy in the first place. It’s really going to be reality check for them.

All he said today is that people who can contemplate the ecological impact of having children would probably make good parents if they brought that level of contemplation to raising a child. In the past, he’s said he believes that he thinks people who believe strongly in something should have children and raise them to believe that instead of throwing themselves into a life-work of spreading the cause to others (which is problematic for so many reasons, but that’s another debate). He’s never said that people he disagrees with should have fewer children or be forbidden from having children. Stop grinding your irrelevant ax on us, please.

But what Trent has said multiple times about the “intelligent” people needing to have children and what you said:

It’s true that smart people really ARE having fewer children, while those with lower IQs tend to have more (often with multiple partners).

Just struck me as too damn close to Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes reasoning for the Supreme Court ruling (8-1) that forcible sterilizing people to keep the gene pool clean was in the state’s best interest:

“We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.”

I posted this because I wanted Trent to think, and I wanted other people to think — that within his life time, within in my lifetime — that attitude of only certain people should have children was taken to the extreme.

I’ve seen a documentary about the Virginia case, they interviewed a woman, who as a teenager had been put in an institution because her family was poor and she was considered “feeble” (she had dyslexia she found out later), and her parents couldn’t afford to take care of her.

But she grew up, got a job, married and tried and tried and tried to have children. Finally she went to the doctor and he examined her and told her — of course you can’t have kids your tubes are tied.

This woman had no idea about what happened, she was told she some lie about the operation. She had her choice to have children taken away because a bunch of people saw her as poor and stupid.

So no, no one here is advocating forced sterilization but those policies grew out of the same ideas both you and Trent have expressed.

Whoa, hold on! Who said anything about “forced sterilization?”

I’m going to step up on my soap box because there are comments here and parts of Trent’s answers that make me very angry. Eugenics isn’t just about race, and it’s not some dead idea that only the Nazis did.

The United States forcibly sterilized I don’t know know even how many individuals and the last forced sterilization happened in 1981. In my life time, in Trent’s life time.

IT was validated by the Supreme Court Often this was done not only without consent, but without the people knowing it was happening to them. They were told they had to have surgery for one reason, and then they were sterilized.

Between 1917 and 1981 2600 people in the state of Oregon were forcibly sterilized.

Why? Again because they were “unfit”. They were poor or “feeble minded” or had epilepsy or were alcoholics. Or their parents were criminals

In 1941 100 teenage girls, who were in state home, were sterilized without their consent, and most likely without their knowledge.

In Virginia 7450 people were sterilized. Again for being poor, or “ne’er do wells” or having mental illness or not being smart enough (probably some had learning disabilities), or they were deaf or blind or partially deaf or blind. Or had a physical deformity.

One of those teenage boys who was sterilized became a decorated WWII veteran.

The US Supreme court case that legitimized sterilization happened because a woman fought back, she was institutionalized and classified as “feeble minded” because she was unmarried and had a child after being raped. Her child at age 6 months was deemed feeble minded. Carrie fought but ultimately lost and was forcibly sterilized.

A lot of smart parents, once they realize that their kid’s intelligence does not match or exceed their own, usually have the means to maximize whatever potential their kid has, with extra tutoring, special classes, private instruction, etc.

And if the affluent kid commits crimes, the parents can get better lawyers who keep the kids out of jail–they’ll get counseling, guidance, stints at a rehab center, and whatever else is available to them. But poor people don’t have much access to the same things, and usually are committed to at least some jail time (and a black mark on their permanent record).

And while poor people may have unplanned children, more affluent people have better access to family planning and discreet abortions.

Please just say “We never mix family and friends with business” and then live by that rule. When you become a lender or a borrower, your relationship with someone becomes all about money. Even if it ends well and they pay you back, they’ll always remember that YOU were the reason they could buy a house, and they’ll resent you for being in the “superior” position. (And somewhere inside, you’ll always remember that you were in that position and you’ll resent them for not being grateful enough about it.)