patrick.net

Quigley says

When you invite a stranger into your home you run the risk that they will steal all your stuff and/or axe murder you in the night. If it is just you in your home, okay maybe you take that risk, because you're only risking your own life. But when you have a wife and kids, you're risking their lives too.

I felt sorry for the bum I talked to at the beach, and felt sorrier that he was planning to sleep in the beach restroom that night, but I didn't know the guy and I wasn't going to risk my family's safety to do him a solid. I gave him a ten-spot and wished him well. Then I took my wife and kids home.

That's what Obama and Rew don't get. They aren't risking themselves only by inviting America-hating Muslims into our homeland. They're risking our wives and our children as well. It's completely irresponsible, no matter how altruistic the motives, you have no right to put others at risk to accomplish your altruism.

And that's by design, feminism and modern leftist propaganda is directly responsible for declining birth rates. If you don't have any immediate loved ones, you may think your job is to save the rest of the world, even if it means that you are putting your fellow countrymen at risk. In fact many of the white leftist 'altruists' are childless and seem to hate their own race and culture with a fervor.

mell says

feminism and modern leftist propaganda is directly responsible for declining birth rates.

Actually the number one factor is child mortality. When it is higher people instinctively have more children.

indigenous says

mell says

feminism and modern leftist propaganda is directly responsible for declining birth rates.

Actually the number one factor is child mortality. When it is higher people instinctively have more children.

Yes, where it is a factor. But child mortality has been low in most western nations for quite a while, yet birth-rates have been plummeting to new lows each year.

Fair enough. Do you have a chart on this?

mell says

birth-rates

result largely from economics. Federal policies propping up the price of housing have discouraged household formation, and thus childbearing. Also, federal policies trying to drive up and prop up the CPI have increased the cost of living relative to wages, which have not always kept up with inflation. Also, the guaranteed student loan program has probably had a negative effect on birthrates, for two reasons: (1) people struggling to make loan payments are less likely to have children, and (2) for women, a university degree is a negative predictor of having children. Also, the millenials being an echo boom generation, women in peak child bearing years are having difficulty finding husbands in the age range they tend to look for (a few years older than themselves), because there are fewer. Blaming feminism and leftist propaganda seems a partisan explanation for a mostly non-partisan (or bi-partisan) set of facts.

Meanwhile, back to the thread, the issue reminds me of a debate from Spain. A Catholic bishop, whom I would disagree with about nearly everything else, made the same argument that if people followed the path prescribed by the church, Spain would have a higher birthrate. A Spanish observer acknowledged that they had essentially decided to prioritize their own lives, and have immigrants instead of having children. I suppose the Saudis might perhaps see it as an opportunity to build a wahhabi caliphate and a new Muslim conquest of Spain. I don't see it that way, because I think longer lifespans and greater automation will enable countries to prosper with birth rates below traditional replacement rates. The real estate interests do want more demand for housing, though, and that requires adding more people somehow. Bottom line, I think a lower birthrate would be fine if not accompanied by terrorist immigration.

This graph from the Census Bureau says that there is and will be a whole lot of babies in the US for the foreseeable future.

These fucking ISIS bastards want us all dead, and I don't understand Obama's pretenses. Stupid.

Rew says

I could handle 1 or 2 mouths to feed at my door, and would accept them, given the right circumstances. I've got a spare room right now and can do it. Yep (sorry jsut actually mentally figuring out how I would do that ...)

Wouldn't you want to know who they are-if they are murderers, thieves, rapists, wacky nuts who believe if they blow themselves up and take you with them-they go to heaven and spend eternity with 72 virgins?

Unless you verify that-will you still let them in???

indigenous says

Fair enough. Do you have a chart on this?

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=25&c=us&l=en

You can put in any country and also aggregates.

curious2 says

result largely from economics. Federal policies propping up the price of housing have discouraged household formation, and thus childbearing. Also, federal policies trying to drive up and prop up the CPI have increased the cost of living relative to wages, which have not always kept up with inflation.

The interesting part about this is that it works both ways. In extreme poor countries it drives up birth rates while for the US economic poorer times are used to explain lower birth rates. If this were the main factor, then one had to admit that despite all the luxury and technological progress we haven't made economic progress in a while. I think it is a factor but not the largest one. Plus, demographics who don't mind using government assistance are still breeding quite a bit. If you take the sharp decline in the US starting in the 1960s from which it never recovered, it coincides pretty much with the start of 2nd wave feminism.

curious2 says

Blaming feminism and leftist propaganda seems a partisan explanation for a mostly non-partisan (or bi-partisan) set of facts.

Well, a lot of women postpone until it's too late because they are being told that their careers matter more and some companies even go that far to offer them to freeze their eggs. This of course being anecdotal evidence, quite a few of my acquaintances now regret having chosen this path. This huffPo article suggests that only 14% if childless women are so voluntarily

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melanie-notkin/the-truth-about-the-childless-life_b_3691069.html

curious2 says

Bottom line, I think a lower birthrate would be fine if not accompanied by terrorist immigration.

Agreed. However in some countries it has gotten so low that they depend on imported youth for their economical models to work and that's a risky bet.

mell says

You can put in any country and also aggregates.

How do you reconcile the index mundi graph to the Census Bureau chart?

lostand confused says

Unless you verify that-will you still let them in???

It's more likely we'd just have them sign the following:

"I, potentially crazy fuck-nut who believes if I kill people I get to go to heaven with my 72 equally crazy virgins, do solemnly swear to uphold the laws of the United States of America."

-------------------------------------------------------- Date: ------------------------------
Signature

-------------------------------------------------------
Printed Name

indigenous says

mell says

You can put in any country and also aggregates.

How do you reconcile the index mundi graph to the Census Bureau chart?

The US birth rate has never fallen below the critical threshold where it would not result in a net population increase, it has always been higher than most European countries. Probably largely due to conservative and minority (e.g. mexican immigrant) populations. If it were only caucasian educated left-leaning folks, it would be on the decline.

So you believe the Census chart to be erroneous?

indigenous says

So you believe the Census chart to be erroneous?

It's a projection, so hard to say. It looks a bit overly "optimistic", but maybe it expects continued heavy immigration from breeding populaces ;) Note that it doesn't say anything about the quality of the new youth wrt being good taxpayers and successful citizens.

That has always been my concern.

mell says

It looks a bit overly "optimistic", but maybe it expects continued heavy immigration from breeding populaces ;) Note that it doesn't say anything about the quality of the new youth wrt being good taxpayers and successful citizens.

It is interesting how these projections have changed in the last few years. We were barely replacing ourselves at one point.

Obligatory:

Ironman says

You really want to go there about "quality" of new youth?

www.youtube.com/embed/K6qGwmXZtsE?start=108&end=118

Every generation thinks the next are a bunch of slacker losers who are willfully ignorant and just want to sponge off all the productive people.
Usually they think this as they sit back on Social Security (which the younger workers pay for) and Medicare (again young workers pay) while studiously avoiding having to learn any new technology.

Ironman says

I bet they're talking to each other.