Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (103702)	2/10/2009 11:50:32 AM
From: Steve Lokness	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542024

John; As for using the octupulets case in CA to characterize the state's safety net, that's simply a classic fallacy, Steve. Using one case to characterize the whole program. I just got into an argument on the phone with my sister on this very issue. Both my sister and you are wrong, but I love my sister dearly so don't take this personal. It isn't this case. It is that this is an example of how far into the welfare State some parts of our country have drifted. That this woman already had disabled children children, but was ALLOWED to have fertility paid for by the State - welfare - even though she already had 6 kids. For each woman that had eight kids at birth how many had just one! We didn't hear about those did we. .......Now if Californians want to allow this, that is their business, but once you pass the obligation of welfare from the State to the Federal government - you have to see what will happen? Each State wil try to pass more and more along to the federal government. Why not let people in Kansas pay for California's welfare?