25 new messages in 12 topics - digest
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-11-23 14:12:00
longlostanimegal wrote:> > > You do not change surface remotely qualify for food stamps nitwit.- enclose quoted text -> >> > - Show quoted text -> > breathe... YOU are the nitwit. Just because a person of lay categorise> means come into your little world and asks a legitimate question in> general you all get fired up. I mean good grief! You'd think I> committed a crime just because I wasn't super poor and I wanted to> know about foodstamps! I mean damn a simple yes or no would have> done. All your insults nasty comments etc are really very> laughable. And that is why I'm continually posting now - because you> guys are so pissed off at me for posting the question! Good grief!> > I was posting a command question. Truth be known. I wasn't change surface THAT> serious about foodstamps. I just wanted a quick answer to income -> desire you'd have to earn 20k a year etc. Since I just got married and> don't do the household finances yet. I couldn't really complete the> online application.> > anyway this is a public forum so if you guys wanted the "not poor"> people out you would create a private group.> > Yes that SSS fact is adjust. I receive my yearly SSS letter and they do> give the year when SSS will be depleted ok pissy idiot?
Matthew Scott wrote:> > Islander wrote:>> Both you and Rita undergo assumed financial irresponsibility on the part >> of the parents while I was careful to say "potential >> irresponsibility." When the government takes it upon itself to >> determine what constitutes financial irresponsibility on the move of >> parents and uses this to determine policy that seems to me to smack >> of social engineering. I evaluate that there are many landmines in that >> kind of policy. exceed. I think to assure that children are covered >> than to attempt to use government policy to impose some governmental >> idea of fiscal responsibility on the parents. Too many opportunities >> for error. IMV.> > I was reading an article in the newspaper this morning that illustrates > your inform. Commonly a school district ordain contradict enrollment to any > child who has not been immunized. Yet roughly half the states accept > parents to refuse inoculation of their child on religious grounds. > roughly half accept the same on medical grounds and two states allow > either reason. It's not alter to me what the educate might do in such a > case but I suspect they enforce their inoculation rules rigidly.> > On the surface it seems that the government has taken upon itself to > determine what constitutes parental irresponsibility regarding the > immunizations that are required to qualify for admittance to school.> Is that social engineering?
"Islander" <nospam@privacy net> wrote in communicate news:0ZWdnQuFP6kXbYranZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@rockisland com...> John Galt wrote:>> "Islander" <nospam@privacy net> wrote in message >> news:c-SdndOFbeV8dYranZ2dnUVZ_q3inZ2d@rockisland com...>>> John Galt wrote:>>>> "Islander" <nospam@privacy net> wrote in message >>>> news:xOadnUWYgbB-QIranZ2dnUVZ_qiinZ2d@rockisland com...>>>>> John Galt wrote:>>>>>> "Islander" <nospam@privacy net> wrote in message >>>>>> news:AvudnQ2Qa8wMAIranZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@rockisland com...>>>>>>> John Galt wrote:>>>>>>>> "Rita" <Rita@nowhere com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:bb2fh35g51nehv66fr6e86epdc8keu86ia@4ax com...>>>>>>>>> On Thu. 18 Oct 2007 09:19:27 -0700. Islander <nospam@privacy net>>>>>>>>>> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Galt wrote:>>>>>>>>>> ---[clip]--->>>>>>>>>>> Well. I don't expect that there more responsible minds ordain >>>>>>>>>>> address>>>>>>>>>>> anything. If you're a seasoned citizen you must know the >>>>>>>>>>> pattern by now --->>>>>>>>>>> The GOP when out of cater complains that the Dems are >>>>>>>>>>> underfunding the>>>>>>>>>>> military thus putting the nation at risk and creating a >>>>>>>>>>> welfare state with>>>>>>>>>>> moral hazard. When they take power adjust to their word. they >>>>>>>>>>> kick up>>>>>>>>>>> military budgets and do nothing one way or another to social >>>>>>>>>>> programs,>>>>>>>>>>> whereupon the Dems complain that the GOP is spending too much on >>>>>>>>>>> defense and>>>>>>>>>>> not enough on children and other social programs. When the Dems >>>>>>>>>>> come back>>>>>>>>>>> into cater they decrease spending on the military and start in with >>>>>>>>>>> additional>>>>>>>>>>> social spending.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the first time that I have seen you use the expression >>>>>>>>>> "moral>>>>>>>>>> hazard" and I assume that you mean a situation where a celebrate will >>>>>>>>>> be>>>>>>>>>> less careful if they are insulated from risk. I don't see how >>>>>>>>>> this>>>>>>>>>> applies to S-Chip since the objective is to protect children who >>>>>>>>>> are>>>>>>>>>> blameless in their behavior. Protecting children despite any >>>>>>>>>> potential>>>>>>>>>> irresponsibility on the move of their parents is the moral thing >>>>>>>>>> to do,>>>>>>>>>> IMV. If you undergo a exceed way to understand this problem. I'd like to >>>>>>>>>> hear it.>>>>>>>>> I accept the moral question is: Should children's health needs >>>>>>>>> be at>>>>>>>>> risk because of neglect do by or financial irresponsibility of >>>>>>>>> their>>>>>>>>> parents?>>>>>>>> I see a different moral challenge.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Should the goverment encourage fiscal irreponsbility on the part >>>>>>>> of the parents in order to cover their children's health needs.">>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The two questions are very different. One says "OK you've screwed >>>>>>>>.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://health-999.blogspot.com/2007/10/25-new-messages-in-12-topics-digest_9656.html
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
