Not in the new America that Obama is crafting.Every baby born means another unemployed person.Or another welfare leech.
Except that respect for marriage and family appears to have gone totally out the window with the current young childbearing generation. Forcing you to consider what those children would be consigned to.
...crickets....
More children to be greedily sought after by the perverts in the scouts and school systems?
Right.
Practice practice practice. Then, when the day comes, you will be ready to conduct the fertility part of the exercise.
Oh, but the so-called "progressives," who in the late 1800's and later self identified as "liberals" (but not as in "classic liberals"), do not warn about the unintended consequences of their methods of limiting population.
Back in February of 2012, Freeper livius posted a telling statement on this subject: "This is worse than before. What we are now being forced to pay for is essentially a government funded and (as yet) indirectly government administered population control program."
My response then was that writers have been exposing socialism's tyrannical principles and goals for a century now. Those who have understood it best declared that its policies lead to tyranny and oppression.
Yet, we have arrogant Americans, born in liberty, and viewing themselves as "intellectuals" and "progressives," who have embraced socialist ideas over the ideas of liberty and are determined to impose its deadly limitations on a once-free people. Note the writer's warning that the "scheme of socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes the power of restraining the increase of population."
Note the following:
From the Liberty Fund Library is "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), originally published in 1891, Chapter 1, excerpted final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
Holy correlation batman!
Did the author of the article even look at some of the graphs he put together before publishing them? They aren’t even legible . . .
Saying that having more babies makes the GDP go up is stupid. For one, correlation is not causation.
We do need more children, but who would want to raise a kid in modern America. Queer scouts. Commie professors. I’d feel more comfortable raising a child in Lebanon.
So what is overall output is shrinking due to population. What matters to economic well being is pre-capita output and actually Japan has experienced pre-capita growth comparable to the US even during the "lost decade".
All those graphs are tautologies because by the author's own words more people = higher output but that does not tell the story about what is happening to per-capita GDP.
UH,....I think it matters whether those babies are born into freedom loving and respectful families....or slave like families...ie, Christian vs. Islamist
Don’t be silly, Mr. Boyle! Everyone knows that whining, scapegoating, and fearmongering cause economic growth!
Depends on the kind of baby.
The kids of underclass women will tend to grow up to be unproductive tax-consuming underclass. The kids of middle-class people will tend to grow up to be productive, tax-paying middle-class.
Economic prosperity depends on convincing middle-class women to have more kids, and underclass women to have fewer kids.
Mostly, I agree, but it depends on what they’re taught. These days, more and more are becoming wards of the State and vote for some or all of their livelihood. These people are net costs to the nation and society.
That said, most do not. That is why I think abortion has reached a state where is no longer “just” a moral issue, but a National Security Issue. We’re missing ~52 million taxpayers and, boy, are we feeling it.
Bttt