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

Krab said:
As it should be.Taxing people with no money doesn't make a lot of sense.
...
This is just another way of saying we should cut taxes for the wealthy and tax poor people more.
Click to expand...
No, this is just his way of saying the government shouldn't be spending so much goddamned money.

This country agreeing to a federal income tax was the start of our downfall. The founding fathers had it all figured out, and corrupt politicians have just been unraveling it ever since.

We should pay our cities and/or counties money.... period, based on the amount of money we cost them. They should then pay the state the amount of money they cost the state, and so on and so forth up the chain.

Never, EVER forget.... this is OUR money, but we have practically zero say on how it's spent at the federal level, which is how these shitbag politicians (who should be term-limited) get rich.

The farther removed we are from our taxes, the harder it becomes to do anything about it. That's why we have billions of dollars going to shitty countries that stone their women to death for perceived infractions and then have to suffer bullshit like studies on swedish massages for rabbits and whether "hangry" spouses are more likely to stab voodoo dolls.

You can't make this shit up, folks:
http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/22...d-government-projects-funded-with-your-money/
 
Why do I get the feeling that a lot of posts on this thread seems to have forgotten about history?

EG: African mothers giving birth to numerous children has a legitimate reason: to make sure at least a few survive infancy/childhood, and it wasn't that long ago in US history that US families were also large because there were a lot of life threatening diseases could kill at young age, a lot of which we no longer have to worry about because of medical field advancements. Now that we can reasonably expect most children we bear will survive to adulthood and outlive us, most of the developed nations no longer have a need to raise as many children, those in the under developed nations still have no such luxury.

The one-Child policy is an example of trying to put a band-aid on an open chest wound, it's supposed to be a short-term measure to control the population but the guys at the top have failed to see that (or perhaps didn't expect) it will eventually lead to a very top heavy population pyramid, nor the fact that not every single child is immortal, some will die unexpectedly and most likely will do so at an age were the mother is no longer capable of giving birth to replace it.

EDIT: Also, not to place unwarranted distrust in the source, but was this information vetted in any way?
 
Last edited:
Japan: The true nature of Japan and it's future (mean age in Japan is around 47.5 years old right now.. oldest in the world):
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/japan-population/

For China: "According to the United Nation’s (UN) Population Prospects 2010 revision, China’s sex ratio at birth (SRB) reached 120 (male births per 100 female births) in 2005-10, compared with a world average of 107. This earned China first place on the global ranking of imbalanced sex ratios at birth" https://www.thechinastory.org/chinas-gender-imbalance-and-its-economic-performance/

For Russia: Russia has a low male to female ratio (much lower numbers of men) because of mortality rates. Men die in their early 60's and Women in their mid 70's. That's why there's a lot more women around in Russia.... the men are dead. As for demographics and their lousy future, there are a ton of articles out there... Here's one: http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/russian-demographics-perfect-storm

Total populations don't matter nearly as much as how the age groups within that population break down. Having a boat-load of retired 70 year olds and very few children is a disaster, even though the population totals may look OK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top