Fed declares American dream dead

[Likely Guy]

I'd keep a wide eye on those pesky North Pole grabbing Danes.

[Tatetopa]

How did we get  from success in America to national defense? I read Oversword's reference.  It has nothing to do with military or politics. It does refer to a cherished "rags to riches" archetype that plays a big part not only in American but most western; and for all I know all societies.  That idea of upward mobility, that a person can make things better for him or herself by dent of cleverness and hard work is a big part of free enterprise.  We have a lot of examples in the US: Thomas Edison, Andrew Carnegie, and Horatio Alger to  name a few.  

The story states that there is a larger % chance of people rising from the very bottom of society to the very top in  several countries other than the United States; Canada  among them according to the report.  Those former viking pole grabbing Danes were in the list too, so look out Canada.   Apparently strong defense and non-socialized medicine are not among the qualities required for this upward social mobility.  Maybe a good education system is. What might be interesting to find out is how did these people make it?  What sort of businesses or careers were accessible to the lowest financial percentile that allowed the climb?  Also, where did they pick up that  determination not to quit, not to settle for less, to push personal best?  Did someone teach them or were they born with it? That would be worth knowing.  For example, starting Facebook and Google had very low capital barriers to entry as compared to real estate development in New York.  I don't think Brin or Zuckerberg were in that lower percentile. but you get the point.  That would be a really good thing to know if we wished to increase the prosperity of our society.  

And for young people, broader examples of success, the habits it requires, and exposure to a bigger world  might provide an alternative to becoming a gangsta as a way out of poverty and despair.

[Likely Guy]

5 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

...And for young people, broader examples of success, the habits it requires, and exposure to a bigger world  might provide an alternative to becoming a gangsta as a way out of poverty and despair.

Here's a way, and those damned Millennials are doing it: Shopify and angel investors.

I don't want to provide a link because that would be commercial. Google it please.

Weins, I think his name was, made millions and just pumps his money back into what, he thinks, are other good ideas.

If you stand still, you'll die. The same thing with money.

[Merc14]

11 hours ago, Gingitsune said:

But let's be honest here, invasion from who? Greenland and St-Pierre et Miquelon are no threat at all, neither are Iceland or Bermuda. Further then that there are European countries which have no taste to invade anyone. On the West, Russia would have to go through Alaska first, Japan has no interest in invading Canada and has no real army to begin with, the Koreas aren't interested either. China isn't even that powerful yet. The only real threat to Canada is the United States.

If Alaska was Canadian, the dynamic would be different regarding Asian powers, but it's American for now. Europe and Greenland shield Canada from the East, Alaska shield the country from the West and continental USA shield the country from any Latin America invasion. Plus, the Arctic Sea make any invasion from the North too complicated to even contemplate. Blame geography.

If we were in the positions of top army spenders like South Sudan, Jordan or Algeria, surrounded by enemies, things would be different, but we're not. I mean as a percentage of GDP, of course.

As for saving money on army budget allowing more found for social spending, health and education are provincial spending, defense is federal spending, they are not even on the same budget.

Then Canada should disarm entirely and save those billions which begs the question why don't they?

[Gingitsune]

20 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Then Canada should disarm entirely and save those billions which begs the question why don't they?

The cynical answer is "because it's under federal jurisdiction, and the federal never axe anything that makes it look important, it only add more fluff to make it look even more important."

The pragmatic answer is, the army is quite useful in case of catastrophes at home, and abroad, it's nice to be able to help friends in foreign conflicts. Also keeping the core of the army help keep expertise so if one day, Europeans are at each other's throat again, we won't have to build an army ex nihilo.

As for war on Canada's soil, it's been over 200 years since last time it happened. No civil war, no annexing new territories, just a few uprising, things were pretty boring up here.

The same could be said of Australia and New Zealand, they aren't even in NATO and they don't spend much more than Canada. Blame geography.

But back to the topic, why is it less likely for someone from the bottom fifth to make it to the top fifth within his lifetime for an American. Well, I don't really know. Maybe education is cheaper? Maybe it delivers better result for whatever reason (Canada was scoring higher at PISA test than American last time I checked, but that was a few years ago). Maybe there are less big business around so it's easier to find a place in the industry for a new company? Or maybe Canadians just don't care about getting in the first fifth and just happen to get there as they pursue their dream, while Americans want to get rich from the start.

As often with these kind of statistics in the United States, I wonder how the results look like state by state. The answer would be more clear if we were comparing apples with apples and the solution to make class in society more mobile is probably already found in one or more of the individual states.

[DarkHunter]

Since a lot of percentages are being thrown around thought it might be interesting to see what these percentages actually mean.  To be in the top 5% of America the annual gross income is about $166,000 while in Canada to be in the top 5% it's about $115,700.  The bottom 10%, couldn't find bottom 5% data, of America is $10,500 while the bottom 10% of Canada is $28,000.  It seems a lot of this ease in going from bottom 5% to top 5% in Canada instead of America is coming from a significantly lesser income inequality.  What I would be interested in is how often the bottom 5% of America leaves the bottom 5% and how far they make it.

[Merc14]

4 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

Since a lot of percentages are being thrown around thought it might be interesting to see what these percentages actually mean.  To be in the top 5% of America the annual gross income is about $166,000 while in Canada to be in the top 5% it's about $115,700.  The bottom 10%, couldn't find bottom 5% data, of America is $10,500 while the bottom 10% of Canada is $28,000.  It seems a lot of this ease in going from bottom 5% to top 5% in Canada instead of America is coming from a significantly lesser income inequality.  What I would be interested in is how often the bottom 5% of America leaves the bottom 5% and how far they make it.

Thanks I just saw that silly post and was about to respond.  

 

6 hours ago, Gingitsune said:

The cynical answer is "because it's under federal jurisdiction, and the federal never axe anything that makes it look important, it only add more fluff to make it look even more important."

The pragmatic answer is, the army is quite useful in case of catastrophes at home, and abroad, it's nice to be able to help friends in foreign conflicts. Also keeping the core of the army help keep expertise so if one day, Europeans are at each other's throat again, we won't have to build an army ex nihilo.

As for war on Canada's soil, it's been over 200 years since last time it happened. No civil war, no annexing new territories, just a few uprising, things were pretty boring up here.

The same could be said of Australia and New Zealand, they aren't even in NATO and they don't spend much more than Canada. Blame geography.

But back to the topic, why is it less likely for someone from the bottom fifth to make it to the top fifth within his lifetime for an American. Well, I don't really know. Maybe education is cheaper? Maybe it delivers better result for whatever reason (Canada was scoring higher at PISA test than American last time I checked, but that was a few years ago). Maybe there are less big business around so it's easier to find a place in the industry for a new company? Or maybe Canadians just don't care about getting in the first fifth and just happen to get there as they pursue their dream, while Americans want to get rich from the start.

As often with these kind of statistics in the United States, I wonder how the results look like state by state. The answer would be more clear if we were comparing apples with apples and the solution to make class in society more mobile is probably already found in one or more of the individual states.

To think that there is no threat to Canada's national interests is childish, especially in light of a newly aggressive China and Russia..  To be part of NATO, a country must spend a certain 2% of GDP on defense so they aren't getting a free ride.  Canada is not doing this and has adamantly refused to do so in the future so possibly, given Trump's recent chastisement to the loafers in NATO, maybe Canada will be ejected from the alliance and allowed to fend for themselves.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-defence-spending-1.3664272 (note, this article is from Obama's times and is his chastisement of Canada and others to do more,I know China especially will appreciate the opportunity to move into Canada's off shore recourses but of course Russia is already doing so in the Arctic.  

As far as Australia, they have greatly increased defense spending over the last few years and are scheduled for an 80%+ increase in upcoming years.  Why? Because of the emergent threat from an aggressive China in the region.  http://thediplomat.com/2016/02/australias-defense-budget-to-jump-81-over-next-decade/   Much of this will be Navy assets due to China's willingness to take what they want in the area.  They are also allying more closely with Japan who is also increasing defense spending.

The world is changing and sticking one's head in the sand is fine while things are quiet but they no longer are, China is determined to be the powerhouse in the Pacific.  I like Canada and Canadians very much but if they aren't willing to protect their national interests then I think it is folly to do it for them.  If they see no threats then leave NATO and go it alone as no one wants to go to war because a country that refuses to defend itself is suddenly threatened.  Invasion is NOT what I am talking about, BTW and fear of invasion is not a reason for the military. 

[Gingitsune]

Don't worry, Merc14, we know all that. We'll rise our military spending in the coming years, but there not point to waste money just for the sake of wasting money. Things needs to be thought out carefully and a proper plan need to be made. We could also raise our percentage to 1.46% overnight, if like others NATO members, we decided to include veteran pensions, Canadian Coast Guard, plus boats, planes and helicopters currently under construction for various project in the calculation. We don't count these under national defense as they depend on other ministries or other budget.

For more details:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/canada-doesnt-deserve-its-reputation-as-a-defence-laggard/article34030524/

My sister who works at Quebec Citadel told me they are going to rebuild the Cap Redoubt, of which only the stone base remain. Should they count these as military spending just for the sake boasting the numbers?

About China, she has more pressing goals, much closer to home, like restoring imperial China's territory and expending it's influence in South East Asia. They need a decent fleet to get to Canada and they don't have anything like a that yet. As for going into our water territories, that's the Canadian Coast Guard's job, not the army, until things degenerate that is into open conflict. And they're doing the job for now. As for exploiting resources in the Arctic Sea, it's too soon for that, it's not commercially viable yet, ice need to melt a lot more and stay melted for a longer period every years. Maybe half a century down the road, but it's not viable for the moment. It's much more profitable for them to illegally mine stuff in Russia's far east.

As for being on our own after hypothetically being kicked out of the NATO, new alliance will be made. But in the meanwhile, UK and France will come to help if we are in trouble at the very, very least. We went save their butt twice in the 20th century.
 

7 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

Since a lot of percentages are being thrown around thought it might be interesting to see what these percentages actually mean.  To be in the top 5% of America the annual gross income is about $166,000 while in Canada to be in the top 5% it's about $115,700.  The bottom 10%, couldn't find bottom 5% data, of America is $10,500 while the bottom 10% of Canada is $28,000.  It seems a lot of this ease in going from bottom 5% to top 5% in Canada instead of America is coming from a significantly lesser income inequality.  What I would be interested in is how often the bottom 5% of America leaves the bottom 5% and how far they make it.

Thanks for the numbers, it really explain why it's more complicated in the United States. The gap is wider by over $50k a year, so of course it will be harder to make it.

[Merc14]

29 minutes ago, Gingitsune said:

Don't worry, Merc14, we know all that. We'll rise our military spending in the coming years, but there not point to waste money just for the sake of wasting money. Things needs to be thought out carefully and a proper plan need to be made. We could also raise our percentage to 1.46% overnight, if like others NATO members, we decided to include veteran pensions, Canadian Coast Guard, plus boats, planes and helicopters currently under construction for various project in the calculation. We don't count these under national defense as they depend on other ministries or other budget.

For more details:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/canada-doesnt-deserve-its-reputation-as-a-defence-laggard/article34030524/

My sister who works at Quebec Citadel told me they are going to rebuild the Cap Redoubt, of which only the stone base remain. Should they count these as military spending just for the sake boasting the numbers?

About China, she has more pressing goals, much closer to home, like restoring imperial China's territory and expending it's influence in South East Asia. They need a decent fleet to get to Canada and they don't have anything like a that yet. As for going into our water territories, that's the Canadian Coast Guard's job, not the army, until things degenerate that is into open conflict. And they're doing the job for now. As for exploiting resources in the Arctic Sea, it's too soon for that, it's not commercially viable yet, ice need to melt a lot more and stay melted for a longer period every years. Maybe half a century down the road, but it's not viable for the moment. It's much more profitable for them to illegally mine stuff in Russia's far east.

As for being on our own after hypothetically being kicked out of the NATO, new alliance will be made. But in the meanwhile, UK and France will come to help if we are in trouble at the very, very least. We went save their butt twice in the 20th century.
 

Thanks for the numbers, it really explain why it's more complicated in the United States. The gap is wider by over $50k a year, so of course it will be harder to make it.

I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing your assertion that it was silly for Canada to even bother supporting a military?  Are you now saying you were wrong?

[Tatetopa]

9 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

 

Since a lot of percentages are being thrown around thought it might be interesting to see what these percentages actually mean.  To be in the top 5% of America the annual gross income is about $166,000 while in Canada to be in the top 5% it's about $115,700.  The bottom 10%, couldn't find bottom 5% data, of America is $10,500 while the bottom 10% of Canada is $28,000.  It seems a lot of this ease in going from bottom 5% to top 5% in Canada instead of America is coming from a significantly lesser income inequality.  What I would be interested in is how often the bottom 5% of America leaves the bottom 5% and how far they make it.

 

I think the original post refers to the bottom 1/5th and top 1 /5th that would be 20% at both ends.

[Tatetopa]

The original report covers a lot of fascinating data and does break things down by city.

"What results from that analysis is a map ( figure 1) that shows the geography of integenerational mobility in the United States. In this map, we’re computing the same statistic mentioned previously: your chances of reaching the top fifth of the national income distribution conditional on starting in the bottom fifth for 741 metro and rural areas in the United States."  You will have to go to the original report to see the map.

"What you can see in this map is that there is substantial variation in the United States. For places in the top decile—the lightest colored places on this map—your odds of reaching the top fifth conditional on starting in the bottom fifth exceed 16.8 percent, higher than the numbers we saw for Denmark and Canada. In contrast, at the other end of the spectrum—the darkest red colors—in the southeastern United States for instance, that number is lower than 4.8 percent, which is lower than any developed country for which we currently have data."

"To provide an example, if you’re growing up in San Jose, your odds of moving up the income ladder are three times as high as if you’re growing up in a place like Charlotte or Atlanta or Indianapolis."

"Now, naturally the question of interest both to academics and policymakers is why does upward mobility differ so much across areas and, ultimately, what can we do about it? The first clues for us as researchers came from the fact that this spatial variation emerges at very early ages. In high mobility areas like Salt Lake City or San Jose, children from low-income families are more likely to attend college, and they’re less likely to have a teenage pregnancy. By the time they’re 16, 17, or 18 years old, a lot of these patterns have already emerged."

Does this not transcend left and right?  This seems like the type of concrete thing we could do to make America great; focus on young people, education, support, role models, school lunches. whatever it takes to show them that they can make it and that we care about that as a society.  That is not the same as handouts and welfare.   A salute to Canada, Great Britain, and Denmark.  I will take this as an opportunity to learn and improve.  From DarkHunter's numbers, when you are in the bottom fifth in America, if you could just move into the bottom fifth in Canada, you would be almost three times as financially well off.  That seems a little difficult to understand.

 

[Gingitsune]

39 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing your assertion that it was silly for Canada to even bother supporting a military?  Are you now saying you were wrong?

I'm sorry if my intends were confusing. What I meant is there are 99% chances there won't be war on Canadian soil for the next 200 years, regardless of anything else. And if it does happen, Canada is very unlikely to be among the first touched. 

That being said, I like to play armchair general. 

Over these next 200 years, more likely than not, Canada will help some allies to fight invaders off their land, like we did for WWI and WWII, before anything materialize in the country,if at all. Either on the European front or the Asian front. Although it could well be a global war in Middle East and Africa, things don't improve much there and NATO may have to.step in at some point. So keeping an army in Canada will probably be useful, at least to gain or keep political good will abroad.

Plus, they are other contributions than mere firepower. Back in the worst of WWII, a lot of food consumed in Britain was made in Canada and we also helped feed the different commonwealth armies on the front. We also hosted the Netherlands' princess Juliana when the country fell to Nazi (she later became queen). Her mother, the Queen, was in Britain with the Dutch government in exil, but the princess which was next in order of succession was kept safe in Canada. Also, Churchill and Roosevelt held two conferences in Quebec city to coordinate the next strategy. It was also a good place to keep the prisoners of war taken in Europe and Atlantic Ocean, we were sure they wouldn't be caught back by the Germans. Because of geography, Canada is a good place to fall back and regroup.

As for Chinese trying to come fish in our Pacific waters, it still not as much of a problem as what we have on the Atlantic side with our own NATO allies trying to do the same. ¬_¬
If it escalate in the Pacific, we will change our strategy, but for now, escorting the fishing boats to international waters is enough. Same for the occasional Russian planes, no needs to go Erdogan and gun them down yet. Or at least not before we have clear instructions from our NATO allies to do so.

5 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

The original report covers a lot of fascinating data and does break things down by city.

"What results from that analysis is a map ( figure 1) that shows the geography of integenerational mobility in the United States. In this map, we’re computing the same statistic mentioned previously: your chances of reaching the top fifth of the national income distribution conditional on starting in the bottom fifth for 741 metro and rural areas in the United States."  You will have to go to the original report to see the map.

Thanks for remain me that, I looked the first link quickly and didn't come back to it. So indeed, the solutions are already present in some American communities, all left is identify what work well and why, then find what's wrong in some other communities and turn things around.

[Merc14]

10 hours ago, Gingitsune said:

As for Chinese trying to come fish in our Pacific waters, it still not as much of a problem as what we have on the Atlantic side with our own NATO allies trying to do the same. ¬_¬
If it escalate in the Pacific, we will change our strategy, but for now, escorting the fishing boats to international waters is enough. Same for the occasional Russian planes, no needs to go Erdogan and gun them down yet. Or at least not before we have clear instructions from our NATO allies to do so.

Thanks for remain me that, I looked the first link quickly and didn't come back to it. So indeed, the solutions are already present in some American communities, all left is identify what work well and why, then find what's wrong in some other communities and turn things around.

I guess you missed my main point which was NATO, or more specifically, Canada's not contributing her minimum to the alliance.  Currently each NATO ally is to spend at least 2% of GDP on defense but Canada is below 1% and shrinking.  The current president, and the last for that matter (see linked article earlier), have stated that this situation must change or NATO may cease to exist in its present configuration.  My question is why should anyone come to Canada's aid if Canada doesn't care enough about the alliance or its own resources to protect them?  I agree invasion isn't a worry and have said so in each of my posts but military strength is not simply defending ones borders.

Edited March 19, 2017 by Merc14

[Gingitsune]

The 2% thing is misleading. Like I said before, we could easily reach 1.49% with just accounting manipulations and the second half with pure money wasting, like repainting each building, truck, tank and airplane every two months, plus some bulk order of ammo which are just piling up in a few brand new warehouses. That wouldn't make Canada any more efficient on the battlefield but hey! we would have reached the magic number! 

These things need to be thought through, we need a proper spending plan, not just a random spending spree just for the sake of reaching a number. There was neglect in the military spending in the last decades, that's a given, even under Harper's right wing government. That need fixing, but that won't happen overnight.

[Merc14]

28 minutes ago, Gingitsune said:

The 2% thing is misleading. Like I said before, we could easily reach 1.49% with just accounting manipulations and the second half with pure money wasting, like repainting each building, truck, tank and airplane every two months, plus some bulk order of ammo which are just piling up in a few brand new warehouses. That wouldn't make Canada any more efficient on the battlefield but hey! we would have reached the magic number! 

These things need to be thought through, we need a proper spending plan, not just a random spending spree just for the sake of reaching a number. There was neglect in the military spending in the last decades, that's a given, even under Harper's right wing government. That need fixing, but that won't happen overnight.

It is not misleading at all and spending billions to repaint buildings is ludicrous.  Why would you even post that?  Canada hasn't spent 2% in decades and Trudeau has no intention of increasing spending so we shall see what happens  http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/18/trudeau-wont-commit-to-defense-spending-increase/

[Tatetopa]

Am I on the wrong thread?  I thought we were talking about the American dream.

[ExpandMyMind]

On 16/03/2017 at 11:24 PM, aztek said:

the new american dream, is to become a rapper, gangster, or drug dealer, that seems to be hot things among most kids these days.

It's also dead. Real rap died with Tupac in Biggie (though Eminem does deserve some recognition).

[Tatetopa]

12 hours ago, Merc14 said:

 My question is why should anyone come to Canada's aid if Canada doesn't care enough about the alliance or its own resources to protect them?

We would.  No aggressor that invades Canada will stop at the border.  Most US military if given the choice would rather have a pitched battle in Winnipeg than Chicago. Too many natural resources we rely on come from Canada.  If you are going to destroy a city defending it,  do it in a city on foreign soil.  Even if Canada spent no money on defense, it would not be altruism that would cause our military to fight a Canadian invader, but logical self interest.  To some extent that might also be true in Asia and Europe.

[Likely Guy]

2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

We would.  No aggressor that invades Canada will stop at the border.  Most US military if given the choice would rather have a pitched battle in Winnipeg than Chicago. Too many natural resources we rely on come from Canada.  If you are going to destroy a city defending it,  do it in a city on foreign soil.  Even if Canada spent no money on defense, it would not be altruism that would cause our military to fight a Canadian invader, but logical self interest.  To some extent that might also be true in Asia and Europe.

...that, and N.O.R.A.D.

[insanityitrust]

The Federal Reserve is privately owned from its creation.. and spawned central banks which in turn set scene for current commercial banking

Last two U.S. presidents that tried to stop this private forced financing of practically Everything.. were shot and killed..

the few families who are responsible are for the most part.. still to be definitively identified.. set all this up in its primitive form - slavery.. now the term has been called wage slavery

this is all researchable.. may take weeks or many months.. some may find it difficult.. what with the one research capability owned by the same bunch of people.. (they gave us the 'slaves' this internet)

sorry if this makes you think of it all being delusional (illusion) its all dust in the wind or daydreams while we think we be free

 

[Unusual Tournament]

On 18 March 2017 at 8:52 AM, DarkHunter said:

Got to be careful with using globalfirepower.com, it is a really good resource but it's important to mention that they look at only quantity and not quality in their calculations.  While they look at different factors they seem to consider all equipment in a category as the same so  for example an F-22, an F-16, and an F-4 are all counted as the same even though there is drastic differences between the three.

But to be more on topic, Canada does definitely rely on America for defense like most of NATO.  America and the UK are the only two nation's in NATO that are really able to project power in any meaningful way and even then the UK is pretty limited in power projection ability.

I think France should be added to that list and as afr as allies goes Australia in the pacific. 

[Merc14]

8 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

We would.  No aggressor that invades Canada will stop at the border.  Most US military if given the choice would rather have a pitched battle in Winnipeg than Chicago. Too many natural resources we rely on come from Canada.  If you are going to destroy a city defending it,  do it in a city on foreign soil.  Even if Canada spent no money on defense, it would not be altruism that would cause our military to fight a Canadian invader, but logical self interest.  To some extent that might also be true in Asia and Europe.

What is this bizarre infatuation with invasion?  It is childish to imagine the only reason for a standing military is to defend against invasion but that seems to be  what most Canadians, at least here, have convinced themselves of.  No wonder Trudeau was elected.

[aquatus1]

**The OP is not about national defense or about the size of the military.  Back on topic.**

[preacherman76]

On 3/18/2017 at 11:13 PM, Tatetopa said:

The original report covers a lot of fascinating data and does break things down by city.

"What results from that analysis is a map ( figure 1) that shows the geography of integenerational mobility in the United States. In this map, we’re computing the same statistic mentioned previously: your chances of reaching the top fifth of the national income distribution conditional on starting in the bottom fifth for 741 metro and rural areas in the United States."  You will have to go to the original report to see the map.

"What you can see in this map is that there is substantial variation in the United States. For places in the top decile—the lightest colored places on this map—your odds of reaching the top fifth conditional on starting in the bottom fifth exceed 16.8 percent, higher than the numbers we saw for Denmark and Canada. In contrast, at the other end of the spectrum—the darkest red colors—in the southeastern United States for instance, that number is lower than 4.8 percent, which is lower than any developed country for which we currently have data."

"To provide an example, if you’re growing up in San Jose, your odds of moving up the income ladder are three times as high as if you’re growing up in a place like Charlotte or Atlanta or Indianapolis."

"Now, naturally the question of interest both to academics and policymakers is why does upward mobility differ so much across areas and, ultimately, what can we do about it? The first clues for us as researchers came from the fact that this spatial variation emerges at very early ages. In high mobility areas like Salt Lake City or San Jose, children from low-income families are more likely to attend college, and they’re less likely to have a teenage pregnancy. By the time they’re 16, 17, or 18 years old, a lot of these patterns have already emerged."

Does this not transcend left and right?  This seems like the type of concrete thing we could do to make America great; focus on young people, education, support, role models, school lunches. whatever it takes to show them that they can make it and that we care about that as a society.  That is not the same as handouts and welfare.   A salute to Canada, Great Britain, and Denmark.  I will take this as an opportunity to learn and improve.  From DarkHunter's numbers, when you are in the bottom fifth in America, if you could just move into the bottom fifth in Canada, you would be almost three times as financially well off.  That seems a little difficult to understand.

 

I've been saying this all along. We need to teach these kids the importance of finishing high school. We need to teach them not to have children at such young ages, and that two parents house holds are the ideal. You look at where our greatest poverty is, and you see millions of single mothers. Who actually teach their young sons that "they don't need no man". Well that may be so, but your children DO. Not only are they denying these children fathers, they are teaching them that a man has no desired roll in the family nucleus. 

Sad part is trying to teach any of this brings you into a PC nightmare. It won't be tolerated. And I don't believe that's by accident. They WANT these people held down. They want them to believe they are victims. More people with a sense of self responsibility equals far less votes for democrats. 

[Gromdor]

6 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

I've been saying this all along. We need to teach these kids the importance of finishing high school. We need to teach them not to have children at such young ages, and that two parents house holds are the ideal. You look at where our greatest poverty is, and you see millions of single mothers. Who actually teach their young sons that "they don't need no man". Well that may be so, but your children DO. Not only are they denying these children fathers, they are teaching them that a man has no desired roll in the family nucleus. 

Sad part is trying to teach any of this brings you into a PC nightmare. It won't be tolerated. And I don't believe that's by accident. They WANT these people held down. They want them to believe they are victims. More people with a sense of self responsibility equals far less votes for democrats. 

I don't disagree with what you said, but there is more at play than this.  Canada doesn't suffer as much from single parents for their children's success as the US. https://www.csa-scs.ca/canadian-review/2015/02/25/new-study-shows-that-in-canada-children-from-single-parents-do-just-as-well/

Our whole economic system is pro-production/anti-family.  You literally have to have a two-parent income to survive it as a member of the bottom fifth in the US.  So who raises the kids?  Public schools?  The gangs?

I knew a lot of smart kids from my high school days that dropped out to work and help pay bills.  Getting money to pay for mom's medicine was more important than going to college and missing out on that shot to be a millionaire was worth it for them.

Let's not even bring up the poor girls that made a mistake in high school and ended up spending their next 18 years raising a kid alone.  Nothing like giving up your dreams because the team quarterback got you drunk and sweet talked you in a moment of weakness.