ObamAmerica: US Birthrate Lowest Since 1920

Who needs a family? We have the government!

The U.S. birthrate plunged last year to a record low, with the decline being led by immigrant women hit hard by the recession, according to a study released Thursday by the Pew Research Center.

The overall birthrate decreased by 8?percent between 2007 and 2010, with a much bigger drop of 14?percent among foreign-born women. The overall birthrate is at its lowest since 1920, the earliest year with reliable records.

The decline could have far-reaching implications for U.S. economic and social policy. A continuing decrease could challenge long-held assumptions that births to immigrants will help maintain the U.S. population and create the taxpaying workforce needed to support the aging baby-boom generation.

The U.S. birthrate — 63.2 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age — has fallen to a little more than half of its peak, which was in 1957.

Isn’t there some leftist groups which believes that the best thing we can do for the planet is to go extinct? Japan is working on it; Western Europe is working on it. And apparently we are working on it.

What a legacy the Obama administration will have.

- Aggie


  1. Buck O'Fama said,

    December 1, 2012 @ 4:04 pm

    Obama doesn’t want folks to be punished with a baby. He speaks from experience – his mother had a baby and we all are getting punished for that.

  2. Joe said,

    December 1, 2012 @ 11:59 pm

    The problems of populations are that they follow a predictable path i.e. slow growth followed by rapid growth followed by exponential growth followed by collapse. It does not matter whether we are studying fleas on a dog, maggots on a carcass, antelope on a plain, fish in a dam or humans on the planet. The trick is to stop thinking about separate countries but to calculate human growth on a worldwide scale; it is then obvious that we as a species are no more than three or four generations from collapse. There are some scenarios to prevent this but only on a country scale since decisions and funding is done on a country by country basis. This in itself creates problems since, as soon as a single country manages to stabilize its population, the have-nots of the world will pour in and change the status quo, this means that on a country by country basis each state will have to put a firm block on such things as immigration and control birth numbers( pushing people away from the already full lifeboat) this is of course unacceptable to large portions of the population because of various reasons such as religion or political arguments therefore in the words of the prophet we are F****d as a species.

  3. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    December 2, 2012 @ 11:51 am

    I understand some of what you say, Joe, but disagree with most of it. The sad truth is that wealthy countries can afford population growth—indeed, they need it—but poor countries can’t. At a population of 300+ million, America doesn’t seem crowded to me—though too many Americans rely on the government rather than themselves (a story for another time).

    More to the point, rich countries can survive manmade or natural disasters with relatively few casualties, while poor countries see thousands perish with every cyclone or monsoon. But that’s always been so, and I’m not sure the world gives a crap. I still can’t get my head around the fact that as many as five million people have died in Congolese conflict, and nobody talks about it. Stalin starved millions to death, and remained a hero to the world’s socialists.

    My last counter-argument is about immigration. Not every rich country suffers from illegal immigration. It’s more a political problem than a geographic problem. Why, I recall your own country of South Africa penning up economic refugees from Zimbabwe. Isn’t that right? America permits illegal immigration because one of our political parties benefits from the practice. Whereas Europe encourages Islamic immigration, largely legal, precisely because they’ve ceased to breed their own replacements. Fertility rates in Europe are unsustainably low; they have to import the next generation of… well, I was going to say workers, but who works in Europe? Let’s just say that as Europeans ceased breeding Europeans, they had to import Eurabians. With consequences that play out in the news every day.

    What if they had let nature take its course, and had three babies per household, instead of one or none? Non! Nein!

  4. Joe said,

    December 3, 2012 @ 12:52 am

    I hear you,however the problem is a global one and it cannot be looked at by individual country without a doubt there will be a collapse in ‘world’population figures within our grandchildren’s life time. It will be catastrophic , it will be sudden , it is unavoidable given fecundity rates worldwide,it is inevitable.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment