What is city occupany limit for 1 bedroom apartment?

[PhinneyWalker]

My post was not serious. Perhaps you may want to re-read it? Not necessary, though.

[Threestep2]

Originally Posted by ChristieP

I agree. I am not going to financially support the living expenses of people who are not my own family, and even supporting my own family would only be temporary.

Of course you are supporting them. Just look into how state/federal programs including disability ad SSI are being funded.

[PhinneyWalker]

I have no objection to our government supporting legal, responsible citizens who need help. The greatness of any society depends on how it treats its most vulnerable.

However, I vehemently object to supporting anyone (citizen or otherwise) who continues to procreate knowing they cannot afford to feed, house, clothe, and educate the children they bring into this world.

However, the U.S. will not take drastic measures other countries have taken to combat this problem. The U.S. will not require sterilisation. It will not take children away from these parents, which is probably just as well because it would then be 100% responsible for those children. It will not pass laws limiting the number of children anyone can bring into this world and punitively tax those parents who have more children than allowe, either. Sex education and family planning clinics have not solved the problem either. What else is there to do? Very little indeed.

No, I fear this is a problem that will plague all countries forever. The most opponents can do is to work to restrict and limit benefits as tightly as possible as a negative reinforcement instead of issuing more and more assistance to these families, because the more children these parents bring into the world, the more benefits they receive, obviously. I have seen housing assistance put families with 5 and more children into rental properties that even two working professional parents with only 1-2 children could only dream of leasing. It is grossly inequitable, and it makes responsible people think twice and question why they are working so hard and limiting their families to only those children they can actually afford to support.

[Threestep2]

Originally Posted by PhinneyWalker

I have no objection to our government supporting legal, responsible citizens who need help. The greatness of any society depends on how it treats its most vulnerable.

However, I vehemently object to supporting anyone (citizen or otherwise) who continues to procreate knowing they cannot afford to feed, house, clothe, and educate the children they bring into this world.

However, the U.S. will not take drastic measures other countries have taken to combat this problem. The U.S. will not require sterilisation. It will not take children away from these parents, which is probably just as well because it would then be 100% responsible for those children. It will not pass laws limiting the number of children anyone can bring into this world and punitively tax those parents who have more children than allowe, either. Sex education and family planning clinics have not solved the problem either. What else is there to do? Very little indeed.

No, I fear this is a problem that will plague all countries forever. The most opponents can do is to work to restrict and limit benefits as tightly as possible as a negative reinforcement instead of issuing more and more assistance to these families, because the more children these parents bring into the world, the more benefits they receive, obviously. I have seen housing assistance put families with 5 and more children into rental properties that even two working professional parents with only 1-2 children could only dream of leasing. It is grossly inequitable, and it makes responsible people think twice and question why they are working so hard and limiting their families to only those children they can actually afford to support.

Phinney - what do your rants have to do with OP's question?