The US population will start declining in the next 10-20 years. What should the US be doing to prepare for this?

[User]

3 hours ago, Matthew said:

You were the one so easily baited by his very minor passing comment. Being THAT easily triggered by someone mentioning "drag queens" suggests a level of insecurity about that topic.

Clearly you have an agenda here too. The question is, are you honest enough to own up to how much you support this or will you spend pages trying to obfuscate and lie too?

 

[Matthew]

3 hours ago, User said:

Clearly you have an agenda here too. The question is, are you honest enough to own up to how much

An agenda about drag queens? In all my life I've thought about drag queens for zero minutes. I don't really get it or see what you find so appealing about it. But to each their own.

[Matthew]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

you:

User's obvious transgender fetish notwithstanding, most of this is not about hedonism.

And later

Yeah, we all know what you're into.

Yawn. Those are side comments about User's behavior, not part of any discussion about drag queens.

[Nationalist]

9 hours ago, A Freeman said:

The "migration" issue is a euphemism for a planned invasion, which is exactly what it really is.

 

It is karmic though, because of all of the wars that the U.S. and U.K. have started over the years to hold on to or expand their empires.

Karma can be a biatch. 

[CdnFox]

43 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Yawn. Those are side comments about User's behavior, not part of any discussion about drag queens.

You - "OH SHIT I GOT BUSTED LYING!!!! Ummm Ummm.... pretend to be uninterested!!!"

Yeah kid. You lied again. You'd have been better off just to own it and either not comment or explain why you felt it was justified to pick the fight you are now claiming you had no part in. 

Instead you wet yourself and said something that literally everyone can see is false 

So.... what, the teeny tiny scrap of credibility you had left around here was just too much to bear and you had to snuff it out? or what exactly?

[User]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

An agenda about drag queens? In all my life I've thought about drag queens for zero minutes. I don't really get it or see what you find so appealing about it. But to each their own.

Yes. Clearly, it upsets you that I was calling out Impartial on this. You had to go on and on completely ignoring that I did not bring it up as if I did. 

So... what is your angle? Do you go to drag queen story hours with kids too?

 

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

Yawn. Those are side comments about User's behavior, not part of any discussion about drag queens.

Now it is about your behavior. 

[eyeball]

16 hours ago, Nationalist said:

What would happen if the USA developed an alliance with Russia?

It would make annexing their neighbours normal.

[Nationalist]

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

It would make annexing their neighbours normal.

It would make then the unchallenged super power.

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, Nationalist said:

It would make then the unchallenged super power.

You people get wet just thinking about it don't you?

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You people get wet just thinking about it don't you?

And once again as soon as the left starts losing an argument they turn to weird homosexual sexual fantasies instead of reason or logic  

Every. Single.  TIme. 

[Nationalist]

42 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You people get wet just thinking about it don't you?

Man go get laid. You obviously have a serious problem with sexual frustration.

[impartialobserver]

On 2/2/2025 at 10:42 AM, DUI_Offender said:

 

From this map, it appears the rust belt states are stagnant in growth. As I expected Texas, Florida, the Carolinas, Idaho, Arizona, Nevada, and Utah are all gaining population faster than average.  New York, Illinois, and California are inn decline. 

Makes sense. My point is that declining population is going to affect those states that are either losing people and/or low population overall. A decline of 5,000 in population is going to mean more in Alabama than it does in CA. 

[NAME REMOVED]

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

Makes sense. My point is that declining population is going to affect those states that are either losing people and/or low population overall. A decline of 5,000 in population is going to mean more in Alabama than it does in CA. 

The vast majority of states are gaining in population. In fact, this should continue past 2050, in general in America. In Canada until recently, there are areas of population decline (Newfoundland, Cape Breton, etc.). However, the population of Canada will not decline anytime soon.

[Matthew]

On 2/2/2025 at 11:18 PM, User said:

Yes. Clearly, it upsets you that I was calling out Impartial on this.

Hardly. I'm nothing but amused at how triggered you are by the topic.

On 2/2/2025 at 11:18 PM, User said:

So... what is your angle? Do you go to drag queen story hours with kids too?

No that sounds stupid and boring to me. Again I'm not the one who thinks about drag queens. That's your area of expertise.

[impartialobserver]

4 hours ago, Matthew said:

Hardly. I'm nothing but amused at how triggered you are by the topic.

No that sounds stupid and boring to me. Again I'm not the one who thinks about drag queens. That's your area of expertise.

Yes, he is quite triggered. I view them as a nothingburger and nothing worth getting worked up over. However, had a recent county commissioners meeting and this topic dominated the discussion. I was both amused and perplexed. There are issues that affect the population far more than drag queens but some can't be convinced. 

[eyeball]

On 2/3/2025 at 10:21 AM, Nationalist said:

Man go get laid. You obviously have a serious problem with sexual frustration.

Naw...that all went away with my prostate.  But I can sure pee like a champ again! Up and over the rail and practically out to the stabilizers!

[User]

13 hours ago, Matthew said:

Hardly. I'm nothing but amused at how triggered you are by the topic.

If that were the case, you would not have spent as much time on making your initial comments here like you did...

13 hours ago, Matthew said:

No that sounds stupid and boring to me. Again I'm not the one who thinks about drag queens. That's your area of expertise.

You have been spending a whole lot of time thinking about them so far. 

9 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

Yes, he is quite triggered. I view them as a nothingburger and nothing worth getting worked up over. However, had a recent county commissioners meeting and this topic dominated the discussion. I was both amused and perplexed. There are issues that affect the population far more than drag queens but some can't be convinced. 

LOL, you brought them up. You lied about it, and you ran away from my last comment on it. 

 

[Matthew]

45 minutes ago, User said:

If that were the case, you would not have spent as much time on making your initial comments here like you did...

Yeah it takes soo much time to write one sentence making fun of you.

[Deluge]

On 1/25/2025 at 10:23 PM, robosmith said:

If Trump makes good on his deportation promises, it will decline 11M in the next 4 years. 

Which is a good thing because we don't need 11 million illegal aliens running around this country. 

The answer is to bring back the nuclear family - get a second baby boom going. 

 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Deluge said:

Which is a good thing because we don't need 11 million illegal aliens running around this country. 

The answer is to bring back the nuclear family - get a second baby boom going. 

 

Not possible with the current structure. That you have a better chance of getting close to it than Canada does so maybe you can at least mitigate the losses

[reason10]

On 1/26/2025 at 12:23 AM, robosmith said:

If Trump makes good on his deportation promises, it will decline 11M in the next 4 years. 

As Bill Burr would say "I can already see lanes opening up on the highways."

[Deluge]

44 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Not possible with the current structure. That you have a better chance of getting close to it than Canada does so maybe you can at least mitigate the losses

We need to restructure the structure then. It's only been a couple weeks into Trump's presidency, and I'm already starting to think that this scenario could have a real chance. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

We need to restructure the structure then. It's only been a couple weeks into Trump's presidency, and I'm already starting to think that this scenario could have a real chance. 

That's a tall order.

You need to understand that this started back in the late '60s early 70s and both Canada and America. Prior to that there were a number of disincentives for women to continue working once married.

For example one of the biggest was that banks did not calculate the woman's income when working out how big a mortgage the couple could have. Only the males income counted because it was assumed the female would become pregnant and stay at home with the children at some point in the not too distant future.

Women rightfully and understandably complained and in the late '60s early 70s that changed and women's income became part of the mortgage affordability calculation.

As a result people could afford to pay more homes. Women didn't work much but they often went back to work after their children got to a certain age at least part-time and brought in some supplemental income. Housing prices went up during the '70s pretty significantly. Women began to work more and more. This trend more or less continued through the '80s and '90s and as high inflation drove interest rates up it became more and more necessary to have two incomes to support a household. So the situation remained. 

Take a look at the fertility rates

There was a dip for the great depression and ww2 but otherwise rates were high until we hit the 60's, by the end of the 60's it fell to historic lows and then started to fall again over time and has never recovered. 

That's WITH immigrants who have more children on average (tho their children don't)

There were other factors but the end result is that nowadays the price of homes and living REQUIRES two incomes, it's harder and harder to have more than one kid. The number of single child homes has been shooting up in the states (even more in canada) and is expected to continue climbing because mommy NEEDS TO WORK -  and more and more she not only needs to work she needs a good paying job and you don't get that by taking years off at a time for children. 

This is now a problem in many countries. Two incomes has become the defacto norm.  In the states many so called "womens rights" groups actively look down on those women who DON"T want to work a full time career. 

 

How on earth are you going to reverse that? How are you suddenly going to make it so that single income families are the norm? You can't unless you a) get prices down radically and b) somehow convince women that they shoudn't be working as much because if they do then prices stay up. 

I just don't see it as being possible. Other countries have tried baby bonuses and pay and other incentives and it doesn't have that much of an impact.  Canada tried income splitting which may have helped but the libs shut it down right away. If you have a bright idea i think most of the free world leaders would love to hear it  

[impartialobserver]

Trump's policies are not going to change the realities listed in this forum. Why someone chooses to have kids is complex and politics is not the number one variable

[User]

21 hours ago, Matthew said:

Yeah it takes soo much time to write one sentence making fun of you.

You did more than that. 

You guys just can't help defending grown ass men getting their jollies and validation off kids and trying to normalize this behavior.