Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
In Libya under Gaddafi, all newlyweds in Libya received $60,000 Dinar (US $50,000 ) by the government to buy their first apartment so to help start up the family.
A mother who gave birth to a child received US $5,000.
In addition, education and medical care was free in Libya. Before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans were literate. During his reign the figure was 83%.
There was no electricity bill in Libya, electricity was free for all its citizens during Gaddafi’s reign.
There was no interest on loans. Banks in Libya were state-owned and loans were given to all its citizens at 0% interest by law.
A home was considered a human right in Libya. Gaddafi vowed that everyone in Libya would have a home.
If Libyans wanted to take up farming, they received farmland, a farm house, equipment, seeds and livestock to kickstart their farms – all for free.
If Libyans couldn’t find the education or medical facilities they needed, the government used funds for them to go abroad for it – not only free but they got US $2,300/month accommodation and car allowance.
If a Libyan bought a car, the government subsidized 50% of the price.
The price of petrol in Libya is $0.14 per liter in Gaddafi time.
Libya had no external debt and its reserves amounted to $150 billion.
If a Libyan was unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
A portion of Libyan oil sale was, credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens.
25% of Libyans had a university degree, during Gaddafi reign.
Gaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country.
Compare that to life in the U. S.
@monorprise. It was by far the most prosperous country in Africa and one of the most prosperous countries in the world until the U. S. turned it into Mad Max land with slave markets. It obviously had a higher quality of life than the U. S. and most other "developed" countries. But Israel wanted it destroyed and the U. S. wanted its gold reserves and oil. Plus, Gaddafi was working on a pan-African currency that wasn't based on U. S. petro dollars.
@monorprise. The U. S. set out to destroy Libya. Libya was on our list of countries to overthrow.
Do you think what happened there was an organic uprising? And why did the U. S. impose a no fly zone in order to prevent Libya from combating the radical Muslim terrorists?
When the tactic worked so beautifully in Libya, the U. S. tried to do the same thing to Syria. Fortunately, Russia stepped in to assist Libya in fighting off the terrorists. That really pissed the U. S. off, so it resorted to imposing a siege (brutal economic sanctions) as an alternative means of murdering Syrian people and bringing the country to its knees.
@Lliam
It seems quite clear you have no idea what the real conditions in either country prior to U. S. involvement. I say this as they were obviously nothing like the paradise you seem to believe U. S. politicians determined to destroy and Russian politicians for some reason interested in preserving.
@monorprise. I suspect that you have no knowledge about those countries other than the U. S. propaganda on msm.
I have friends who live in Syria and I know independent journalists who have spent much time inside the country reporting on what they saw.
Do you think the U. S. has benevolent motives?
If not Trump who can save America from the massive disaster that is the Biden Regime? War in Ukraine, runaway inflation, border crisis, giving Afghanistan to the Taliban, Return to Foreign Energy Dependence, authoritarian mandates, crime surge, war on parents, Chinese balloons, train derailments, public groping and creeping on women and kids, inability to climb stairs like ED209. Failures of America's Fuher are many.
Paying women to have babies is a good idea as it's in the national intrest.
The trouble is how many democrats feel they can afford to care about all those issues @leopard23 over a select few favored democratic party issues they do care about?
They will live in a crime ridden city, in poverty, on the brink of nuclear war, working for penny because people 1000 miles away have to be forced to allow anyone to have abortions.
@leopard23
I don't approve of any kind of censorship, I don't even block people unless they spam me.
But it is a fundamental question that works for both sides. Letting the Federal Goverment assume more responsibility and power over issues, when we can't even reliably hold elections to manage more than a few existing federal responsibility is just asking for corruption and abuse.
The truth is most Democrats and republicans alike have no real control over anything Washington D. C. does simply because a select few things it is doing on which we disagree is soo important to them as to make it impossible for anyone to vote on any other issue.
The deep state (permanent Washington D. C.) loves this because it means they are effectively free to do whatever they want on every other issue just so long as they don't make it a bigger problem than any existing hot-button issue.
Trump or Biden is welcome to from their own money or fund raisers. Absolutely not from any tax payer money.
I already think it is stupid we currently pay people to have kids by giving them tax breaks.
I know the government is setup as a Ponzi scheme in many ways, when the population goes down there is issues. It is designed around perpetual population increasing but yet there are limits to natural resources.
In the desert of the Western USA we have plenty of open land to build on but lack water, in other area's they have plenty of water but lack land.
From what I understand, Democrats think the world is over populated so it makes no sense what Biden is saying.
The USA is by no means over populated, and as a planet we haven't even begun to tap the Earth's vast potential with our tecnoligy.
Currently only about 10% of the Earth's land is Arable (able to grow food). This is a number however the is constantly going up as our tecnoligy improves and the need arises for more land to be developed.
data.worldbank.org/.../AG.LND.ARBL.ZS
For example using very near future tecnoligy we are now capable of not only turning the Western U. S. deserts into rich farmland. We can with even less effort turn the resource poor water deserts of the central oceans into food production regions larger than all the land on earth combined many times over.
We are no where near resource depletion and that is assuming we don't bother leaving Earth.
All of this innovation and really just maintain the technical industry needed to move forward and not stagnate depends upon having industrialized people able to do theses jobs.
That is precisely the population all over the earth which is NOT spending enough of their time and resources to on children to even sustain themselfs.
This is very selfish to be entirely honest with you, after all their parents and grandparents took great pains and efforts to not only give them life but make their modern life possible.
For them to just refuse to pay it forward and instead take all that was given to live for themselfs alone is the ultimate selfish act.
People who choose not to have and raise at least 2 kids should pay a VERY high tax for that privilege proportional to that effort to support others that do.
The bible say god tells humans they should have loads of babies. For some reason politicians tend to think they are gods
Opinion
12Opinion
The sub-replacement birth rate in the industrialized world is the most serous problem we face today.
The problem around the world is the only people taking the time to have & raise enough kids to sustain themselfs are the people not doing the modern industrialized jobs.
As that share of the population drops, (as it must do for civilization to advance technically), soo too does the overall birth rate.
This has been happing in every country and culture around the world.
Put simply there can be no technological future for mankind if we don't figure out how to get modern people to at least have & raise enough kids to sustain themselfs.
I am open to any possible solution to this problem.
Im with you in some ways but everything needs to happen naturally. Biggest investments we can do is invest in third places. (First is home, second is school/work) THINK baby boomers soda jerks, bowling alley, malls. Everything walking distance really helps and you meet people and then you make familys.
@NaultD You seem to be assuming that people would be inclined to use these in person technologies were they more widely available.
If this were true then we would see higher birth rates in places where they are widely available in walking distance such as dense urban areas or older design towns. Instead we see even lower birth rates.
The places with the highest birth rates by contrast are the more rural and least industrialized areas & populations.
There are many possible reasons for this, including the psychological effects of high population density as illustrated by the mouse experiment, urban pollution, crime etc..
But at this point I am inclined to beleive it is the nature of the jobs they are working and thus also income, and where they can afford to live that seems to be the dominate factor. As even in the 19th century we saw progressively lower birth rates among progressively higher classes. While the poorer populations of the city do relatively better than the richer ones.
As indicated this of course means we have a far bigger long term problem.
Welfare already is paying women to have lots of unsustainable babies! The US birth rate has dropped for several reasons, including but not limited to feminism, Democrat Margaret Sanger's black genocide, cheap and easy birth control, the destruction of the nuclear family, no shame abortion, etc.
@sixgunsounds There may be some truth to all of those reasons.
Looking at the historic demographics of exactly who is not having babies and you will see is it the people doing the more economically advanced and productive jobs.
This has noted as a true phenomenon for at least 200+ years, and the birth rate has dropped as their share of the population has gone up. It seems quite likely that said people have simply become too distracted and chosen to live more for themselfs.
Even if we ignore the unavoidable natural selection consequences of this spesfic demographic collapse. There is no long term future for the human race if we can't have most all of our population working theses more advance jobs that would nessarly drive them in to the sustainably low birth rate camp.
I really think it is a luxury choice issue for theses highly educated people, that we really need to force people to re-prioritize the necessity of children with punitive taxes.
From a moral point of view every one of your ancestors going back millions of years took great pains not only to create you but make your life possible.
For anyone to just choose to take everything they been given and live for themselfs alone refusing to pay it forwards is almost certantly one of the most selfish acts imaginable. Given the necessity of Children I have no problem Charging said people who refuse to have at least 2 kids 30-50% tax rates to help support those who choose to make up the difference.
@monorprise Especially because those childless people are going to reap the elder care benefits of the taxes paid by the children of people who did have them.
@Sixgunsound
Not exactly what I was thinking to do with the money, but it is nonetheless a valid observation.
Ultimately it doesn't matter how much is saved for retirement if not enough children are raised in the present to be able to work for for that money in the future. You're just trying to claim an ever larger share of an ever more diminished pie.
In conversation with @naultd I must acknowledge that unless it is at least graduated for low-income years with some kind of tax credit associated with having kids before 40 such a tax could actually become inhibitory in prohibiting enough savings to acquire the stable environment.
Bad idea. Poor people have way more kids then rich people. The more deciding factor is child support. You know the saying "it takes a village to raise a child" people with extended families help out a lot.
We would need better work life balance and a cultural change of 40 work week.
Considering that people's parents and grandparents took great pains and efforts to not only give Them life but make your modern life possible.
For people For them to just refuse to pay it forward and instead take all that was given to live for themselfs alone is the ultimate selfish act.
This is why people who choose not to have and raise at least 2 kids should pay a VERY high tax for that privilege proportional to that parental effort to support others that do.
I'm thinking 30-50% of their income since they have soo much extra time freeloading.
That money can then go to support schools, and child Tax credits.
@naultd Biologically speaking people have 20-30 years to have kids at the start of their lives when they have the least amount of resources.
The fact that the ones who get the highest level jobs end up having the fewest does begin to suggest their ever higher education and early career demands may be a large part of the problem.
Thus the future punitive tax rate may be effective in forcing them to plan to make time rather than overly focus on reaching the top of the ladder.
@naultd I am giving you my best guesses. The Truth is I have been trying to figure out a solution to this problem for 20 years now. I still don't have a good answer, others have been working on it for hundreds of years.
I do beleive the solution is very much the unwillingness and irresponsibility of individuals thinking only of themselfs with short term planning. A problem unfortunately most commonly defined by the very youth in which theses problems must be addressed.
The problem with people who lack responsibility and foresight is that they tend to need a rather dramatic shock to have any reason do anything at all. The experience of life is what gives us an appreciation for the need to plan.
No, we need to close the border, fix the legal immigration system, and deport everyone that came here illegally. There are too many people here as it is. I live in a moonbat state where the people are leaving in droves because of the crime and sky high taxes.. I am not seeing it. The traffic is as bad as ever and there are people building on every square inch of land.
@exitseven
The borders are indefensible in large part because our birth rate has been soo low for soo long. We simply don't have enough of our own people to meet our economic demand or even fill the jobs.
Its true thou more effective enforcement particular from the States we can exclude the invaders. But this really only changes the economic situation in the USA, raising the value of American labor particularly on the low skilled side.
This would in turn help restore the birth rate by making it more possible for people to find the financial security they require to have kids before their fertile years run out.
But we still have the major problem of who is not having kids, being precisely the people working the higher end jobs nearly all of the human race will be needed to do if we are to survive long term.
We either figure out how to get Those people to have at least enough kids to sustain themselfs or our technological progress will slow dramatically and collapse into a dark age simply because of natural selection.
@monorprise The immigration system needs to be updated. It is a big deal to live here and we should be tryring to attract trained and educated people who can qualify for the best jobs. They will buy homes and pay taxes and make America a better place to live. Instead, Biden opened the borders and invited the whole world to come. So we get the most uneducated and indigent people in the world to come and be treated to free housing, meals, clothing, Healthcare and many got a free iPad.
@exitseven
Im not going to dispute the need to control the borders Not only for the reasons you stated but also because until we solve this birth rate problem it is very unfair.
By allowing immigration now we are only be condemning the new immigrates as we had been condemned, while providing the existing population already in decline no place to recover.
@monorprise My grand parents and everyone else who came to America 100 years ago wanted to build a life in a new country and take advantage of all the opportunities here. They had to submit to a physical and have a sponsor. If they did not have either one they were denied entrance. Now we are importing a permanent welfare class instead of getting productive citizens.
@exitseven
100 years ago there was little to no national welfare state, and the birth rate was positive. As such your grandparents came to work and earn their own way.
@exitseven
I don't us getting back to those days via Federal elections.
We been trying to get back to those days for 90 years now, we simply cannot build a political collation to restore liberty and financial sanity with soo many people being paid to vote for it. A large section of whom have already been so highly taxes and over sold on the idea they can't afford to go without it. So your effectively dealing with addiction.
As such what we have is a drug problem in the form of the welfare state. This will only end either by running out , or some trick no politicians is clever enough to pull off in the last 90 years.
The good news is it has been 90 years and we are finally starting to run out of drugs (money). The bad news is people will become increasingly desperate as the system falls apart.
So to save the democracy we have to engineer the system to fail in a safe way. What we do right now to preposition ourselfs for that will decide if there will be any kind of democracy later.
Because there exist no good solution to theses problems, fragmentation is our best bet. Strong majorities in the States will do the hard work on different solutions and the correct ones will prove it was worth while to the others.
@exitseven
I do not dispute that this would significantly improve our situation as it did in the past.
Our problem however requires much than that.
@exitseven
Without disputing the value of said step, we should not overlook the other valuable steps, nor the nature of the problem which has thus far kept us from getting there.
If we are indeed dealing with a problem akind to addiction in an environment where we might prospectively run out of said drugs, we need to prepare ourselves, and the political environment to deal with the expected crisis.
Your measures will help but they are by far not the only ones, nor will they help enough.
@monorprise Where i live the governor adopted a welfare to work system. People could only get welfare for two years. The were given vocational training or college. After two years they get cut off and have to work. This was becoming successful but a democrat was elected governor and did away with the program. Now it has become a welfare state.
Good idea. But it has to be without an income test. People making $200k should get the break too. Put an income test, like democrats always do, and it will be shot down in flames… as it should be. The babies will pay the social security for the ones who did not have kids so it benefits them as well.
I am sure that having babies in this country is on top of the illegals list. Gots to have those anchor babies!
Just so those babies are going to work when old enough and not live on welfare programs.
Let's just close the border theirs so many people coming in from different countries it's wild.
For all you foreigners obsessed with the US and wanna live here but can't afford it. Just travel to Mexico and cross the border. You may have to wait in a line or you may even just have to sneak by or you might find a unfinished wall and you can just walk right through but you guys better do it before 2025 because once Trump is back rightfully in office that shit is DONE.
I don't think any country paying for more babies has ever worked at raising the TFR. Typically, the only thing that can effectively raise the birth rate in a country is by sealing off all the exits, like banning birth control. This kept TFRs above 2.1 in Ireland, Romania, France, etc. I don't think that is an option in the USA right now. Whole planet will probably be below replacement very soon.
I'm more than willing to do my part!! I just need her part!!
🤣🤣🤣
The economy needs to be fixed first before anyone can feel confident in their ability to afford having children.
Biden wants us Americans to stop having children or kill them all off so we can be replaced by illegals.
My mother delivers babies and says there has been about 1 anchor baby per month gaining citizenship status by natural birth.
You can also add your opinion below!
