New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

In the third world, economic insecurity...

... causes families to have 4,5,and 6 children (which is decreasing, sure). In the first world economic insecurity causes families to have less than the 2.2 children on average needed to replace the population and pay for the generous social programs as tax paying workers in what are essentially capitalist economy nations.


In the Nordic countries, which are rife with generous social programs, the birth rate is hitting rock bottom of 1.49 to 1.71 children per woman. How could women feel economically insecure in such social program rich countries? Is it because getting welfare leads to psychological insecurity? I'd say yes. If you can't fish and you are given fish how empowered can you really be? Disempowered why would you obligate yourself to the highest moral obligation a human being can have?

I'd also say the dissolution of marriages because of the relegation of Christianity to the dust bin of consciousness is hard at fault too. Extraordinary how the loss of faith seems to go hand in hand with social program rich societies.

SOCIALISM IS KILLING WESTERN CIVILIZATION. Thought leaders need to emerge and re-educate the misled masses.


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/babies-wanted-nordic-countries-crying-kids-033117429.html

upload_2019-1-17_2-32-29.png
 
Last edited:
... causes families to have 4,5,and 6 children (which is decreasing, sure). In the first world economic insecurity causes families to have less than the 2.2 children on average needed to replace the population and pay for the generous social programs as tax paying workers in what are essentially capitalist economy nations.


In the Nordic countries, which are rife with generous social programs, the birth rate is hitting rock bottom of 1.49 to 1.71 children per woman. How could women feel economically insecure in such social program rich countries? Is it because getting welfare leads to psychological insecurity? I'd say yes. If you can't fish and you are given fish how empowered can you really be? Disempowered why would you obligate yourself to the highest moral obligation a human being can have?

I'd also say the dissolution of marriages because of the relegation of Christianity to the dust bin of consciousness is hard at fault too. Extraordinary how the loss of faith seems to go hand in hand with social program rich societies.

SOCIALISM IS KILLING WESTERN CIVILIZATION. Thought leaders need to emerge and re-educate the misled masses.


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/babies-wanted-nordic-countries-crying-kids-033117429.html

View attachment 41518
Having children is a personal decision. Some people want to, some people don't, the government should not be involved.
 

UPNYA2

Mayor
Having children is a personal decision. Some people want to, some people don't, the government should not be involved.
Well, other than paying for all of the needs of the kids that some parents elect to keep having despite their inability to work and actually pay to support themselves let alone any children anyway, isn't THAT what you meant to post?

I mean, what kind of dem/lib would openly state the government shouldn't have anything to do with kids people keep choosing to have, right?
 
Well, other than paying for all of the needs of the kids that some parents elect to keep having despite their inability to work and actually pay to support themselves let alone any children anyway, isn't THAT what you meant to post?
No, can you not debate what I wrote?
I mean, what kind of dem/lib would openly state the government shouldn't have anything to do with kids people keep choosing to have, right?
I don't even know what you are trying to say here.
 

UPNYA2

Mayor
No, can you not debate what I wrote?

I don't even know what you are trying to say here.


HUH?

"can you not debate what I wrote?"

I DID. But obviously you lack the mental capacity to understand any form of communication other than the most simplistic, "your turn, my turn" type of exchange so allow me to dumb it down to closer to your level. Let me try this;

You wrote, "Having children is a personal decision. Some people want to, some people don't, the government should not be involved."

I questioned such a position from you. For you see, were we to all agree with YOUR assertation, "the government should not be involved." with our "personal decision", when it comes to our kids how could we then ALSO harbor the notion that the government has a responsibility to be involved in the birthing, feeding, housing, medical care, education, providing transportation, communication and entertainment for any kids whose parents made "a personal decision", to have them?

Often times involving parents who themselves rely on the tax monies of other for those very same items.

There is my debate.

Should the government be responsible for providing for kids whose parents may well have made a very different decision when it came to siring a brood of kids if they knew they alone would be held accountable for providing for each and every one of them, or, as you stated earlier, should the government stay out of it?
 
HUH?

"can you not debate what I wrote?"

I DID. But obviously you lack the mental capacity to understand any form of communication other than the most simplistic, "your turn, my turn" type of exchange so allow me to dumb it down to closer to your level. Let me try this;

You wrote, "Having children is a personal decision. Some people want to, some people don't, the government should not be involved."

I questioned such a position from you. For you see, were we to all agree with YOUR assertation, "the government should not be involved." with our "personal decision", when it comes to our kids how could we then ALSO harbor the notion that the government has a responsibility to be involved in the birthing, feeding, housing, medical care, education, providing transportation, communication and entertainment for any kids whose parents made "a personal decision", to have them?

Often times involving parents who themselves rely on the tax monies of other for those very same items.

There is my debate.

Should the government be responsible for providing for kids whose parents may well have made a very different decision when it came to siring a brood of kids if they knew they alone would be held accountable for providing for each and every one of them, or, as you stated earlier, should the government stay out of it?
What is it with you people and ethos?
 

UPNYA2

Mayor
What is it with you people and ethos?
What is it with you and neglecting to debate an issue after asking others to do so?

It is as simple as I can state it...…..

Should the government be involved in people's personal decision concerning them having any number of kids or not?

Simple.

Answer.
 
What is it with you and neglecting to debate an issue after asking others to do so?

It is as simple as I can state it...…..

Should the government be involved in people's personal decision concerning them having any number of kids or not?

Simple.

Answer.
Please refer to post #2.
 

Spamature

President
Is it because getting welfare leads to psychological insecurity? I'd say yes. If you can't fish and you are given fish how empowered can you really be?
So how does this jibe with the longest running conservative talking point on the books.

That women on welfare have more children in attempts to increase their govt benefits.
 
Last edited:

EatTheRich

President
... causes families to have 4,5,and 6 children (which is decreasing, sure). In the first world economic insecurity causes families to have less than the 2.2 children on average needed to replace the population and pay for the generous social programs as tax paying workers in what are essentially capitalist economy nations.


In the Nordic countries, which are rife with generous social programs, the birth rate is hitting rock bottom of 1.49 to 1.71 children per woman. How could women feel economically insecure in such social program rich countries? Is it because getting welfare leads to psychological insecurity? I'd say yes. If you can't fish and you are given fish how empowered can you really be? Disempowered why would you obligate yourself to the highest moral obligation a human being can have?

I'd also say the dissolution of marriages because of the relegation of Christianity to the dust bin of consciousness is hard at fault too. Extraordinary how the loss of faith seems to go hand in hand with social program rich societies.

SOCIALISM IS KILLING WESTERN CIVILIZATION. Thought leaders need to emerge and re-educate the misled masses.


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/babies-wanted-nordic-countries-crying-kids-033117429.html

View attachment 41518
No, people are having fewer children because they as individuals feel more secure. Declining populations threaten Americans’ well-being, but fortunately there is a simple solution: take in more immigrants from those “3rd world” countries.
 
No, people are having fewer children because they as individuals feel more secure. Declining populations threaten Americans’ well-being, but fortunately there is a simple solution: take in more immigrants from those “3rd world” countries.
No. You're wrong on every single count.

People are having fewer children because they are financially insecure and secondarily because they prefer IPhones to diapers as purchasing priorities. There is nothing wrong with a declining population in high density geographies [as long as there is no Muslim thread]. England, Germany, France, but it is a real problem in the scantily populated areas like the Nordics or even Russia.

Third world countries need to grow up first.
 
Last edited:
Top