@mrstickball: Yes, i can see something obviously is fucked up in the medicare system. The idea is somewhat good, however.

The problem isn't the size of the population. It's only about how to allocate the resources. There obviously should be a federal system and a state system working to together, so that the resources could efficiently be allocated.

I was arguing only about the motivation behind the military bases.

The problem with the way you presented the issue is, that in order to have the strategic influence, you have to invest in it. I don't think your government is spending for the sake of spending. Only spending what they need to, in order to keep the status quo. As investment, i'm talking about the money put into the game.

You love war? That has to be the first time ever i've seen somebody saying it.

lol I think he was kidding.

hope so

Well, I should define it better:

I enjoy learning about conflicts in history. I find wars and battles fascinating.

@mrstickball: When you put it that way, it indeed is fascinating. For the war itself, i rather experience it in videogames.

For (roughly) 99.9% of the population, the level of success you’re able to achieve is directly related to the consistency and quality of your actions. Much like how people tend to be out of shape or overweight because they are not putting in consistent high quality efforts towards eating healthy and exercising,  people who are "poor" are generally not putting in consistent high quality efforts to improve their standard of living; and in most cases they’re doing (or have done) several things which ensure that they will not improve their standard of living.

Now, the general path to success is to decide upon a goal, make a plan that achieves that goal and to make all your decisions based on how they fit into that plan. If your goal is to become a doctor, and your current step on that plan is to save up money and to take night courses in community college the question of whether you should buy a HDTV on your credit card is easy to answer.

You know, that's interesting. I remember when my dad was out of the Air Force, unemployed and looking for work. Tried to get food stamps and Welfare and they said his retirement - which was about $15K a year - was too much for a family of 6. He bounced around a couple jobs - got laid off right before the holidays one year - and got his last check and a turkey.

I was let go from one paper because an editor was jealous. I have tasted unemployment, my wife expecting and I had my back against the wall. Even had to live off unemployment under the radar. I was unemployed last year, but got a new job within a week (and had several thousand in severance, so it was like a vacation).

I said all that to say - welfare has its purpose. To phase it out is ridiculous. People need it - just like folks need healthcare. The ones scamming the system - well, you know, there are educated folks who scam every system out there - why are their auditors?

I know homeless folks - and I don't brush them off, but try to help them if I can. I treat everyone the way I want to be treated.

madskillz -

To quote your last sentence. YOU know homeless folk, and YOU do not brush them off, but YOU try to help them when YOU can. YOU treat people the way YOU want to be treated.

The onus concerning the welfare of those around you - family, the needy, total strangers is on yourself. And that's the way it should be, because government cannot lend a helping, guiding hand as much as you or I can.

Yes, assistance absolutely needs to exist. However, the problem with your situation is a classic example of why government assistance doesn't work - it's a very rigid thing that defined that your dad made too much money, because they decide on a scale, and not need. That's the core component of why I believe poverty relief doesn't work when it's controlled by the government. When churches, individuals, not-for-profit charities, and other associations contribute to the welfare of society, everyone can benefit as it isn't determined by Uncle Sam's yardstick - it's determined by caring, loving, unique individuals that can help unique people in difficult situations.

And to finish: No one is arguing phasing out welfare. People need fallbacks. The question is who runs the fallback: the government (who really couldn't and wouldn't help your dad) or individuals (that can see the hurt and problem of your situation, and react accordingly).

hey happy squrriel i agree with your post but i have a question

ideally everyone can work out and keep in a shape, and everyone could get skinny and be fit, and the world would be great

but in regards to the social ladder, someone has to be at the bottom

so even if everyone worked to improve their standard of living, someone would end up at the bottom

right?

Yes, someone would end up at the supposed "bottom". However, the real question would be "How bad is that bottom?"

In a perfect society where everyone is works, and is productive, more goods and services would be naturally produced. This would decrease the cost in the supply & demand equasion - more products being produced would drive down costs on everything that the citizens would need to sustain life, therefore allowing the citizens to save back more money and create wealth. This in turn would most likely drive down the very highest end of the scale (the top 1%) as they would need to incentivize their business more to continue to remain productive. Generally speaking, you find that the most productive societies are those with the lower GINI coefficient and better distribution of wealth, infrastructure, and technology.

So at the bottom end, you would have people that have a skillset that did not yield as great of results as the most productive and brightest in society. However, because of the nations productivity, those at the "bottom" would be in far superior shape to any other nation on earth. For example, it is better to be in poverty in the US and Europe than it is in Africa or India. This is because the productivity of western societies allow for cheaper distribution of vital needs - shelter, food, ect.

Looking back at history - America in the 1940s through 60s, you see that savings rates were very high - due to WW2, many Americans saved back 20% of their income per year during the war, and it continued to be above 10% for a few decades. Such a high savings rate produced great amounts of wealth and prosperity in the US. Even today, many families are benefitting from inheritances of that generation, because of the wealth (land, money, goods) they had produced thanks to productivity, savings, and lower consumption. However, today, we face the opposite of that because many Americans do not save (as indicated by the <5% savings rate we have had this decade, which has manifested itself in many foreclosures among other things) and deficit-spend.

Just a few ways to look at it. In the end, the most important things to a society to lead to prosperity are:

• Production - the rate at which the society can produce goods and services by its citizens, characterized in values the society holds toward good work ethos.
• Consumption - the rate at which the society consumes goods. If this is lower than production, then the society will benefit, as the gap in production and consumption will create wealth. When the opposite is true, poverty is created.
• Distribution - the rate at which the goods are distributed. Usually, governmental factors come into play here. Some societies are very productive and consume little, but have rampant governmental corruption which hurts distribution of wealth, and de-emphasizes the need of continued growth through technology and infrastructure.

Looking at those 3 things, you can usually find out how a society will fare, I believe.

Its not like I don't want to help homeless folks, but there are the few bad apples out there that ruin my entire perception of that guy at the street corner. I've heard of too many anecdotes of people begging for money, and then buying beer and cigs or outright being dishonest and pocketing hundreds of dollars a day. It makes me not want to trust anyone anymore.

I wish we could trust everyone to spend their money wisely so we wouldn't have to even have this discussion in the first place. The easiest way to deal with people who are down on their luck is to give them their welfare/unemployment benefits and trust that the money goes where its supposed to be going. And then they don't need the benefits anymore, they would say "thanks, but no thanks we don't need this unemployment check anymore"

What really sucks now is that in order to make sure its not being misused, the government is trying to micromanage by handing out foodstamps and coming out with weird stipulations and such.