Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Losers point to average wages and average cost of living and unemployment stats and average college debt and then tell themselves "life is too hard. I need other people to pay my way". Losers say "life was easier in the old days". Losers have isolated lives and focus on their problems.
Winners ignore the averages and focus on how they will overcome adversity. Winners don't worry about the millions of people living paycheck to paycheck because they refuse to join them. They focus their energy on improving their economic status. Winners take the difficult life choices head on rather than blaming others and "averages". Winners know that life has never been easier in the history of mankind than it is today. Winners don't have isolated lives because they focus on solutions.
Losers interject race into a non race issue. LOL indeed.
In other words you think that people who recognize structural problems aren't doing anything to improve their lot? Complaining about the way things are is one thing but no fool is going to sit around and do nothing.
Its not as though ignoring all that stuff is going to improve my chances of success. I think it actually helped me out even more since I know the true scope of the game. I know there's a lot to lose and I'm not delusional into thinking that pure gumption wins the day.
Roadking I must've mistaken you for someone who thinks a little life critically than that. Shame.
These posts are humbling . I forecast more homelessness and crime as people become increasingly desperate. I wonder how things will be in the USA in just 15-20 years from now.
Shhh. You're not supposed to think about that. Don't ya know they only losers talk like that?
Not thinking about structural problems our nation faces will make you a stronger more successful person according to Roadking and the cons here.
This is basic math. Yet for many the issue is people suck and are blah, blah, blah blah, take responsibility.
Do you really want to take a look at basic math? Let's look at how the unintended negative consequences of progressively-funded social welfare is causing the demise of the U.S. using actual data...
How is that sustainable going forward? What's the plan for paying to support all those additional people, 70% of which are likely to need some or several forms of public assistance for life?
Let's take a look at the enormity of the problem using a numerical example...
Because we now have nearly 50% Medicaid births, we'll do a 1 to 1 comparison: 1 million receiving public assistance, 1 million not receiving such, the latest published birth rate numbers for each group (halved because the rates were reported for women only), and the formula for predicting future population: future value = present value x (e)^kt, where e equals the constant 2.71828, k equals the rate of increase (expressed as a decimal, rate taken from the U.S. Census data), and t is the number of years.
After 20 years, the population of those not receiving public assistance will have grown from 1 million to 1.75 million.
After 20 years, the population of those very likely needing public assistance will have grown from 1 million to 4.953 million, 3.467 million of which will never rise above poverty.
1.75 million paying taxes to support social programs for 3.467million after just 20 years. The poverty class is growing at twice the rate of everyone else.
And that's not even counting the millions of poor illegal immigrants Obama plans on making eligible for public assistance.
Providing for an exponentially growing welfare-dependent class is unsustainable. That's a mathematical certainty.
Shhh. You're not supposed to think about that. Don't ya know they only losers talk like that?
Not thinking about structural problems our nation faces will make you a stronger more successful person according to Roadking and the cons here.
We have too many freaking people in this country and keep adding more. 15-20 years from now with birthrates and immigration, livable wage jobs will be increasingly scarce. It seems inevitable. We may be at the point of no return barring something drastic.
Exactly they have their script and they're sticking to it. Most are small business or middle management tools that tend to boot lick their way to the top.
Funny though is that I've met insanely rich people who aren't as reactionary as these people. There is something about middle to upper middle class usually Caucasian baby boomer people that makes them insanely reactionary. More so than even truly wealthy people.
Yeah many are very mean and insulting to millions and millions of other Americans.
Yes usually, it's middle class older white men are the worst when it comes to that kind of these other Americans are losers who want the government to save them.
The funny part is accept for the wealthy, no group depends on the government more than middle class older white dudes and their families, but they don't see that either. They are rugged individualists blah, blah, blah, the ignorance is deep.
Providing for an exponentially growing welfare-dependent class is unsustainable. That's a mathematical certainty.
Did you ever stop to think in that bloated mess of a post that the
dependency rests on the fact that wages are stagnant and prices are up so people can't even afford basic services like childbirth?
It's like when Walmart was called out for telling some of their lowest paid employees to go on assistance. Why doesn't walmart just pay more? Well then you guys would come in and say well that wouldn't be rationally viable for the company, you see every decision they make is consistent with logic since they're only following the dictates of the market and those poor dregs aren't worth a dime more. Passing the buck to the taxpayer was the only rational thing to do.
Do you really want to take a look at basic math? Let's look at how the unintended negative consequences of progressively-funded social welfare is causing the demise of the U.S. using actual data...
How is that sustainable going forward? What's the plan for paying to support all those additional people, 70% of which are likely to need some or several forms of public assistance for life?
Let's take a look at the enormity of the problem using a numerical example...
Because we now have nearly 50% Medicaid births, we'll do a 1 to 1 comparison: 1 million receiving public assistance, 1 million not receiving such, the latest published birth rate numbers for each group (halved because the rates were reported for women only), and the formula for predicting future population: future value = present value x (e)^kt, where e equals the constant 2.71828, k equals the rate of increase (expressed as a decimal, rate taken from the U.S. Census data), and t is the number of years.
After 20 years, the population of those not receiving public assistance will have grown from 1 million to 1.75 million.
After 20 years, the population of those very likely needing public assistance will have grown from 1 million to 4.953 million, 3.467 million of which will never rise above poverty.
1.75 million paying taxes to support social programs for 3.467million after just 20 years. The poverty class is growing at twice the rate of everyone else.
And that's not even counting the millions of poor illegal immigrants Obama plans on making eligible for public assistance.
Providing for an exponentially growing welfare-dependent class is unsustainable. That's a mathematical certainty.
The ignorance is epic. All births are paid for by society. You really think people who have employer provided health care are carrying the full costs of childbirth? Lol
Your singular focus on one group is wrong.
all births are subsidized by this society. No one pays the full costs.
But I know, I know, those people over there who aren't like you suck are losers, blah ,blah, blah.
Did you ever stop to think in that bloated mess of a post that the
dependency rests on the fact that wages are stagnant and prices are up so people can't even afford basic services like childbirth?
If people can't even afford to pay for childbirth, why are they having children? Can't afford to bear and raise children? Don't procreate. The alternative, as I've already shown, is financially unsustainable for our entire country.
The facts again, in case you missed them...
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Let's look at how the unintended negative consequences of progressively-funded social welfare is causing the demise of the U.S. using actual data...
How is that sustainable going forward? What's the plan for paying to support all those additional people, 70% of which are likely to need some or several forms of public assistance for life?
Let's take a look at the enormity of the problem using a numerical example...
Because we now have nearly 50% Medicaid births, we'll do a 1 to 1 comparison: 1 million receiving public assistance, 1 million not receiving such, the latest published birth rate numbers for each group (halved because the rates were reported for women only), and the formula for predicting future population: future value = present value x (e)^kt, where e equals the constant 2.71828, k equals the rate of increase (expressed as a decimal, rate taken from the U.S. Census data), and t is the number of years.
After 20 years, the population of those not receiving public assistance will have grown from 1 million to 1.75 million.
After 20 years, the population of those very likely needing public assistance will have grown from 1 million to 4.953 million, 3.467 million of which will never rise above poverty.
1.75 million paying taxes to support social programs for 3.467million after just 20 years. The poverty class is growing at twice the rate of everyone else.
And that's not even counting the millions of poor illegal immigrants Obama plans on making eligible for public assistance.
Providing for an exponentially growing welfare-dependent class is unsustainable. That's a mathematical certainty.
How is that sustainable going forward? What's the plan for paying to support all those additional people, 70% of which are likely to need some or several forms of public assistance for life?
Let's take a look at the enormity of the problem using a numerical example...
Because we now have nearly 50% Medicaid births, we'll do a 1 to 1 comparison: 1 million receiving public assistance, 1 million not receiving such, the latest published birth rate numbers for each group (halved because the rates were reported for women only), and the formula for predicting future population: future value = present value x (e)^kt, where e equals the constant 2.71828, k equals the rate of increase (expressed as a decimal, rate taken from the U.S. Census data), and t is the number of years.
After 20 years, the population of those not receiving public assistance will have grown from 1 million to 1.75 million.
After 20 years, the population of those very likely needing public assistance will have grown from 1 million to 4.953 million, 3.467 million of which will never rise above poverty.
1.75 million paying taxes to support social programs for 3.467million after just 20 years. The poverty class is growing at twice the rate of everyone else.
And that's not even counting the millions of poor illegal immigrants Obama plans on making eligible for public assistance.
Providing for an exponentially growing welfare-dependent class is unsustainable. That's a mathematical certainty.
If people can't even afford to pay for childbirth, why are they having children? Can't afford to bear and raise children? Don't procreate. The alternative, as I've already shown, is financially unsustainable for our entire country.
The facts again, in case you missed them...
Poor people have more children than better off people no matter what.
We've gone over this before, apparently you didn't pay attention.
Poor people in the Congo have more kids than the better off people in the Congo.
Poor people in Yorkshire have more kids than better off people in Yorkshire.
Poor people in Cleveland have more kids than better off people in Cleveland.
One thing is absolutely certain, if social welfare = more poor people having kids, then Sweden, with its generous social welfare system, would have a higher birthrate among its poor than the Ivory Coast. But that's not the case, it's not even close. Poor people have more kids, regardless of where they are and regardless of whether they have a well-developed social safety net or not. In fact, where they DON'T have a well-developed social safety net, they have even MORE kids, not less.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. I forecast more homelessness and crime as people become increasingly desperate. I wonder how things will be in the USA in just 15-20 years from now.
