3 Lines That Defined Trump’s State of the Union Address

 

There were several great moments in President Trump’s State of the Union address: the heroes in the gallery, the condemnation of socialism, the bitter tongue-sucking of Speaker Pelosi. But three excerpts stood out in particular. First up:

No issue better illustrates the divide between America’s working class and America’s political class than illegal immigration. Wealthy politicians and donors push for open borders while living their lives behind walls and gates and guards.

The political, cultural, and financial elite have spent decades mocking those they believe are beneath their station. Both parties spoke grand words on border security while their deeds undercut the very notion. Amnesty now, security later — if ever.

The two lines above better demonstrate why Trump won than ten think tanks full of campaign analysis.

No one believes that a wall or barrier will end illegal immigration or drug-running. But the only way for politicians to win back voters’ trust on the issue is this physical symbol of their seriousness.

There could be no greater contrast to the beautiful image of a mother holding her infant child than the chilling displays our Nation saw in recent days. Lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth. These are living, feeling, beautiful babies who will never get the chance to share their love and dreams with the world. And then, we had the case of the Governor of Virginia where he basically stated he would execute a baby after birth.

To defend the dignity of every person, I am asking the Congress to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother’s womb.

Let us work together to build a culture that cherishes innocent life. And let us reaffirm a fundamental truth: all children — born and unborn — are made in the holy image of God.

Has any president made a stronger denunciation of progressives’ culture of death? No political consultant or Beltway insider would have recommended this move. Too divisive, too stark, too … awkward. Nevertheless, the novice politician in the White House exposed the truth of New York and Virginia’s ghoulish late-term abortion legislation. All but the most nihilistic NARAL executives will blanch at the barbarism.

And now, for Trump’s strong close:

What will we do with this moment? How will we be remembered?

I ask the men and women of this Congress: Look at the opportunities before us! Our most thrilling achievements are still ahead. Our most exciting journeys still await. Our biggest victories are still to come. We have not yet begun to dream.

We must choose whether we are defined by our differences — or whether we dare to transcend them.

We must choose whether we will squander our inheritance — or whether we will proudly declare that we are Americans. We do the incredible. We defy the impossible. We conquer the unknown.

This is the time to re-ignite the American imagination. This is the time to search for the tallest summit, and set our sights on the brightest star. This is the time to rekindle the bonds of love and loyalty and memory that link us together as citizens, as neighbors, as patriots.

This is our future — our fate — and our choice to make. I am asking you to choose greatness.

No matter the trials we face, no matter the challenges to come, we must go forward together.

We must keep America first in our hearts. We must keep freedom alive in our souls. And we must always keep faith in America’s destiny — that one Nation, under God, must be the hope and the promise and the light and the glory among all the nations of the world!

Undoubtedly, Congress will choose to be defined by their differences and squander their inheritance. It’s all they know. But tonight, the President rose above his combative Twitter persona and chose to be the adult in the room, at least for a night.

More, please.

Published in Politics
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 85 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Thejokewasonme Member
    Thejokewasonme
    @

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Thejokewasonme (View Comment):

    Something I’ve wondered for awhile now. Considering the rapid advancement and broad application of technology, and with the projections of how many job it will replace or make obsolete, why is it we need to be so concerned about our population shrinking?

    Well, for one thing, we need more taxpayers to shoulder the ever-increasing tax burden that’s being placed on an ever-decreasing number of shoulders.

    Reduced spending.  Less revenue needed.

    • #61
  2. lowtech redneck Coolidge
    lowtech redneck
    @lowtech redneck

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    We need population growth so sustain, among other things, the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. We need population growth to sustain our economic growth, or at least, avoid decline.

    Importing a million future Democrats a year is worse than economic decline.  Especially when the policies of an immigration-created Democrat super-majority will start to reflect the ravings of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and cause an even bigger economic decline than low birth rates.

    • #62
  3. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Thejokewasonme (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Thejokewasonme (View Comment):

    Something I’ve wondered for awhile now. Considering the rapid advancement and broad application of technology, and with the projections of how many job it will replace or make obsolete, why is it we need to be so concerned about our population shrinking?

    Well, for one thing, we need more taxpayers to shoulder the ever-increasing tax burden that’s being placed on an ever-decreasing number of shoulders.

    Reduced spending. Less revenue needed.

    Heh heh. Reduced spending. You’re such a joker!

    • #63
  4. David Carroll Thatcher
    David Carroll
    @DavidCarroll

    Manny (View Comment):

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    I got to say, there was one line I didn’t like. I didn’t like when he said he was for a record number of legal immigration. We do not need more immigration. I’m not saying zero, but we need less, not more.

    @manny, our current fertility rate is at record lows. I disagree with this. we are now averaging 1.886 children per woman. The replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman. Disregarding immigration, our population is shrinking dangerously.

    We need population growth so sustain, among other things, the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. We need population growth to sustain our economic growth, or at least, avoid decline.

    We need continued immigration.

    Given that we need substantial immigration, isn’t it better to stop illegal (uncontrolled) immigration and have greater legal immigration?

    Make our own babies and keep American culture. I admire the Japanese who made a conscious decision to keep their own culture at the risk not affording their elderly. So far the population drop fear mongers have not been validated. Our country is at 350 million. Over populated in my opinion.

    What does “over populated” mean to you exactly?  What is an optimum population for a continent this size?  

    • #64
  5. David Carroll Thatcher
    David Carroll
    @DavidCarroll

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    We need population growth so sustain, among other things, the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. We need population growth to sustain our economic growth, or at least, avoid decline.

    Importing a million future Democrats a year is worse than economic decline. Especially when the policies of an immigration-created Democrat super-majority will start to reflect the ravings of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and cause an even bigger economic decline than low birth rates.

    According to my reading, you are correct about new immigrant-citizens.  However, at least with Hispanics, the second generation tends to go conservative.

    • #65
  6. Jules PA Inactive
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    I don’t want to start judging someone’s attitude based on whether they stand or sit, whether they clap or don’t , whether they clap hard enough or without passion. Besides, we already know where all of these people stand on all of these issues.

    I agree, and find myself standing with Ed G.

     

     

    • #66
  7. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    I got to say, there was one line I didn’t like. I didn’t like when he said he was for a record number of legal immigration. We do not need more immigration. I’m not saying zero, but we need less, not more.

    @manny, our current fertility rate is at record lows. I disagree with this. we are now averaging 1.886 children per woman. The replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman. Disregarding immigration, our population is shrinking dangerously.

    We need population growth so sustain, among other things, the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. We need population growth to sustain our economic growth, or at least, avoid decline.

    We need continued immigration.

    Given that we need substantial immigration, isn’t it better to stop illegal (uncontrolled) immigration and have greater legal immigration?

    Make our own babies and keep American culture. I admire the Japanese who made a conscious decision to keep their own culture at the risk not affording their elderly. So far the population drop fear mongers have not been validated. Our country is at 350 million. Over populated in my opinion.

    What does “over populated” mean to you exactly? What is an optimum population for a continent this size?

    Well, when you consider that from Boston down to Washington is essentially one megalopolis, where they have to ship garbage hundreds of miles for disposal, where habitat for natural animals has shrunk to nil in places. Look you could have the population density of Europe but that wouldn’t be America. America had broad wilderness and swaths of land for cattle drives. I would say the population of 200,000 was fine. But I could go lower. 

    • #67
  8. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    We need population growth so sustain, among other things, the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. We need population growth to sustain our economic growth, or at least, avoid decline.

    Importing a million future Democrats a year is worse than economic decline. Especially when the policies of an immigration-created Democrat super-majority will start to reflect the ravings of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and cause an even bigger economic decline than low birth rates.

    According to my reading, you are correct about new immigrant-citizens. However, at least with Hispanics, the second generation tends to go conservative.

    Can you show me evidence for that?  I don’t believe I’ve seen it. 

    • #68
  9. David Carroll Thatcher
    David Carroll
    @DavidCarroll

    Manny (View Comment):

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    I got to say, there was one line I didn’t like. I didn’t like when he said he was for a record number of legal immigration. We do not need more immigration. I’m not saying zero, but we need less, not more.

    @manny, our current fertility rate is at record lows. I disagree with this. we are now averaging 1.886 children per woman. The replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman. Disregarding immigration, our population is shrinking dangerously.

    We need population growth so sustain, among other things, the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. We need population growth to sustain our economic growth, or at least, avoid decline.

    We need continued immigration.

    Given that we need substantial immigration, isn’t it better to stop illegal (uncontrolled) immigration and have greater legal immigration?

    Make our own babies and keep American culture. I admire the Japanese who made a conscious decision to keep their own culture at the risk not affording their elderly. So far the population drop fear mongers have not been validated. Our country is at 350 million. Over populated in my opinion.

    What does “over populated” mean to you exactly? What is an optimum population for a continent this size?

    Well, when you consider that from Boston down to Washington is essentially one megalopolis, where they have to ship garbage hundreds of miles for disposal, where habitat for natural animals has shrunk to nil in places. Look you could have the population density of Europe but that wouldn’t be America. America had broad wilderness and swaths of land for cattle drives. I would say the population of 200,000 was fine. But I could go lower.

    Do you then define overpopulation as when garbage has to be shipped hundreds of miles for disposal?  What about Montana? 

    By the way, Southern New Jersey, which is in that corridor, does not have the same population density you describe.

    • #69
  10. David Carroll Thatcher
    David Carroll
    @DavidCarroll

    Manny (View Comment):

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    We need population growth so sustain, among other things, the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. We need population growth to sustain our economic growth, or at least, avoid decline.

    Importing a million future Democrats a year is worse than economic decline. Especially when the policies of an immigration-created Democrat super-majority will start to reflect the ravings of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and cause an even bigger economic decline than low birth rates.

    According to my reading, you are correct about new immigrant-citizens. However, at least with Hispanics, the second generation tends to go conservative.

    Can you show me evidence for that? I don’t believe I’ve seen it.

    I don’t have it at my fingertips, but if I run across it, I will send it along.

    • #70
  11. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    I got to say, there was one line I didn’t like. I didn’t like when he said he was for a record number of legal immigration. We do not need more immigration. I’m not saying zero, but we need less, not more.

    @manny, our current fertility rate is at record lows. I disagree with this. we are now averaging 1.886 children per woman. The replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman. Disregarding immigration, our population is shrinking dangerously.

    We need population growth so sustain, among other things, the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. We need population growth to sustain our economic growth, or at least, avoid decline.

    We need continued immigration.

    Given that we need substantial immigration, isn’t it better to stop illegal (uncontrolled) immigration and have greater legal immigration?

    Make our own babies and keep American culture. I admire the Japanese who made a conscious decision to keep their own culture at the risk not affording their elderly. So far the population drop fear mongers have not been validated. Our country is at 350 million. Over populated in my opinion.

    What does “over populated” mean to you exactly? What is an optimum population for a continent this size?

    I vote for lower population, i.e. less government and more freedom.  

    • #71
  12. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    I got to say, there was one line I didn’t like. I didn’t like when he said he was for a record number of legal immigration. We do not need more immigration. I’m not saying zero, but we need less, not more.

    @manny, our current fertility rate is at record lows. I disagree with this. we are now averaging 1.886 children per woman. The replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman. Disregarding immigration, our population is shrinking dangerously.

    We need population growth so sustain, among other things, the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. We need population growth to sustain our economic growth, or at least, avoid decline.

    We need continued immigration.

    Given that we need substantial immigration, isn’t it better to stop illegal (uncontrolled) immigration and have greater legal immigration?

    Make our own babies and keep American culture. I admire the Japanese who made a conscious decision to keep their own culture at the risk not affording their elderly. So far the population drop fear mongers have not been validated. Our country is at 350 million. Over populated in my opinion.

    What does “over populated” mean to you exactly? What is an optimum population for a continent this size?

    Well, when you consider that from Boston down to Washington is essentially one megalopolis, where they have to ship garbage hundreds of miles for disposal, where habitat for natural animals has shrunk to nil in places. Look you could have the population density of Europe but that wouldn’t be America. America had broad wilderness and swaths of land for cattle drives. I would say the population of 200,000 was fine. But I could go lower.

    Do you then define overpopulation as when garbage has to be shipped hundreds of miles for disposal? What about Montana?

    By the way, Southern New Jersey, which is in that corridor, does not have the same population density you describe.

    That’s just one metric. There are a whole host of metrics. We are now the third or fourth most populated country in the world. And the others ahead of us all want to reduce their populations. 

    • #72
  13. David Carroll Thatcher
    David Carroll
    @DavidCarroll

    Manny (View Comment):

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    I got to say, there was one line I didn’t like. I didn’t like when he said he was for a record number of legal immigration. We do not need more immigration. I’m not saying zero, but we need less, not more.

    @manny, our current fertility rate is at record lows. I disagree with this. we are now averaging 1.886 children per woman. The replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman. Disregarding immigration, our population is shrinking dangerously.

    We need population growth so sustain, among other things, the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. We need population growth to sustain our economic growth, or at least, avoid decline.

    We need continued immigration.

    Given that we need substantial immigration, isn’t it better to stop illegal (uncontrolled) immigration and have greater legal immigration?

    Make our own babies and keep American culture. I admire the Japanese who made a conscious decision to keep their own culture at the risk not affording their elderly. So far the population drop fear mongers have not been validated. Our country is at 350 million. Over populated in my opinion.

    What does “over populated” mean to you exactly? What is an optimum population for a continent this size?

    Well, when you consider that from Boston down to Washington is essentially one megalopolis, where they have to ship garbage hundreds of miles for disposal, where habitat for natural animals has shrunk to nil in places. Look you could have the population density of Europe but that wouldn’t be America. America had broad wilderness and swaths of land for cattle drives. I would say the population of 200,000 was fine. But I could go lower.

    Do you then define overpopulation as when garbage has to be shipped hundreds of miles for disposal? What about Montana?

    By the way, Southern New Jersey, which is in that corridor, does not have the same population density you describe.

    That’s just one metric. There are a whole host of metrics. We are now the third or fourth most populated country in the world. And the others ahead of us all want to reduce their populations.

    OK, so by what metric or combination of metrics do you decide we are overpopulated?  What does the “third or fourth most populated country in the world mean” exactly?  Total population?  Persons per square mile?  Persons per square mile weighted by GDP?  The measure makes a difference, doesn’t it?

    What does it matter what the countries “ahead of us” want with their own populations?  Doesn’t the country’s ability to support its population matter?  I am just trying to understand the conclusion you have reached.

    • #73
  14. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    I got to say, there was one line I didn’t like. I didn’t like when he said he was for a record number of legal immigration. We do not need more immigration. I’m not saying zero, but we need less, not more.

    @manny, our current fertility rate is at record lows. I disagree with this. we are now averaging 1.886 children per woman. The replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman. Disregarding immigration, our population is shrinking dangerously.

    We need population growth so sustain, among other things, the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. We need population growth to sustain our economic growth, or at least, avoid decline.

    We need continued immigration.

    Given that we need substantial immigration, isn’t it better to stop illegal (uncontrolled) immigration and have greater legal immigration?

    Make our own babies and keep American culture. I admire the Japanese who made a conscious decision to keep their own culture at the risk not affording their elderly. So far the population drop fear mongers have not been validated. Our country is at 350 million. Over populated in my opinion.

    What does “over populated” mean to you exactly? What is an optimum population for a continent this size?

     

    Do you then define overpopulation as when garbage has to be shipped hundreds of miles for disposal? What about Montana?

    By the way, Southern New Jersey, which is in that corridor, does not have the same population density you describe.

    That’s just one metric. There are a whole host of metrics. We are now the third or fourth most populated country in the world. And the others ahead of us all want to reduce their populations.

    OK, so by what metric or combination of metrics do you decide we are overpopulated? What does the “third or fourth most populated country in the world mean” exactly? Total population? Persons per square mile? Persons per square mile weighted by GDP? The measure makes a difference, doesn’t it?

    What does it matter what the countries “ahead of us” want with their own populations? Doesn’t the country’s ability to support its population matter? I am just trying to understand the conclusion you have reached.

    Yes we can sustaine the population but that’s not my metric. Loss of habitat is my metric. Hour pluss commutes and jammed highways is my metric. Shipping garbage hundreds of miles, further reducing habitat is my metric.  The need to go to railway instead of personal automobiles is my metric. 

    • #74
  15. Jules PA Inactive
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    I vote for lower population, i.e. less government and more freedom.

    The only population anyone gets to control is their very own. 

    I’m on board with less government and more freedom. 

    • #75
  16. Phil Turmel Coolidge
    Phil Turmel
    @PhilTurmel

    Manny (View Comment):
    Yes we can sustaine the population but that’s not my metric. Loss of habitat is my metric. Hour pluss commutes and jammed highways is my metric. Shipping garbage hundreds of miles, further reducing habitat is my metric. The need to go to railway instead of personal automobiles is my metric. 

    Dude! You need to get out of your big city bubble!  The United States, at ~33 people per square kilometer, is not even close to “densely populated”.  We are also not truly sparsely populated, either, which would be bad:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density

    It’s also worth keeping in mind that, since distribution of goods is such a key component of economics, too low a population density interferes with the formation/maintenance of a robust economy.  This is why cities form in the first place.

    As for habitat, consider doing a little research on the extent of forestation in the U.S. over the last hundred years.  (Spoiler alert: it doesn’t track with your hysterical commentary.)

    • #76
  17. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):
    As for habitat, consider doing a little research on the extent of forestation in the U.S. over the last hundred years. (Spoiler alert: it doesn’t track with your hysterical commentary.)

    There are a lot of habitats other than forest habitats. Out where I live, the excess population results in housing developments that take over the prairie islands, turning them into wooded residential areas. It’s sad to see the loss of those prairie habitats that were once the feature that first drew settlers to our region.  

    • #77
  18. David Carroll Thatcher
    David Carroll
    @DavidCarroll

    Manny (View Comment):

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    I got to say, there was one line I didn’t like. I didn’t like when he said he was for a record number of legal immigration. We do not need more immigration. I’m not saying zero, but we need less, not more.

    @manny, our current fertility rate is at record lows. I disagree with this. we are now averaging 1.886 children per woman. The replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman. Disregarding immigration, our population is shrinking dangerously.

    We need population growth so sustain, among other things, the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. We need population growth to sustain our economic growth, or at least, avoid decline.

    We need continued immigration.

    Given that we need substantial immigration, isn’t it better to stop illegal (uncontrolled) immigration and have greater legal immigration?

    Make our own babies and keep American culture. I admire the Japanese who made a conscious decision to keep their own culture at the risk not affording their elderly. So far the population drop fear mongers have not been validated. Our country is at 350 million. Over populated in my opinion.

    What does “over populated” mean to you exactly? What is an optimum population for a continent this size?

     

    Do you then define overpopulation as when garbage has to be shipped hundreds of miles for disposal? What about Montana?

    By the way, Southern New Jersey, which is in that corridor, does not have the same population density you describe.

    That’s just one metric. There are a whole host of metrics. We are now the third or fourth most populated country in the world. And the others ahead of us all want to reduce their populations.

    OK, so by what metric or combination of metrics do you decide we are overpopulated? What does the “third or fourth most populated country in the world mean” exactly? Total population? Persons per square mile? Persons per square mile weighted by GDP? The measure makes a difference, doesn’t it?

    What does it matter what the countries “ahead of us” want with their own populations? Doesn’t the country’s ability to support its population matter? I am just trying to understand the conclusion you have reached.

    Yes we can sustaine the population but that’s not my metric. Loss of habitat is my metric. Hour pluss commutes and jammed highways is my metric. Shipping garbage hundreds of miles, further reducing habitat is my metric. The need to go to railway instead of personal automobiles is my metric.

    There are plenty of places to go in the United States that do not ship garbage hundreds of mile, have great habitat, and don’t need railways.  So you metric is pretty limited geographically, isn’t it?

    • #78
  19. CarolJoy, Above Top Secret Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Above Top Secret
    @CarolJoy

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    I got to say, there was one line I didn’t like. I didn’t like when he said he was for a record number of legal immigration. We do not need more immigration. I’m not saying zero, but we need less, not more.

    @manny, our current fertility rate is at record lows. I disagree with this. we are now averaging 1.886 children per woman. The replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman. Disregarding immigration, our population is shrinking dangerously.

    We need population growth so sustain, among other things, the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. We need population growth to sustain our economic growth, or at least, avoid decline.

    We need continued immigration.

    Given that we need substantial immigration, isn’t it better to stop illegal (uncontrolled) immigration and have greater legal immigration?

    Based on various studies as to what goes on with importing new people to prop up Social Security, it has been discovered that the new immigrants pay in taxes about 10 billion less than they cost the government.

    They also end up eventually bringing their elderly parents over,  and then the parents end up on Social Security and MediCare. MediCare requires that you are in the country for ten years, and work and pay in for only five. So accepting immigration as a solution for the ticking time bomb of SS and M/C is rather pointless.

    • #79
  20. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):
    Yes we can sustaine the population but that’s not my metric. Loss of habitat is my metric. Hour pluss commutes and jammed highways is my metric. Shipping garbage hundreds of miles, further reducing habitat is my metric. The need to go to railway instead of personal automobiles is my metric.

    Dude! You need to get out of your big city bubble! The United States, at ~33 people per square kilometer, is not even close to “densely populated”. We are also not truly sparsely populated, either, which would be bad:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density

    It’s also worth keeping in mind that, since distribution of goods is such a key component of economics, too low a population density interferes with the formation/maintenance of a robust economy. This is why cities form in the first place.

    As for habitat, consider doing a little research on the extent of forestation in the U.S. over the last hundred years. (Spoiler alert: it doesn’t track with your hysterical commentary.)

    Well, whether population density is too much or too little, is a matter of opinion.  I think it’s too high.  Second, if too low a population interferes with a robust economy, then why were the 1920s such a boom era when we had less than a third of the current population?  Robust economies have nothing to do with the size of the country.  China has a billion and a quarter people and the per capita GDP is probably a tenth of ours.  What you’re confusing is that a dramatic population drop would cause economic instability.  Japan has been shrinking in population and still has one of the top economies in the world.  I have no desire for a dramatic population drop but would desire a very gradual downward slope.  

    • #80
  21. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    CarolJoy, Above Top Secret (View Comment):

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    I got to say, there was one line I didn’t like. I didn’t like when he said he was for a record number of legal immigration. We do not need more immigration. I’m not saying zero, but we need less, not more.

    @manny, our current fertility rate is at record lows. I disagree with this. we are now averaging 1.886 children per woman. The replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman. Disregarding immigration, our population is shrinking dangerously.

    We need population growth so sustain, among other things, the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. We need population growth to sustain our economic growth, or at least, avoid decline.

    We need continued immigration.

    Given that we need substantial immigration, isn’t it better to stop illegal (uncontrolled) immigration and have greater legal immigration?

    Based on various studies as to what goes on with importing new people to prop up Social Security, it has been discovered that the new immigrants pay in taxes about 10 billion less than they cost the government.

    They also end up eventually bringing their elderly parents over, and then the parents end up on Social Security and MediCare. MediCare requires that you are in the country for ten years, and work and pay in for only five. So accepting immigration as a solution for the ticking time bomb of SS and M/C is rather pointless.

    Hear, hear!  Absolutely.

    • #81
  22. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):
    As for habitat, consider doing a little research on the extent of forestation in the U.S. over the last hundred years. (Spoiler alert: it doesn’t track with your hysterical commentary.)

    There are a lot of habitats other than forest habitats. Out where I live, the excess population results in housing developments that take over the prairie islands, turning them into wooded residential areas. It’s sad to see the loss of those prairie habitats that were once the feature that first drew settlers to our region.

    And the east coast has turned into one extended suburb.  They’ve got a term for it: Urban Sprawl.  People can look it up and realize what is happening.

    • #82
  23. David Carroll Thatcher
    David Carroll
    @DavidCarroll

    Manny (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):
    As for habitat, consider doing a little research on the extent of forestation in the U.S. over the last hundred years. (Spoiler alert: it doesn’t track with your hysterical commentary.)

    There are a lot of habitats other than forest habitats. Out where I live, the excess population results in housing developments that take over the prairie islands, turning them into wooded residential areas. It’s sad to see the loss of those prairie habitats that were once the feature that first drew settlers to our region.

    And the east coast has turned into one extended suburb. They’ve got a term for it: Urban Sprawl. People can look it up and realize what is happening.

    You make an argument of excess population density on the east coast.  What is your argument for excess population density in Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Kansas, Alabama and on and on?

    • #83
  24. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):
    As for habitat, consider doing a little research on the extent of forestation in the U.S. over the last hundred years. (Spoiler alert: it doesn’t track with your hysterical commentary.)

    There are a lot of habitats other than forest habitats. Out where I live, the excess population results in housing developments that take over the prairie islands, turning them into wooded residential areas. It’s sad to see the loss of those prairie habitats that were once the feature that first drew settlers to our region.

    And the east coast has turned into one extended suburb. They’ve got a term for it: Urban Sprawl. People can look it up and realize what is happening.

    You make an argument of excess population density on the east coast. What is your argument for excess population density in Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Kansas, Alabama and on and on?

    Are we a nation or segments of a country?  If people moved out of the east to those states, then the nature and living style of those states would be altered.  If urban sprawl hasn’t happened there yet, why would you want it to?  Is California the heavenly place to live today that it was in the 1940’s and 50’s?  Absolutely not.  By the way, I would surmise that higher population density leads to more Liberal policies.

    • #84
  25. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    David Carroll (View Comment):
    You make an argument of excess population density on the east coast. What is your argument for excess population density in Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Kansas, Alabama and on and on?

    It takes more than acreage to support life. 

    • #85
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.