How's it really going Americans?

[Phoenix_person]

14 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yes, we can carefully craft programs tied to metrics like work, or completing rehab or counseling.  So there are ways to actually reduce the problem instead of growing it.  

We already do that in a lot of states, especially blue ones (because a lot of red states are reluctant to spend on ANY social programs). Plus, we have programs like food stamps and Medicaid being used by people with full-time employment because the $15/hr that a lot of low-paying employers finally capitulated to isn't *actually* a liveable wage. When I say we're living in a capitalist heckscape, I mean we live in a country where we spent years to get the Wal Marts and Amazons of the world to increase their wages *to* a poverty wage that still has to be supplemented by government assistance. You want to reduce government spending on social programs? Get those big employers to stop using your tax dollars to subsidize their cheap labor practices. What's one way to do that? Get them out of the health insurance market. 

[LDSGator]

2 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Population growth at the current rate will eventually become unsustainable

I was with you 100% until this. Overpopulation is a myth, and you don’t need to be a right wing maniac to see it. I’m as pro LGBT as you can get (It’s a personal liberty issue to me) but I’m not stupid. 
 

https://www.cato.org/policy-report/november/december-2022/valuable-people-debunking-myth-overpopulation#:~:text=One of the most popular,human action and economic progress.

 

https://www.sierraclub.org/washington/blog/2020/01/overpopulation-myth-and-its-dangerous-connotations

 

 

Edited September 6, 2024 by LDSGator

[LDSGator]

The other really, really awkward truth about eugenics and overpopulation is that it was essentially started by rich white people to get rid of poor and colored people. It’s a bitter pill that advocates of those philosophies either ignore, dance around or flat out lie about. 
 

It’s like eating an only vegan diet. You seldom see poor people in Africa advocating for that. It’s always rich white people.

 

[Phoenix_person]

33 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I was with you 100% until this. Overpopulation is a myth, and you don’t need to be a right wing maniac to see it. I’m as pro LGBT as you can get (It’s a personal liberty issues to me) but I’m not stupid. 
 

https://www.cato.org/policy-report/november/december-2022/valuable-people-debunking-myth-overpopulation#:~:text=One of the most popular,human action and economic progress.

The article's not wrong that modern innovation has stretched our resources further than we could imagine, and there's no reason to believe that innovation couldn't continue. The question is if we'll be willing to adapt to the evolving availability and use of resources. There's one political party that has a consistent track record of pursuing sustainable energy standards, and it ain't the party of Reagan. I will say, however, that we had some very productive conversations this last session with a few GOP legislators who were on board with our bill to begin developing geothermal plans for Minnesota's major cities.

33 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

https://www.sierraclub.org/washington/blog/2020/01/overpopulation-myth-and-its-dangerous-connotations

Again, the article isn't wrong, but it puts the responsibility on us to create a world where under 5% of the population isn't hoarding most of the planet's wealth and resources. What do you suppose the odds of that happening are?

[JohnsonJones]

18 hours ago, Carborendum said:

  I recently just came across a study that was completed after 75 years of studies and continuous data-gathering.  The findings are both encouraging and discouraging.

Link?

The closest I could find would be this study

adult development study

Done via Harvard Medical.  However, there are many papers done from this study, the closest being this one perhaps

What's Love got to do with it?

Though there are others as well...

Security of attachment of Spouses later in life

and then there's this one

Long Life Family study

though it may also be this one...

Families in Later Life

The first being done I believe in conjunction with Harvard Medical.  Others also being offshoots of it.

However, they don't necessarily seem to absolutely agree with what you said the findings were, and some are really talking about other things entirely...though there are some similar conclusions on many points. 

This indicates that these are not the studies you are talking about.  Do you have a link to the study you brought up?

[askandanswer]

On 9/4/2024 at 10:57 AM, Phoenix_person said:

I happen to know that Gator has a black belt in Tae Kwon Do. My belief that he could rearrange my face if he felt so inclined is an evidence-based one.

I'm pretty sure that @mikbone could as well although the methodology is likely to differ.

[askandanswer]

On 9/5/2024 at 12:44 AM, NeuroTypical said:

Agreed on all counts.  And no matter how much the government pours into healthcare, including the generation-inspiring Obamacare/ACA, the government has utterly failed for 6 decades to make a dent in the poverty rate. 

Has the definition of poverty stayed the same across those six decades? Perhaps today's person in poverty might enjoy a standard of living that was middle class standard 60 years ago. I don't know, I'm just raising a question.

[JohnsonJones]

13 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

In the battle of competing wise sayings, I've found this one is much more powerful and accurate:

"You get what you pay for."

The more money you pour into single mother families, the more single mother families you'll get.   The more you pour into homelessness, the more homelessness you'll get.  

Yes, we can carefully craft programs tied to metrics like work, or completing rehab or counseling.  So there are ways to actually reduce the problem instead of growing it.  

Fun story: I've been a finance clerk for 5 bishops now, and helped each one of them administer fast offerings to our needy folks.  4 of them have been your standard bishops following the program. The fifth was one of the most giving caring people on earth.  He spent a lot of energy finding the financial needs in his ward, and offering church assistance to folks.  Four of the bishops, I write maybe a check or two a month.  One bishop, I'd do 2-5 checks weekly.  Dude was helping people make car payments.  We were paying rent for several people.  We were paying for a teenager's iPhone bill so he could "look for work and stuff".  Probably half a dozen or more folks with constant needs lasting 6 months or longer.  In my dozen years of finance clerking, I've only seen one case of fraud - and it was at the hands of this charitable bishop.  A family of professional scammers sniffed him out, and now they're all mormon, and somehow they never have the correct paperwork, but the bishop wanted to help so badly he'd always approve an exception.

That bishop presided during a period that wasn't marked by recession or hard times or high unemployment or anything like that.   He just got what he paid for.  Word got out that the purse strings were open with no strings and no judgment, and suddenly I'm the busiest finance clerk in 5 stakes.

The next bishop showed up, and it all dried up.  He talked with me about teen with the cell phone.  He told me he took this take:

"One of our older sisters lives on a fixed income, and literally goes without food so she can afford to pay her fast offerings.  She lives in the subsidized apartments.  She has to plan carefully for every single dollar.  Can you look me in the eye and tell me that paying for your cell phone is the best use of the funds she consecrates to the Lord for supporting the needy?"

"Well, um, no, I guess not."

I assume he had similar discussions with others, because within 3-4 months, I was back to my usual check-writing cadence of a couple times a month.  It's like word got out the new bishop was a tightwad, and suddenly all the "needs" dried up.  Or some folks got forced to live within their means.

Yeah, you get what you pay for.  Local beats federal.  Private beats government.  And tying aid to hoops that must be jumped through is critical to ensure you're not just growing the problem. 

You can tell your people I said so.  

 

So, I get something entirely DIFFERENT from this than you.

Having served in a Bishopric...that LAST THING I WOULD EVER WANT is the Lord coming to me and asking me...Why was Sister (Doe) starving when you were Bishop?

If my answer was...I was just trying to keep your funds safe so those that REALLY needed them could use them...

I'm not sure his response would be optimistically enthusiastic.

So...the difference I see (with the exception of the kid with the Iphone) is that you had four families that needed food and rental help for an extended period.

The ONLY difference that occurred wasn't that their NEED went away, but that the Bishop changed.

Which means instead of Five families having their needs met, you now had 3-4 familes that were starving and may have lost housing (wow...if they go homeless does that really solve the problem because it's out of your hair and they are in another ward...is that REALLY how the Lord wants us solving these things) with one or two families that were getting help.

Ignoring the problem doesn't actually MAKE it go away.  Sure, it may help with your numbers...but it's not doing anything to actually SOLVE the problem or even HELP  the problem.

So, when I was in the position, I was a STICKLER for the rules.  Unlike the one Bishop you mentioned, I would NOT approve exceptions UNLESS I paid for it with my OWN money out of MY OWN pocket (which I have done on occasion, bishop or not).  However, if there was a need, I would work to help with that need.  I would ALSO use the church resources as suggested to help them plan better, prepare better, or to even get them to church classes that would help them get better jobs or better positions in life.  It can be temporary help if you can get the people to gain better positions in life.

If you don't help them get a better position in life, and then cease to help them at all...that's just returning them to the bad position they were in the first place.

With the individual with the phone bill, it should be clear that the help is temporary and at most will be 3 months, though it could be as little as one month.  There are other programs they can turn to if they cannot find a job in 3 months.  Also, they may have to scale down their phone bill, depending on HOW much that phone bill was.  The church can help cover a phone bill costs for trying to find employment, but it doesn't have to be an expensive one.

Putting more money into problems do not necessarily make the problems bigger.  What it MIGHT do is that someone is acutally going around FINDING that more problems actually exist that have not been being addressed.  Putting money to address those problems actually MAY cause those problems to decrease.  It may appear to increase simply because the problem is far more widespread than originally thought, and investing in actually HELPING RESOLVE the problem will help it get better.

However, NOT putting money in to something rarely decreases a problem. 

Prime example...the university felt that every student should have housing.  There should be no homeless students.  When investing into it, suddenly there were a LOT more students that did not have a place to live than previously thought (by several dozen).  This number didn't increase because we put  money into it...they were ALREADY THERE.  THEY ALREADY EXISTED.  Focusing on the program merely highlighted how big the  problem actually was.  If we had NOT spent money, the problem would STILL exist and STILL be just as BIG if not bigger.

However, the requirements started to be that students HAD to live in the Dorms their first year, and after that had a registered place to live that the university could check.  Normally there were apartments and rentals the university would suggest strongly. 

Did this solve the problem?  No.  The problem probably exists to this day.  However, as far as we can tell, though the numbers went up initially, they are lower today when trying to gauge the overall impact, then they when the amount of the problem was finally actually investigated (rather than ignored).

Spending less money and saying the problem isn't as big is simply saying...if you ignore a problem...it will go away...but if you investigate it and invest in solving it...it gets bigger.

Which is absolutely  not true.  Normally, if someone isn't spending money on a problem, the numbers are LOWER simply because most of that problem is being ignored rather than the REAL numbers being shown.

For a system that works on stats...and you getting rewards for good stats...the first statement is what many prefer...however for a system which looks at what the actual problems and REAL numbers are as well as trying to find solutions, the second statemen is what you want to actually address. 

[LDSGator]

3 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Has the definition of poverty stayed the same across those six decades? Perhaps today's person in poverty might enjoy a standard of living that was middle class standard 60 years ago. I don't know, I'm just raising a question.

I remember talking to a friend from India in the 2000’s who said the beauty of America is that the poor people are fat. Hee hee-but he raised a good point. 

[NeuroTypical]

6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

DIFFERENT LAST THING I WOULD EVER WANT REALLY ONLY NEED REALLY MAKE SOLVE HELP STICKLER UNLESS OWN MY OWN ALSO HOW MIGHT MAY HELPING RESOLVE NOT ALREADY THERE  THEY ALREADY EXISTED.  NOT STILL STILL BIG HAD LOWER REAL REAL 

That's an awful lot of yelling there @JohnsonJones...   I can't really hear you over all the yelling.

[Traveler]

On 9/6/2024 at 2:28 PM, Phoenix_person said:

 

I would say that promoting nuclear families is a very realistic side effect of our agenda, but not a driving cause. I believe that our policy agenda can benefit all sorts of families in ways that will improve the quality of life for nuclear middle and working class families and maybe remove some of the stress factors that causes families like that to fracture. As our local organizers and electeds like to say: "We all do better when we all do better".

Is there a shortage of het couples reproducing in our society? Heck, even over here on the leftist side, I know a lot of Millenials who are out here having kids and starting families. And last I checked, adoption clinics and foster homes didn't have a shortage of kids passing through them. 

And what business is that of the overwhelming hetero population that continues to procreate? By your logic, they should have been bred out of existence long before we had Pride parades and legalized same-sex marriage.

Can you break down that math like you're talking to someone who barely passed high school algebra? Because I'm not seeing how 10-20% of the population is an existential threat to the rest of us.

No we haven't. We're approaching avoidable thresholds of sustainability, but not for the reasons you think. We're eventually going to hit a crisis of resources that will have global ripple effects. Population growth at the current rate will eventually become unsustainable. And again I ask, which political ideology has the better track record when it comes to managing our natural resources and promoting sustainable renewable energy?

A simple internet search will provide information:

Quote

Washington Post 2024/04/26

The U.S. birthrate has generally fallen below replacement level — the fertility level needed for one generation to replace itself — since 1971.

 

According to the CDC, just under 3.6 million babies were born in 2023, compared with almost 3.7 million in 2022. 

United States/Fertility rate

1.66 births per woman (2021)

 

 

Science has proven that preferences (including sexual preferences) are learned or acquired.  We have known this for decades.  It is a scientific fact that anyone can learn or acquire a different sexual preference.

It is a fundamental principle of LDS theology to allow agency – even though it is likely misused.  I am not against an adult choosing LGBTQ+.  I am (as a scientist) against anyone lying that sexual preference is not a choice.  I am against the beguiling of children (under age 25) that they have not choice or any control concerning their sexual preference.

Obviously sexual preference is not genetic – no one is born outside of heterosexual relationships.  If there is an argument for LGBTQ+ sustainability – I would like to see that data.

If current trends continue (the math is fractals, and the scientific model is Chayos Theory – the same that is used to prove Climate Change) – the USA society will eventually die off because of changes is sexual behavior.  It is simply not scientifically possible to support changing human behavior because of climate change and not support changing human behavior to heterosexual for the exact same reason – preventing the extinction of species.

 

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

18 hours ago, Traveler said:

If current trends continue (the math is fractals, and the scientific model is Chayos Theory – the same that is used to prove Climate Change) – the USA society will eventually die off because of changes is sexual behavior.  

Could you cite a source for that claim?  I'd love a link.

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Could you cite a source for that claim?  I'd love a link.

I am a mathematician and the source.  I have used Chaos theory and fractals to develop projections for material handling and robotic loading in large complex manufacturing.  Here is a little exercise for anyone interested.  Do a Google search on “chaos theory and fractals” and read to your heart’s content.

 

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

Ah.   So, your claim is a @Traveler original.   Fair enough. 

 

  

[LDSGator]

23 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I am a mathematician and the source.  I have used Chaos theory and fractals to develop projections for material handling and robotic loading in large complex manufacturing.  Here is a little exercise for anyone interested.  Do a Google search on “chaos theory and fractals” and read to your heart’s content.

 

The Traveler

Out of the LGBT couples I know (granted not many) most have kids through IVF or other ways. 

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Out of the LGBT couples I know (granted not many) most have kids through IVF or other ways. 

Not sure what is meant by other ways?  Even with IVF, an egg form a female and a sperm from a male is required.  Every person that has ever lived on earth has a biological mother and a biological father.

For whatever reason, the LGBTQ+ community avoids the science that sexual preferences are learned or acquired.  For example, sometimes saying – G-d made me this way.  Or saying with all the problems do you really think I would choose this?  Not everything we learn is by what means some would define as a choice.   There is a logical conundrum when individuals that consider themselves LGBTQ+ decide to be parents of children.

Since we know that sexual preferences are learned or acquired – I have a difficult time with the logic of those in heterosexual relationships that support and encourage those that are LGBTQ+ to raise children.  Usually the argument is because there are heterosexual parents are doing a horrible job of it.  Using a negative to support a conclusion is not logical.  Saying that something is better than feeding children to crocodiles is not a good argument for that something because we all know that there is something much better.

 

The Traveler

[LDSGator]

9 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Usually the argument is because there are heterosexual parents are doing a horrible job of it. 

And you are way off base. I’ve never heard that before in my life. 

Edited September 9, 2024 by LDSGator

[Traveler]

21 hours ago, LDSGator said:

And you are way off base. I’ve never heard that before in my life. 

What is the argument you have heard from the LGBTQ+ community as to why adoptions should not favor heterosexual couples whenever possible?

 

The Traveler

[Phoenix_person]

9 minutes ago, Traveler said:

What is the argument you have heard from the LGBTQ+ community as to why adoptions should not favor heterosexual couples whenever possible?

I have never heard anyone in the LGBTQ community make any argument of that sort.

[Carborendum]

31 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

41 minutes ago, Traveler said:

What is the argument you have heard from the LGBTQ+ community as to why adoptions should not favor heterosexual couples whenever possible?

I have never heard anyone in the LGBTQ community make any argument of that sort.

Welcoming All Families - Center for American Progress

Quote

In a 2011 national survey of 158 gay and lesbian adoptive parents, nearly half of respondents reported experiencing bias or discrimination from a child welfare worker or birth family member during the adoption process.

Despite this bias, the vast majority of U.S. states still lack laws or policies that explicitly protect LGBTQ prospective adoptive and foster parents from discrimination.

In case you don't get the undertone that this is unacceptable behavior...

Quote

Worse still, certain conservative religious groups are weaponizing their anti-LGBTQ viewpoint to advocate for religious exemptions that allow child placing agencies to discriminate. 

Oh, of course, you can't discriminate! 

Wait.  doesn't that mean that we are NOT supposed to favor heterosexual couples?

Edited September 10, 2024 by Carborendum

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

What is the argument you have heard from the LGBTQ+ community as to why adoptions should not favor heterosexual couples whenever possible?

 

The Traveler

None. 90% of the LGTBQ community doesn’t care how you raise your kids. Sure, you’ll find 10% that fuss about it, but it’s only the radicals that have no sway over mainstream society. 

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

have never heard anyone in the LGBTQ community make any argument of that sort.

Same. The majority of LGBTQ parents/people want what the majority of all good people want-kids to be raised in a stable, loving home and not bounced around from parent to parent or worse, in foster care bounced around to 10 families a year.  

[JohnsonJones]

On 9/9/2024 at 9:23 AM, NeuroTypical said:

Could you cite a source for that claim?  I'd love a link.

I don't have a source for the idea that declining birthrates will lead to the destruction or downfall of the United States, however there are multiple sources out there that point to a declining birthrate as well as the birthrate in the US and some other nations being below sustainability (sustainability is where a nation has enough births to sustain it's population at an even level, lower than that the population declines.  Logically, without any other sources to renew that population, if it continues to decline, at some point in the future it would cease to exist).

This one is about Europe but it is extremely interesting because it has graphs and charts to show the information as well.  What I also find interesting is that much of Europe has a lower birthrate than the US.

Europes fertility crisis

Quote

In 2022, the number of live births in the European Union reached its lowest level since 1960, according to the latest available data.

That year, only 3.88 million babies were born in the EU, marking the first time the figure fell below 4 million.

The fertility rate also declined, nearing levels last seen two decades ago. The EU had one of the lowest fertility rates in the world, defined as the number of live births per woman.

What is interesting is that the charts at the bottom show that the birthrates all over the world are ALSO declining.  Thus far, Europe has taken an approach similar to the US, where we create a sustainable population (refer above to what sustainability in populationIF is) via immigration rather than the live births occurring in the nation.   If other nations and areas also have a decrease in live births, logically, eventually they will also not have sustainability and will not be reliable sources to sustain or renew Europe or the US's own population.

A more succinct view of Europe's fertility situation currently

This next article pertains to the US's fertility situation

How low can Americas birth rate go before it is a problem

Quote

The U.S. fertility rate hit a record low in 2020 — just as it did in 2019, and 2018. Although the COVID-19 pandemic seems to have accelerated this decline, the drop has been underway for years. The total fertility rate — the average number of children a woman is expected to have over her lifetime — now sits at 1.64 children per woman in the U.S. Not only is this the lowest rate recorded since the government began tracking these stats in the 1930s, but it’s well below the so-called “replacement-level fertility” of about 2.1.

The latter number is what social scientists and policymakers have long regarded as the rate a country should maintain to keep population numbers stable. When the fertility rate falls below replacement level, the population grows older and shrinks, which can slow economic growth and strain government budgets. Today’s babies are tomorrow’s workers and taxpayers: They’ll not only staff the hospitals and nursing homes we’ll use in old age but also sustain the economy by funding our pensions when we retire, paying the taxes that finance Social Security, Medicare, and many other government programs we’ll rely on, and buying the homes and stocks we invested in to build our savings. 

Interestngly enough, the article tries to refute that a falling population is actually a problem and tries to highlight that the ideas that popularized the idea that population growth spurs economic and financial growth may be flawed.

Finally, as a last article, the falling birth rates and fertility in the US has garnered enough attention for a call out from the White House itself.  Now, the following basically says don't worry, the sky is not falling.  However, when you have the White House note something is a problem, but try to say it's not...alarm bells may start sounding in your head as it seems the right hand of the government is trying to do and act something the opposite of the left hand.

A First-Pinciples look at  historically low us fertility and its maroeconomic implication

Quote

Recently, the CDC released provisional data showing that, in 2023, the U.S. birth rate declined to its lowest level in history. This data point is the most recent in a trend of falling U.S. fertility rates since 2007, the onset of the Great Recession. Observers have noted that low fertility—and the aging population that it generates—implies fewer workers per capita and creates significant headwinds to economic growth, the fiscal sustainability of public benefit programs, and the trend of continuous improvements in living standards, as reflected in per capita incomes.[1] This story of demographic pressure is directionally correct, but leaves out other important forces shaping the macroeconomic future. In this issue brief, we return to first principles to better understand how declining fertility and an aging population will affect the U.S. fiscal future and living standards, highlighting how growth in labor force participation and labor productivity can be countervailing forces that mitigate the impact of an aging population.

We also highlight the types of policy necessary to meet these challenges, policies that the Biden-Harris Administration has already been working to implement. The arithmetic that ties economic outcomes to fertility trends reveals two forces that can help offset the challenges of an aging population: building out the care economy and supporting faster productivity growth.

Now there are various reasonings many have given for the declining birth rates and fertility, including those given in the articles themselves.

What is NOT mentioned are the things @Traveler stated.  That said, though the articles do not state it and the authors of the articles themselves would probably disagree with this, I agree with Traveler's summation or ideas (or what I understand what he stated) in that the growing abberations in regards to chastity and gender are the problems that are driving much of this decline.  I would broaden it to the sinfulness of our society in general, and that as sin and wickedness increases, it will affect such things as the birthrate and fertility as well as the general well being of society.

However, that last paragraph is more of my opinion (obviously, as well as obviously also influenced heavily by my own personal religious beliefs) than anything currently supported or spoken about in scientific communities.

[Phoenix_person]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Welcoming All Families - Center for American Progress

In case you don't get the undertone that this is unacceptable behavior...

Yes, I believe that discriminating against well-qualified same sex couples as adoption candidates is unacceptable. I doubt that we're ever going to agree on that.

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Oh, of course, you can't discriminate! 

Wait.  doesn't that mean that we are NOT supposed to favor heterosexual couples?

It means that eligible parents shouldn't have barriers to adoption because they're not in a heterosexual marriage. 

My point was that, contrary to what @Traveler claimed, there isn't a widespread opinion within the LGBTQ community that they are better adoption candidates than het couples.

Edited September 11, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[Carborendum]

11 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Yes, I believe that discriminating against well-qualified same sex couples as adoption candidates is unacceptable. I doubt that we're ever going to agree on that.

It means that eligible parents shouldn't have barriers to adoption because they're not in a heterosexual marriage. 

My point was that, contrary to what @Traveler claimed, there isn't a widespread opinion within the LGBTQ community that they are better adoption candidates than het couples.

I had to think about that for a bit. 

You're right.  I read something into it that wasn't really there.  I often chide others for doing that, so bad on me.

I believe that Traveler was indicating that because of the natural mode of parenting is a cisgendered couple, then that SHOULD be favored.  And he pointed out that LGBT+ want to do away with that.

Your response, then, was that you've never heard that from the LGBT crowd.  I had thought you meant that you never heard them say they should get rid of that idea.  

Your position is that what is supposedly happening, the LGBT crowd want "equal" access to adoption.

Slightly different. Is that what was being said?

Edited September 11, 2024 by Carborendum