If the right values family, why are they doing everything possible to economically prevent it?

>>510807237 (OP)
Economically prevent it from whom? Who is it that so badly wants to have a family but can't because of le right?

>>510807237 (OP)
the nuclear family is anti-family

Because America needs to be split up. Rich vs poor. If you're poor, you shouldn't have a family.

>>510807237 (OP)
You’re unironically too stupid to understand economics. Stick to thinking about gay sex, faggot.

>>510807296
Not being able to feed or house people because of stagnant wages is a strong deterrent to starting a family.
>live within your means!

>>510807296
Probably most of the younger generation if their lives weren't financially hopeless post-reganomics. Them 'totally not wanting a family' is just a cope.

>>510807237 (OP)
a couple of (at least) two gay men adopting children is the most economically viable form of family thoughever

>>510807237 (OP)
We are no longer a white country and working hard doesnt equal success. Lots of people still living in the past

>>510807296
White people. You are stopping hard working white people from having kids.

T, white working class guy. I have one some who is two. He will be an only child regardless of the fact my wife and i would desperately like to have more.

>>510807237 (OP)
Start using feminist verbage against them
Patriarchy disenfranchises most men
the men at the top hoard wealth and women
start using terms like "corporate harem"

>>510807237 (OP)
They like a specific type of family that doesn’t actually exist.

>>510807237 (OP)
They do value families. Theirs, not yours

>>510807296
Mostly lower middle class and poor. Current administration is desperately hacking away at programs that benefit millions of Americans so that they can both balance the budget (admirable) and keep their millionaire donor friends happy. Roughly 17 million Americans will lose access to affordable healthcare next year. Programs helping families with kids at risk are being cut.

>>510807477
Vance seems a lot smarter than Trump
maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing if the old man pops his clogs

>>510807380
But who’s suppose to work those low paying jobs that keep the rich from being poor like the rest of us?

>>510807443
>>510807452
>>510807571
>fails to provide an example of any demographic that actually wants to have children but can't
Sounds like a concession. Your abstract talking points about theoretical people don't matter. Never in history have "bad" economic conditions (you can bet all these "poor" people have netflix subscriptions and smartphones, the latest game console, a Steam game library etc.) have never stopped anyone from having kids.

>>510808001
>Mostly lower middle class
They openly admit to simply not wanting children.

>and poor.
They have children, and the poorer they are, the more children they tend to have.

>>510807237 (OP)
If the left supports workers, why do they refuse to admit immigration raises rent, increases housing cost, increases strain on public services and lowers wages.

>>510807237 (OP)
Hebrew propaganda.

>>510808196
Nigger, during the Great Depression, living was cheaper and easier. For example, for a teacher in a rural town, they made enough where the median rent of that area was only 25% of their income.

The reason why people were "poor" back then was because their families were often huge and/or they were fresh-off-the-boat immigrants. If it was just a small family of 4, their lives would have mogged the lives of the average American today.

For example, Ray Bradbury, the author of "Fahrenheit 451", grew up in the 20's. In "Dandelion Wine" he details about life at that time. They came from a rural town in the Midwest.

"Poor" people nowadays have a shit ton of kids because they can actually afford it: they get welfare and shit and they often live in paid-off, albeit shitty houses in rural areas with low costs of living. West Virginia isn't actually as bad as some hellscape where everyone is a renter actually because of this.

>>510809229
Didn't read. Waiting for a historical precedent of people failing to have children because they are too poor.

>>510808353
maybe it's because the "left" are controlled opposition.
The left don't just turn against the native workers in the blink of an eye, traditional left and workers parties have been infiltrated. Does anyone think Labour in Britain is really a left wing workers party?
labour is the "alternative" that wins for Tories and vice versa. There is no democracy

Unironically commies were pro family lol

Im going to become Batman, except all i do is perform Shotgun Weddings

Ill call myself Bedman

>>510808353
>raises rent, increases housing cost,
Building public housing would do far more for this than harassing immigrants. Guess which skin tone builds the houses and which one pulls out every NIMBY trick in the book so their property values never drop?
>increases strain on public services
Try funding them instead of blaming immigrants
>and lowers wages
Abolish right to work laws and support closed union shops and this wont be a problem

>>510809418
For thousands of years of human history, the vast majority of people were peasant farmers and tradesman. These people often had large families because it meant more help on the farm/business. They often had to barter because they didn't have physical currency to trade with.

Now, only like 5% of Americans are involved in agriculture. Most jobs are really non-essential even in our modern economy (i.e., should just be automated away). Many rent or directly rent from the government. Children are a huge responsibility and an overall burden economically compared to old times. By the way, Steam has games on sale for often $10. Are you saying that $1000 worth of Steam games is going to be enough to pay for a child????

>>510808092
Robots
And the robots will also be programmed to buy products.

>>510809891
Didn't read. Waiting for a historical precedent of people failing to have children because they are too poor.

>>510809626
Tories are left wing

>>510807237 (OP)
People are more interested in living like a child themselves instead of having them.

>>510809934
>And the robots will also be programmed to buy products.
Consumerist capitalism was needed to help a small cabal monopolize all natural resources and production without endless global warfare. They're basically done with that. They don't need you to buy anything. They need you to die so they're going to literally kill you.

>>510807443
live within your means.

>>510810251
He lives within his memes.

>>510807237 (OP)
>economically prevent it
Im sorry man but normal people in the real world have no problem raising a family. Idk why you think its some impossible goal, you need to go outside more. Youll see everything you read on this board is bullshit

>>510807237 (OP)
>commie talking point
Nah, you stupid nigger. What do you not understand about national socialism being third positionist?
Higher wealth generally correlates with FEWER children. Acting like poverty prevents people from having kids is such a delusional take.
Kill yourself.

>>510810429
The right is literally economically genociding the left and that's giga based.

>>510807237 (OP)
There is literally nothing you can do to save the family or society itself while women are going to school in large numbers. If most women are going to school you're just waiting for total collapse and trying to put yourself in a good position when that happens.

Frankly the majority of men shouldn't even be going to school. Child Gulags have always been cancer they just effect women much worse.

>>510807452
>>510807443
>>510807571
>>510808001
All the economic problems of America would disappear if non-whites did.

>>510807237 (OP)
If I believed a result was the desire of a group I wouldn't assume that those working to deny it were part of that group but I guess that's just me.

>>510807296
Its both sides doing it. Right is in charge atm, and are preventing middle to lower class from receiving gibs which decreases money in those regions. When left is in charge they prevent white males from getting jobs, policies companies continue till today with "fair hiring" or "equal oppurtunity employment" meanwhile these companies are responsible for the browning of America.

>>510807237 (OP)
Are the right trying to regulate industries that are directly related to family making i.e. the food industry the manufacturing industry and the financial industry? Are the right trying to devalue marriage by allowing non-reproductive couples from receiving the benefits of marriage certificates? Is the right trying to kill babies the foundation of a family?

NO

But, you do understand which ideologically entity is doing all these things and have been doing it for the last 80 years? If you guessed leftists you would be 100% correct!

>>510807577
>Start using feminist verbage against them
Technicalities are only for enemies and logical relationships are a right wing dog whistle. You can't argue someone away from their positions when their positions are just them making whatever squawking noises they've determined get you to lower your defenses to be metaphorically and inevitably literally assaulted.

>>510808067
He may be smarter, but is he also impervious to scandals?

>>510810689
>>510810749
>literally
What's with all these idiots

>>510811258
>AlIIIIIIIEEEEEEE GEN X SCREENWRITER DWEEB AND MILLENNIAL HIPSTER GRAMMAR RULES SAY YOU CAN'T SAY LITERALLY ANY MORE AAAAAAAH
lmao.
I wasn't speaking figuratively or exaggerating.

>>510808263
Problem solved then. Maybe we could compromise, I keep it to a couple of kids if you promise not to suck up all the real estate every time an affordable home becomes available. Maybe you quit flooding foreign markets making it impossible for locals to survive. I stop having babies, what’s in it for me? What do you give up so that we both walk away feeling like winners.

>>510810998
When the left are in charge, Whites have to play on a level playing surface. Boohoo.

Just a friendly reminder: Whites make up 62% of the American population. Why do you believe we should make up a disproportionate number in the workplace? Maybe you could be a DEI hire in agriculture.

>>510807237 (OP)
Poor struggling people found it easy to have large families all throughout history.

Economics has little to do with family formation. In fact economic success might even be negatively correlated with it to some extent due to decadence.