The Heritage Foundation's current policy proposal in progress (say that three times fast) is fascinating. It's a moonshot to boost birth rates and recenter the nuclear family in America. Its branches range from shockingly progressive: affordability of housing, strain of finding work with good compensation, to potentially reasonable: drugs are a problem, to conservative cultural boogeyman: gasp pornography(!).
Where it gets more interesting is it aims to combat the declining birth rates with robust financial incentives. Like Trump's tax credits on steroids. This stumbles into one of the greatest debates in cultural anthropology from the last century. Essentially the question is if a groups cultural anchors are determined entirely through material pressures (Marvin Harris) or instead through an inventive symbolism of created values and mythologies (Clifford Geertz). Do people start having more babies cause it's "a better deal"? Or do they have a narrative and priorities that financial incentives cannot sway?
Re: Politics
5772I just wonder how they plan on ensuring that this only results in more white babies.losthighway wrote: Tue Sep 09, 2025 7:56 amWhere it gets more interesting is it aims to combat the declining birth rates with robust financial incentives.
Re: Politics
5773Nuclear family is now a progressive concept, when things devolve the way they have
Re: Politics
5774It's a moonshot, because there's nothing there to support a nuclear family other than forcing women to have babies. There's no social or economic support. You can't just try to give a tax credit for children, when younger people can't even get a job with a reasonable wage to own a home, or even a car. JD was out there on the campaign trail saying people without kids shouldn't be able to vote. You can't manifest a nuclear family without working on the roots to encourage it.losthighway wrote: Tue Sep 09, 2025 7:56 am The Heritage Foundation's current policy proposal in progress (say that three times fast) is fascinating. It's a moonshot to boost birth rates and recenter the nuclear family in America. Its branches range from shockingly progressive: affordability of housing, strain of finding work with good compensation, to potentially reasonable: drugs are a problem, to conservative cultural boogeyman: gasp pornography(!).
Where it gets more interesting is it aims to combat the declining birth rates with robust financial incentives. Like Trump's tax credits on steroids. This stumbles into one of the greatest debates in cultural anthropology from the last century. Essentially the question is if a groups cultural anchors are determined entirely through material pressures (Marvin Harris) or instead through an inventive symbolism of created values and mythologies (Clifford Geertz). Do people start having more babies cause it's "a better deal"? Or do they have a narrative and priorities that financial incentives cannot sway?
This whole project 2025 thing is going to implode, because it's being forced on us like a pedophile back stage at a Ms. Teen USA contest.
Re: Politics
5775Unfortunately, the implosion is going to involve guns being fired at civilians and the full removal of habeas corpus and representative democracy.cakes wrote: Tue Sep 09, 2025 10:47 amIt's a moonshot, because there's nothing there to support a nuclear family other than forcing women to have babies. There's no social or economic support. You can't just try to give a tax credit for children, when younger people can't even get a job with a reasonable wage to own a home, or even a car. JD was out there on the campaign trail saying people without kids shouldn't be able to vote. You can't manifest a nuclear family without working on the roots to encourage it.losthighway wrote: Tue Sep 09, 2025 7:56 am The Heritage Foundation's current policy proposal in progress (say that three times fast) is fascinating. It's a moonshot to boost birth rates and recenter the nuclear family in America. Its branches range from shockingly progressive: affordability of housing, strain of finding work with good compensation, to potentially reasonable: drugs are a problem, to conservative cultural boogeyman: gasp pornography(!).
Where it gets more interesting is it aims to combat the declining birth rates with robust financial incentives. Like Trump's tax credits on steroids. This stumbles into one of the greatest debates in cultural anthropology from the last century. Essentially the question is if a groups cultural anchors are determined entirely through material pressures (Marvin Harris) or instead through an inventive symbolism of created values and mythologies (Clifford Geertz). Do people start having more babies cause it's "a better deal"? Or do they have a narrative and priorities that financial incentives cannot sway?
This whole project 2025 thing is going to implode, because it's being forced on us like a pedophile back stage at a Ms. Teen USA contest.
"And the light, it burns your skin...in a language you don't understand."
Re: Politics
5776Well, at least it's guaranteed that these bullshit fucking tariffs will remain in place since it's being heard by that gallery of worthless partisan hacks, The "Supreme" Court.
I'd rather be throwing darts.
Re: Politics
5777If I were betting, I'd say that's the smarter prediction. But they just might surprise us.Krev wrote: Tue Sep 09, 2025 4:56 pm Well, at least it's guaranteed that these bullshit fucking tariffs will remain in place since it's being heard by that gallery of worthless partisan hacks, The "Supreme" Court.
It would be weird if all of the tariffs had to be canceled and the economy grew and DT would be like, "See? My economy is awesome!"
Re: Politics
5778Well he's already saying that regardless.losthighway wrote: Tue Sep 09, 2025 5:06 pm It would be weird if all of the tariffs had to be canceled and the economy grew and DT would be like, "See? My economy is awesome!"
Re: Politics
5779While the BLS just revised their jobs numbers for a year by -911,000 I find the reality kind of inscrutable. Most likely, DT pushed all the buttons to inspire the messiest possible read from the department. If someone were to find these numbers true that means they were off by a million, and mostly under Biden. Trump could moan about inheriting a shit economy.
If you doubt them then there's plausible deniability for any upcoming bad news from the BLS as we edge towards recession.
These chaos merchants may have made everyone data agnostic.
If you doubt them then there's plausible deniability for any upcoming bad news from the BLS as we edge towards recession.
These chaos merchants may have made everyone data agnostic.
Re: Politics
5780I do believe that Trump will fuck the BLS, but I doubt he’s had a chance to do so yet. (There’s a real crisis at the BLS now because so many people have left.) But revisions to the numbers on this order are common.
My prediction: the SCOTUS will give Trump a stupid,
shitty, and self-destructive victory on tariffs that will follow no precedent or judicial philosophy whatsoever. But they will draw the line at tampering with the Fed.
My prediction: the SCOTUS will give Trump a stupid,
shitty, and self-destructive victory on tariffs that will follow no precedent or judicial philosophy whatsoever. But they will draw the line at tampering with the Fed.