T1B

ML@Coyote wrote:Before Roe vs Wade passed, I had to go to the local library to look up everything.

Now the information is at my fingertips.

Thank you, Roe v Wade.

88's link didn't talk about libraries or the internet.

It specifically made the point that restricting access to abortion makes us poorer.

Data clearly does not back that up.
In fact, we see the exact opposite.
And dramatically so.

I'm sorry this is so hard for you to face.

You've got your precious abortion and we're a sinking financial ship, which we were not prior to Roe v. Wade.

Reality.


The U.S. took in $10,200 per citizen in 2017.

$10,200 x 50,000,000 citizens = a half a trillion dollars.

That would be helpful.

http://www.multpl.com/us-population-gro ... le/by-year

Scroll through the link and digest some of the information.

U.S. population growth has not gone above 1% a single time since the year 2000.

It has only gone above 1% 14 times since Roe v. Wade.
It has never gone above 1.5% since Roe v. Wade.

Look at the numbers from the "boom years" -- 1947 to 1964.


The boomers, who think abortion is good, are going off into retirement/death and they are not being replaced.

Big problem.


Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth

- God


or not...

And go bankrupt, among other calamities.

Softball Bat wrote:88's link didn't talk about libraries or the internet.

I should've guessed you be too dense to get my post.

Softball Bat wrote:It specifically made the point that restricting access to abortion makes us poorer.

Data clearly does not back that up.
In fact, we see the exact opposite.
And dramatically so.

88's article show's how fucked up your understanding of this subject is. Did you actually read it?

Softball Bat wrote:Sorry this is so hard for you to face.

You've got your precious abortion and we're a sinking financial ship, which we were not prior to Roe v. Wade.

The fact that you call in my precious abortion is only proof that your reading comprehension skills are shit. No wonder you didn't understand 88's article.

Softball Bat wrote:Reality.

The U.S. took in $10,200 per citizen in 2017.

$10,200 x 50,000,000 citizens = a half a trillion dollars.

That would be helpful.

Any economics professor would laugh you right out of the room.

You are way over your head.

Softball Bat wrote:Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth

- God.

Stop making a fool out of yourself.

- ML

Poptart said something catastrophically stupid?

Damn, who woulda thunk it?

Regarding taxpayer funding of abortions, I’m fine with it, so long as the second abortion gets a tubal ligation thrown in for free.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A good idea. Except one of the big arguments against it will be that you're targeting non-whites for sterilization.

.088 wrote:If his logic was correct, we should open our borders and import 500M or so destitute people to pay us trillions in taxes so we can pay off the national debt and retire in style.

My logic?

LMAO!

You attributed a take to me which I have never offered.


People had "unwanted" children prior to Roe v. Wade, dingbat.

We've promoted a culture of death and irresponsibility over the past 40+ years.

Now we're 21 trillion dollars in the hole.

So drop your economic arguments and in the shit can where they obviously belong.

ML wrote:Any economics professor would laugh you right out of the room.

Oh really?

Economists are sounding the alarm about the effect the falling number of American babies will have on the future labor force. They sometimes refer to this effect as a demographic time bomb. When the economy shrinks, people often opt to have fewer kids. When there are not enough young people growing up, entering the labor force to replace workers, and paying into social security, that can become a big problem. The phenomenon can build over time, leaving old people in need of care without youngsters to help.

Kathy Bostjancic, an economist at consulting firm Oxford Economics, told the Associated Press that falling birth rates have already had a crippling effect on the US economy over the past 10 years because there are fewer Americans working or looking for work. The impact is equivalent to a 0.7% drag on the US' long-run growth rate, she said.

Other countries, including Japan and Denmark, are experiencing similar demographic time bombs.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-birt ... omb-2018-5





#stooge

The birth rate has been falling for decades. The 50s being the exception as all the folks coming back from WWII had more kids in the 50s than they did in the 40s when they were overseas. This hasn’t hurt our economy. In fact innovation, automation and technology have made up for the fewer workers.

You are wrong on many counts.

1. The only reason the U.S. economy is afloat is because the U.S. has the world's reserve currency.

2. I posted a link to the birthrate numbers. The 50s were not the exception. Look at the numbers from 1900 to 1928.
http://www.multpl.com/us-population-gro ... le/by-year

3. The numbers since Roe v. Wade are what are the exception -- and they are dismal. It is a major problem.

4. Tech and innovation do not make up for the systematic decimation of the tax base.

Softball Bat wrote:Economists are sounding the alarm about the effect the falling number of American babies will have on the future labor force. They sometimes refer to this effect as a demographic time bomb. When the economy shrinks, people often opt to have fewer kids. When there are not enough young people growing up, entering the labor force to replace workers, and paying into social security, that can become a big problem. The phenomenon can build over time, leaving old people in need of care without youngsters to help.

Kathy Bostjancic, an economist at consulting firm Oxford Economics, told the Associated Press that falling birth rates have already had a crippling effect on the US economy over the past 10 years because there are fewer Americans working or looking for work. The impact is equivalent to a 0.7% drag on the US' long-run growth rate, she said.

Other countries, including Japan and Denmark, are experiencing similar demographic time bombs.

First, nowhere in your article is abortion even mentioned. And why? Because abortions are not the issue. The article addresses the fact that fewer couples are having children. The article is not saying population growth is declining because of Roe v Wade.

Second, people have been complaining about population growth for years. A lower growth rate is better. The economy will adjust. Your article is just a typical piece of alarmist journalism hoping to get the attention of readers. The truth is there are many instances of declining growth rates and improving economies.

Third, I shouldn't have said any economist would laugh at you. I admit I might have been wrong. I should've said most of them would. Every profession has its share of simpletons and kooks, and no doubt you'll be able to find them.

Fourth, I'll let you have the last word on this. Maybe someone else will want to pick up where I'm leaving off.

IOW...I am out.

Typical Softball Bat crap here. You talk about birth rates and numbers of births, then post an article talking about falling births. Then you back it up with a table showing population growth. Nice job moving the goal posts.

https://www.infoplease.com/us/births/li ... rates-year

There is a huge difference between population growth and birth rates. Apparently though they are one and the same to you.

LS wrote:Typical Softball Bat crap here. You talk about birth rates and numbers of births, then post an article talking about falling births. Then you back it up with a table showing population growth. Nice job moving the goal posts.

WRONG.

When I initially posted the link I said it was about population growth.

poptart wrote:http://www.multpl.com/us-population-gro ... le/by-year

Scroll through the link and digest some of the information.

U.S. population growth has not gone above 1% a single time since the year 2000.

The link you posted shows the same trend, dummy.

Since Roe v. Wade, the birthrate has been low, low, low.

Why would you post such a thing, when it clearly kicks your @ss?

ML wrote:First, nowhere in your article is abortion even mentioned. And why? Because abortions are not the issue. The article addresses the fact that fewer couples are having children. The article is not saying population growth is declining because of Roe v Wade.

Dude, the population growth rate has declined since Roe v. Wade.
It isn't a point of debate.

Wow.

Stop making stuff up so I can get out of this thread.

88 wrote:And FWIW, I don’t really care whether pregnancies are terminated a few weeks after they are detectable. Choice and all. But you are lying to yourself if you think killing a baby that is viable outside the womb isn’t the equivalent of what the Nazi’s did.

I'm not in favor of late-term abortions, if that is what you're saying.

Poptart Bat kicking his own ass again.

Your article you linked us up to and quoted, says the economy is in trouble due to falling birth rates. Never mind it also says that people choose to have fewer kids when the economy isn't as good. Also, the article makes no mention about how the birth rate has been falling for over a century, yet our economy hasn't imploded. Why?

My parents had two kids. Their parents each had 4 kids. My great grandparents had 8, 6, 5 and 5 respectively. My wife's parents had 1 child. Her grandparents had 5 and 4 kids. One of her sets of great grandparents had 9 kids. How, exactly is this due to abortion? Can't wait for that explanation.

Left Seater wrote:Poptart Bat kicking his own ass again.

Your article you linked us up to and quoted, says the economy is in trouble due to falling birth rates. Never mind it also says that people choose to have fewer kids when the economy isn't as good. Also, the article makes no mention about how the birth rate has been falling for over a century, yet our economy hasn't imploded. Why?

My parents had two kids. Their parents each had 4 kids. My great grandparents had 8, 6, 5 and 5 respectively. My wife's parents had 1 child. Her grandparents had 5 and 4 kids. One of her sets of great grandparents had 9 kids. How, exactly is this due to abortion? Can't wait for that explanation.

Obviously, your mom and her mom have had numerous abortions.

Sincerely,

logictart

Left Seater wrote:
Your article you linked us up to and quoted, says...

You are wasting your time. Know this.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:

Left Seater wrote:
Your article you linked us up to and quoted, says...

You are wasting your time. Know this.

Valid point. Time to go fly anyway and look down on this globe...errr pancake.

LS wrote:Also, the article makes no mention about how the birth rate has been falling for over a century, yet our economy hasn't imploded. Why?

poptart wrote:1. The only reason the U.S. economy is afloat is because the U.S. has the world's reserve currency.

LS wrote:My parents had two kids. Their parents each had 4 kids. My great grandparents had 8, 6, 5 and 5 respectively. My wife's parents had 1 child. Her grandparents had 5 and 4 kids. One of her sets of great grandparents had 9 kids. How, exactly is this due to abortion?

They didn't get abortions.

Duh.

Your mom should have.



Nice graph, ML

Kicking your own ass.



Unreal...

Softball Bat wrote:Nice graph, ML

Kicking your own ass.

Hint: 1973

By Idiot Bat logic:

Roe v Wade is responsible for... cell phone technology.

Anyone else notice how much more bandwidth is available to LANs/Internet? Obviously, Roe v Wade.

Average PGA scores? Down dramatically since the early70's. Coincidence? Hell no -- Roe v Wade.

ML@Coyote wrote:Hint: 1973

Hint: You are a MAJOR idiot.



Since Roe v. Wade, fertility has stayed down and has not approached what it was in the 60's.

You kicked your ass.

Deal with it.

Dinsdale wrote:By Idiot Bat logic:

Roe v Wade is responsible for... cell phone technology.

Anyone else notice how much more bandwidth is available to LANs/Internet? Obviously, Roe v Wade.

Average PGA scores? Down dramatically since the early70's. Coincidence? Hell no -- Roe v Wade.

The fact that you would post such a thing merely puts an exclamation point to the reality that you find acting irrationally to be your only line of argument.

Good luck with that!




#desperate

Softball Bat wrote:Since Roe v. Wade, fertility has stayed down and has not approached what it was in the 60s.

Thanks, I needed the laugh.

Softball Bat wrote: Since Roe v. Wade, fertility has stayed down

Yup, he actually said that.

Poptard is very, extremely unsmart.

Softball Bat wrote:

LS wrote:Also, the article makes no mention about how the birth rate has been falling for over a century, yet our economy hasn't imploded. Why?

poptart wrote:1. The only reason the U.S. economy is afloat is because the U.S. has the world's reserve currency.

This has zero to do with abortion. You claim the economy is in danger due to falling birth rates, but then contradict yourself with this.

poptart wrote:

LS wrote:My parents had two kids. Their parents each had 4 kids. My great grandparents had 8, 6, 5 and 5 respectively. My wife's parents had 1 child. Her grandparents had 5 and 4 kids. One of her sets of great grandparents had 9 kids. How, exactly is this due to abortion?

They didn't get abortions.

Duh.

Go back and read that again. The birth rate is falling in my family. I ask what legal abortions have to do with it and you get your first fact correct in that they didn’t have any. No shit. So how are you claiming abortion is the cause? Take it a step further, I don’t have kids. Abortion is the reason how?

And now you want to move the goal posts again to discuss fertility? You really suck at this.

Left Seater wrote:Take it a step further, I don’t have kids.

I hope that's by choice. Seriously.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Left Seater wrote:Take it a step further, I don’t have kids.

I hope that's by choice. Seriously.

My wife has an issue that is hereditary as the risk to a fetus is quite great. So we made a decision long ago and are cool with it. We are named in two wills as guardians and if anything were to happen we would be mom and dad to those kids. As it is we see those 2 sets of two kids about every 6 weeks or so. Go to soccer, baseball, football, hockey, dance, piano, choir et al games and performances.

But abortion has fuck all to do with the fact we don’t have kids.

Left Seater wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

Left Seater wrote:Take it a step further, I don’t have kids.

I hope that's by choice. Seriously.

My wife has an issue that is hereditary as the risk to a fetus is quite great. So we made a decision long ago and are cool with it. We are named in two wills as guardians and if anything were to happen we would be mom and dad to those kids. As it is we see those 2 sets of two kids about every 6 weeks or so. Go to soccer, baseball, football, hockey, dance, piano, choir et al games and performances.

But abortion has fuck all to do with the fact we don’t have kids.

Never considered adoption?

Goober McTuber wrote: Never considered adoption?

Why do you give a shit?

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote: Never considered adoption?

Why do you give a shit?

I've known a number of couples over the years who wanted to have kids, but couldn't. For some, it was an incredibly painful situation. Some chose to adopt, others didn't, for whatever reasons.

When I was younger and single, I figured I'd like to have kids some day. I also figured that if I found the right woman and she already had a kid(s) that needed a dad, that would be OK too. And that's what happened. I adopted her son, and now I have two wonderful grandkids.

BTW, Screwy, you don't have to be a dick 24/7.

Goober McTuber wrote: I've known a number of couples over the years who wanted to have kids, but couldn't. For some, it was an incredibly painful situation. Some chose to adopt, others didn't, for whatever reasons.

When I was younger and single, I figured I'd like to have kids some day. I also figured that if I found the right woman and she already had a kid(s) that needed a dad, that would be OK too. And that's what happened. I adopted her son, and now I have two wonderful grandkids.

BTW, Screwy, you don't have to be a dick 24/7.

Seems like continuing to ask someone for why he doesn't have children is being the dick. But that's just me. He explained to you why he doesn't have kids.

LS wrote:And now you want to move the goal posts again to discuss fertility?

Your post is all over the map.

No, I quite obviously spoke of fertility because I was RESPONDING to Coyote's graph -- Fertility rate, total (births per woman).


This discussion has gone deep into the weeds.
I will summarize my points -- and then leave you heathens to gibber away as you undoubtedly will.

.088 posted a pro-abortion piece which included this gem...

All other things staying constant, making abortions harder to access and more expensive will only make the world a poorer, more crime-ridden and welfare-dependent place.

I found that utterly laffable and responded by noting that...

1. our nation is much poorer now than before Roe v. Wade (500 billion in debt to 21 trillion in debt now)
2. our nation was not more crime-ridden prior to Roe v. Wade
3. our nation was not more welfare-dependent prior to Roe v. Wade

4. We've systematically erased a big chunk of what would be our tax base. It is not only immoral, it is stupid.
5. There were "unwanted" children prior to Roe v. Wade. People still had them. Life is good. You don't have to KILL them.


The big picture problem is that Roe v. Wade was a huge turning point for our culture and for what we are about as a nation.
We ought not embrace death and irresponsibility.
It is grotesque and the consequences are not good.
And now we are 21 trillion dollars in the hole.

Great fucking decision, as they say at that other board.

Screw_Michigan wrote: Seems like continuing to ask someone for why he doesn't have children is being the dick. But that's just me. He explained to you why he doesn't have kids.

This. I learned a long time ago the hard way not to inquire about the status of children in someone's relationship.

Killian wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote: Seems like continuing to ask someone for why he doesn't have children is being the dick. But that's just me. He explained to you why he doesn't have kids.

This. I learned a long time ago the hard way not to inquire about the status of children in someone's relationship.

He already explained why he and his wife didn't make a baby. I thought the adoption thing was an innocent question.

Now if I suggested that he was a typical Republican who opposed abortion but also didn't care about the unwanted kid after they were born, that would be a dick move. I'm much too classy for that.

Softball Bat wrote:We've systematically erased a big chunk of what would be our tax base.

Do you feel the same way about all types of birth control?

Goober McTuber wrote: He already explained why he and his wife didn't make a baby. I thought the adoption thing was an innocent question.

Now if I suggested that he was a typical Republican who opposed abortion but also didn't care about the unwanted kid after they were born, that would be a dick move. I'm much too classy for that.

Adoption is great. I'm glad you adopted kids. My sister gave what was my nephew at the time up for adoption and now he's living a killer life that he would have never received from my sister.

Neither of us was particularly wrong. Let's continue to keep our smack efforts focused on the REAL enemy: Meltspray.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote: He already explained why he and his wife didn't make a baby. I thought the adoption thing was an innocent question.

Now if I suggested that he was a typical Republican who opposed abortion but also didn't care about the unwanted kid after they were born, that would be a dick move. I'm much too classy for that.

Adoption is great. I'm glad you adopted kids. My sister gave what was my nephew at the time up for adoption and now he's living a killer life that he would have never received from my sister.

Neither of us was particularly wrong. Let's continue to keep our smack efforts focused on the REAL enemy: Meltspray.

Boom. The head shit slinging monkey gives his boy Gobbles a reach around and throws in a complete nut massage to seal the deal. Epic.