Well, we have specific laws and/or rules and regs that determine how money
is allocated to the military and to the infrastructure. Why are you limiting
the discussion to the more devisive welfare/social security question??

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 15:46:08 -0400, DSK said:

On one side, we have use of words with some degree of
accuracy, on the other side we have enflamed illogic &
buzz-words. It's sort of like discussing "sailing" with
somebody who thinks that untying dock lines & motoring
around within a mile of one's slip is the ultimate in
sailing achievement & skill.



The underlying dispute is not over the meaning of words.

Agreed.

However, when one participant displays such ignorance &
prejudice that there's really no way he's going to be able
to participate, then why not just provide a little
motivation for him to do some further study before jumping
into the ring?

You weren't listening to Humpty Dumpty.

.... It's over whether
specific laws such as those providing for welfare, social security,
Medicaid
and other entitlement programs are wise policy.

Not quite on target, since there is literally no way (short
of a violent coup) the U.S. gov't is going to shed those
programs. That leaves intelligent & reasonable discussion to
the amount & specifics of these programs.

I really expected the reader to understand that when I said "whether
specific laws...are wise policy" he would understand I was referring to
the
laws as presently in effect. By talking about "shedding" those programs
you
create an artificial and unnecessary dichotomy. There are, of course,
alternatives to outright repeal of those laws.