Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the solution is to spend less money but pay people more, and shoulder the rest on taxpayers? This probably won't work very long since the population isn't as triangular as it used to be (to my understanding this is what happened to Japan). I get the justified call to fix things for people that require these services. The US can barely afford to school its children, purchase its homes, or enact reasonable public he…
> The US can barely afford to school its children, purchase its homes, or enact reasonable public health measures without bankrupting people. No, it can easily afford all that. It chooses not to because the US (that is, the majority of political power in the country) prefers to impose the pain of the imminent risk and frequent reality of bankruptcy on the working class.
"The time has come to ask what level of population growth is good for the United States. There was a period when rapid growth made better sense as we sought to settle a continent and build a modern industrial Nation."
"[A] fundamental question about the Nation's future: Do we wish to continue to invest even more of our resources and those of much of the rest of the world in meeting demands for more services, more classrooms, more hospitals, and more housing as population continues to grow?"
"We have all heard about a population problem in the developing nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America, where death rates have dropped rapidly and populations have exploded. Only recently have we recognized that the United States may have population problems of its own. There are differing views. Some say that it is a problem of crisis proportions that the growth of population is responsible for pollution of our air and water, depletion of our natural resources, and a broad array of social ills."
My favorite part is "Some say"[who?]