Ron Paul...

AustinMN wrote:
On Oct 9, 12:50 pm, George Grapman wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
George Grapman wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
George Grapman wrote:
It should have been financed by my state and local school district, with
no
federal money.
But it was and you reaped the benefits that you now want to deny to
others.
First of all you would have to FIND some benefits.
If you reaped no benefits from years of education I think the problem
was you rather than the system.
You reaped benefits from the FEDERAL money "given" to the
schools? You would certainly be among the first.
As I said if one got no benefits from that education the fault most
likely lies with the individual.

When you compare the money the federal government gives to education
to the cost of what it requires states and school districts to do to
get that money, it is doubtful that there is much benefit for anyone.

Austin

Fine, your state and district are free to refuse that money.

In article ,
George Grapman wrote:



Fine, your state and district are free to refuse that money.

In much the same way (any more) that a junkie is free to refuse heroin
or a smoker is free to refuse a cigarette. In all three cases, there is
a very nasty withdrawal period....

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
George Grapman wrote:


Fine, your state and district are free to refuse that money.

In much the same way (any more) that a junkie is free to refuse heroin
or a smoker is free to refuse a cigarette. In all three cases, there is
a very nasty withdrawal period....
Yes, but it can be done.
By the way, this comment should not be needed but it is refreshing
to have a discussion like this where all the participants are civil as
the disagree with each other.

In article ,
George Grapman wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
George Grapman wrote:


Fine, your state and district are free to refuse that money.

In much the same way (any more) that a junkie is free to refuse heroin
or a smoker is free to refuse a cigarette. In all three cases, there is
a very nasty withdrawal period....
Yes, but it can be done.
By the way, this comment should not be needed but it is refreshing
to have a discussion like this where all the participants are civil as
the disagree with each other.

Me, too. Enjoy it while we can (g).

"George Grapman" wrote in message
. ..
Leon Baker wrote:
"George Grapman" wrote in message
et...
Leon Baker wrote:
"George Grapman" wrote in message
t...
Leon Baker wrote:
"George Grapman" wrote in message
t...
Herb Kauhry wrote:
Yeah, I looked up his voting record. He's missed 20% of the votes
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c.../vote-missers/
in all.
Eighth worst in the entire house. Truth is, Ron Paul never voted AT
ALL on
20% of the things he should have.

Proclaims his devotion to the market place yet voted against
allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices.
Could that be because the government has no business being in the
healthcare business???
That is not the point. As long as they are in it why not allow
negotiated prices, it works for the VA
By the way do you also oppose government funding of education?
I oppose the federal government sticking their noses into education.
That is a function of the states. We do have a constitution in this
country, you know? Try reading it and the writings of those who wrote
it sometime...
So how was your education financed?

It should have been financed by my state and local school district, with
no federal money.
But it was and you reaped the benefits that you now want to deny to
others.

I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth. As if I had a choice...I'm
not denying anyone anything. It's not the feds duty to school people or
provide for their health care or retirement. Until the socialists elite like
yourself realise this, things will never get better in this country. Sooner
or later you'll see that it's just another way for those in power to stay in
power.

"George Grapman" wrote in message
. ..
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:05:57 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
George Grapman wrote:

It should have been financed by my state and local school district,
with no federal money.

But it was and you reaped the benefits that you now want to deny to
others.
First of all you would have to FIND some benefits.

Good point, that federal money comes with mandates the money will not
cover.

Always do. Why do think the drinking age everywhere is 21 and
there are mandatory seatbelt laws, etc. etc. etc. etc.


With both examples a state could negate those laws by losing federal
funding but even the strongest advocates of states rights are rarely ready
to do that.

Oh, but that's not the least of it. The loss of the money is the least of
it, they also generally make demands whatever sum of money previously given
in grant also be returned.
Even when that money was given in a grant with no strings attached.

Leon Baker wrote:
"George Grapman" wrote in message
. ..
Leon Baker wrote:
"George Grapman" wrote in message
et...
Leon Baker wrote:
"George Grapman" wrote in message
t...
Leon Baker wrote:
"George Grapman" wrote in message
t...
Herb Kauhry wrote:
Yeah, I looked up his voting record. He's missed 20% of the votes
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c.../vote-missers/
in all.
Eighth worst in the entire house. Truth is, Ron Paul never voted AT
ALL on
20% of the things he should have.

Proclaims his devotion to the market place yet voted against
allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices.
Could that be because the government has no business being in the
healthcare business???
That is not the point. As long as they are in it why not allow
negotiated prices, it works for the VA
By the way do you also oppose government funding of education?
I oppose the federal government sticking their noses into education.
That is a function of the states. We do have a constitution in this
country, you know? Try reading it and the writings of those who wrote
it sometime...
So how was your education financed?
It should have been financed by my state and local school district, with
no federal money.
But it was and you reaped the benefits that you now want to deny to
others.

I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth. As if I had a choice...I'm
not denying anyone anything. It's not the feds duty to school people or
provide for their health care or retirement. Until the socialists elite like
yourself realise this, things will never get better in this country. Sooner
or later you'll see that it's just another way for those in power to stay in
power.


You should address your complaint to all the conservatives in
congress who enjoy taxpayer financed health care while they rail against
employer mandated insurance.

Scout wrote:
"George Grapman" wrote in message
. ..
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:05:57 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
George Grapman wrote:

It should have been financed by my state and local school district,
with no federal money.

But it was and you reaped the benefits that you now want to deny to
others.
First of all you would have to FIND some benefits.
Good point, that federal money comes with mandates the money will not
cover.
Always do. Why do think the drinking age everywhere is 21 and
there are mandatory seatbelt laws, etc. etc. etc. etc.

With both examples a state could negate those laws by losing federal
funding but even the strongest advocates of states rights are rarely ready
to do that.

Oh, but that's not the least of it. The loss of the money is the least of
it, they also generally make demands whatever sum of money previously given
in grant also be returned.
Even when that money was given in a grant with no strings attached.


Then don't take the money.

In article ,
George Grapman wrote:


You should address your complaint to all the conservatives in
congress who enjoy taxpayer financed health care while they rail against
employer mandated insurance.

Of course you should.. if you don't want a job. Heck look at the
problems the automakers and other big companies are having with pretty
much the equivalent in their contracts. You think most of the country's
employers who are substantially smaller are going to be able to
magically come up with the money? As that hotbed of conservative
thought, the Washington Post pointed out recently: " "The $12,106
average cost of family coverage this year is roughly equivalent to a
year's salary for a full-time worker earning the minimum wage, which is
$12,168."
Of course the real question went zooming past: So how on earth do
people think that an employer mandate ever could work since it would
force employers to virtually double the wages of these workers? Job loss
would be guaranteed.
Two things need to be done. 1) Eliminate the huge subsidies built
in to the system at all levels. 2). Take responsibility for insurance
away from the workplace so that you again have the entity paying for
insurance being the one that actually uses it.

wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:49:39 GMT, George Grapman
wrote:

When you compare the money the federal government gives to education
to the cost of what it requires states and school districts to do to
get that money, it is doubtful that there is much benefit for anyone.

Austin

Fine, your state and district are free to refuse that money.
The state can refuse the money but they still can't refuse the
mandates
Which mandates are you talking about?