Steve Ballmer Drops Massive Data Dump on How Tax Dollars Are Spent

[tybert7]

Says the person who doesn't understand how a group of tens of millions of people can't have SOME going hungry and OTHERS having more than enough to eat. It's really that fucking simple, but it obviously doesn't mesh well with the black and white thinking of everybody is the same thing. But fine, faceplant.

EDIT: I know this is a mistake, but I guess I'm a sucker for punishment, I'll try to explain one last time:

Say you have 300 people, rich, middle class, and poor. 100 each.

In the rich class, 0 go hungry, 10 are overweight
In the middle class, 2 go hungry, 20 are overweight.
In the poor class, 20 go hungry, 30 are overweight.

Under that scenario, the assertion that the less money you have, the odds of being fatter is true. The assertion that the less money you have, the odds of going hungry is ALSO true. Some of the poor will have enough money to stuff themselves, others won't. This is not mental gymnastics. This is middle school level math. I can't make it any more simple than that. If you find this upsetting, by all means, continue the insults.

For people thinking poor don't go hungry in the US, I count the homeless population as the bottom gutter level of poverty, and they are often going hungry or at a minimum deal with far more insecurity of being able to eat than the rest of the population.

I tried to explain it. If you can't get it, you can't get it. I'll just leave this here:

Now that is a great cartoon, I'm stealing that.

 

[JackNSally]

Don't be facetious.

Nearly the entire rest of the entire world uses govt. ran healthcare and it doesn't even come close to resembling slavery for healthcare workers or doctors there. They do tend to get paid less but that isn't slavery. And they generally pay about half the price for similar quality healthcare vs the US.

They also pay less tax (and out of pocket) per capita towards healthcare than us in the U.S.

 

[Morlock]

Well you seem to have a pretty clear idea of who you're talking to, though I don't know who it is. Afterall, it's the right that tends to block birth control efforts.

The left are the ones always screaming and guilt-tripping everyone about the poor all the time, yet they make no effort to get the poor to stop breeding. They make no noise about overpopulation, despite the huge impact it has on global warming, environmental issues, poverty, famine, food security, etc. They make every effort to import more poverty into the first world (where the poor's carbon footprint has nowhere to go but up, btw).

I don't even hear any denials from you so far.

 

[Morlock]

Duh. But that goes back to education and availability of healthcare options.

Like it takes a lot of education to know where babies come from, that they're expensive, and that the ability of the land to sustain people is not infinite. 10,000 fucking years of human civilization isn't enough?

Like it takes a lot of healthcare options to take birth control pills or use condoms? We send condoms to Africa by the planeload, they use them for everything but birth control, because they don't want to control their birth rates. Why are we enabling this mess? So someone can blame us when it all goes tits up? So they can all claim the right to live in our countries, because we enabled their overpopulation?

Why aren't the left 1) screaming to send epic amounts of birth control pills to Africa, 2) making all aid to Africa conditional on African populations using those pills, or whatever other means are necessary, and getting their birthrates under control?

It goes more back to all the aid flowing into Africa, and the left's absolute dereliction of duty in tying any of it to population control.

Leftists obsession with "education": conceit (oh if they had more info they'd act just like us) or lie (blame-shifting, as if it's someone else's job to tell Africans about the birds and the bees).

 

[Morlock]

For people thinking poor don't go hungry in the US, I count the homeless population as the bottom gutter level of poverty, and they are often going hungry or at a minimum deal with far more insecurity of being able to eat than the rest of the population.

Prime examples of my point about mental illness and addiction. The overwhelming majority of the homeless fall into one of those two categories.

How many of the people here wringing their hands about poverty 1) vote Democrat, knowing full well that importing more poverty via mass third world immigration is a Democrat party article of faith, 2) are proudly in favor of the open-borders policies of the last 50 years 3) have ever given any thought to the relationship open borders policies have with the deterioration of the quality of life in America over that span of time 4) have ever given any thought to the galactically obvious fact that open borders, via the law of supply and demand, drives down wages, especially for the poor and working classes, and how stupid the oligarch class thinks they are for going along with all of this like good little sheep?

 

[Morlock]

Who educated the first worlders? At some point in the past, they were uneducated. Yet, somehow, they got educated. Did little grey bureaucrat aliens from Mars come along and educate them?

China's modernization has come along very rapidly. Not long ago, the place was peasant central. But their one child policy has been in place for quite some time. How'd they figure this stuff out? One thing's for sure, nobody else had to come along and tell them about the birds and the bees, or parachute in condoms.

 

[Ducman69]

Well we're basically disagreeing on facts at this point.

Of course we aren't.

We're arguing about common sense. You see a 300 pound woman that hasn't worked in 20 years, receiving disability payments (because she's fat) along with all kinds of welfare from several different institutions, and you insist that she can't possibly have enough money to feed herself... and yet she's obviously overfed, staring you in the face, and you have stats that show that around a third of all poor people are clinically obese just like this. You don't wonder "How is this possible, my logic isn't adding up"...

Common sense should tell you that even if you dismiss all the evidence provided to you, that somehow these people that have little to no income are being given enough money not only to not lose weight, but to get crazy fat. This logic leap is something that is unfathomable to me how you can reject reality and substitute your own.

And if you want to get onto facts, just a quick glance shows me that if I quit my job I'd get $194 in food stamps: https://yourtexasbenefits.hhsc.texas.gov/programs/snap

So that's all the money I can spend on food, right? Of course not. That's SNAP. One program, and there are many programs from many layers of government as was mentioned. While on SNAP, you can also be on TEFAP, which is another federal food program. Simultaneously, you can also be on WIC if you are pregnant or had a kid in the last five years. You can also receive TANF cash payments that can go towards food. Most of the welfare queens are also combining this with income for daycare, in that say you have three kids and your neighbor has three kids. You say (no one checks) that she's taking care of your kids and you are taking care of her kids and you both get paid, or if you don't even want to do that, you can just split the money with a neighbor and they pay a fortune for daycare expenses. And its not like you are using any money you have on other things like housing, since there's free public housing and section-8.

Of course, that's just in cases where there isn't just blatant fraud, and there are many ways that people sell their EBT card for cash that they can use on whatever they want (fast food, wheels, beer, whatever):

Luckily, thanks to this video going viral, in this particular instance the husband was arrested and is facing deportation.

 

[mesyn191]

That's not what facetious means,

That is exactly what factious means. You asked for proof ("show me an individual") and when you got it you moved your goal posts ("show me thousands"). In practical terms your posts in thread on this subject area textbook example of goal post shifting.

Just prove me wrong real quick, and if you're finding that's an impossible task to find a simple picture, that should tell you something.

I already did by posting multiple stories on the subject. Your rejection of them as evidence for no good reason is just you being even more facetious.

If you're going to do that there isn't much point replying further here.

What are the populations in those countries that have "half the spending"? And how many people die while on those waiting lists that don't incur any costs that resulted in reducing the overall spending?

Population size doesn't matter since a) I'm talking about percentages and not nominal costs and b) economy of scale matters and healthcare is much like any other industry in this respect even if it is more labor intensive than most.

Virtually none will die on the waiting lists in socialized medicine since emergency and life saving care isn't rationed in that manner though there is a triage process. Of course the US also has a triage process too here. But then triage has nothing to do with wait lists much less the "wait lists" boogey man that you're trying to trot out.

I hear crickets chirping on the Somalia thing...take note, folks, leftists hate it when you point out how Africans don't take starvation (or poverty, or war, or...) seriously enough to stop breeding like rabbits.

I've posted plenty in thread on this subject and they still stand as relevant. Including the ones that address your comments here, which you have essentially done nothing to refute. Note: repeating something over and over again isn't refutation and neither is denial.

Taxing inheritance because of tax cheats punishes those innocent of tax evasion and those guilty alike.

They're virtually ALL cheating on their taxes though. That is why so much money has been squirrelled away.

It's not a straw man, it's math.

No, its a strawman.

And a lot of that money spent, particularly above a certain threshold, is wasted.

[citation needed]

1. That's a lie,.....I mean, it obviously does encourage sloth (how dumb do you have to be to think it doesn't?), but I didn't say it.

Hahaha a denial and then a self contradiction in 1 sentence. The self ownage is incredible.

2. It doesn't encourage productivity in the receiver, necessarily, but in the giver, genius.

[citation needed]

3. Randomly spewing public monies

The spending wouldn't be random. That is a strawmant.

So, no idea what diminishing returns means then.

Diminishing returns isn't the same as "no returns". You'd have to show that the diminishing returns would be incredibly onerous (ie. spending millions per person) which you haven't.

Bullshit.

Nope. I clipped it short for brevity since the quote chains were getting too long, as I did here. My reply addresses the original context just fine. And you're flat out making stuff up now, so don't bother expecting further replies unless you put some major effort into a followup post.

 

[mesyn191]

Well then I guess statistical surveys are wrong and I didn't buy two $45k Tauruses for $22k and less than 13k on the clock.

I think its possible the same way winning the the lotto ticket is which means at best you're a statistical outlier if you're telling the truth but quite frankly your post reeks of sthd.txt.

And cars are not far off from inflation adjusted prices of cars from the 70s 80s and 90s. And look how much more you get now.

Noooope, avg. car costs in the 70's was was $3,450 which inflation adjusted in today's dollars is about $21K. Interestingly in the 1950's the avg. car was $1,510 which inflation adjusted works out to $15.2K in today's dollars. (edit)Avg. car cost today is about $36K for reference. Cars have been getting more expensive while wages stagnated or dropped. That you now get "more" doesn't much matter to either the original point nor from a practical point since the cost is getting so high that the avg. family in the US can no longer afford to buy a new car.

I can show anyone making 50k a year how to be a.millionaire by retirement easy.

I too can post just-so examples of investing yourself into the millions when starting from a common wage.

But so what? That doesn't matter. Why not?

Because in the real world that pretty much never happens. What is actually happening in the real world is what actually matters.

The difference between a capitalist and a socialist is a socialist will look at a rich man's house and say "no one should live like this" a capitalist will say "everyone should live like this."

Nope. That is a Ducman/Morlock level strawman. Socialists have no issue with people living well.

Its when a few are living very well at the expense of the many that a Socialist would take issue.

 

[Ducman69]

That is exactly what factious means. You asked for proof ("show me an individual") and when you got it you moved your goal posts ("show me thousands"). In practical terms your posts in thread on this subject area textbook example of goal post shifting.

That's still not what facetious means, and you know when you use quotation marks around something, it means you're quoting them. I'll give you $50 if you can find where I said "show me an individual" in this thread. You could buy a badass video card with that, unless you're a liar. Easy money!

I already did by posting multiple stories on the subject.

You showed me pictures of starving people? Which article shows a camp full of starving individuals in it? All the pics I've seen has mostly fat people in the camp. How do you explain that some are fat if there's no food, and yet thousands are starving. Seems weird, right? If you can't find any group pictures, then isn't it more likely that people are only shown by themselves because they are unique cases, as was pointed out likely with AIDS waste syndrome?

Your rejection of them as evidence for no good reason is just you being even more facetious.

Still not what facetious means, unless you'd like to copy and paste what you think was the punchline to the joke while you're skimming through trying to earn your $50.

 

[mesyn191]

That's still not what facetious means,

1. not meant to be taken seriously or literally

and you know when you use quotation marks around something, it means you're quoting them.

Google indirect quotations. While you're at it show that what is in quotations there is substantially different from what you were saying before.

I'll give you $50 if you can find where I said "show me an individual" in this thread.

Post #138.

Seems weird, right? If you can't find any group pictures, then isn't it more likely that people are only shown by themselves because they are unique cases,

Nope. You don't need pictures when multiple stories are available that say "famine in Somalia".

Its up to you to demonstrate why all those stories, and organizations like the UN and US military, are wrong on this subject.

 

[Ducman69]

1. not meant to be taken seriously or literally

Its from french, facetie, and generally means an inappropriate joke with a hint of sarcasm. Moving goal posts, as you claim, is not making a joke. Please quote what you thought the punchline of the facetious remark was, I'm curious.

Google indirect quotations.

Quotation marks are never used with indirect quotations, genius. Now, do you want to earn your $50 or not? Find the quote, or the picture, whichever order you prefer. They do exist, right?

 

[mesyn191]

Its from french, facetie

I quoted the exact meaning I was referring to, the words' history or other meanings aren't relevant here.

Quotation marks are never used with indirect quotations, genius.

They are when you're trying to emphasize them and keep the thread clear cut and readable.

Now, do you want to earn your $50 or not? Find the quote, or the picture, whichever order you prefer. They do exist, right?

Already gave you the information in non-picture format. Your continued rejection of that information without any factual basis just makes you come off as even more facetious than before.

 

[Uvaman2]

https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/foo...-in-the-us/interactive-charts-and-highlights/
http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunge...t-sheet.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/
http://www.itep.org/whopays/full_report.php
https://www.uta.edu/faculty/story/2311/Misc/2013,2,26,MedicalCostsDemandAndGreed.pdf

Makes you think twice about thumping your chest about being the richest country on the planet.

Many here are victims of a US media that keep the problems many millions of people suffer in secret.
Its VERY important to keep appearances if we are to routinely issue dictates and criticisms to other countries about what they need to do with their own issues.
I was shocked, when CNN (?) went in to a fucking food bank line (aka bread line) to talk to Trump voters that are basically pissed at the planet.
Shocked because they did it, not because there was line.. all those %s in the reports have to go somewhere.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

I think its possible the same way winning the the lotto ticket is which means at best you're a statistical outlier if you're telling the truth but quite frankly your post reeks of sthd.txt.

Yep real hard to find...Took me a whole whopping 30 seconds

http://www.carfinder.com/app/details.php?sVIN=1FAHP2F85GG113229&sDISTANCE=9

Noooope, avg. car costs in the 70's was was $3,450 which inflation adjusted in today's dollars is about $21K. Interestingly in the 1950's the avg. car was $1,510 which inflation adjusted works out to $15.2K in today's dollars. (edit)Avg. car cost today is about $36K for reference. Cars have been getting more expensive while wages stagnated or dropped. That you now get "more" doesn't much matter to either the original point nor from a practical point since the cost is getting so high that the avg. family in the US can no longer afford to buy a new car.

Who says you have to buy a new car? And in terms of affordability that is measured against weeks income. (How many weeks would it take of my income would it take to buy car x). Income is not 1:1 against inflation. Admittingly the low period for this number was 2001 but it's only gone up about 15% since then after adjusting or inflation against average salary.

You can be negative and bitch all you want. There's a difference between people like you and me. When I wanted my first house at 25 I had a very tight budget. I was making 40k year. My first house was 157k. They tried to talk me into upgrades. My girlfriend complained I worried about money too much. I got a roommate the first two years to pay for extras. But I did it.

She's now broke with nothing saved for retirement. I can retire indefinitely in a couple years because I scrimped and saved. I don't buy new cars. I buy below what my income allows. I pay myself first meaning retirement and HSA healthcare.

My spreadsheet is accurate. It breaks down everything into a line item basis accounting for every aspect of spending including things like state tax local tax federal tax.

It then shows you where your money is going.

You know what will eat your income the most? Eating out and making payments on a new car. The amount of money your God damn pissing down the toilet to own a new car is what could be used towards retirement.

And you are a prime example of why some people with a half decent income stay poor. They don't want to believe or even try. They don't want to give up the extras. They just get mad at the people with money. That my friend is envy and envy is a sin. Quit comparing yourselves to others.

When you are done bitching about how hard it is to live write me. I'll give you my analysis spreadsheets on Google docs. It includes a retirement analyzer that is more accurate than most and used 6 different scenarios of Monte Carlo analysis and variable return rates of 5 to 7%

I've helped 5 people in.my company already and they feel so much more empowered since this.

 

[Grimlaking]

Uhhh, a household is an individual and his or her dependents that file taxes. I'm a household. My dad is a household with one dependent. A college kid with a job that is not a dependent of his parents is a household. People that share a house but file separately are two households. There's nothing ambiguous in the article, and it shows clearly that its tax units that filed income taxes.

I would love to see your source that shows numbers that are different from the above. Here's another source that shows that 1% of the population paid 37.8% of all income tax revenue at an average rate of 27.08%... the percentage is high, but that's again not what matters, its the actual amount paid is astronomical. The top half of tax payers pay 97.2% of all tax revenue collected.

So as I said, the bottom 50% arguing that the wealthy aren't paying "their fair share" when they pay nothing and are generally net tax recipients, meaning they cost society more than they put into the pool is shameful.

Should they get more pay for the work they do? Depending on the job, quite possibly, yes! Are they paying too much in taxes and are the wealthy not paying their fair share? HELL NO! But we use this silly bandaid of wealth redistribution via progressive income taxes because we haven't figured out a way to tackle the root of the problem, which is that contribution and compensation are not always very proportional. Its generally correct for most in the middle of skilled laborers, but at the far ends is totally out of whack, so we've come up with tax shenanigans. If you're not at least in the top 50% of earners in the country though, at least have the humility to not demand that people up top aren't paying "their fair share", as if the government is collecting much taxes from you.

End hunger? Oh brother... we don't have people dying of starvation in the United States, and the biggest problem our poor face is an OBESITY epidemic from eating too many calories. Over 30% of individuals with incomes under <$25K a year are clinically obese.

I don't think you want to get into the whole idea of foods that are designed to be addictive and are extremely cheap. A meal from Mcdonalds, addictive, potentially bad for you, tons of empty calories, and <10 bucks.

Meal from a nice resteraunt, Actually fewer calories than fast food, more nutritional value, higher quality meal, portion sized to be split into 2 meals if you want to bring it home. >20 bucks.

JUST LIKE BIG PHARMA. Addictive poor quality, only solves one part of a hunger/needs equation = cheap. High quality, good for you and contributes to a healthy lifestyle = expensive.

You may ask.. why doesn't the person making 25k a year cook at home? Because every waking moment of their lives is stress on how they will get by tomorrow and adding cooking to that and looking for a 2nd or 3rd income stream... just isn't worth the time.

 

[Grimlaking]

Then why is it that a lot of Canadians jump over the border to utilize the superior healthcare of the U.S.?

Simple answer: socialized healthcare is inferior and treatment is exponentially slower.

BZZZZT Wrong answer bob. Allow me to expand your mind.

The "DROVES" of people coming to the US for medical treatment are in LARGE PART coming here to get things like.. botox, or boob jobs, and similar. Yes some come here to take part on expiramental treatments that their government won't cover. But those are special cases.

 

[Grimlaking]

You just conceded via "like" that 30% of poor people are obese. If poor people can buy enough food to become obese, then logically, you can't say that other poor people can't afford food with the same income as the fatasses.... riiiiiight? Not conceptually difficult here, is it?

Holy crap man.. did your brain just completely abandon your cranium for more fertile grounds? Or is this conversation driving you nuts.

Not all POOR people make the same money, or have the same support of the rest of the family or both.

 

[DejaWiz]

Population size doesn't matter since a) I'm talking about percentages and not nominal costs and b) economy of scale matters and healthcare is much like any other industry in this respect even if it is more labor intensive than most.

Virtually none will die on the waiting lists in socialized medicine since emergency and life saving care isn't rationed in that manner though there is a triage process. Of course the US also has a triage process too here. But then triage has nothing to do with wait lists much less the "wait lists" boogey man that you're trying to trot out.

That confirms it...You're unobtainable socialist utopian ideals have skewed your perceptions of actual reality.

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/5505110

 

[DejaWiz]

BZZZZT Wrong answer bob. Allow me to expand your mind.

The "DROVES" of people coming to the US for medical treatment are in LARGE PART coming here to get things like.. botox, or boob jobs, and similar. Yes some come here to take part on expiramental treatments that their government won't cover. But those are special cases.

You only wish that were true to confirm the typical misguided political agenda talking points you are spewing...

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...dians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care

 

[Ducman69]

Holy crap man.. did your brain just completely abandon your cranium for more fertile grounds? Or is this conversation driving you nuts.

Not all POOR people make the same money, or have the same support of the rest of the family or both.

Exactly, they don't, but we already addressed the fact that the obesity rate increases the poorer you are, so the lowest income brackets (the unemployed that have zero income aside from welfare) are the fattest. Logic dictates that means the government is providing more than enough funds to get plenty fat and overeat, which was reinforced by numbers where all the federal, state, and county programs were combined to show that in some instances (Hawaii for example... yes, its expensive to live in Hawaii, but still) the total comes out to just under $50K a year tax free (which is much greater than $50K from a job, since the latter income is taxed). Which part of that is confusing to you?

 

[Ducman69]

I don't think you want to get into the whole idea of foods that are designed to be addictive and are extremely cheap. A meal from Mcdonalds, addictive, potentially bad for you, tons of empty calories, and <10 bucks.

Meal from a nice resteraunt, Actually fewer calories than fast food, more nutritional value, higher quality meal, portion sized to be split into 2 meals if you want to bring it home. >20 bucks.

Preparing a meal for THEMSELVES like I do, and that they are supposed to do, is way cheaper than McDonalds and as healthy as you want it to be. My coworker mostly just eats brown rice, egg whites, and boiled chicken almost every meal, and he's won strong-man contests and is a massive healthy body builder, and that doesn't cost much at all.

You may ask.. why doesn't the person making 25k a year cook at home?

Especially when they literally have no job and are sitting at home all day doing nothing... the answer is because they make poor life choices, which is usually one of the reasons they are poor in the first place. They do stupid things, like spend too much money on fast food out of laziness and because it tastes great, even if its unhealthy and more expensive.

I mean, do these guys look emaciated to you?

 

[DejaWiz]

I firmly believe that public elementary, middle, and high schools desperately need to bring back the plethora of arts, crafts, and trade classes such as home economics, finances, wood/metal shop, auto shop, radio and television communications/broadcasting, technology/electronics, etc that have largely gone away. Inner-city schools would benefit the most to break the slavery shackles of government dependency and poverty.

 

[Morlock]

Well one thing to consider is there's plenty of shit on both sides. I agree that it makes sense to fix domestic problems before trying to take on the rest of the world's. Many on the left want to import and any all immigrants, many on the right want to bomb countries that aren't really involved with us and sell weapons wholesale to countries connected to terrorist organizations, go figure.

Heh, what you're describing is called "Invade the World, Invite the World." And it's got a lot of bipartisan support.

There are plenty of open-borders fanatics on the "right," too (e.g., Paul Ryan, John McInsane, Lyndsie Gayham, whole GOPe really). The left doesn't like admitting that they have a lot of allies on this in the Republican Party. The Democrats want open borders for all the same reasons the GOPe do, except they want to import a new electorate, too (3rd worlders vote left, presumably because they don't read). The GOPe are mostly just shilling for their cheap labor lobby oligarch paymasters, plus virtue-signalling for Big Media and the leftist establishment.

Regardless, the AVERAGE food stamp beneficiary is getting $126 for food. So if they're getting ~30k in other benefits, maybe there's a problem there, but I'm talking about food. I say $126 a month is bare sustenance levels and is practically inviting malnutrition or hunger, take your pick. I know from my life experience, I've known PLENTY of working poor who didn't have as much money for food as they needed. Unless you think the USDA is lying about SNAP benefits, in which case, we can't really discuss this further, because we each have different information, which leads to different conclusions.

1. Are you the guy who's been going after the other guy for not understanding math? Averages are pretty simple, and in this case include millions of people, many of whom probably don't go full-in on food stamps, and/or aren't relying on them for all of their food. In other words, theoretically speaking, for every person who is getting $126 a month in food stamps, another person is getting $63 a month (definitely starving, who can survive on $63 worth of groceries a month!!! ), and another is getting $252 a month (that greedy fat bastard is taking food out of the mouth of the previous poor parenthetical starving person!!!).

2. "Beneficiary" means children, too. So, the "average" welfare family of four is getting $504 a month in groceries. A lot of kids have much lower caloric needs than adult women, who in turn have much lower caloric needs than adult men. Children are really all over the place, from babies able to literally live off of their mothers' breast milk, to teenagers the size of adults, and everything in-between.

Hahaha a denial and then a self contradiction in 1 sentence. The self ownage is incredible.

No, it's called honesty, you leftists should try it some time.

TL;DR-ed the rest of your bullshit.

And it's still an absolute dereliction of duty, the left's negligence on the population explosion in Africa, refusal to do or say anything about it.

 

[capt_cope]

Wow. This thread.

 

[Uvaman2]

The fuck some talking about population control and the 'left', WTF!
Who the fuck is going to talk about population control and win a single vote, or be in any position to influence anything seconds after uttering those words.
Truth of the matter is, education, higher level of quality of life, actually reduce population growth all by itself anyway.

 

[Grimlaking]

You only wish that were true to confirm the typical misguided political agenda talking points you are spewing...

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...dians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care

I don't think you read the article.. Time and again.. Canda has the best quality of life with the longest lifespan... for super critical high end just developed surguries they go to the US. So yes my cosmetic mention was not completely accurate. But your representation was misguided as well.

Lets just shake hands and agree that we disagree on this one.

 

[Grimlaking]

Preparing a meal for THEMSELVES like I do, and that they are supposed to do, is way cheaper than McDonalds and as healthy as you want it to be. My coworker mostly just eats brown rice, egg whites, and boiled chicken almost every meal, and he's won strong-man contests and is a massive healthy body builder, and that doesn't cost much at all.

Especially when they literally have no job and are sitting at home all day doing nothing... the answer is because they make poor life choices, which is usually one of the reasons they are poor in the first place. They do stupid things, like spend too much money on fast food out of laziness and because it tastes great, even if its unhealthy and more expensive.

I mean, do these guys look emaciated to you?

Holy... did you even.. Nevermind. I'm done. The hate is strong in you. May your overlord Trump fulfill your dreams.

 

[Ducman69]

Holy... did you even.

O.M.G. No.

I... LITERALLY... can't even.

 

[mesyn191]

Yep real hard to find...Took me a whole whopping 30 seconds

Hahahh your "50% off car" is still $22K and a luxury model no less. Actually a "luxury" Taurus which is a joke and why that thing is selling for that price. To be fair its not the dangerously crappy salvage title I expected but its still pretty crap and still pretty expensive.

Who says you have to buy a new car?

1) you claimed cars weren't actually getting more expensive over time, I showed you were wrong
2) new car prices still effect used car prices, and used car prices have hit all time highs as was mentioned in the article I linked to you in a previous reply

That is reality. You don't like it? Me neither. But that is the way things are now and that is what people are trying to deal with as best as possible.

You can be negative and bitch all you want.

I've given you plenty of facts and linked articles to make my point. That isn't being negative. That is reality.

And $40K/yr with a $157K house? You had it good and easy compared to how it is now in many areas. I don't even live in a "bad" area price-wise compared to much of the rest of the nation but home prices are 4.35x avg. income in my area. Assuming you had no down payment on your mortgage you'd still be relatively well off with a debt load of 3.95x your income. God forbid I still lived in CA, prices are back to or higher than the old bubble levels (ie. 7x or more local avg. income) in most areas there. Same thing goes for many coastal areas or states right now.

Any schooling you might've done was cheaper back when you were doing it vs how its now too so you have to factor that in as well. And jobs paid relatively higher then now too, particularly if you're talking about a decade or 2 ago.

And you are a prime example of why some people with a half decent income stay poor. They don't want to believe or even try.

Belief or "trying" doesn't magically make up for decades of stagnant wage growth or magically decrease car prices to affordable levels. Deal with reality as it is and don't bother posting anymore vague bootstraps platitudes or strawmen about envy.

When you are done bitching about how hard it is to live write me. I'll give you my analysis spreadsheets on Google docs.

Hahahaha you keep your spreadsheets bud. My car is paid off and I have a 403b I pay into already. But I'm lucky. And I have no issues admitting I got lucky.

And I also have no problem understanding that just cuz' I got lucky doesn't mean everyone can nor does my luck mean that there are no systemic issues in our economy.

 

[DejaWiz]

I don't think you read the article.. Time and again.. Canda has the best quality of life with the longest lifespan... for super critical high end just developed surguries they go to the US. So yes my cosmetic mention was not completely accurate. But your representation was misguided as well.

Lets just shake hands and agree that we disagree on this one.

Yes, I did read the article. But you also have to remember that Canada has approx 1/10 the population of the U.S., so the aggregate data on average lifespan is going to favor a much smaller demographic. More people = more deaths at all age ranges.

I'm fine with mutually disagreeing, because that's what makes these types of discussions intellectually stimulating for everyone involved.

 

[mesyn191]

That confirms it...You're unobtainable socialist utopian ideals have skewed your perceptions of actual reality.

They did a estimation that didn't bear out in any real world numbers in that article. You're just copy/pasting whatever article you google up at this point without even doing any real critical reading of it.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

Hahahh your "50% off car" is still $22K and a luxury model no less. Actually a "luxury" Taurus which is a joke and why that thing is selling for that price. To be fair its not the dangerously crappy salvage title I expected but its still pretty crap and still pretty expensive.
...
Hahahaha you keep your spreadsheets bud. My car is paid off and I have a 403b I pay into already. But I'm lucky. And I have no issues admitting I got lucky.

And I also have no problem understanding that just cuz' I got lucky doesn't mean everyone can nor does my luck mean that there are no systemic issues in our economy.

"That joke of a crap car" is the safest things on the road below a mercedes E class as it uses Volvo's largest frame. And it's damn comfortable too with near 300 HP.

Either you're arguing just to argue, or there's something wrong with you. I used to live that "limited" lifestyle. I know it can be done. Either way, have a nice day. I'm done here. If you don't want to sit down and discuss it like an adult, I can't help ya.

 

[mesyn191]

"That joke of a crap car" is the safest things on the road below a mercedes E class as it uses Volvo's largest frame.

Its crap because it breaks frequently (mainly the transmission fails) and because its a luxury car which means its extra expensive to fix stuff when it breaks. Its the same reason why used luxury BMW's and Mercedes, anything luxury and used really, sells far large mark downs used. They're notoriously terrible to buy.

I used to live that "limited" lifestyle. I know it can be done.

Many are already living that limited lifestyle by default whether they want to or not and still can't save. That is reality.

 

[MrCaffeineX]

Wow. This thread.

It was all worth it just for this comic:

I tried to explain it. If you can't get it, you can't get it. I'll just leave this here:

 

[Grimlaking]

Yes, I did read the article. But you also have to remember that Canada has approx 1/10 the population of the U.S., so the aggregate data on average lifespan is going to favor a much smaller demographic. More people = more deaths at all age ranges.

I'm fine with mutually disagreeing, because that's what makes these types of discussions intellectually stimulating for everyone involved.

The size of a sample set within reason should not disproportinatly effect the results of the sample set when we are talking whole % numbers.

If we were talking "raw" numbers as many idiot politicians love to do... then I would be in agreement with you.

Yet... I didn't follow the link through your source to see how the quality of life was determined.

10 million or 300 million... a xx% return is a relative example that you can use as quantifiable data... the ONLY real difference is they don't have a southern region like we do, and we don't have a Arctic region like they do. Beyond that... really it does correlate well.

Though I would also say stringent controls on quality of food available to Canadian citizens may also directly impact it.. but that I don't have any real sample set on at all, even theoretical.

 

[Morlock]

The fuck some talking about population control and the 'left', WTF!
Who the fuck is going to talk about population control and win a single vote, or be in any position to influence anything seconds after uttering those words.
Truth of the matter is, education, higher level of quality of life, actually reduce population growth all by itself anyway.

WRONG, more typical projection (i.e., this may be true of Europeans or his population, but it that doesn't make it a universal norm). Standard of living has been rising the entire time the African population has been EXPLODING. It's obviously what CAUSED the explosion, by lowering infant mortality levels, etc.

UN recently revised their projections for African population explosion, say it isn't tapering off, and won't taper off, as they previously said it would ('course the left had JACK SHIT to say about this pleasant new fact).

P.S., moron, most leftists aren't politicians. They still don't talk about overpopulation in Africa, just constantly scream to have more money shoveled at Africa, contributing to the problem. Why would anyone talking about overpopulation in Africa lose influence? Maybe because leftists would shout him down, because they're busy enabling the problem?

O.M.G. No.

I... LITERALLY... can't even.

Wow, just wow. And this in [the current year].

I'm LITERALLY shaking right now.

 

[Morlock]

This headline seemed pretty timely:

Many Poor Venezuelans Are Too Hungry to Join Antigovernment Protests

So, maybe we really are getting closer to one of the root causes of poverty and starvation: socialism.

 

[Lizard Testes]

I've helped 5 people in.my company already and they feel so much more empowered since this.

Did you include the sage advice that you smugly gave on page 1 that if they want to save on taxes they should crank out a shitpot of kids and get a big mortgage?

Just tell them not to make more than 45k a year and they pay zero fed income tax, right?

 

[Morlock]

Did you include the sage advice that you smugly gave on page 1 that if they want to save on taxes they should crank out a shitpot of kids and get a big mortgage?

Are you suggesting that Africans are bearing "shitpots of kids"? Tsk.