DSK wrote:
If it hadn't been for Vietnam, the GS would have had a chance.


I would say on the whole that Johnson's 'Great Society' was more of a
success than Nixon's Viet Nam.


Dave wrote:
And if it hadn't been for the torching of our major cities.

??
Are you getting 'Great Society' confused with the Rural Electrification
Program? Torches were unnecessary.


And if it hadn't been for paying single teenage girls to stay home
and make
babies.

It's about sex, isn't it? Poor people shouldn't be gettin' any! Neither
should Democrats!!

DSK

Spay and neuter them all, I say!!!!

"katy" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote:
If it hadn't been for Vietnam, the GS would have had a chance.


I would say on the whole that Johnson's 'Great Society' was more of a
success than Nixon's Viet Nam.


Dave wrote:
And if it hadn't been for the torching of our major cities.

??
Are you getting 'Great Society' confused with the Rural Electrification
Program? Torches were unnecessary.


And if it hadn't been for paying single teenage girls to stay home and
make
babies.

It's about sex, isn't it? Poor people shouldn't be gettin' any! Neither
should Democrats!!

DSK

Spay and neuter them all, I say!!!!

Can't argue with that.

It's about sex, isn't it? Poor people shouldn't be gettin' any! Neither
should Democrats!!



Spay and neuter them all, I say!!!!


Gilligan wrote:
Can't argue with that.


Well, you can, but why? It makes too much sense. In fact
IMHO it is inevitable.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
It's about sex, isn't it? Poor people shouldn't be gettin' any! Neither
should Democrats!!



Spay and neuter them all, I say!!!!


Gilligan wrote:
Can't argue with that.

Well, you can, but why? It makes too much sense. In fact IMHO it is
inevitable.

DSK


Affluence lowers the birth rates. In countries such as Germany and Japan the
birth rates aRE LOW ENOUGH to decrease the population unless there is
immigration. I beleieve it is true for the US but immigration is increasing
the population.

Why is it that our best and brightest breed the least? Pay the most taxes?

On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 09:58:01 -0600, Gilligan wrote:


Affluence lowers the birth rates. In countries such as Germany and Japan the
birth rates aRE LOW ENOUGH to decrease the population unless there is
immigration. I beleieve it is true for the US but immigration is increasing
the population.

With the declining birth rates, if you want a growing economy, you need
immigration.

Why is it that our best and brightest breed the least? Pay the most taxes?

Uh, because our best and brightest also have better access to health care,
providing a longer life span. That longer life span results in a smaller
proportion of women of child bearing age, hence, a declining birth rate.
It's, in effect, a Ponzi Scheme.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 09:58:01 -0600, Gilligan wrote:


Why is it that our best and brightest breed the least? Pay the most
taxes?

Uh, because our best and brightest also have better access to health care,
providing a longer life span. That longer life span results in a smaller
proportion of women of child bearing age, hence, a declining birth rate.
It's, in effect, a Ponzi Scheme.


I'm not talking proportion, I'm talking about absolute numbers. Affluent
families have less kids. It doesn't matter how long one lives or about
health care. In fact, good health care would tend to facilitate larger
families, longer lifespans also facilitate more kids as women can children
well into their 40's.

The root of it all is what is the cause of affluence. My opinion is that it
has to do mostly with intelligence. The smarter one is, the greater is the
tendency for them to be affluent. There are exceptions though such as
athletes and Hollywood entertainers. They are affluent but not intelligent
as a general rule.