For the kiddies, no health insurance
Harry Hope
Families USA Foundation, 3/27/97:
Families USA Study Shows One in Three Children
Lack Health Insurance
One in three children in the U.S. lacked health
insurance for at least one month in 1995
and 1996, according to a study released today by
the national health consumer group Families USA.
The group said an estimated 23 million children
went without coverage for at least a month during
the two-year period.
The vast majority of uninsured children live in
working families, the report points out. In nine
out of 10 cases, the head of the household worked
all or part of the two-year period covered by the
study.
"America's uninsured children live in families
where the breadwinners work hard, pay taxes and
play by the rules. But they don't get health
coverage on the job, for themselves or their
children. And they can't afford to pay for it
out-of-pocket," said Ron Pollack, executive
director of Families USA.
States in the South and West had the highest
percentages of children without health
coverage. The 10 states topping the list were:
Texas (46 percent), New Mexico (43 percent),
Louisiana (43 percent), Arkansas (42 percent),
Mississippi (41 percent), the District of Columbia
(39 percent), Alabama (38 percent), Arizona (38
percent), Nevada (37 percent) and California (37
percent).
The states with the highest number of uninsured
children for all or part of 1995-1996 were:
California (3.4 million), Texas (2.6 million), New
York (1.5 million), Florida (1.3 million),
Illinois (972,000), Pennsylvania (867,000), Ohio
(773,000), Michigan (670,000), Georgia (664,000)
and New Jersey (553,000).
"I keep picturing all these little kids in this
big field of rye.If they're running and they don't
look where they're going I have to come out from
somewhere and catch them. That's all I'd do all
day. I'd just be the catcher in the rye and all.
know it's crazy."
J.D. Salinger - The Catcher in the Rye
Harry
Michael Zarlenga
Harry Hope (riv...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Families USA Foundation, 3/27/97:
:
:
: Families USA Study Shows One in Three Children
: Lack Health Insurance
: One in three children in the U.S. lacked health
: insurance for at least one month in 1995
: and 1996, according to a study released today by
: the national health consumer group Families USA.
: The group said an estimated 23 million children
: went without coverage for at least a month during
: the two-year period.
Why? Did mommy spend all her money on booze and cigarettes?
Is this the same group that concluded that n million children
in the nation were "starving," based upon "have you eaten less
than you wanted at any meal in the last month?"
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
George Washington : "I cannot tell a lie."
Richard M. Nixon : "I am not a crook."
William J. Clinton : "SHOW ME THE MONEY!!"
Harry Hope
zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
>Harry Hope (riv...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: Families USA Foundation, 3/27/97:
>:
>:
>: Families USA Study Shows One in Three Children
>: Lack Health Insurance
>: One in three children in the U.S. lacked health
>: insurance for at least one month in 1995
>: and 1996, according to a study released today by
>: the national health consumer group Families USA.
>: The group said an estimated 23 million children
>: went without coverage for at least a month during
>: the two-year period.
>Why? Did mommy spend all her money on booze and cigarettes?
I didn't think reading the whole post would tire
you that much. So...
The vast majority of uninsured children live in
working families, the report points out. In nine
out of 10 cases, the head of the household worked
all or part of the two-year period covered by the
study.
"America's uninsured children live in families
where the breadwinners work hard, pay taxes and
play by the rules. But they don't get health
coverage on the job, for themselves or their
children. And they can't afford to pay for it
out-of-pocket," said Ron Pollack, executive
director of Families USA.
Harry
Rudi Michael Dietrich
Get the Bible back in school and evil will flee.
I never thought to have such a positive response from Christians and non
Christians.
Our most favorite and daily visited page is the DAILY LIGHT followed by
the SUNDAY MESSAGE.
A most interesting page come for a visit, there are many reasons to
bookmark this page.
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mdr
Mary E Knadler
In <5hmmbf$b...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry
So the point being we all have to go on some system of Socialized
medicine, right? yasmin2
Huge Cajones Remailer
>Families USA Study Shows One in Three Children
>Lack Health Insurance
>
>One in three children in the U.S. lacked health
>insurance for at least one month in 1995
>and 1996, according to a study released today by
>the national health consumer group Families USA.
>The group said an estimated 23 million children
>went without coverage for at least a month during
>the two-year period.
so tell these lazy bums to get a *real* job. this is natural
economic selection. this is how adam smith thins the gene pool.
-sparky
kenfran
Rudi Michael Dietrich wrote:
>
> Get the Bible back in school and evil will flee.
>
fellow christians?
Dennis Alwine
Mary E Knadler <yas...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<5hohe8$e...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>...
> In <5hmmbf$b...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry
> Hope) writes:
> >
> >zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
> >
> >>Harry Hope (riv...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> >>: Families USA Foundation, 3/27/97:
> >>:
> >>:
> >>: Lack Health Insurance
> >
> >>: One in three children in the U.S. lacked health
> >>: insurance for at least one month in 1995
> >>: and 1996, according to a study released today by
> >>: the national health consumer group Families USA.
> >>: The group said an estimated 23 million children
> >>: went without coverage for at least a month during
> >>: the two-year period.
> >
> >
> >I didn't think reading the whole post would tire
> >you that much. So...
> >
> >The vast majority of uninsured children live in
> >working families, the report points out. In nine
> >out of 10 cases, the head of the household worked
> >all or part of the two-year period covered by the
> >study.
> >
> > "America's uninsured children live in families
> >where the breadwinners work hard, pay taxes and
> >play by the rules. But they don't get health
> >coverage on the job, for themselves or their
> >children. And they can't afford to pay for it
> >out-of-pocket," said Ron Pollack, executive
> >director of Families USA.
> >
> >Harry
> >
> >>--
> >>-- Mike Zarlenga
> >> finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
> >
> >
> >
>
> So the point being we all have to go on some system of Socialized
> medicine, right? yasmin2
>
>
Right. When we peer through the smoke, we see that this is a scheme to
back-door Hilary's health-care scheme through the kids, using the schools
and Medican't as the delivery and funding vehicles, respectively.
What they couldn't pass in the daylight, they'll try under cover of
darkness, the darkness of deception, because who but the most churlish can
deny a child health care, after all?
Fortunately, the Constitution forbids such practices. Unfortunately, we
have a Congress and President who have little respect for it.
Steven Pugh
Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote in article
<5hml70$q...@paperboy.ids.net>...
> Harry Hope (riv...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : Families USA Foundation, 3/27/97:
> :
> :
> : Families USA Study Shows One in Three Children
> : Lack Health Insurance
>
> : One in three children in the U.S. lacked health
> : insurance for at least one month in 1995
> : and 1996, according to a study released today by
> : the national health consumer group Families USA.
> : The group said an estimated 23 million children
> : went without coverage for at least a month during
> : the two-year period.
>
> Why? Did mommy spend all her money on booze and cigarettes?
>
That is the stupidest, most selfish statement I've read since your last
posting.
> Is this the same group that concluded that n million children
> in the nation were "starving," based upon "have you eaten less
> than you wanted at any meal in the last month?"
>
I haven't heard that one. I do know we have the highest poverty rate of any
industrialized country in the world. Its easy to figure out why. Its
because we have the thinnest, most pathetic social safety net in the world.
--
Steve Pugh
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
> George Washington : "I cannot tell a lie."
> Richard M. Nixon : "I am not a crook."
> William J. Clinton : "SHOW ME THE MONEY!!"
> Michael Zarlenga : "DUUUUUUHHHHHHH"
Gary L. Dare
Mary E Knadler (yas...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: So the point being we all have to go on some system of Socialized
: medicine, right? yasmin2
You already have it, it's called Medicare ...
Find me a Republican that wants to eliminate it.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare g...@prairienet.org
g...@ripco.com
Vive le Quebec libre - in Canada! (formerly g...@columbia.edu)
Loren Petrich
In article <33414a04...@news.alt.net>, Jeanie <removethis> wrote:
>If you can't afford to insure your kids, I say don't have them.
Would you like it if the birthrate dropped like a stone as a result?
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
James R. Olson, jr.
Rudi Michael Dietrich <m...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
->Get the Bible back in school and evil will flee.
There you go. With prayer, who needs health insurance?
Hector
Hmm...funny, but when I was younger, if kids had insurance, their
parents had bought it with their own earned money. Food, too; come to
think of it, my parents paid for everything I had as a child: food,
clothes, roof, heat, everything. They'd have had more kids, but they
couldn't feed, clothe and educate *4* of us without someone going
hungry. So they stopped at 3. They called it parenthood -- you know,
supporting your children. Raising your family. Knowing what you can
afford, and sleeping in the bed you made... Oh, well, those days are
sure gone, eh, boys?
Hector
-------------------------------------
Note: Return address is bogus as an anti-spam precaution.
E-mail received by invitation only.
-------------------------------------
Mary E Knadler
In <5hrdb7$2...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> g...@prairienet.org (Gary L. Dare)
writes:
I said all of us! I'm not on socialized medincine. I don't want
anyone to take my private health care away from me. I want the right
to have the Doctor of my choice. And also have the right to decide
along with my Doctor what treatment I should have & when I can have it.
yasmin2.
David Salvador Flores
In article <33414a04...@news.alt.net>, Jeanie <removethis> wrote:
>If you can't afford to insure your kids, I say don't have them.
>
Ah! So this is what Family Values means? Families for rich and middle
class people, barren lives for the poor. Hell, why don't we just go
ahaead and sterilize the poor... but then, who would we have emptying
our trash and sweeping out our floors.
-Dave
Michael Zarlenga
David Salvador Flores (ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
: Ah! So this is what Family Values means? Families for rich and middle
: class people, barren lives for the poor. Hell, why don't we just go
: ahaead and sterilize the poor... but then, who would we have emptying
: our trash and sweeping out our floors.
[Democrats'] Family Values is climbing on the backs of the taxpaying
workers, whip in hand, and riding them until they drop, right, David?
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
George Washington : "I cannot tell a lie."
Mary E Knadler
In <E80rn...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (David Salvador Flores) writes:
>
>In article <33414a04...@news.alt.net>, Jeanie <removethis>
wrote:
>>If you can't afford to insure your kids, I say don't have them.
>>
>>she...@alt.net
>
>
>class people, barren lives for the poor. Hell, why don't we just go
>ahaead and sterilize the poor... but then, who would we have emptying
>our trash and sweeping out our floors.
>
>
OK, then Dave you pay for all the kids that the poor have. You know if
you really care about kids, you won't have them until you can take care
of them * provide a decent life for them. yasmin2
James R. Olson, jr.
Hector <Stryga...@Chaos.org> wrote:
->James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
->>
->> Rudi Michael Dietrich <m...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
->>
->> ->Get the Bible back in school and evil will flee.
->>
->> There you go. With prayer, who needs health insurance?
->Hmm...funny, but when I was younger, if kids had insurance, their
->parents had bought it with their own earned money.
Our health insurance came from a company plan. I think most health
insurance comes that way. Try to see how much a private policy costs
you, $300+/month for a family. And we've got a large segment of the
population kept purposely out of work by economic policy, so that you
won';t get too uppity and start asking for a share of the prosperity
pie. So how are those people supposed to pay for insurance, when
there's no job for them to earn money at? I guess they just need to
pray.
Zepp
On Wed, 02 Apr 1997 20:13:19 GMT, she...@removealt.net (Jeanie) wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Apr 1997 16:40:22 GMT, ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU
>(David Salvador Flores) said with a straight face:
>
>>In article <33414a04...@news.alt.net>, Jeanie <removethis> wrote:
>>>If you can't afford to insure your kids, I say don't have them.
>>>
>>>she...@alt.net
>>
>>
>>Ah! So this is what Family Values means? Families for rich and middle
>>class people, barren lives for the poor. Hell, why don't we just go
>>ahaead and sterilize the poor... but then, who would we have emptying
>>our trash and sweeping out our floors.
>>
>>-Dave
>
>Ahh, so the rest of us should support YOUR spawn just because you feel
>the need to pass on your genes even if you can't afford to take care
>of them? If that's what your family values are, I'll keep mine,
>thanks.
>
Ahhhh! The New American Dream.
Hitler would be proud.
>
>she...@alt.net
=====================================================================
Liberals tend to be happy and outgoing because they figure most
people are much like themselves.
Conservatives tend to be hostile and paranoid for pretty much the
same reason.
Libertarians crouch behind their sofas and wait for their dogs to
give the order to shoot.
Novus Ordo Seclorum Volpus de Marina
=====================================================================
When replying by e-mail, remove the third "P" placed there to foil
spambots.
Hector
David Salvador Flores wrote:
>
> In article <33414a04...@news.alt.net>, Jeanie <removethis> wrote:
> >If you can't afford to insure your kids, I say don't have them.
> >
> >she...@alt.net
>
> Ah! So this is what Family Values means? Families for rich and middle
> class people, barren lives for the poor. Hell, why don't we just go
> ahaead and sterilize the poor... but then, who would we have emptying
> our trash and sweeping out our floors.
>
> -Dave
>
Look, idiot: Nobody is *telling* the "poor" not to have children.
Obviously they can have as many as they want to. But, *knowing* that
they're poor, have no education, no prospects, and live hand to mouth
when they're lucky even without kids to support, wouldn't you think
they're rational enough to realize that any children they have will be
born into the same situation, which is to say, none too good at best? Do
you think if only they have enough children, they will finally have that
magical *rich* kid? Do *you* want to have children only to watch them
starve wearing dirty rags? *I'd* forgo having kids rather than do that.
It's an incredibly cruel, boneheaded thing to do. Or are you assuming
that poor people are morons? *I* would like to give them the benefit of
the doubt and go on the assumption that they can grasp basic concepts
like, for example, *popping out another child will not improve a bad
financial condition*, and *birth control works pretty well...realizing
you can't afford to raise children doesn't mean you can't have sex,* and
*Having the _right_ to have children doesn't mean that yours won't need
food and shelter.*
Sorry folks, for the *tone*. It's not my usual way, if you read my
humble posts. But the post I was responding to really was nonsense of
the first order. Let's remember the difference between "rights" and
"obligations". Why are we against overpopulation in cats and dogs? Why,
because they'll starve. *They have to eat, or they'll die horribly and
uselessly.* It's not a political stance that one ought to be able to
afford to have kids, it's *common sense*. Kids have to eat. If you want
to stand up for the right to have kids you can't feed and clothe, well,
you get no respect from me. God have mercy on you.
None of this should have needed to be said.
James R. Olson, jr.
zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
->David Salvador Flores (ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
->: Ah! So this is what Family Values means? Families for rich and middle
->: class people, barren lives for the poor. Hell, why don't we just go
->: ahaead and sterilize the poor... but then, who would we have emptying
->: our trash and sweeping out our floors.
->[Democrats'] Family Values is climbing on the backs of the taxpaying
->workers, whip in hand, and riding them until they drop, right, David?
Say, Mike, have you ever heard of that Republican Family Value called
NAIRU? It's essentially just what you've described, just in a more
practical form.
ken...@concentric.net
James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
>
Why do you think most conservatives are abti-choice? Keep the population
up, have plenty of surplus labor.
---------------------------------------------------------
He that plants thorns must never expect to gather roses.
_The Ignorant Physician_ --Pilpay
---------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Alwine
James R. Olson, jr. <jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net> wrote in article
<5hugnb$f...@mochi.lava.net>...
I would agree that our economy needs a big dose of opportunity, so more
people can afford the benefits of prosperity, including the best health
care plans.
Saying that your employer "pays" for your health care plan is like saying
corporations "pay" taxes. Your health care plan comes out of that pool of
money loosely called "fringe," or "overhead," which is part of your
employer's cost of employment. As a cost of your job, it is really part of
your total wage package, along with your other "company benefits." You are
really paying for it, you just don't directly see the cost.
How did this happen? The government, in its infinite wisdom, made health
care premiums tax deductible at 100% for corporations, while largely
denying that privilege to individuals. Also, corporations can participate
in "group plans," which are generally denied by law to individuals.
This is what makes individually-purchased health care programs
prohibitively expensive. It also shields the consumer from the cost of the
commodity, which leads to higher prices (though not the only cause, by
far).
The main thing the Congress can Constitutionally do to lower health care
costs and make more insurance available to more people is to change the
regulations, and allow individuals to fully deduct coverage and participate
in groups. They don't do it because there are no lobbies or PACs with
campaign money advocating this approach.
--------
BTW -- Prayer? Don't knock it till you've tried it. God is longing to
hear from you.
James R. Olson, jr.
Hector <Stryga...@Chaos.org> wrote:
->David Salvador Flores wrote:
->>
->> In article <33414a04...@news.alt.net>, Jeanie <removethis> wrote:
->> >If you can't afford to insure your kids, I say don't have them.
->> >
->> >she...@alt.net
->>
->> Ah! So this is what Family Values means? Families for rich and middle
->> class people, barren lives for the poor. Hell, why don't we just go
->> ahaead and sterilize the poor... but then, who would we have emptying
->> our trash and sweeping out our floors.
->>
->> -Dave
->>
->Look, idiot: Nobody is *telling* the "poor" not to have children.
->Obviously they can have as many as they want to. But, *knowing* that
->they're poor, have no education, no prospects, and live hand to mouth
->when they're lucky even without kids to support, wouldn't you think
->they're rational enough to realize that any children they have will be
->born into the same situation, which is to say, none too good at best? Do
->you think if only they have enough children, they will finally have that
->magical *rich* kid? Do *you* want to have children only to watch them
->starve wearing dirty rags? *I'd* forgo having kids rather than do that.
->It's an incredibly cruel, boneheaded thing to do. Or are you assuming
->that poor people are morons? *I* would like to give them the benefit of
->the doubt and go on the assumption that they can grasp basic concepts
->like, for example, *popping out another child will not improve a bad
->financial condition*, and *birth control works pretty well...realizing
->you can't afford to raise children doesn't mean you can't have sex,* and
->*Having the _right_ to have children doesn't mean that yours won't need
->food and shelter.*
I guess people just aren't rational, then. According to your
analysis, rich families should be large, and poor ones small. But if
we look at the evidence, we see the opposite trend.
You've placed the focus on poor parents, blaming them for the
suffering of their children, without considering for an instant the
system that is based on that suffering. People are kept out of work
in this country, in order to protect the value of the property of the
rich. It's a policy called NAIRU, which says that a certain number of
people have to be unemployed in order to protect the value of money.
In other words, money has greater value than the suffering of people.
Are the children who suffer responsible for their position? Even if
their parents are responsible, it's the children who suffer, and grow
up into an economic system where their only role is to protect the
value of money through their suffering.
What kind of economy is based on that sort of morality?
->Sorry folks, for the *tone*. It's not my usual way, if you read my
->humble posts. But the post I was responding to really was nonsense of
->the first order. Let's remember the difference between "rights" and
->"obligations". Why are we against overpopulation in cats and dogs? Why,
->because they'll starve. *They have to eat, or they'll die horribly and
->uselessly.* It's not a political stance that one ought to be able to
->afford to have kids, it's *common sense*. Kids have to eat. If you want
->to stand up for the right to have kids you can't feed and clothe, well,
->you get no respect from me. God have mercy on you.
As I pointed out above, the reason they don't get fed is because the
rulers of our economy don't want them to be fed. It's not because
there's not enough to go around.
->None of this should have needed to be said.
If you were fully aware of what you were talking about you never would
have said it.
James R. Olson, jr.
"Dennis Alwine" <pro...@staffnet.com> wrote:
->James R. Olson, jr. <jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net> wrote in article
-><5hugnb$f...@mochi.lava.net>...
->> Hector <Stryga...@Chaos.org> wrote:
->>
->> ->James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
->> ->>
->> ->> Rudi Michael Dietrich <m...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
->> ->>
->> ->> ->Get the Bible back in school and evil will flee.
->> ->>
->> ->> There you go. With prayer, who needs health insurance?
->>
->> ->Hmm...funny, but when I was younger, if kids had insurance, their
->> ->parents had bought it with their own earned money.
->>
->> Our health insurance came from a company plan. I think most health
->> insurance comes that way. Try to see how much a private policy costs
->> you, $300+/month for a family. And we've got a large segment of the
->> population kept purposely out of work by economic policy, so that you
->> won';t get too uppity and start asking for a share of the prosperity
->> pie. So how are those people supposed to pay for insurance, when
->> there's no job for them to earn money at? I guess they just need to
->> pray.
->>
->>
->I would agree that our economy needs a big dose of opportunity, so more
->people can afford the benefits of prosperity, including the best health
->care plans.
->Saying that your employer "pays" for your health care plan is like saying
->corporations "pay" taxes. Your health care plan comes out of that pool of
->money loosely called "fringe," or "overhead," which is part of your
->employer's cost of employment. As a cost of your job, it is really part of
->your total wage package, along with your other "company benefits." You are
->really paying for it, you just don't directly see the cost.
->How did this happen? The government, in its infinite wisdom, made health
->care premiums tax deductible at 100% for corporations, while largely
->denying that privilege to individuals. Also, corporations can participate
->in "group plans," which are generally denied by law to individuals.
->This is what makes individually-purchased health care programs
->prohibitively expensive. It also shields the consumer from the cost of the
->commodity, which leads to higher prices (though not the only cause, by
->far).
Good so far.
->The main thing the Congress can Constitutionally do to lower health care
->costs and make more insurance available to more people is to change the
->regulations, and allow individuals to fully deduct coverage and participate
->in groups. They don't do it because there are no lobbies or PACs with
->campaign money advocating this approach.
This proposal is fine for the high-income self-employed, as it means a
healthy discount on their insurance. But it wouldn't do a thing for
those most in need of health care, the underemployed and congenitally
unemployed.
Take the profit overhead out of the system, give everybody access to
health care, especially preventative care, and costs should drop. But
there's a massive lobby against that approach, called the insurance
industry.
->--------
->BTW -- Prayer? Don't knock it till you've tried it. God is longing to
->hear from you.
"You can NOT petition the LORD with PRAYER!" -Jim Morrison
ken...@concentric.net
James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
>
I don't understand the conservatives. The say don't have kids you can't
afford, yet they say don't get an abortion. Are these people messed up
in the head, or what? And then they want to punish kids for any mistakes
their parents make. Do they want to cut out corporate welfare? You know,
like the Fanjul brothers getting $65 million a year (and they aren't
even citizens) in sugar subsidies that the senator from Alaska (Stevens)
voted for after getting money from several sugar industry PACs.
U.S. consumers are paying $1.4 billion a year in extra sugar prices, so
the sugar barons can pollute the Everglades, but the government
shouldn't spend moey to keep kids healthy. Brilliant.
> As I pointed out above, the reason they don't get fed is because the
> rulers of our economy don't want them to be fed. It's not because
> there's not enough to go around.
>
> ->None of this should have needed to be said.
>
> If you were fully aware of what you were talking about you never would
> have said it.
--
Bill Duncan
In article <5huhjl$4...@paperboy.ids.net>, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) writes:
|> David Salvador Flores (ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
|> : class people, barren lives for the poor. Hell, why don't we just go
|> : ahaead and sterilize the poor... but then, who would we have emptying
|> : our trash and sweeping out our floors.
|>
|> [Democrats'] Family Values is climbing on the backs of the taxpaying
Idiot - until you get legislation passed allowing hospitals to refuse service
to those who can't pay, you pay for it anyway. That, plus all the kazillion
costly problems preventative medicine can prevent or reduce the cost of.
The questions is, under current laws, is government subsidized insurance for
children in the long term going to cost more than not doing it?
--
Any comments or statements made are not necessarily those of
Fidelity Investments, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
--
Bill Duncan
bi...@ripag1.fmr.com
David Salvador Flores
In article <5huhjl$4...@paperboy.ids.net>,
Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>David Salvador Flores (ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>: Ah! So this is what Family Values means? Families for rich and middle
>: class people, barren lives for the poor. Hell, why don't we just go
>: ahaead and sterilize the poor... but then, who would we have emptying
>: our trash and sweeping out our floors.
>
>[Democrats'] Family Values is climbing on the backs of the taxpaying
>workers, whip in hand, and riding them until they drop, right, David?
So you're saying that 1/3 of our country does no work Zarlenga?
No, Democrats family values means refusing to allow private industry
to run roughshod over the interests of lower income families and
their lives. Do you agree that the 1/3 of american families who cannot
afford health insurance should not have borne children?
>
>--
>-- Mike Zarlenga
> finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
>
> George Washington : "I cannot tell a lie."
> Richard M. Nixon : "I am not a crook."
> William J. Clinton : "SHOW ME THE MONEY!!"
Mike Zarlenga : "You're poor? Ha, ha, ha, ha! Drop dead."
-Dave
David Salvador Flores
In article <3343BD...@Chaos.org>, Hector <Stryga...@Chaos.org> wrote:
>David Salvador Flores wrote:
>>
>> In article <33414a04...@news.alt.net>, Jeanie <removethis> wrote:
>> >If you can't afford to insure your kids, I say don't have them.
>> >
>>
>> Ah! So this is what Family Values means? Families for rich and middle
>> class people, barren lives for the poor. Hell, why don't we just go
>> ahaead and sterilize the poor... but then, who would we have emptying
>> our trash and sweeping out our floors.
>>
>>
>
>Look, idiot: Nobody is *telling* the "poor" not to have children.
Idiot? Me? If you'd like to see an idiot up close, I'd suggest
marching on over to the nearest mirror. Do you realize how quickly
the Republican party would collapse if your position were written into
the party platform: "We believe that it is irresponsible for people
who cannot afford health insurance to have children, even if they
do work full time, and do comprise upwards of 40% of the population
of many states."
In this the richest country on earth, maintaining the position that
the working poor are irresposible to have children is the height
of ideological blindness and insanity. I really do wish conservative
lawmakers would express this opinion publicly, as it would mean the
end of their political carreers. Consider that according to the study,
46% of Texans would be considered irresponsible louts by people like you
for merely fulfilling that most basic of human needs: raising a family.
But of course, you folks see people, not as ends in themselves, not as
individuals who deserve to enjoy the benefits of their humanity
(to love, to form a family, to raise a child) but instead as mere
cogs in a socioeconomic machine whose telos is fulfilled only
by increases in worker productivity and corporate profits, to the
exclusion of all else. You people are pretty sick, you make the
most totalitarian of Stalinists seem tame, and the most starry eyed
"new communist man" utopianism plausible by comarison: In the
Capitalist Utopia, the New Capitalist Man who cannot afford health
insurance for his children will simply forego that outmoded, socialistic
institution known as "family." Problem solved.
-Dave
James R. Olson, jr.
she...@removealt.net (Jeanie) wrote:
->On Fri, 04 Apr 1997 10:34:21 GMT, jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net (James
->R. Olson, jr.) said with a straight face:
->>Hector <Stryga...@Chaos.org> wrote:
->>
->>->David Salvador Flores wrote:
->>->>
->>->> In article <33414a04...@news.alt.net>, Jeanie <removethis> wrote:
->>->> >If you can't afford to insure your kids, I say don't have them.
->>->> >
->>->> >she...@alt.net
->>->>
->>->> Ah! So this is what Family Values means? Families for rich and middle
->>->> class people, barren lives for the poor. Hell, why don't we just go
->>->> ahaead and sterilize the poor... but then, who would we have emptying
->>->> our trash and sweeping out our floors.
->>->>
->>->> -Dave
->>->>
->>
->>->Look, idiot: Nobody is *telling* the "poor" not to have children.
->>->Obviously they can have as many as they want to. But, *knowing* that
->>->they're poor, have no education, no prospects, and live hand to mouth
->>->when they're lucky even without kids to support, wouldn't you think
->>->they're rational enough to realize that any children they have will be
->>->born into the same situation, which is to say, none too good at best? Do
->>->you think if only they have enough children, they will finally have that
->>->magical *rich* kid? Do *you* want to have children only to watch them
->>->starve wearing dirty rags? *I'd* forgo having kids rather than do that.
->>->It's an incredibly cruel, boneheaded thing to do. Or are you assuming
->>->that poor people are morons? *I* would like to give them the benefit of
->>->the doubt and go on the assumption that they can grasp basic concepts
->>->like, for example, *popping out another child will not improve a bad
->>->financial condition*, and *birth control works pretty well...realizing
->>->you can't afford to raise children doesn't mean you can't have sex,* and
->>->*Having the _right_ to have children doesn't mean that yours won't need
->>->food and shelter.*
->>
->>I guess people just aren't rational, then. According to your
->>analysis, rich families should be large, and poor ones small. But if
->>we look at the evidence, we see the opposite trend.
->And why is that? Are the "poor" families being forced to have more
->children?
I'm only observing a worldwide fact. I'm not assigning blame. It's a
fact that increased prosperity brings lower birth rates. Who do you
blame gravity on?
->>You've placed the focus on poor parents, blaming them for the
->>suffering of their children, without considering for an instant the
->>system that is based on that suffering. People are kept out of work
->>in this country, in order to protect the value of the property of the
->>rich. It's a policy called NAIRU, which says that a certain number of
->>people have to be unemployed in order to protect the value of money.
->>In other words, money has greater value than the suffering of people.
->Until you show me a child that HAD to be born, this debate is useless.
->Nobody in this country forces people to have children.
Funny how the same people who want to blame the poor for their
position in the world also want to remove their access to birth
control. Maybe you're not in that category, but you're associating
yourself with them.
->>Are the children who suffer responsible for their position? Even if
->>their parents are responsible, it's the children who suffer, and grow
->>up into an economic system where their only role is to protect the
->>value of money through their suffering.
->The PARENTS are, of course, responsible for their children. It's
->really very simple.
Are you aware of the Federal Reserve's policiy of forced unemployment?
Are you saying that the children's parents are responsible for that
policy? Or are you saying that it's perfectly fine if children grow
up malnourished and uneducated, as long as you can avoid blame?
->>What kind of economy is based on that sort of morality?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
->>
->>->Sorry folks, for the *tone*. It's not my usual way, if you read my
->>->humble posts. But the post I was responding to really was nonsense of
->>->the first order. Let's remember the difference between "rights" and
->>->"obligations". Why are we against overpopulation in cats and dogs? Why,
->>->because they'll starve. *They have to eat, or they'll die horribly and
->>->uselessly.* It's not a political stance that one ought to be able to
->>->afford to have kids, it's *common sense*. Kids have to eat. If you want
->>->to stand up for the right to have kids you can't feed and clothe, well,
->>->you get no respect from me. God have mercy on you.
->>
->>As I pointed out above, the reason they don't get fed is because the
->>rulers of our economy don't want them to be fed. It's not because
->>there's not enough to go around.
->>
->>->None of this should have needed to be said.
->>
->>If you were fully aware of what you were talking about you never would
->>have said it.
->You are not listening to what is being said.
I certainly am listening. What's being said is "It's not my fault."
Ironic that the people who are so keen on personal responsibility are
also so keen on dodging it. Somehow it's always someone else's fault.
Are you benefitting from low inflation? Then your benefits are based
on suffering of the people who are kept out of work in order to
control it. How do you feel about that? Is it none of your concern?
Are you willing to use their suffering in order to preserve your
comfort? And then there's a whole larger cohort whose wages are kept
low by the presesnce of all the unemployed, willing to take their jobs
at a moments notice. They may not be suffering as much as the
longterm unemployed, but their lives are diminished by that threat,
and there are many who work under dangerous or degrading circumstances
because they don't have the courage to risk losing their job over
standing up for their rights.
High unemployment is not the only way to prevent inflation, it's just
the most convenient and painless way for the people who make economic
policy in this country. They show by their pursuit of NAIRU that they
are devoid of any moral sensibility whatsoever. Are you with them?
NAIRU is not the only way to control inflation
David Salvador Flores
In article <3342bd8b...@news.alt.net>, Jeanie <removethis> wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Apr 1997 16:40:22 GMT, ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU
>
[deletia]
>Ahh, so the rest of us should support YOUR spawn just because you feel
>the need to pass on your genes even if you can't afford to take care
>of them? If that's what your family values are, I'll keep mine,
>thanks.
>
>
Here you have it folks. The right-winger's view of what it means
for poor people to want to have a family and be able to take their
children to the doctor if they get sick. They are leeches and
their children aren't humans, they're "spawn."
Of course, the poor will never stop having children. It would
cause our nation and economy to collapse. But if you can
bully them into thinking that they're selfish for wanting to
fulfill the most basic of human needs, vis., to start a family,
then perhaps you can keep the poor from clamoring too loudly for
those basic health benefits that every other industrialized nation in
the world provides.
All Hail Republican Family Values.
-Dave
Michael Zarlenga
: for poor people to want to have a family and be able to take their
: children to the doctor if they get sick. They are leeches and
: their children aren't humans, they're "spawn."
Wrong. Plenty of poor people have families, raise, clothe, feed
and SUPPORT them. Other poor people simply don't give a rat's ass
about their kids. Evidence of this lack of concern can be seen in
how many poor kids find themselves in school without even a BREAK-
FAST in their stomachs or a LUNCH in their hands.
It takes less than 5 minutes to make a peanut butter and jelly
sandwich and to throw a piece or 2 of fruit in a paper bag or lunch
box. Or to fill a bowl with cereal and milk.
Yet that amount of work, time, energy and dedication (5 whole min-
utes 5 times a week) to attend to the need and well-being of their
children is just too much to expect from many of the nation's poor
parents.
And, one more time, so that David Flores doesn't misrepresent what
I said (as he is fond of doing) ... Not ALL poor families neglect
their children, but many do.
: All Hail Republican Family Values.
Republican Family Values include supporting, feeding and clothing
your children. I'm amazed that you apparently have a problem with
those values, David.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
Guns cause crime like flies cause garbage.
RHA
In article <5i9bto$6...@paperboy.ids.net>,
Geez, did Gingrich know these republi-con values when his
ex-wife had to beg at her church? Ooops, this is just a
liberal lie, isn't it?
--
rha
James R. Olson, jr.
she...@removealt.net (Jeanie) wrote:
->On Sat, 05 Apr 1997 08:44:17 GMT, jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net (James
->R. Olson, jr.) said with a straight face:
->>->sheena wrote:
->>->You are not listening to what is being said.
->>
->>I certainly am listening. What's being said is "It's not my fault."
->>Ironic that the people who are so keen on personal responsibility are
->>also so keen on dodging it. Somehow it's always someone else's fault.
->So you are saying that parents who give birth are not responsible for
->caring for the children, but *I* am? heh That just about says it all.
I'm saying, once again, that if you benefit from a system that doesn't
allow the poor to earn enough money to live a decent life, then yes,
yes, yes, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE, or should I say IRRESPONSIBLE. You are
especially responsible for your WILLFUL IGNORANCE.
James R. Olson, jr.
zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
->David Salvador Flores (ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
->: Here you have it folks. The right-winger's view of what it means
->: for poor people to want to have a family and be able to take their
->: children to the doctor if they get sick. They are leeches and
->: their children aren't humans, they're "spawn."
->Wrong. Plenty of poor people have families, raise, clothe, feed
->and SUPPORT them. Other poor people simply don't give a rat's ass
->about their kids. Evidence of this lack of concern can be seen in
->how many poor kids find themselves in school without even a BREAK-
->FAST in their stomachs or a LUNCH in their hands.
->It takes less than 5 minutes to make a peanut butter and jelly
->sandwich and to throw a piece or 2 of fruit in a paper bag or lunch
->box. Or to fill a bowl with cereal and milk.
->Yet that amount of work, time, energy and dedication (5 whole min-
->utes 5 times a week) to attend to the need and well-being of their
->children is just too much to expect from many of the nation's poor
->parents.
->And, one more time, so that David Flores doesn't misrepresent what
->I said (as he is fond of doing) ... Not ALL poor families neglect
->their children, but many do.
Now why are you only talking about poor families? There are plenty of
middle class and rich families that neglect their children as well.
Why don't you mention them? Could it be that you are practicing that
wonderful Republican value, Demonizing the Poor?
->: All Hail Republican Family Values.
->Republican Family Values include supporting, feeding and clothing
->your children. I'm amazed that you apparently have a problem with
->those values, David.
They also include enforced unemployment, low wages, no family leave,
no educational aid, and no health care. Apparently you have no
problem with those values.
David Salvador Flores
>zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
>
>->David Salvador Flores (ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>->: Here you have it folks. The right-winger's view of what it means
>->: for poor people to want to have a family and be able to take their
>->: children to the doctor if they get sick. They are leeches and
>->: their children aren't humans, they're "spawn."
>
>->Wrong. Plenty of poor people have families, raise, clothe, feed
>->and SUPPORT them. Other poor people simply don't give a rat's ass
>->about their kids. Evidence of this lack of concern can be seen in
>->how many poor kids find themselves in school without even a BREAK-
>->FAST in their stomachs or a LUNCH in their hands.
What the fuck's this got to do with the fact that 46% of Texans cannot
afford to buy health insurance for their kids? Nothing.
Stop changing the subject. This isn't about whether Mommy makes Timmy
a peanut butter sandwich or not. This is about 1/3 of our nation's
kids being uninsured. Surely you aren't claiming that 1/3 of our
nation's parents (and 46% of Texans) are irresponsible louts who care
little about their kids do you? OTOH, maybe you do. Your beer
and cigarettes comment suggests that to be the case.
>
>->It takes less than 5 minutes to make a peanut butter and jelly
>->sandwich and to throw a piece or 2 of fruit in a paper bag or lunch
>->box. Or to fill a bowl with cereal and milk.
>
>->Yet that amount of work, time, energy and dedication (5 whole min-
>->utes 5 times a week) to attend to the need and well-being of their
>->children is just too much to expect from many of the nation's poor
>->parents.
Tell it to your analyst Zarlenga. You've obviously got some childhood
family issues that are still bugging you. Meanwhile, thousands of
working families who care about their kids still cannot afford health
insurance. Your unhappy childhood is no excuse to deprive them
of this most basic need.
>
>->And, one more time, so that David Flores doesn't misrepresent what
>->I said (as he is fond of doing) ... Not ALL poor families neglect
>->their children, but many do.
How many, Zarlenga? And does this excuse the fact that thousands
of working poor families must do without basic medical care for
their children?
-Dave
Zepp
On Sat, 05 Apr 1997 02:50:29 GMT, she...@removealt.net (Jeanie) wrote:
>Until you show me a child that HAD to be born, this debate is useless.
>Nobody in this country forces people to have children.
>
There's this outfit that calls itself "Operation Rescue" that is
trying to do just that. And there's another cult called "the Catholic
Church" that, along with some other cults, is trying to ban birth
control. With nearly six and a half billion people on earth, they
operate under the hilarious assumption that if you just make it
inconvenient, people will stop fucking.
>>Are the children who suffer responsible for their position? Even if
>>their parents are responsible, it's the children who suffer, and grow
>>up into an economic system where their only role is to protect the
>>value of money through their suffering.
>
>The PARENTS are, of course, responsible for their children. It's
>really very simple.
>
>>What kind of economy is based on that sort of morality?
>>
>>->Sorry folks, for the *tone*. It's not my usual way, if you read my
>>->humble posts. But the post I was responding to really was nonsense of
>>->the first order. Let's remember the difference between "rights" and
>>->"obligations". Why are we against overpopulation in cats and dogs? Why,
>>->because they'll starve. *They have to eat, or they'll die horribly and
>>->uselessly.* It's not a political stance that one ought to be able to
>>->afford to have kids, it's *common sense*. Kids have to eat. If you want
>>->to stand up for the right to have kids you can't feed and clothe, well,
>>->you get no respect from me. God have mercy on you.
>>
>>As I pointed out above, the reason they don't get fed is because the
>>rulers of our economy don't want them to be fed. It's not because
>>there's not enough to go around.
>>
>>->None of this should have needed to be said.
>>
>>If you were fully aware of what you were talking about you never would
>>have said it.
>
>You are not listening to what is being said.
>
>
Richelle Hall
I expect to be quickly shot down by my question (I suppose that's the
way it goes...) but if you cannot afford to support a child, why would
you have a child? In asking this, I understand that many people would
argue that it is a basic, innate instinct to reproduce, but doesn't
bringing another life into this world deserve a little more thought
than a 'basic instinct or urge'. It seems rather ludicrous to me that
SOME people use the excuse that the 'rich' can afford to support the
'poor' but did anyone stop to think that maybe these 'rich' people
have more money because they don't have children? Could it not also be
a little selfish to bring a child into this world if the parents can
not afford to give the child a decent start?
(By the way, I am not rich, in fact I have experienced quite the
opposite... and yes, I would love to have children in the future.)
'Chelle
James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
>
> she...@removealt.net (Jeanie) wrote:
>
> ->On Sat, 05 Apr 1997 08:44:17 GMT, jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net (James
> ->R. Olson, jr.) said with a straight face:
>
ken...@concentric.net
Richelle Hall wrote:
>
> I expect to be quickly shot down by my question (I suppose that's the
> way it goes...) but if you cannot afford to support a child, why would
> you have a child? In asking this, I understand that many people would
> argue that it is a basic, innate instinct to reproduce, but doesn't
> bringing another life into this world deserve a little more thought
> than a 'basic instinct or urge'. It seems rather ludicrous to me that
> SOME people use the excuse that the 'rich' can afford to support the
> 'poor' but did anyone stop to think that maybe these 'rich' people
> have more money because they don't have children? Could it not also be
> a little selfish to bring a child into this world if the parents can
> not afford to give the child a decent start?
> (By the way, I am not rich, in fact I have experienced quite the
> opposite... and yes, I would love to have children in the future.)
> 'Chelle
>
That is why a minimum wage that is liveable, as well as making medical
care available, is so needed. Even the rich and the employers benefit.
Why then are so many employers against these things? Because they are
short-sighted. To refer to a similar situation, the English Factory Acts
were passed to prevent employers from working all their workers to
death. This would obviously have bad consequences for them, since they
would have nobody to work in their factories. But well-meaning,
far-sighted individual factory owners could no nothing. If they
shortened hours in their own factory, they would soon go broke from the
competition working their employees more hours, and making more profit.
So the Factory Acts were passed, limiting the hours that workers could
be worked. Not that it made conditions all that great. The Factory Act
of 1850, for example, limited the workday to 12 hours Monday through
Friday, and 8 hours on Saturday. Children under 13 were only allowed to
work half of these hours. Employers frequently would make their workers
start 15 or 20 minutes early, and keep working 15 or 20 minutes late.
But it did put a lid on the conditions that threatened to eliminate a
generation. If workers do not have the time, energy, and money to be
able to reproduce, there will be nobody to do the work but the owners.
So if an insufficient minimum wage, or lack of medical care, or
inadequate education, means that the next generation will grow up (or
not exist) unable to do the work that is needed, the whole system will
fall apart.
> James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
> >
> > she...@removealt.net (Jeanie) wrote:
> >
> > ->On Sat, 05 Apr 1997 08:44:17 GMT, jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net (James
> > ->R. Olson, jr.) said with a straight face:
> >
> > ->>->sheena wrote:
> > ->>->You are not listening to what is being said.
> > ->>
> > ->>I certainly am listening. What's being said is "It's not my fault."
> > ->>Ironic that the people who are so keen on personal responsibility are
> > ->>also so keen on dodging it. Somehow it's always someone else's fault.
> >
> > ->So you are saying that parents who give birth are not responsible for
> > ->caring for the children, but *I* am? heh That just about says it all.
> >
> > I'm saying, once again, that if you benefit from a system that doesn't
> > allow the poor to earn enough money to live a decent life, then yes,
> > yes, yes, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE, or should I say IRRESPONSIBLE. You are
> > especially responsible for your WILLFUL IGNORANCE.
--
James R. Olson, jr.
Richelle Hall <r.h...@cowan.edu.au> wrote:
->I expect to be quickly shot down by my question (I suppose that's the
->way it goes...) but if you cannot afford to support a child, why would
->you have a child? In asking this, I understand that many people would
->argue that it is a basic, innate instinct to reproduce, but doesn't
->bringing another life into this world deserve a little more thought
->than a 'basic instinct or urge'. It seems rather ludicrous to me that
->SOME people use the excuse that the 'rich' can afford to support the
->'poor' but did anyone stop to think that maybe these 'rich' people
->have more money because they don't have children? Could it not also be
->a little selfish to bring a child into this world if the parents can
->not afford to give the child a decent start?
->(By the way, I am not rich, in fact I have experienced quite the
->opposite... and yes, I would love to have children in the future.)
->'Chelle
Well, perhaps it is irresponsible to have a child when you can't
afford it, but it does happen. In fact, if you look globally, there
is a consistent pattern of people of lower affluence having more
children.
There are people who have children when they are able to afford them,
and then fall onto harder times. There are people who have children
with the hope that they will be able to rise out of poverty through
their own efforts. There are people who do not beleive in birth
control, and have more children than they can afford. And of course,
there are those who have children without thinking ahead about any of
that. Casting blame on the parents lumps all those people into one
group, without regard for their individual circumstances.
What the people who are making a big deal about the irresponsibilty of
the poor having children are purposely ignoring is the fact that it is
not the fault of the child that he or she was born, but it is the
child who is suffering. By placing blame on the parents, they attempt
to dodge any sort of responsibility on their own parts, even though
they benefit from the aspects of the system that create the poverty of
the parents.
Endemic poverty and the sort of underclass we have in this country are
social problems. They won't be solved by pointing a finger and saying
"It's not MY fault." We need a policy of full employment in this
country, we need a policy of full access to health care and education.
America is called that land of opportunity, but how much opportunity
does a child starved in the womb have?
andrew
Richelle Hall <r.h...@cowan.edu.au> wrote:
->I expect to be quickly shot down by my question (I suppose that's the
->way it goes...) but if you cannot afford to support a child, why would
->you have a child? In asking this, I understand that many people would
I think that's a valid question. Of course for an answer to be of any
use we must quantify at what point (in the currency of your choice)
someone can/can not afford a child?
Until then, we'll just have stop having children because it may turn out
the nobody can afford one.
a
Bill Duncan
In article <5i9bto$6...@paperboy.ids.net>, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) writes:
|> David Salvador Flores (ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
|> : Here you have it folks. The right-winger's view of what it means
|>
|>
|>
|> And, one more time, so that David Flores doesn't misrepresent what
Not ALL rich families neglect their children, but many do. If you remove
all occurances of the word poor above, it reads true. Being able to
dump a "Lunchable" into a paper bag does not make a good parent.
|> : All Hail Republican Family Values.
|>
|> Republican Family Values include supporting, feeding and clothing
|> your children. I'm amazed that you apparently have a problem with
|> those values, David.
Are you saying there's no such thing as a poor Republican? You also left
the part out that this only applies until you dump your wife and kids to
move onto better things. All Hail Republican Family Values.
There are rich and poor good parents and rich and poor bad parents. The
difference is that poor good parents don't have the means to provide their
kids with what they need while rich bad parents can always pay someone else
to do it.
Hector
No, but it's a common fallacy these days, that everything must be
'officially quantified'. It is just this assumption which leads so many
emptyheaded simpletons, who do not want to have to use any kind of adult
judgement or common sense, to do whatever the Government says and
believe whatever the Government says, no matter how irrational any
8-year-old child with an IQ over 84 could tell you it is lately.
Anyway, a pretty good rule of thumb is: If you need handouts just to
feed *yourself*, you probably can't afford one. If you don't have a job,
ditto, unless you have a hell of a rich daddy. If you are eating enough,
paying your own bills, & keeping a roof over your head, all with money
*you and/or your spouse, if any* are earning, and have something left
each month on top, you might be able to feed and clothe another human
being without denying him/her the food and other basic necessities it is
the responsibility of a parent to provide. (Oh, my, here come the rants
that, no, it is in fact *my* responsibility to provide for their
children, not the child's parents... most of us know where to file that
stuff.)
This was considered pretty simple and obvious stuff when I was younger;
and they say it's kinder and gentler *now*...
David Salvador Flores
In article <E8Dsp...@drnews.dr.lucent.com>,
Dave Olson <d...@francium.dr.lucent.com> wrote:
>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>} On Sat, 05 Apr 1997 02:50:29 GMT, she...@removealt.net (Jeanie) wrote:
>} >Until you show me a child that HAD to be born, this debate is useless.
>} >Nobody in this country forces people to have children.
>} >
>} There's this outfit that calls itself "Operation Rescue" that is
>} trying to do just that. And there's another cult called "the Catholic
>} Church" that, along with some other cults, is trying to ban birth
>
>But ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (David Salvador Flores) wrote in this same
>thread earlier:
>| Of course, the poor will never stop having children. It would
>| cause our nation and economy to collapse. But if you can
>| bully them into thinking that they're selfish for wanting to
>| fulfill the most basic of human needs, vis., to start a family,
>| All Hail Republican Family Values.
>
I'll have to weigh in on my argument, naturally. Sure, the Catholic
Church and Operation Rescue would probably raise the country's birthrate
if successfull, but individuals, as human beings, have a fundamental
need to raise families. Its an essential part of fulfilling our
basic humanity. Birth control and abortion help reduce unwanted
children, they may ultimately decrease the size of families, but few
couples would choose to have *no* children whatsoever during their
lives.
>
>--
>David Olson d...@dr.lucent.com
-Dave
Michael Zarlenga
James R. Olson, jr. (jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net) wrote:
: Well, perhaps it is irresponsible to have a child when you can't
: afford it, but it does happen. In fact, if you look globally, there
: is a consistent pattern of people of lower affluence having more
: children.
"Perhaps?!" Well, riddle me this, James, ... is it irresponsible
to have FOUR children when you can't afford ONE? Or is that still
only a maybe, a "perhaps" in your opinion?
Zepp
zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
>David Salvador Flores (ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>: Here you have it folks. The right-winger's view of what it means
>: for poor people to want to have a family and be able to take their
>: children to the doctor if they get sick. They are leeches and
>: their children aren't humans, they're "spawn."
>
>Wrong. Plenty of poor people have families, raise, clothe, feed
>and SUPPORT them. Other poor people simply don't give a rat's ass
>about their kids. Evidence of this lack of concern can be seen in
>how many poor kids find themselves in school without even a BREAK-
>FAST in their stomachs or a LUNCH in their hands.
There's methamphetamine logic for you: the parents aren't too poor to
give their kids three squares: they just don't care. Well, the meth
heads don't.
>
>It takes less than 5 minutes to make a peanut butter and jelly
>sandwich and to throw a piece or 2 of fruit in a paper bag or lunch
>box. Or to fill a bowl with cereal and milk.
And stop by Zarlengas and rip him off for the bread and jelly.
>Yet that amount of work, time, energy and dedication (5 whole min-
>utes 5 times a week) to attend to the need and well-being of their
>children is just too much to expect from many of the nation's poor
>parents.
>
>And, one more time, so that David Flores doesn't misrepresent what
>I said (as he is fond of doing) ... Not ALL poor families neglect
>their children, but many do.
>
How absolutely generous of you to admit that not all poor families
neglect their children. I'm sure the libertarian fascists will give
you thier Humanitarian of the Year award for that!
>
>: All Hail Republican Family Values.
>
>Republican Family Values include supporting, feeding and clothing
>your children. I'm amazed that you apparently have a problem with
>those values, David.
>
>
>--
>-- Mike Zarlenga
> finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
>
> Guns cause crime like flies cause garbage.
=====================================================================
"I liked how our esteemed Sen. Feinstein was whining about Huffington's
accusations of election fraud in '94. It seemed she had already spent
75K on lawyers and didn't like it. Couldn't find a way to palm if off
on the taxpayers, I suppose. But why have a lawyer at all, if she
believed she had won it fairly?"
-- C.L. Williams, with a new wrinkle on the
old "Where there's smoke, there's fire,"
ploy of the MacCarthyites.
Novus Ordo Seclorum Volpus de Marina
=====================================================================
To thwart bulk emailings, 1 m or t has been added to end of the
indicated address.
Zepp
>In article <E8Dsp...@drnews.dr.lucent.com>,
>Dave Olson <d...@francium.dr.lucent.com> wrote:
>>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>} On Sat, 05 Apr 1997 02:50:29 GMT, she...@removealt.net (Jeanie) wrote:
>>} >Until you show me a child that HAD to be born, this debate is useless.
>>} >Nobody in this country forces people to have children.
>>} >
>>} There's this outfit that calls itself "Operation Rescue" that is
>>} trying to do just that. And there's another cult called "the Catholic
>>} Church" that, along with some other cults, is trying to ban birth
>>} control. ...
>>
>>But ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (David Salvador Flores) wrote in this same
>>thread earlier:
>>| Of course, the poor will never stop having children. It would
>>| cause our nation and economy to collapse. But if you can
>>| bully them into thinking that they're selfish for wanting to
>>| fulfill the most basic of human needs, vis., to start a family,
>>| ...
>>| All Hail Republican Family Values.
>>
>>Which is it?
Are you under the impression that DSF and I are the same person? If
so, disabuse yourself of that. Dave has his opinions, and I have
mine, and they aren't going to be identical right down the line.
>
>
>I'll have to weigh in on my argument, naturally. Sure, the Catholic
>Church and Operation Rescue would probably raise the country's birthrate
>if successfull, but individuals, as human beings, have a fundamental
>need to raise families. Its an essential part of fulfilling our
>basic humanity. Birth control and abortion help reduce unwanted
>children, they may ultimately decrease the size of families, but few
>couples would choose to have *no* children whatsoever during their
>lives.
>
I think you would see a lot more unwanted babies. Many would be
abused, abandoned, or if they were lucky, grow up emotional cripples
in a household that didn't want them. The Coathanger crowd is of the
opinion that if you coerce people, you can make 'em love their
children.
The best birth control in the world is freedom from want. There is a
strong inverse correlation between economic and social stability and
the birthrate.
>>--
>>David Olson d...@dr.lucent.com
>
>
>-Dave
>
=====================================================================
Liberals tend to be happy and outgoing because they figure most
people are much like themselves.
Conservatives tend to be hostile and paranoid for pretty much the
same reason.
Libertarians crouch behind their sofas and wait for their dogs to
give the order to shoot.
Novus Ordo Seclorum Volpus de Marina
=====================================================================
James R. Olson, jr.
d...@francium.dr.lucent.com (Dave Olson) wrote:
->X-no-archive: yes
->jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net (James R. Olson, jr.) wrote:
->} she...@removealt.net (Jeanie) wrote:
->}
->} ->On Sat, 05 Apr 1997 08:44:17 GMT, jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net (James
->} ->R. Olson, jr.) said with a straight face:
->}
->} ->>->sheena wrote:
->} ->>->You are not listening to what is being said.
->} ->>
->} ->>I certainly am listening. What's being said is "It's not my fault."
->} ->>Ironic that the people who are so keen on personal responsibility are
->} ->>also so keen on dodging it. Somehow it's always someone else's fault.
->}
->} ->So you are saying that parents who give birth are not responsible for
->} ->caring for the children, but *I* am? heh That just about says it all.
->}
->} I'm saying, once again, that if you benefit from a system that doesn't
->} allow the poor to earn enough money to live a decent life, then yes,
->} yes, yes, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE, or should I say IRRESPONSIBLE. You are
->} especially responsible for your WILLFUL IGNORANCE.
->
->What a load of tripe. My benefitting from a transaction freely carried out
->between someone else and me does NOT create a right for some outside third
->party to a stake a claim on any part of the lives of either of us.
->
You're saying that the NAIRU policy of the Fed is a transaction freely
carried out between you and another party, and no one else's concern?
In that case, so is murder for hire.
David Salvador Flores
In article <334bc8a2...@news.alt.net>, Jeanie <removethis> wrote:
>On Tue, 8 Apr 1997 06:03:09 GMT, ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU
>(David Salvador Flores) said with a straight face:
>
>>What the fuck's this got to do with the fact that 46% of Texans cannot
>>afford to buy health insurance for their kids? Nothing.
>
>children?
>she...@alt.net
I see, to call someone poor is to speak poorly of them... nice
Conservative Logic (TM) there, Sheena.
-Dave
David Salvador Flores
In article <3351deb3...@news.alt.net>, sheena <jea...@alt.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Apr 1997 03:37:49 GMT, ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU
>(David Salvador Flores) said with a straight face:
>
>>In article <334bc8a2...@news.alt.net>, Jeanie <removethis> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 8 Apr 1997 06:03:09 GMT, ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU
>>>(David Salvador Flores) said with a straight face:
>>>
>>>>What the fuck's this got to do with the fact that 46% of Texans cannot
>>>>afford to buy health insurance for their kids? Nothing.
>>>
>>>And how many of these Texans you speak so poorly of are still having
>>>children?
>>>she...@alt.net
>>
>>
>>I see, to call someone poor is to speak poorly of them... nice
>>Conservative Logic (TM) there, Sheena.
>
>>-Dave
>
>question?
People aren't going to stop having children because they can't afford
health insurance. You'd like to make it seem that this is a selfish
and irrational descision. Irrational it may be, but that's because
the desire to have a family is not based on reason, its based on love
and affection, its based on those elements of our being that make us
human. To claim that it is selfish to have children because one is
poor is a rather silly proposition, especially when one considers that
we're living in the richest, most productive economy on the planet.
Furthermore, it would be simply ludicrous to ask 46% of Texans to
refrain from reproducing, especially when those 46% come, basically
from the working classes. It would destroy the state's economy in
a flash. But then, even those Republicans who aren't actively
supporting the child health care bill aren't so stupid as to chide the
working poor for raising families. They know that it would mean the
destruction of their party. Its really only on usenet that you'll
find people so ideologically blind as to put forward your argument,
which, really, is less an argument than a monumental excersize in
self-absorption and hypocrisy.
-Dave
Michael Zarlenga
: health insurance. You'd like to make it seem that this is a selfish
How do you feel about Norplant as a prerequisite for women
prior to being accepted onto the welfare rolls?
: and irrational descision. Irrational it may be, but that's because
: the desire to have a family is not based on reason, its based on love
: and affection, its based on those elements of our being that make us
: human. To claim that it is selfish to have children because one is
Judging by the way many of the poor children are treated by
their loving and affectionate parents (sent to school, when
they go to school, without a breakfast or lunch), a fairly
large %age of the children born into poverty would appear to
be the unintended consequence of sexual intercourse, not the
intended product of love and a desire for a family.
: poor is a rather silly proposition, especially when one considers that
: we're living in the richest, most productive economy on the planet.
Right ... why worry about paying for yourself and your children
when others can afford them?
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
"It appears they kill more children that they save."
NTSB policy advisor John Graham on air bags
Milt
On 14 Apr 1997, Michael Zarlenga wrote:
:David Salvador Flores (ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
:: People aren't going to stop having children because they can't afford
:: health insurance. You'd like to make it seem that this is a selfish
:
:How do you feel about Norplant as a prerequisite for women
:prior to being accepted onto the welfare rolls?
:
How exactly does forced sterilization fit into your self-definition as a
libertarian, Michael?
:
:: and irrational descision. Irrational it may be, but that's because
:: the desire to have a family is not based on reason, its based on love
:: and affection, its based on those elements of our being that make us
:: human. To claim that it is selfish to have children because one is
:
:Judging by the way many of the poor children are treated by
:their loving and affectionate parents (sent to school, when
:they go to school, without a breakfast or lunch), a fairly
:large %age of the children born into poverty would appear to
:be the unintended consequence of sexual intercourse, not the
:intended product of love and a desire for a family.
:
As opposed to rich families, who are many times so busy working that they
hire nannies and the like, and many times throw the kids to boarding
schools, and military schools and the like. They have kids for...
:
:: poor is a rather silly proposition, especially when one considers that
:: we're living in the richest, most productive economy on the planet.
:
:Right ... why worry about paying for yourself and your children
:when others can afford them?
:
So, why not teach them sex ed in schools-- real sex ed, including
consequences...
--Milt
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
"If a person is under investigation by the Ethics Committee, and he is in
a position to influence the outcome of the investigation, then he should
resign immediately..."
--Newt Gingrich, 1988
David Salvador Flores
In article <5it7h2$h...@paperboy.ids.net>,
Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>David Salvador Flores (ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>: People aren't going to stop having children because they can't afford
>: health insurance. You'd like to make it seem that this is a selfish
>
>How do you feel about Norplant as a prerequisite for women
>prior to being accepted onto the welfare rolls?
About the same way I feel about lobotomies as a prerequisite
for being accepted into the Libertarian party. Sounds good
unpon a first, uncritical consideration, but then a little
reflection shows that its a bit extreme really.
>
>
>: and irrational descision. Irrational it may be, but that's because
>: the desire to have a family is not based on reason, its based on love
>: and affection, its based on those elements of our being that make us
>: human. To claim that it is selfish to have children because one is
>
>Judging by the way many of the poor children are treated by
>their loving and affectionate parents (sent to school, when
>they go to school, without a breakfast or lunch), a fairly
>large %age of the children born into poverty would appear to
>be the unintended consequence of sexual intercourse, not the
>intended product of love and a desire for a family.
So is this all of the 46% of Texan children whose parents cannot
afford health insurance, or are you just generalizing from your
own unhappy childhood?
>
>
>
>: poor is a rather silly proposition, especially when one considers that
>: we're living in the richest, most productive economy on the planet.
>
>Right ... why worry about paying for yourself and your children
>when others can afford them?
The Libertarian option on the other hand (which, conveniently enough
probably doesn't apply to any single living Libertarian) is to
simply not have children if, like 46% of your fellow Texans you work
9 to 5 to ensure that 5% of our country accumulates 90% of the wealth,
and still aren't paid enough to insure your kids.
>
>--
>-- Mike Zarlenga
> finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
>
> "It appears they kill more children that they save."
> NTSB policy advisor John Graham on air bags
-Dave
James R. Olson, jr.
ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (David Salvador Flores) wrote:
->In article <334bc8a2...@news.alt.net>, Jeanie <removethis> wrote:
->>On Tue, 8 Apr 1997 06:03:09 GMT, ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU
->>(David Salvador Flores) said with a straight face:
->>
->>>What the fuck's this got to do with the fact that 46% of Texans cannot
->>>afford to buy health insurance for their kids? Nothik of wealth is a lack of virtueng.
->>
->>And how many of these Texans you speak so poorly of are still having
->>children?
->>she...@alt.net
->
->
->I see, to call someone poor is to speak poorly of them... nice
->Conservative Logic (TM) there, Sheena.
Conservative premise #1: wealth = virtue.
Therefore, a lack of wealth is a lack of virtue, and to speak of
someone's poverty is to speak ill of them.
James R. Olson, jr.
zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
->James R. Olson, jr. (jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net) wrote:
->: Well, perhaps it is irresponsible to have a child when you can't
->: afford it, but it does happen. In fact, if you look globally, there
->: is a consistent pattern of people of lower affluence having more
->: children.
->
->"Perhaps?!" Well, riddle me this, James, ... is it irresponsible
->to have FOUR children when you can't afford ONE? Or is that still
->only a maybe, a "perhaps" in your opinion?
Riddle me this: does it happen all over the world, in all cultures?
Does your judgement of it as irresponsible change that fact? Does
your passing judgement on the parents make one whit of difference in
the quality of the lives of the children? Do you even give a good
goddam, or are you too busy passing judgement to consider anything
else?
Michael Zarlenga
David Salvador Flores (ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
: >: People aren't going to stop having children because they can't afford
: >: health insurance. You'd like to make it seem that this is a selfish
: >
: >How do you feel about Norplant as a prerequisite for women
: >prior to being accepted onto the welfare rolls?
: About the same way I feel about lobotomies as a prerequisite
: for being accepted into the Libertarian party. Sounds good
: unpon a first, uncritical consideration, but then a little
: reflection shows that its a bit extreme really.
Well, reflect a little for me ... publicly.
What's extreme about Norplant?
James R. Olson, jr.
ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
[On the results of Operation Coathanger...oops...Rescue having their
way]
->I think you would see a lot more unwanted babies. Many would be
->abused, abandoned, or if they were lucky, grow up emotional cripples
->in a household that didn't want them.
Actually, there's no evidence that the rate of abortion was any
different when it was illegal, it was just more dangerous. So we
wouldn't have more unwanted babies, we'd just have more dead unwilling
mothers. And as far as I can tell, that's fine with the Coathangers.
After all, they don't have any compunctions about bombing or shooting
born babies.
-> The Coathanger crowd is of the
->opinion that if you coerce people, you can make 'em love their
->children.
Love doesn't enter into their minds. Theirs is a jealous God, full of
wrath and hatred. Not much like the guy who hung on the cross, to
tell the truth.
->
->The best birth control in the world is freedom from want. There is a
->strong inverse correlation between economic and social stability and
->the birthrate.
RightDude2
Milt wrote:
:On 14 Apr 1997, Michael Zarlenga wrote:
::David Salvador Flores (ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU) ::wrote:
::: People aren't going to stop having children because they :::can't
afford
::: health insurance. You'd like to make it seem that this is :::a selfish
:::
::How do you feel about Norplant as a prerequisite for ::women
::prior to being accepted onto the welfare rolls?
:
:How exactly does forced sterilization fit into your :self-definition as a
:libertarian, Michael?
Michael has not proposed forced sterilization. His proposal is "no
Norplant,no welfare" not "no Norplant,go to prison".
RightDude2
Defender of right-wing ideology
"How does a law that prohibits discrimination result in discrimination?"
Check out these web sites:
http://www.rushonline.com
http://www.rtside.com/rtside
Hector
James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
>
..And so, he asked a counter-question and evaded answering the one put
to him. Smoke, smoke, smoke, smoke....
If something is wrong, it should have judgement passed upon it. We do it
with murder, which I guess one could also *defend* as occurring 'all
over the world, in all cultures'. If that's a defense, and any
widespread phaenomenon is, ipso facto, fine and dandy, then I guess I
went to the wrong school...
David Salvador Flores
In article <33521104...@news.alt.net>, sheena <jea...@alt.net> wrote:
>duh....no use arguing with this logic! <shudder>
Yes, your ideology runs into great difficulties once you're asked to
consider individuals as human beings instead of disposeable automata.
>>>aka.s...@alt.net
>>
>>-Dave
>
>
>aka.s...@alt.net
-Dave
David Salvador Flores
In article <5itvsj$s...@paperboy.ids.net>,
Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>David Salvador Flores (ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>: >: People aren't going to stop having children because they can't afford
>: >: health insurance. You'd like to make it seem that this is a selfish
>: >
>: >How do you feel about Norplant as a prerequisite for women
>: >prior to being accepted onto the welfare rolls?
>
>: for being accepted into the Libertarian party. Sounds good
>: unpon a first, uncritical consideration, but then a little
>: reflection shows that its a bit extreme really.
>
>Well, reflect a little for me ... publicly.
>
>What's extreme about Norplant?
Its rather extreme, in my opinion, to ask anyone who cannot
find a job to not have children. Furthermore, many individuals can
experience health problems from hormonal birth control methods.
One must not overlook the sensitivities of Catholic Americans too.
It would probably constitute a violation of the non-establisment
clause to require unemployed Catholic women to use Norplant. Also,
would we damning persons unemployable from disabilities to never
raise a family?
There are, of course many more considerations. Take, for intance,
the question of the teenage daughters of welfare recipients. Would
they too be required to take Norplant? Would the parents be allowed
to object? Also, one would have to consider the possible effects of
"universal" birth control on the spread of venereal diseases. Would
unemployed women on Norplant be less likely to object if their sexual
partners decided not to use a condom?
This all said, it *might* be worthwhile to try and put certain very
narrowly targetted groups of welfare recipients on Norplant. One could
imagine, for instance, placing single, minor aged women who do not live
in economically distressed regions on the drug. It might also be worthwhile
to consider placing women with a recent history of drug abuse and child
neglect on the drug, at least until they've undergone rehabilitation and
shown themselves responsible and clean for a couple of years. In all cases
one would have to ensure that the drug does not affect their health
or their mental well-being negatively, and also that it does not
infringe upon their religious sensibilities. There may be other worthwile
candidates for the drug, but I'm certain that a blanket proposal like
the one you've put forth is both unworkable and inhumane.
>
>--
>-- Mike Zarlenga
> finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
>
> "It appears they kill more children that they save."
> NTSB policy advisor John Graham on air bags
-Dave
David Salvador Flores
In article <334f27b3...@news.alt.net>,
Jeanie <she...@removealt.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Apr 1997 21:34:44 GMT, ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU
>
>
>>Church and Operation Rescue would probably raise the country's birthrate
>>if successfull, but individuals, as human beings, have a fundamental
>>need to raise families. Its an essential part of fulfilling our
>>basic humanity. Birth control and abortion help reduce unwanted
>>children, they may ultimately decrease the size of families, but few
>>couples would choose to have *no* children whatsoever during their
>>lives.
>
>sexual urges are animalistic, but most humans who have progressed
>beyond the point of clubbing the little woman and dragging her into
>the cave have some concept of birth control.
Hmmm, you've got me there Jeanie. I'm afraid I don't know how to
argue with someone who considers a loving couple's decision to
raise a family as ethically equivalent to rape. I suspect that most
people who feel the way you do have also been blinded by ideological
fervor, and can probably be found spending a lot of time on usenet,
and a bit less time relating to actual human beings.
A bit of advice: if you ever do venture into an environment in which
you actually do have the opportunity to meet someone of the opposite
sex, do let him know of your feelings in the matter from the get go. It
will save both of you a lot of grief.
>
>And the "few couples" statistic you refer to who would choose to have
>no children is not accurate. The numbers are growing mightily. The
>reasons are varied, but more than a "few" couples have chosen to not
>have children. It is a valid and educated option.
How mightily, Jeanie? Please do enlighten us here. (P.S. why not include
income statistics. I think you'll find that most couples who choose not
to have children are in the higher income brackets anyway.)
>
>The fact remains, unless you can afford to take care of your children,
>you should not be having them. It's the responsible thing to do. :)
That's great, Jeanie, but I do confess to being a liberal, and one thing
my bleeding liberal heart will never accept is the premise that in
this, the richest coutry on earth, with the greatest disparitiy
in wealth distribution in the industralized world, it is irresponisble
for a family that constitutes one of the legions of working poor
(people who work 40 hour weeks, but cannot afford health insurance)
to raise children. Call me nutty, call me foolish, but just don't call
me conservative.
>
>>>--
>>>David Olson d...@dr.lucent.com
>
>>-Dave
>
>jeanie
>she...@alt.net
-Dave
Michael Zarlenga
James R. Olson, jr. (jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net) wrote:
: ->: Well, perhaps it is irresponsible to have a child when you can't
: ->: afford it, but it does happen. In fact, if you look globally, there
: ->: is a consistent pattern of people of lower affluence having more
: ->: children.
: ->
: ->"Perhaps?!" Well, riddle me this, James, ... is it irresponsible
: ->to have FOUR children when you can't afford ONE? Or is that still
: ->only a maybe, a "perhaps" in your opinion?
: Riddle me this: does it happen all over the world, in all cultures?
: Does your judgement of it as irresponsible change that fact? Does
: your passing judgement on the parents make one whit of difference in
: the quality of the lives of the children? Do you even give a good
: goddam, or are you too busy passing judgement to consider anything
: else?
Ahem. You didn't answer the question.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
"I just got sick and tired of lying for the fella."
Jim McDougal on President Clinton
David Salvador Flores
In article <3357351b...@news.lava.net>,
James R. Olson, jr. <jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net> wrote:
>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>
[deletia]
>Love doesn't enter into their minds. Theirs is a jealous God, full of
>wrath and hatred. Not much like the guy who hung on the cross, to
>tell the truth.
Well, their eyes do tend to glaze over, and they do tend to drool
a bit when the story about the money changers and the temple it told.
The guy who hung on the cross also had a penchant for disintegrating
pear trees that wouldn't bear him fruit.
And he also said something about if you weren't with him you were
against him. Somehow I feel this last phrase would have sounded better
if he had ended it with something like "cowabunga" or "jihaaaaaaaad!!!!
die infidels!"
-Dave
James R. Olson, jr.
she...@removealt.net (Jeanie) wrote:
->I still say, if you can't take care of them, don't have them.
->Obviously, you think we all have to do it. Is this that "It takes a
->village" thing? Are you a friend of Hilliary? heh
Heh.
So, you say that if people have children, they should deal with it
themselves. In other words, clean up your own mess.
But the mess is there, and we have to live in it. Those parents can't
deal with it. It's a done deal.
Let's say we're in a cafeteria, and everyone is walking around with
trays of food. Oops, somebody spills theirs! We all look, and the
consensus is that the person who spilled should clean up the mess.
But if the person who spilled is blind? Is it enough to say, "Well,
shouldn't have been walking around with a trayful of food, you know!"
and then walk around the mess. Sure, some civic minded person could
go and clean it up, but there are other people spilling food too, for
vvarious resons, and saying, "Well, they shouldn't be doing that."
isn't going to clean up the mess. So the cost of cleaning up spillage
is included in the price of your food, basically because there are
too many people like you saying "None of my concern! If you're
worried about it, you deal with it!"
Michael Lodman
David Salvador Flores <ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>>How do you feel about Norplant as a prerequisite for women
>>prior to being accepted onto the welfare rolls?
>
>About the same way I feel about lobotomies as a prerequisite
>for being accepted into the Libertarian party. Sounds good
>unpon a first, uncritical consideration, but then a little
>reflection shows that its a bit extreme really.
This is awesome bleeding heart logic. A catastrophic, non-reversible
lobotomy is equivilant to temporary birth control. What awesome rubbish.
Now Flores is going to tell us why someone need not be standing on
their own feet before having a child.
Michael Zarlenga
: consider individuals as human beings instead of disposeable automata.
As does yours when asked to consider taxpayers as autonomous human
beings rather than disposable sources of cash for whatever you feel
is important.
Michael Lodman
In article <5j0h0f$p...@paperboy.ids.net>,
Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>James R. Olson, jr. (jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net) wrote:
>: Riddle me this: does it happen all over the world, in all cultures?
>: Does your judgement of it as irresponsible change that fact? Does
>: your passing judgement on the parents make one whit of difference in
>: the quality of the lives of the children? Do you even give a good
>: goddam, or are you too busy passing judgement to consider anything
>: else?
>
>Ahem. You didn't answer the question.
He can't, and knows it. Throughout most of the world the children simply
starve to death, or die of some disease.
Hector
James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
>
Well, there's the clearest statement of it I've seen lately: We are to
flush any pretense of striving to foster justice, and simply take a
'garbage-man' approach. No need for any kind of foresight or trying to
encourage better behaviour, just accept what happens and don't try to
see anything coming; And when some idiot opens fire with an Uzi in the
inner city, don't bother apprehending him, it's done! Just clean up the
bodies. It's oh so kinder and gentler, don't you see...
Michael Lodman
In article <Pine.A32.3.93.970414...@lucia.u.arizona.edu>,
Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>On 14 Apr 1997, Michael Zarlenga wrote:
>:How do you feel about Norplant as a prerequisite for women
>:prior to being accepted onto the welfare rolls?
>How exactly does forced sterilization fit into your self-definition as a
>libertarian, Michael?
Why is it that the bleeding hearts can't answer a good question without
blathering nonsense? Answer the question, Milt. Norplant has nothing
to do with "forced sterilization".
Michael Lodman
In article <E8LrI...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
>we're living in the richest, most productive economy on the planet.
Why? I refrained when I was "poor", so that I would be able to become
not poor in the future. It may not be realistic, but the parents are
making the decision, and need to live up to the responsibility. I will
not support any effort to absolve them of yet another piece of that
responsibility.
I suspect your issue is demographics other than the "working poor", hmm?
Or why the emphasis on Texas from someone in Vriginia?
Michael Zarlenga
: :How do you feel about Norplant as a prerequisite for women
: :prior to being accepted onto the welfare rolls?
: How exactly does forced sterilization fit into your self-definition as a
: libertarian, Michael?
Sterilization? Since when is reversible birth control "steri-
lization?"
Is a condom the same as castration?
Bill Duncan
In article <5j2tm6$c...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, jlo...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Michael Lodman) writes:
|> In article <Pine.A32.3.93.970414...@lucia.u.arizona.edu>,
|> Milt <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
|> >On 14 Apr 1997, Michael Zarlenga wrote:
|> >:prior to being accepted onto the welfare rolls?
|> >:
|> >How exactly does forced sterilization fit into your self-definition as a
|> >libertarian, Michael?
|>
|> blathering nonsense? Answer the question, Milt. Norplant has nothing
|> to do with "forced sterilization".
I think it would be ok, but along with all those deadbeat moms on welfare,
what about all those deadbeat dads that aren't supporting all those kids
going on welfare. We should also require fathers convicted of nonsupport
get vasectomies. Or at least some sort of implant to kill their "need" to
attempt to produce more unwanted kids until they start paying for the
ones they have.
What do you think?
--
Any comments or statements made are not necessarily those of
Fidelity Investments, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
--
Bill Duncan
bi...@ripag1.fmr.com
Michael Lodman
In article <5j31og$7...@news-srv2.fmr.com>,
Bill Duncan <bi...@ripag1.fmr.com> wrote:
>I think it would be ok, but along with all those deadbeat moms on welfare,
>what about all those deadbeat dads that aren't supporting all those kids
>going on welfare. We should also require fathers convicted of nonsupport
>get vasectomies. Or at least some sort of implant to kill their "need" to
>attempt to produce more unwanted kids until they start paying for the
>ones they have.
If the male equivilant of Norplant should be developed, I'm all for it.
Nothing permanent though. The biological fact however is that it is
the woman who gets pregnant (or not), and nothing is stopping her from
getting pregnant from an "unsafe" source.
Milt
On 16 Apr 1997, Michael Zarlenga wrote:
:: :How do you feel about Norplant as a prerequisite for women
:: :prior to being accepted onto the welfare rolls?
:
:: How exactly does forced sterilization fit into your self-definition as a
:: libertarian, Michael?
:
:Sterilization? Since when is reversible birth control "steri-
:lization?"
:
:Is a condom the same as castration?
:
Okay then, let's change the semantics. How exactly does a forced "invasive
medical procedure" fit into your idea of liberty, Michael?
All About Mormons
I am a great believer in self-sufficiency. As far as possible, people
should work for their own support. However, I cannot speak in strong
enough terms condemning whoever suggested that welfare benefits be tied
to forcing a woman unto birth control. That entire concept is one of
the most disgusting and revolting ideas that I have ever heard.
--
J O H N W A L S H All About Mormons
mor...@mormons.org http://www.mormons.org
And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of
Nazareth?
Philip saith unto him, Come and see. (John 1:46)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milt
On 17 Apr 1997, Michael Zarlenga wrote:
:Milt (msh...@U.Arizona.EDU) wrote:
:: :: :How do you feel about Norplant as a prerequisite for women
:: :: :prior to being accepted onto the welfare rolls?
:: :
:: :: How exactly does forced sterilization fit into your self-definition as a
:: :: libertarian, Michael?
:: :
:: :Sterilization? Since when is reversible birth control "steri-
:: :lization?"
:: :
:: :Is a condom the same as castration?
:: :
:: Okay then, let's change the semantics. How exactly does a forced "invasive
:: medical procedure" fit into your idea of liberty, Michael?
:
:Invasive? 5 plastic tubes, the thickeness of vermicelli and about 2"
:long are placed under the skin. That's invasive?
By definition, yes.
:
:Forced? No one would be FORCED to do anything. You want free money
:to sit on you ass, OK, then we want a guarantee that, every 9 months,
:there won't be another new mouth to feed.
:
Ah, so we get to the heart of the matter. They don't get money to sit on
their asses. They get money to raise a family. Most people get money from
their job to raise a family. Suppose an employer said, "If you want to
continue working here, you'll need to get a Norplant. I don't want you
getting pregnant, and taking time off, or needing a raise."? Something
tells me you wouldn't go for soething like that. In fact, it would be
illegal. Now, if it's illegal for an employer to force someone to have an
invasive procedure in order to collect money that isn't hers, what gives
the government the right to force her to get one to collect money that
she's entitled to? Your definition of "liberty" is pretty damnned
inconsistent, Michael. Suddenly, when circumstances put a woman (usually a
woman) into a situation where she has to fight for the survival of her
family, she becomes less than a citizen; someone that the gov't is allowed
to manipulate at will? I don't think so.
:When I go to work, am I FORCED to wear clothes? Am I FORCED to not
:defecate on the floor? Am I FORCED to not stand on my chair and
:urinate on my coworkers? Or am I simply given a set of rules that
:go with the choice to accept the job?
:
Jesus, Michael, you're smarter than this! Is your employer allowed to sew
clothes to your body? Is your employer allowed to insert a fucking
catheter, so that you don't have to leave the floor to go to the bathroom?
Is your employer allowed to make you say a prayer or the pledge of
allegiance before every workday? THAT is the analogy you're trying to
uphold here. If you're that concerned about women getting pregnant while
on welfare, then an option is to reduce the benefit for each successive
kid she has, not to force drugs into her body to keep her from getting
pregnant.
:Which way do YOU see those examples? I don't happen to see FORCE
:in those example or the Norplant situation since I (or the welfare
:applicant) can say "I'd rather not play by those rules, goodbye"
:if a condition of employment (or of welfare) interferes with what
:I want to do.
:
What you are suggesting here is a dangerous precedent for government to be
given, don't you think? Whattya say we force all people who are about to
use the freeway during rush hour to have a breathalyzer? How about forcing
any corporation that gets a gov't contract (which is, after all, gov't
money, too...) to wear nicotine patches, just in case they might start
smoking? This is how ridiculous this proposal is. Once you give the
government carte blanche to start attaching conditions to everything, you
start down a slippery slope you can't readily climb back up. Suppose you
have a woman who has taken some sort of personal vow of celibacy.
Essentially, you are penalizing her because she "may" have another kid
somewhere down the road. This country's liberty isn't built on "may".
Maybe we should take away people's guns, because they "may" commit a
robbery with it someday? If you look at the Norplant proposal, that is
exactly what you're doing.
A quick read of the fourteenth amendment is in order here, as well.
Suppose a single father is applying for welfare. If you don't insert a
Norplant in him, you have effectively violated the equal protection
clause. Same for a woman who is sterile due to natural causes.
Instead of trying all of this boogieman voodoo to fix a problem that isn't
really much of a problem (women having kids on welfare cost us about $200
million last year. WOW!), why not simply offer Norplant to women who are
interested...
And BTW, you hit on an interesting analogy above, and I don't think you
realized it; in your condom analogy, how would you like it if a government
agent had to be there to put it on, and inspect it for holes, because you
were collecting unemployment at the time? THAT is a more accurate
analogy...
Michael Zarlenga
Milt (msh...@U.Arizona.EDU) wrote:
: :: :How do you feel about Norplant as a prerequisite for women
: :: :prior to being accepted onto the welfare rolls?
: :
: :: How exactly does forced sterilization fit into your self-definition as a
: :: libertarian, Michael?
: :
: :Sterilization? Since when is reversible birth control "steri-
: :lization?"
: :
: :Is a condom the same as castration?
: :
: Okay then, let's change the semantics. How exactly does a forced "invasive
: medical procedure" fit into your idea of liberty, Michael?
Invasive? 5 plastic tubes, the thickeness of vermicelli and about 2"
long are placed under the skin. That's invasive?
Forced? No one would be FORCED to do anything. You want free money
to sit on you ass, OK, then we want a guarantee that, every 9 months,
there won't be another new mouth to feed.
When I go to work, am I FORCED to wear clothes? Am I FORCED to not
defecate on the floor? Am I FORCED to not stand on my chair and
urinate on my coworkers? Or am I simply given a set of rules that
go with the choice to accept the job?
Which way do YOU see those examples? I don't happen to see FORCE
in those example or the Norplant situation since I (or the welfare
applicant) can say "I'd rather not play by those rules, goodbye"
if a condition of employment (or of welfare) interferes with what
I want to do.
--
David Salvador Flores
In article <5j07rg$1...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
Michael Lodman <jlo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>David Salvador Flores <ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>>>How do you feel about Norplant as a prerequisite for women
>>>prior to being accepted onto the welfare rolls?
>>
>>for being accepted into the Libertarian party. Sounds good
>>unpon a first, uncritical consideration, but then a little
>>reflection shows that its a bit extreme really.
>
>This is awesome bleeding heart logic. A catastrophic, non-reversible
>lobotomy is equivilant to temporary birth control. What awesome rubbish.
Your sense of humor is, I suspect, rivalled only by your single digit
IQ, my conservative friend.
>
>Now Flores is going to tell us why someone need not be standing on
>their own feet before having a child.
>
Most expectant mothers find it much easier to have their children
while lying on their backs.
-Dave
David Salvador Flores
In article <3354eb50...@news.alt.net>, sheena <jea...@alt.net> wrote:
>
>On Tue, 15 Apr 1997 21:17:29 GMT, ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU
>(David Salvador Flores) said with a straight face:
>
>>In article <334f27b3...@news.alt.net>,
>>Jeanie <she...@removealt.net> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 10 Apr 1997 21:34:44 GMT, ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU
>>>(David Salvador Flores) said with a straight face:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'll have to weigh in on my argument, naturally. Sure, the Catholic
>>>>Church and Operation Rescue would probably raise the country's birthrate
>>>>if successfull, but individuals, as human beings, have a fundamental
>>>>need to raise families. Its an essential part of fulfilling our
>>>>basic humanity. Birth control and abortion help reduce unwanted
>>>>children, they may ultimately decrease the size of families, but few
>>>>couples would choose to have *no* children whatsoever during their
>>>>lives.
>>>
>>>"Essental part of fulfilling our basic humanity?" I'll admit that
>>>sexual urges are animalistic, but most humans who have progressed
>>>beyond the point of clubbing the little woman and dragging her into
>>>the cave have some concept of birth control.
>>
>>Hmmm, you've got me there Jeanie. I'm afraid I don't know how to
>>argue with someone who considers a loving couple's decision to
>>raise a family as ethically equivalent to rape.
>
You're excused.
>
>> I suspect that most
>>people who feel the way you do have also been blinded by ideological
>>fervor, and can probably be found spending a lot of time on usenet,
>>and a bit less time relating to actual human beings.
>
>lol...<counting posts>
Count 'em, baby, then read 'em and weep.
>
>>A bit of advice: if you ever do venture into an environment in which
>>you actually do have the opportunity to meet someone of the opposite
>>sex, do let him know of your feelings in the matter from the get go. It
>>will save both of you a lot of grief.
>
>Feel better now?
Mmmmm, yes.
>
>>>
>>>And the "few couples" statistic you refer to who would choose to have
>>>no children is not accurate. The numbers are growing mightily. The
>>>reasons are varied, but more than a "few" couples have chosen to not
>>>have children. It is a valid and educated option.
>>
>>How mightily, Jeanie? Please do enlighten us here. (P.S. why not include
>>income statistics. I think you'll find that most couples who choose not
>>to have children are in the higher income brackets anyway.)
>
>And why do you suppose that is? Higher education, higher income, fewer
>children...hmmm
Please Jeanie, enlighten us. I'm still waiting for you to provide
statistics showing that the numbers of couples choosing to never
procreate is "growing mightily."
>
>>>The fact remains, unless you can afford to take care of your children,
>>>you should not be having them. It's the responsible thing to do. :)
>>
>>That's great, Jeanie, but I do confess to being a liberal, and one thing
>>my bleeding liberal heart will never accept is the premise that in
>>this, the richest coutry on earth, with the greatest disparitiy
>>in wealth distribution in the industralized world, it is irresponisble
>>for a family that constitutes one of the legions of working poor
>>(people who work 40 hour weeks, but cannot afford health insurance)
>>to raise children. Call me nutty, call me foolish, but just don't call
>>me conservative.
>
>After all your babbling, the fact still remains: If you can not afford
>to take care of children, you should not be having them.
In other words, you have no argument to counter mine, so instead resort
to mouthing your silly, conservative mantra.
>
>jeanie
>---
>aka.s...@alt.net
-Dave
James R. Olson, jr.
zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
->James R. Olson, jr. (jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net) wrote:
->: ->: Well, perhaps it is irresponsible to have a child when you can't
->: ->: afford it, but it does happen. In fact, if you look globally, there
->: ->: is a consistent pattern of people of lower affluence having more
->: ->: children.
->: ->
->: ->"Perhaps?!" Well, riddle me this, James, ... is it irresponsible
->: ->to have FOUR children when you can't afford ONE? Or is that still
->: ->only a maybe, a "perhaps" in your opinion?
->
->: Riddle me this: does it happen all over the world, in all cultures?
->: Does your judgement of it as irresponsible change that fact? Does
->: your passing judgement on the parents make one whit of difference in
->: the quality of the lives of the children? Do you even give a good
->: goddam, or are you too busy passing judgement to consider anything
->: else?
->
->Ahem. You didn't answer the question.
->
Because it is irrelevant in terms of whether or not we should allow
children to grow up malnourished, uneducated, without the
opportunities that should be available in the richest country in the
world.
When you try to point fingers at parents, you are evading the real
problem by claiming it's not yours.
Michael Lodman
In article <33558E...@mormons.org>,
All About Mormons <mor...@mormons.org> wrote:
>I am a great believer in self-sufficiency. As far as possible, people
>should work for their own support. However, I cannot speak in strong
>enough terms condemning whoever suggested that welfare benefits be tied
>to forcing a woman unto birth control. That entire concept is one of
>the most disgusting and revolting ideas that I have ever heard.
Wow, that's a logical and captivating argument for your position. What
a maroon! Another religious nutso speaks!
In reality the only people "forced" to do anything under this concept
are those still forced to shell out for things and people they don't
want. Welfare and Norplant are both quite voluntary.
Michael Lodman
In article <E8p5u...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
>find a job to not have children.
Oh, you're so right Davy. In this day and age it is so UN-PC to
expect people to be responsible for their actions. So much easier
to call it a "right" and make everyone else be responsible.
Hey Davy, I have a right to a Cadillac, which I would much rather
have than a child, and I expect YOU to help shell out. After all,
not being able to afford one should be no impediment, especially
in Cadillac deprived, economically depressed regions.
>Furthermore, many individuals can
>experience health problems from hormonal birth control methods.
Actually, anecdotal information leads me to believe that far more
are helped by the smoothing of the hormonal flow. If someone really has
a problem, we can have doctors excuse them.
>One must not overlook the sensitivities of Catholic Americans too.
>It would probably constitute a violation of the non-establisment
>clause to require unemployed Catholic women to use Norplant.
Not at all. Catholics can get assistance through the church. Of course,
I would never expect someone so catholic as to be against birth-control
to ever need welfare as a single-mother anyway. Right?
>Also, would we damning persons unemployable from disabilities to never
>raise a family?
No, not if they can pay for them.
<Remainder of bleeding-heart nonsense deleted.>
David Salvador Flores
In article <5j2ukj$d...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
Michael Lodman <jlo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> In article <E8LrI...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
>>poor is a rather silly proposition, especially when one considers that
>>we're living in the richest, most productive economy on the planet.
>
>Why? I refrained when I was "poor", so that I would be able to become
>not poor in the future. It may not be realistic, but the parents are
>making the decision, and need to live up to the responsibility. I will
>not support any effort to absolve them of yet another piece of that
>responsibility.
The parents make the decision to have children even if they
cannot afford health insurance. That's the decision we're
talking about here. We're not talking about people having
children who cannot afford to feed or clothe them, or buy
them school books, or shelter them. These aren't irresponsible
people, these aren't bums, they're not deadbeats. They're
honest people trying to make a living while working for
an unrealistically low minimum wage. Society is not absolving
them of a responsibility by subsidizing their children's
health care. Society is lending a helping hand... or at least
society will be if the party of "family values" doesn't manage to
kill the child health care bill.
>
>I suspect your issue is demographics other than the "working poor", hmm?
>Or why the emphasis on Texas from someone in Vriginia?
>
You Republicans are racist to the core aren't you? Actually, my
focus on Texas has nothing to do with the kind of "demographics" you
seem to be implying. I focused on Texas merely for rhetorical force,
as Texas has the highest rate of uninsured children in the country.
46%, or nearly half of all Texas children live in households where
health insurance is an unaffordable luxury.
-Dave
Zepp
On 15 Apr 1997 15:45:52 GMT, jlo...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Michael
Lodman) wrote:
>David Salvador Flores <ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>>Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>>>How do you feel about Norplant as a prerequisite for women
>>>prior to being accepted onto the welfare rolls?
>>
>>About the same way I feel about lobotomies as a prerequisite
>>for being accepted into the Libertarian party. Sounds good
>>unpon a first, uncritical consideration, but then a little
>>reflection shows that its a bit extreme really.
>
>This is awesome bleeding heart logic. A catastrophic, non-reversible
>lobotomy is equivilant to temporary birth control. What awesome rubbish.
Sure, and Stalin just sent the Kulaks to the work camps because they
looked a bit peaked, and he was concerned that they weren't getting
enough sun.
So tell us, oh lover of individual liberties, what do you do if a
woman happens to be a member of a religion that doesn't believe in
birth control? Or if someone is simply AFRAID of the effects the drug
is known to have on some people. What do you do? What do you DO?
>
>Now Flores is going to tell us why someone need not be standing on
>their own feet before having a child.
>
Followed by your hilarious explanation of why people will stop fucking
because you think it's an inconvenience to your bank account.
=====================================================================
Where's the $300,000.00, Newt?
Novus Ordo Seclorum Volpus de Marina
=====================================================================
When replying by e-mail, remove the third "P" placed there to foil
spambots.
Zepp
On 17 Apr 1997 04:44:55 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga)
wrote:
>Milt (msh...@U.Arizona.EDU) wrote:
>: :: :How do you feel about Norplant as a prerequisite for women
>: :: :prior to being accepted onto the welfare rolls?
>: :
>: :: How exactly does forced sterilization fit into your self-definition as a
>: :: libertarian, Michael?
>: :
>: :Sterilization? Since when is reversible birth control "steri-
>: :lization?"
>: :
>: :Is a condom the same as castration?
>: :
>: Okay then, let's change the semantics. How exactly does a forced "invasive
>: medical procedure" fit into your idea of liberty, Michael?
>
>Invasive? 5 plastic tubes, the thickeness of vermicelli and about 2"
>long are placed under the skin. That's invasive?
This, from the same guy who spends all his time crying about how he's
gotta pay taxes? I would LOVE to see the expression on Mikes face if
the state deemed him unfit to reproduce and ordered him to undergo
manditory medical procedures.
>
>Forced? No one would be FORCED to do anything. You want free money
>to sit on you ass, OK, then we want a guarantee that, every 9 months,
>there won't be another new mouth to feed.
Oh, right. Libertarian freedom. You are free to serve or die. Go
wash your hands, Mike.
>When I go to work, am I FORCED to wear clothes? Am I FORCED to not
>defecate on the floor? Am I FORCED to not stand on my chair and
>urinate on my coworkers? Or am I simply given a set of rules that
>go with the choice to accept the job?
Mike's housebroken. Good. I was beginning to wonder.
>
>Which way do YOU see those examples? I don't happen to see FORCE
>in those example or the Norplant situation since I (or the welfare
>applicant) can say "I'd rather not play by those rules, goodbye"
>if a condition of employment (or of welfare) interferes with what
>I want to do.
>
I always love libertarian "non-coercian". "Do as we say or starve".
But since a gun isn't being used, that's non-coercive.
Hector
James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
>
It'll never sell, buddy. Even in today's America, I'd wager that most
people still think that 'we' do not 'allow children to grow up
malnourished,' etc., their parents do. If responsibility for children
doesn't begin with the people who bear them, how on earth does it begin
with *me*? What responsible adult has a child, and then goes shouting in
the street "This is *your* fault and responsibility! Somebody feed and
clothe this child *I* had!" ? Whatever you go on to say, this state of
affairs really *does* speak for itself.
Mary E Knadler
In <E8t5I...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (David Salvador Flores) writes:
>
>In article <5j2ukj$d...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
>Michael Lodman <jlo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>> In article <E8LrI...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
That figure is hard to believe 46% of children are not insured. I
would ask why? Don't their parents work? If they are on the welfare
rolls they are eligable for Medicaid. So I can't believe in a state
such as Texas that all these kids are not being taken care of in some
way. yasmin2
David Salvador Flores
In article <5j69la$h...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
Michael Lodman <jlo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> In article <E8p5u...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
>David Salvador Flores <ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
[deletia]
>Hey Davy, I have a right to a Cadillac, which I would much rather
>have than a child, and I expect YOU to help shell out. After all,
>not being able to afford one should be no impediment, especially
>in Cadillac deprived, economically depressed regions.
Typical Republican misdirection. Families, as far as conservatives
are concerned, are just as much a luxury as Cadillacs, and one
should feel just as guilty about wanting to raise a family on a
low income as about wanting to own a luxury automobile on a low income.
I must confess, I'm surprised at just how vile some of the right
wingers can get who post here on the .net. In real life you'd
never see a Republican making these kinds of pronouncements, as
he'd know it to be the end of his carreer.
-Dave
Stan Ivester
In article <3358bae9...@news.alt.net>, jea...@alt.net wrote:
> Here's a thought:
>
> I've decided that I need to adopt a couple of dogs from the animal
> shelter. They will make my life complete, give me something to love,
> allow me to pass my surname onto them, etc. My husband and I have this
> need to nurture that would be fulfilled by these animals.
>
> Are you all going to pitch in and pay the vet bills? Help to feed and
> shelter them? Allow me time off from work to attend to their needs?
> Better yet, pay me to stay home with them?
No, but if you have or adopt some children, you will get all kinds of
social support like public schools and tax credits. I'm glad to pay into
those programs; my kids benefit from them, too.
In most civilized countries, health insurance is part of these social
supports--but not here, in the richest country in the world. Instead, we
need to spend our tax dollars on corporate welfare for Newtie's owner,
Lockheed-Martin, and other nonsense.
--Stan
James R. Olson, jr.
zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
->David Salvador Flores (ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
->: Yes, your ideology runs into great difficulties once you're asked to
->: consider individuals as human beings instead of disposeable automata.
->
->As does yours when asked to consider taxpayers as autonomous human
->beings rather than disposable sources of cash for whatever you feel
->is important.
Instead of spending it on planes that barely fly, missiles that can't
hit other missiles, outerspace reagans...oops, rayguns, mil-spec
toilets, 18-hole golf courses, advertising for McDonalds, wheat for
ADM...
Mary E Knadler
In <5j69la$h...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> jlo...@alumnae.caltech.edu
(Michael Lodman) writes:
>
>
> In article <E8p5u...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
>David Salvador Flores <ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>>find a job to not have children.
>
>Oh, you're so right Davy. In this day and age it is so UN-PC to
>expect people to be responsible for their actions. So much easier
>to call it a "right" and make everyone else be responsible.
>
>have than a child, and I expect YOU to help shell out. After all,
>not being able to afford one should be no impediment, especially
>in Cadillac deprived, economically depressed regions.
>
>>experience health problems from hormonal birth control methods.
>
>Actually, anecdotal information leads me to believe that far more
>are helped by the smoothing of the hormonal flow. If someone really
has
>a problem, we can have doctors excuse them.
>
>>One must not overlook the sensitivities of Catholic Americans too.
>>It would probably constitute a violation of the non-establisment
>>clause to require unemployed Catholic women to use Norplant.
>
>Not at all. Catholics can get assistance through the church. Of
course,
>I would never expect someone so catholic as to be against
birth-control
>to ever need welfare as a single-mother anyway. Right?
>
>>Also, would we damning persons unemployable from disabilities to
never
>>raise a family?
>
>No, not if they can pay for them.
>
><Remainder of bleeding-heart nonsense deleted.>
>
>
Plenty of Catholics use some form of contraception. Also look at all
the Democratic politicians who come out for abortion & who also are
divorced & want annullments from their church. yasmin2
James R. Olson, jr.
jlo...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Michael Lodman) wrote:
-> In article <5j0h0f$p...@paperboy.ids.net>,
->Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
->>James R. Olson, jr. (jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net) wrote:
->>: Riddle me this: does it happen all over the world, in all cultures?
->>: Does your judgement of it as irresponsible change that fact? Does
->>: your passing judgement on the parents make one whit of difference in
->>: the quality of the lives of the children? Do you even give a good
->>: goddam, or are you too busy passing judgement to consider anything
->>: else?
->>
->>Ahem. You didn't answer the question.
->
->He can't, and knows it. Throughout most of the world the children simply
->starve to death, or die of some disease.
Some do, some don't. Some survive to reproduce. That's why hard
times stimulate reproduction. Is America in the midst of famine? Are
you saying that you don't give a good goddam if children starve, or
grow up in an underclass with no prospects for success except crime?
Pointing fingers at parents doesn't do any good for the children.
Pointing fingers at parents who are kept out of work by deliberate
policies that value the luxuries of the rich over the health of the
poor doesn't do anyone any good.
James R. Olson, jr.
ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (David Salvador Flores) wrote:
->In article <3357351b...@news.lava.net>,
->James R. Olson, jr. <jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net> wrote:
->>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
->>
->
->[deletia]
->>Love doesn't enter into their minds. Theirs is a jealous God, full of
->>wrath and hatred. Not much like the guy who hung on the cross, to
->>tell the truth.
->
->Well, their eyes do tend to glaze over, and they do tend to drool
->a bit when the story about the money changers and the temple it told.
The other favorite is the rich man who was told that it would be
harder for a rich man to get into heaven than to get a camel through
the eye of a needle...
Slate had a ratner interesting interchange on the subject recently,
with the Christian Coalition's representative claiming that it only
applied to certain of the rich.
James R. Olson, jr.
Hector <Stryga...@Chaos.org> wrote:
->James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
->>
->> she...@removealt.net (Jeanie) wrote:
->>
->> ->I still say, if you can't take care of them, don't have them.
->> ->Obviously, you think we all have to do it. Is this that "It takes a
->> ->village" thing? Are you a friend of Hilliary? heh
->>
->> Heh.
->>
->> So, you say that if people have children, they should deal with it
->> themselves. In other words, clean up your own mess.
->>
->> But the mess is there, and we have to live in it. Those parents can't
->> deal with it. It's a done deal.
->>
->> Let's say we're in a cafeteria, and everyone is walking around with
->> trays of food. Oops, somebody spills theirs! We all look, and the
->> consensus is that the person who spilled should clean up the mess.
->> But if the person who spilled is blind? Is it enough to say, "Well,
->> shouldn't have been walking around with a trayful of food, you know!"
->> and then walk around the mess. Sure, some civic minded person could
->> go and clean it up, but there are other people spilling food too, for
->> vvarious resons, and saying, "Well, they shouldn't be doing that."
->> isn't going to clean up the mess. So the cost of cleaning up spillage
->> is included in the price of your food, basically because there are
->> too many people like you saying "None of my concern! If you're
->> worried about it, you deal with it!"
->
->Well, there's the clearest statement of it I've seen lately: We are to
->flush any pretense of striving to foster justice, and simply take a
->'garbage-man' approach. No need for any kind of foresight or trying to
->encourage better behaviour, just accept what happens and don't try to
->see anything coming; And when some idiot opens fire with an Uzi in the
->inner city, don't bother apprehending him, it's done! Just clean up the
->bodies. It's oh so kinder and gentler, don't you see...
->
->Hector
"None of my concern! I didn't do it! Don't blame me!"
Michael Zarlenga
Stan Ivester (ive...@utk.edu) wrote:
: supports--but not here, in the richest country in the world. Instead, we
America is the richets country in the world?
Says who?
And where do the OPEC nations fit in to their list?
Milt
On 19 Apr 1997, Michael Zarlenga wrote:
:Stan Ivester (ive...@utk.edu) wrote:
:: supports--but not here, in the richest country in the world. Instead, we
:
:America is the richets country in the world?
:
:Says who?
:
:And where do the OPEC nations fit in to their list?
:
You may be thinking of per capita income, which is just silly. If that
were the case, the Cayman Islands or Monaco could be the richest. Hell, we
could get Ross Perot, Bill Gates, and the (Sam) Walton family onto a
desert island somewhere, and call it the richest.
But the US has the highest GDP in the world. That makes us the richest.
Some countries are catching up, but so far, no one has passed us...
--Milt
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
"And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of
these is charity."
1 Corinthians 13:1
David Salvador Flores
In article <33674d64....@news.lava.net>,
That's cute. Why single out the rich, then? I'm sure it applies to
certain of the poor too, and to certain of the middle class as well.
Probably doesn't apple to the Greeks, or the Cheese makers, as these
two groups are blessed (some would even maintain that all manufacturers
of dairy products fall into the latter category.)
-Dave
Michael Zarlenga
Milt (msh...@U.Arizona.EDU) wrote:
: :America is the richets country in the world?
: :Says who?
: :And where do the OPEC nations fit in to their list?
: :
: You may be thinking of per capita income, which is just silly. If that
: were the case, the Cayman Islands or Monaco could be the richest. Hell, we
: could get Ross Perot, Bill Gates, and the (Sam) Walton family onto a
: desert island somewhere, and call it the richest.
: But the US has the highest GDP in the world. That makes us the richest.
: Some countries are catching up, but so far, no one has passed us...
Oh, well, I had no idea that was how "richest counrty" was defined
today.
If country A produces $2T per year and is $5T in debt, and Country
B produces $1T per year and has $4T in cash, Country A is richer.
That must be the new math.
RHA
In article <E8Bto...@drnews.dr.lucent.com>,
Dave Olson <d...@francium.dr.lucent.com> wrote:
>ri...@praline.no.neosoft.com (RHA) wrote:
>} In article <5i9bto$6...@paperboy.ids.net>,
>} Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>} >David Salvador Flores (ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>} >: for poor people to want to have a family and be able to take their
>} >: children to the doctor if they get sick. They are leeches and
>} >: their children aren't humans, they're "spawn."
>} >
>} >Wrong. Plenty of poor people have families, raise, clothe, feed
>} >and SUPPORT them. Other poor people simply don't give a rat's ass
>} >about their kids. Evidence of this lack of concern can be seen in
>} >how many poor kids find themselves in school without even a BREAK-
>} >FAST in their stomachs or a LUNCH in their hands.
>} >
>} >It takes less than 5 minutes to make a peanut butter and jelly
>} >sandwich and to throw a piece or 2 of fruit in a paper bag or lunch
>} >box. Or to fill a bowl with cereal and milk.
>} >
>} >Yet that amount of work, time, energy and dedication (5 whole min-
>} >utes 5 times a week) to attend to the need and well-being of their
>} >children is just too much to expect from many of the nation's poor
>} >parents.
>} >
>} >And, one more time, so that David Flores doesn't misrepresent what
>} >I said (as he is fond of doing) ... Not ALL poor families neglect
>} >their children, but many do.
>} >
>} >
>} >: All Hail Republican Family Values.
>} >
>} >Republican Family Values include supporting, feeding and clothing
>} >your children. I'm amazed that you apparently have a problem with
>} >those values, David.
>}
>} Geez, did Gingrich know these republi-con values when his
>} ex-wife had to beg at her church? Ooops, this is just a
>} liberal lie, isn't it?
>
>Even if that happened, it at least shows she cared enough about her own
>kids to look for help -- and at a church, no less, rather than at some
>government welfare office. But Michael is absolutely right; there are
>plenty of people, including some who are poor, who just couldn't care
>less.
The point wasn't the former Mrs. Gingrich, the point was the present
*Mr.* Gingrich.
--
rha