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.
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.
The point is, he was a socialist. Another poster absurdly claimed he was not.
Quote:
And no, THERE WERE NO "100 + million" people killed because of "socialism."
How is that worse than paying the poor, who will always be dependent on welfare handouts, to over-reproduce at a rate of 3 to 1?
The military-industrial complex exists to profit by waging war around the globe. Because what good are all those toys if we don't use them?
That, to you, is a more valuable endeavor than actually spending some of those billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars on American citizens.
Every other first world country in the world, and even many who are not first world, manage to afford healthcare for their citizens, but you think it's more important to continue to feed the war machine, which is enriching a few at the very top, while raining death and destruction across the globe.
That's where your priorities are. It says a whole lot about you.
The military-industrial complex exists to profit by waging war around the globe. Because what good are all those toys if we don't use them?
That, to you, is a more valuable endeavor than actually spending some of those billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars on American citizens.
Every other first world country in the world, and even many who are not first world, manage to afford healthcare for their citizens, but you think it's more important to continue to feed the war machine, which is enriching a few at the very top, while raining death and destruction across the globe.
That's where your priorities are. It says a whole lot about you.
Informed consent also thinks the disabled should just die he is morally bankrupt
The military-industrial complex exists to profit by waging war around the globe.
Not always. The R&D and well-paying jobs remain even when the US isn't at war.
Quote:
That, to you, is a more valuable endeavor than actually spending some of those billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars on American citizens.
I gave the formula and explicitly spelled out the consequences of paying the welfare-dependent class to over-reproduce at a rate of 3 to 1. It's simply not mathematically sustainable. At all. Unless you somehow have a plan as to how an exponentially growing welfare-dependent class is funded while the percentage of taxpayers decreases.
Quote:
Every other first world country in the world, and even many who are not first world, manage to afford healthcare for their citizens, but you think it's more important to continue to feed the war machine, which is enriching a few at the very top, while raining death and destruction across the globe.
I've suggested implementing a 25% VAT tax to fund health care. Those other first world countries have a VAT tax that EVERYONE pays. If the US had one, we could have nicer stuff, too. So... let's do it! 25% national VAT tax. EVERYONE pays.
Informed consent also thinks the disabled should just die he is morally bankrupt
I know, which is why I normally ignore him. Anyone who thinks feeding the war machine is of a higher moral and societal value than caring for your own citizens is really not worth wasting time on.
I know, which is why I normally ignore him. Anyone who thinks feeding the war machine is of a higher moral and societal value than caring for your own citizens is really not worth wasting time on.
The sad thing is people like him vote and a sizable contingent of Americans think like him
Back on topic.
I never met a self made millionaire who is lazy. The ones I know work 80 hour plus weeks and devote themselves to their businesses often at the expense of of anything resembling a family life. No I don't begrudge them, but I don't envy them either.
As an accountant I have dealt with many multi millionaires and almost all of them (self made and heirs) are hard workers. Don’t personally know billionaires but anecdotally I knew a few and they are very hard working.
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.
This is the stupidest thing I have heard in this forum. I've seen it twice already.
If I were to follow this type of logic, in 150 years we'll have 95% poor and only 5% non-poor. Or just for fun let's see what it would look like in 300 years. 99.73% poor. 0.27 non poor. That is ridiculous. Life is not based on a random formula.
People is poor because of how wealth is distributed, the economy favor the ones that already have money or the clever people who can multiply money. That is the reason the poor continue to grow.
If you do a work where you don't need to use the head much like farming, picking up fruit, picking up trash, fixing the roads, then the current economic system says you should be poor and a barely make a living. If you are clever enough to multiply money in the stock market [something that doesn't produce any value at all, but only extract from the rest], then you are rewarded with millions of dollars.
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.
