white guys say that about all women..."we are after their money". It has become a mantra for contemporary U.S. men.
As I see it men earn money to get women who want money. You reap what you sow.

Is that a sin? When nearly 20 million people are unemployed? I think it's more a reality than a sin.

Also... I figure it this way too: I don't drink, don't own a gun, don't do crime. People in jail each cost eighty thousand dollars to you, my friend, to the cut of your paycheque for the IRA. I cost society twelve thousand. I get rewarded for being a peaceful, quiet guy, who don't do crime, don't break into your home, don't rape you or your daughter, don't steal your money, don't rob banks, don't smoke dope.

I think that paying one-sixth to keep me in peace is a much better deal than having me have to fend for myself in a time in history when that is actually impossible, and which would result in a life of crime... eventually costing you, as a tax payer, each year $80,000 to keep me behind bars.

But this is not at all what I was saying. I am not staying away from crime to make you save $68,000 every year. But it is POSSIBLE for me to stay away from crime, because you and everyone else pays in the country to keep me.

But their work contributes exactly the same to the economy as my idleness.

This is the most important point, my friend: Bank workers, lawyers, secreteries, government workers, executives, etc. etc. all are contributing the same amount of goods and services to the ECONOMY as I do. They take more than I do, but their contribution in terms of useful stuff provided to the common good is the same. There is also the difference of their working hard, much harder (obviously) than I.

This economy is the strongest, healthiest, wealthiest in the world and in the history of the world. It is reality that work is not needed at all, or at least very little, to keep it in this shape. The values of American society will never admit to the truth of this, and this is what makes a lot of people like totage unhappy and miserable.

but that might be a trap program that makes you think there is something wrong when there is nothing wrong... they just try to trap you into buying there product....

It means they will call one of the 5,667 applicants that they had an interview with, and the other 5,666 applicants won't be called.

This is the hardest of rejections, when they give you some sort of hope with no real practical grounds for hope.

I been there, done that, so I went on welfare and have lived on it for twenty years now. Screw them. If there are no jobs, it's not my fault. And there are no jobs. It's not the big oil's fault, it's not the pharmaceutical's fault. It's not the government's fault. It's the fault of the present system which needs rearrangement very badly. There are no jobs, coz there is nothing to do. We have the wealth, the goods, the services, without society's needing many people do do the jobs to maintain their level of production. The jobs are not there but the goods are, and the people who are not in jobs are not rejects, but society ought to realize that, and change its own internal culture and wealth distributive systems if it is to survive.

I mean this. All economists and financiers know this, but they are scared to say this. Everyone is scared, because in a flash they can be called communist pinkos, whereas they are not. It's just that there is no need for people's work in this country, for the country to stay rich and offer plenty of goods and services to everyone and then some.

I can see no other solutions, but to raise welfare income, and to teach society that that is fine. But that can't be done, no way.

I see no other solution. Maybe there are some, but I can't see them.

But unless we change something in the system that does allow us to feel pride and fully worthy without having a job even; and which does allow us to live well and not have constant headaches due to financial hardships without having a job, we will have one financial crisis after another, one social crisis after another. Country-wide, nation-wide.

We have to choose between dropping our old protestant work ethic values, and continuing with the very miserable current societal status quo.

I consider myself to be lucky for I am able to maintain a healthy level of self-esteem and financial independence despite living on welfare. I need very little, I use very little. I want very little, and what I want, I can get at my income level. The only thing I would want but can't get is women, because a man over 25 who has no job, no house, and not even a car, is SOL in the real dating scene. This Internet dating is BS, as far as I can tell. Real dating doesn't happen either, people couple up and stay that way. So I am lucky that the social norms of promiscuity have reverted to monogamynism, because I am very strong in my tendency for promiscuity. I would rather have a lot of lovers, then the next on the preference list is no lovers, and finally as a last-ditch effort, which I will never go to, is to have 1 (one) lover. That'd be death for me.

I am also rather competitive in nature, (well, duh), so having been forced to celibacy at a time when everyone else is, is not a HUGE problem for me.

So I am a lucky devil, but I can see how others could not live a life that I do.

While all this has been happening, I got used to being celibate, and alone; I can't remember what love is, and what it feels like. And that's just as well.

It's one of the fringe benefits of being a philosopher, and being a person who can self-induce laughter for himself, for entertainment.

Ecce homo, folks.