HippieChick8 said:

I thought military spending makes up the bulk of the government expenses.

---

Silversoul said:

"Since the state must necessarily provide subsistence for the criminal poor while undergoing punishment, not to do the same for the poor who have not offended is to give a premium on crime." -- John Stuart Mill

---

DieCommie said:

Silversoul said:

"Since the state must necessarily provide subsistence for the criminal poor while undergoing punishment, not to do the same for the poor who have not offended is to give a premium on crime." -- John Stuart Mill

---

Yea, but we do feed the poor who have not offended right?  There is free food for anybody in every major city.  Just look at the stats of the poor, they suffering from mass obesity not lack of food.  The few that are starving do so from mental illness and abuse, not lack of food and the 'system'.

---

HippieChick8 said:

Thanks for defending the poor.  After all, who would clean the rich people's houses, clean their pools, manicure their lawns and babysit their children?  They certainly can't seem to do it themselves. 

---

I'm not sure what events have happened in your life that have set you on this vendetta against the rich (which you seem to use in the place of "the financially comfortable"). 

People work hard, they earn money, and they can spend it as they please.  Just because you haven't bettered yourself enough to secure one of those high-paying jobs doesn't mean you should just spite everyone who happens to be in one.




Yeah, that last part sounded a bit elitist.  Whatever - get a job, you hippie ()

meams said:

HippieChick8 said:

Thanks for defending the poor.  After all, who would clean the rich people's houses, clean their pools, manicure their lawns and babysit their children?  They certainly can't seem to do it themselves. 

---

I'm not sure what events have happened in your life that have set you on this vendetta against the rich (which you seem to use in the place of "the financially comfortable"). 

People work hard, they earn money, and they can spend it as they please.  Just because you haven't bettered yourself enough to secure one of those high-paying jobs doesn't mean you should just spite everyone who happens to be in one.

---

Silversoul said:

I can respect someone whose fortune is a result of building businesses from the ground up and providing goods and services that people want.  I draw a strong distinction between that and casino games involving bundled mortgages and credit default swaps.

---

'meh.  I agree that one "feels" better than the other - but I acknowledge that both of them are simply the result of an individual exploiting supply and demand in the market to the best of their imagination & ability

Some people are just much better at it, use a different board and different pieces, and play with much higher stakes.

meams said:

Silversoul said:

I can respect someone whose fortune is a result of building businesses from the ground up and providing goods and services that people want.  I draw a strong distinction between that and casino games involving bundled mortgages and credit default swaps.

---

'meh.  I agree that one "feels" better than the other - but I acknowledge that both of them are simply the result of an individual exploiting supply and demand in the market to the best of their imagination & ability

Some people are just much better at it, use a different board and different pieces, and play with much higher stakes.

---

HippieChick8 said:

I thought military spending makes up the bulk of the government expenses.  And I never heard of someone "turning down" social security, are you going to turn it down?  I stand by my original statement that welfare (aid to families with dependent children) and food stamps are a very small percentage of the federal budget.

---

Silversoul said:

DieCommie said:

Silversoul said:

"Since the state must necessarily provide subsistence for the criminal poor while undergoing punishment, not to do the same for the poor who have not offended is to give a premium on crime." -- John Stuart Mill

---

Yea, but we do feed the poor who have not offended right?  There is free food for anybody in every major city.  Just look at the stats of the poor, they suffering from mass obesity not lack of food.  The few that are starving do so from mental illness and abuse, not lack of food and the 'system'.

---

Yes, and I'm simply defending the fact that we feed the poor, contra zappa's fuming rants against it.

---

meams said:

I suppose.  But I don't think anyone who created any of the financial insturments that went awry in 2007 had any idea that their creations would cause such a mess.

---

meams said:

deadendeavor said:

Actually I do believe this is very possible, and likely will happen in time, using our current system.  I work for Wal-Mart, and we don't even receive checks anymore for pay.  You have to have direct deposit, and if you don't have a bank account, you've got to get a Walmart card and use it.  Actually I'm pretty sure that today only about 3% of money exists in physical currency.  The rest is digital.  So I'd say we're already moving into a similar system.

---

What  you're talking about is a society void of physical currency - not a moneyless society. 

 

Society void of physical currency:  possible (maybe, relative to...
Society void of money (as in, a unit of exchange)

---

HippieChick8 said:

I heard the "official" unemployment rate is around 10% and the "unofficial" unemployment rate is close to 20%.  Isn't that bad enough to rethink capitalism?  Or do we need to have 50% out of work?  At what point do we say that capitalism just doesn't work?

---

zappaisgod said:

meams said:

I suppose.  But I don't think anyone who created any of the financial insturments that went awry in 2007 had any idea that their creations would cause such a mess.

---

Oh no?  Why do you think they tried to get rid of them?  Then again, I can't blame them since the government forced them to make the bad loans in the first place.

---