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: epicure who wrote (19742)	4/4/1998 9:39:00 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

X, this may be true, the problems are a very complex. My point was simply that cutting the program does not mean you want to starve children. Unless we remove these kind of inflamed cliche's from the arena of idea's, a division will always exist which does nothing to understanding the answers to the solutions which may exist. The article I posted a short time ago, shows clearly that funding can be greatly reduced, and at the same time, service to the children can actually be of a much higher quality. It's a win-win first step, that should be supported by every state. The last time the congress tried this approach, by shifting responsibilities to the states. The continuous diatribe that children would starve in the media, erased any hope of real reform. So the concept was dropped. Now I ask you, who was the winner in that political emotional grandstanding? Certainly not the children. The only winner I saw, was politicians in the far left, from places like San Francisco. Michael