Jose posted:

https://twitter.com/PatrickDeneen/status/1461743933915078656?t=eNsKLLOwwSZhN6KJE6UyoQ&s=19

fermun posted:

https://twitter.com/amconmag/status/1462118546205466629

tokin opposition posted:

Fascists walk like this

But far right conservatives walk like this

Platystemon posted:

Nazis are hanged by the neck.

Fascists are hanged by the feet.

Platystemon posted:

Nazis are hanged by the neck.

Fascists are hanged by the feet.

quote:

Conditional cash transfer programs are supposed to help the most vulnerable families

I wish one of the conditions of that program is for the parents to stop at one child only. Like Singapore provide incentives for voluntary sterilization if the couple enjoy loving.

If they're so poor that there is a program to give them a safety net then what business do they have to have more than one kid?

Having any more kids guarantees them begging, taking out multiple loans, and shaking down their own children, their brothers, sisters, cousins, extended family, and even friends and acquaintances for hand-outs, every two weeks, for the next quarter century or more.

Jose posted:

https://twitter.com/GrayConnolly/status/1462206280630607874?s=20

Flesh Forge posted:

"40% of British Jewry"

Flesh Forge posted:

"40% of British Jewry"

tokin opposition posted:

Correct me if I'm wrong toast sandwich eating limeys but isn't Corbyn basically a non-entity in your politics now?

tokin opposition posted:

Correct me if I'm wrong toast sandwich eating limeys but isn't Corbyn basically a non-entity in your politics now?

Necrothatcher posted:

Yup, but the Corbyn antisemitism thing was only ever a smokescreen and almost everyone involved knew it.

The only people who actually believed it are incredibly gullible and just can't understand why the guy they were told is Hitler 2.0 is being left alone.

NightGyr posted:

I have never even seen a good argument for what threat he presented. The worst accusations I ever saw was that some members of his party made antisemitic statements and he insufficiently condemned them.

Everything around that was a bunch of huffed up fear mongering about the dangerous environment he represented in a very fact-free way.

gradenko_2000 posted:

Milo and POTUS posted:

Not sure I even want to know the source

quote:

This study shows that the poorest households have the most number of kids while the richest have the least.

When unskilled/uneducated persons have families they tend to have a lot of kids. Their low pay compounded by having more than 1 kid perpetuates generational poverty.

Only way any household to improve their economic life is to upskill the parents or the kids. That is difficult to do when the nutrition received by the kids is not complete to prevent childhood physical/mental stunting. No matter the per student spend if the kid is stunted then they will have difficulty learning & retaining high value skills.

Per student spend for public education is sourced from taxes or govt loans. Right now the tax base is really narrow so you either increase the taxes of the current tax base, expand the tax base by covering all income brackets or increase number of higher wage earners by increasing number of skilled workers or you lessen the student numbers by having less babies.

The cheapest & most direct way to help is to cap number of children to 1 for the bottom 20% of all households.

Many countries have population policies that promote a 1 child or 2 child policy. These countries leap frog us.

Many will point to a demographic crisis but that problem only occurred half a century later. This is just me but I wouldn't mind that problem by 2070 rather than the problem we have now.

There are households that are so poor that govt needs to give them conditional cash support. One of the conditions they should have included should have been limiting these households to their current set of kids or just 1.

Singapore, Korea, Taiwan, China and Japan had very aggressive population policies and see their economies be so thriviing now. Sure they have a demo crisis but can be compensated for.

Unless of course you want to reinvent the wheel to prosperity. Me, I rather try what works and what works is limiting number of kids to 1-2.

Educated & high income individuals tend to have 1-2 kids only. So it isn't too much of a stretch that the rich will voluntarily have 2 or less kids. They also avoid availing public social services as well. Opting to send their kids to private school.

The portion of society that contribues the least amount of taxable income on a per person basis should do their fair share by cutting down on how many babies they make. Ideally 1 only and not 1 dozen

quote:

Singapore's National Family Planning Programme was an integral part of the government’s social and economic development strategy following Singapore’s independence in 1965.

It allowed Singapore to grow out from being an ASEAN back water to be richest among all ASEAN nations.

Why not replicate what works and what doesnt?

China's 1 child policy worked as well as it helped their economy lift 700 million Chinese up to the middle class.

I get you dislike the concept of the bourgeois telling what the poor can or cannot do but I look at the numbers and it says if the parents of households that earn less than 0.5m/yr force all their ~dozen kids to work to support their parents & siblings then they have no business having more than 1.

That's just Budgeting 101.

quote:

What is being pointed out is that people making this little should not have more than 1 kid until such a time their household makes more than a certain amount or else they will put parental responsibilities on their kids, make them into retirement plans, be forever in debt with loan sharks and be a burden to their other family members, relatives and friends.

These are actual realities that you probably never immersed decades long yourself.

Individuals are compensated appropriately on how unique a skill set they offer.

When you are unskilled and anyone can do the task being asked then the pay will be commensurately small. Like say an farm worker whose wage is less than the minimum wage. Their labors contribute to wealth creation but anyone without any handicap or deformity can do their tasks equivalently well.

When the person is highly skilled with unique abilities then the market will pay them big.

Incentives for voluntary sterilization for social welfare recipients should be part of the conditions of this conditional financial help.

Spangly A posted:

I think dismissing it as pure gullibility isn't a great idea. There are posters in the UK threads who arrived thinking Corbyn was a genuine threat to their safety

gradenko_2000 posted:

gradenko_2000 posted:

Pablo Nergigante posted:

"having a pop" British slang needs to be destroyed

DACK FAYDEN posted:

what does having a pop even mean, like, it's obvious from context what is meant but I don't comprehend how that is linked to the words "having a pop"

is it rhyming slang

is it like, you punch them and it goes "pop" like a fuckin batman cartoon