1. I am talking about our federal government. Schools are currently a local issue anyway, yes they get federal funding, but that money would be returned to the populace and allow them to spend how they see fit, locally. Federal education laws aren't the end all and be all. Dana doesn't avail herself of school services, and I am sure her kids are smart as heck. Usually home school kids come out with a better education than those in the sheep building public school system.
2. School lunches aren't my problem. If you can't afford kids don't have them. What I would like to know is how this raises the barriers? -----Original Message----- From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 12:11 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: GitMo (Was: speaking of) Ok, so lets take school. How is that going to be paid? What sort of standards are to be followed? Research shows that adequate nutrition is critical for children to learn, how is that going to be taken care of. Moreover, your minimalist approach will most likley help keep people down first by making sure that the proverbial playing field is not even, and then making sure that when people attempt to get out of the morass of poverty etc., the barriers are set even higher than now. I can go on and on - the problem is that a minimal government may be laudible, but it throroughly squashes those who cannot afford it. larry On 7/7/05, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It favors no one. Anyone can succeed, we've had this argument for years now > Larry. > > I am a former drug addict with a GED. > > You work hard, study your ass off and you can do/be whatever you want. > > Tim > > -----Original Message----- > From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 11:44 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: GitMo (Was: speaking of) > > > Problem with that model is that it favours the rich and well off while > penalizing the poor and lower middle classes to a disproportionate > amount. > > Which I guess is OK if you can afford it. And as for those poor, well > they deserve it. > > larry > > On 7/7/05, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Tariff based trade, with a minimalist government would work. Levy tariffs > > against imports and exports, change all roads to toll roads. Switch to a > > 'service based' model, where you pay for what you use. > > > > By minimalist government you have to realize that I mean like 80% of our > > government just gone. > > > > Tim > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 11:06 AM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: GitMo (Was: speaking of) > > > > > > What government model would support that? Laws, by their very intent, > > are a limitation of freedoms in order to create order and the process > > of governing those laws needs to be funded somehow. Whether the money > > flows directly or indirectly, there are costs to everything. > > > > The key is finding a balance. > > > > On 7/7/05, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > When will there be a party that favors leaving both our money and our > > > freedoms alone? > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:163438 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
