Paul Duca
1/22/2013 2:27:00 PM
On Monday, January 21, 2013 12:51:32 AM UTC-5, wy wrote:
> On Jan 21, 12:39 am, Red Blade <penac...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:31:27 -0800, wy wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 21, 12:24 am, Red Blade <penac...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote:
>
> > >> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 18:24:57 -0800, wy wrote:
>
> > >> > On Jan 20, 9:06 pm, Red Blade <penac...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote:
>
> > >> >> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 19:05:57 -0600, Patriot Games wrote:
>
> > >> >> > 55,772,015 fewer poor people for you to treat like shit after they
>
> > >> >> > are born.
>
> >
>
> > >> >> No, you just treat people like shit by shredding them up to death,
>
> > >> >> and then you rig the numbers so you can promote your belief that
>
> > >> >> genocide prevents poverty. See also: Auschwitz
>
> >
>
> > >> > If there are currently about 20 million unemployed, what makes you
>
> > >> > think it wouldn't be 75.7 million now had they been born? Do try to
>
> > >> > come up with math that adds up.
>
> >
>
> > >> Wow, that's REALLY bad math - you are equating poverty to the federal
>
> > >> unemployment rate.
>
> >
>
> > > Well, duhhh, if you're unemployed, you're kind of like ... poor, you
>
> > > know. Boy, you're stupid.
>
> >
>
> > If you are unemployed you are poor, but if you are poor you are not
>
> > necessarily unemployed.
>
>
>
> Either way, you're still poor, but it doesn't negate the fact that
>
> 55.7 million would've been added to the poverty figure at the current
>
> available employment standing. And think of how much more that
>
> would've cost the government - and you as the taxpayer - to foot the
>
> bill of 55.7 million unemployment checks than you do now. People
>
> don't come cheap, you know. Be glad you've got 55.7 million fewer of
>
> them.
People like Red Blade still hold the baby-boom era mentality that more population GUARANTEES more prosperity.
Paul