Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438



This is disturbing....you know, it strikes me as funny that even with china's one child policy, they have like what? 3 billion people? maybe they should kill off a few of their men.....preferably soldiers....... ...just sayin...

GS78 wrote:http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438



This is disturbing....you know, it strikes me as funny that even with china's one child policy, they have like what? 3 billion people? maybe they should kill off a few of their men.....preferably soldiers....... ...just sayin...

Hey, I agree. If china is so worried about global warming and population overload then maybe they should step forward. I think the women should go first. No offense ladies, but without females they cant make more commies er uh people.

Look at it this way: If there is an average of 1 child per family, that will result in a 50% reduction in population per generation. It takes and average of 2 children per couple to maintain a population. In many countries right now, the population of certain races is on the road to decline to the point that it is very possible that they could never recover while others are becoming dominate at an alarming rate! The way it works is it takes a Male and a Female to produce a child so M+F=1c. you can see that over time you are halving the population because:
M1+F1=1MC1 (2:1)
M2+F2=1FC2 (2:1)
1MC1=1FC2=1C3 (2:1)
It took 4 people to make a breeding pair so 4-->2-->1-->0
Get it?
Now, guess which is gaining and which is loosing: Educated taxpayers or the uneducated drains on the system?

herohog wrote:Look at it this way: If there is an average of 1 child per family, that will result in a 50% reduction in population per generation. It takes and average of 2 children per couple to maintain a population. In many countries right now, the population of certain races is on the road to decline to the point that it is very possible that they could never recover while others are becoming dominate at an alarming rate! The way it works is it takes a Male and a Female to produce a child so M+F=1c. you can see that over time you are halving the population because:
M1+F1=1MC1 (2:1)
M2+F2=1FC2 (2:1)
1MC1=1FC2=1C3 (2:1)
It took 4 people to make a breeding pair so 4-->2-->1-->0
Get it?
Now, guess which is gaining and which is loosing: Educated taxpayers or the uneducated drains on the system?

................ ......I remember asking my teacher , " when am I ever going to need algebra?....and here it is.......

zephyp wrote:

GS78 wrote:http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438



This is disturbing....you know, it strikes me as funny that even with china's one child policy, they have like what? 3 billion people? maybe they should kill off a few of their men.....preferably soldiers....... ...just sayin...

Hey, I agree. If china is so worried about global warming and population overload then maybe they should step forward. I think the women should go first. No offense ladies, but without females they cant make more commies er uh people.

nope because they could clone the males with people like the " william and mary homecoming queen".... I say if china, and canada want to do this, start with the males....

There are two ways they could cut the population.

1. Send Obama's school czar to China so he can turn all the school boys gay.

2. Offer more TV channels. Then they would have something to do other than....

Vahunter wrote:There are two ways they could cut the population.

1. Send Obama's school czar to China so he can turn all the school boys gay.

2. Offer more TV channels. Then they would have something to do other than....

...hehehe...

Vahunter wrote:There are two ways they could cut the population.

1. Send Obama's school czar to China so he can turn all the school boys gay.

2. Offer more TV channels. Then they would have something to do other than....

Ah, so good to hear wisdom speak...

Actually, China's one child per family policy is gonna start biting them in the ass in a couple of years. Already 22% of their population is over 60. Pretty soon, they won't have enough young workers to replenish the spots left open by retirees.

LFS wrote:Actually, China's one child per family policy is gonna start biting them in the ass in a couple of years. Already 22% of their population is over 60. Pretty soon, they won't have enough young workers to replenish the spots left open by retirees.

well they'll just do what we in the states do....raise the retirement age ...

Or get another country to do it for them cheaper!

The logic is a bit flawed about maintaining population when many would argue that some countries like China and India are WAY overpopulated. Same with parts of the US and other nations as well.

While I am not necessarily for the 'one child' limit but I do believe that here in the USofA that if you want MORE than say, 2 children, you should have to pay additional state and federal taxes to offset the additional 'burden' on society YOUR family adds

meadmkr wrote: While I am not necessarily for the 'one child' limit but I do believe that here in the USofA that if you want MORE than say, 2 children, you should have to pay additional state and federal taxes to offset the additional 'burden' on society YOUR family adds

I'm sorry, but my kids are gonna be paying for the national Ponzi schemes the government has imposed upon us. And to suggest that children are a burden on society is repugnant. Trust me, I've paid more than my fair share of taxes than they will consume in services.

LFS wrote:

meadmkr wrote: While I am not necessarily for the 'one child' limit but I do believe that here in the USofA that if you want MORE than say, 2 children, you should have to pay additional state and federal taxes to offset the additional 'burden' on society YOUR family adds :enlighten:

I'm sorry, but my kids are gonna be paying for the national Ponzi schemes the government has imposed upon us. And to suggest that children are a burden on society is repugnant. Trust me, I've paid more than my fair share of taxes than they will consume in services.

Families, regardless of size, rarely burden society. Families take care of their own, and get along quite well without the "help" of society. More often than not it is lack of "Family" that saps societal resources.

Regards,

George

gfost1 wrote:

LFS wrote:

meadmkr wrote: While I am not necessarily for the 'one child' limit but I do believe that here in the USofA that if you want MORE than say, 2 children, you should have to pay additional state and federal taxes to offset the additional 'burden' on society YOUR family adds

I'm sorry, but my kids are gonna be paying for the national Ponzi schemes the government has imposed upon us. And to suggest that children are a burden on society is repugnant. Trust me, I've paid more than my fair share of taxes than they will consume in services.

Families, regardless of size, rarely burden society. Families take care of their own, and get along quite well without the "help" of society. More often than not it is lack of "Family" that saps societal resources.

Regards,

George

Unless of course those families are sired by welfare recipients.

I'm sorry, but my kids are gonna be paying for the national Ponzi schemes the government has imposed upon us. And to suggest that children are a burden on society is repugnant. Trust me, I've paid more than my fair share of taxes than they will consume in services.[/quote]

Families, regardless of size, rarely burden society. Families take care of their own, and get along quite well without the "help" of society. More often than not it is lack of "Family" that saps societal resources.

Regards,

George[/quote]

Unless of course those families are sired by welfare recipients.[/quote]...... ........You need some re-education.......in tolerance, political correctness...and compassion........no wait that last one is Republican backwash.....

Unless of course those families are sired by welfare recipients.

Regardless of what you may hear from the pop-culture, those groups of human beings to which you refer are not families. The minimum requirement for a family is the presence of at least one responsible adult.

Regards,

George

zephyp wrote: Unless of course those families are sired by welfare recipients.

If given the choice to have my tax dollars go to feeding a poor child or to another useless runway at John Murtha International Airport, I know which one I'm choosing every single time.

gfost1 wrote:

Unless of course those families are sired by welfare recipients.

Regardless of what you may hear from the pop-culture, those groups of human beings to which you refer are not families. The minimum requirement for a family is the presence of at least one responsible adult.

Regards,

George

Good point George. I stand corrected.

Please take a moment and reread my posting, especially the 'burden' part. After growing up in a housing project I understand the mentatilty around welfare-babies including a neer-do-well sister with 4 kids. The fact there are no financial disincentives against having larger families that honestly do require increased budgetary requirements for public services (such as schools) at the county/state level. Until we get spending under control we need to pay for services for more people and those families with larger potential demand on services should help offset the difference!

Most of us have 'paid our fair share' (and MORE THAN FAIR SHARE) of taxes for what little most of us consume. That is the nature of society and I won't debate that. I will stick by my view that larger than average families should have an additional tax liability (and fewer deductions) to offset any budgetary impact they place on their communities/county/state.