2007-11-19 10:11:26 · 21 answers · asked by Bobby S 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Comedianne Paula Poundstone once said, "My husband and I can't decide whether to get a dog or have a child. We don't know if should ruin our carpets, or ruin our lives."
Heck, with $10 million I could buy a whole bunch of carpets!
Forget the kids. A cocker spaniel will stay cute longer, never talk back, and never need money for braces.
2007-11-19 10:43:18 · answer #1 · answered by pachl@sbcglobal.net 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Im assuming you mean this offer is only valid to those who do not already have more than one. If that were the case it would be no-brainer I think for most people as that number represents five to ten times what most people will make over their entire lifetime. Dont go to work, Invest your money well, invest your time in your family and personal growth opportunities, And give your one child the opportunity to travel globally and be world class educated. And not have to worry about where the next paycheck is coming from. Sounds like a win/win to me. Sign me up.
2007-11-19 10:42:11 · answer #2 · answered by David M 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Well a society stability standpoint if you produce one or no children then you have failed to replace yourself in the workforce and are therefore contributing to the decline of society. Course on the the other hand producing excess children produces excess population which leads to a decline in society so from a stability stand point 2 children is best.
2007-11-19 15:39:36 · answer #3 · answered by archkarat 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
nicely think of roughly that's 10 million funds sometime some how that funds would be lengthy gone and its no longer yours u did no longer even artwork difficult for it , so no reason the selection Is that a baby ought to alter your existence so ought to funds yet no longer for lengthy , and its basically 10 million so no , Eather way u wanna positioned it no , reason it is your baby , P.S large question …
2016-10-17 07:49:40 · answer #4 · answered by kosmoski 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes I would. Unfortunately, the people who should be limiting their reproduction are the ones who will most likely pass up this offer
2007-11-19 11:40:03 · answer #5 · answered by xg6 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes
2007-11-19 10:41:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely, one child is all my fiance and I plan to have together (if that), so that works out great for us!
With that money, I could pay for a vasectomy and she could pay for tubal ligation. Everybody wins.
Except the taxpayers, which is pretty much everybody. So everybody also loses.
2007-11-19 10:29:09 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
If I don't have any, can I have $20 million?
2007-11-19 14:40:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, they would just raise prices of everything and it wouldn't amount to anything anyways.
I don't want any government participation in my choice of life issues!
2007-11-19 10:45:59 · answer #9 · answered by Kim 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Of course, but I think the program would be short lived with the number of takers. I am not having kids either so I wonder if I would get a bonus.
2007-11-19 10:23:17 · answer #10 · answered by ljcejka 1 · 4⤊ 2⤋