I haven't seen him or his rich republican buddies complain about the
universal draft and the right of the state to demand it's citizens die for
it(the ultimate tax if you will) while insisting that nobody should have the
right to tax his private property and/or assets. ergo hypocrisy!

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "moveeman1" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I am speaking of Mike1 and all other's who have such a mindset.
> >
>
> Mike1 is drafting the sons and daughter's of the poor to FORCE them to put
> their lives at stake in order to keep in place his favorite political
> system? How can he do that?
>
>

Agreed. But now there are not enough of these poor volunteers so a universal
draft is probably in the works right at this moment.

"ian maclure" > wrote in message
news
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:19:56 -0330, moveeman1 wrote:
>
> > There was until the unpopular Vietnam war and there will soon be one
> > again. Drafts usually come about whenever a nation needs fighting men
and
> > after the Vietnam war the US didn't need fighting men until Gulf war 1.
In
> > the meantime the US got it's fighting men through the people being so
poor
> > they didn't have much other choice for economic sustenance.
>
> Big hint. Its not just the US where that happens.
> In any nation that has a volunteer military you are
> going to find that those from economically depressed
> regions and/or ethnicities are over-represented in the
> military. Its a way out and you can get a useful education
> if you have the intellectual assets and apply them.
> Two kinds of people wind up pushing a rifle, the mud dumb
> and the adrenalin junkies, the latter usually tend to go
> for the high end stuff like parachute and special forces.
>
> IBM
>
>
__________________________________________________ __________________________
___
> Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
http://www.uncensored-news.com
> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source
<><><><><><><><>
>

"stephen" > wrote in message
...
>
> Isn't there a pretty high correlation in the US between people who
> are obese and people who don't have health insurance?
>
> i.e. those at the bottom of the income ladder.
>

If they're so poor how can they buy so much food?

"moveeman1" > wrote in message
...
>
> Socialists have never controlled the Gov't of America.
>

Socialists have controlled the US government for most of the past seven
decades.


>
> There are no socialists in american political life, at least not on a
> national scale.
>

Don't be silly, there are many of them.


>
> If there were wouldn't they admit it?
>

No.

"moveeman1" > wrote in message
...
>
> That means pharmaceutical corporations.
>

Oh. Sounded like part of the Army.

"moveeman1" > wrote in message
...
>
> I haven't seen him or his rich republican buddies complain about the
> universal draft and the right of the state to demand it's citizens die for
> it(the ultimate tax if you will) while insisting that nobody should have
the
> right to tax his private property and/or assets. ergo hypocrisy!
>

What universal draft would he complain about?

moveeman1 wrote:
> Then why does the US system costs so much. Just compare the drug
> prices in canada with those in the US. Why do American seniors have
> to buy their drugs from canada if they can?
>
>

I heard a report just the other day about that. The FDA studied
comparative costs. Name brand drugs are indeed cheaper
in Canada. On the other hand, they found that many of the
generic equivelants cost much more, some has much as
9 times as in America.

--
Later
Kal

--

---------------------------------------------------------
/ /
/ /
/ This space for rent /
/ /
/ /
---------------------------------------------------------

DALing wrote:
> anytime government gets involved, there are additional costs just
> because of the bureaucracy

The GAO once rated the efficency of the federal government as a
whole at 37%. (For every dollar that goes in, only 37 cents comes
back) My niece was able to get disability because she can't work
due to her inability to be around people ((don't ask, I haven't figured
it out yet either)). She gets just over $800 a month. That means
that you and I have to pony up $2400 in order for her to get that.

Kinda sucks, doesn't it?

--
Later
Kal

--

---------------------------------------------------------
/ /
/ /
/ This space for rent /
/ /
/ /
---------------------------------------------------------

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "moveeman1" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I haven't seen him or his rich republican buddies complain about the
>> universal draft and the right of the state to demand it's citizens
>> die for it(the ultimate tax if you will) while insisting that nobody
>> should have the right to tax his private property and/or assets.
>> ergo hypocrisy!
>>
>
> What universal draft would he complain about?

You know, those conscripts from Altair 4 were pretty tough.

Hate to have to do without them.

--
Later
Kal

--

---------------------------------------------------------
/ /
/ /
/ This space for rent /
/ /
/ /
---------------------------------------------------------

devil wrote:
> Hospitals, HMOs are large corporations, owned by a small number of wealthy
> physicians. Who run a monopoly so they are free to set fees sky-high, and
> merrily prescribing use and overuse of expensive equipment.

Actually, there is competition betwene HMOs. If one hospital doesn't have a
fancy MRI machine, but the hospital across the street does, the first hospital
will lose business because HMOs will want to associate themselves with the
fancy hospital that is better equipped in order to promote their health plan.

This results in hospitals becoming over-equipped with too much capacity for a
region. From the hospital point of view, being a business, the accountants
state that in order to make the MRI investment profitable, they must have X
paying customers going through the machine per day.

Airlines will lower the price of tickets when not enough passengers book in
advance. Hospitals don't compete on price, they compete on features and charge
as much as they want. And when they don't have enough customers to warrant
investment in an MRI machine, then the doctors will start to over prescribe to
"fill the seats".

Patients don't care because it is paid by the insurance company. And it is
pretty hard for an HMO to second guess a doctor's opinion that a patient needs
such and such treatment.

This is where national health care plans are quite different. There is no
oversupply of fancy equipment, so the doctors don't have to overprescribe its
use. In fact, it is more of a question of supply not matching expected demand,
with doctors having to decide whether an MRI is really necessary or not and
only sending cases where the MRI is truly necessary.

And this is where you start hearing stories of people waiting months for some
treatment: they give priority to patients who really need access to facilities
that have limited capacity, and if you have some problem that isn't serious
then you are put in a waiting list where you are in the airline equivalent of
"stand by" for the next free spot.

And the lack of an oversupply of facilities also forced the doctors to use
more common sense and perhaps more conventional treatments which, in the end,
work just as well even though they are not right out of a science fiction movie.

One could argue that hospitals in countries with national health plans are in
fact far more efficient in their use of resources than USA hospitals which
have an over supply of resources and use these valuable resources for cases
that don't really need them.

The advantage of a national health plan is that there is one customer who also
happens to be the owner (the government) And it can then dictate the
allocation of resources so that for instance, one hospital per region has an
MRI machine and other hospitals in the region won't have to "compete". You
just get sent to that hospital if you really need an MRI, otherwise, they'll
fix your broken leg with conventional x-ray machine and a cast.

IN fact, in rural areas, if a doctor really feels that you require an MRI and
there is none in your region, the government will often fly you to a hospital
that does. It turns out costing much less than installing MRI machines at
every street corner.

People in developped nations now take health care for granted. And this is a
problem with regards to rising costs because you expect to be treated for
any/all ailments. And whereas people used to accept that heart attacks were
fatal, they now expcect to survive those and see them as just an inconvenience
and figure that technology will fix your heart. This is especially true in the
USA where expectations are very high.

The problem is that in the USA, hospitals and doctors want more patients. Drug
companies want more business so they give doctors all sorts of incentives to
prescribe their new drugs (which often exist to solve some non exsitant
disease, but are marketed as the perfect solution for a problem that the drug
companies say is extremely serious (such as having to urinate during a
baseball game because you can't hold it)).

HMOs have patients as customers. And if the HMO refuses a procedure, it may
lose the customer.

When the HMO is a single government entity, it doesn't fear losing customers
and can decide that certain procedures are purely elective and won't pay for
it. (patents must then see doctors in their clinics and pay for elective treatment).

And when the HMO is a single government entity who also owns the hospitals and
has doctors on its payroll, it can decide how much it pays. So there is no
overcharging by doctors and hospitals. And because the budgets are tight,
hospitals have been forced to clean up their operations to increase efficiency.

And yes, you do have strikes in the health sector (there was on in France
yesterday) when the government refuses to provide the staff the salary
increases that they want. But the government has clear incentive to keep costs
under control since its revenus do not increase if there are more patients who
are sick. Its goal in fact is to reduce the demand on the health care system,
whereas in the USA, the hospitals and doctors want to increase demand in order
to increase profits.

In article >,
Mitchell Holman > wrote:

>Mike1 > wrote in
:
>
>> In article >, Go Fig >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, Guy
> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If this money could be saved, think of what the U.S. could do with it.
>>>> It could be used to insure the estimated 40 million people presently
>>>> uninsured
>>>
>>>Given the fact that those in America living at poverty level have;
>>>
>>>Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes.
>>
>>
>> Nobody "actually owns their own home" in America, since property taxes
>> constitute de-facto government-ownership.
>
>Have you told this to homeowners in Tennessee
>and Oregon, which have no property taxes?


Medicait outlays will mandate it (from a government perspective) soon
enough, and then those residents will discover the truth of my sig.

Tochaville's prophecy will not be denied.

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

wrote:

>Mike1 wrote:
>> Why does any of this "need" constitude a moral demand on my property?
>
>Read any Dickens lately? You, sir, are Scrooge personified.


Scrooge was a softie.

You haven't answered my question.

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

(After fixing lame top-posting, a post nominally fit for consumption by
rational individuals appears.....)


"moveeman1" > wrote:
>"Mike1" > wrote in message
>>
>> Since when is other people's property any of YOUR business, provided
>> they didn't steal it?

<cricket.wav>

>> >We all owe to the society that has made our lives so fat and easy.
>>
>> Ambiguous-Collective fallacy.
>> Lemme help: http://home.mn.rr.com/meadowbrookhome/z/FALLACYS.HTM
>
>You don't mind drafting the sons and daughter's of the poor to FORCE therm
>to put their lives at stake in order to keep in place your favorite
>political system.


Excuse me, but you don't have any idea of what "political system" I
endorse. Proposing that people own the things which are theirs, and do
NOT own those things which belong to other people -- does not constitute
affection for any "political system".

And: What (initiated) "FORCE" are you talking about?


>Then you complain about your right to private property.
>You don't then complain about a person's right to their own private life


(I don't? As I suspect, you don't know me at all.)


Have you visited the ambiguous-collective fallacy link yet?

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

In article >,
"moveeman1" > wrote:

>I am speaking of Mike1 and all other's who have such a mindset.


What's my "mindset"?

Tell me, so I can correct you.

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "moveeman1" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Socialists have never controlled the Gov't of America.
> >
>
> Socialists have controlled the US government for most of the past seven
> decades.

So how come the US is not a socialist country?



>
>
> >
> > There are no socialists in american political life, at least not on a
> > national scale.
> >
>
> Don't be silly, there are many of them.
>
>
> >
> > If there were wouldn't they admit it?
> >
>
> No.

Why not?

"moveeman1" > wrote:
>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>> "moveeman1" > wrote in message
>> >
>> > I am speaking of Mike1 and all other's who have such a mindset.
>>
>> Mike1 is drafting the sons and daughter's of the poor to FORCE them to put
>> their lives at stake in order to keep in place his favorite political
>> system? How can he do that?
>
>I haven't seen him or his rich republican buddies....


I'm not a Republican, and do not have any Republican "buddies", let
alone rich ones.


>complain about the universal draft....
>and the right of the state to demand it's citizens die for it


Why don't you ask me what I think of slavery?


>(the ultimate tax if you will) while insisting that nobody should
>have the right to tax his private property and/or assets.


The Republicans are a bunch of loot & pillage *commies* -- just like the
Democrats.


>ergo hypocrisy!


That only works when you've accurately described the other guy's
position. You simply don't know what you're talking about, and to whom
you're getting it all wrong in front of.

Question: Are you capable of examining any postulate independant of the
fact that somewhere out there, there will probabably exist an utter
*cretin* lip-servicing it in an incompetent or ulterior motive fashion?
(IOW, can you avoid Marxist dialectics?)

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

"moveeman1" > wrote:

> American health care is by no means even near socialism.


(Translation: Hillary lost her bid to streamline it into raw communism
lorded over by legions of apparatcheks under her command.)


> Wouldn't you right winger's say for the common good?


I have no idea what a "right winger" (sic) would say, but I'll tell you
right now, if you can handle it, that the "common good" is a fallacy
since judgement (e.g., "It is 'good' or 'bad'?") is something only
individuals are capable of.

Collectives are not volitional entities.

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

Another top post then. Just to say O Mike1, it's now all up to you to clear
up any confusion as to my not knowing you. You know you, I don't, so
therefore a fair and accurate portrayal of what you believe is up to you to
expound to us all if you wish.

"Mike1" > wrote in message
...
> (After fixing lame top-posting, a post nominally fit for consumption by
> rational individuals appears.....)
>
>
> "moveeman1" > wrote:
> >"Mike1" > wrote in message
> >>
> >> Since when is other people's property any of YOUR business, provided
> >> they didn't steal it?
>
> <cricket.wav>
>
> >> >We all owe to the society that has made our lives so fat and easy.
> >>
> >> Ambiguous-Collective fallacy.
> >> Lemme help: http://home.mn.rr.com/meadowbrookhome/z/FALLACYS.HTM
> >
> >You don't mind drafting the sons and daughter's of the poor to FORCE
therm
> >to put their lives at stake in order to keep in place your favorite
> >political system.
>
>
> Excuse me, but you don't have any idea of what "political system" I
> endorse. Proposing that people own the things which are theirs, and do
> NOT own those things which belong to other people -- does not constitute
> affection for any "political system".
>
> And: What (initiated) "FORCE" are you talking about?
>
>
> >Then you complain about your right to private property.
> >You don't then complain about a person's right to their own private life
>
>
> (I don't? As I suspect, you don't know me at all.)
>
>
> Have you visited the ambiguous-collective fallacy link yet?
>
> --
>
> Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
>
> "An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
> -- Ambrose Bierce

"moveeman1" > wrote:

>> Socialists have controlled the US government for most of the past seven
>> decades.
>
> So how come the US is not a socialist country?


The US is only "not a socialist country" when the minimal requirements
of "socialist" are re-defined to necessitate "block bosses" and gulags
where millions perish nearly without a trace.

http://www.jamestown.org/getman.php
http://www.jamestown.org/getman_pain...painting_id=22

Otherwise, the thoroughly *Marxist* concept of loot-"redistribution"
represents the backbone of American plunder-politics.

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

> Mitchell Holman > wrote:
>
> >Have you told this to homeowners in Tennessee
> >and Oregon, which have no property taxes?

Oregon has one of the largest property tax rates in the nation. Oregon doesn't
believe in sales tax, and makes up the difference by high income and property
taxes. Property is the last thing you want to own in Oregon.

>Oregon has one of the largest property tax rates in the nation. Oregon doesn't
>believe in sales tax, and makes up the difference by high income and property
>taxes. Property is the last thing you want to own in Oregon.

Try New Hampshire, which doesn't have a general income tax either. For
all practical purposes, it's all on real estate.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

In article <US5Qb.4224$ce2.460@okepread03>, S. Sampson
> wrote:

> > Mitchell Holman > wrote:
> >
> > >Have you told this to homeowners in Tennessee
> > >and Oregon, which have no property taxes?
>
Don't know what the issue is here, but Tennessee has no income tax, but
counties and cities levy property taxes and our sales tax is almost
10%.

Can one trust anything the FDA has to say?

"Kal Alexander" > wrote in message
...
> moveeman1 wrote:
> > Then why does the US system costs so much. Just compare the drug
> > prices in canada with those in the US. Why do American seniors have
> > to buy their drugs from canada if they can?
> >
> >
>
> I heard a report just the other day about that. The FDA studied
> comparative costs. Name brand drugs are indeed cheaper
> in Canada. On the other hand, they found that many of the
> generic equivelants cost much more, some has much as
> 9 times as in America.
>
> --
> Later
> Kal
>
> --
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> / /
> / /
> / This space for rent /
> / /
> / /
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:22:46 -0330, "moveeman1"
> wrote:


> You think the capitalists that instituted medicare really wanted it to
>succeed in the long run. They set up a straw man just for it to fail. When
>it would fail they'd say socialised medicine doesn't work so may as well
>have laissez faire capitalism again.
>
>
>
Would you do me a favor and name these capitalists that set up
Medicare, so I know who you speaking about?
Pan Ohco

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:48:59 -0330, "moveeman1"
> wrote:

> American health care is by no means even near socialism.
> You can get many things dirt cheap in 3rd world countries. The
>corporations do and then turn around and sell them to us at obscene profits!

In a previous message it was said that the Net Profit of these
corporations is 15%. Do you call this an obscene profit?
Pan Ohco

> wrote:

>You think the capitalists that instituted medicare...


This person is simply insane.

Like the Red Queen in "Through the Looking Glass", words mean whatever
he wants them to mean, to suit his whimsical fancy.

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

In article >,
"Kal Alexander" > wrote:

>moveeman1 wrote:
>> Then why does the US system costs so much. Just compare the drug
>> prices in canada with those in the US. Why do American seniors have
>> to buy their drugs from canada if they can?
>>
>>
>
>I heard a report just the other day about that. The FDA studied
>comparative costs. Name brand drugs are indeed cheaper
>in Canada.


Yeah, and ma haung was a lot cheaper before they banned it to line their
own pockets from snake-oil kickbacks.

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 11:09:30 +0100, Oelewapper wrote:

> GWB: "A government-run health care system is the wrong prescription. By
> keeping costs under control, expanding access, and helping more Americans
> afford coverage, we will preserve the system of private medicine that makes
> America's health care the best in the world."
>
> - Any U.S. president who is caught saying this kind of lies, should either
> be in prison or in a mental health care institution.

And is the US Healthcare System the best in the world? The following
countries have lower child mortality rates than the US: Australia, Chech
Republic, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and
Switzerland. And if you live to 15 your chances of dieing before you reach
60 are greater in the US than in 24 other countries if you are male and in
27 other countries if you are female.

Does this sound like the US has the best health care system, no I don't
think so.

"moveeman1" > wrote in message
...
>
> So how come the US is not a socialist country?
>

It largely is.

In article >, Glenn Jacobs
> wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 11:09:30 +0100, Oelewapper wrote:
>
> > GWB: "A government-run health care system is the wrong prescription. By
> > keeping costs under control, expanding access, and helping more
> > Americans
> > afford coverage, we will preserve the system of private medicine that
> > makes
> > America's health care the best in the world."
> >
> > - Any U.S. president who is caught saying this kind of lies, should
> > either
> > be in prison or in a mental health care institution.
>
> And is the US Healthcare System the best in the world? The following
> countries have lower child mortality rates than the US: Australia, Chech
> Republic, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and
> Switzerland. And if you live to 15 your chances of dieing before you
> reach
> 60 are greater in the US than in 24 other countries if you are male and
> in
> 27 other countries if you are female.
>
> Does this sound like the US has the best health care system, no I don't
> think so.

It's not that one-dimensional. Street violence and auto accidents do
contribute to the after-15 death load. While I freely admit there are
crazier drivers in other countries -- I made the mistake of keeping my
eyes open in a Paris taxicab, and now know that if I ever get to Rome,
I'm bringing a blindfold for traffic -- the availability of cars is much
greater.

Some of the countries you cite have more genetically homogeneous
populations, and may be better adapted to their diet.

That being said, I don't find huge problems with US healthcare once you
get it -- it's the access to it that's a nightmare. That difficulty in
access, admittedly coupled with some cultural factors, also interferes
with preventive and maintenance medicine. Less quantifiable are the
stress factors, but it is interesting to compare the increasing work
week and reduced vacations of American white collar workers with
European practice.

"Kal Alexander" > wrote in message >. ..
> DALing wrote:
> > anytime government gets involved, there are additional costs just
> > because of the bureaucracy

Businesses have bureaucracies also, often worse than any in
government.

>
> The GAO once rated the efficency of the federal government as a
> whole at 37%. (For every dollar that goes in, only 37 cents comes
> back) My niece was able to get disability because she can't work
> due to her inability to be around people ((don't ask, I haven't figured
> it out yet either)). She gets just over $800 a month. That means
> that you and I have to pony up $2400 in order for her to get that.
>
> Kinda sucks, doesn't it?

What sucks is that you and your family don't support your niece to get
her off of welfare. It's selfish families like yours that make our
welfare system necessary. Why don't you just pay her $800 a month
directly, saving yourself $1600 a month and the rest of us $2400 a
month?????

"Terryo" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Businesses have bureaucracies also, often worse than any in
> government.
>

But you're not forced to deal with any one business, in a free market
economy you can go to their competitor. That's not true of government
bureaucracies.

Mike1 wrote
>Like the Red Queen in "Through the Looking Glass",
>words mean whatever he wants them to mean,

It was Humpty Dumpty that said that.

"moveeman1" > wrote in message
...
> Agreed. But now there are not enough of these poor volunteers so a
universal
> draft is probably in the works right at this moment.

Actually, volenteers are way up.

Rangel wants a draft, as part of class warfare; not to fill a need.

"moveeman1" > wrote in message
...
> Agreed. But now there are not enough of these poor volunteers so a
universal
> draft is probably in the works right at this moment.
>

Not a chance.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2...200301074.html

Pete

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
link.net:

> "Terryo" > wrote in message
> om...
>>
>> Businesses have bureaucracies also, often worse than any in
>> government.
>
> But you're not forced to deal with any one business, in a free
> market economy you can go to their competitor. That's not true of
> government bureaucracies.

Assuming they have a competitor. Some businesses are local or regional
monopolies. To simply say you have a choice is to ignore the fact that
every business seeks as its primary long-range occupation to eliminate
its competition in order to achieve monopoly status, no matter how much
lip service they pay to free market economics.

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

moveeman1 wrote:
> Can one trust anything the FDA has to say?
>

Without info to the contrary, why not?

--
Later
Kal

--

---------------------------------------------------------
/ /
/ /
/ This space for rent /
/ /
/ /
---------------------------------------------------------

Terryo wrote:
> "Kal Alexander" > wrote in message
> >. ..
>> DALing wrote:
>>> anytime government gets involved, there are additional costs just
>>> because of the bureaucracy
>
> Businesses have bureaucracies also, often worse than any in
> government.
>
>>
>> The GAO once rated the efficency of the federal government as a
>> whole at 37%. (For every dollar that goes in, only 37 cents comes
>> back) My niece was able to get disability because she can't work
>> due to her inability to be around people ((don't ask, I haven't
>> figured
>> it out yet either)). She gets just over $800 a month. That means
>> that you and I have to pony up $2400 in order for her to get that.
>>
>> Kinda sucks, doesn't it?
>
> What sucks is that you and your family don't support your niece to get
> her off of welfare. It's selfish families like yours that make our
> welfare system necessary. Why don't you just pay her $800 a month
> directly, saving yourself $1600 a month and the rest of us $2400 a
> month?????

DING DING DING

And the DIPSHIT AWARD goes to Terryo!!!!!

I am busy supporting my own family, of which I am the
sole income provider. I have no intention of providing
support to a 28 year old able to work.

The real problem is liberal socialists like you. You want
my niece off welfare? Get her a job. She got fired from
the last three I found for her.

--
Later
Kal

--

---------------------------------------------------------
/ /
/ /
/ This space for rent /
/ /
/ /
---------------------------------------------------------

(Terryo) wrote:
>"Kal Alexander" > wrote in message
>> DALing wrote:
>> > anytime government gets involved, there are additional costs just
>> > because of the bureaucracy
>
>Businesses have bureaucracies also, often worse than any in
>government.


Bureaucracy is only a problem when you cannot avoid it, and unlike
government, no business forces you to use it.

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

(Terryo) wrote:

>> it out yet either)). She gets just over $800 a month. That means
>> that you and I have to pony up $2400 in order for her to get that.
>>
>> Kinda sucks, doesn't it?
>
>What sucks is that you and your family don't support your niece to get
>her off of welfare. It's selfish families like yours that make our
>welfare system necessary.


"Our"?

Speak for yourself.

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce