Conference back40::soapbox

  Tom Leykis is a dork.  When he was here in Boston I couldn't stand
 listening to him.




 Jim (who doesn't have a problem with the concept on initial reading).

    What a family man he is.  
    
    I share your amusement/outrage with this peice of work.  What's scary
    is that most people won't even see what the problem is with this
    mentality.
    
    
    
    -steve

    RE: .0

>    Apparently the change would give states the ability to require
>    financial assistance by adult children above a certain income level, to
>    contribute to their parents' Medicaid costs.

    I'm willing to play devils advocate on this one (which means that my
    true position on this is irrelevent).  

    Let's work this out for a moment.  We're going to give the states the
    right to assign financial liability of an adult to another adult --
    whether or not the adult taking on the liability wants it or not.

    Take this idea out even farther.  Because you went to school, studied
    hard, and got a decent job and your brother/sister/aunt/cousin partied
    and used drugs instead, we're going to assign their financial
    liabilities to you.

    Yes, we know it was your brother that stole the car, went speeding, and
    killed 15 people, but you're the one who works for a living and has a
    retirement nest egg we can tap, so we're going to hold you financially
    liable.

    Sorry, it just doesn't add up.  Why not just assign the costs to the
    person on Medicaid.  If they need financial assistance, they can have
    their children come forward to help -- or spend their childrens'
    inheritance.

    -- Dave

    .3
    
    I'm not sure yif you missed ths point or if I didn't make it clear.
    
    Right now all of the liberals in this country have no problem assigning
    the the rest of the responsibility to care of everyone else.  They
    object when they have to pay.
    
    They are very happy to take your money to pay for someone else, but
    they sure as hell don't want to spend their own money.
    
    This was one of the most incredible statements I ever heard a
    self-proclaimed liberal make.  He wants you and me and everyone else to
    pay for his parents, but he doesn't want to.  If this isn't the most
    perfect reason to stop all of these programs immediatley, I can't think
    of a better one.
    
    I'm just wondering where our usual contingent of social do-gooders are
    on this.  I wonder if they would be willing to step up and take
    responsibility for their parents or if they agree with Tom and want
    everyone else to pay from them.
    
    I still laugh when I think about his tirade.
    

    RE: .4

>    I'm not sure yif you missed ths point or if I didn't make it clear.

    Could be a little bit of both.
    
>    If this isn't the most
>    perfect reason to stop all of these programs immediatley, I can't think
>    of a better one.

    Eliminating the programs I don't have a problem with, that or making
    them voluntary and eliminate the government subsidy.  If that was the
    point, YES!   100% agreement.

    What I'm concerned is: (from .0)
    
>    Apparently the change would give states the ability to require
>    financial assistance by adult children above a certain income level, to
>    contribute to their parents' Medicaid costs.

    I will argue that we should not grant the states the ability to assign
    financial liability of one adult to another adult, especially if the
    grounds for that assigning is something a person has no control over
    (such as blood relation).

    Note, I am not arguing that people should not take care of their
    elderly parents as appropriate.  I am arguing that the state should not
    step in and assign liability.  

    -- Dave

    Basenoter, I'm with you on this one.  Another problem is the
    "traditional" extended family has all but disappeared.
    
    If the good Lord is willing, my maternal grandfather will reach
    100 on May 10, 1996.  His health is remarkably good (hearing and
    eyes aren't great, but he doesn't belong in a nursing home by any
    stretch of the imagination).
    
    My grandmother died after they were married 55 years; Pops remarried
    over 20 years ago ;-}  Pop and Bess live in a retirement apartment that
    was built and structured for the elderly, but they pay to live there.
    Both families have contributed to supplement Pop and Bess and we've
    never given it much thought.  It's the right thing to do and it has
    been the rule in my family for generations.
    
    If something happens to one of them, I'm sure we'll adjust the
    arrangment to take care of the one who remains; it would never occur
    to us to expect "the government" to take responsibility for them or
    "supplement" the remaining children and grandchildren for doing what
    is right.  Push comes to shove, they will move in with one of their
    adult children if it becomes necessary; our family doesn't hold much
    faith in nursing homes.
    
    

     <<< Note 625.3 by HIGHD::FLATMAN "Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund" >>>


	As some may have gathered from the SSA interlude, my father died
	when I was young. My mother died when she was 55 and still working.
	
	My Wife's father left his family before she and I met. I never
	met him and in the 23 years that we've been married, we have
	had no contact with him. We learned that he died last week.

	So the question of caring for elderly parents came down to
	my Mother in Law. When it became obvious that the family back 
	in Ohio could no longer care for her, we brought her to live
	with us. She stayed with us for 18 months and we eventually
	were able to move her into her own apartment. We arranged for
	nursing care, meal preparation, etc. She was able to live on
	her own for 2 years before her declining health forced us to
	move her into a nursing home.

	For all of this, what her funds and SSA, Medicare and eventually
	Medicaid didn't cover, we made up the difference. When the time
	came we payed for her funeral (of all of my Wife's family, we just
	happen to be the most finacially successful).

	Having said all this in order for all to understand where I am
	coming from, I agree with Dave. The government should have no
	right to force adult children to support their elderly parents.

	I mentioned that my Wife's Father walked out on them over 20 years
	ago. Can you imagine my reaction if the government came calling
	and told me that we owed them for his support? Not a chance in
	Hell that I would pay that bill.


Jim 

    Jim,
    
    I am with you.
    
    Franks father and step mother were abusive to all 8 kids.  We have had
    virtually no contact with them since 1986, and they have never met, nor
    expressed an interest in meeting Atlehi or Carrie, although they have
    been sent the information and pictures that these kids exist.  The other
    child in the family we have contact with on a regular basis also has
    little to no contact with these people.   These are the people who
    threw children out on their 18th birthdays regardless of employment
    status, or whether or not they were still in school.  If the state of
    FL called tomorrow wanting money for their support they would be peeing
    into a strong wind.  
    
    My mom, is able to live independently and I will work to keep it that
    way for a long time.  If it came down to it, we would move her into our
    house, but that isn't something she is interested in.  She is happy at
    her home, and my brother is living there now, so I don't worry quite as
    much about her.  However, as far as money for medical care, we are
    strapped.  We are raising three kids, one in college, one in elementary
    and one who is 2 on one income.  
    
    I get the feeling that the people who come up with these schemes have
    no clue about the average families means, nor of what real medical
    costs, not covered by medicare, or medicaid really are.  Since I have
    an uninsured friend with no living children who wound up on
    medicare/caid last year, for surgery and STILL owes over $30K for
    treatment of cancer, and is now bumped from medicare/caid because she
    is working again (proud woman)  You and I will still pay for her
    emergency care, and most likely for her pre-death care, as
    medicaid/care is not kind to the yonger than 65, no minor children,
    medically indigent set.  
    
    meg

    Wait a minute.  I apparently am not getting clearly to what I found so
    interesting with this.
    
    I think that the majority of people will take care of their parents and
    oppose the efforts of the government to dictate what they will and
    won't do.
    
    What strikes me so odd about this is that all of the liberals and
    social engineers, particularly those in this notes conference, support
    just such behavior by the government.  You can see the arguments being
    put forth on the budget debate.  The Democrats and liberals are all up
    in arms about attempts to rein in spending.  Every attempt is
    castigated as mean-spirited, greedy, etc and they see nothing wrong
    with this.
    
    The dichotomy of this is beyond comprehension.  Let me try to distill
    this as best I can.  Right now the government tells me that I will take
    money away from my family to pay for thos epeople that some in here
    have said they would not pay to support.  Well right now I have to
    support them.  It's just that it's very impersonal and any opposition
    makes me a right-wing radical, etc.
    
    Now when this gets to a person by person basis, all of a suddent here
    is this outcry of opposition.  I am at a loss to understand the
    hypocracy of the liberals on this issue.  In this instance, Tom Leykis
    has no problem telling me fund all sorts of programs that benefit
    people that I have no desire to support, but when it gets to a liberal
    facing the possibility that they have to put their own money where
    their mouth is, well then that's a differnent story.
    
    I'm just trying to understand how this can be.
    

    Hmmmm, as a person with an older parent and step parent and with step
    siblings that are nigh unto useless, I don't know if I would want
    someone to legislate for me, my responsibility to care for my folks
    because I am single, no dependents, and have the means to do so.  At
    least I assume they would deem I have the means to do so because
    clearly, taking a vacation, enjoying myself, buying new clothes
    periodically, driving a decent car, and saving for the future are all
    luxuries that I can do without.  This is nothing more than another 
    confiscatory policy which will reward those that choose to not afford
    elder parental care.    

    
    
    
    	Rocush
    
    	Did you happen to catch what the income level was ?
    	Not that it matters..the idea is outrageous.
    
    

    It wasn't specifically identified, but apparently you would have to be
    over the average for the state.
    
    I'm still trying to understand how people can support all of these
    programs when the great unknown are forced to support the great
    unknown, but when it gets to a one-on-one basis there is such outrage.
    
    If you don't want to pay to support someone you know, then why is there
    no outcry about supporting someone you don't.
    

 I recall Tom Leykis doing a show when he was in Boston where he whined about
 his parents "helping" his brother out who was in some hard times.  I wish
 I remembered the details.  But he whined about that for 3 hours.



 Jim

TTWA:
    How is it that that scumbag Leykis even continues to find employment?

>    How is it that that scumbag Leykis even continues to find employment?


  Good question.  I thought when "Tubby" (as the Boston Herald called him)
  was driven out of Boston he would be done.  I was surprised one night while
  watching a CSPAN talk radio session to see that Leykis was on the air and
  on a nationally syndicated show no less.



 Jim

    Z    I'm still trying to understand how people can support all of these
    Z    programs when the great unknown are forced to support the great
    Z    unknown, 
    
    Al, coming from Chicago, I am surprised you don't get the concept.
    Coming from Massachusetts, I think I understand the concept.  When Bill
    Clinton was elected, some of the F.O.B. would exclaim, "We have to
    become more socially responsible."  Mix this with social engineering
    and there you have it...wealth redistribution.
    
    It doesn't matter that you don't know who your supporting, they don't
    care.  It isn't so much that they want to cater to the rabble and the
    scum who exploit the system.  It is that wealth redistribution
    guarentees a safety net for those who don't have a family, etc.  I can
    understand the intent of this but the problem we run into is that
    federal intervention has proven itself to be a cash pig, utterly
    disorganized, and completely incompetent in getting the bang for their
    buck.  So again, it isn't that they are against supporting your own. 
    It is more they want to be sure everybody gets a crumb instead of a
    few.  Of course they will never admit they are legislating lorality...
    giving of charity and what not.
    
    -Jack

    
    >How is it that that scumbag Leykis even continues to find employment?
    
    
    Because scum floats to the top?????
    

    >>If you don't want to pay to support someone you know, then why is there
    >>no outcry about supporting someone you don't.
    
    what makes you think there isn't an outcry for the latter half of your
    statement??  do you really think *i* enjoy dumping in a % of my
    earnings into a fund that i will never see the benefits of while some
    schmuq (yes, i realize not all people on welfare/ss/medicaid are schmuqs, 
    but they are out there...) decides he/she doesn't want to work for a
    living and manages to soak the system, at my expense.
    
    and at the same time, i don't expect to be forced to take care of
    someone just because they are the reason i am on this earth.  where
    were they when i needed taking care of?  it's not my fault they didn't
    plan better for their future.  i'd help out if i could afford to, but
    i'll be damned if someone is going to force me to give up any extra
    income and put me in the poor house just because someone i am related
    to is in a rut.  
    
    if they are going to push this, why stop at your parents, why not your
    grandparents or your brother or your cousin's second wife by a third
    marriage...
    
    

    
    > ....your cousin's second wife by a third marriage...
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    uuummm...... huh?
    

    
      I don't think this sort of hamhanded legislation would work.
     Much as I agree with "Honor thy father and mother," I'm afraid
     it won't work to require it by law.  Families differ, and laws
     just aren't good at complexity.
    
      bb

Marries woman A.  Dies or divorced.
Marries woman B.  Divorced.
Remarries woman B.  Second wife by a third marriage.

hth

    
    
    
    Mom and Dad run up huge bills. Sell everything they own but don't
    look to me, I'm not their keeper.
    
    What I hate is the people that whine that they have nothing to inherit 
    because the parents house had to be sold off to pay debts, medical
    bills.
    
    If I decide to become thier keeper, I'll co-sign the bills before they
    happen.
    

 re .20



 Having thought about the matter, I tend to go along with this.  




 Jim

    
    
    
    .12 Why I pay taxes for social programs more readily.
    
    	I have a good idea what my debt to government will be, and can
    	plan for the future.
    
    	Compared to paying for parent.
    
    	You can't tell me how much it's going to cost. 3000 or 100,000,000 
    	There is no security.
    
    	Also this scheme doesn't help America. You have three generations
    	of poor, unskill people. Where is the money going to come from?
    
    	Demonizing the poor isn't going to change anything for the better.

    
> Marries woman B.  Divorced.
> Remarries woman B.  Second wife by a third marriage.
    
    Now there's one stupid $#!+  He didn't learn from the first time!
    

    actually, dan...i was just sorta being facetious...trying to say why
    stop at your parents, why not make you responsible for anyone you are
    related to.  but gerald actually found a way for it to work out... :>
    
    
    -raq
    
    

      Hi,
    
        I have read up to .10 so excuse me if the basenote has not been
        understood since then.  (Yes, I am assuming that I understand it, 
        audacious though this be.)
    
        The basenoter IS 100% AGAINST the idea of the govt. telling anyone
        to have to finance anybody.
    
        What the basenoter is doing is ATTEMPTING TO WEAR THE MOCCASINS
        OF A LIBERAL and seeing things from that perspective.
    
        From this perspective, he is drawing a very simple axiom of
        liberalism (and again, one with which he disagrees with):
    
        The government has every right to take money from its citizens
        so as to finance other of its citizens.
    
        While 'being the liberal', the basenoter is responding to a 
        certain specific liberal's antagonism with a position that has 
        the government taking money from part of its citizenry so as to 
        help their own relations (their parents).
    
        The basenoter is concluding the following:
    
        It is utterly moronic and hypocritical for a liberal to be
        what he is and to be antagonistic with such an idea.
    
        Do I got it right???
    
        Any discussion on how wrong the idea is, is missing the intent
        of this topic.  The intent of this topic is to point out the
        hypocrisy of a certain liberal and perhaps (if other liberals
        agree with the liberal in question) to point out the hypocrisy
        with other liberals and to (then) point out that if this program
        is obviously wrong (to many liberals), one of the main planks 
        of what it means to be liberal is (implicitly) declared wrong 
        by the liberals themselves.
    
    							Tony

    
    
    RE .27 - Tony,
    
>        It is utterly moronic and hypocritical for a liberal to be
>        what he is and to be antagonistic with such an idea.
    
    So what else is new?
>    
>        Do I got it right???
    
    I think so.
    
>        Any discussion on how wrong the idea is, is missing the intent
>        of this topic. 
    
    Yea....but the other discussions are also intersting since
    such an idea just may become law....with that said:
    

    This is a difficult one. I think everyone has made excellent
    replies on both sides. However I believe that children with the
    ability to pay, should contribute something to the cost
    of parent's nursing home care when that parent is on Medicaid.

    I would compare this to certain government college loan programs.
    If parent's make a certain amount of money, they do not get 
    federal assistance when it comes to paying for their children's
    education. 

    There are additional reasons that people should be aware of.
    In most cases, when wealthy people enter a nursing home they
    transfer all their assets to their children. This makes them
    ineligible for Medicaid for 3 (give or take a little) years. So
    the kids pay for the nursing home for those three years. After
    that the government (Medicaid) takes over. Making children pay
    something for the nursing home care would partly make up for this.

    The second case is that some children will put their parents in
    a nursing home even if they could care for them at home. There
    are many reasons for this, including the fact that the parent
    may be much happier in the nursing home. Again, if the children
    can afford to pay something they should.

    However the biggest reason is to try to contain govenment spending
    on Medicaid. Most medicaid spending is spent on nursing home care
    which costs around 30K per year per person.

    I would go further and require siblings who can afford it to
    contribute to the nursing home care of other siblings.

    Lastly I believe that people should pay for the services they
    receive from the govenment. If the government was not paying
    for the nursing home expenses of a person a relative would
    most likely have to pay that expense or take care of the
    person.

    		    Very intersting discussion,

    			Ed


    

      If you're referring to the last sentence, its a wretched
      run-on!!!

      Hi Ed,
    
        How about eliminating government subsidies altogether?
    
    						Tony

    
    Re .last - Tony,
    
>        How about eliminating government subsidies altogether?
    
    No...many government subsidies make sense...many do not. What
    we need to to is concentrate on those government programs
    that are very large, and growing larger (like Medicaid), and
    see what we can do to change them.
    
    I believe making well-off people pay some share of the
    nursing home costs of their immediate relatives is one
    thing to consider.
    
    					Ed
    
    
    

    
    re:26
    
    raq, I figured that, but I just had to do it.  I'm in a mood today....
    8*)
    

    
    that's ok...i was just excited about the attention, that's all... ;>
    
    

                       <<< Note 625.29 by DECC::VOGEL >>>

>    This is a difficult one. I think everyone has made excellent
>    replies on both sides. However I believe that children with the
>    ability to pay, should contribute something to the cost
>    of parent's nursing home care when that parent is on Medicaid.

	They do contribute "something". That portion of their FICA
	tax that is used to fund Medicaid is a "contribution".

>    I would compare this to certain government college loan programs.
>    If parent's make a certain amount of money, they do not get 
>    federal assistance when it comes to paying for their children's
>    education. 

	There is a rather significant difference between providing for
	your children and providing for your parents. 

>    The second case is that some children will put their parents in
>    a nursing home even if they could care for them at home.

	Caring for an elderly, oftimes ill, parent in your home is 
	EXTREMELY stressful. Some can deal with the stress, some can
	not. While caring for my M-I-L I learned how to do things that
	I could've lived without knowing. How to take blood sugar readings
	(twice per day), how to mix and measure insulin syringes (several
	times per week), how to give insulin injections (twice per day),
	and a myriad of other details dealing with O2 tanks, diet, etc.
	And all of this attention comes at the expense (emotionally) of
	the rest of the family, particularly any minor children.

	While we did it gladly, I can still empathize with those who are
	unwilling to bear the burden.
Jim

                       <<< Note 625.32 by DECC::VOGEL >>>

>    I believe making well-off people pay some share of the
>    nursing home costs of their immediate relatives is one
>    thing to consider.
 
	How is this different from any other income re-distribution
	scheme? Other than the genetic link, of course.

Jim

    RE: .29

>    I would compare this to certain government college loan programs.
>    If parent's make a certain amount of money, they do not get 
>    federal assistance when it comes to paying for their children's
>    education. 

    Two big differences:
        1.  The parents were and are responsible for bringing the child
            into this world.  The child is not responsible for having
            brought the parent into this world.  By having a child, the
            parents are taking on the responsibilities of raising the child
            and therefore can be expected to pay for (some) of the college
            education.

        2.  In the one case (college kid), the government is denying
            benefits.  In the other case, the government is granting the
            benefit and then forcing the relative to pay.  A better analogy
            would be if a kid is accepted into Harvard and then the
            government pays the kids AND puts a lien on the parents' bank
            account to finance the tutition.  (I.e., removing the choice
            from the parents.)

>    transfer all their assets to their children. This makes them
>    ineligible for Medicaid for 3 (give or take a little) years.

        If this is the problem, then up it from 3 years to 10.  Another
        possibility is to "undo" the gift to the adult children.

>    The second case is that some children will put their parents in
>    a nursing home even if they could care for them at home.

        Yeah.  Well, so?  Eliminate the government subsidy and let it be a
        private decision.

>    I would go further and require siblings who can afford it to
>    contribute to the nursing home care of other siblings.

        I would fight this STUPID idea tooth and nail.  My older brother
        and younger sister are complete wastes of human lives.  They have
        absolutely NO clue about money and finances.  My brother was noted
        for taking a months worth of pay while in the army and blowing it
        on fireworks for the 4th of July.  Why should I pay for him having
        a grand and glorious time with his money?!?

        When he gets old and infirm, if you don't want the taxpayers to
        underwrite him, no problem.  Don't.  But don't come raiding my
        bank account simply because I started saving for retirement when I
        was 16!

>    Lastly I believe that people should pay for the services they
>    receive from the govenment. 

        100% agreement.  But make the person receiving the service pay. 
        Don't force someone who has no control over an adult's actions
        liable for those actions.

        -- Dave

    All social security, medicare, medicaid, and such do is spread the load
    over a much larger number of people then if we each took care of our
    own parents.  There are some advantages to this:
    
    	As with automobile insurance, the load on each individual is 
    	limited, and is much less than the maximum that it would be in 
    	some individual cases.
    
    	Parents and children are freer to live and work at great 
    	distances from each other.
    
    	All parents can be provided for at least minimally, regardless of 
    	the financial situation of their children, the number of their
    	children, and even the existence of their children.
    
    If we were to do away with old-age living and health insurance of these
    types, then there would be a lot of old people, including those who
    have no living children, who will be in very bad shape.  Is this what
    we want?
    
    As was pointed out earlier, there certainly IS a difference between
    expecting a parent to bear financial responsibility for the children
    that parent CHOSE to have, and forcing a child to bear financial
    responsibility for his/her own parents that s/he did not choose to
    have.
    
    The one Very Good Thing about leaving parental care solely up to the
    individual is that there will be natural limits on the cost of that
    care, so the overall bill nationally will go way down from what it is
    today.  Very few individuals will be able to pay millions of dollars
    for prolonged expensive medical care and procedures.
    
    But if that is the only benefit, then we ought to figure out a better
    way to accomplish it than by throwing away what is essentially a very
    fair and supportive national old-age care insurance system.
    
    Dick

re: Ed

>    I would go further and require siblings who can afford it to
>    contribute to the nursing home care of other siblings.

I, also, can't buy this, Ed. Many people, myself included, have siblings
whom we not only simply "don't get along with", but whom we have, for all
intents and purposes, totally distanced ourselves from for a lifetime.
The fact that they happen to share like genes is hardly a sufficient
basis for establishing a legally binding responsibility for care.

>				 If the government was not paying
>    for the nursing home expenses of a person a relative would
>    most likely have to pay that expense or take care of the person.

Or, as has been said, the person requiring care would go without.
So be it. If that were the case, it's still insufficient cause for
the government to be providing the social welfare necessary to
either support or extract support from others.

Perhaps what's needed before any such requirements be brought to bear,
is a legal process by which people can formally disown any relative
whom the government might deign to be "looking out for". It can be done
with children, it seems it should be allowable for other relationships
as well.

    
> >    I would go further and require siblings who can afford it to
> >    contribute to the nursing home care of other siblings.
> 
> I, also, can't buy this, Ed. Many people, myself included, have siblings
> whom we not only simply "don't get along with", but whom we have, for all
> intents and purposes, totally distanced ourselves from for a lifetime.
> The fact that they happen to share like genes is hardly a sufficient
> basis for establishing a legally binding responsibility for care.
    
    Then comes the whole issue of adopted siblings, step siblings, second
    wife of fathers, etc. etc.
    

    Re .last few 

    All good points...let me address a few:

    from .35 - Jim

>	They do contribute "something". That portion of their FICA
>	tax that is used to fund Medicaid is a "contribution".

    FICA pays for Medicare not Medicaid.

>	There is a rather significant difference between providing for
>	your children and providing for your parents. 

    This was said in a number of responses. It's too bad you all
    feel this way. To me they are all *family*. Just the same
    I understand your points of view.

    From .36

>	How is this different from any other income re-distribution
>	scheme? Other than the genetic link, of course.

    The genetic link is what's important. 
    

    Also, let me clarify something. The proposal I would endorse
    would be one such that one would contribute the same no matter
    what the status of other children/siblings. It would also not
    be a major contribution. Perhaps a 5% surtax on net income over
    50K. So someone who has a net income of 100K might pay 2500/year.
    I would not approve of any plan that would cause hardship
    on the children/siblings. 


    Face it folks, nursing home expenses will continue to rise quickly
    and the number of people in nursing homes will rise even more
    rapidly. Currently something like 80% of the people in nursing
    homes are on Medicaid. We need to do something to control
    the future impact on taxpayers. I believe what I suggest is
    one possibility to reduce this impact.
    
    I'm sorry some of you consider this idea STUPID (or maybe I
    just did a bad job communicating it). I await your suggestions
    on controlling the tax payer cost of Medicaid.

    					Ed

    
    > Perhaps a 5% surtax on net income over 50K. 

    Soak the rich!  They can afford it!  I see, your definition of rich is
    over 50K.  If that's a two income family that's only 25K each.  Oh
    yeah, they're rich!  The only thing your doing is penalizing people for
    being successful and making money.  BAD IDEA!  I feel we should
    encourage people to make more money, not discourage them!

    > Currently something like 80% of the people in nursing
    > homes are on Medicaid. We need to do something to control
    > the future impact on taxpayers. I believe what I suggest is
    > one possibility to reduce this impact.

    Your suggestion would have the opposite effect.  Have you ever seen
    ANYTHING a bureaucracy does, decrease in size when you give it more
    money.  I haven't.  The more money you give it the worse it will get. 
    If you really want to keep medical expenses down, remove government. 
    Then the doctors/administrators will have to deal with the people and
    their ability to pay.

    An interesting exercise...Next time you go to the doctor and you get
    some astronomical bill, call them up and tell them that you can't
    afford this.  Ask them if they could make some kind of arrangement.  I
    got $400 bucks knocked off my bill by a simple phone call.  Not only
    that, but they agreed to take my payment for the rest over time.

    Dan
    

                       <<< Note 625.41 by DECC::VOGEL >>>

>>	How is this different from any other income re-distribution
>>	scheme? Other than the genetic link, of course.

>    The genetic link is what's important. 
 
	How so? Take the example of my late, but unmourned, Father-in-Law.

	Please explain why my family should even consider paying ANYTHING
	for his care.

	Yes, there is a genetic link to both my Wife and Daughter, but 
	that is certainly not enough for me to feel any possible responsibility
	for this worm.

Jim

    RE: .41

>    Face it folks, nursing home expenses will continue to rise quickly
>    and the number of people in nursing homes will rise even more
>    rapidly. Currently something like 80% of the people in nursing

    So why have the government in the loop at all?  Or, if you prefer, have
    the government only pay a certain amount.  After that, let granny hit
    up her own relatives.  Do NOT have the state confiscate monies just
    because we happen to be related to granny.

>    This was said in a number of responses. It's too bad you all
>    feel this way. To me they are all *family*. Just the same
>    I understand your points of view.

    I think you still miss the point.  When my grandmother was on a down
    hill slide, my wife and I were willing to take her in and have her live
    with us.  She was a great lady, very independent, but she refused to
    give up her home.  My mother finally forced her to move in with her.  I
    believe in looking out for (some) family.

    The problem that I have with your position is allowing the state come
    in and give my parents and siblings carte blanche over a portion of my
    earnings and/or bank accounts.  THAT IS WRONG.

    Take the principal that you're espousing and carry it out further.  If
    your brother hops in his car, runs over a bunch of kids at a bus stop,
    and he is unable to financially compensate the victims, then the state
    gets to attack YOUR bank account.  After all, you're genetically
    related.  And besides,  he's family.
    
>    I'm sorry some of you consider this idea STUPID (or maybe I
>    just did a bad job communicating it). I await your suggestions
>    on controlling the tax payer cost of Medicaid.

    I find no fault with your communication skills.  I believe that you
    have articulated your position very well.  Furthermore, I'm arogant
    enough to believe that I understand your position.

    That said, as long as the idea you're pushing is merely a proposal,
    IMHBO it is stupid.  If the idea ever runs the risk of being enacted,
    then it is no longer merely stupid, but dangerous.

    -- Dave

Kirby raises a very valid point. Get the government out of the picture and
leave the matter to be settled betwixt the providers and the receivers (and
any family who cares to be involved.)

It _is_ a fact, that receivers with insufficient means can negotiate more
reasonable terms with providers. As soon as you put the government, an
insurance company, or a legal link to a relative with resources into the
mix, providers no longer have any incentive to be reasonable along these
lines.

    Re last few:

    Many of you have suggested getting the government out (of Medicaid)
    all together. Do you really believe this is possible? Virtually
    *everyone* who enters a nursing home is unable to pay after a
    few years. The costs are simply too high. How is care supposed
    to be provided to these people?
    
    
>    Your suggestion would have the opposite effect.  Have you ever seen
>    ANYTHING a bureaucracy does, decrease in size when you give it more
>    money.  

    I am not suggesting giving Medicaid more money. I'm suggesting that
    instead of 100% percent of the money coming from general government
    revenue, some percentage of it comes from relatives of those who
    are receiving the tax payer benefit.

>	Please explain why my family should even consider paying ANYTHING
>	for his care.
>
>	Yes, there is a genetic link to both my Wife and Daughter, but 
>	that is certainly not enough for me to feel any possible responsibility
>	for this worm.

    But you are today. Your tax payments, and mine, provide this. However,
    I grant you that cases like yours would be unfair. Most relatives,
    however, are on better terms, and providing support for them would
    not be so unfair. 

>    The problem that I have with your position is allowing the state come
>    in and give my parents and siblings carte blanche over a portion of my
>    earnings and/or bank accounts.  THAT IS WRONG.

    This is the way it is today. The difference is that right now this
    money is taken from your pay in taxes. 

>    Take the principal that you're espousing and carry it out further.  If
>    your brother hops in his car, runs over a bunch of kids at a bus stop,
>    and he is unable to financially compensate the victims, then the state
>    gets to attack YOUR bank account.  After all, you're genetically
>    related.  And besides,  he's family.

    Not the same. In one case a relative is receiving tax payer's dollars.


    Remember, when the government pays for nursing home care for a
    relative, they are doing *you* a service. Without this government
    payment you would either:
    	.Pay for the service yourself (everyone with a spare $30K/year
    	 raise their hand)
    	.Provide the service yourself (everyone with 16+ hours free
    	 per day, 365 days/year raise their hand)
    	.Allow the relative to die (which would probably be a crime
    	 but that's besides the point).

    Sure the "yourself" may be other members of your family, or perhaps
    friends, but *someone* benefits from Medicaid money besides the
    person in the nursing home. In most every case this is a relative.

    I find it amazing that so many of you who are against my suggestion
    often argue the right-wing positions in other topics. I thought most
    right-wing types (like myself) believe that you should pay for the
    government services you receive.


    Anyway...interesting discussion. Thanks to all for taking the time
    to reply. You have made me see many problems with my suggestion.
    It's far from perfect. However, I'm still waiting for better/other
    suggestions.

    						Ed

Hi Ed,

>    Many of you have suggested getting the government out (of Medicaid)
>    all together. Do you really believe this is possible? Virtually
>    *everyone* who enters a nursing home is unable to pay after a
>    few years. The costs are simply too high. How is care supposed
>    to be provided to these people?

I will repeat. Yes - it's possible. And if it happened, providers (nursing
homes) might find that what they charge, and some of the services that they
provide, (or some of the salaries that they pay or the profits the provide
to their investors) might be unreasonable given the fact that they didn't 
have a deep pocket to depend upon by default. If care can't possibly be 
provided, some hard choices may need to be made. That's how the world has 
been up until sometime in this century. Why should it be any different?

>    	.Allow the relative to die (which would probably be a crime
>    	 but that's besides the point).

A crime in what sense? A chargeable offense, or a figurative crime?

>							I thought most
>    right-wing types (like myself) believe that you should pay for the
>    government services you receive.


Absolutely! The question on the table is "Who gets to decide which
'government services' we receive?" "We" already have plenty being shoved
down "our" collective throat. Legislation defining more is not a good thing.

    
    
    To the people who say it's impossible.  What do you think people did
    over 30 years ago?  There were no govt programs to provide for this
    type of thing.  Of course the life span is a bit longer than it used to
    be.  How rampant is this problem?  Does anyone know?  Do most elderly
    end up being in a situation where they have to go into  some kind of
    nursing home, or are most on their own until they die?
    
    
    Mike 

                       <<< Note 625.46 by DECC::VOGEL >>>

>    I grant you that cases like yours would be unfair. Most relatives,
>    however, are on better terms, and providing support for them would
>    not be so unfair. 

	Supposedly something like half of the marriages in this country
	end in divorce. I would wager that some significant percentage of
	these have problems similar to ours.

	Then you have the issue of which siblings accept or are forced
	to accept the responsibility.

	My wife has two sisters and three brothers, yet none of them were
	in a position to care for their Mother. Because we were financially
	able, we did it on our own (with help from Medicaid).

	Now, you seem to think that thge current system is somehow
	"unfair". Why? everyone pays into the system and then the system
	pays out. Since everyone has parents, at least at one time or
	another, this seems to spread the burden for caring for the 
	elderly over the apppropriate population.

	BTW, a correction to some numvers that were posted ealrier.
	It may cost upwards of $30k/yr for nursing home care (it can
	be had for less), but Medicaid only pays something like $600
	per month toward that bill.

>    I find it amazing that so many of you who are against my suggestion
>    often argue the right-wing positions in other topics. I thought most
>    right-wing types (like myself) believe that you should pay for the
>    government services you receive.

	Some services are spread out over the entire population. Taken
	to an extreme your "pay for services" position could be used
	to justify not paying for police or fire protection. Just send
	a bill to all those who dial 911.

	Ed, a question just to be sure that I understand YOUR personal
	commitment to your position. Are your parents currently alive?

Jim

    Mike,
    
    A study I read said the most expensive medical care for ANY age is the
    last six weeks of life.  
    
    30 years ago, we didn't have the technology, medicines, or equipment
    to prolong lives (or deaths) that we have today.  People died, rather
    than being defibbed over and over, dialysis was in its infancy, as was
    open heart surgery, heart-lung machines, open cranial surgery.  We
    didn't have CTscans, MRI's, bone scans, or extreme life support.  The
    chemotherapy that saved my dad's life the first time didn't exist so
    people with melignant melanoma with lymph node involvement generally
    died within 2 years of diagnosis.  Badly burned people had a less than
    2% chance of survival.  Premature infants died unless they were
    developed enough to avoid lung problems, digestive problems, and the
    rest of things that plague premature infants.  Today they are routinely
    saved, however the price tag is not cheap.  People had heart attacks and
    died, or if they lived they lived as cardiac cripples.  Bypass surgery,
    angioplasty and cholesterol lowering drugs were nonexistant.  90% of
    children with acute leukemia died, as did most adults diagnosed with
    that, hogkins disease, breast cancer............. well you get the
    picture.  
    
    however, all the miracles that save lives come with a price-tag.  Chemo
    is routinely 50K and up.  Radiation 10-30 K depending on type and
    location.  ICU runs around 10K/day if the care-providers are only
    tending a vegetable, it goes up exponentially if they are really
    working to save a life.  a 27 week preemie costs around 300K before it
    ever sees the outside of a hospital, and high costs usually continue
    over the first year of life.  I don't know about bypass surgery, but I
    bet, with the CCU, surgeons fees, etc, it isn't cheap either.  ER
    patients who would have died 30 yers ago are walking out of the
    hospital.  There again, however the price is steep.
    
    Alzheimer patients were locked up, tied into bed or wheelchairs and
    drugged to the point they couldn't stand up, let alone wander.  Same
    with people with strokes that interfered with their reasoning. 
    Pneumonia carried countless ancients away.  Today it is often
    agressively treated with antibiotics and life support, leaving the
    patient and family to wiat for a more grusome and expensive death.  
    
    meg

    
    
    Was there a point to all that, Meg?  The subject isn't health care, but
    nursing home care.  Or so I thought.
    
    
    Mike

    Mike,
    
    Nursing home care is only part of elder care.  On top of it, most
    nursing homes are not hospices and aggressively treat Alzheimers with
    Physical, occupational and cognitive therapy.  Cancers, strokes, hert
    attacks, phuemonia, all bwefall the elderly and are also aggressivily
    treated, even when the end result is still death.
    
    meg

    also mike,
    
    The subject was medicaid and children reimbursing costs.  Medicaid
    isn't just for nursing homes, it also can cover ICU, CCU and all the
    other stuff I listed, with the exception of premature births in the
    elderly.  Take the level of care and the price-tag down to mid 60's
    costs and I wouldn't have a problem with it, but I would also be
    accused of gericide.
    
    meg

    
    
    Oh, I see.  The things you wrote about seemed to be dangers that we all
    face, save the alzheimers.  Most of them are covered by insurance and
    the insurance industry seems to be doing fine.  My wife's grandmother
    spent 4 years in a nursing home, she suffered from alzheimers.  The
    last 2-3 years, she did nothing but lie in bed.  The cost of the care
    was $1200/month.
    
    
    Mike

    Mike,
    
    Lucky you, where did you find such inexpensive care?
    
    meg

    
    
    It was a place in West Virginia.  That's where she was born and raised. 
    It was always a painful experience to go visit her.
    
    
    

    My Father, who is 69 years old but the health of a 45 year old, didn't
    want there to be any burden on his children, if the time came that he
    couldn't take care of himself. For what he considers to be a small
    monthly fee, taken out of his retirement income, he purchased an
    insurance policy that guarantees him a place in one of many of the care
    facilities in his area. I have offered to pick up the premium if
    payment for him ever became a problem. My Father is and always has been
    very selfsufficient. He has taught me to be the same. He personally
    would be appalled at any suggestion of government forcing anyone, let
    alone his children, to pay for his old age. Anyone who would expect or
    demand that others, including family, be forced to support them, isn't
    worth one dime IMO. 

    
    That sounds a little like what my mother has - her financial advisor
    suggested that we purchase what he called "Nursing Home Insurance" (I
    forget the real name right now).  It will pay the fees if she should be 
    forced to move into a nursing home.
    
    Knowing my mother, it'll never happen 8^).
     

    So, I get to look forward to nursing in my old age?

    
    Wow...more replies...what strikes me the most is how unaware most
    people are of the facts of nursing home care and how it is paid
    for...anyway...here goes:
    
    
    
    
    Re .47 - Jack

>have a deep pocket to depend upon by default. If care can't possibly be
>provided, some hard choices may need to be made. That's how the world has
>been up until sometime in this century. Why should it be any different?

    and .48 - Mike

>  To the people who say it's impossible.  What do you think people did
>    over 30 years ago?  There were no govt programs to provide for this

   Meg answers much of this in .50 - 30 years ago people did not live
   long enough to get alzheimers. Most people with stroke died. Today
   these people live for years, virtually unable to care for themselves.
   Further society has changed. In the past most wives lived at home
   and were able to take care of sick parents. Today this is no longer
   the case. 

   Re .49 - Jim,


>        Now, you seem to think that thge current system is somehow
>        "unfair". Why? everyone pays into the system and then the system
>        pays out. Since everyone has parents, at least at one time or
>        another, this seems to spread the burden for caring for the
>        elderly over the apppropriate population.

    I do not mean to say that the current system is really unfair. I'm
    looking for a way to reduce cost of the system to the taxpayer in the
    future. Seems to me that those who receive the benefit should pay
    a larger percentage of the cost.

>        BTW, a correction to some numvers that were posted ealrier.
>        It may cost upwards of $30k/yr for nursing home care (it can
>        be had for less), but Medicaid only pays something like $600
>        per month toward that bill.

    The only error in my numbers was 30K, most nursing home care is much
    more expensive than this. If you are in a qualified nursing facility,
    Medicaid will pay that facility 100% of the cost, not $600/month
    (Actually if the patient has any income at all, most still get SS, 
    that money is given to the home first and Medicaid will pay the rest). 
    I don't know where you got that $600 figure, but I'm quite certain
    it is wrong.


>        Some services are spread out over the entire population. Taken
>        to an extreme your "pay for services" position could be used
>        to justify not paying for police or fire protection. Just send
>        a bill to all those who dial 911.

    In many states, if the fire department comes to your house, you
    are charged.	

>        Ed, a question just to be sure that I understand YOUR personal
>        commitment to your position. Are your parents currently alive?

    Yes.

    Re .45 - Mike:

>    Most of them are covered by insurance and the insurance 
>    industry seems to be doing fine.  

    Virtually no insurance covers nursing home care for any amount
    of time. Medicare certainly does not. Even most of our health
    care plans will not pay for extended stays (like more than
    60 days) in a nursing home.
	

    Re .57, .58 - "Nursing Home Insurance"

    Have you read these policies? If you have you will probably find that
    they will cover the nursing home costs for only 3 years. The idea
    is that person enters nursing home and xfers all assets at that
    time. As I stated earlier this xfer prevents Medicaid from paying
    for three years, therefore the policy covers that time. After
    three years the person goes on Medicaid.

					Ed

    RE: .46

>>    The problem that I have with your position is allowing the state come
>>    in and give my parents and siblings carte blanche over a portion of my
>>    earnings and/or bank accounts.  THAT IS WRONG.
>
>    This is the way it is today. The difference is that right now this
>    money is taken from your pay in taxes. 

    No, the difference right now is that my taxes do not go up or down
    dependent upon the financial responsibility or irresponsibility of my
    relatives (which I have no control over).

>>    Take the principal that you're espousing and carry it out further.  If
>>    your brother hops in his car, runs over a bunch of kids at a bus stop,
>>    and he is unable to financially compensate the victims, then the state
>>    gets to attack YOUR bank account.  After all, you're genetically
>>    related.  And besides,  he's family.
>
>    Not the same. In one case a relative is receiving tax payer's dollars.

    Sorry, but the _principal_ is the same.  The proposal that you're
    advocating legislates that people be their brother's keeper.  In a
    nutshell, it says that if my brother/sister/mother/father doesn't plan
    financially for the future then I am liable.

>    Sure the "yourself" may be other members of your family, or perhaps
>    friends, 

    Oh good, now you want me to be financially liable for financially
    irresponsible friends?!?

>    I thought most
>    right-wing types (like myself) believe that you should pay for the
>    government services you receive.

    Close, but not quite.  At least for me, what I'm arguing for is CHOICE
    about where and how my money is spent.  Choice does not come from the
    government forcing me to pay (more) for someone's health care simply
    because of a genetic (or friendship) link.

>    However, I'm still waiting for better/other
>    suggestions.

    As much as the current system is broken and desperately needs a massive
    overhaul, IMHBO your proposal is worse.  The principal that is the very
    foundation of your proposal is abhorent.

    -- Dave

    RE: .60

>    Seems to me that those who receive the benefit should pay
>    a larger percentage of the cost.

    No problem.  Great idea.  Charge the person IN the nursing home.  If
    they are faced with having to leave the nursing home THEY can ASK their
    friends and relatives to contribute.  Which is a huge difference from
    having the government stalk their friends and family and confiscate
    their bank accounts.  (Hmmm.  Maybe I should dump MCI's calling plan so
    the government can't track who my friends and family are ...)

    -- Dave

    
    .60
    
    >Have you read these policies?
    
    No, people in my family make a habit of shelling out money for things 
    we know absolutely nothing about.
    
    
    

    
>    No, people in my family make a habit of shelling out money for things 
>    we know absolutely nothing about.

    i could use a little of that, for god-knows-what.
    
    
    

    It all comes down to vote buying.  If people take responsibility for
    their own lives, then they will not owe the Democrats anything.  If on
    the other hand, the Democrats set up a system of entitlements to take
    care of every problem you have, then you will become hooked on them and
    thus feel compelled to vote for the party that continues to dish out
    the goodies.  This is what it is all about.

                       <<< Note 625.60 by DECC::VOGEL >>>


>    I do not mean to say that the current system is really unfair. I'm
>    looking for a way to reduce cost of the system to the taxpayer in the
>    future. 

	So the system IS fair, it's just too expensive. Why not just
	decree that anyone unable to pay for their own nursing home
	care should be euthanised? That would accomplish your goal
	even better, would it not?

>    In many states, if the fire department comes to your house, you
>    are charged.	

	Name an incorporated city that does this. You are talking about
	very rural "fire protection districts", very much the exception	
	rather then the rule. BTW, what about police protection, you seem
	to have left that out.

Jim

    Reading all these replies just cements my decision that when/if
    I get to that point it's 1-800-Kevorkian for me!!
    
    Meg did bring up valid points; true the discussion is about nursing
    homes, but that day 3 years ago that I spent in a trauma room at
    N. Fulton Hospital I got to "listen" to what could have been an
    episode of ER.  You know the bit, "paddles, everyone stand back, etc".
    My best friend was with me and we listened to the trauma team 
    working for over 1/2 hour on someone.  Finally they called it and
    I could see by the dejected demeanor of the team as they walked by
    my room that they had lost the patient.
    
    Because everyone kept telling me I could be having a heart attack I
    was unnerved to say the least.  My best friend Sandy was with me;
    she was a nurse in another life before DEC so she went out at one
    point just out of curiosity.  When it was all over she told me not
    to get upset, but then made the comment that she couldn't understand
    why all that effort was made.  She had been returning from a smoke
    break when they brought the woman into the hospital.  Sandy said the
    lady had a note pinned to her nightgown, no relatives were with her and
    when Sandy asked what was going on, one of the nurses said the woman
    had been brought in from a local nursing home.  The woman was in 
    full cardiac arrest when she got to the hospital; she was 87 years
    old!!!  Why in heaven's name was this effort made?  Humanitarian
    reasons?  Was there money to be made off this?  Or was this another
    case of "we'd better do it or her family with sue the bejeebers out
    of us"?
    
    The woman's family members arrived about an hour after it was all
    over and without eavesdropping we could hear them discussing how
    this was for the best etc.  For the best!!!!  Apparently, this
    was the 3 or 4th time that woman had been brought in under similar
    circumstances; obviously the trauma team won except for that day.
    But we also heard them talking about how "Mom hasn't known anyone
    or anything for the last 2 years of her life".
    
    IMHO this is absurd; for life to having meaning to me there must be
    some "quality" to it.  My best friend and my sister know exactly
    how I feel; I've had paperwork drawn up that hopefully will prevent
    some medical team from taking ridiculous actions to prolong my life
    once it's obvious that I will not have a quality life should they
    succeed.
    
    Bottomline for that poor woman was extraordinary measures were taken
    for her several times in a 3 year period.  When they succeeded she
    spent still more time back in the nursing home in a vegetative state.
    
    Is this happening over and over because families can't make difficult
    decisions or feel they will be criticized if they do?  Whatever
    happened to common sense?
    
    No matter how you look at it, as harsh as it sounds; this wasn't a
    good example of how to put healthcare funds to good use....especially
    paying for many years in a nursing home who dumped her like a hot
    potato that day when she showed signs of what perhaps should have
    been the final "normal" end of her life?
    
    
    

 ZZ   Reading all these replies just cements my decision that when/if
 ZZ   I get to that point it's 1-800-Kevorkian for me!!
    
    Do worry Karen, I'll take care of you!!! :-)

    
    Be afraid.  Be very afraid.
    

    The entries here have been very interesting.  What has been missing is
    the usual entries from the left side of this conference.
    
    I beleve there are many issues surrounding the elderly, but the essence
    of my original note was pretty well summed up in .27.
    
    The question I have is that if people are opposed to providing direct
    support to their relatives then how in the world can they honestly
    expect anyone to support the welfare and social programs they put
    forth.
    
    The same discussion can be held about Social Security, Medicare/caid. 
    It boils down to expecting people to be responsible for themselves. 
    Those who oppose this idea should be 100% behind the efforts of the
    Republican Congress to get this country thinking in the right direction
    and start to turn some of these things around.
    
    I would liuke to hear more liberals complain about therse programs
    because maybe they will begin to see just how silly and insupportable
    their positions are.
    

    RE .61 and .62 - Dave

>>    Sure the "yourself" may be other members of your family, or perhaps
>>    friends, 
>
>    Oh good, now you want me to be financially liable for financially
>    irresponsible friends?!?

    No. I said the if the government did not provide free nursing home
    care for people, sometime friends would have to care for that person.

>>    Seems to me that those who receive the benefit should pay
>>    a larger percentage of the cost.
>
>    No problem.  Great idea.  Charge the person IN the nursing home.  If
>    they are faced with having to leave the nursing home THEY can ASK their
>    friends and relatives to contribute.  Which is a huge difference from
>    having the government stalk their friends and family and confiscate
>    their bank accounts.  (Hmmm.  Maybe I should dump MCI's calling plan so
>    the government can't track who my friends and family are ...)


    No...you miss my point. The person who recieves the real benifit is not
    the person in the nursing home, but rather the person who would have
    to pay for or provide the care. 

    If your parents were broke, needed nursing home care, and the
    govenment did not provide it, what would you do?


    RE .63

>    >Have you read these policies?
>    
>    No, people in my family make a habit of shelling out money for things 
>    we know absolutely nothing about.

    I meant no insult. I was wondering if *you* read your parent's policy.
    As you imply you have, could you tell me if the policy provides for 
    nursing home care for as long as that care is needed? If so, could 
    you provide me with the name of the carrier. My father looked at a number
    of policies a few years back. All provided only 3 years coverage.
    
    RE .64 (I think)

>>    I do not mean to say that the current system is really unfair. I'm
>>    looking for a way to reduce cost of the system to the taxpayer in the
>>    future. 
>
>	So the system IS fair, it's just too expensive. Why not just
>	decree that anyone unable to pay for their own nursing home
>	care should be euthanised? That would accomplish your goal
>	even better, would it not?

     Is this serious? 

    					Ed

>    No. I said the if the government did not provide free nursing home
>    care for people, sometime friends would have to care for that person.

Or not. In which case the life expectancy which has been artificially inflated
by the government's willingness to keep people alive at the taxpayers expense,
might revert back to something more in line with nature.

Why should we be obsessed with this "Keep them alive at any cost" mentality?

    But Jack,
    
    Some people could construe your attitude as not being supportive of
    keeping a person alive as long as is humanly (not humanely) possible.  
    
    for shame, don't you think dr's need practice on all that
    state-of-the-art equipment for gardening?
    
    meg

                       <<< Note 625.71 by DECC::VOGEL >>>

>    No...you miss my point. The person who recieves the real benifit is not
>    the person in the nursing home, but rather the person who would have
>    to pay for or provide the care. 

>    If your parents were broke, needed nursing home care, and the
>    govenment did not provide it, what would you do?

	One might, or might not, decide to pay for the care. There is
	no legal requirement to pay. There is no contractual requirement
	to pay. It is a personal decision that must be made by individuals.

	I received no "benefit" when my M-I-L went into the nursing home.


>     Is this serious? 

	As serious as your proposal. Your goal is to reduce costs to
	the general population. My suggestion is much more effective
	at this than yours. It eliminates the cost of those elderly that
	are indigent and have no living offspring, or who's offspring
	are equally indigent. So it not only reduces the cost, it 
	elimates it entirely. Those who "benefit" either pay or they
	don't incur the cost. No pay no play. What problem do you have 
	with this?

Jim

.70
    
Although I know I am a middle of the road conservative, I have been
told I am a liberal so many times in this notes conference.  SO!  You 
wanted to hear from a liberal....you got it.

>>It boils down to expecting people to be responsible for themselves.<<

Have you looked at the fabric of the walls of your house lately.  You may find
they have a large proportion of glass in them.  Therefore, throwing stones
may not be recommended under the circumstances.

    I pay my Social Security and Unemployment taxes, even though I have never 
    been unemployed, neither have I yet drawn anything from Social Security
    and my never have the need or opportunity to.  I pay my property taxes 
    even though my child attended Catholic schools, neither have I ever had 
    a fire and only had to call the police twice in 20 years.  I pay taxes 
    that go for the upkeep of roads I have rarely or never traveled on.  Why 
    would this woolly minded "liberal" do this?    For the common good!

    There are very few of you who are not financially better off because
    people like me have contributed to "liberal" programs. 
    
    My SS payments helped relieve you of the financial obligations to your
    grandparents.  My property taxes helped to pay for your education and 
    the education of your children.  My taxes help keep open the highways 
    you travel to work on.  My unemployment taxes and taxes in general helped 
    a great number of people who were laid off over the past 7 years.  I have 
    not directly benefited from any of those payments.  
    
    And, unless you want to take your elderly out into the snow and abandon 
    them, we have to take responsibility for those who can no longer take care
    of themselves, because they have done their duty by you and yours.  It's 
    called a moral obligation.  And, if you don't want to do that, then I 
    firmly believe you should at least be responsible for your own family.
    I am tired of contributing to their upkeep.

    I am willing to do a lot in the name of the common good, but I am not going 
    to work my tail off relieving you of the financial responsibilities for 
    your family when you see no reason why you should help me when I am too old 
    to work and have committed the unforgivable crime of outliving my money.

    Try catching one of the many showings of Charles Dickens' Christmas Carol
    this weekend.  The circumstances of that story were taken pretty much from
    life, as were many other of his writings.  It happened in England, but it 
    wasn't much better in America at that time.  Social programs ended the 
    grinding poverty, death and disease that was rampant in the US at the 
    beginning of the 1900s.  I hope we don't celebrate the beginning of the 
    2000 by returning to those days.
                                    

Re: 625.60, Ed

    ^Re .57, .58 - "Nursing Home Insurance"
    ^
    ^Have you read these policies? If you have you will probably find that
    ^they will cover the nursing home costs for only 3 years. The idea
    ^is that person enters nursing home and xfers all assets at that
    ^time. As I stated earlier this xfer prevents Medicaid from paying
    ^for three years, therefore the policy covers that time. After
    ^three years the person goes on Medicaid.

    This is not the case for my Father's extended nursing home care policy. 
    The policy combines his regular health insurance, medicare and a
    portion of his retirement income to insure care until the end of his
    life. Considering his present state of health, that will probably be at
    least 40 years. 

    
    .60
    
    I did at the time, and I know it was til end-of-life - unfortunately it
    was about 3 years ago, and I don't remember the exact wording or the
    company name, and it's at my mother's house.  I'll look for it next
    time I'm in Florida, tho.
    
    

    Dear Folks,
    
    This is the 'Talk Hard' bloke, back from his travels and in Digital 
    UK. How are you people ?? Drunk I hope !!
    
    Thanks for the Card Jack... Hope you and the babe Debs, got the Bali 
    Post Cards !!
    
    I am not working for Digital, just in here to say hey to you blokes.
    
    gotta go, I'm getting thrown out of the office.
    
    See ya !!

    RE .72 - Jack,

>Why should we be obsessed with this "Keep them alive at any cost" mentality?

    But Jack many people in nursing homes are alert and aware. They
    are simply unable to care for themselves. I agree that 
    "Keep them alive at any cost" is foolish, but most of these people
    still enjoy life. The problem is they require a fair amount of care.

    Re .74 - Jim,

    I do not believe it is right for us as a society to allow certain
    people to die simply because they can not afford to care for themselves.
    I gues you see things differently. Fair enough.


    Re .76

>    This is not the case for my Father's extended nursing home care policy.
>    The policy combines his regular health insurance, medicare and a
>    portion of his retirement income to insure care until the end of his life

    As I have said, Medicare, like most all other insurance, will not
    cover extended nursing home care. Could you mean Medicaid?

>    Considering his present state of health, that will probably be at
>    least 40 years.

    I hope so.


    Re .77

    Thanks, I would (actually my dad would) like to know who provides
    such a policy. The ones he looked at provided 3 years of coverage
    at a cost of about 1K/year.

    					Ed

      re: .75
    
      Maybe some of us have come to believe its time we abandoned
      Federal (at least) government involvment and restored the
      Constitution to what it means to govern.
    
    						Tony

    RE: .71

>>>    Sure the "yourself" may be other members of your family, or perhaps
>>>    friends, 
>>
>>    Oh good, now you want me to be financially liable for financially
>>    irresponsible friends?!?
>
>    No. I said the if the government did not provide free nursing home
>    care for people, sometime friends would have to care for that person.

    By your logic, the friends that would have cared for that person are
    receiving the benefit and therefore should be taxed extra for it.

>    No...you miss my point. The person who recieves the real benifit is not
>    the person in the nursing home, but rather the person who would have
>    to pay for or provide the care. 

    Execuse me Ed, but who has the CHOICE in this matter?  Unless I kidnap
    my elderly parents (like my grandmother eventually accused my mother of
    doing) I have NO CONTROL over where my parents live, how they spend
    their money, or just about any other facet of their lives.

    My father earns/earned a decent living.  Both parents inherited the
    left over retirement nest eggs of their parents.  How they choose to
    spend THEIR money is up to THEM.  If they chose to blow it all on my
    younger sister and her family of leeches, that's fine.  It's THEIR
    money.  If the time should come that my parents need to go to a nursing
    home and my parents cry poor, guess what, it's THEIR fault and THEIR
    choice.  So tell me again why I should pay for THEIR CHOICE?

>    If your parents were broke, needed nursing home care, and the
>    govenment did not provide it, what would you do?

    What I would do would more properly belong in the 'box confessional.  I
    believe the euphamism that someone used earlier involved snow and
    abandonment.

    My parents-in-law are a different story.  I would have no problem with
    either one.

    -- Dave

                       <<< Note 625.79 by DECC::VOGEL >>>


>    I do not believe it is right for us as a society to allow certain
>    people to die simply because they can not afford to care for themselves.
>    I gues you see things differently. Fair enough.

	Not differently. I merely pointed out a very logical way to
	acheive your goal. The effort was supposed to have you re-address
	your goal statement.

Jim

    ^As I have said, Medicare, like most all other insurance, will not
    ^cover extended nursing home care. Could you mean Medicaid?
    
    I have to admit that I'm confused as to which one is which. Which one
    is for the elderly who are not poor? If it is medicare, it suppliments
    my Father's health insurance as per his retirement plan. The additional
    insurance takes up any slack between that and the additional cost of,
    what my dad refers to as, an old folks home.
    

    Re .81 - Dave,

>   By your logic, the friends that would have cared for that person are
>    receiving the benefit and therefore should be taxed extra for it.
 
    Correct, but friends are hard to identify, relatives are not, and
    in most all cases is is a relative who would provide the care. 

>    What I would do would more properly belong in the 'box confessional.  I
>    believe the euphamism that someone used earlier involved snow and
>    abandonment.

    I guess this says a lot. Clearly I have touched a nerve suggesting
    that someone be forced to support somone else who is not worthy
    of that support. Point taken. 

    RE .82 - Jim,

>        Not differently. I merely pointed out a very logical way to
>        acheive your goal. The effort was supposed to have you re-address
>        your goal statement.

    Where in my goal did I say I wanted to reduce care. My goal is to
    keep care the same while reducing the cost to the general tax payer.

    Re .83

>    I have to admit that I'm confused as to which one is which. Which one
>    is for the elderly who are not poor? If it is medicare, it suppliments
>    my Father's health insurance as per his retirement plan. The additional
>    insurance takes up any slack between that and the additional cost of,
>    what my dad refers to as, an old folks home.

    Medicare cares for the elderly, and most elderly buy private insurance 
    policies which suppliment Medicare. Medicare is like our DMP's except 
    it does not provide for prescription drugs. 

    BUT...neither these suppliments, nor Medicare pay for extended nursing
    home care. 

    Understand that most people, including most elderly do not realize this.
    Just as I'll bet most people who work for Digital do not realize our
    health insurance does not cover nursing home care.

    Now...I'm not saying your father is not covered, but perhaps you
    should re-check.


    Anyway....Have a great Christmas all!!

    					Ed

    Nursing home care is more fully covered by medicare and medicaid than
    home-health care.  In the case of most families today taking in an
    elderly disabled means a drop of half or more of the income to that
    household, as one person is going to wind up having to quit their job,
    unless both putatively healthy adults have offsetting shifts.  
    
    having had the experience with my dad's dying, and what it took out o
    my mother, I can assure those of you who haven't been in a long-term
    care situation that you have no idea of what you are in for should you
    elect to do this.  I thought, and so did one Dr. that I would be
    burning two parents before the month was out, after dad fell in his
    final illness.  It was 6 months of rest and clutter before mom was
    ready to do anything beyond eat and sleep, and dad went fairly quickly
    (advanced mnetatastic prostae cancer, melanoma and a host of cancers
    the VA said had nothing to do with being an atomic vet)  when his bones
    and kidneys got involved.  
    
    had I been able to get him out of the hospital it would have ahd to be
    into some intermediate care, as mom couldn't handle it, and I had a job
    and a household to support.  In our case Hospice would have taken over
    at $40/day, but for those who are not terminal nursing homes or in-home
    care gets VERY costly quickly.  
    
    Question:  t what point do people consider others "wealthy" enough to
    kick in?
    
    meg

                      <<< Note 625.84 by DECCXL::VOGEL >>>

>    Where in my goal did I say I wanted to reduce care. My goal is to
>    keep care the same while reducing the cost to the general tax payer.

	I knbow, it's called having your cake and eating it too. Generally
	doesn't work.

Jim

    RE: .85

>    Question:  t what point do people consider others "wealthy" enough to
>    kick in?
    
    The local paper ran a small article on the subject, at the time I read
    it I made a mental note (which I misplaced) to bring in the article. 
    From memory, those "above the median income for the" state (area?) were
    considered "wealthy" enough to kick in.  It then stated that the US
    median was $32,xxx.

    The article also made a point of stating that:
        1.  The states would have to pass laws to collect from relatives.
        2.  The states would be unlikely to due to political fall out.
        3.  The measure is part of deregulating medicxxx and transferring
            power to the states.  
        4.  It is considered a small part of the overall package and most
            Republicans seem to want the measure to die a quiet death.

    -- Dave

    wonder if that is median gross or adjusted net.  if it is gross, ANFW
    that many larger families could kick in.  
    
    meg

    
    Re .last - Meg,
    
    I'm quite certain that figure is gross. And you are right, asking
    many families to pay *anything* would be very difficult. 
    
    					Ed
    
    
    
    
    

    Stat's from an AP story on this yesterday.  Median price of nursing
    home care == 36K/year.  

Well, good.  That's about half my father's annual tax-free pension (which is
automatically adjusted each year to take inflation into account).

/john

    
    	$72K pension??
    
    	Wow.
    

    John,
    
    How nice for him.  

    John,

    I don't suppose that you dad wants to adopt anybody 8-).  I'd be happy
    with him just (finacially) adopting my kids until they graduate college
    :-).

    -- Dave

Hey, it's what we pay retired military ossifers.

It's not quite $72K but you can look it up in the 1996 almanac when
it comes out.  As of 1993 it was around $50K, plus the value of the free
medical care on top of the numbers published in the book.

And the fact that it's tax-free for some people -- in my father's case
it's tax free for life because he had cancer when he retired 23 years ago;
that's the law, even if the cancer was completely cured.

/john

    
    re. .80
    
    Opt out of the system if you feel that way.  Perhaps you are young enough 
    to have time to save all the money you might need to cover your own
    care; don't pay in and don't take out.  Of coure if anything goes wrong
    and you need more than you have, that will put the responsibility of your 
    elder care firmly on the shoulders of any children you have, but I'm sure 
    they won't mind.
    
    .95 
    
    Good grief John, no wonder our country is in debt...$75K per year pensions,
    and the military retire early don't they?  What is that, around
    $1,150,000 so far? I'm sure he earned it but even so....  Glad to hear 
    he beat cancer though.
    

>    and the military retire early don't they?

Yeah, at something like 20 years if they want to.  Not bad for officers,
'cause the clock starts running from the time they enter the military
academy.

Just think... When my dad was my age, he was retiring.  Not bad for someone
who never served in any combat capacity.

When I am my age, I'm working on trying to fend off debt while I build a
second career.  Maybe I shoulda been an officer instead.

    And amazing at how much those pensions have gone up.  I know WWII era
    officers who retired at their 20 and the pensions were nothing like
    that.  Would that they were, I wouldn't need to worry about mom as she
    gets older.  She could worry about me instead.
    
    ;-)/2
    
    meg

Military pensions are 2/3rds of salary for years-in-service.

You get a lot more for retiring at 30 years than at 20 years.

It keeps up (at 2/3rds) with the current salary for ossifers with the
same rank and same number of years-in-service.

/john

>                      -< responsibility for your snarfs >-

    Of course you can control your snarfs and therefore take responsibility
    for them.  Can you control your parents?

    -- Dave

 Actually, I think .100 should have been "snarfs for your parents"




 Jim

    I'm still having a problem with all of those who are so vocally opposed
    to this proposal.  Most of those who are most outspoken here seem to
    those who generally support all sorts of government programs and
    handouts.  they seem to be those most opposed to the Republican efforts to
    reduce government and reduce spending.
    
    Why is it that these hypocrites can call everyone else greedy, etc when
    it comes to getting the government under control and out of areas that
    they don't belong, but do not see their own hypocricy when it comes to
    taking care of their own.
    
    My parents long ago assumed room temperature so why should I be
    expected to pay for your parents through Medicxxx.  It would seem to me
    that the best proposal is the ones being put forth that we begin a long
    and painful process of weaning folks off the government dole.
    
    I wonder what it would have been like if Medicxxx had never been
    implemented?  Maybe all of these silly gyrations wouldn't be necessary
    now.
    

    >My parents long ago assumed room temperature so why should I be
    >expected to pay for your parents through Medicxxx.  It would seem to
    >me that the best proposal is the ones being put forth that we begin
    >a long and painful process of weaning folks off the government dole.
    
    
    Do you have a pile of kids to take care of YOU in YOUR old age?
    
    Do you think they will?

    Let's see the promise to take care of WW2 vets' medical needs has
    already been broken, they were promised life-long care, and now the
    government is closing and downsizing medical facilities, and expecting
    the vets to play the same medicare game as all old people.  Now you way
    that I am already paying into the medicare to pay for my mom, and you
    want me to pay the whole thing, that she was promised to have in 
    perpetuity?  Gotta love it!  Personally, I don't take home the median
    cost of long-term care in this country, and I am raising my three kids,
    however, should mom get rreally ill, I guess I could put the kids on
    the dole so I can pay for her care, makes really great sense to me.
    
    meg

I've received some mail claiming that I've overstated military retirement
benefits.  What is clear is that they are much more complex than what I
presented.

The initial statement I made was that $36,000 (the number under discussion
for cost of care) was "about half" the pension; I didn't state that the
pension was $72,000 (that was a reply).  "About half" would be true for a
pension between, say, $64,000 and $80,000 (+/- about 10%, good enough for
gummint work).

I'm informed that the pension is (at 20 years) 50% of base pay, up to (at
30 years) 75% of base pay.  The interim adjustments are independent of
the adjustments to active duty pay, so one would have to check the
Federal Register to find out exactly how the pension had increased since
retirement.  The adjustments are certainly more generous than the adjustments
to the typical private sector pension.

If someone wants to figure out exactly what an O-6 who retired 20 years
ago with 30 years of service is being paid today, I'll leave that exercise
to the reader.

/john

    RE: .105

>    Let's see the promise to take care of WW2 vets' medical needs has
>    already been broken, they were promised life-long care, and now the
>    government is closing and downsizing medical facilities, and expecting
>    the vets to play the same medicare game as all old people.

    Isn't this the game with a lot of government programs?  They start out
    with something that no one can oppose:  medical benefits to combat
    vets, social security to people who have already outlived their life
    expectency and then they tinker with it a piece at a time; adding
    disability and survivor benefits to SS, moving vets into a program that
    could use another sacred cow status.

    -- Dave

    RE: .103

>    I'm still having a problem with all of those who are so vocally opposed
>    to this proposal.  

>    My parents long ago assumed room temperature so why should I be
>    expected to pay for your parents through Medicxxx.  

    I don't expect you to.

>    It would seem to me
>    that the best proposal is the ones being put forth that we begin a long
>    and painful process of weaning folks off the government dole.

    Agreed.  Now justify to me why the government should basically give my
    parents control over my savings and salary simply because they
    squandered their money?

    Note:  The actual "proposal" is part of a package to reduce the federal
    government's control over the medicxxx programs and turn that control
    over to the states.   The portion giving the states the power to go
    after "wealthy" children of medicxx recipients is part of limiting
    federal control versus encouraging states to go after the off-spring. 
    I would assume that the entire issue would be meaningless if the
    parents and children lived in a different states.

    -- Dave

    So all I have to do is move to New Mexico?  COOOOOL!

    Is this topic still being hashed around?
    
    Boy!  It amazes me that when budget cuts are touted as responsible
    government the same things get hit: in local government it's the fire
    and police, in the Federal government it's welfare and social security 
    programs.   
    
    No one cries out for the spotlight to be put on more profitable (better
    management would save more money) targets such as the military, space
    programs, or the politicians themselves.
    
    No one wants to "be responsible" for the welfare of others even when that 
    number includes themselves and their families.  Although, if stopped in the
    street and asked their religion, my guess is that those self same people 
    would call themselves church going Christians.
    
    The smug faces of the comfortably off cry for "charities" to take care of 
    of the problem of the poor among us.  No one asks the question "if such 
    people balk at contributing to the common welfare through taxes, then who 
    would be foolish enough to trust the voluntary charitabiliy of those same 
    people. 
                                                      

    Well, if everyone would simply just do their jobs and stop loitering in
    cafeterias and smoking rooms, we'd be such a productive society that no
    one would want for anything.

    RE: .110
    
>    ... in local government it's the fire and police, 

    Could that be because local officals know that taxpayers care about
    fire and police?

> in the Federal government it's welfare and social security 
>    programs.   

    Could that be because they are the fastest growing segment of the
    federal budget?

>    No one cries out for the spotlight to be put on more profitable (better
>    management would save more money) targets such as the military, 

    There are savings to be had in the military budget, but probably not as
    much as you'd probably hope.

>    space programs

    Even if you eliminated the entire space program, the savings would be
    insignificant compared to the growth of the social/welfare programs.

>    or the politicians themselves.

    Again, an insignificant savings.  But imagine that you did eliminate all
    compensation of elected officals, who would run?  (Hint:  I'm not
    implying that noone would run.)
    
>    No one wants to "be responsible" for the welfare of others even when that 
>    number includes themselves and their families.  

    I still find it interesting that so many people don't see a difference
    between government mandated liability for someone else versus a person
    choosing to take responsibility for another.

>    Although, if stopped in the
>    street and asked their religion, my guess is that those self same people 
>    would call themselves church going Christians.

    Which, if true, just shows that the term "Christian" in todays culture
    has nearly no meaning.  My guess however is that people today are more
    willing to state that they are not Christians then they were in the
    50's.
    
>    The smug faces of the comfortably off cry for "charities" to take care of 
>    of the problem of the poor among us.  No one asks the question "if such 
>    people balk at contributing to the common welfare through taxes, then who 
>    would be foolish enough to trust the voluntary charitabiliy of those same 
>    people. 

    Two things:
        1.  A private organization can do things far more efficiently than
            any federal government bureaucracy.
        2.  If I'm already being forced to pay into inefficient federal
            government charity programs, why should I pay even more into
            them?  You'll note that after Reagan's tax cuts charitable
            contributions in the US rose.

    -- Dave

    .110
    
    Do you have a particular axe to grind or just aiming at "Christians"
    for the fun of it?
    
    It makes no difference what you religious persuasion is and how you
    feel about stupid, improprer and probably unconstitutional governemnt
    programs.
    
    Just for your information so you can have a bit of reality in your
    Christian bashing, look at teh cost of delivering services through
    religious based organizations and the government.  see how much
    actually makes it to the intended recipient as a % of each $.
    
    The last report I saw, and it was a couple of years ago, compared
    Catholic Charities to the Fed.  Catholic Charities delivered ~$.90 of
    every $ to the indended needy.  the Fed delivers ~$.15.  This means
    that greedy, mean-spirited Christian that I am could give 40% of what I
    pay to the government to religious charities and the recipient would
    get 3X more money or services than they get from the Fed.  this means
    that I get to keep 60%.  Let's see, this means that I have more in my
    pocket, making me more able to provide for myself and my family, while
    providing 3X the level of assistance to the needy.
    
    Now I guess my blind greed somehow makes it difficult for me to see the
    inherent problem here, other than the fact that I get to contribute
    where, when, how and how much to those charities that are the best at
    what they do, as opposed to having the Fed waste 85% of my tax $.
    
    I assume from your entry that you have some other agenda than seeing
    that the truly needy get the best, most cost effective assistance
    possible.
    

    re: .113
    
    I think everyone would like to see more % of a dollar go
    towards the help people need rather than the administration
    costs of the organization doing the helping.  But I see another
    problem arising here around the way politicians and the media
    have taken to characterizing the poor (ie):
    
    Poor people are lazy;
    Poor people do not want to work;
    Poor people take advantage of the welfare system;
    Poor people cheat and steal from the government.
    
    I suppose that makes great rhetoric for whipping up the
    ol' constituents to support welfare reform, but I'm not sure
    it's going to do much for the local food bank, Goodwill store,
    or soup kitchen.  First the government says:  poor people are
    bad, the government won't use *your* tax dollars to support them. 
    Fine.  Then the government says: we think *you* should support poor people
    through charitable contributions. You know, those lying, cheating, lazy 
    little buggers we've been telling you about these last few months?  
    Is anyone else besides me believing this won't play in Peoria?  If 
    you've convinced the average joe that poor people don't need government 
    money, how are you then going to convince them they do need the average 
    joe's money?  Especially since the average joe is faced with unemployment 
    and economic uncertainty? Where's Joe getting the extra money?  
    
    I predict charitable contributions will not go up and you will see 
    a wider rift between the poor and the middle and upper classes.
    I think you will see the crime rate go up and more violence, and 
    it won't be because people are not "Christian".  It will be because
    we have allowed a inaccurate picture of the poor to be painted by
    the government and the media.
    
    This isn't saying I don't think some social program reform is
    needed, it is.  However, the way the government has chosen to go
    about it is tantamount to shooting itself in the foot.
    
    Mary-Michael
    

    Rosemary just believes that we should never, ever question the
    government's demands for more revenues just so long as they promise to
    spend more on social services. Whether they actually do or not is
    immaterial; in Rosemary's mind it's "for a good cause" and only
    republicans would question things like efficacy, waste and fraud. And
    besides, a whole bunch of limousine riding democrats can divert the
    money into their private bank accounts, and isn't that better than
    leaving it in the pockets of the working class?

    Mary Michael:
    
    One word....PRIVATIZATION!!!!
    
    Privatization is more efficient, more accountable, and less
    beaurocratic.  The current system is an exercise in harlotry!!!

    this is why the Catholic Bishops are fighting the republican version of
    welfare reform then Jack?
    
    most of the charitable groups in this town are not happy about what
    will happen.  Howevwer, since many of them apparently underpay their
    help (note an interesting article on food pantries where one of the
    women in for food and clothing said her husband workds for the right
    Dr. Dobson)  I think they are still failing to live the adage about
    charity starting at home.  
    
    meg

    >Poor people are lazy;
    >Poor people do not want to work;
    >Poor people take advantage of the welfare system;
    >Poor people cheat and steal from the government.
    
     Unfortunately, Mary-Michael, the above statements are true for a
    significant portion of the poor population. 
    
     No, not every poor person is lazy, not every poor person feels a job
    is an anathema, not every poor person commits welfare fraud. But some
    do, and the numbers are NOT insignificant. 
    
     I truly believe that Newt's vision is PRECISELY the right way to go on
    this. He wants to move from a welfare based state to an opportunity
    based state. That, to me, is exactly what we need to do. There will
    always be a segment of the population that is categorically unable to
    take care of themselves, that require government enforced largesse to
    survive. Few, even the most conservative among us, have a problem with
    meeting this need. However, the number of people currently supported by
    the government is far, far greater than the population of people who
    are truly unable to make a go of it, and part of the reason for this is
    the welfare structure.
    
     Many people are poor due to bad breaks. In an opportunity based
    society, these people have the wherewithal to escape from poverty. In a
    welfare based society, these people are simply added to the pile that
    the government has to support. In order to cupport this ever increasing
    mass of people, we have to extract more resources out of the remaining,
    productive population. Guess what the effect of this is? It's to make
    it more difficult to "make it." It's to pull some of the people who
    could scrape by into the abyss of poverty and the concomitant "safety
    net." So instead of making it, these people now need to be supported.
    The incremental costs associated with taking someone out of the
    productive population and putting them on public assistance are
    staggering, because not only do you lose their contribution to running
    the country, you also incur the cost of supporting them. That's a big
    negative. If we can successfully move to an opportunity based society,
    there's going to be a rude awakening for the lazy sycophants of our
    country, but there will be many more avenues out of poverty for those
    who are interested. And that, to me, is what our society ought to
    value. We should be providing opportunities, not handouts. Yeah, life
    won't be as fun for people who want to continue to be unproductive
    drains on society. But so what? Why should we cater to such people? We
    should make it as easy as possible to make it on your own. Removing the
    onerous burden of taxation to support the welfare state would clearly
    be a step in this direction.

    re: .118
    
    For the most part I don't disagree with you.  The system cannot
    continue the way it has been.  However, I think the current plans I
    have seen out of Congress will guarantee us nothing but anarchy.
    They are short-sighted and narrow-minded.
    
    I think there are a few givens, regardless of income levels:
    
    People, in general, prefer to be useful;
    People, in general, balk at taking charity (however, if you
      continually debase people who take charity, you may well
      end up with a bunch of welfare dependents with no self-esteen);
    People like to think of themselves, as articulate, intelligent
      beings who have something to offer society.
    People are often the victims of circumstances which they often
      have no idea how to overcome.
    
    Do all people on welfare need money?  No.  And there's no point
    in giving money to those that don't.  Some need clothing, some
    need a place to live, some need daycare, some need job training and
    some need financial assistance.  That's one reason private
    organizations are successful, they provide different services.
    However, you cannot expect a private organization, many of which do also
    utilize some form of governemnt funding, to immediately absorb 
    X times X recipients in a single fiscal year.  They have budgets too.  
    
    None of the government legislation I have seen really seem to tackle
    the "big" issues:
    
    * What are the tax advantages which will allow the average American
      to donate more income to charity?  Do they apply to all Americans
      or just certain segments of the population?
    
    * Will there be a phase in/phase out period which will allow private
      organizations to plan for the influx of people who need assistance?
    
    * Will there be any government assistance to private organizations?
    
    * How will you refer people who need assistance to the right
      organization?  How will they know where to go?  What is fairly
      simple in a small town is not so easy in a large city.
    
    The answers to these questions need to be clear if what is
    being proposed has any chance of success.  If they are not, this
    is nothing more than a short-term hack designed to make 
    Congress look good for the elections and will hurt more people than
    it helps.
    
    Mary-Michael
    
    

    .114
    
    I have no preconceived notions about the poor.  I do, however, have
    very specific thoughts about those who are receiving government
    assistance and not making any real effort to fend for themselves.
    
    In a prior entry or note there was some economic information about
    incomes, etc.  One of the more interesting pieces of information was
    around income fro single parent families.  I think almost every study
    has shown that single parent families are among the poorest.
    
    Now it may be a very strange thought, but maybe we can address the
    problem of "the poor" by focusing on what causes these people to be in
    this situation.  Why is it that I would think that the same arguments
    about how to address this situation would meet with the same success as
    all other discussions regarding societal ills.
    
    

    .119
    
    Mary-Michael, you raise some interesting questions about the "how" of
    establishing an alternative system.  I think there are plenty of
    questions around the "how", but in order to get to those answers, and
    none of them will be perfect from the start, you need to establish a
    change.
    
    If the discussion is around the "how" and not the need for change, I
    think that's a reasonable dialogue to take place an changes are made
    and determined as right or wrong.  The only common wrong is the present
    system.  anything resembling it needs to go.  The replacement may be
    far from perfect, but at it's worst it will be better than what we
    have.
    

    re: .121
    
    But I don't even see these issues being *discussed*.  Replacing
    horrible system A with horrible system B simply because A is 
    really horrible and everyone wants to get rid of it isn't going 
    to solve the problem in the *long run*.  In the short run, you
    may get some relief.  X number of recipients will figure out the
    new system.  X number of recipients will fall through the cracks.
    X number will give up on the system entirely and turn to crime to get
    the "assistance" they need.  The debt will fall some, people who
    don't use government assistance will get a tax break, lots of
    happy Congresscritters will be re-elected and there will be a
    general "feel-good" party.  After a few years, taxes go up,
    the economy flucuates, people drop their contributions,
    organizations flounder.  Private programs stop abruptly,
    people using them find themselves out on the street with no daycare,
    no housing, no food.  Flu epidemics turn deadly among the
    elderly and weak since no programs for shots exist.  The
    poor, the weak, the sickly, the young, those who are most vulnerable
    get hurt the most.  Granted it is a form of population control,
    but is that really the kind of compassionless society we want?
    Is this respect for life?  Is this human dignity?  Wouldn't it
    be better to design a solid basic program we can start with and add
    on to if we desire, it shouldn't take a lot of time really, than
    to keep putting band-aids on a patient that's bleeding to death?
    
    Mary-Michael
    

    .122
    
    These issues are being discussed, but the Democrats and liberals are
    reducing the discussion to name-calling and demonizing.
    
    I, for one, do not believe that any of the catastrophic consequences
    that you list will happen.  There may be some people who get caught,
    but I beleive that the number would truly be miniscule.  I use as a
    point of reference the decades that preceded the liberal programs of
    the past 30-50 years.
    
    People were taken care of willingly by families and communities without
    any interference from the government.  Once the government said that it
    was their role to provide this cancerous system, people, oever the
    years, gave up.
    
    I beleive that once government got out of the compassion business you
    would have better, more effective programs that really helped and got
    people back into a productive life again.
    
    I agree that the initial efforts may be clummsy and rough at first, but
    in a very short period of time the overall improvement would be
    realized.
    

    ETFOOM,
    
    But if the private system hadn't been broken, then the public system
    woould never have come into being.
    
    Orphanages were a failure, this is why AFDC came into being.  The old
    and infirm weren't being cared for properly at home and couldn't afford
    care, hence medicare.  
    
    

    
    .124> But if the private system hadn't been broken, then the public
        > system woould never have come into being.
       
    I wouldn't be too sure about that one.  Remember, the Great Society
    came about partly because LBJ didn't want to be remembered for the Viet
    Nam war - he wanted to be remembered for helping the poor.
    
    Also, many who hopped on the GS bandwagon were just looking to get
    elected or re-elected.  A politician has a major incentive to remove
    private institutes and replace them with public ones.
    
    So, what happened is that a different group of people were getting help
    - those that took the government handouts.  But, that help was at the
    expense of others - those who didn't.  Considering that the rate of
    decrease in the poverty level slowed during the early years of the
    Great Society, and reversed in the later years, it is unclear how well
    the public system actually works.
    
    	Skip

    RE: .124

>    But if the private system hadn't been broken, then the public system
>    woould never have come into being.

    The entire world economy was broken and a shot-gun approach to find a
    solution was applied when some of these things came into being.  As was
    pointed out earlier or elsewhere, what pulled the US economy out of the
    dumpster was WW II.

>    Orphanages were a failure, this is why AFDC came into being.

    AFDC is a great example of the government stepping in to solve a
    problem without stopping to consider the consequences.  One of the
    unforeseen consequences of AFDC is that a family can be better off if
    the father leaves the scene versus taking responsibilty of his own
    actions.

    I have read where a family on AFDC and all suplimental programs can
    receive the same level of "income" as an $8.50/hour 40 hour per week
    job.  My (worthless) BIL lacks the skills and resources to hold down a
    $5.00/hour job (let alone $8.50/hour).  From a financial standpoint,
    his family would be better off if he left and was never heard from
    again.

    And this doesn't even begin to consider the problem of children who
    were raised on AFDC are more prone to become parents on AFDC.

    -- Dave

    >However, I think the current plans I
    >have seen out of Congress will guarantee us nothing but anarchy.
    >They are short-sighted and narrow-minded.
    
     Be more specific in your criticisms. For the most part, the news media
    has carefully shielded us from the specifics, only choosing to show
    chicken littlesque protestations from democrats desperate for
    re-election. What exactly do you object to, and how would you change
    it?
    
    >Do all people on welfare need money?  No.  And there's no point
    >in giving money to those that don't.  
    
     Yet suggesting the same is cause for being labeled "reichwynger" and
    heartless, despite the fact that to continue doing so has mortgaged my
    future, my childrens' future, and my future grandchildrens' future far
    beyond the rational. Politicians, particularly liberal politicians, are
    addicted to making promises they have no way to fund. These promises,
    do, however, have a cost. Thus we experience the virtually unstoppable
    borrowing that has characterized government operations for my entire
    adult life. For the first time, a group has stood up and recognized the
    obvious, that this cannot continue. Yet their attempts to reverse this
    suicidal trend have been met with huge opposition from those who want
    to live for today. This tradition of overspending is morally,
    ethically, and plainly wrong. Yet some refuse to consider reversing the
    trend. History will eventually reveal these policies to be as immoral
    as they really are, but in the meantime, some of us have recognized
    this. It is immoral, unethical and just plain wrong to force future
    generations into poverty EVEN TO "HELP" TODAY'S POOR. This fundamental
    tenet is an anathema to the politicians of the last 40 years. To them,
    bankrupting the country is acceptable if done in the name of a "good"
    cause. 

    .124
    
    It appears that you have taken the liberal line hook, line and sinker. 
    The private system was not broken, it simply did not include all of
    those that liberals wanted included.
    
    As an example, look at SSI.  This program provides income to drug
    addicts and others that would never have been excused for their actions
    by the private sector.  I beleive the private sector is very good at
    helping those in need, but is very demanding in expecting those whom
    they help to actually do something to change their situation.
    
    Your claim htat orphanages were a failure is a gross over-exaggeration
    as many private orphanages were very good, there were, however, some
    that were rather poor.  So the government in it's infinite wisdom
    decided they would take over this role.  Once again, they designed,
    built, implemented and use a bulldozed when a simple shovel would work
    much better.
    
    I believe that this is what the entire debatge filters down to.  Just
    what is the proper role of government?  What has been done over the
    past 30 - 50 years has shown itself time and again to be unquestionably
    wrong, but any effort to replace these is tagged with emotional
    nonsense instead of realistic debate.
    
    When the liberals decide to actually conduct a dialogue about what's
    right and what's wrong, then maybe we can stop spending ourselves into
    oblivion.
    

    cutting education and training opportunities while telling people to
    become self sufficient is like telling a person to remain chaste while
    fornicating with them.  People need a place to start working their way
    away from the dole, but in the case of the adult(s) on afdc, there are
    1 or more small children who need a caregiver while a person is at
    work.
    
    This liberal's solution?  Pay mothers who don't want to leave their
    children with others to watch their and a few others children. 
    Child-care is at a premium in this country, particularly for those who
    work outside the 9-5 realm.  Often the best paying jobs inlude working
    shifts outside these hours.  Take the first floor of every project and
    make it into a child care center, training some mothers and fathers to
    watch their and others' children.  Let the other parents kick in what
    they can, and eventually you might find the centers making a profit, as
    well as nurturing parents making a living.  
    
    Give training for realistic jobs.  The program in this town is often
    training women for clerical work, something which is going away as more
    computers come into the work force, and is traditionally low-paying. 
    Talk people into taking the training for non-traditional jobs, be it
    plumbing, technical work or whatever, but something which is
    realistically going to support a family.  Subsidize medical and dental
    insurance if necessary, as this has been documented in Colorado as the
    main reason for AFDC recidivism.  In some cases you may have to bring
    some people up to a functional literacy rate.  In others, just a bit of
    help with medical issues may be enough to let them jump off the
    dependency trip.  
    
    Yes, I know this is going to cost money at first.  Have you ever heard
    of investment?  Unless you seed some money out, all you will be doing
    is pushing some children further into poverty, expanding the
    under-class, and creating an even more explosive situation in some
    areas than we have now.  On top of it, as nutrition program fall by the
    wayside, you will have hungrier children who will be less able to think
    in the schools, making the downward spiral of the underclass tighter
    and faster.  
    
    oh, and before you ask, yes Frank and I both do volunteer work with "at
    risk" children, as well as providing before-school daycare a couple of
    kids in the neighborhood, to enable two parents to make a little more
    towards a living wage.
    
    meg

    
    
    	Meg, there is no more money to invest. You can't invest what you
    don't have.
    
    
    

    Perhaps if we utilized the money that is being given currently, in a
    different way?  I am not in favor of entitlements.  I am in favor of
    providing a stepping stone to those in need, under unfortunate 
    circumstances or are willing to further themselves and their families
    and without the means to do so.  The cycle of generational assistance
    must be broken.  Those that are unwilling to participate go without.  
    
    Brian

    .129
    
    Thanks for your input, unfortunately your "solution" adds to the
    problem.  Unless there is something further you recommend.
    
    As I read your reply you propose reducing government spending and
    reducing the budget by instituting a new program, costing $X, as a way
    of eliminating the deficit and cutting the budget.
    
    I agree that we need to implement specific programs that breaks the
    cycle of dependency and gets people into the productive workforce. 
    Your denigration of clerical jobs strikes me as being very elitist. 
    There are an awful lot of folks out there today in clerical positions
    and are working to better themselves.  We need to have those on the
    dole understand that theya re receiving a handout first and foremost. 
    Second, that this is not an entitlement and that they need to take an
    active role in their improvement in order to continue in this giveaway.
    
    Once that has been established there can be several different paths
    available, all of which have rules and regulations and real standards
    for acceptability.  As far the daycare issue and non-traditional hours
    is concerned, those who receive the benefit provide the service.  that
    being that when some of those are at work or training the others take
    care of the kids.  when the first group gets back the next group goes
    for their job or training.  This way everyone shares the
    responsibility, no one gets left out and everyone gains.
    
    I'm not sure this is what you had in mind with your response, but if it
    is, then I think we're in agreement.  If my original take is accurate,
    then we probably don't see this the same way.
    

    
    	re: .131
    
    	agreed. Let's make it easier to become educated/trained and harder
    to stay on welfare for 3 generations. People can be helped without
    giving them handouts....
    
    
    jim

    
    
    So, everyone's going to be sitting at a desk making $50K a year, eh? 
    You need to start at the bottom.  A sad, but true reality.  That's how
    most people who I know started.  It's how a lot of very successful
    people started.  One of the real problems is that peopple don't want to
    pay their dues.  You cannot start at the top.
    
    
    Mike

    Now that's better, isn't it. Real issues. Good job. What's even better
    is that I agree with much of what you are saying.
    
    Child care is a huge issue, particularly with so many one parent
    families but even with two parent families. I absolutely think that no
    able-bodied people should get payment for mere existence; for many,
    providing child care is an obvious way in which they can justify
    continued payment. This would clearly allow the more industrious to
    become productive members of society (which is not to say that the
    caregivers are not productive members of society by any stretch.)
    
    Health care is another huge issue, but expanding medicare and medicaid
    is not the answer. We are talking about managed care; it's really that
    simple. Fee for service is dying on the vine; its cost structure is
    simple unsupportable, particularly given expanded life expectancies.
    
    Job training is again a serious issue; too much of the training
    available is for non-existant or low paying jobs. This is tied,
    however, to education. The current education system is woefully
    inadequate, and it is NOT a mere matter of underfunding. Many liberal
    policies (not political liberal, policies advocated by liberal
    educators) such as mainstreaming, nonmaintainence of discipline,
    elimination of grouping by ability, etc hamstring the ability of public
    schools to provide quality education at a reasonable cost. Here in
    Hudson, NH, a parent had to get a pair of restraining orders to prevent
    her daughter from being harassed and assaulted by other teenagers at
    school. This was after attempts to get school officials and the school
    board to act were fruitless. The basic attitude of the officials is "we
    can't protect everybody; our hands are tied." Untie them! Why are the
    local catholic schools a full year ahead scholastically by 4th grade?
    Lots of reasons, but tolerating undisciplined behavior is not one of
    them. Oh, and these private schools cost a small fraction of the public
    schools. And the education is not even comparable. Something is wrong
    with this picture. Given the vast disparity in resources, public
    schools are dreadfully underperforming. And a lot of the reason is
    because public schools are providing warm fuzzies instead of
    instruction. This is a failed policy, and it needs to be changed.
    
    Regarding "investment." Yeah, it's a fine idea. But the ability to pay
    IS an issue. We cannot continue to borrow without bound; eventually the
    piper must be paid. Money currently being spent on entitlements needs
    to be diverted to these empowerments. That's where we get the money to
    "invest." Plus corporate tax breaks need to be curtailed, but in a way
    that does not negatively impact the economy. It's all well and good to
    eliminate corporate tax breaks, but what good is it to do so if we put
    people out of business and cost working people their jobs to do it?
    
    Nutrition programs should be administered as locally as possible. This
    allows costs to be controlled. We can get more out of the amount of
    money we are spending, simply by decentralizing and increasing
    efficiency. We don't need twenty bureaucrats to feed a single hungry
    mouth. A lot of this administration amounts to white collar welfare- we
    should sharply curtail this.

    
    	Too true Mike. I started at age 12 removing rocks from freshly
    tilled fields...I made a whopping $2 an hour (about $1.75 less than
    minimum wage). I worked because my parents told me I had to if I wanted
    to buy myself things (new clothes, bicycle, etc). My first summer I
    made $250 total...I bought myself a new bicycle. I REALLY appreciated
    that bicycle.....:)
    
    
    jim

    
    
    It's funny, we hear that people need training to get good jobs, and in
    the next breath these people tell of college educated people who are
    bagging groceries.  Yet they want to tax business more to pay for the
    programs.  I wonder where all the new jobs for these trained people
    will be......

    
    There are an infinite number of jobs.
    
    Aren't there?
    

    
    	The reason a lot of college grads bag groceries is because they go
    to college and get a degree in liberal arts (and expect that degree to
    carry them to great heights). It doesn't matter how much schooling
    you've had, it's how hard you're willing to work. If your chosen degree
    isn't getting you anywhere, work towards a degree in a different field!
    People should take off their blinders....
    
    
    jim (full time Digital, part-time EMT, part-time college student,
    full-time parent) 

So where are the kids who are out of school today?

Why aren't they knocking on my door, offering to shovel snow?
(I just finished the first pass; will have to shovel again when
 the storm is over.)

Are they all at home, sitting on their butts, playing computer games
and watching cartoons?

They don't need money; their parents give them plenty to buy all
the Sega-cartridges, cigarettes, and pot or whatever they want.

/john

    -1 100% correct!

    when we were kids we used live for tyhese days to make a few dollars.
    
    we also did the wildly abstract like; 
    
       - picking blueberries and selling them to the local bakery.
    
       - gathering old newspapers and bring them to the local factories
         to be used as packaging material.
    
       - raked leaves.
    
       - mowed lawns.
    
       - stacked wood.
    
       - washed/waxed cars.
    
    
       sheesh, what idiots we were. all that time all we had to do was ask
       our parents for money... ya right! the closest we would have gotten
       to the money would have been a right cross to the head with a role
       quarters in my father's hand :-). 
    
    

    
    
    You had a head??????  You all were lucky........

    
    
    	re: .142
    
    
    	hehehehe...yeah, that's about as far as I got when I asked for a
    few bucks. :) My mother shopped in the "irregular" piles and pulled out
    the clothes she could "fix". They never looked quite right, and yes I
    wanted Levis, but I lived through it. I bought my own Levis when I
    started working....:*)
    
    
    jim (former shoveler of snow/mower of lawns/splitter of wood) :*)

    It seems like there have been an awful lot of good ideas expressed
    recently, and none of these seem terribly unjust.  Yet many of these go
    way beyond what is being proposed and the media is pulling out all of
    the stops to derail these attempts.
    
    It seems that unless enough of an outcry about the stupid politics that
    Democrats and liberals are using is raised, there will be little chance
    of actually changing anything.  this is a problem with the
    conservatives that has to be addressed or we leave the playing field to
    the liars and fearmongers.
    

    Start a tax free lottery and open a bunch of state run casinos to pay 
    for all of this.

    
    Oh, sure, tax those who are lousy at math...
    

    /john,
    
    Good point!!  Since I've had disk surgery I can no longer cut my
    lawn.  I used to enjoy yard work and had invested in a good Kubota
    mower.  I couldn't get any teens in my neighborhood to take a
    nibble at cutting the grass for me when I pursued this last summer.
    
    I wound up paying a man who is starting his own landscaping
    business.  He really gives me a break because he restoring my yard
    to gain more business in the neighborhood, but it costs me $20 a
    pop just to have the lawn mowed and a lot more when he uses the
    pre-emergents and weed controllers necessary to have a decent
    looking Bermuda lawn :-(  (It's amazing how the weeds took over
    the one summer when I barely managed to get it mowed and couldn't
    deal with treating the weeds and various nematodes and bugaroos).
    

    Mike,
    
    I am not being elitist when I say clerical work is not a job that leads
    to independence, it is true.  The clerical positions that the
    organizations here have been training for are great if you have no
    family to support, but $5-$7/hour won't fund a two bedroom apartment in
    this town, let alone buy food and clothing for kids, and medical care. 
    Been in that position years back when those same jobs paid 3.25/hour
    and the ex decided he "couldn't afford" child support for our one
    child.  Food stamps and technical training (said program has since been
    gutted) and 18 months of hard work got me into Digital at an almost
    living wage, and a couple more months of subsidized child care got me
    on my feet and on the road to "middle class" and supporting a family of
    4  with one in college.  
    
    What is the matter with training for a job that is going to at least
    allow a person to feed, shelter, and clothe his or her kids, instead of
    allowing people to belileve that an underemployed single parent will
    always be in poverty?  if you want to go the clerical/improvement route
    you are still looking at child care in the afterhours while a person
    goes to school.  
    
    Childcare is an undervalued career, but one which needs to be
    emphasized.  You can not plan on tossing x million more children on an
    already overburdened CC system, without making some major adjustments
    regarding supply.  I understand decent CC in the GMA is over $100/week,
    it runs areount 95-125/week here.  Without increasing the supply but
    vastly increasing the demand economic realities are going to push far
    too many kids into unsupervised and possibly dangerous situations. 
    However, with a bit of seed money, I bet you could have taxpaying
    systems within a few years from the very people who currently are
    caring only for their own kids.  
    
    Also some people need to get over the schizophrenic idea that all
    children are best cared for in their home by a parent, and preferably
    the mother, at the same time insisting that AFDC parents should work. 
    This sends a dreadful message to some women, who are "bad mothers" if
    they work outside the home and "bad people" if they stay home till the
    kids are in school full-time.  Much as I hate to use this buzz word,
    "quality time" is a reality for many people in the middle and upper,
    and most kids are turning out OK.  This needs to be emphasized, as well
    as the responsibility for finding good care for children outside the
    school setting.  
    
    I agree that changes need to be made in the schools, one real one is
    admiting that not all people are college bound or college material and
    bringing technical programs back into the high-schools.  Reducing the
    sizes of some schools would also help.  The mega-high-school concept is
    not working and won't work when you have more kids in a school than
    many colleges, and a significantly lower maturity rate.  The real
    "problem" schools in my area are those which have over 1K kids in them. 
    Teachers only get to know the faces of some stellar, and some really
    poor students and everyone else just sort of fades into the woodwork. 
    Invisible kids are targets for the more rowdy, as well as targeters.  
    
    Of course this is a long-term solution, and not bloody likely to
    happen, unless someone bothers to apply the information in studies
    already out there.  
    
    We also need not to let white-collar criminals plea-bargain away 16
    felony counts to 1 5K fine.  this isn't telling kids that justice is
    sure or fair either.  
    
    meg
    
    

    Meg,
    
    There are programs out there now that will help someone who WANTS
    help.  You were motivated; all too many are not.
    

    Yes, my sentiments also!
    
Z    and 18 months of hard work got me into Digital at an almost
Z    living wage, and a couple more months of subsidized child care got
Z    me on my feet and on the road to "middle class" and supporting a
Z    family of 4  with one in college. 
    
    Meg, in your estimation what would you say is the honest rough
    percentage of people in the poor class who don't show the same tenacity
    you did?  By the way, you are a living example of what I've been
    harping about for years.  Obtaining a goal takes faith in one's self. 
    You had it but many don't seem to.  Is that a fair assumption?
    
    -Jack

    .149
    
    I don't see any area of disagreement here.  You faced a difficult
    situation and accepted some assistance for a reasonable period of time. 
    I think that any programs that support that type of situation is
    probably fine.
    
    The difference is that YOU did what was necessary to improve your
    situation and get going.  All too many people have no desire to make a
    change and get to work making their life better.  I go back to the
    woman in NY who was on AFDC who was asked why she was not receiving
    support from the seven men who fathered her eight children.  Her
    response was, and I paraphrase, "Why should they have to pay when I'm
    getting money from the Government?".  this is the problem that our
    present system creates.
    
    What, unfortunately, doesn't get addressed is why is there such a
    tremendous increase in single parent families.  I believe that the
    policies, not just welfare, over the past 30 years has contributed
    significantly to this increase.  There will always be acceptable
    reasons for single parent families, but I don't believe the current #
    is anywhere near what it should be, given a proper environment.
    

 >Food stamps and technical training (said program has since been
 >   gutted)

 Can you ellaborate on "gutted"? Last I knew, food stamp money was being
 increased and training organizations consolidated (something like 128 programs
 being consolidated into 4 - or something similar).

 What the conservative distain is the gross inefficiency in the use of money
 they provide for the purpose of helping others, when most of the money 
 never reaches those who need it. The libs turn this into, the needy aren't
 getting enough support, so throw more money at it.

 This most recent argument over "gutting" medicare is an excercise on
 defining what a 2% difference in spending increases proposed by the two 
 sides really is. 

 Really pathetic behaviour on the liberal side of the fence ...

 Doug.

    Doug,
    
    CETA is no longer, it has been replaced by JTPA, which in this town
    provides a way to live only if you are on AFDC.  The program I was in
    involved 22-25 hours of techical course/quarter, leaving no time to
    take a job and retain grades.  We were "paid" for 30hours/week at min
    to encourage us to take the schooling as serious as a job, and books
    and tuition were paid and child care subsidized.  JTPA "paid"
    $40.00/week which didn't cover unsubsidized child care when my friend
    behind me was in the program.  
    
    After 1982, foodstamp benefits were cut for full-time students, as far
    as I know this is still the case.  Job corp is different, but you have
    to make arrangements for any children during the time you are there.  
    
    Also doug, if smaller and more numerous is better (eg states taking on
    the foodstamp, nutrition, afdc and other programs, why is it good to
    consolidate?  The needs of employers vary from city to city, not to
    mention state to state.  
    
    I don't think I am anything anymore special than any other woman who
    finds herself a single parent with no particular job skills.  I believe
    that given the opportunity to develop skills any person can come up to
    the best of their ability.  Poor doesn't mean stupid, lazy,
    unmotivated, or even uneducated.  It means the right combination of
    needs must be met so a person can pull his or herself up out of the
    despair that true poverty brings in.  
    
    

    Jack,
    
    The program I was in had a 33% attrition rate, However of the women I
    have stayed in touch with who completed the program, only one is not
    completely self-sufficient, and that was due to a serious head injury
    working on antennae in Greenland.  She is, however, living in her
    paid-off home, raised her son to be a very successful xerox
    salesperson, and her SO is managing the day-to-day expenses.  
    
    Debra is a QA Engineer, and recently completed her master's degree in
    Engineering/comp-sci, Elaine is an auditor and accountant, Rose went
    back to school after her kids were grown and now works as an
    archeologist for the NM division of Highways and owns two bed and
    breakfasts, Deborah is almost finished with her BS, has not been on any
    programs other than reduced school lunches for her two children
    remaining at home and she has raised 5 kids single-handedly at the
    same time, which is one reason her BS has taken so long.  She is a QA
    purchaser for the chemistry dept of a semi-conductor company in town.  
    Rusty and Dave are in California, Rusty shifted to geology, and Dave
    works somewhere in SV, the last report I had from Rose.  
    
    
    
    

    Meg,
    
    You're still missing what many of us have observed in our own
    geographies; there are people who do not have your willingness
    to pursue getting ahead.  It sounds like you worked your butt off
    and I commend you; but I've seen & observed too many people who
    feel no such inclination to work to get ahead or to learn a skill,
    they simply have been brainwashed into believing that the "government"
    (using our money) OWES them a living!!
    
    When families have had 3 or 4 generations living on welfare, it's
    rare that you find someone in those families even have the idea occur
    to them that they might try getting off welfare; it's become too
    ingrained.
    
    Cutting some of these people off is going to be very painful, but
    it's got to start somewhere.
    

    Meg:
    
    I commend these people for meeting these goals.  Being on the outside
    looking in, it seems like you of all people would have little sympathy
    for those who are exploiting the system, considering you utilized it
    properly!  Then people like me who get our information from science
    fiction books would get the real story and it would add more
    credibility to welfare in general.
    
    Welfare, the abortion stuff...it seems like these socialized programs
    have extremely poor PR people!
    
    -Jack

    Meg, you and the others that were with you seem to have taken a very
    serious view of their responsibilities and used assistance as
    appropriate.  I do not believe that anyone supports any reduction in
    assistance like you received that leads to results like yours and
    others.
    
    What I and many others object to are those who say that because there
    is tremendous fraud, waste, abuse and personal degredation associated
    with the administration and implementation of many of these programs,
    and this must be changed, we are labelled as mean-spirited, greedy,
    kick-old-people-into-the-streets-to-die right wingers.
    
    I do not believe, from what you have said, that your parents or your
    children are living on welfare and expect to receive it for ever.  I
    looks like you used some assistance to help and then got on with your
    life.  The government does not need to be involved int his process. 
    There are many other organizations, that given some leeway could do
    just as much good for a lot less.
    
    This still does not touch the cesspool in SS and Medicxxx.  these are
    the biggest sinkholes around MAJOR changes need to take place here.  I
    wonder how much screaming and name-calling from the left will go on
    when these programs truly get targeted.
    

    .159
    
    It has nothing to do with whether or not one of your family finds
    themselves in a tough situation.  I am quite sure that if a family
    member found themselves in such a situation I would be more than
    pleased to have the government, meaning taking money out of your pocket
    to pay for them, provide all sorts of assistance.
    
    The issue is not whether or not I would like them to live off of
    your paycheck and your family, but what is the proper role of
    government to those who encounter a temporary set back.  I specify a
    temporary setback, because anything more than temporary suggests a
    quite different issue.
    
    I beleive that the government can provide some assistance, but that
    those who receive the assistance will be expected to directly
    contribute to society.  A perfect example, going back to the child care
    issue, would be to provide care for the children of someone going to
    vocational training or school at night.  You got a handout in some form
    and once you get back on your feet you provide services to others in
    need to the extent you received services.
    
    AS I have said numerous times, there are many ways to help that don't
    equate with giving money to people who won't work for it.
    
    As emotional an issue welfare is, I beleive it more important to get to
    the real money pits of social security and Medicxxx.  These are the
    ones that will bankrupt us and our children quicker than welfare.  The
    pity of is is that these can be solved very quickly and cheaply but no
    liberals want to support a program that allows people to take control
    of their lives and make do for themselves because then there will be no
    need for the liberals.
    

    
    
    	
>    Yes, there are a lot of people who feel no such inclination to work to
>    get ahead or to learn a skill.  But you don't understand a lot of them
>    are simply borne with disadvantage in intellengence or in bad
>    personality, character.  You don't understand it until your son, daughter
>    or grand child becomes one of them.              
    
    	B.S.. The opportunities are out there for the
    disadvantaged/mentally challenged. My grandfather never graduated
    high-school and managed to put two daughters through college and own
    his own home (as well as retire comfortably). How? Hard work at 3
    minimum wage jobs.
    
    	The hard facts are, some folks are going to fall by the wayside.
    You and I may know some of them, we may even be related to them. Sorry,
    that's the way things happen. Stop expecting society to pick up the
    pieces....
    
    
    jim

    RE: .154  (meg)

>    Also doug, if smaller and more numerous is better (eg states taking on
>    the foodstamp, nutrition, afdc and other programs, why is it good to
>    consolidate?  The needs of employers vary from city to city, not to
>    mention state to state.  

    Consolidation of federal program into fewer federal programs means less
    bureaucracy.  Farming out federal programs to the states means little or
    no federal bureaucracy and the sum total program overhead goes down
    (the feds need everybody the states need and then a layer on top of
    that.)

    -- Dave

 >   I don't think I am anything anymore special than any other woman who
 >   finds herself a single parent with no particular job skills.  I believe
 >   that given the opportunity to develop skills any person can come up to
 >   the best of their ability.  Poor doesn't mean stupid, lazy,
 >   unmotivated, or even uneducated.  It means the right combination of
 >   needs must be met so a person can pull his or herself up out of the
 >   despair that true poverty brings in.

 Meg, you don't give yourself enough credit. In a country full of people
 content to sit back and sip from the teat, you took advantage of the
 generousity of this nation and used it for what it was intended. 

 The unfortunate truth is that you are the exception, not the rule. You were
 the motivating factor in your success, the government didn't make you
 successful. You should be proud of yourself.

 A large portion of the welfare ranks just go through the motions as 
 they continue to live off of others sweat.

 >    Also doug, if smaller and more numerous is better (eg states taking on
 >   the foodstamp, nutrition, afdc and other programs, why is it good to
 >   consolidate?  The needs of employers vary from city to city, not to
 >   mention state to state.  
 
 A federal solution that works for one state is often inapropriate for another.
 Combine that with the feds inability to  enforce it's own rules or maintain
 an accurate audit and you've got a terrific receipe for fraud and waste.
 Push these programs back to where the money originates, let those who provide
 the money take responsibility for the result, and you will see accountablilty
 like the feds could never achieve. Add to that 50 different attempts of 
 achieving the same goal and we're likely to stumble on a better solution.

 >  After 1982, foodstamp benefits were cut for full-time students, as far
 >  as I know this is still the case.  

   Clearly a stupid move if it wiped out the support for people in other
   government programs. I suspect that there was a fair amount of fraud
   from this countries college campus crowd if they felt strong enough
   to take this action. Why would a democratic congress do such a thing ?

 Doug.

    
    re: last 30 or so replies.
    
    This is an interesting digression, but it really does not apply
    to the base note. Virtually everyone in a nursing home is unable
    to work at all. Most all require the expensive care given them.
    
    Further, I'll bet that more tax money is spent on nursing home
    care than the entire AFDC program, and I'll also bet it's
    growing faster.
    
    I do find it a typical that when the discussion of cuts starts
    to fall on middle-class programs, someone quickly tries to
    redirect attention to welfare programs for the poor. Both need
    serious help.
    
    					Ed
    
    

.164
    
    Yes, it would be nice to get back to the original topic.  My guess is
    that the reason so many old people are in nursing homes is either
    because their children have died or the elderly have health problems
    caused by misleading advertising (tobacco) and bad health habits.
    War, fatty foods, pollution, have all had their impact on elder care.
    
.113

    
I take it you LIKE funding military waste: $4000 sofas for ships ward rooms, 
and "misappropriation" of millions of dollars of Air Force equipment.  I 
assume you don't mind having our tax dollars going to fund scumbags like 
Noreaga or Sadam Hussain.

I don't like my taxes being used to fund a bloated military machine that has 
a history of lying, cheating and covering up, of discrimination against women,
of turning a blind eye toward sexual assault and rape among their personnel.  
And, whether I like it or not, my tax dollars are used to kill people.  I have 
to fund this, I don't have a choice.  At least you have a choice of whether 
you contribute to Social Security.

If you want the health and survival of the poor to fall into 
the hands of, shall I say, focused charities then you stand the risk of 
having some people denied birth control, day care, or blood transfusions.
Single woman head of families, no matter why they are such, could be denied 
aid just because they live with out a man.  And if you are gay, then forget it.
This isn't the year 2000 stuff, it happens already but because there is  
welfare and social security the impact isn't heard.  Many respectable 
cgarutues wouldn't stand up to close scrutiny on the subject of who       
    they support and who they don't.

I am not Christian bashing.  Negative publicity is negative publicity and is 
usually deserved.  There are several Christian based religions I have respect 
for, but they are usually the ones who respect individual rights and don't 
push their platform down my throat at every opportunity.

Don't kid yourself that any charity could fill any gap left open by the 
Federal government.  Those charities, as many of them admit, couldn't cope 
at all let alone efficiently with a massive influx of people.   

I don't want to see homeless families crowding the street corners, nor old 
people begging for bread.  That is what the western world had under the
voluntary charitable contribution system, before social security, and 
without social security will have again.

Now on the other hand, if the military were funded with charitable 
contributions then I am completely in favor of it. Bake sale or car wash 
to buy a tank anyone?
                                                   

    .165
    
    I don't think anyone has ever made the argument that the military
    should be exempt from scrutiny and possible changes in funding.  You
    can, however, look at the massive reductions in absolute spending on
    the military over the last few years.  these were not reductions in
    growth, but real cuts in the funding levels.
    
    Also your poor attempt at scare tactics about the elderly, etc dying on
    the streets if we even try to reduce spending on these programs is pure
    hogwash.  You can easily look back to American society before all of
    these programs and see that very few people died on the streets.  Does
    that mean that everyone lived in comfort, hell no.  It does mean that
    those in need can be taken care of to a reasonable, if not comfortable
    level.  What may happen is that those who take the productive output of
    others today without any attempt to contributre may be very
    uncomfortable, but I believe that it is just these people who need to
    be kicked in the can to get productive.
    
    A perfect example of how bastardized the system has become was a letter
    to the editor in the Chicago Sun Times yesterday.  A woman wrote in
    criticizing Gingrich and said, "If he wants us to go out an get a job
    then he can GIVE us child care, he can GIve us training and he can GIVE
    us good paying jobs."  Well this is exactly the problem.  Too many
    people have gotten to the point that they expect society to GIVE them
    anything they want, and if we don't then they won't work.
    
    Well I for one am sick and tired of this attitude.  If you don't want
    to do what is necessary to make your life better, then you pay the
    price for your decisions.  Stop telling someone else that they had
    better give you everything you want or you won't work.
    
    Also your claim about Social Security is way off base as well.  The
    concept behind social security was that it was to provide a minimal
    level of assistance so that if the circumstances that occurred during
    the depression came back, the elderly would have some money to buy
    food, etc.  IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE A RETIREMENT PROGRAM.  This is
    another example of how the government has crept into everyone's lives
    and now people think that they can't live without big brother taking
    the work of others to pay for those who don't.
    
    If you are going to attack then I suggest you at least use honest
    arguments and not distortions and hackneyed fear tactics.
    

    >If you are going to attack then I suggest you at least use honest
    >arguments and not distortions and hackneyed fear tactics.
    
     There you go, trying to silence her.

     ^At least you have a choice of whether you contribute to Social Security.
    
    Huh?!?!?

    I think that, given the choice, most children and parents who are
    able would like to provide care in the home.  I certainly don't
    *want* to have to put either of my parents in a nursing home if
    I can help it, and I'm sure my parents don't *want* to live in
    a nursing home.  The problem is, most health insurances and
    Medi-caid as well (I think)  will not provide assistance for in-home 
    care. This is plain stupid.  In-home care is cheaper, it is 
    documented patients do better in familiar surroundings, and 
    in many cases it would help relieve the guilt some children feel
    about putting their parents in nursing homes.  Help with medical
    equipment, nurse's and nurse's aides, training for children
    to understand special needs of the elderly and signs of illness, 
    all these things would help reduce the nursing home population and give
    older Americans better care and more control over their destiny.
    I really don't think most people want to put their parents in
    nursing homes, they just have no idea what else they can do.
    
    It would be nice to return to older times and extended families,
    but this just isn't possible.  We are a global economy now.  People
    live and work far from their extended families, and often not
    by choice.  Some families need to go where the jobs are. Both
    parents work and there is no one home during the day to tend to
    an elderly parent.  This is reality.  The economy demands two
    wage earners in a family on many occasions.  If we had a good
    national in-home care network, supplying nurses, equipment and
    training and information, I think it would be cheaper and healthier 
    for many elderly Americans and their families.  It actuallly might
    even allow parents whose children live far away to remain in
    their own homes longer.  
    
    Mary-Michael
     

    Out of curiosity what are they going to do about people with no
    families, like my next-door neighbor.  She is alone in the world, her
    sister and she never married, and she cared for her aging mother, then
    her very ill sister until they died.  There is literally no family, the
    church and local seniors' group does some stuff, and I do some shpping
    for her, but should she become ill under this proposal, who pays, or do
    we mover her to the "Everybody has to die sometime" list.
    
    meg

    re: .170
    
    Well, see Meg, we have these social programs....doh!.....there's
    that awful word again, seems we can't get away from it.  :-)
    
    The term "personal responbility" is harped on again and again.
    Well, what about "social responsbility"?  Do we have a responsibility
    to help care for the old, the weak and the infirm?  I hear people
    saying, "It doesn't concern me, my parents are dead."  but doesn't
    it?  We have Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts and countless other youth
    groups where civic responsibility is taught.  Does that mean
    anything anymore?  We gather armies of morality around our
    wallets and pass the poor and elderly people through "deservedness"
    filters all so we can feel better about not spending money on
    the less fortunate.  We will cut out Welfare programs and
    then send troops and food to places like Bosnia and South
    Africa so we can sit at home and watch CNN and feel proud about
    the good our country is doing while down the street and elderly
    couple who can't afford heat slowly freezes to death.  
    
    I feel very bad for this country and not because of the drugs 
    and the violence.  It's the nice cars, the VCR's and the 
    camcorders, the vacations at DisneyWorld and the wide screen
    TV's that have made us hard, greedy and uncompassionate. 
    The weight of our own materialism is crushing us, and all we
    can do is think of a few more reasons why we shouldn't open
    our wallets for the poor.
    
    Mary-Michael

    
    
    Mary-Michael, check out the charities and how much they receive from 
    individuals and corporations, there is a TON of civil responsibility 
    in this country.  Saying there isn't does not make it so.
    
    
    Mike

    re: .172
    
    If there was a "ton" of it we wouldn't need government
    programs and we wouldn't need to demonize the poor.
    
    Besides, how much of that "ton" is fueled not by the
    milk of human kindness, but by the IRS?  If there were
    no charitable deductions, how many would give to charity?
    
    Mary-Michael
    

    
    < raises hand>

    >The term "personal responbility" is harped on again and again.
    >Well, what about "social responsbility"?  Do we have a responsibility
    >to help care for the old, the weak and the infirm?
    
     Yeah, let's talk about social responsibility. And let's use your
    eldercare example. To what extent does society _have_ to expend resources
    on the aged? We are approaching the point where the average person
    works, adds materially to society, for less than half of their life.
    The burden this places on the currently productive members of society
    is crushing. In a land and time where medical technology has the
    ability to extend life to a great degree, we are approaching a
    situation where it would be possible to expend ALL of a country's
    resources on eldercare. This is not a joke and it's not hyperbole.
    Medical care and long term eldercare is very expensive. The aged
    account for a disproportionately large portion of resource expenditures
    on things like healthcare. And not a little bit dispropportionate- we
    are talking WAY disporportionate. Part of this is due to the legacy of
    fee for service, part of this is due to the human body's unfortunate
    habit of deteriorating over time, part is due to increased life
    expectancy.
    
     You talk about social responsibility. In case nobody ever told you,
    this "material world" costs. So providing things that give us warm
    fuzzies and clear social consciences ARE NOT FREE. Like health care for
    old people. Who wants to see old people suffer, raise your hands? Where
    are all the hands? Surely there must be some republicans in the
    audience, surely THEY must want, nay, LIVE to see old and infirm people
    suffer. No? Hmmm.
    
     Let's talk about social responsibility. Is it socially
    responsible to allow young, productive people to get rich while old
    people suffer and die due to insufficient health care? (This is the
    picture you so gruesomely paint.) Is it socially responsible to tax the
    middle class into poverty to provide old people with health benefits
    far in excess of what they are capable of affording on their own? Is it
    socially responsible to tax the middle class out of existence to pay
    for social programs? Is it socially responsible to create a crushing
    burden of debt that future generations will somehow have to surmount
    before they can even BEGIN to approach today's standard of living in
    order to artificially elevate a falling standard of living for a few
    people for the present? Social responsibility is a two way street, and
    you only talk about one way. The problems aren't nearly as easily
    solved as simply throwing more money at them- in case nobody ever told
    you the money has to some from somewhere. It may not quite be a zero
    sum game, but wealth simply cannot be created on a whim- otherwise
    everybody would be wealthy.
    
    I've always loved the "take it from the military" answer to social
    spending funding questions. Aside from the fact that even 0 funding
    the military would not solve the fiscal issues given its relative size
    in the budget, the fact remains that all these wonderful social services
    are predicated on the existence of a free society. What do you think
    happens to your beloved social services when we eliminate the military
    and China decides that the US would make a lovely group of serfs? You
    think they're just going to let us keep our own wealth? Ok, say we
    don't eliminate the military, say we just cut it way back. Say that we
    only cut it back to the point where it gives other nations the
    impression that we are vulnerable. So when they attack, our reduced
    military is able to repel the invasion (yay!) but only at great human
    cost (not so yay). How many of your brothers and cousins would you be
    willing to give up? How many civilian casualties would be acceptable so
    we could afford a few more benefits for the underprivileged at the
    expense of our military preparedness? These are REAL issues, though
    they might not be too fun to talk about if you are trying to justify
    diverting money from the military to a pet social program.
    
    The fact of the matter is that over the past 40 years we've made some
    huge mistakes in the name of helping the less fortunate, not the least
    of which is losing all sense of perspective in terms of spending and
    cost/benefit and what it means to "help." Until the left comes to grip
    with this fact, until all sides recognize the dire nature of the
    situation, we will only continue down this course of destruction. Yeah,
    it sounds fire and brimstone-like, but them's the sad facts. We have
    existed by spending more money than we had and running up huge IOUs
    with no plan whatsoever to pay for them. This is simply not
    sustainable. What sort of legacy do we leave our children by giving
    them a huge debt, a thanks from grandma and grandpa, and shrug of our
    shoulders when they ask us how to pay for it all? Especially when we
    demand the same treatment we gave our parents for ourselves? Social
    responsibility is not just about the present, it's also about the
    future. You want to talk about social responsiblity? I couldn't be more
    delighted. Let's talk.

    
    RE .165
    
>At least you have a choice of whether you contribute to Social Security.

    Could you explain this one?
    
>Now on the other hand, if the military were funded with charitable 
>contributions then I am completely in favor of it. Bake sale or car wash 
>to buy a tank anyone?
                                                   
    Gee...I'll bet that if we could decide where our tax money would
    go, military funding would increase. 
    
    					Ed
    
    

    
    re: .173
    
    Wanna see my check-book register for the past year (and I can't even
    deduct them!! :) :)???
    

    re: .174 .177
    
    Good for you!  So do I (and I do not take a charitable
    deduction on my taxes since I do not believe it is charity
    if you get something for doing it).
    
    But we are a drop in the bucket compared to what large
    corporations in this country can do.  I'm willing to bet
    that without tax deductions and incentives many corporations
    would not choose to donate.  I don't know how to fix that,
    but I think it's very sad.

    You are entitled to the deduction.  There is nothing immoral about
    taking it.  If you are concerned about the moral high ground, you may
    wish to consider increasing your contributions so you can make a
    deduction, keep the net reults to you the same but maixmize the good you 
    are doing for your charity(ies).  What ends up happening now os you are
    giving the gov't money they do not deserve.  Just a though, not a
    criticism. 

    re: .175
    
    The first part of your response struck me.  A person adds
    materially to society for only about half of their lifetime.
    Maybe this is where we start.  A lot of elderly people have
    great experience.  If they are fit and healthy at 65, 70,
    75 or even longer, why not use it.  Granted they may not
    be able to work a 40 hour week.  But hey, they're adding
    materially to society.  What about volunteering?  All those
    welfare programs that need staff, the day care centers,
    the libraries, etc.  We can always use people who want to
    be productive.  The problem is we've become obsessed with using
    young people in industry.  They have more energy, they work
    cheaper and they work longer hours for less pay.  Think
    of the job sharing we could do with a larger work force!
    Some of the people heading for retirement in the near future
    are well-educated and experienced baby boomers.  Why not
    harness some of the intelligence?  We've come to think of
    sixty-five as the age we all go out to pasture.  Why?  Why
    not instead think of it as an age where we get a little more
    free time, some extra vacation, and a bit more respect?
    
    Mary-Michael
    

    What you say has merit, but consider the fact that there are not enough
    good paying jobs to support the number of adults in their productive
    years already. Putting retirees into the workforce would be
    counterproductive to providing sufficient good paying jobs for heads of
    families, etc. Which is not to say that retirees should not volunteer
    or otherwise make use of their time in a constructive way. There are
    certainly enough "good" causes that need time and effort and people
    willing to give the same. But many retirees have the attitude that it's
    time for them to take. "I've given all my life." etc. An attitudinal
    change would certainly be most helpful (as in many areas of society.)
    
    Ok, so you touched on one tiny aspect of the situation. Let's see what
    you can do with the bigger, more perplexing issues.

    re: .181
    
    Fine, then hook it into the benefits.  I've suggested this in
    the past with Welfare.  First, income limits on receiving 
    social security, with the stipulation that retirees can
    re-apply if their income dips below the set level.  If you
    don't need it, you have the satisfaction of knowing you are
    contributing to help others who do.  Retirees can sign up
    for a "volunteer bank".  Working at assigned tasks in their
    local area, they can bank "credits" equal to a working wage
    for Medicaid and other social programs.  Family members 
    can also volunteer time and "bank" it for a elderly family
    member who may need extended care.  I grant you, this will
    require adminstration.  However, it puts people in volunteer
    positions which often go unfilled because they are low pay/no
    pay.  These could be anything from day care for single parents,
    to hot lunch or visiting programs for shut-ins.  They can
    be public or private programs, or programs through the church
    they attend.  We all have at least a little extra time.  Think
    of the good it could do!
    
    

================================================================================
Note 625.178            Responsibility for your parents.              178 of 181
SMURF::MSCANLON "a ferret on the barco-lounger"      11 lines   5-JAN-1996 13:00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    re: .174 .177
>    
>    Good for you!  So do I (and I do not take a charitable
>    deduction on my taxes since I do not believe it is charity
>    if you get something for doing it).
    
    
    
    
    This is where a chief difference lies.  You say that deducting
    charitable contributions on your taxes is "getting somemething" 
    when in fact it is not.  
    
    
    Mike

    >This is where a chief difference lies.  You say that deducting
    >charitable contributions on your taxes is "getting somemething" 
    >when in fact it is not.  
    
     It is, however, perfectly consistent with her attitude that paying
    less in taxes is a subsidy. She's a redistributionist at heart.

    mark,
    
    >>What you say has merit, but consider the fact that there are not enough
    >>good paying jobs to support the number of adults in their productive
    >>years already. Putting retirees into the workforce would be
    >>counterproductive to providing sufficient good paying jobs for heads of
    >>families, etc. Which is not to say that retirees should not volunteer
    >>or otherwise make use of their time in a constructive way. 
    
    Why Social Security started in the first place.  
    
    Now on to reality:  Charitable copntributions have gone up where the
    only thing a person has to do is write a check.  Any other GS or BS
    leaders out there?  How much fun is it to try and get adult
    assistance, even for a short-term project?  In my case, try finding a
    cookie manager, another driver, a person to come in and teach a craft,
    or lead a hike (fortunately i can do that).  At the same time these
    same people are moaning about how bad kids are today, and how likely it
    is that x boy will become a gang-banger, and y girl pregnant by 12. 
    
    You here the same thing from people bitching about public schools. 
    "What, you want me to be a member and actually participate with my kids
    teachers or, heaven forfend! staff the book fair, help shovel gravel in
    the new playground, help paint the inside of the cafeteria, or loan you
    my extension ladder so someone else can?!!!!  But the schools are
    falling apart, and no one knows what the curriculum is and the walls
    are peeling in the gym and SOMEBODY ought to tell the district to do
    something about it.  What, you mean I was supposed to vote in the
    schoolboard/bond election?"  Heard the whole rant, bit my toungue,
    didn't point out the obvious reasons why something didn't happen the
    way they wanted it to.
    
    meg

      I asked my ma about a year ago a hypothetical question.
    
      Lets say it was 100% certain that if we continued to help the
      needy, the entire country would eventually undergo a complete
      economic collapse.  What would you do?
    
      She could not answer the question.  She just couldn't do it.
    
      I think thats where we're at and I think a lot of people will take
      an irrational tack and refuse to confront reality.

    .176
    
    You can opt out of the Social Security system but you're on your own
    when you get old.  This is the way it was when I came into America in
    76, and I don't think they have changed it.
    
    This whole topic is a non issue, the boomers approaching their 50s and
    60s are in better health then their parents were at the same age.  They
    exercise and eat more sensible diets.  In the majority they have saved
    and are provided for.  However, there are a core of inner city elderly
    who have not been able to, woman who never worked outside of the home
    who were left to care for children with only low paying employment and
    those unfortunate elderly who have outlived their families.
    
    Are you saying you would rather give money to the government to
    give to the military who refuse to employ even the most simple book
    keeping practices and accountability for the equipment they purchase? 
    You are happy to see your money used to kill people but you aren't
    prepared to support Americans who have worked all their lives, have
    grown old and are now alone, probably lost their family in one of
    the many wars our tax dollars are still paying off.  Can you explain 
    that one???
         
    I see that the preditory arm of the Congress is so hot fired to save
    you poor young people from the scurge of the elderly that they did a
    nice fat deal with doctors not to cut their Medicare payments.  Doctors
    earn around $500,000 a year; I will be lucky to gross $20,000 a year
    when I retire, which is about average.  Can you explain that one???
    
    .175
    
    That poor middle class you speak of with misty eyes, they waste more
    money in a week than most European families have to live on.  When
    times were good they took vacations, drove large cars and drank and
    smoked.  They are the ones who consumed most of the output from pink 
    plastic falmingo factories, and kept tupperware profits soaring.  They
    guzzled Coke and Pepsi until it came out of their ears.  To them,
    economy was a dirty word; living on a budget was a sign of weakness
    and had credit cards maxed out all over the place, and it was spend 
    spend spend.
    
    You are right in one sense, throwing money at anything rarely solves 
    the problem. But, taking money and benefits away from people don't solve 
    those problems either.  Also, this isn't "a problem" we are talking
    about, it's about people who bought into an insurance policy run by 
    the government designed to relieve the younger generation from the 
    burden of supporting their elderly parents. 
    
    Ok Mark, you say that military spending is not the problem.  Go do some
    research and come back with the figures for the funding for social 
    programs, the dollar figure of the S&L bailout, and the military budget.  
    Then compare.  O, and before I forget, don't forget to add in that
    nuclear power station that was sold for scrap, still in it's original
    wrappings, and had to be bought back for several times more than it
    was sold for.  Individually it sounds like nickle and dime stuff, but
    add it up and it becomes serious dollars, then add by the number of
    years this waste has been going on and you will see where the tax
    dollars of your sacred cows have been going.
     
    But, for a quick victory, certain members of the Rebublican party 
    have chosen to rid the good clean American soil of the scurge of the poor.
    Not for them the hard battle of attacking real waste in government
    neither are they prepared to give up their salaries and health benefits
    even though many of them are millionairs.  
    
    I am in favor of REAL reform, but not this.  It's a sound bite, quick
    fix, superficial house cleaning sham.

    Oh please Mary-Michael, now my generation is "exploiting" the
    younger generation because that generation works harder???
    
    On my worst day I usually work rings around "some" younger co-
    workers.  I don't believe *anyone's* age has anything to do with
    a work ethic, you either have it or you don't.  Sure, there are
    some "duffers" my age who coast on the job; I can assure you it
    fries me as much as it might you.  I also see young, well educated
    people standing around socializing while I'm busting my butt to
    keep ahead of the call load.  IMHO, Digital will never be back on
    track permanently until they do something about ALL slackers.  
    
    Social Security; I'll keep hammering on it until some of you get
    it.  STOP paying it out for *anything* but its original intended
    purpose and SS won't be a burden to future generations.
    
    I've been trying for 3 years to get someone within Digital's
    HR, Health Services and "The Travelers" Insurance company to give
    me a reasonable explanation as to why ANY money comes out of SS
    to someone on LTD when that individual is paying for LTD *insurance*
    based on their salary.  I came back to work months ahead of
    schedule rather than go on LTD; a younger co-worker with back
    problems similar to mine (no more serious) went out on disability
    when I did in 1993, he's still out on LTD and SS is making up a
    portion of what was 100% of his Digital salary when he went out.
    He's a PC wizard and according to friends of his still within my
    group, he's making a nice chunk of change "consulting" on the side
    that's more than making up any salary increases (laugh, laugh) that
    he might have received had he stayed on the job.  He's a lot younger
    than I, has no intention of ever coming back to Digital; so he'll
    be sucking out of SS for a lot longer period than I probably ever
    will.
    
    Laziness and a willingness to "milk the system" is not mutually
    exclusive of ANY age group!!
    

    re: .188
    
    Whoa! Wait a second.  Sure that was me?  I'm usually
    the hopeless liberal in this group....... :-)
    
    To the best of my knowledge most of my responses
    are in favor of using older Americans in the work
    force until they are not able/do not wish to work
    anymore.
    
    

    >You can opt out of the Social Security system 
    
     I wish! You know what kind of a nest egg I'd have by the time I retire
    if that were so?
    
    >Also, this isn't "a problem" we are talking
    >about, it's about people who bought into an insurance policy run by 
    >the government designed to relieve the younger generation from the 
    >burden of supporting their elderly parents. 
    
     That "younger generation," of course, being _your_ generation. And
    it's my generation, and my children's generation, and their children's
    generations that are going to be footing the bill for all the IOUs
    written by your generation.

    .187
    
    You and others who have entered notes here have certain specific
    misconceptions.  First your claim about not paying into social security
    is 100% wrong.  Unless you are in a government job you have no
    alternative but to pay into social security.  Any claim to the contrary
    is crap.  I would love not to pay into SS but I have to.
    
    Second your claim about the elderly is equal nonsense.  You continue to
    make the same scare statements the rest of the liberals make.  Face it,
    the excesses of the liberals led to this crisis and all your hand
    wringing tot he contrary won't make it go away.  SS, as I stated
    earlier, started in the 30s and the 65 age limit was three past the
    average life expectancy.  Let's move it to the same level today and
    start SS at 80.  It will then reflect the realities under which this
    program started.
    
    Lastly, you seem to have no problem stealing money out of my pocket and
    my families to support all of these "poor, old" folks, but have a real
    problem paying directly for your own relatives.  Remember that was the
    original statement in the base note.  If you think there are people who
    need help, and they are your relatives, then pay for them.  No, you and
    the rest of the liberals want me ot pay for your relatives and everyone
    else, so you can feel good about yourselves.  The fac tthat I am not
    able to adequately fund my own retirement and prepare, and therfore
    will be another ward ot the state doesn't bother you.
    
    Well the current plans may not be perfect, but at least they are
    getting the discussion going and then we can adjust as necessary.
    

    
    .187
    
    I beg to differ with you. You CANNOT opt out of social security,
    period.

    re: .187
    
    Military expenditures are, at least, constitutional outlays.  SS is a
    pyramid scam that never should have started in the first place.  It is
    immoral policy with an intended moral purpose (which supports the idium
    "good intentions pave the way to hell"..or something like that).
    
    This is not to say that I am not for fiscal responsibility in military
    spending.  Many who are spending taxpayers' money could use a forceful
    infusion of common sense.
    
    
    -steve
    

    Re .187
    
>    You can opt out of the Social Security system but you're on your own
>    when you get old.  This is the way it was when I came into America in
>    76, and I don't think they have changed it.
    
    As others have said, this is wrong. On the other hand, if you can
    get me legally opted-out of SS (as you claim I can) I'll gladly reward
    you with $1000.
    
    
>    In the majority they have saved and are provided for. 
    
    This is also wrong. The boomers have, on the whole, saved far less
    than generations before them.
    
>    Are you saying you would rather give money to the government to
>    give to the military who refuse to employ even the most simple book
>    keeping practices and accountability for the equipment they purchase? 
>    You are happy to see your money used to kill people but you aren't
>    prepared to support Americans who have worked all their lives, have
>    grown old and are now alone, probably lost their family in one of
>    the many wars our tax dollars are still paying off.  Can you explain 
>    that one???
    
    Because without the military, I would risk losing *my* freedom, rights,
    and property. Of course the miliarty is not perfect, and there are
    things that I would correct, but if there was *one* federal govenment
    program that I would fund it would be the military. 
    
    Of course I am also willing to give money to the needey. However
    I resent being forced to pay money to people who do not deserve it
    and have not earned it. Today the govenment spends 80B (�)/year on 
    entitlements to families who earn over 50K.
         
>    I see that the preditory arm of the Congress is so hot fired to save
>    you poor young people from the scurge of the elderly that they did a
>    nice fat deal with doctors not to cut their Medicare payments.  Doctors
>    earn around $500,000 a year; I will be lucky to gross $20,000 a year
>    when I retire, which is about average.  Can you explain that one???
    
    No. I don't understand the question.
    
    					Ed
    
    

    .194
    
    >     As others have said, this is wrong. On the other hand, if you can
    > get me legally opted-out of SS (as you claim I can) I'll gladly reward
    > you with $1000.
    
    Why don't you rescind you SS-5 application for "constructive fraud" ?
    How did you get an SS # to begin with ?  By applying for one because
    someone told you you "had to have one for employment purposes".
    
    Write the Social Security admin-excretion and ask them if you are
    legally required to have an SS #.  Then wait and see what they say.

    .195>Write the Social Security admin-excretion and ask them if you are
        >legally required to have an SS #.  Then wait and see what they say.
    
    Well, I was just looking over latest set of tax forms (being that time
    of year again) and (being snowed in) actually started reading the whole
    thing.  It says you MUST have a SSN to file your tax forms.  And you
    MUST file tax forms if you meet certain criteria (like earn money). 
    Also, any dependent you are claiming must have an SSN (even newborns
    now).
    
    Thus, despite our best efforts, the SSN is now a true country wide ID.
    
    	Skip

    RE: .187

>    Ok Mark, you say that military spending is not the problem.  Go do some
>    research and come back with the figures for the funding for social 
>    programs, the dollar figure of the S&L bailout, and the military budget.  

    If you look at 50.1301, you'll see a break down of the federal budget
    today (1995) versus 1955 in constant dollars.  Doing a cut & paste job
    (and a little arithmetic) below, you'll find that you're way off on
    you're estimates of social welfare type spending versus the miltary.

    -- Dave

				  1955		  1995	                
				---------	--------               
National Defense		$242.8		$271.6	               
Vetrans' Benefits		  26.6		  38.4	                
         			---------	--------               
        sub-total:		$269.4		$310.0
                                                                        
				  1955		  1995	                
				---------	--------               
Health				  $1.7		$272.4	                
Income Security			  28.8		 223.0	                
Social Security			  25.2		 336.1	                
Education & Social Services	   2.5		  56.1	                
Community Development		   0.7	 	  12.6	                
				---------	--------               
        sub-total:		 $58.9		$900.2
                                                                        
Interest			 $27.6	 	$234.2	                

Source:  Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 1996, Historical Tables.
Numbers in Billions.

    .197
    
    If this doesn't identify the real problem with the federal busget and
    the confiscatory nature of our tax system, I sure don't know what is.
    
    The favorite whipping boy of the liberals is the military.  I think it
    is obvious that the real issue is social spending and the increasing
    burden that places on the rest of society.
    
    If there is anyone that thinks that there are truly needy folks out
    there, and I am one of them, I would prefer that the government gets
    out of the charity business and lets me give the money presently taken
    in taxes and lets me give it where I want.
    
    This is unreasonable because all those feel-good liberals won't be able
    to dictate which useless group receives funding and those that actually
    work and demand results get cut.
    
    Well, with the sleaze queen and king in the White House maybe the
    culture change we need willa ctually come about.
    

    
    > It says you MUST have a SSN to file your tax forms.
    
    The staute doesn't say that, however.  It says you can have a T(ax)I(d)
    N(umber) issued by the I.R.S.  An SSN is not required for employment
    OR tax returns.
    
    > And you MUST file tax forms if you meet certain criteria.
    
    You must file tax forms if you are a "taxpayer", have a "taxable year",
    or have taxable "income".  No statutorial clarity here.
    
    Or, if you manufacture, sell, or distribute firearms or alchohol.  
    Definite statutory clarity here.
    
    > Also, any dependent you are claiming must have an SSN (even newborns
    > now).
    
    TIN, not SSN.  SS #s are not mandatory.

responsibility for your snarf!

    .198
    
    After Regan and Bush, how can you call the Clintons sleazy.
    
    Against the sleaze of Regan and Regan Light, the Clinton's are rank 
    amateurs.  The terrible twins pushed the deficit higher than it was 
    when they were elected, and they used the constitution as toilet paper.
    Regan had the option of doing what Clinton is doing now, veto any
    budget that came before him while he was in power, but he didn't.
    He just signed on the dotted line and probably thought he was
    reordering jelly beans.
    
    At least the social spending benefits real people, unlike military
    spending which goes down a tube and is never seen again.  And before
    you say, we need armed forces to defend us, who are you expecting to
    invade, Russia is having trouble finding enough money to pay the milk
    man, that leaves South America, who couldn't invade without floating 
    a loan from the US anyway, and Canada, who wouldn't want the US if they 
    got it free.
    
    Also, if this so called Balanced Budget is so great, why are the
    Republicans so desperately trying to pressure and blackmail the 
    President into signing it.  If it is as wonderful as they claim, 
    they would have no problem overriding his veto.
                                                                     

    >After Regan and Bush, how can you call the Clintons sleazy.
    
     Simple. They have brought sleaze and corruption to a new level.
    
    >Against the sleaze of Regan and Regan Light, the Clinton's are rank 
    
     True.
    
    >At least the social spending benefits real people, unlike military
    >spending which goes down a tube and is never seen again.  
    
     Baloney. Military expenditures don't get put in a jar somewhere, they
    get cycled back through the economy. They also provide tax revenues for
    your beloved budget busting economy crippling social programs.

    .201
    
    Oh, come on.
    
    You want to claim that Reagan and Bush were worse than the Clintons
    because they had deficit budgets????  Since when did a difference of
    political and economic policy equate to sleaze??  Also, your wonderful
    Democrats were in charge of both houses of Congress during the Reagan
    and Bush administrations and could have forced a balanced budget if
    they wanted it.  Remember the Congress was the one that told both
    Reagan and Bush that is they were to submit budgets that cut spending
    on the liberal programs the budgets were DOA.  Now that seems to me
    that they pretty much dictated the terms of any budget.
    
    Also using your terms for sleaze then the deficit budgets that Clinton
    has provided and the budget deficits he forecasted for the forseeable
    future would certainly put him in the same category.
    
    So assuming that unbalanced budgets is the basis for determining sleaze
    then Bill and the boys are right up there.  Now add in the other
    factors that are truly sleaze i.e., travelgate, whitewater, cattle
    futures, Vince Foster, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers and you get a
    couple that stands head and shoulders above any President in recent
    history.
    
    I assume that this is not what your talking about and you are simply
    grasping at straws to try and deflect further criticism of this
    incompetent crook.  If you want to sweep all of these issues under the
    rug then at least be honest about it, or have you decided that the
    Clinton way of obfuscating, distorting and lying are the best way to
    carry on a debate.
    
    Sorry, your boy is a slimy, sleazy crook that will ultimately be
    exposed for what he really is.
    

    I'm not sure what topic this belongs in, but I'm willing to bet that it
    doesn't belong in "Responsibility for your Parents".

    RE: .201

>    At least the social spending benefits real people, ...

    What is the social cost for your social welfare spending?  In some
    areas of the country, if woman signs up for every social-welfare
    program that she and her children would qualify for then she would
    receive the equivalent of an $8.50/hour job ... and don't forget to
    throw in the medical benefits.

    My younger sister's husband is very close to being unemployable.  He is
    short of his high school diploma by three years.  Because of the
    wonderful social-welfare programs that "benefits real people", my
    sister, her children, and her husband would be financially better off
    if he left them.

    Therefore, your social spending is encouraging fathers to abandon their
    children and their responsibilities.  I fail to see how this benefits
    real people.

    -- Dave

    As a follow up to the ridiculous assertions in .201, have you ever
    listened to the speeches by JFK????
    
    So far everyone has held JFK out as an example of the best of the
    Democrats and liberal philosophy.  Well, I had th opportunity to hear
    the address by JFK when he was presenting his tax plan to reduce taxes
    across the board.
    
    If you have chance, listen to this tape, it is incredible.  The Whiner
    loves to position himself as the next JFK, well I wish he would do what
    JFK did.  This speech would have put him clearly in the Republican
    party today.
    
    He did not say that we need to kill old people, etc.  What he said si
    that the government can not be all thing s to all people and that to
    continue to take money out of the pockets of the wage earners is wrong. 
    All of his tape could have been part of the Republican paltform today.
    
    I wonder what all of our good liberals and Democrats in the 'box would
    say about JFK if he were to give that same speech today??
    

    re: JFK
    
    Say, we don't hear that "Ask not what your country can do for you..."
    clip much anymore on the media, do we?
    
    Chris

    .206
    
    Hey, I hadn't thought about that since the liberals have now taken on
    the mantra of "what is my country going to do for me today?"
    
    No, Kennedy wouldn't have had a chance today.
    
    I would really like to see a liberal respond to the positions that
    Kennedy had, which by all accounts are very conservative positions
    today, and why if he is an icon to the liberals why are they so opposed
    to conservatives today.
    
    Getting something for nothing is more important today, I suppose as is
    feeling good as opposed to doing something.
    

.202

 >> Baloney. Military expenditures don't get put in a jar somewhere, they
    get cycled back through the economy. They also provide tax revenues for
    your beloved budget busting economy crippling social programs. <<

Like wise welfare and social security.  That money doesn't sit in a box 
somewhere, that also is put back into the community.  Supermarkets, clothing
stores, gas stations, etc.

.203
 >> You want to claim that Reagan and Bush were worse than the Clintons
    because they had deficit budgets???? <<

No, I say they were sleezs because they ignored the constitution and supported
people like Noreaga and did deals with terrorists to get the head of Middle
East CIA back, Buckley.  If they had been offered him back but not the other
hostages, they would have let the others fry. 

Regan ran on the promise that he would reduce government spending and the
deficit, he didn't.  His supply side economics and trickle down economics
were such a disaster that they increased the deficit by leaps and bounds.
The Twins lied through their teeth and covered up with the best.  Like I said,
the Clintons on their best day could not equal Regan, Bush, and Nixon for 
sleezs.  


If Clinton was a crook he would be more effective.

>> i.e., travelgate, whitewater, cattle futures, Vince Foster, Paula Jones, 
Gennifer Flowers <<

None of these equal up to the S&L rip-off.  Both Regan and Bush were told
that the legislation that Regan signed would leave S&L's open to what 
eventually happen and they ignored it.  In fact, the whistle blower was 
hounded and harassed out of a job.  And, show me a politician who hasn't
chased women (apart from Barney Frank) and I'll show you a dead body.  Ben 
Franklin wouldn't stand up too well to your desire for squeaky clean 
politicians, neither would many of the signers of the Constitution.
Would your life, for say the last 15 years, stand up to close scrutiny?  How 
many things you have done in your life could be made to look really bad if
someone cared enough to give those events the right slant.

The only reason the Republicans want to cut welfare and social security is
to fund their tax brake, specially designed to win them the next election.  

.204

>> Because of the
    wonderful social-welfare programs that "benefits real people", my
    sister, her children, and her husband would be financially better off
    if he left them. <<

That is a problem that should be fixed, along with many others.  That is what
reform of the welfare system is supposed to deal with, not ending welfare.
And remember, if he were to grow tired of being a husband and father and 
leave them (and many husbands do) your sister and children would not starve on
the street, thanks to my tax dollars.  Also, if your brother-in-law does become
unemployed, none of them will starve on the street corner.  They may not
live in the lap of luxury but they will live.   That's the welfare system. 
If a marriage is so fragile that the acquisition of a few more dollars drives
a father from his children then what kind of a father is he anyway.  I doubt
many fathers leave for that reason.

                 

    RE: .208
    
>His supply side economics and trickle down economics
>were such a disaster that they increased the deficit by leaps and bounds.

    Not by a long shot.  In terms of constant dollars, Reagan's trickle
    down economics increased the median income level.  Tax revenues
    increased based on trickle down economics and the tax cut spurring on
    the largest peace-time economic growth.

    The deficit did grow under Reagan and a lot of that was due to the
    growth in social-welfare spending.  Arguably, Reagan should have
    vetoed the social-welfare spending, but that would have created more
    gridlock and he wouldn't have been able to pass any of his agenda.

>And, show me a politician who hasn't
>chased women (apart from Barney Frank) and I'll show you a dead body.  

    So in your book sexual harassment by public figures is OK?

>Would your life, for say the last 15 years, stand up to close scrutiny?  

    I've had the government scrutinizing my background on a regular basis
    for the past 10 years.  It's held up very well, thank you.

>The only reason the Republicans want to cut welfare and social security is
>to fund their tax brake, 

    What cut?

>If a marriage is so fragile that the acquisition of a few more dollars drives
>a father from his children then what kind of a father is he anyway.

    To some extent, I disagree.  Sometimes the best, and hardest decision,
    that a 14 year old mother can make for her child is to send the child
    out of her life through adoption.  A father can face the same type of
    decision about staying in the mother's/child's life.  

    Note: I am NOT advocating that fathers abandon their responsibilities. 
    But I am pointing out that the welfare system encourages them to do so.
    By the way, I have yet to see a proposed reform of welfare that
    doesn't.

>And remember, if he were to grow tired of being a husband and father and 
>leave them (and many husbands do) your sister and children would not starve on
>the street, thanks to my tax dollars.  

    And that's part of the problem.  You'd have our tax dollars shield her
    from the consequences of her actions.  My sister _deliberately_ got
    pregnant because she knew it would improve her standard of living
    (because of the "helping" hands she would and did receive).

    Do I want her and her kids to starve?  Not particularly, but she will
    NEVER grow up and take responsibility for her own actions as long as
    she is shielded from the consequences of those actions.

    -- Dave

    .208
    
    You unfortunately have a distinct inability to determine personal
    sleaze and a difference of political policy.  Your claims that Bush and
    Reagan ignored the constitution because they dealt with Noriega, etc. 
    Well, just how wonderful of a person is Aristide?  The head of the IRA
    is a saint?  How do yo think they finance a lot of their costs? 
    Clinton cozied up to these guys.  I am more than willing to cut Clinton
    slack on international policy since a lot of what gets done is for
    reasons greater than either you aor I will ever comprhend.
    
    The issue with Clinton, that you consistently ignore, is that he
    PERSONALLY profited from illegal or unethical activities.  You point to
    the S&L problems as the same as Whitewater and cattle futures, but you
    miss the point.  Reagan beleived that federal regulations were costing
    the industry billions and they needed to have more freedom.  Just as
    many people who advised against it, supported the belief.  But,
    remember, Reagan did not profit personally from any of this.  Clinton
    did.  That's the difference and that's why he's sleazy and a crook.
    
    Any further attempts to try and equate Reagan and Bush with Clinton in
    terms of ethics or sleaze is nothing more than more inane attempts to
    cover up for the biggest embarrassment that this is country has had.
    
    Also your attempts to equate the vile welfare system with something
    positive would be laughable if it woeren't that you obviously believe
    it.  The problems in society are directly attributable to welfare and
    eliminating it will cause an incredible improvement in society. If
    there are some downsides then these can be addressed with a very
    specific and targeted program, not the giveaway handouts we presently
    have.  You have no interest in ending welfare and getting people back
    on their feet, you just want to keep them on the dependency plantation
    and keep sending money with no hope of getting out.  So sad.
    

RE: 625.210 by ACISS1::ROCUSH

> The issue with Clinton, that you consistently ignore, is that he 
> PERSONALLY profited from illegal or unethical activities.

Just like Newt and his book advance.


Phil

    Yeah, that dollar was pretty outrageous.

    So If I used one of Newt's jokes I could double his writing income?

    
.211 Nice one Phil.  Wish I had thought of that.
    
.209

>>So in your book sexual harassment by public figures is OK?<<  

No it's not, but it seems to be part of the personality make up of a 
politician.  It's all to do with power and control, people like lawyers, 
policeman, politicians and teachers (among others) are mostly into power and 
control.  The best direct their leanings toward good, quite a few do not.  

>>What cut?<<

The one they are trying to rush through as part of the balanced budget to 
make them look good for the next election, and one of the reasons Clinton 
won't be pressured into signing a budget that would hurt the average American 
more than it would help them.

I am sorry for the problems your sister has caused you and your family. 
It's a pity that effective parenting with some children just don't work
with others.  It doesn't help that society (advertising, TV, movies) do 
nothing to help parents.  But, don't think that because welfare is there 
to stop her and her children from suffering that she would have behaved 
differently; history shows that she probably wouldn't.  Without welfare, 
by now she would be living on immoral earnings or low paid "sweat shop" 
type employment to support herself and her children.  Not something I would 
want for my sister, or yours.  Welfare will allow that needed time for
her to grow up, without hurting her children.

>>I've had the government scrutinizing my background on a regular basis
    for the past 10 years.  It's held up very well, thank you.<<

That may be so, but the questions was: what in your life over the past
15 years could be given a negative slant if someone wanted to.  Eg.
Getting to work late once in a while, taking a long lunch brake a few times, 
leaving early on the odd occasion = lack of commitment to the job.

.210

There you go, right off the subject again.  Tell me, are you prepared
to support your parents and grandparents in their old age, or are you
tough enough to see them thrown out on the street?

Now back down the rat hole:

>>cover up for the biggest embarrassment that this is country has had.<<

Not even close.  Regan was that.

How come connection of Bush's family with a failed S&L was never investigated?
Chip (or Skip or whatever) made a heck of a lot more profit on that deal than 
the Clinton's from Whitewater.  Regan "ignored the constitution" and did under
the counter deals with terrorists, he should have been indited for his part 
in the Iran Contra affair. The only explanation as to why Regan wasn't found 
with his hand in the till, more than trashing the environment, selling 
national resources for pennies to his lumber and cattle industry friends, and 
trashing the working American, was that he didn't have the mental capacity.  

>>Regan did not profit personally from any of this.<<

Not that we have been able to find out, but as there was such a blanket
cover up of who was involved in the trashing of S&Ls, I wouldn't be too sure.  

It's unbelievable that you can dismiss a scandal that need not have happened 
as insignificant against Whitewater "that cost billions" when the S&L bail 
out cost HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS. That bail out cost the tax payer HUNDREDS OF 
BILLIONS of dollars and made this recession a hundred times worse than it 
should have been.  If the government had not made a gift of that money to 
cover up for a bunch of crooks, most of which not investigated until Clinton
took office, there would be no need to cut anything.  But, to cover up Regan 
and Bush's mishandling of our tax dollars for 12+ years, the Republicans are 
demonizing Welfare, and Social Security to cover up the $ shortfall. I am 
surprised that YOU can't see that.

>>You have no interest in ending welfare and getting people back
    on their feet, you just want to keep them on the dependency plantation
    and keep sending money with no hope of getting out. <<

The majority of welfare recipients stay on welfare for around 18 months to two 
years, like mothers who have to wait for a day care slot, people like company
executives who for years lived up to the last penny of their salary, no 
savings, and ran out of unemployment money.  

Welfare does not "cause an incredible improvement in society" it just stops a 
lot of people being forced to be a burden on relatives or from living on the 
streets. And if you can't see that as positive, then it's no wonder you support
the Republican party.

And, what's there not to believe?  Welfare does support people in times of 
trouble: when their spouses leave them, when unemployment runs out, when they 
are injured and unable to work.  That's not fiction it's fact.  Welfare works.
Let's remember that it was the Regan/Bush years that saw the majority of
our manufacturing jobs and quite a few of our computer engineering jobs go 
overseas without a whimper from the White House.  Those people make up a large 
percentage of the welfare role.  Quite a few people from the computer industry 
found themselves depending on welfare for a while between the end of the 
unemployment and another job coming up.

RE: 625.212 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "memory canyon"

> Yeah, that dollar was pretty outrageous.

That's after he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.  But you knew
that...


Phil

    Just returning your cynicism, Philip.

      re: .215
    
      On what basis can you lodge any complaint regarding ignoring the
      Constitution when you acknowledge full support for ignoring the
      Constitution yourself by favoring something totally unConstitu-
      tional???   (Federal welfare and entitlements programs)
    
      As far as Reagon is concerned, the following is a quick summary
      personal perspective...
    
      He was a GREAT communicator.  So much so that while Congress does
      the budget, I have to say he reeked in so far as his lack of
      communicating any disapproval with the budget was concerned.  He
      had no qualms about taking issues to the American people and he
      was excellent at doing so.  I never heard him take the issue of
      an escalating national debt to the people.  I have a real hard 
      time with this.
    
      The guy was the extreme opposite of a micro-manager and I think
      he was unaware of a lot of pranks.  Probably should have micro-
      managed a little.
    
      He was a military hawk.  I would have favored much less military
      expenditure.  I thought the star wars thing was absurd (as one
      example).
    
      I am open to the possibility that he allowed some indiscretions
      (perhaps knowing about Contra-Gate as one example) and thus may
      have not been the most ethical guy in the world.
    
      I believe he philosophically fought for and communicated a fed govt.
      much more like the Constitutional model.  He repeatedly spoke of
      his favoring reducing the federal govt. and handing responsibilities
      over to the local levels (I call this OBEDIENCE to the Constitution).
    
      So, I see him as having good points and bad points.  I MUCH favor
      Reagon philosophically (save for his extreme for me hawkishness)
      and think philosophically Clinton is antithetical to anything close
      to any concept of adherence to Constitutional govt.
    
      Its a gut feel, but so far as the likelihood and frequency of being 
      promiscuous or of being dishonest or of having a real sense of
      loyalty to our Constitution...to even attempt to place Clinton in
      an equal or more favorable light than Reagon is blasphemous!
    
    						Tony

    RE: .214

>>>What cut?<<
>
>The one they are trying to rush through as part of the balanced budget to 
>make them look good for the next election, and one of the reasons Clinton 
>won't be pressured into signing a budget that would hurt the average American 
>more than it would help them.

    I must admit that it is getting tiring debating someone so devoid of
    facts.  There are NO CUTS in social security, medicare, or medicaid in
    the proposed Republican budgets; the Republican budgets call for an
    INCREASE in spending in these areas.  As many times as this has been
    stated I can't help but wonder why you want to keep perpetuating the
    myth of cuts.

>But, don't think that because welfare is there 
>to stop her and her children from suffering that she would have behaved 
>differently; history shows that she probably wouldn't.  

    I'm glad you know my younger sister better than I do.  Unfortunately,
    your statements are again categorically wrong.

    -- Dave

    >I must admit that it is getting tiring debating someone so devoid of
    >facts.  There are NO CUTS in social security, medicare, or medicaid in
    >the proposed Republican budgets; the Republican budgets call for an
    >INCREASE in spending in these areas.  As many times as this has been
    >stated I can't help but wonder why you want to keep perpetuating the
    >myth of cuts.
    
     A) Because it makes for a "good" (read: comfortable) argument
    
     B) Don't discount the caliber of the individuals promulgating such an
    argument and their grasp of the issues.

    .199  SCASS1::EDITEX::MOORE > 
    
    >> Also, any dependent you are claiming must have an SSN (even newborns
    >> now).
    
    >TIN, not SSN.  SS #s are not mandatory.
    
    That may be the law, but the documentation (the instructions received
    with the 1040 form) clearly states SSN, not TIN.
    
    Note:  If you are not working for a state or federal governmental
    agency, your company MUST collect Social Security Tax.  In order to
    collect the tax they MUST have your SSN.  Thus, the SSN is a Statutory
    requirement.
    
    TINs work for non-employment situations - like at the Registry, a bank,
    a stock broker, etc.  
    
    	Skip

    
    .201 TOOK::GASKELL> At least the social spending benefits real people,
    >unlike military spending which goes down a tube and is never seen
    >again.
    
    Tell that to all the people who work for Military contractors.  This
    may be a form of welfare, but there is a huge difference - First there
    is something to be said for being able to defend the country.  The need
    may not be as great as in the past, but it is not nill either.  Second,
    a lot of the budget goes to R&D.  Now maybe a lot of the R&D does not
    directly benefit the average citizen.  But even if only 1% does, that
    is a hell of a lot more then the R&D coming from Welfare recipients
    (which is nill).
    
    Finally, there are a number of companies that are significantly aided
    by military R&D.  McDonald Douglas would be out of business if it
    wasn't for the military.  Boeing has incorporated much that it has
    learned from military research into commercial planes.  You couldn't
    get a Hummer (the car I mean oh er.) if it wasn't for the military.  In
    fact MCI (a huge DEC customer) got it start from military R&D into
    microwave communications.
    
    There are hundreds of billions of dollars a year of commercial sales
    generated by products spun off from military R&D, military purchases,
    etc.  In fact the taxes generated directly and indirectly from the
    military probably cover twice the cost of the military.  The social
    programs don't even come close to covering 20% of their cost.
    
    This means that a significant portion of the social programs' spending
    is provided by (directly and indirectly) the military spending.  So, if
    you want those social programs you had better fund the military.
    
    	Skip

    RE: .221

>    Note:  If you are not working for a state or federal governmental
>    agency, your company MUST collect Social Security Tax.  In order to
>    collect the tax they MUST have your SSN.  Thus, the SSN is a Statutory
>    requirement.

    I don't know about the states, my guess is that it will vary state by
    state.  For the federal government, it depends on when you were hired. 
    If you are hired now, you will be under SS and not the old federal
    employees retirement plan.

    -- Dave

    Extending .222 slightly, most of the caridac monitoring equipment in
    use in hospitals today came out of the space program.

    
    Give me a break with Newt and his book advance.  Maybe 4 mill was
    a little high, but look at some of the other advances given out today.
    
    	Janet Jackson was just handed an $80,000,000.00 contract for 4
    	records over 4 years.  Thus is 4 mill out of line compared to
    	that.
    
    	Drew B. of the New England Patsies was given a 42 Mill contract
    	(11 mill just to sign the thing).  How does that compare to
    	Newt's 4 mill.
    
    	Arny demands up to 10 mill per picture plus residuals.  How does
    	that compare to 4 mill.
    
    	Sly Stallone has demanded 20 mill for a movie.  Much more then 
    	Newt's 4 mill.
    
    	Micheal Crichton gets many millions per book, plus movie rights.
    	And his books have definitely gone down hill.
    
    The list goes on and on.  Four mill is not all that much for a book
    deal.  It just sounds like a lot, so the press plays it up.  The sad
    part is how many people actually buy what the media sells.  But then,
    when it's the only show in town, what choice do you have.
    
    	Skip

    re: .222, 224
    
    These things are true. However, we shouldn't overlook the amount of
    wasted taxpayer dollars, simply due to the high cost and inefficiency
    of government.

    
>    There are hundreds of billions of dollars a year of commercial sales
>    generated by products spun off from military R&D, military purchases,
>    etc.  In fact the taxes generated directly and indirectly from the
>    military probably cover twice the cost of the military.  The social
>    programs don't even come close to covering 20% of their cost.
>    
>    This means that a significant portion of the social programs' spending
>    is provided by (directly and indirectly) the military spending.  So, if
>    you want those social programs you had better fund the military.
    
    That a unique view of the economic multiplier effect I was taught of
    government spending.  
    
    Your description of the companies supplying the military and the
    workers for those companies is right on.  With military spending you
    also end up with an end product like a missle sitting in a silo in the
    ground not generating new economic growth. 
    
    Money spend on social programs is given to individuals who spend it on 
    goods and services.  Companies with employees provide those goods and
    services bought with the social services bucks. There is a direct
    parallel to the military spending.  Well run social spending (work-fare
    with daycare and medical care for example) will also provide another
    worker to help fuel the economy which provides more economic value than
    that missle sitting in a silo.  A poorly run social spending will create
    parallel situations ... a missile sitting in a silo and a welfare
    recipient sitting on a couch.   
    
    Claiming superior economic impact from defense spending is a tough road
    to prove.
    
    Greg
    

    .225
    
    The difference is that Newt is a "public servant."  Lamar Alexander's
    push for term limits and reduced salaries for congresscritters is a
    step in the right direction - cogresscritters are supposed to be
    part-time SERVANTS of the public, not full-time suckers of the public
    teat.  Candidates should be motivated by a sense of duty, not by the
    prospect of getting rich on book sales.

RE: 625.225 by TRLIAN::MIRAB1::REITH "One Size Doesn't Fit All"

> Janet Jackson ... Drew B. of the New England Patsies ...  Arny ... Sly
> Stallone ... Micheal Crichton ...

Are all being paid big bucks to do a job.  I have no problem with that:  I
think Congress critters should be paid a lot more money for looking after
the national business AND completely prohibited from taking money from
anyone else.  Newt was going to being paid big bucks for doing something 
other than his job.  The real problem was that it looked like Newt was
taking a bribe.


Phil

    
    > Newt was going to being paid big bucks for doing something
    > other than his job.
    
    So now a congress critter must give up his or her First Amendment
    rights once elected?  Or, are they supposed to give away their
    intellectual property once elected?  How about VPs, wives of
    Presidents, other elected and non elected officials?
    
    The problem was not the deal.  The problem was that the media and the
    Democrats wanted to make a huge issue of the deal.
    
    Maybe it looked like a bribe.  But at least he was delivering something
    for the money, and at least the book company had a decent chance of
    recouping their expenses.  This is entirely different from company
    paid lobbyist and campaign donations.
    
    	Skip

    .215
    
    What an incredible reply.  You take your venom against the Republicans
    to new highs with this one.  You make thew outrageous claim against
    Reagan, the he profited from the S&L crisis, without the slightest
    attempt` to prove it, and state it as fact.  You next claim the Bush's
    son, got a pass on Silverado.  Nothing could be further from the truth. 
    The Democrats were in charge and took avery chance to nail his son and
    found nothing.  But that doesn't stop you.
    
    The rest of your points are equally without merit and simply point out
    your pathetic attempts to justify the existence of a crook in the White
    House.
    

    No,
    
    Niel Bush got away with a large amount of cash.  he and the other
    cronies from Silvarado paid about 10 cents on the dollar.  You and I
    made up the rest.  NB was just one of many who got away with grand
    larceny of the American Public.  Not to mention the time, trouble and
    effort it took to get accounts straightened out if you were a Silvdrado
    customer.  (My mother had accounts there)
    
    Want more Republican cronies who got away with grand theft?  Try Frank
    Aries and other developers who hid their own assets under their wives
    and sons and daughters names and now cry poverty from the (wife, son,
    daughter's) beachfront condo's and yaughts.  If I borrowed twice what
    my home was worth to improve it, didn't make the improvements and took
    the cash and ran, I would be in jail, not in Coco Beach.  
    
    Neil is scum along with the others and you and I are still paying for
    the 500Billion bailout of the rich and powerful.
    
    meg
    
    

    
    
    SO, there was no investigation Meg?  
    
    
    
    And if I remember correctly, GHWB said let them investigate and let the
    chips fall where they may.
    
    
    And, it's funny how you all have to attack the mans child as a way to
    get to him.
    
    
    how pathetic.

    given that you are willing to attack a wife of a person to get at the
    person, take it to pot and kettle.
    
    Hillary has been much more investigated for a "crime" that NB was also
    involved in.
    
    To me it is a case of goose and gander

    .232 .234
    
    Excuse me, but you obviously have a very short memory.  You want to
    claim that Neal Bush was a crook, and by inference his father, for the
    exact same thing that Bill and Hillary were involved with.  Their
    activities, both as governor and lead attorney, were directly related
    to the failure of McDougal's bank.  That little "arrangement" cost the
    public millions.
    
    So if you want to criticize Bush then you should be leading the charge
    against this couple.  Remember George Bush was never accused of
    anything related to any bank failure, and it wasn't that the Democrats
    didn't try.  Bill and Hillary were directly involved, personally
    profited and are presently obstructing justice with this investigation.
    
    You may have biases, but at least be intellectually honest about it.
    

    obstructing justice? gee, i must have missed the trial and verdict.
    
    ROCUSH, judge & jury for hire. 

.235


If the republicans had been as keen to investigate Silverado, or any
S&L rip off, as they are in trying to pin something on the Clinton's,
I think you would have been very surprised to find out who else had their hand 
in the till.  Millons in CASH MONEY went missing out of Silverado, not 
just over valuation of property for loans. And let's remember it was 
Reagan who signed the legislation that made that rip off possible.  It 
didn't benefit you and I, only people who are on record as being very 
big campaign contributors of both Reagan and Bush.  It wasn't until after 
Bush left office that any REAL investigation was allowed to happen.  

It wasn't Clinton (Billy or Hilly) who successfully by-passed the 
constitution, set up a government entity outside of the elected body,
and did deals with terrorists without the governments knowledge or approval.  
Not to mention growing the deficit by leaps and bounds.  The Clinton's 
losing some money on a business deal looks pale by comparison.

The Republicans have lost their bid to gut America with their budget, they
have to kick someone to make themselves feel strong again and who better
than a woman.  Even better still if it's an uppity professional woman.

Hillary may have made mistakes, but no more serious than many other
lawyers, politicians, and first ladies.  If she were a Republican, we would
never have heard of Whitewater or her involvement; it would have been 
buried so deep it would never have seen the light of day again.

    
    
    RE: .237  Nice try, but the dims controlled congress at the time and
    they tried to find something to no availe.
    
    

    RE: .237

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's tiring debating someone
    so devoid of facts.

>   If the republicans had been as keen to investigate Silverado, or any

    Congress did investigate.  Do you know what they found?  Or would you
    rather just making sweeping statements about non-existent cover-ups?

>Not to mention growing the deficit by leaps and bounds.

    For every dollar of increase in defense spending that Reagan was able
    wrangle out of the Democratically controlled congress, congress passed
    two dollars of increases in your beloved social welfare spending.

    I don't have the exact figure in front of me (I do have them at home),
    but when Reagan left office the budget deficit was about $150B a year
    and going down.  Clinton's budget and budget forecasts when the
    Democrats held both houses of congress called for $200B in deficits a
    year and a slight upward trend before tappering off.


>It wasn't until after 
>Bush left office that any REAL investigation was allowed to happen.  

    When GHWB was asked about the possible investigations of his son Neil,
    he made the absolutely correct answer.  Investigate him.  Once again
    your sweeping generalization is trying to imply something that never
    happened.

>The Republicans have lost their bid to gut America with their budget, 

    This really belongs in the balanced budget topic, but anyone who
    opposes balancing the budget is fiscally irresponsible.  What form that
    balanced budget takes is secondary and is opened to debate.  

    Contrast the fact that the average family of four will have to pay
    between $600 to $1000 a month to pay off their share of the national
    debt in 30 years with any of the balanced budgets that have been put
    forth.  Now, tell me which is really gutting the future of Americans: 
    balancing the budget or the continued irresponsible government spending
    of the last 40 years?

>they
>have to kick someone to make themselves feel strong again and who better

    You're right.  She's a woman and therefore should be treated with kids
    gloves and exempted for any thought of wrong doing.

    -- Dave

    .237
    
    You just love to distort facts, make up history and ignore reality. 
    Neal Bush was investigated by a DEMOCRATICALLY contolled congress and
    try as they would, they found nothing.  Thye couldn't even scare a hint
    of a coverup.
    
    If you want to talk about an abuse of power, remember the
    Democratically contolled Whitewater investigation.  Now lwr's see. 
    They had nine people brought in, all at the same time, to insure that
    no one go their stories wrong, and gave the investigators five minutes
    to ask questions.  Now please expalin just how adequate this was.
    
    Also, drop the crap about Hillary being picked on because she's a
    professional woman.  She is being investigasted because of her role in
    the transactions.  Now she was probably the conduit for getting the
    money to Bill, but that's the role she chose.
    
    Your ability to deal with facts is as limited as Clinton's.
    

    
    
    The silence is deafening......

    interesting to see the position taken if nothing comes of the
    investigation. the "try as they would" crowd will do some nifty
    tap dancing (i suspect).
    
    but, my guess is that investigations will only cease when D'Amato
    is gone. the man needs professional help or he is the republican
    lamb.

    
    
    RE: "Nothing comes of it"
    
    
    How many convictions have there been so far?
    
    
    
    
    hth,
    

    'Scuse me,
    
    Neil was not subjected to the scrutiny that has gone on for another
    failed S&L in any way shape or form.  Certainly not to the tune of over
    2X the losses to the taxpayers, as those in the Madison Guaranty have
    been subjected to.  In other words, you and I are paying over twicew
    what we already paid for Madison's failure, tand there is no end in
    sight, and fewer indictments than came out of several other S&L
    failures that were investigated and prosecuted in a much less expensive
    fashion.  The fact is that NB and crew paid less than .co on the
    dollar as well, involved themselves in cronyism on shaky loans, and
    received a percentage of these shady loans as "loans that didn't have
    to be paid back."  To me this says kickback, but if I understand what
    you are saying, to you this is a standard way of doing business.  
    
    meg

    
    
    You don't think that if there was anything to the allegations that it
    would not have been bandied about by the democrats?  Give me a break.
    
    
    Mike

    .244
    
    It appears that you are unable to differentiate between the actions of
    the Clinton's before, during and after.  What the focus of the
    investigation is now is the cover up and obstruction currently being
    run by the Clinton's.
    
    It's very possible that the misdeeds of the Clinton's were no better or
    worse than a lot of other financial dealings, but their obstruction now
    is the real focus.  The investigation of what they did years ago is
    simply to show the connection to the current cover up.
    
    The Clinton's ran on a platform of moral superiority and they arer
    afraid that this issue will show them to be the moral derelicts that
    they truly are.  This is the real risk they runa dnwhy they are
    fighting so hard to keep it under wraps.