CompuServe Messages

Ron, and you shrug off quite a bit in passing, as usual. It is NOT the cheapest system overall. The cheapest system would obviously (albeit not obvious to you) return as many workers as possible to the work force as soon as possible. True, there is a certain segment, which you address later on, namely the cyclicly unemployed, that is immediately re-employed, but you are willing to permanently relegate the rest to the welfare system forever. It is a mix of the two that you are addressing, while I am seperating the two groups. The cyclically unemployed (57%, or so, of all welfare recipients, btw) appear on the welfare rolls and disappear withing 1 1/2 to 2 years. The rest are stuck in the AFDC/Housing/Food Stamp trap. By attempting to try to link the continuous reciptients to those that are cyclical, you show your own bias. _We_ all know that they are NOT the problem. Even the marxists agree on this (which is where I got the above stat, btw). Demographically, the breakdowns are the cyclically unemployed, the rural Appalacian families, rural America in general, inner-city permanently unemployed, and inner-city unemployed AFDC reciptients. We can't do anything with the first two groups, Lord knows it's been tried, so that leaves the 30% left. In any case, support for the first 70% are inherently considered as a cost of doing business. So what do we do with the remaining 30%? They are the problematic area in Welfare policy. As I indicated, we can alleviate at least 50% of the lack of job skills in this area with proper training, and, yes, childcare. After a while, these people are able to stand on their own. You may not want to face that fact, but it has worked here. Anecdotal evidence being not sufficient, I have overheard welfare mothers on AFDC talking about their job prospects and it is currently better than mine. One is about to be a Dental Technician, the other, a Paralegal. In both cases, the cost of the child care is more than offset by their tax contributions and fees assessed. There is hope. Not as much as many conservatives admit, but it is there. The rest will continue to be assessed as a cost of doing business, but don't expect it to last long. Given the trend towards ever increasing job-skills to obtain and/or maintain a job, we are going to be facing ever increasing numbers of permanently unemployed. The European countries (ever the Liberal's model of how to cope) haven't dealt well with this, come to think of it, given the riots, haven't dealt with it at all. We do have a pattern to follow here. Retrain the worker to new job skills, whether he/she likes it or not, and give child-care and health-care during the interim period. It may require two years, but we will recover the investment over the next decade. The welfare model of Riverside County is a positive proof of that. BTW, many corporations are already implementing this program on their own. It is far cheaper to retrain an existing worker (by $50K or so) than to train a new worker. The former is already trained in terms of corporate policies, the latter is not. Also, federal government requirements for benefits beyond any reasonable number of workers further push corporations in that direction, although I find them rediculous. Re: Air Control. I assume you will advocate a similiar system in the not too distant future for our freeways, highways, tollways, and streets? There is a limited amount of roadway available and there is an ever increasing amount of traffic demanding the use of same. Actually, they should have been regulated first, not the air traffic ways. Accidents on the ground kill 45K or more people per year. What is the death toll for aircraft? Perhaps 500, if that. Where is your call for traffic regulation of the roadways? BTW, it is quite easy and cheap to incorporate a radar avoidance system into every airplane. Indeed, similiar systems for ships cost under $10K. For an aircraft, they might cost $50K at most. Come to think of it, it isn't very costly for an automobile either, and it comes with GPS navigation for all three, as well. Part of the basic system, don'tcha know. Come back to me when you regulate the highways. (IOW, get real, please!) Re: NRC and States. The same organizations that regulate insurance activities are not competant to regulate nuclear activities? Interesting. Perhaps they are not competant to regulate any activity, including Insurance, Nuclear Reactors, or Air Traffic Control. Shouldn't that tell you something? The order of complexity is far easier in the reactor case than either of the other two activities. Wishful thinking to the contrary will not change facts. A statistic, be it an airline crash, reactor meltdown, or collapse of an insurance agency (the most difficult to regulate, by far!) will come along and bite you in the ass. Examples abound, especially from sunny Southern California, where nuclear plants are shut down, ATC is miserable, and insurance companies are going bust, all to salvage one political career. Ah yes, the old bugaboo of welfare migration. Anyone tell you that it ain't real? The statistics quite discount it. When you bother to adjust for cost-of-living, the order of which states are best for a 'welfare queen' changes dramatically. Alaska and Utah come out on top. Hmmm…, I guess that either 'welfare queens' aren't economically rational (fat chance), or perhaps, that the states that they would do best in are somehow inimical to their sort. I'd lay money on the latter, not the former. Go back to the data and try again. BTW, Texas, California, and Wisconsin down't come off very well, when adjusted. Principle is everything. If one abandons one's moral compass for the convienance of the moment, or the fad of the moment, is completely morally, and ethically, bankrupt. I live by a few ideals, and I don't see that we are sharing very many of them. Your last line says it all. Give up everything in the name of pragmatism, it matters not what it is. It is completely obvious from the data, to any but a complete idiot, that the current system makes absolutely sure that any particular family WILL be kept in utter poverty forever. The rules for AFDC, Housing, and Food Stamps ensure such. If you accumulate any funds whatsoever, you will be penalized immediately. Not only for the amount of the funds, but a penalty of three times the amount you accumulated. This is an absolute formula for continuing poverety. If you don't believe me, just look at recent H&HS and HUD cases. I know. I grew up in it and I'm living it today. I'm the prototypical H&HS family member. Broken family, unsuccessful career, disability, ad nauseum. I know the hoops. Try it for a while before you get on your high horse and state as fact assertions which you have no knowledge about. I'm digging my way out, and hopefully that of my family. At the least, I'm lucky. I've got an understanding bunch of bureaucrats. I hope I can keep them for a while. Otherwise, more games will occur. The ever circular dance of Savings, Rent, Education, and Housing. That is the only point where I deviate from the Libertarian party line. There is a certain point whereby you deviate from the original goal of totally free-markets. In this case, I am trying to make it. So, Ron, frag off and peddle your warez elsewhere. You don't have a clue about the bottom end. Yet another weekend liberal. The Four Seasons of Southern California: Fire, Flood, Earthquake, and Riot.