Population Control

Kandahar said:

"Welfare class women."

Click to expand...

Yes, ever heard of them?

These are women of the lowest socioeconomic class that have been raised on public assistance, often by parents who were raised on public assistance, whose parents, in turn, were also raised on public assistance.

The Welfare Class is that socioeconomic class for whom bastardy and dependency upon public assistance have, unfortunately, evolved into cultural mores.

Historically, the lower/middle class always said that that the upper class would have never accumulated wealth except because of all the work of the lower/middle class. The upper class always said that the lower/middle class would not have anything that they have without the jobs created and investments made by the upper class.

The welfare class doesn't get to use that argument. This major new culture/society basically is evolving outside of the traditional market made classes.

A thread was started earlier in one of the non-political forums where someone equated a fetus to a parasite. The articles and defiitions used on both sides of the debate got me to thinking that essentially the welfare class is a type of social parasitic relationship except that, in some cases, the offspring of the parasite develops into a host.

Kandahar said:

And as I already pointed out (and as you already ignored), the fertility rate statistics from Latin America and Southern Europe do not support this conclusion. Most of these countries are below the replacement rate, at the replacement rate, or just barely above it.

Click to expand...

I would love to see some factual links bearing out your statistics. But, we will never see them. You hit and run when documentation of your position is requested.

Bodhisattva said:

Technology has increased so dramatically that we could provide a better standard of living for more people than there are now quite easily. The issue is that this technology is not around in the places that need it most... India, China, South East Asia and much of Africa.

Click to expand...

Bottom line is we only have so many jobs on this planet. From the looks of things the United States is going to have fewer quality jobs in the future. Yet, we have certain groups who keep reproducing like **** roaches with six or 8 or 10 kids. The way we handle the excess now is to just kick them down the food chain. Is this what we want, or should we think it through, stand up, and devise a system of birth control?

I have no problem kicking peons down the food chain, but it just does not look good for our so-called civilized society. My parents had two children because this is how many they felt they could afford to send to college. That is REAL planned parenthood. Pedro and his seven sisters and brothers will never make it to my level on the food chain. They will be washing dishes in my favorite restaurant with dead dreams, and no aspirations. Even they would admit they would have been better off unborn, because they will never compete with me, or my family and enjoy our standard of living. Like they say over at American Airlines there are only so many seats in first class. I may not be in first class, but I am on the plane, not the bus or walking.

L. A. Fairfax said:

I would love to see some factual links bearing out your statistics. But, we will never see them. You hit and run when documentation of your position is requested.

Click to expand...

Already provided:

Fertility rates:
Venezuela - 2.42
Argentina - 2.31
Mexico - 2.29
Brazil - 2.18
Colombia - 2.15
Costa Rica - 1.93
Chile - 1.88
Portugal - 1.50
Spain - 1.47
Italy - 1.39

The replacement rate is approximately 2.1, so if the Catholic Church is encouraging its adherents to "squat and drop" as you so tactfully put it, they aren't doing a very good job.

Click to expand...

The source is the CIA World Factbook.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

DashingAmerican said:

First and foremost. I have none of those problems. No traffic jams, no long commutes, etc. If you don't like that, leave the city. They are one in the same. Secondly, we have 9.2% unemployment because we have an IDIOT in the white house. Talk about ignorance. And how about sticking to the topic instead of rambling off on your own asinine idealism.

Click to expand...

Sounds like we have a Papist here pushing for the mass production of Roman Catholics! Surveys show that over 60% of Americans blame Bush for the economy and unemployment. Do you know even know what the topic of this thread is? When you open with name-calling like yours, this makes you a guy who is out of arguments in this debate. I'll take the win. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Kandahar said:

Already provided:



The source is the CIA World Factbook.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

Click to expand...

1). Your link is not to the page where these facts appear. I do not have all day to verify your research.

2). IF your information is correct, anything over 2 is too much. And don't try to throw in European countries to skew your information your way. This is bull sh*t.

3). There are too many illegals in the United States, 12,000,000 I understand. We don't want any of those freeloaders here. They absorb $113 BILLION a year in taxpayer dollars as is. Can you get the Vatican to pick up this tab?

I thought not. :lasucks:

L. A. Fairfax said:

Bottom line is we only have so many jobs on this planet. From the looks of things the United States is going to have fewer quality jobs in the future. Yet, we have certain groups who keep reproducing like **** roaches with six or 8 or 10 kids. The way we handle the excess now is to just kick them down the food chain. Is this what we want, or should we think it through, stand up, and devise a system of birth control?

I have no problem kicking peons down the food chain, but it just does not look good for our so-called civilized society. My parents had two children because this is how many they felt they could afford to send to college. That is REAL planned parenthood. Pedro and his seven sisters and brothers will never make it to my level on the food chain. They will be washing dishes in my favorite restaurant with dead dreams, and no aspirations. Even they would admit they would have been better off unborn, because they will never compete with me, or my family and enjoy our standard of living. Like they say over at American Airlines there are only so many seats in first class. I may not be in first class, but I am on the plane, not the bus or walking.

Won't happen in the U.S.A. for insurance reasons.
No more third world crap coming to the United States.​

Click to expand...

You are asking developing world societies to look a the issue as we do in the developed world. They don't see it yet. You are not better then they are because you happened to be born here and they weren't, or that you were raised with certain understandings and they weren't. You were just lucky... like me. I will pass that luck onto my kids. The world is moving at such a rapid pace that these people need time to learn and catch up. The world has as many jobs as it needs... Look at Dharavi, for instance. Sustainable living in one of the worst and most overpopulated slums in the world.

My point stands...

L. A. Fairfax said:

Bottom line is we only have so many jobs on this planet. From the looks of things the United States is going to have fewer quality jobs in the future. Yet, we have certain groups who keep reproducing like **** roaches with six or 8 or 10 kids. The way we handle the excess now is to just kick them down the food chain. Is this what we want, or should we think it through, stand up, and devise a system of birth control?

I have no problem kicking peons down the food chain, but it just does not look good for our so-called civilized society. My parents had two children because this is how many they felt they could afford to send to college. That is REAL planned parenthood. Pedro and his seven sisters and brothers will never make it to my level on the food chain. They will be washing dishes in my favorite restaurant with dead dreams, and no aspirations. Even they would admit they would have been better off unborn, because they will never compete with me, or my family and enjoy our standard of living. Like they say over at American Airlines there are only so many seats in first class. I may not be in first class, but I am on the plane, not the bus or walking.

Won't happen in the U.S.A. for insurance reasons.
No more third world crap coming to the United States.​

Click to expand...

Maybe we should rework our economy so having a full time job isn't essential, then.

L. A. Fairfax said:

1). Your link is not to the page where these facts appear. I do not have all day to verify your research.

Click to expand...

Have you never used the CIA World Factbook before? You pick a country or a category and view the statistics you want. :roll:
Here: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

2). IF your information is correct, anything over 2 is too much.

Click to expand...

Wrong, anything over 2.1 will tend to increase the population, albeit slowly. And most Catholic countries are pretty close to that replacement rate (or below it). The only ones considerably above it are the very poor countries like Bolivia and Haiti.

And don't try to throw in European countries to skew your information your way. This is bull sh*t.

Click to expand...

Why? When you make ignorant comments like the Catholic Church wants people to "squat and drop," it's perfectly legitimate to include Catholic countries to prove you wrong (although the figures from Latin America are sufficient to prove you wrong anyway).

3). There are too many illegals in the United States, 12,000,000 I understand. We don't want any of those freeloaders here. They absorb $113 BILLION a year in taxpayer dollars as is.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Can you get the Vatican to pick up this tab?
I thought not.

Click to expand...

I don't know what your obsession with the Catholic Church is, but it has no relevance to overpopulation. And the fact that you didn't even know that Southern Europe and Latin America are not exactly fast-growing regions, shows that you don't know nearly as much about the subject as you think you do.

MusicAdventurer said:

Should the U.S. start controlling our population?

Is there a need for population control? If not, what evidence do you have that there is not? Will there be a need in the near future?

If so to what degree? I.E. How many children should be allowed? Should control be by economic status or equal to all families?

I want to get a sense of where people are on this topic

Click to expand...

In principle, I'm opposed to forced population control. However, considering worldwide overpopulation and mass immigration of riffraff (both legal and illegal) into the US, we must impose limits on both the quantity of irresponsible people and the quality of new people. Just about every other country in the world does this, even Mexico.

If you had to flee America for a safe refuge, you would have to prove your worth to any place you go--even sparsely populated Australia. Belize, for example, imposes a $25,000 fee and other restraints for immigrants.

One idea that would be reasonable is not allowing welfare recipients to bear children; if you do, you permanently lose all future welfare. However, a better idea is to stop paying people to produce children they can't or won't care for by eliminating welfare (the government-run kind) altogether. Ditto for any benefits for illegal aliens--no proof of citizenship--no benefits. And finally, repeal the 14th amendment; no other country is this lenient in granting automatic citizenship to children of illegals.

No, that would be a complete violation of our civil rights. And there is no need for it.

ronpaulvoter said:

In principle, I'm opposed to forced population control. However, considering worldwide overpopulation and mass immigration of riffraff (both legal and illegal) into the US, we must impose limits on both the quantity of irresponsible people and the quality of new people. Just about every other country in the world does this, even Mexico.

Click to expand...

We don't have an overpopulation problem. The population density here is about 87/sq mi. Population is also very stable, and would be declining, if not for immigrants. Our population density is by no means excessive; many other countries manage just fine with far higher densities, and fewer natural resources. More people means more mouths to feed, but it also means more human capital. Our problem right now is not immigrants, but illegal immigrants. Enforcing the law more strictly would help, but that is only part of the solution. The easiest, most effective way of dealing with immigrants must include liberalizing the our policy. If you allow workers in on a guest worker program, don't cap visas, and lower requirements needed to immigrate, you allow these 20 million people to leave a criminal underground and produce greater opportunity for all Americans.

ronpaulvoter said:

If you had to flee America for a safe refuge, you would have to prove your worth to any place you go--even sparsely populated Australia. Belize, for example, imposes a $25,000 fee and other restraints for immigrants.

Click to expand...

This would be a terrible idea, and would only serve to force away foreign talent. Our educational system certainly isn't on top, and much of the innovation in this country is fueled by immigrants or foreign nationals who would gladly take their business elsewhere if they had to pay such a steep price. Many people choose to come here illegally, instead of legally, because they can't pay the fees in the current system. Raising the fees necessary to immigrate would only drive away skilled talent and drive others underground.

ronpaulvoter said:

One idea that would be reasonable is not allowing welfare recipients to bear children; if you do, you permanently lose all future welfare. However, a better idea is to stop paying people to produce children they can't or won't care for by eliminating welfare (the government-run kind) altogether. Ditto for any benefits for illegal aliens--no proof of citizenship--no benefits.

Click to expand...

This would set a very dangerous precedent. We all receive some government benefits of some kind. By justifying such restrictions on the basis of one kind of government assistance, you open up the door to far greater abuses. A better way to handle this would be to reduce benefits, not throw the less fortunate into poor houses, which only fuel discontent.

ronpaulvoter said:

And finally, repeal the 14th amendment; no other country is this lenient in granting automatic citizenship to children of illegals.

Click to expand...

Firstly, the 14th Amendment does a lot besides grant birthright citizenship. Repealing it, opens the door to a whole Pandora's box of state and federal government abuse. As for the citizenship clause, why should we be like other countries on this? The child did nothing wrong. It was his or her parents that broke the (needlessly byzantine, inequitable) law.

I voted yes if our population density does become a problem.

Jryan said:

I voted yes if our population density does become a problem.

Click to expand...

Well as long as your okay with the idea, you can be first. Consider it a honor, kind of like being the first monkey launched into space.

Hare said:

Well as long as your okay with the idea, you can be first. Consider it a honor, kind of like being the first monkey launched into space.

Click to expand...

Errr Population control can simply mandate that you can only have one child.

Jryan said:

Errr Population control can simply mandate that you can only have one child.

Click to expand...

Slippery Slope

Hare said:

Slippery Slope

Click to expand...

and it is one I"m willing to pull out my slide and slide down.

Jryan said:

and it is one I"m willing to pull out my slide and slide down.

Click to expand...

What happens if a couple accidentaly has one too many children?

Hare said:

What happens if a couple accidentaly has one too many children?

Click to expand...

THEY EXECUTE THE CHILD!!! J/k.

I think the child should be put into an adoption to where parents who don't want to have sex can adopt the child. Many people would be in favor of this simply by believing in this new "code of ethics". If ya catch my drift.

Ah, didn't think about what should happen to the parents. I think the parents should also face criminal charges... They should ONLY be able to keep their first child though and not get to pick between the two. Also, the criminal charges should not be jail time seeing as how that would deprive to children their parents.

Jryan said:

THEY EXECUTE THE CHILD!!! J/k.

I think the child should be put into an adoption to where parents who don't want to have sex can adopt the child. Many people would be in favor of this simply by believing in this new "code of ethics". If ya catch my drift.

Ah, didn't think about what should happen to the parents. I think the parents should also face criminal charges... They should ONLY be able to keep their first child though and not get to pick between the two. Also, the criminal charges should not be jail time seeing as how that would deprive to children their parents.

Click to expand...

Can't tell if you're being genuine or not, either way I believe your a ignorant fool.

one child = vasectomy :3

Using coercive means to lower fertility rates will likely cause more problems than solutions and is unnecessary in lowering birth rates. Brazil has lowered its birthrate dramatically by developing its economy. Children go from useful capital that can help till the fields to expensive luxuries. Iran lowered its birthrates from over six to less than two in a little over a decade by opening up access to contraceptives. America's replacement rate is just above 2.1, not something to worry about.

Mandating lower birthrates will also screw up the demographics of a country. China's population is already graying. The shrinking labor force will no doubt slow growth in the country, possibly before the country becomes high-income. The number of children that people have is a very personal decision, and government has no place in it.

you should be able to have as many children that you can afford to properly raise. sadly, the most able parents don't tend to breed at the rates that the least competent do. We need to dis-incentivize the least able from breeding like rabbits

TurtleDude said:

you should be able to have as many children that you can afford to properly raise. sadly, the most able parents don't tend to breed at the rates that the least competent do. We need to dis-incentivize the least able from breeding like rabbits

Click to expand...

You really are all for class warfare, aren't you?