An alternative is to divide the economy by race and gender. That is, let the women tax themselves (but not men) for their own benefit (but not men's benefit). Let blacks set up any sort of welfare program they want - funded purely by taxes levied by blacks on blacks, and anyone who wants to contribute. And let men tax men for the benefit of men. You could have blue money and pink money, and black money and the goods made by each gender could be purchased only with the corresponding currency.

Well, i'm just tossing this out there, but at least that way, when the women vote to spend more than they have, and go into enormous debt, and the pink dollar begins to trade at 1000 to the blue dollar, it will be the women who suffer for their stupidity and not the entire society.

Hmmm. Representation in government could be on the basis of exchange rate. Or maybe each side could buy votes. Heck, companies are buying votes now... why not get rid of the middle man? Literally BUY votes. If you feel strongly about an issue PAY for the issue with your dollars, and whichever side racks up the most cash, that's the way things go.

Just musing here. I can see a hundred problems with the idea... which makes it about 12 orders of magnitude better than what we have now. And that's still not saying much.

As for your gun - keep it in good order. You may need it sooner than you think.

Yep. It's called "the economic crash of 2014" when the dollar drops to 10% of its present worth (which is only about 2% of its value in 1913). When that alarm goes off, consider it the "you were stupid too long" alarm.

Actually, I think the "failing" is that women are more risk averse. They aren't brave. They don't REALLY think they can make it on their own. 100,000 years of natural selection has told them this. For most of the time our species has existed, woman who couldn't tie a man down to provide for her, to protect her and her kids - was last-week's sabertooth chow. Men were the hunters/defenders/providers. Women were the communications/schemers/manipulators.

Along comes the opportunity to nail down ANOTHER man as provider, and hey! Why not? So they hook up with "Uncle Sam" and he starts giving them goodies. After a while they figure, "Who needs a real man when Uncle Sammy will give me what I want - and I don't have to clean up after him, or cook for him or any of that other stuff I might have to do for a husband!!?" And so divorces (which as late as the early 20th Century could ONLY be had by a man) became the new female pastime. Today, single-parent families are nearly 50% of all families. Yeah, women are biologically programmed to pop out kids too, which used to be the glue that sort of cemented the family together. The idea of paternity payments and alimony was to compensate for the idea that the man was making all the decisions, and if he bungled it, he had to pay. Today, a considerable portion of women (surely none on THIS site :-O ) hook up, pop out a kid, send the government to collect money and never have any intention of forming a traditional "nuclear" family. When women can get money from an ex-husband (courtesy of Uncle Sam), why put up with the person? The joke goes, "Why get married? Just find someone who hates you and give them half your stuff and half your income for the next 20 years."

Unfortunately for women (well, for all of us really) women have gone too often to the well, and it's run dry.

As for the black contingent, there IS a biological component, but it's not politically correct to talk about it. Most blacks in the US came over as slaves and were bred, not for intelligence, but for physical strength and endurance. So what race dominates most sports? And what race is routinely at the bottom of the barrel in any sort of mental or academic testing? Another inconvenient truth is that a very large component of intelligence is hereditary. What you DO with that intelligence is open to motivational variation - but if you lack the basic tools to think, well, you'll do things like vote for Obama. Then again, politics tends to be seen by the stupid class (Republican, Democrat, male, female, black, white... the dumbest and least experienced of each) as some sort of tribal contest. They don't seem to realize they're voting for something that affects their lives. It's more like they're voting to kick the OTHER tribe "off the island". So of course you get the black tribe voting for the black tribe member, even if he's the leader of the women's tribe. On the men's tribe side, the presidential candidate chose a running mate from the female tribe - so the pattern is pretty clear. Candidates try to look like they "fit" within as many tribal groups as possible. (If Hitler were a black female conservative christian he'd have a shot.)

Finally, as I've mentioned before, when tested on their knowledge of economics, 5 times as many men scored "outstanding" as women and correspondingly, five times as many women posted failing scores as men, so whatever the reason, family, civic interactions, whatever, women generally don't have the basic knowledge to make rational decisions about economic matters beyond the purely microeconomic environment of their personal experience... and Home Shopping Network exists because even THAT level of knowledge is highly suspect.

Yes I am.
No I'm not.

Actually, it IS men's fault. Men allowed women to vote.