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.
And capitalism murders millions every day because of hunger problems. I am not a authoritarian leftist by the way I support democracy and a strong welfare state like what Norway does.
I dunno how do we pay 500 billion dollars a year for defense? We could tone down the military budget have the programs with no tax increase. Granted we would weaken the american empire but I don't necessarily think thats a bad idea.
That's a great comparison! Banksters and the usurious ways, (just look at your 29% interest rate Amex Card if you miss a payment) and the unfair advantage that the 0.1%s get through lobbyists, politicians and an unfair tax code.
How is it unfair? ANYONE can use the same exact tactics to invest money and earn gains on that.
And the tax code is anything BUT fair to the top 0.1%. Which income group do you think pays the highest effective federal income tax rate (and, yes, the calculation of taxed income includes capital gains and dividends)? What effective federal income tax rate do you think they're paying? And how does that compare to the middle class's effective federal income tax rate?
I dunno how do we pay 500 billion dollars a year for defense? We could tone down the military budget have the programs with no tax increase. Granted we would weaken the american empire but I don't necessarily think thats a bad idea.
Notice how there is always, always, ALWAYS money for war and to feed the military–industrial complex. ALWAYS. The proposed GOP budget increases this already obscenely bloated budget item at the expense of Medicare and other social programs.
But still you get the dupes bleating, how can we afford social programs? They really, truly cannot connect those dots.
Notice how there is always, always, ALWAYS money for war and to feed the military–industrial complex. ALWAYS.
That's because it provides... wait for it... well-paying JOBS. The alternate is throwing good money after bad at people who will perpetually sponge off the rest of society.
Let's do a little math...
48% of all US births are paid by Medicaid. In a country that only has a 13.5% poverty rate. The US Census Bureau has determined that, consistently, women on public assistance as a group have a birth rate 3 times higher than those not on public assistance.
Anyone who understands compounded population growth projection will understand that this is a recipe for disaster. It's mathematically unsustainable. Period.
I'll give an example of the future consequences using the following formula (compounded population growth projection) and values, given the rate ratios we already know (non-poor : poor = 1 : 3), after a time period of 50 years (roughly, the time span of two generations), and using a small sample size for the sake of making an easier comparison.
The formula is:
present value x (e)^kt = future value
where e equals the constant 2.71828..., k equals the rate of increase (expressed as a decimal, e.g. 5% would be 0.05), and t is the number of years (or other unit, as long as it is the same as k) over which the growth is to be measured.
Given: 100 births/year. 52 non-poor. 48 poor.
k for the non-poor = 1% = 0.01
k for the poor = 3% = 0.03
Non-poor population after 50 years: 85.73
Poor population after 50 years: 215.12
They began at:
Non-poor: 52%
Poor: 48%
And after 50 years of population growth given the rate ratios we already know, that results in:
Non-poor: 28.5%
Poor: 71.5%
The poor/low-income are WAY overbreeding, encouraged and enabled to do so by all the freebie public assistance benefits they get. Do you recognize the problem for society that presents? What's the plan to PAY for that?
The percentage of the US population that cannot support themselves and their dependents will increase exponentially, while those paying taxes will be increasingly unable to pay enough to support them all. It's completely mathematically unsustainable, and the US's society is already beginning to feel the effects.
That's because it provides... wait for it... well-paying JOBS. The alternate is throwing good money after bad at people who will perpetually sponge off the rest of society.
Let's do a little math...
48% of all US births are paid by Medicaid. In a country that only has a 13.5% poverty rate. The US Census Bureau has determined that, consistently, women on public assistance as a group have a birth rate 3 times higher than those not on public assistance.
Anyone who understands compounded population growth projection will understand that this is a recipe for disaster. It's mathematically unsustainable. Period.
I'll give an example of the future consequences using the following formula (compounded population growth projection) and values, given the rate ratios we already know (non-poor : poor = 1 : 3), after a time period of 50 years (roughly, the time span of two generations), and using a small sample size for the sake of making an easier comparison.
The formula is:
present value x (e)^kt = future value
where e equals the constant 2.71828..., k equals the rate of increase (expressed as a decimal, e.g. 5% would be 0.05), and t is the number of years (or other unit, as long as it is the same as k) over which the growth is to be measured.
Given: 100 births/year. 52 non-poor. 48 poor.
k for the non-poor = 1% = 0.01
k for the poor = 3% = 0.03
Non-poor population after 50 years: 85.73
Poor population after 50 years: 215.12
They began at:
Non-poor: 52%
Poor: 48%
And after 50 years of population growth given the rate ratios we already know, that results in:
Non-poor: 28.5%
Poor: 71.5%
The poor/low-income are WAY overbreeding, encouraged and enabled to do so by all the freebie public assistance benefits they get. Do you recognize the problem for society that presents? What's the plan to PAY for that?
The percentage of the US population that cannot support themselves and their dependents will increase exponentially, while those paying taxes will be increasingly unable to pay enough to support them all. It's completely mathematically unsustainable, and the US's society is already beginning to feel the effects.
Most people can't even add anymore and you expect them to understand formulas?
That's because it provides... wait for it... well-paying JOBS. The alternate is throwing good money after bad at people who will perpetually sponge off the rest of society.
Let's do a little math...
Yes, let's.
US spends more on defense than that of China, Russia, UK, France, Japan, Saudi Arabia and India combined. And the GOP wants more. That's a hell of a lot of money that could be used to actually benefit Americans instead of feed the military-industrial complex.
When will it be enough?
The answer is never.
But we can't afford to provide decent medical care for our citizens, something every one of those other countries manages to do.
This is true, however you should consider the rate at which the 0.1%s accumulated wealth as compared to the rest of us. They have received and are receiving much more wealth at an ever increasing rate than the rest of us.
How much money Bill Gates has does not determine or restrict how much money you or I earn. They sky is the limit.
They do not keep you or I from also earning a few Billion $$.
Stalin wasn't a Communist. He was a Socialist, much like Hitler and the Nazis (Marxists), and the US left-wing.
“Can we succeed and secure the definitive victory of Socialism in one country without the combined efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries? Most certainly not. The efforts of a single country are enough to overthrow the bourgeoisie: this is what the history of our revolution proves. But for the definite triumph of Socialism, the organisation of socialist production, the efforts of one country alone are not enough, particularly of an essentially rural country like Russia; the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries are needed. So the victorious revolution in one country has for its essential task to develop and support the revolution in others. So it ought not to be considered as of independent value, but as an auxiliary, a means of hastening the victory of the proletariat in other countries.” Stalin, Theory and Practice of Leninism, issued by the C.P.G.B., 1925
And, yes, according to Democide scholars, leftists' regimes murdered 100+ million of their own countrymen in the 20th Century, alone.
Pay attention at the year of the speech - 1925.
At that point ALL Russian revolutionaries, 8 years after the major changes in their country were still thinking in terms of "world revolution."
By 1929 however Stalin changed his outlook and professed the building of socialism in one separate country - the USSR that is; he deemed it sufficient.
And no, THERE WERE NO "100 + million" people killed because of "socialism."
Russian deaths ( combined) came as a result of civil war that followed Revolution, epidemic diseases, droughts followed by famine. Yet another big number of victims came as direct result of collectivization, without which the rapid industrialization in Russia was not possible. And without industrialization Russians would have lost WWII and would have ceased exist as a nation all together.
The reason Stalin had to deal with his countrymen in such brutal way, were actually the consequences of the crony capitalism of Tzarist Russia, which stalled country's development for long time.
So big numbers of "victims of socialism" in Russia, (as American propaganda loves to claim) are actually victims of crony capitalism in Russia and its direct consequences, at closer scrutiny.
Lazy people who feel entitled to the fruits of people who work.
The problem is that we have tens of millions of lazy people who feel entitled to the fruits of people who work(sic). This country is continuing to devolve into a socialist nightmare. When you think that "gimme free sh*t" Sanders nearly won the Democratic primary you see the magnitude of the issue. The problem is that all those lazy people that don't work, collect government benefits and contribute nothing to society...each have the same voting power as the middle class that get up, go to work and bust their butts every day. Or the same as the business owners, innovators and leaders that employ thousands and provide an income for those otherwise unable to produce enough to provide for themselves.
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.
