Register to leave a comment, or log in if you already have an account
I think the OT should have designated hours for discussions, this way people know when to tune in.
9am-10am – economy
10am-11am – politics
11am-noon – food
Noon-1pm – Nooners
1pm-2pm – Real Estate Porn
2pm-3pm – Puns
3pm-4pm – Personal PLUSA Issues
4pm-5pm – Raunch
5pm – 9am (next Morn) – Whatever topic
“What’s the criteria for being able to afford to have kids.
A job? How much you earn? But that fluctuates.
If you talk about numbers I probably can’t afford to have my kid.â€
The ability to support the kid without having to take advantage of social services (public schools excepted) but for in times of unexpected, short-term hardship. That would probably be the ideal situation for sustainability in the US as it is currently organized.
you can still do well in this country if you’re poor – just look at how many immigrants are on the upward curve. It aint instant but it does happen. I think one of the reasons is the natives here are weak mentally and lack the drive (ie 98% lip svc 2% action) – ie weak competition for the immigrants
I’m an enabler. 2 relatives who can’t afford the kids they have, want more. They also want more loans, but never pay back. I stopped after one child, money was not the reason, although it could have been.
The welfare system is enabling also, and needs to be revamped. Since I don’ have the answer, I’ll stop here.
Personally, I think that job, income, and population growth are the states that matter the most. There are some fuzzier “quality of life” issues, but for the most part they manifest themselves though the long term population growth states.
The issue I have is the attempt to connect certain policies or attitudes to population growth by hand-picking examples that agree with the ideas you already have (and yes, I can be guilty of this as well).
Here’s a question: Why has New York City grown in the last 60 years while 8 of the top 10 cities in 1950 have lost 22%-58% of their population?
“You aren’t both denying that this nation takes care of its poor are you?”
No. Not at all. I think of counties where the govt provides no services at all. But in those places, you can live in a village for free and grow your own food. But yeah, just don’t know how much longer this country can keep giving.
I think the OT should have designated hours for discussions, this way people know when to tune in.
9am-10am – economy
10am-11am – politics
11am-noon – food
Noon-1pm – Nooners
1pm-2pm – Real Estate Porn
2pm-3pm – Puns
3pm-4pm – Personal PLUSA Issues
4pm-5pm – Raunch
5pm – 9am (next Morn) – Whatever topic
randi, Knicks finally beat the magic. issue is when will Amare look like his old dominant self – ie he been very pedestrian recently (looks gased)
“What’s the criteria for being able to afford to have kids.
A job? How much you earn? But that fluctuates.
If you talk about numbers I probably can’t afford to have my kid.â€
The ability to support the kid without having to take advantage of social services (public schools excepted) but for in times of unexpected, short-term hardship. That would probably be the ideal situation for sustainability in the US as it is currently organized.
“slow news day here at brownstoner. bunch o shitty threads. whats going on over here?”
same ol ish
trying to solve poor peoples problems.
you can still do well in this country if you’re poor – just look at how many immigrants are on the upward curve. It aint instant but it does happen. I think one of the reasons is the natives here are weak mentally and lack the drive (ie 98% lip svc 2% action) – ie weak competition for the immigrants
slow news day here at brownstoner. bunch o shitty threads. whats going on over here?
I’m an enabler. 2 relatives who can’t afford the kids they have, want more. They also want more loans, but never pay back. I stopped after one child, money was not the reason, although it could have been.
The welfare system is enabling also, and needs to be revamped. Since I don’ have the answer, I’ll stop here.
Personally, I think that job, income, and population growth are the states that matter the most. There are some fuzzier “quality of life” issues, but for the most part they manifest themselves though the long term population growth states.
The issue I have is the attempt to connect certain policies or attitudes to population growth by hand-picking examples that agree with the ideas you already have (and yes, I can be guilty of this as well).
Here’s a question: Why has New York City grown in the last 60 years while 8 of the top 10 cities in 1950 have lost 22%-58% of their population?
“You aren’t both denying that this nation takes care of its poor are you?”
No. Not at all. I think of counties where the govt provides no services at all. But in those places, you can live in a village for free and grow your own food. But yeah, just don’t know how much longer this country can keep giving.