Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
The Amplifier
7745 Followers
Phil Perspective
9366 Followers
Phil Perspective
9366 Followers
onthetrail
1267 Followers
onthetrail
1267 Followers
yocouchdiggaJul 5, 2010
If we don't slow population growth, especially among our less fortunate members of society and immigrants (where it's most prominent), I think we're fairly hosed. The growth is just not sustainable. We need a cultural revolution in a bad way or we'll be forced to deal with one, when society continues to collapse and by then, it'll probably be too late to save.
Our media is terribly irresponsible when it comes to addressing the challenges we're set to face in the next 10-20 years and preparing people with the reality of our situation. Instead we're lead to believe it's an "us vs. them" thing or political. I'm hoping that through our increased connectedness through tech and coming technologies we can begin to make the necessary shifts to right this ship and save our crippled superpower but that's going to take a more active, informed and aware individual; sadly, I'm not seeing the numbers yet.
The uninformed man is not fit to rule himself. If things continue to go south, we'll more than likely be ruled by the corporate-sanctioned fist of the best government and military-industrial complex money can buy (been on the path since Kennedy's death). That's a perilous future to face. I think we can do better but time is of the essence.
blackinthmiddleJul 5, 2010
I've talked about this with my friends in the past. A serious argument can be made that part of the reason our economy is doing so poorly is that there are simply too many people in America right now. Who says that we're supposed to be able to sustain 300 million people?
doomesticJul 5, 2010
The "quasi populist" message in your comment is something we all know. The media is terrible, the corporations are evil and the military-industrial complex needs to be limited and even stopped. Your message is obviously lacking a solution.
You want to "slow" the population growth among the less fortunate? How exactly are you going to do that? Do you want to implement China-like one child laws made only for the less fortunate? And what is it about a "cultural revolution" that is going to help at all in this regard? Is a cultural revolution going to suddenly make the poor less likely to have children?
Additionally, Kennedy's death has little to do with the growth of the military industrial complex. The moment world war II ended, the military industrial complex was craving for more.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
alganJul 5, 2010
Here's how you slow population growth:
- Eliminate tax benefits for multiple children. First is free and gets you a tax deduction. Second is also free, but no tax deduction. If you want more, you better be prepared to pay an exponentially growing fee. And forget about welfare, once you start having more than one kid.
- Screw the religious nonsense about abortion and birth control. Make it a mandatory thing to talk about in school, so every kid entering puberty is well aware of her or his option in this regard. Also make this stuff state subsidized so even poor people can afford it. The expenses will be more than covered by the reduction in welfare benefits.
doomesticJul 5, 2010
- The poor already don't pay taxes. Eliminating tax credit won't hurt them, but it will hurt the middle class that would be less capable of sending their kids to college thanks to more taxes.
- Nothing wrong with education. I strongly support choice. However, subsidizing abortion is a different issue all together. While we disagree on the ethics of abortion with the religious right, they still have as much of a say in the matter as we do, and we should not force them to pay taxes to subsidize what they essentially believe is not moral, however wrong they may be.
anakastJul 5, 2010
Bulls**t. The west is dying, if it weren't for immigration it would cease to exist in a few centuries. People need to breed more.
dagonwebnl2Jul 7, 2010
Great f**king the world into an overopulated hell, because of these arguments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKDe-09EpNM
I. Couldn't. Care. Less. About. Whining. White. Trash.
peekmanJul 6, 2010
wtf if you don't get more people.... working people will retire and no one will be around to support them.......
yocouchdiggaJul 6, 2010
Discounting the projected path of our technology, sure. There are plenty of people, right now. There are not plenty of resources and until we come up with a fix for that, we need to be more responsible.
dagonwebnl2Jul 7, 2010
And your idea is to breed ourselves out of not having enough slaves to work for old people? Sorry that is breeding forced labor... and what if that generation says, suck my ass, and decides that 20 hours a week work is 'just fine' (and they'll pay less taxes anyways) ?
Your idea of breeding (GROWTH) to keep an economic paradigm afloat is making an already ghastly situation in to a nightmare 40 years down the road. Idiot.
peekmanJul 7, 2010
Immigration or another baby boom is the only way to support the benefits we give the elderly. It is not an opinion or an idea.... it is a fact.
We can decrease the benefits they get but retired people are a huge voting block and actually go out and vote so doing so is difficult.
A combination of more working people and decreased benefits (or decreased healthcare costs) is what is needed for the long-term. But for the short-term more working people is the only answer. No worries though, babyboomers kids are now having kids.
dagonwebnl2Jul 7, 2010
No, this is not true. Taxes and societal obligations will weigh so heavily on the younger generations they will just leave. Migrate away. Or they decide, 'what use is it for me to work fulltime - since there is so much demand for me I can just as well work 20 hours'.
The thing is YOU CAN'T grow yourself out of the effects of overopopulation. It's so obvious, look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
There is one solution to the imminent aging problem : old people use nearly half their life's medical money allotment in the last five years of life. Together with penion benefits that is a mountain of money - what if that mountain could be taken by state, and no given to the old people? There is a way on how society, especially in the most rich country, could wiggle itself out of honoring all pensions, old age care, medical care, special infrastructure adjustments. The money is there - it only needs a massproduced solution, and that solution is no motre than 30 years away.
http://www.sens.org/
And you don't need a solution all at once - just adding a single month of increased average lifespan will save pension funds and medical insurers globally tens of billions. A year, hundreds of billions, every year. A decade, trillions. The state could then say - hey you are getting biologically younger, you are no longer entitled to pension benefits. Go back to work.
alanocuJul 5, 2010
Environmentalists make horrible predictions.
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist - 1970
How'd that work out for you, Paul?
“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,”
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day - 1970
Hey Denis, GTFO, you raving moonbat
“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist - 1970
And George is Harvard man. Where's your science now bitches? And why do these folks hate humanity so much? No, there is no need to worry. Let the fools who postulate the philosophy of exterminating human beings step up and wipe THEMSELVES out first.
alanocuJul 5, 2010
Environmentalists make horrible predictions.
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist - 1970
How'd that work out for you, Paul?
“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,”
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day - 1970
Hey Denis, GTFO, you raving moonbat
Where's your science now bitches? And why do these folks hate humanity so much? No, there is no need to worry. Let the fools who postulate the philosophy of exterminating human beings step up and wipe THEMSELVES out first.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
yocouchdiggaJul 5, 2010
While we're educating ourselves: There are approximately 800 million+ people starving right now - 23 million+ are children.
It's not about exterminating people and it never has been, you sensationalism spreading bastard. It's about making it so people don't have to starve to death by bringing their societies up to speed, giving them access to birth control and food so they don't feel like they need to have large families to survive. If you're going to spread disinformation, at least understand what you're spreading it about.
Science is our best weapon against calamity and to denounce that is to vigorously wave a flag of arrogance and ignorance. From your history, it's one of your specialties. Go read a book, Alan.
novenatorJul 5, 2010
alan,
the predictive model of Erlich was based on natural population shifts in nature, but failed to take into consideration the agricultural boom that took place due to massive 3rd world relief programs in the 70s, which caused food production to skyrocket. Though this headed of mass starvation, it did not prevent many cases of it.
If the exponential growth of our species is not coupled with an exponential growth in food production, Erlich's predictions will still come true. With increasing infertility due to pollution, desertification, salting of the earth, shrinking water supplies, and peak genetic performance, this could still happen within our lifetimes.
dstzJul 5, 2010
And the work of Borlaug.
novenatorJul 5, 2010
absolutely.
crock2Jul 5, 2010
So I guess just because predictions have been wrong in the past, we should all just stick our heads in the sand, eh?
pw378Jul 5, 2010
Its not popular to say this, but the only reason Ehrlich was wrong was one company - Montsanto.
Their efforts to increase crop yields through bio-engineering, pesticides, fertilizers, etc have pretty much prevented a global war over lack of resources such as food. They deserve a Nobel prize, but instead get demonized for "bio-engineered" foods and being a huge multinational corporation. Truth is, they have done more for peace and to help the poor than any Government.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
neognosticJul 5, 2010
Monsanto is a criminal organization.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html
http://www.organicconsumers.org/bytes/ob131.cfm
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0204clement.htm
http://www.savewildrice.org/winona-article
Nobel prize my ass.
rogorJul 5, 2010
One thing the article has no clue about is commenting on China, I can tell you all the young people here would have as many children as they could if the government allowed, and the government is easing the 1 child policy every day. We are all healthy, drug free, married and living in a cohesive secure society, quite the opposite of America and perfect for having families. Any talk of China going the same way as America is foolishness. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kaegroJul 5, 2010
But the article wasn't about China.
rogorJul 5, 2010
No but they comment on it, trying to make out like China will become senile and lazy like America, our old people are up getting around working not stuck in a home, they cant compare apples and oranges.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kjsatzJul 5, 2010
Seems kind of silly to criticize the article for speaking ignorantly about China and then to turn around to speak ignorantly about the US.
exergenJul 5, 2010
The left loves the fact that we actively incentivise breeding by the social parasites - they can always use more new Democrats with their hands out!
ninjaofpatienceJul 5, 2010
Just to clear something up here, who are you calling "social parasites"? It seems that term would be best suited to those that take everything they can while offering back as little as possible to society. Like corporate entities and free marketeers.
nygenxerJul 5, 2010
Ah, exergen. 105 comments in nine days and each one of them a pearl of wisdom. Let's share your wisdom with the world, shall we?
"Except nobody cares what insignificant Canada thinks."
"its called poverty pimping. Its how Democrats get votes from the parasitic masses."
"Did you you mean you had the 1 out of 10000 government employee that was not an affirmative action hired minority?"
"It must be hard to pass - Michelle Obama failed it and she went to Harvard Law *cough affirmative action *cough"
"So in essence the less a slave counted population wise the better off the slaves were."
"And the left only likes blacks that poverty pimp for democrats."
"Obama is a crooked racist. You know it and I know it."
"Dear Israel, Our temporary glut of Jew hating liberals are on their way out and normal people will be back in control come November."
"I can totally see how having a President with a lifelong ideological hatred of Jews might cause difficulties in our relationship with Israel."
"Noam Chomsky is pretty much the most useless and clueless dummy to ever walk the planet"
"[Regarding Thurgood Marshall] LOTS of Karl Marx fans in this thread if you know what I mean."
"Except his [W. Bush's school] grades are better than what we know of the Messiah's [Obama]."
"If you live in Chicago voluntarily you have already proven you are intellectually unarmed..."
"She [Sarah Palin] may not be bright - but she is right most of the time. This is definately [sic] one of those times - Obama is clearly repulsed by any form of American greatness."
"How bad can Kenya be, after all, they had the good sense to kick Obama out right after he was born."
"lol at metaphor I haven't heard it spun that way yet - you leftists are sure creative!" [Yes, Hank Johnson thinks that an island the size of Guam can literally capsize and flip over.]
"Cuba is a socialist country."
"you can never be sure with all these communists on Digg"
"Imagine how much better shape we would be in if only they would have thought to look in Kenya for communists in addition to under their beds." [No communists under my bed, comrade, just a bunch of Cubans.]
"Also never take your eye off our sneaky President. Just like he is having the EPA unilaterally decide CO2 is a pollutant..." [CO2 is not a pollutant?]
"Obama throwing money at parasitic teacher's unions is not promoting education. Neither is government takeover of student loans." [Being able to pay for college is in no way promoting education?]
"[Regarding the death of Senator Byrd] Looks like Jesus is picking the most propitious time politically to take out an old racist."
"Keep in mind this comes from the genius [Beatles frontman Paul McCartney] who got hilariously scammed by a 2 bit, one legged homely gold digger."
"Spike Lee is a talentless joke. If he wasn't the toast of the white apologist community he couldn't get a job producing a you tube video"
"[Rage Against the Machine's frontman Zach de la Rocha] lol what a joke of a human"
"Now lets show we are not stupid by actually learning from our mistakes and past failures."
Yes, let's. In the meantime, you should take your own advice and STFU.
aufteJul 5, 2010
Printing this and circulating around work today, too funny.
nygenxerJul 5, 2010
Thanks!
exergenJul 5, 2010
You should write all those quotes down and tape them to your mirror. You might actually learn something they would consider blasphemy on your little hippy commune.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dagonwebnl2Jul 7, 2010
Could you shut the f**k with that handwaving and blaming everyone else you f**king asshat?
schnikies79Jul 5, 2010
More people =/= better, unless you're a economist or a religion.
scamper22Jul 5, 2010
or you work for the government.
In which case it is more demand for your business... and more votes that you can buy... especially if you import poverty.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
or building an army.
kjsatzJul 5, 2010
Is =/= equal to 1, or is it like 0/0?
[Subsequent poster should insert snarky comment about % but likely won't.]
bdbrJul 5, 2010
Its an easier way to type: ≠
megadan76Jul 5, 2010
Which means "is not equal to"
anakastJul 5, 2010
Please don't breed. Leave that for the rest of us who don't have sub-average IQs.
anakastJul 5, 2010
"I would rather have a smaller population, living comfortably, than have a large population with a reduced quality of life."
Translation: I'm too selfish to have children. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
knoxvomicaJul 5, 2010
Selfish to whom? Society? Society absolutely requires more children? The human population isn't currently increasing? Or is this about whites not increasing?
chris35535Jul 6, 2010
youve set up a false choice
peekmanJul 6, 2010
................................ ok, you die so there will be less people for me to live with.
skyyoJul 5, 2010
I don't want to bring kids into this negative world.
Were CNN, politicians, corporations, and religious radicals are all screaming the world is ending. Its gotta too hard to get away from the negativity created on tv and the internet.
But thats just my reasoning.
vbgamer45Jul 5, 2010
I wouldn't worry at all 100 million more people is not that much in 40 years. Look at China they have 1 billion plus people and they are doing ok. We have a ton of empty space in this country most of our population is in the cities the plains are wide open.
Land area:
United States: 9,631,418 km2 (3,717,727 mi2)
China: 9,596,960 km2 (3,704,426 mi2)
crock2Jul 5, 2010
Yes, lots of empty space. Unless you count most of the western half of the country, which is mostly a desert....
crock2Jul 5, 2010
Not to mention, have you seen China? The crowded streets? The pollution? The poverty? Is China really the standard of living we want over here? I certainly don't....
vbgamer45Jul 5, 2010
Yeah have seen it. But I think the United States can easily manage another 100 million without issue if China can do we can do the same and do it better.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kratylosJul 5, 2010
Yep, China is definitely doing ok.
Why, I remember visiting Chengdu a few years back, and my friend told me why the women there were supposedly the most beautiful in the country: the thick layer of smog permanently covering the city protected their skin from the sun, keeping it fair and smooth.
vbgamer45Jul 5, 2010
That's not really a population issue though more of the lack of pollution control.
kratylosJul 5, 2010
A higher population brings more pollution.
Although, admittedly, the US has outsourced much of its pollution. So, I suppose, population growth in the US will probably result in the smog over Chengdu thickening even further.
bipolarruledoutJul 6, 2010
There is a big difference between the average resident of China and the US. Failure to account for these differences could spell disaster. Increased land mass could also be considered a liability due to the large amounts of energy needed to ship goods in an environment of ever increasing energy costs.
mahadigaJul 5, 2010
Economic mobility (http://to./68j)
There are 17,000 castes aka cults (to./4msn) in India.
And they hate each other whether we acknowledge it or not.
They're cults because since 1947 only 1% of marriages in India are inter-caste.
We can lobby members of parliament to carve out out an independent nation similar to Gibraltar (http://to./4yeh) for our 10 million community.
And we will be 75th largest nation by population.
I'll pay $8.5 million to MPs if they approve a Bill in Parliament to carve out an independent nation from India for our community.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=179902402554
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ninjaofpatienceJul 5, 2010
You're links don't work.
mahadigaJul 5, 2010
Due to Globalization, America is saturated and will be inhabited by people who will live on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_income
bikeridinmanJul 5, 2010
Wait until gas is $15 per gallon. We'll be just another third world country.
kjsatzJul 5, 2010
But since (lacking a civil war, anyway) the US is aligned with itself, we will always be a first world country!
=D
pw378Jul 5, 2010
If gas becomes $15/gallon, the U.S. may become a third world country - but at the same time the current third world countries will become 6th world marginal States.
bikeridinmanJul 5, 2010
True to a point. Current third world countries will have an easier time adapting. US currently consumes 25% of all fossil-fueled energy.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
Umm, could you consider doing yourself a favor and looking up the term "third world country" before referring to that again?
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
The term 'Third World' arose during the Cold War to define countries that remained non-aligned or not moving at all with either capitalism and NATO (which along with its allies represented the First World) or communism and the Soviet Union (which along with its allies represented the Second World). This definition provided a way of broadly categorizing the nations of the Earth into three groups based on social, political, and economic divisions. Although the term continues to be used colloquially to describe the poorest countries in the world, this usage is widely disparaged since the term no longer holds any verifiable meaning after the fall of the Soviet Union deprecated the terms First World and Second World.
bipolarruledoutJul 6, 2010
It's an interesting prospect and while I believe energy prices will continue to rise over inflation then it should prompt people to change their ways of living and doing business. The problem is that while the prices have risen there is little evidence that it has significantly swayed people.
peekmanJul 6, 2010
I read an interesting article about the oil price jump in the summer of 2008. Some people argue that the world economy was overheating and the supply couldn't keep up with the demand but when prices fell there was no new supply discovered or sharp decrease in demand. Others believe speculators pushed prices up betting on what the price in the future will be. It seems though, that since the futures contract is only a promise to buy/sell a contract at a given price in the future and not buying and selling the asset so itself it does not really influence the price. Some studies say it may actually help smooth out the price.
The article concluded the scenario that happened in 2008 was like the following. Imagine a marriage grocery store that had 20 men and 20 women. When they get married the couple gets 100$. Since there is an even amount of men and women the couples will most likely split the monies $50 each. Now, imagine there are 20 women and 19 men. Since none of the women want to be without a man they will repeatedly bid themselves down until the man gets $99.99 and the woman gets $0.01. There supply of men is not grossly different from the demand, but because the women do not want to be without the man the amount of money changes wildly.
Therefore, I believe there will be instances like this in the future where prices jump for no real reason. But I also think that like in 2008 it will be temporary and they will fall back down again once all the women have found a man.
bikeridinmanJul 6, 2010
Very interesting post. I appreciate the content of the article. Perhaps the woman has found a man. Gas prices are cheap right now. Once the economy recovers, I think the oil price s**t will hit the fan.
@nowingnutliesnowingnutlies .... Thank you for the history lesson. I think others, and you, knew what I meant. I don't think the term was "colloquially disparaging". If you are used to using an outhouse then things will not change much for you. If you are using an indoor/air conditioned bathroom then have to s**t in an outhouse...well you get the picture. Perhaps instead of using the term third-word country, I should have said " an economically developing country". I think there will eventually be an occupational US presence in Saudi Arabia in the not too distant future.
@bipolarruledoutbipolarruledout ... prices haven't risen enough to sway enough people. Remember after Katrina, prices went really high...in some places $6.00 plus a gallon. Double that and we will have everyone's attention.
I hope peak oil doesn't happen in our lifetime, but it will be inevitable.
Cheers to all. Not trying to piss anybody off.
-BRM
lurrch1Jul 5, 2010
I can't wait to blame all my problems on the majority.
allisonv12Jul 5, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
pw378Jul 5, 2010
Socialism!
luterinhoJul 5, 2010
The main worry of population in this country is what are we to do if most of new growth produce a very uneducated population. Currently, our country education is horrible. And if we keep on this pace of producing unproductive and uneducated population, we will have much over outcome.
joejitsuJul 5, 2010
While living in Austin I noticed that many immigrants were very hard working people. However, their children tended to be complete f**kups.
sweetwater88Jul 5, 2010
I've also observed that amongst the white immigrants. I believe the informal terms are rednecks, guidos, etc. Funny, it's almost like it's not a race thing but more of a situational condition.
joejitsuJul 6, 2010
The immigrants can stay, but if they have punk kids then the kids get deported.
bikeridinmanJul 6, 2010
I've lived in Austin for 28 years. I think the ratio of immigrants children and non-immigrants children f**k up equally. I put three children through the public school system here. I watched it first hand. Of course your mileage may vary.
t1britJul 5, 2010
los Estados Unidos de América
sweetwater88Jul 5, 2010
USA is actually referred as EE.UU> in Spanish as it's the way you abbreviate plural word, names. EUA is very rarely used as it's grammatical/logically incorrect/not-quite-right.
anakastJul 5, 2010
Forget a growing population, it's an aging population you have to be careful of.
strucktureJul 5, 2010
FTA: "And even with 100 million more people, the United States will be only one-sixth as crowded as Germany is today."
This is a gem in this article. The population density of a lot of US states is staggeringly low. I can understand large-city dwellers being concerned about population growth, but to me a metro population of millions of people does not sound like a good idea to begin with.
Besides, Wyoming and the Dakotas are beautiful.
jingjangJul 6, 2010
I took issue with the same statement. That statement seems to imply that The U.S. is as homogeneous geographically as Germany. This is NOT the case. The western U.S. has some very serious resource limitations - chief among them water - that must be overcome before such a comparison can be taken seriously. Much of the least populated parts of the country are great plains, high plains, desert and mountainous. Most of the water comes from snow-melt and the once huge aquifers are diminishing. There is a limit to population growth in the western U.S. and no one really knows what the limit is. (Or even if we've exceeded it already).
While I disagree with that particular comparison, one point the article made later on was that one of the U.S.'s greatest assets was it's development of technology. Technology, when added to the equation might very well extend the limits of population density not only in the Western part of the country, but nationwide. We need to keep innovating.
I also agree with you regarding the beauty of the great plains and the west, but in order to maintain that beauty we need to manage the growth responsibly.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
The term 'Third World' arose during the Cold War to define countries that remained non-aligned or not moving at all with either capitalism and NATO (which along with its allies represented the First World) or communism and the Soviet Union (which along with its allies represented the Second World). This definition provided a way of broadly categorizing the nations of the Earth into three groups based on social, political, and economic divisions. Although the term continues to be used colloquially to describe the poorest countries in the world, this usage is widely disparaged since the term no longer holds any verifiable meaning after the fall of the Soviet Union deprecated the terms First World and Second World.
hereticoftruthJul 5, 2010
What part of the demographics should we be most worried about? The decline of personal moral integrity. A moral culture could easily handle the increased numbers and the aging of our population. It is when our ability to do the right thing is stunted by those doing the wrong thing that everything gets harder for all of us. Yet today it is considered cool to be hip with the "Whatever!" generation. We are becoming losers by personal choice, a choice that lowers personal self esteem and will power and drags others around us even lower. So, do the right thing for that is what a man or woman should do.
bipolarruledoutJul 6, 2010
Morals do not feed people, create infrastructure, or provide abundant forms of energy that a growing population requires. Personal freedom does not in and of itself does not create a civil decline. The lack of real resources does.
hereticoftruthJul 7, 2010
Morality greatly affects how our resources are used. ALL of us would be living better lives today if the morality we know today was chosen as our path to follow. But we all know that at all levels in our society many would rather do the wrong thing to the detriment of others and indirectly to the detriment of themselves, just for short term unsustainable profit. We could be harvesting 10 to 100 times more fish from the oceans sustainably today if we had not so greatly over fished them for short term unsustainable profit. It is like we sold all our crops and saved nothing for seed in the spring. That is immoral.
chris35535Jul 6, 2010
The fact is is that 50 years from now our poorest will have the income level of our current middle class that along with us having the most diverse population ever on the planet gives us a huge advantage, poverty is not written in stone as long as we can fix our education system and give them a way to move up economically. people from these poor classes (which are growing the fastest) have an energy and drive that people from the upper class dont have, id rather have this country take in "the tired, poor, huddled masses", they're the ones who made this country great in the past and will make it great in the future