Rod Speed wrote:

The Real Bev wrote
Janie wrote

...It certainly does seem that way. Think about it: The poorest people end up
paying the highest rates for credit because they are most likely to end up
missing a credit account payment because the money had to be used for some
emergency.
And poorer people have many more financial emergencies than the wealthy! .
Today it isn't just one account that increases the interest but perhaps all
of them. And who gets the interest, the banks of course! And who owns the
banks--the wealthy...
remainder snipped

The hard-core poor are mostly stupid. Stupid people used to die before they
were old enough to reproduce.

Nope, they got used for manual labor. There is a real
sense in which you need the stupid for that sort of work.

I'm thinking caveman times, not a century ago. Remember, we haven't evolved
all that much in the last couple of thousand years.

We've changed all that.

We have indeed, basically by the mechanisation of agriculture.

You dont need anything like as many stupids as were once needed.

We keep them alive, we keep their children alive and we keep their
grandchildren alive.

And we do that with those so stupid that they cant see that
their pathetic excuse for a country is never going to be able
to sustain the huge numbers of kids they keep pumping out.

We actually pay them to have more children.

Perhaps the humane thing is to allow them to move to special "cities" with all
the usual city things -- grocery stores, shops, movies, apartments, TV,
doctors, etc. -- with no requirement that the inhabitants be useful at all.
All will be provided. Classes for those who wish to improve will be offered,
along with scholarships to real schools to those who can qualify. No poverty,
no crime, no disease, no drugs and you can leave if you want to but you may
not return for 30 days.

Such a system has got to be better for them than what they have, and it has to
be cheaper than what we're doing now since we won't have to gear everything to
the lowest common denominator.

Can somebody tell me what's wrong with this scenario?

Its basically what is there now, just with ghettos instead of separate citys.

Not really. We have to pretend that the skid-row derelicts, crack whores and
the generally destitute are valued members of society rather than hopeless and
useless dependents. We allow (require?) them to live in surroundings which
nearly guarantee that they will never be able to break out simply because they
have no value at all to the system -- we just don't NEED them.

Why not move them all to a decent place where they can either try to better
themselves or stagnate without causing trouble to the people who are paying
the bills?

It doesnt work.

It's never been tried. For one thing, it's not democratic.

Its never going to be possible to eliminate crime with the dregs of any society.

Drugs in spades.

We could probably eliminate the drug problem by handing out whatever people
want at no cost to them. The easy availability of free drugs wipes out a lot
of crime as well as a lot of people who will overdose within the next couple
of months.

Are we willing to do this? Is it proper? It's certainly cheaper than what
we're doing now...

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== =============
The people who don't know what they're doing and the people who
don't realize it are generally the same people." -- DAbel