sndsgood wrote:seems to me the more people we have the worse off th country is getting, the poorer its getting and the worse shape its getting. creating more babies thinking your get more income doesnt work out because of people and entities taking out allot more then what is going in.
True Conservative wrote:sndsgood wrote:seems to me the more people we have the worse off th country is getting, the poorer its getting and the worse shape its getting. creating more babies thinking your get more income doesnt work out because of people and entities taking out allot more then what is going in.
Abuse of the welfare state indeed, they should lose income when they have more. we need to cut the great society crap people are no better off, the fabric of society just started to unravel. Making people accountable to their actions is the only way to bring things back on track
Defender of My Waterpark wrote:Does anyone dare dispute the idea that the poor and leech class of people breed more frequently than higher income earners? However, the leech class cranks out more offspring per female.
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:Economists agree that the financial future of a nation is dependent upon its population growth and birthrate. In instance such as Germany where the population growth has essentially gone static, a catastrophic set of events has been set in motion. Of primary concern is the "greying" of the population, which means that as more people reach retirement age, the cost burden will increase, but the income providers needed to be entering the workforce to pick up the tab...won't be there. A scary notion indeed.Who are these economists, and where are the facts to back up the statement? Also, do these economists also agree than more is always better, or is there a consensus on the ideal birth rate? Have these economists also considered what factors may spur an increase in the population growth, such as economic outlook? I'd love to see the data you base your claims on. Or are you simply regurgitating?
The USA population has grown by practically 50% in recent years. While this meteoric rise most certainly includes a contingent of dependents who do not contribute, by far the majority of the new citizens are income earners who add to the pie via taxation, as well as by the commerce they cause. Thank God for this population growth, for had it not occurred, the recent economic woes may have been much worse, and much harder to recover from.
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:Who are these economists, and where are the facts to back up the statement? Also, do these economists also agree than more is always better, or is there a consensus on the ideal birth rate? Have these economists also considered what factors may spur an increase in the population growth, such as economic outlook? I'd love to see the data you base your claims on. Or are you simply regurgitating?
For an example of my skepticism, the population growth in the US has been on a fairly steady decline for the past half century. However, there was a significant spike in the late 80's and early 90's, followed by another consistent steep downward trend which halted in 2003. Clearly the strength of the economy and the rate of population growth seem to be tied together, but is the growth the cause or the effect?
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:
I edited my previous post because I realized a type-o in the second paragraph.
Take Back the Republican Party wrote: If anyone would like to discuss my points after they've done some of their own research, I'd be happy to do so.I've done my research. Are you simply afraid to take me on with facts? I put a few statistics out there for you which can easily be verified with government data. Over the last 50 years, we've been on a decline, interrupted in the mid-late 80's and early 90's by a substantial upward trend, which was then turned downward again in 92. So again, is population growth the cause or effect of a strong economy? And how do you draw that conclusion?
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:The USA population has grown by practically 50% in recent years. While this meteoric rise most certainly includes a contingent of dependents who do not contribute, by far the majority of the new citizens are income earners who add to the pie via taxation, as well as by the commerce they cause. Thank God for this population growth, for had it not occurred, the recent economic woes may have been much worse, and much harder to recover from.
RWE wrote:...the population growth in the US has been on a fairly steady decline for the past half century.
bk3k wrote:7.5. BTW - if you believe that which you believe "because it is 'common sense'," then this DEFINITELY applies to you. "Common sense" is everything you have ever been lead to believe(typically from a young age) and have readily accepted as unquestionable truth. In N. Korea, the "fact" that Kim Jong Il's birth was greeted by a rainbow and he has magical power is "common sense," I assure you.[citation needed]
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:My contention:
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:The USA population has grown by practically 50% in recent years. While this meteoric rise most certainly includes a contingent of dependents who do not contribute, by far the majority of the new citizens are income earners who add to the pie via taxation, as well as by the commerce they cause. Thank God for this population growth, for had it not occurred, the recent economic woes may have been much worse, and much harder to recover from.
HIS contention:
RWE wrote:...the population growth in the US has been on a fairly steady decline for the past half century.
Quote:Funny you were unwilling to answer that.
So, your contention is that our growth has not been declining for the past 50 years? Is that correct?