Baby Bonds

[Slartibartfast]

You don't need a poll when you already have the results sport.

Who cares about a poll after the election? No one. You know why? We already know the results.....

Jesus christ.

You do when you are looking at people's motivations.

 

[cpwill]

It’s getting more expensive to raise children. And government isn’t doing much to help. | Brookings

Families will now spend $26,011 more to raise a child to the age of 17, due to higher inflation. Without Build Back Better and the protections afforded under Roe, parents are left without needed support.

www.brookings.edu

Millennials Aren't Having Kids Because It's Too Expensive

A majority of millennials without kids say cost is a primary reason.

money.com

Educate yourself.

You may want to do some careful reading before you choose to adopt a dismissive approach on this topic.

From your second source, for example:

But here’s where things get complicated. Even though there are signs that financial concerns may be influencing people’s decisions to have kids, wealthier people actually have fewer kids than lower-income earners. In 2017, mothers in U.S. households earning under $10,000 had the highest birth rate, at about 66 births per 1,000 women. The birth rate decreased as income increases, with families making $200,000 or more per year having the lowest birth rate, at about 44 births per 1,000 women. Plenty of research backs up those stats, showing that as educational attainment increases and as people earn more money in a country, the number of kids they have actually goes down....​

​

It's not that American millennials as a group have less fiscal ability to have children than previous (worth noting: generally poorer) generations, or those in other cultures. Instead, it seems, they have higher expectations for their lifestyle, and report being less able to afford children while also maintaining that lifestyle.

That's not to downplay the impact of things like student loans, or that we graduated college into the teeth of the Great Recession. Those are real. But it is much less an affordability issue for us, writ large, than it is a lifestyle issue.

Remember that opening scene from Idiocracy, where the upper middle / rich couple was explaining that they just couldn't have children until she had her career figured out, and then later that they couldn't because the stock market was dipping.... while the poor guy with two baby mama's somehow had five or six? That's satire.... but it is satire.

 

[bave]

You may want to do some careful reading before you choose to adopt a dismissive approach on this topic.

From your second source, for example:

But here’s where things get complicated. Even though there are signs that financial concerns may be influencing people’s decisions to have kids, wealthier people actually have fewer kids than lower-income earners. In 2017, mothers in U.S. households earning under $10,000 had the highest birth rate, at about 66 births per 1,000 women. The birth rate decreased as income increases, with families making $200,000 or more per year having the lowest birth rate, at about 44 births per 1,000 women. Plenty of research backs up those stats, showing that as educational attainment increases and as people earn more money in a country, the number of kids they have actually goes down....​

​

It's not that American millennials as a group have less fiscal ability to have children than previous (worth noting: generally poorer) generations, or those in other cultures. Instead, it seems, they have higher expectations for their lifestyle, and report being less able to afford children while also maintaining that lifestyle.

That's not to downplay the impact of things like student loans, or that we graduated college into the teeth of the Great Recession. Those are real. But it is much less an affordability issue for us, writ large, than it is a lifestyle issue.

Remember that opening scene from Idiocracy, where the upper middle / rich couple was explaining that they just couldn't have children until she had her career figured out, and then later that they couldn't because the stock market was dipping.... while the poor guy with two baby mama's somehow had five or six? That's satire.... but it is satire.

This.

Good luck explaining it to the bananas crowd.

 

[Lursa]

I see it as a bit of a canary in the coal mine. While this isn't true for everyone, typically the progression of American life is to be born, get educated, get a career, get married, have kids, get a house, etc (in whatever order for the latter items on the list).

However, with economic conditions preventing that typical order of life, it points to a deeper problem with American society in general and how our economy is designed.

And then why cant legal, controlled immigration be the solution to keep that going? After all...it's a big part of what built it, esp. in the mid-80's to early 1900's.

 

[bave]

And then why cant legal, controlled immigration be the solution to keep that going? After all...it's a big part of what built it, esp. in the mid-80's to early 1900's.

It is a solution, assuming you can attract quality immigrants. This allowed Canada to survive the last 20 years, but has now failed Canada and they are falling into a demographic death spiral. In the US we need to try to attract productive immigrants, not people looking to get on the dole. This, combined with a domestic population that is actually willing to work that can even pass a drug test.

 

[Lursa]

It's not that American millennials as a group have less fiscal ability to have children than previous (worth noting: generally poorer) generations, or those in other cultures. Instead, it seems, they have higher expectations for their lifestyle, and report being less able to afford children while also maintaining that lifestyle.

Very well evaluated and written. It usually takes a lot of sacrifices, esp for younger couples, to have kids. Maybe they have different priorities these days. Works for me

 

[Lursa]

It is a solution, assuming you can attract quality immigrants. This allowed Canada to survive the last 20 years, but has now failed Canada and they are falling into a demographic death spiral. In the US we need to try to attract productive immigrants, not people looking to get on the dole. This, combined with a domestic population that is actually willing to work that can even pass a drug test.

Why the need for 'quality?' What guarantees of quality do we get with kids born to Americans? For example, there are many unskilled worker jobs to be filled, many that Americans wont/are less likely to do. These people can benefit from experience and skill development like anyone else doing such jobs. How do you propose assessing 'quality?'

I'm only looking at it as a solution if there is actually an economic need to be addressed. I'm not averse to criminal background checks tho.

 

[Slartibartfast]

You may want to do some careful reading before you choose to adopt a dismissive approach on this topic.

From your second source, for example:

But here’s where things get complicated. Even though there are signs that financial concerns may be influencing people’s decisions to have kids, wealthier people actually have fewer kids than lower-income earners. In 2017, mothers in U.S. households earning under $10,000 had the highest birth rate, at about 66 births per 1,000 women. The birth rate decreased as income increases, with families making $200,000 or more per year having the lowest birth rate, at about 44 births per 1,000 women. Plenty of research backs up those stats, showing that as educational attainment increases and as people earn more money in a country, the number of kids they have actually goes down....​

​

It's not that American millennials as a group have less fiscal ability to have children than previous (worth noting: generally poorer) generations, or those in other cultures. Instead, it seems, they have higher expectations for their lifestyle, and report being less able to afford children while also maintaining that lifestyle.

That's not to downplay the impact of things like student loans, or that we graduated college into the teeth of the Great Recession. Those are real. But it is much less an affordability issue for us, writ large, than it is a lifestyle issue.

Remember that opening scene from Idiocracy, where the upper middle / rich couple was explaining that they just couldn't have children until she had her career figured out, and then later that they couldn't because the stock market was dipping.... while the poor guy with two baby mama's somehow had five or six? That's satire.... but it is satire.

Oh I totally agree with that lifestyle expectation comment. That does indeed go into the mix.

 

[bave]

Why the need for 'quality?' What guarantees of quality do we get with kids born to Americans? There are many unskilled worker jobs to be filled, many that Americans wont/are less likely to do. These people can benefit from experience and skill development like anyone else doing such jobs.

I'm only looking at it as a solution if there is actually an economic need to be addressed. I'm not averse to criminal background checks tho.

Well, generally speaking you don't want to import problems and liabilities. No nation is going to allow a criminal to come to your country, nor should they. That person is not additive to your nation, but rather a detriment. Generally speaking you want immigrants who are going to assimilate and contribute. We don't get to choose, unfortunately, about expelling american kids that are shitheads. We own that headache, like it or not, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything we can to limit headaches from coming into the country.

You want to attract healthy young people to this country who are going to work and have a background of culture and values that align with the host nation. This goes back to where Trump got in trouble with the "Shit hole countries" remarks. Does anyone actually disagree with that? Do we want people coming to this country who don't have an education? No skills, no money, and a culture that doesn't align?

Here's the example. Somalis. My wife was an OBGYN who ended up taking care of a lot of Somalis in the US. She hated it. You had a massive cultural misalignment that caused all sorts of problems combined with the fact that as a cohort they did very poorly at assimilation and self sufficiency. Now, compare that to Indian or Nigerian immigrants who have vastly outperformed. Why? More similar cultural ideals and reasonably stable countries combined with a culture that encouraged investment and productivity.

 

[Slartibartfast]

And then why cant legal, controlled immigration be the solution to keep that going? After all...it's a big part of what built it, esp. in the mid-80's to early 1900's.

I am good with immigration. I think the cultural variety it brings enhances the American experience.

 

[bave]

Oh I totally agree with that lifestyle expectation comment. That does indeed go into the mix.

Glad you agree with that while at the same time ignoring your own source showing how wealthier people have fewer children than poorer people.

Again, these things fly in the face of your opinion.

 

[bave]

I am good with immigration. I think the cultural variety it brings enhances the American experience.

Again, a multitude of studies have shown that multiculturalism (assuming that is what we are talking about) is a disaster at the national level.

What made America so special was that we were a melting pot of cultures and immigrants. Now, we a pot of 80 different cultures who all want to remain separate and special. Go ask your parents or grand parents how many Irish Americans, Polish Americans, or anything else they knew growing up.

They just knew Americans. Now, everyone has to be silod in their own special box and we have to accomodate them?

I view travel (and immigration to a greater degree) as like being a guest in someone's home. You follow their rules, their customs, and do your best to be a good guest. Somehow that has gone by the wayside. Imagine walking into someone's home and just making your own rules and ignoring how they do things? Who would do that? Yet we are now encouraging it. Yikes.

 

[Gatsby]

It is a solution, assuming you can attract quality immigrants. This allowed Canada to survive the last 20 years, but has now failed Canada and they are falling into a demographic death spiral. In the US we need to try to attract productive immigrants, not people looking to get on the dole. This, combined with a domestic population that is actually willing to work that can even pass a drug test.

Both the US and Canada have a virtually inexhaustible supply of quality immigrants. There are hundreds of millions of people with college educations (or higher) around the world who would love to move here...far more than we could ever realistically take in.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Glad you agree with that while at the same time ignoring your own source showing how wealthier people have fewer children than poorer people.

Again, these things fly in the face of your opinion.

That's not what that means. This was speaking towards lifestyle expectations.

 

[Gatsby]

Again, a multitude of studies have shown that multiculturalism (assuming that is what we are talking about) is a disaster at the national level.

What made America so special was that we were a melting pot of cultures and immigrants. Now, we a pot of 80 different cultures who all want to remain separate and special. Go ask your parents or grand parents how many Irish Americans, Polish Americans, or anything else they knew growing up.

They just knew Americans. Now, everyone has to be silod in their own special box and we have to accomodate them?

I view travel (and immigration to a greater degree) as like being a guest in someone's home. You follow their rules, their customs, and do your best to be a good guest. Somehow that has gone by the wayside. Imagine walking into someone's home and just making your own rules and ignoring how they do things? Who would do that? Yet we are now encouraging it. Yikes.

Mexicans, Indians, Filipinos, Cubans, and other recent immigrant groups are following exactly the same assimilation trajectory that the Irish, Poles, and Italians once did. What evidence is there that they are any less willing to participate in a melting pot than previous generations?

 

[Lursa]

Well, generally speaking you don't want to import problems and liabilities. No nation is going to allow a criminal to come to your country, nor should they. That person is not additive to your nation, but rather a detriment. Generally speaking you want immigrants who are going to assimilate and contribute. We don't get to choose, unfortunately, about expelling american kids that are shitheads. We own that headache, like it or not, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything we can to limit headaches from coming into the country.

Too much info. I mentioned background checks. What would be the process to create criteria and then process individuals for 'quality?'

You want to attract healthy young people to this country who are going to work and have a background of culture and values that align with the host nation. This goes back to where Trump got in trouble with the "Shit hole countries" remarks. Does anyone actually disagree with that? Do we want people coming to this country who don't have an education? No skills, no money, and a culture that doesn't align?

IMO, it's just your opinion on the cultural backgrounds aligning. IMO we benefit a lot from that diversity as well. Certainly this is borne out on the cuisines contributed! j/k

Here's the example. Somalis. My wife was an OBGYN who ended up taking care of a lot of Somalis in the US. She hated it. You had a massive cultural misalignment that caused all sorts of problems combined with the fact that as a cohort they did very poorly at assimilation and self sufficiency. Now, compare that to Indian or Nigerian immigrants who have vastly outperformed. Why? More similar cultural ideals and reasonably stable countries combined with a culture that encouraged investment and productivity.

Anecdotal which you already seemed to dismiss elsewhere. I dont mind such for illustration tho. But it's not responsive to my post. Unless you are planning on using 'nationality' as a criteria by which to determine quality?

 

[bave]

Both the US and Canada have a virtually inexhaustible supply of quality immigrants. There are hundreds of millions of people with college educations (or higher) around the world who would love to move here...far more than we could ever realistically take in.

This is not true. The US has seen a net-negative mexican immigration and instead a rise in central american immigration. That is a material decline in quality of immigrant, largely because of the inherent differences in stability of the countries. The person coming from Mexico is doing so for a better economic opportunity and will likely have a very good chance at being self sufficient. The person with a young family fleeing El Salvador, is far less likely to do that for a variety of reasons. Canada has seen a far more drastic decline in immigrant quality. They are now seeing older wealthier immigrants who are simply buying passports and real estate but not materially contributing to the economy or national birth rate. This is why you see so many anti-Chinese laws coming into play.

A college education doesn't make an immigrant worthwhile. MD? Yes. BA in Hindu Art? Nope. I would rather work ethic rather than education frankly. This is why Nigerians have done so well in this country.

Really, my issue is this. Immigration policies should be based on what is objective good for the nation, not the immigrant. I don't care about the immigrants sob story. I care about whether or not you and your offspring will be good citizens. That means assimilation, values, and self sufficiency.

That's not what that means. This was speaking towards lifestyle expectations.

For the life of me I have no idea how you reach the conclusions you do. It literally says wealthier people have fewer babies than poor people. You reject that and now claim it says something else entirely? Jesus.

Mexicans, Indians, Filipinos, Cubans, and other recent immigrant groups are following exactly the same assimilation trajectory that the Irish, Poles, and Italians once did. What evidence is there that they are any less willing to participate in a melting pot than previous generations?

That's not true. There are a variety of studies showing slower assimilation patterns both economically and culturally. I would point out that the groups you are primarily referencing have a great deal in common with the US culture. There is already a huge spanish speaking community and cultural influence in the US. Philipinos and Indians are both heavily influenced by colonian English and American customs and language as well. Moreover, these are all relatively stable countries. This falls apart when you start talking about people from places like Haiti, Somalia, Syria, etc.

 

[bave]

Too much info. I mentioned background checks. What would be the process to create criteria and then process individuals for 'quality?'

Easiest way would be to revise birthright citizenship and the path to citizenship. If you come to this country and become a burden, you go back. Moreover, statistics are going to be a strong indicator of likely outcome.

IMO, it's just your opinion on the cultural backgrounds aligning. IMO we benefit a lot from that diversity as well. Certainly this is borne out on the cuisines contributed! j/k

It's not, there are a lot of studies that look into multi-culturalism and the pitfalls. It is rather extensive and pretty consistent globally. Basically populations that meld are beneficial, populations that remain bifurcated and divisive are not.

Anecdotal which you already seemed to dismiss elsewhere. I dont mind such for illustration tho. But it's not responsive to my post. Unless you are planning on using 'nationality' as a criteria by which to determine quality?

Determine quality? No. Weight accordingly? Yes. We absolutely should take into consideration someone's cultural system along with their ability to be self supportive etc. The easiest example would be Sharia law. We shouldn't allow people who believe in Sharia law into this country. It is simply incompatible with western values.

 

[Slartibartfast]

For the life of me I have no idea how you reach the conclusions you do. It literally says wealthier people have fewer babies than poor people. You reject that and now claim it says something else entirely? Jesus.

Expectations != Wealth.

Ever read the play Death of a Salesman?

 

[Lursa]

Easiest way would be to revise birthright citizenship

This would not be remotely easy, it requires amending the Const.

and the path to citizenship. If you come to this country and become a burden, you go back. Moreover, statistics are going to be a strong indicator of likely outcome.

Hmm. I'm not against that however, it has little to do with the entry process which is what we were discussing. But then again, it just shifts the same question downstream...what besides a felony (IMO) would be criteria for booting people out of the country? If we're offering a path to citizenship, then employment should not be a key criteria. Our own citizens our unemployed frequently and that status can depend on the economy, not the individual.

OTOH, I'm proposing immigration as a solution that is in response to economic issues. Maybe it should be a pattern of unemployment? Anyway, what other criteria would indicate they were a "burden?" IMO if we invite them here out of need, we should be somewhat tolerant of unfortunate circumstances that do happen to people.

It's not, there are a lot of studies that look into multi-culturalism and the pitfalls. It is rather extensive and pretty consistent globally. Basically populations that meld are beneficial, populations that remain bifurcated and divisive are not.

Can you link me to some? Quoting a few specifics? Diversity is generally proven to improve adaptation and innovation. It worked for us (even with initial strife) during the Industrial Revolution period.

IMO, we've created our own similar situation on our own, between black and white, so where's proof a dilution (more ethnicities) of the population would make it worse? Less focus would be just on blacks. Younger generations are much more tolerant of other cultures too.

I bet we'd do better when a lot of the current 'old white men' are gone but that's just IMO.

Determine quality? No. Weight accordingly? Yes. We absolutely should take into consideration someone's cultural system along with their ability to be self supportive etc. The easiest example would be Sharia law. We shouldn't allow people who believe in Sharia law into this country. It is simply incompatible with western values.

We already allow people in who come from cultures who practice Sharia Law. It's not allowed when it conflicts with federal or state law. (Altho I'm sure all practices are not challenged in court.) I know plenty of Muslims and they're plenty 'compatible' with western values.

 

[Gatsby]

This is not true. The US has seen a net-negative mexican immigration and instead a rise in central american immigration. That is a material decline in quality of immigrant, largely because of the inherent differences in stability of the countries.

All of this is our own policy decision, not because the US can no longer attract quality immigrants. There are lots and lots of smart people from all around the world who would like to come here but can't.

The person coming from Mexico is doing so for a better economic opportunity and will likely have a very good chance at being self sufficient. The person with a young family fleeing El Salvador, is far less likely to do that for a variety of reasons.

Neither of them has as good a chance as the Python developer from Bangalore who can't get an H1-B. (I'm also not opposed to letting in some less-educated immigrants from Mexico and El Salvador, as long as we do a better job controlling the flow.)

Canada has seen a far more drastic decline in immigrant quality. They are now seeing older wealthier immigrants who are simply buying passports and real estate but not materially contributing to the economy or national birth rate. This is why you see so many anti-Chinese laws coming into play.

Canada has probably the best immigration regime in the entire world at the moment.

A college education doesn't make an immigrant worthwhile. MD? Yes. BA in Hindu Art? Nope. I would rather work ethic rather than education frankly. This is why Nigerians have done so well in this country.

Almost 2/3 of adult Nigerian immigrants to the US have college degrees. And that's great.

Really, my issue is this. Immigration policies should be based on what is objective good for the nation, not the immigrant. I don't care about the immigrants sob story. I care about whether or not you and your offspring will be good citizens. That means assimilation, values, and self sufficiency.

America and Canada are both very good at assimilation and inculcating values in immigrant communities, especially second-generation immigrants. The US lags behind Canada when it comes to self-sufficiency, but that's mostly because our immigration regime is much less meritocratic than Canada's.

That's not true. There are a variety of studies showing slower assimilation patterns both economically and culturally. I would point out that the groups you are primarily referencing have a great deal in common with the US culture. There is already a huge spanish speaking community and cultural influence in the US. Philipinos and Indians are both heavily influenced by colonian English and American customs and language as well. Moreover, these are all relatively stable countries. This falls apart when you start talking about people from places like Haiti, Somalia, Syria, etc.

I would argue that the main difference is that Haiti/Somalia/Syria send us basically zero immigrants aside from refugees and asylees, which are a whole different matter. In a more meritocratic system where we filtered for high-skilled, high-education Syrians, we'd end up with more Steve Jobses and fewer charity cases.

 

[vanceen]

That's the great thing about the proposed approach, it sidesteps this question entirely.

Also, I am glad you were able to make it out of the poverty trap. I am a refugee as well going from being homeless at one point to currently typing in a 325 square foot hobbyroom/office in a decently sized house that doesn't take but 22% of my take home pay (and none of my wife's) to pay for.

I agree.

Something like "child benefits" exists in many countries. When I lived in Belgium, it was something we actually relied on and missed when bureaucratic foul-ups delayed it. In the UK, it was risibly small.

This kind of approach will materially benefit those with less net worth without dragging the question of race into it.

I would also favor affirmative action based not on race, but on low income and net worth.

Race-neutral measures to help those with low income and net worth will disproportionately benefit some minorities who are disproportionately poor.

 

[hecatmoggie]

What is a seed account and how would it work on the spending side of the equation?

doesn't matter - its more about taxing people who've earned more, and giving it to people who haven't earned anything



who does nobody like my idea on baby bonds that mature and can be used ONLY when a person gets

1. high school diploma with a 4.0 GPA
2. shows no arrests/drug convictions
3. has a degree or finishes a trade school

this shows dedication, hard work and a drive to better themselves - THAT would be deserving of giving help to wouldn't it ? the money would come from a 20% reduction in sending money to other countries ( New Report: Nearly $300 Billion In Foreign Aid Spent By U.S. Government) .... there is $60 billion right there

lets do that - gender doesn't matter, sex, height, weight, skin color ....

 

[bave]

This would not be remotely easy, it requires amending the Const.

Probably, or a SCOTUS ruling.

This country never corrects our immigration policy until we join the rest of the world in abandoning birthright citizenship.

Hmm. I'm not against that however, it has little to do with the entry process which is what we were discussing. But then again, it just shifts the same question downstream...what besides a felony (IMO) would be criteria for booting people out of the country? If we're offering a path to citizenship, then employment should not be a key criteria. Our own citizens our unemployed frequently and that status can depend on the economy, not the individual.

Disagree. Again, our citizens we have no choice on. If you are a burden to the community or society as a whole you should get bounced, period. There is no scenario where the US should be taking welfare cases into the country.

OTOH, I'm proposing immigration as a solution that is in response to economic issues. Maybe it should be a pattern of unemployment? Anyway, what other criteria would indicate they were a "burden?" IMO if we invite them here out of need, we should be somewhat tolerant of unfortunate circumstances that do happen to people.

Economics, plain and simple. If you are not gainfully employed or actively seeking full time education then you have six months or get out.

Can you link me to some? Quoting a few specifics? Diversity is generally proven to improve adaptation and innovation. It worked for us (even with initial strife) during the Industrial Revolution period.

Take a look at the Swedish studies, they are readily available from a variety of sources that you prefer. Basically the Swedes tried the multicultural experiment and it failed pretty badly to the point where they unwound their entire immigration and refugee system to redo it. Or, you could look at the German/Turks, French/Arabs, etc. You end up with isolating floundering communities that refuse to adopt and assimilate which leads to constant strife and struggles.

The industrial period was rather different. The state had no burden at that time. You either came in and made it or starved. There wasn't a safety net and a welfare system that created burdens. That "stick" forced people to assimilate in a generation. Now it is taking 2-3 generations and not progressing as far.

IMO, we've created our own similar situation on our own, between black and white, so where's proof a dilution (more ethnicities) of the population would make it worse? Less focus would be just on blacks. Younger generations are much more tolerant of other cultures too.

You think the bifurcated communities of black and white are doing well? Or better yet, Natives? Look at the outcomes for the natives who left the reservation and assimilated compared to those that haven't. Or blacks that stay in a ghetto mindset. Or whites that stay in the Appalachian trailer mindset. You have to break the community desperation cycle.

I bet we'd do better when a lot of the current 'old white men' are gone but that's just IMO.

That's debatable. The boomers and greatest generation created and built a lot of this nation. It has stagnated pretty hard in the last generation and doesn't look better in the coming. We used to build things, now we argue about pronouns and racial issues.

We already allow people in who come from cultures who practice Sharia Law. It's not allowed when it conflicts with federal or state law. (Altho I'm sure all practices are not challenged in court.) I know plenty of Muslims and they're plenty 'compatible' with western values.

Yea, it's a mistake to let people in who believe in ideals that can't co-exist with modern western views. This is precisely what is eviscerating France and Belgium. They let a ton of people in who have no western values and who are outbreeding the native population 4:1. It's a disaster.

As for muslims being compatible, sure some are, however you might want to look at some of the polls about what percentages of muslims agree with suicide bombing, killing apostates, etc. It was honestly shocking.

 

[Michael Cole]

doesn't matter - its more about taxing people who've earned more, and giving it to people who haven't earned anything

Nope. It's about estate tax. Trust fund babies were born. That's all they "earned."

who does nobody like my idea on baby bonds that mature and can be used ONLY when a person gets

1. high school diploma with a 4.0 GPA
2. shows no arrests/drug convictions
3. has a degree or finishes a trade school

this shows dedication, hard work and a drive to better themselves - THAT would be deserving of giving help to wouldn't it ? the money would come from a 20% reduction in sending money to other countries ( New Report: Nearly $300 Billion In Foreign Aid Spent By U.S. Government) .... there is $60 billion right there

lets do that - gender doesn't matter, sex, height, weight, skin color ....