$318 Billion Deal Is Set in Congress for Cutting Taxes

Here's another link on this issue. http://www.nctimes.com/news/2001/20010510/11111.html
c.i.

Fortunately, many Republicans are into birth control.

Tartarin, They're also not recruits - that's the reason they don't care about them!

Tartar, Not really! They don't believe in abortion. c.i.

Good link CI.

So, what we have here is a new government-run welfare program put in place to address the problem that some of our soldiers were on a government-run welfare program. Raise your hands if you think this is solving a problem.

Hell, they caused their problem - they don't matter, let their kids starve! The 'cruits can get food at the messhall!

Yeah, the cruits created their own problem by having too many children. Why didn't the government restrict the number of births by these cruits like China? c.i.

CI -- My experience of Republicans is that they limit their families, probably in part so that everyone can have an individual SUV, condo and summer place without having to worry about money.

Gees, I always thought it was because they didn't have the stuff!

I thought it may be the fact that more kids doesn't mean more money when you're not on welfare.

Once again, BillW completely fails to get it.

Nobody was starving. You and yours were complaining that these families were using foodstamps. That means (since you seem hazy on this point) THAT THEY WERE GETTING HELP, despite having caused their own problems (as you so eloquently put it).

Now, the government has decided to create a new program which will merely alter the form of the handout the government is giving these military families. It will in no way reduce their dependence on the government for that handout.

Now, you and yours may think that is a solution to a problem. From where I sit all they appear to be doing is taking away a crutch made of oak and giving them one made of pine.

One study I'd like to see (which most likely no one will do) would be to assess and compare the standard of living these families enjoyed prior to the head of household enlisting and after that date. I suspect you will find that in every instance their situation improved.

Once again Scrat completely fails to get it!!!!!!!!!!!!! But that doesn't matter, he will keep failing, some people will never learn <sigh>

BillW - All you have to offer are personal attacks devoid of even a pretense of discussing the topic at hand. I've stated my point, what is yours?

Oh, but don't bother responding. For one thing, I know you won't stray anywhere near a point on topic, and for another, I'm done reading anything you write. Go piss on someone else's shoes.

Not nearly as much as does the ultra-libs profound lack of reason.

You completely miss Scrat's point c.i. He doesn't mind you helping the poor, but perhaps he doesn't want to, at least not through forced wealth redistribution. Perhaps he wishes his tax dollars to be spent elsewhere.

Scrat, Does that mean that the libs are too generous to the poor? c.i.

"Oh fatherland, fatherland, show us the sign
Your children have waited to see
The morning will come when the world is mine
Tomorrow belongs to me!"

Scrat, Let me tell you a story from personal experience - about being poor, and our mother raising four children without a father. Without welfare, all of us would have starved. We were very poor, you see? Being poor is not a crime; over 90 percent of the world population is poor. Those of us 'lucky' enough to have roofs over our heads and three squares a day - are just that; lucky. When people are poor and there is no government assistance, people turn to begging on the streets. Some of us who are more fortunate feel we have an obligation to help those less fortunate. It's the humane thing to do, but you won't understand that. c.i.