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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (19505)	3/31/1998 12:41:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

>>Thirty percent of the children in California, a very wealthy state in general, live below the poverty line. Thanks to the sexual revolution and liberal attitudes that made unwed motherhood so attractive. You cannot repeal the laws of economics which dictate that you will get more of anything that is subsidized and less of things that are taxed. Liberals want to force others to subsidize their destruction of civilization. And they have largely succeeded at both. >> Are you one of the people who agreed with president Reagan when he reclassified catsup as a vegetable, so the school children would have less to eat? Yeah, I wonder how he had time to do that when he was personally causing the rise in unwed teenage pregnancies! I'm sure he made school children pregnant so they would be uneducated and guaranteed to live in poverty and vote Democrat so there could be more social programs that allowed more single girls to reproduce and keep the cycle going. Meanwhile, middle class parents put off having children until they are financially secure only to find that they are being taxed so heavily that they can't afford to have as many children as they would like. Something is very wrong there. Liberalism is a cause, not a solution. Btw, I can't recall anyone ever eating school cafeteria vegetables.

To: Grainne who wrote (19505)	3/31/1998 1:04:00 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Hi Christine, I have always thought that school lunch programs were one of the few really good ideas. In our district a child can also have a subsidized breakfast. Although we do not have a lot of families who are homeless in our area, we have a great many "working poor." And with house prices rising rapidly, most of these people are unable to buy homes, and are forced to rent at escalating rates. Many of them are a paycheck away from being homeless. Now of course I wish people who could not afford to feed children would not have them. That would be the sensible thing for them to do. They are very misguided in having children they cannot afford to feed. But I do not wish to harm the child for the lack of foresight of the parent. So I think it is very good that any child who qualifies based on the income requirements will get at least two meals a day. It is one of the few uses to which my tax dollars are put that I actually approve.