On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:24:58 -0500, DSK wrote:



Dave Hall wrote:
Oh please! You are really reaching. The parks are free.

Wrong again, Dave. Many many parks are no longer free.

The ones I can get too pretty much are. As for the rest, the fee is
small. Less than a dinner at Denny's


... Anyone can
visit them, rich and poor alike.


JohnH wrote:
Dave, have you been to Yellowstone lately? I doubt many poor people
could afford to spend a couple days there seeing the place.

Thank you , JohnH. And it's for certain that very few poor people are
visiting national parks in huge motor homes, such as the ones lining up
for miles around Yellowstone.

In any event, that was just *one* example.

Besides, it's a basic credo of the American principles that our system
encourages people to work & improve their lot in life. If that's not
true, as many of the right-wingers are insisting, then what's wrong with
the picture? Why aren't Bush & Cheney fixing it? Make up your minds, you
can't have it both ways.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. This is
the land of opportunity, not of guarantee.

You can't "fix" a problem that is endemic in human nature, unless you
provide a very motivating incentive. I guess, to some people, a roof
over their heads and food in their bellies isn't strong enough.
Especially when there are some who insist that the government should
"ease" their plight rather than give them the "tough love" push to get
out of it.

Dave

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 07:52:29 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:

But it's also the system that allows 59% of the babies born in DC to
be born out of wedlock. (Ironically, this rate is exceeded only by the
Virgin Islands, in the TANF data.)

Are there some things you'd like to say about the mothers of these
babies, John? Don't hold back on us...don't be covert...just say it...go
ahead...come out of the closet.


What's there to say, except that they're irresponsible and have
seriously juxtaposed priorities.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:24:58 -0500, DSK wrote:



Dave Hall wrote:
Oh please! You are really reaching. The parks are free.

Wrong again, Dave. Many many parks are no longer free.

The ones I can get too pretty much are. As for the rest, the fee is
small. Less than a dinner at Denny's


... Anyone can
visit them, rich and poor alike.


JohnH wrote:
Dave, have you been to Yellowstone lately? I doubt many poor people
could afford to spend a couple days there seeing the place.

Thank you , JohnH. And it's for certain that very few poor people are
visiting national parks in huge motor homes, such as the ones lining up
for miles around Yellowstone.

In any event, that was just *one* example.

Besides, it's a basic credo of the American principles that our system
encourages people to work & improve their lot in life. If that's not
true, as many of the right-wingers are insisting, then what's wrong with
the picture? Why aren't Bush & Cheney fixing it? Make up your minds, you
can't have it both ways.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. This is
the land of opportunity, not of guarantee.

You can't "fix" a problem that is endemic in human nature, unless you
provide a very motivating incentive. I guess, to some people, a roof
over their heads and food in their bellies isn't strong enough.
Especially when there are some who insist that the government should
"ease" their plight rather than give them the "tough love" push to get
out of it.

he"s just displaying the liebral mindset.........that guvmint must take care
of everything.


Dave

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:40:12 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 07:52:29 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:

But it's also the system that allows 59% of the babies born in DC to
be born out of wedlock. (Ironically, this rate is exceeded only by the
Virgin Islands, in the TANF data.)

Are there some things you'd like to say about the mothers of these
babies, John? Don't hold back on us...don't be covert...just say it...go
ahead...come out of the closet.


What's there to say, except that they're irresponsible and have
seriously juxtaposed priorities.

Dave

I suppose Harry considers me a racist because I believe in parental
responsibility.

I suppose Bill Cosby is also a racist. He feels much the same way.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/1...sby/index.html


John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:21:49 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


Most of "corporate America" needs people with greater skillsets than the
people who tend to favor government handouts to working.

In actuality, if a slacker can scam a handout from the government, that
effectively raises the minimum wage that these same people would be
willing to accept to leave the welfare roles. If there were no public
assistance, desperation would force people to work for a much lower wage.

I guess the news of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 has yet to reach you. It is no longer welfare,
more accurately, it is workfare.

http://www.cbpp.org/1-22-02tanf2.htm

http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ofa/

JohnH wrote:
The "American system" does encourage people to work and improve their
lot in life. This is the system that let's a Pakistani immigrate, buy
a clunker, paint it yellow, and start a cab business making $30,000 a
year.

Well, if the theory was true that the sum of all gov't prgrams
overwhelmingly benefits the poor, and taxes penalize the rich, then this
would rarely happen. Most people would happily sink into "poverty" while
sucking the gov't teat.

This doesn't happen. Therefor the theory is false. Very simple logic,
based on very obvious real-world facts. So why do so many people try and
claim otherwise?



But it's also the system that allows 59% of the babies born in DC to
be born out of wedlock. (Ironically, this rate is exceeded only by the
Virgin Islands, in the TANF data.)

AFAIK procreation is not regulated by the government. Is this the next
step in the new faith-based "moral values" federal government? It seems
rather incongruous for a group of people who claim to want to reduce the
size & scope of government, in theory.



Many of us 'right-wingers' (if it's necessary to call names)
understand that personal responsibility *does* fall both ways - some
folks have it, some don't.

Maybe that's the difference between a "right-winger" and a conservative.
Without using it as a pejorative, a "right-winger" is somebody who
believes at least 3 totally incompatible & illogical things and tries to
apply them rigidly as political principles. A conservative at least will
give a passing nod to reality.

DSK

Wrong again, Dave. Many many parks are no longer free.


Dave Hall wrote:
The ones I can get too pretty much are. As for the rest, the fee is
small. Less than a dinner at Denny's

In other words, you were wrong. Now let's work on the scope & scale of
your erroneous conclusions.

BTW if you spend more than $20 on dinner at Denny's then I suspect your
claims about your weight are equally false.

DSK

Harry Krause wrote:

We're a nation that doesn't give a crap about those of us in trouble.

Many of us here have long realised that you are in trouble, and have
repeatly tried to help you. However, like a certain percentage of those
who are ascribed as 'in trouble', you have bullheadedly refused to be helped.

-- Charlie

this time 46 post, sheesh!

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:57:29 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:21:49 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


Most of "corporate America" needs people with greater skillsets than the
people who tend to favor government handouts to working.

In actuality, if a slacker can scam a handout from the government, that
effectively raises the minimum wage that these same people would be
willing to accept to leave the welfare roles. If there were no public
assistance, desperation would force people to work for a much lower wage.

I guess the news of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 has yet to reach you. It is no longer welfare,
more accurately, it is workfare.

In theory anyway.......

I find it almost laughable, in a sick sort of pathetic way, that these
people have the balls to complain about the "work" that they now have
to do to get their welfare money. I also wonder just how strict the
people at the "workfare" office are about making sure these people are
actually "working".

Dave