Cry me a river for the freakin "poor" - Page 6 - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Wednesday, July 21, 2010 7:14 PM on j-body.org
OHV notec wrote:


Bill, I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to argue that the population base hasn't increased yearly...

Well I'd have thought the same thing, but Quik's testimony seemed to indicate otherwise...perhaps I interpreted it wrong, but he seemed be suggesting that US population growth has not been robust over the last fifty years. I'd say a nation that is 240 years old that increased in size 50% (from 200M TO 300M) in the last 50 years...that's significant.. Further, 30 million new inhabitants in the last 10 years...that's a 10% increase in less than 4% of our nation's history.

As such, contending that the population is not growing at a rapid clip is simply wrong, and apparently a misconception based on focusing strictly on annual rate of gain, not actual numbers.

Why is this strong growth and birthrate a good thing? Tax dollars, my friends...not to mention economic engine stimulation. We need it, and should it truly decelerate or stall, we are in very dire straits such as Germany currently faces.







Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Thursday, July 22, 2010 6:19 AM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

OHV notec wrote:


Bill, I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to argue that the population base hasn't increased yearly...

Well I'd have thought the same thing, but Quik's testimony seemed to indicate otherwise...perhaps I interpreted it wrong, but he seemed be suggesting that US population growth has not been robust over the last fifty years. I'd say a nation that is 240 years old that increased in size 50% (from 200M TO 300M) in the last 50 years...that's significant.. Further, 30 million new inhabitants in the last 10 years...that's a 10% increase in less than 4% of our nation's history.
Actually, I was not arguing that it has not been strong. I was making the argument that it was not the cause of our economic prosperity, that it was a result of it. The reason I posted the question that you disagreed with the fact that our growth is slowing is because that's what you chose to quote out of my prior post.

The US has most definitely been growing at a strong rate, but that rate is now half of what it was 50 years ago. We are clearly slowing down.

Here's the same chart using the data from 1900-2008.



As you can see over 100 years ago, we were growing at a rate of an average of about 2%. This dropped to almost a half of a percent during the Great Depression, and did not return to the 2% range until after the end of WWII. From the high point in the 50's, we have been on a decline in rate. The most recent "boom" began in the late 80's and continued until the early 90's. This dropped back off and we are down to a rate of less than 1%.

Again, my point is not to argue that we are not growing. My entire point was that the change in growth rate is the effect of the economy, not the stimulus. If you think about it for a minute, would it not make sense that a large number of people thinking of starting a family would make this choice based on their financial situation? If unemployment increases, the number of couples who decide to wait to have children most likely increases.







Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search