Re: Medicare Means Test

On 9 Nov 2003 15:27:43 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Herman
Rubin) wrote:

>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Gretchen Evans  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 7 Nov 2003 12:54:34 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Herman
>>Rubin) wrote:
>
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>Gretchen Evans  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 22:12:31 -0700, "Founding Father" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>wrote:
>
>
>>>>>"Gretchen Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>> On 3 Nov 2003 12:18:25 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Herman
>>>>>> Rubin) wrote:
>
>>>>>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>>>> >Gretchen Evans  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> >>On 30 Oct 2003 16:56:40 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (DWood78828) wrote:
>
>>>>>> >>>>Subject: Re: Medicare Means Test
>>>>>> >>>>From: Gretchen Evans
>
>                        ...................
>
>
>>>Libertarians would pay a lot less if they only funded the
>>>military and related budget, and you totalitarians had to
>>>fund the much greater welfare budget.
>
>>I assume that the standard policy of the libertarians is to simply
>>allow the less fortunate die in the steets to save funds? Good
>>thinking, with your plan we've got a massive military and people
>>starving.  
>
>Libertarians believe in private charity, not in government
>handouts.  As I have stated, if there are 5% on charity, 
>there is no problem; if there are 90%, it cannot be done.
>Just where realism has to replace compassion is unclear.

But there aren't 90% on charity or seeking assistance, what's the
point?
>
>The US should be considered to be in Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
>The money is not there.   Resources are not unlimited, as
>far too many who condemn those who are more successful seem
>to think.

Assuming that's true... which I don't accept under any circumstances
since the monitary supply is controlled by the US.. here's a partial
solution.. Stop sending all those billions out of the country and take
care of the people at home. 

pixie