Soaking the productive to pay for the unproductive is the American way isn't it?  At some point the demonized “rich” are going to get tired of being scapegoated and many of them will decide to leave for a friendlier environment.  Don't believe that they will leave once the tax burden get's to a certain point, as California.  They are seeing an exodus of wealthy moving to the tax-friendlier states of Arizona and Nevada.Report to moderator    LoggedI do not know if it just the American way--many nations have used this ploy.  One of the advantagesof the Income Tax on the Federal level is that is universally applicable regardless of what state youmight choose to abide.  As I understand it they can even get at you if you live abroad.The fight among the states to attract wealthy residents ought to be amusing--they might even pay bounties.

I am sorry.  Try as I might, I just cannot accept the fact that cutting taxes will guarantee absolutelythat jobs (paying a living wage) will be automatically created.  You know that the trickle down theory was discredited when Stockman let the truth fly out of the bag.You reveal your dark side.  You said put welfare recipients to work doing menial labor.  I too have adark side--I would have all white collar criminals (money thieves) assigned duties at public places cleaning urinals,toilets and drains.  They would also wear a special uniform with a sign " I SOLD MYSELF FOR MONEYSTOLEN FROM PEOPLE WHO TRUSTED ME"  As an added treat, during clement weather, we could have themplaced in stocks in the public squares where people could pelt them with the rotten vegetables providedby local authorities.We are never going to live in a world where everyone is happy and prosperous, but we do live in a world where some people have to be frugal because they are jobless, lack insurance and broke.  Wedo not have to force these people to be frugal as they have no choice.We are in the greatest recession since the great depression--teachers are being laid off, libraries closed. schools closed, wages stagnant and a job market that is for all practical purposes crawling along as though in great pain. Many of us are hurting and the government--charged with the responsibility oflooking out for the general welfare of the people--will do what it determines as necessary.  Hoover,often wrongly maligned for his lack of concern in  the 1929-1932 crisis, could not get his mind aroundgiving people stuff.  He thought it bad for their character!  How ironic--the great Belgium food relief coordinator harbored such an idea.  Many people feel the same today--do you?

You may be right–bread and circuses–an old formula that works, but once headed down that road youcannot go back without enormous risk.  Food stamps are a modern example as are valium scripts.

Unless we somehow revivify the economy, I suspect they will come from the south and not be blonds.Reality:  There are some people who for a variety of reasons are not equipped to work a steady job.There are several options open to us:1.  Institutionalize the--oops--too expensive2.  Take them to the border and shove them across--oops--civil libertarian problems--they are citizens3.  Shoot them--oops--problem--criminal acts unless sanctioned by higher authority!4.  Shut up and keep supporting them--oops--too expensiveOf all the options 3 looks like the most cost effective--let it be an immodest proposal

Wally:I am surprised that you posed that question.  Many people, some in my own family, are neither physically or mentally disabled, but have a real problem dealing with the fact that society expects them to work a regular job.  Some people are just disorganized, others are lazy and shiftless, still others have personality quirks which make the bridle at being told what to do.  I have known  some who are goofy, others too fey for work and still others who find the idea of holding a regular job to be foolish.  There are lots of people who fall into these categories and are not physically or mentally disabled--bruised a bit by the society inwhich we live, but sick--no.  I have read that all nations  have these "outsiders" even the Japanese!It was not so long ago that the factory whistle and the tyranny of the clock did not regulate the livesof people who worked, before the Industrial Revolution, more in tune with their nature and theirdesires rather than respond to the wishes of the master of cubicles.  You must have had students towhom the whole concept of responsibility for time and place, or an ordered life and of the necessity ofobeying orders was either absurd or whimsical.So, in my opinion we are faced with the fact that these will always be with us and must be provided foreither out of Christian charity or some other motive such as the fear they may steal from us, damage our shrubbery or eat our dogs.  I refer you back to the numbered list.  Look carefully at number 3--it was Hitler's choice.

At about post 14 or 15 this thread might need split. Ya think?  ???

Wally:Babysit them is a degrading term despite its accuracy--try harder-wards of the people?You and I were lucky Wally.  Apparently we had a secure home life, could function in the regimentedenvironment of school and were smart enough to pass exams.  Not everyone has had our advantagesand the result is a large number of people who just do not "fit" well as the society has evolved over time.I agree that we cannot allow them to starve in the streets, fornicating, fighting, frolicking  and frightening their betters.  "What is to be Done?"  I say the staus quo is the least worse of choices unlessyou would cozen Congress into setting up camps for them where they could be herded together, cared for and assigned productive work.  It worked in the 1930's; it might work again--what say you? 

Would it be voluntary this time–or mandatory?