Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 26, 2013 12:46:10 GMT -5
That's what many people assume. It's a pleasant enough assumption.
Completely unarguable. Nothing whatsoever to either prove it or disprove it. The figure could be 75% and neither you nor I would have any way to determine that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 26, 2013 12:58:47 GMT -5
Translation: Whatever. Write if you feel like it. I'll read if I feel like it. thanks. i am out the door. have a pleasant day.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 26, 2013 13:15:03 GMT -5
That's what many people assume. It's a pleasant enough assumption. Completely unarguable. Nothing whatsoever to either prove it or disprove it. The figure could be 75% and neither you nor I would have any way to determine that. You are correct that it is impossible to give a precise figure. However 75% is beyond ludicrous. The majority of the DHHS expenditures are for SSI and Medicare, which are included in the welfare catagory by the last point in the above train of "logic". (which is why I put "welfare" in parentheses.) The welfare cheats are a minority of the minority, however, again a precise number is impossible to ascertain. The nearly-$1 trillion that most sites report as "social welfare" doesn't include Medicare or Social Security. Indeed, if you count those as "welfare", the numbers get vastly larger and the percentages get commensurately smaller.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 26, 2013 13:39:26 GMT -5
Translation: Whatever. Write if you feel like it. I'll read if I feel like it. thanks. i am out the door. have a pleasant day. Since it got buried last night, you might want to check out my fanfic.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:20:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2013 13:51:35 GMT -5
dem - In defense of my point 6, I was doing a thing I do, which is say exactly what I was saying and nothing more. I was talking about rational decisions based on economic factors. It is not rational to pay into a fund where every worker supports numerous nonworkers (the case with Social Security since its inception, and a worsening one) rather than saving to simply support yourself. It is not rational to lose overhead to a middleman in the charitable giving of support to a sick neighbor. And so on. I said nothing to the moral obligation we have toward our fellow citizens. I don't accept that enlightened self-interest extrapolated over the life cycle favors donation to the commons over suicide, from a strictly rational standpoint, but that doesn't mean I'm a moral advocate of the Logan's Run scenario - merely that "Logan's Run" represents a rational solution. I was talking in purely game-theoretic terms. Investing in the Commons is a losing proposition relative to investing in yourself: that's what the " tragedy of the Commons" is all about, and separately why the social contract has to be enforced by the threat of legitimized violence in order to sustain. A related principle underpins the superficially paradoxical argument that increasing investment in some public function can actually reduce the performance of that public function. Braess' Paradox applies this to the building of new roads, for example.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 3, 2013 15:46:29 GMT -5
best moment (for me) is at 1:25 TAKERS!
|
|