NY Times Story on Pilot Population Decline

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:27:07 GMT, kontiki
wrote in :

In the first 150 years of this nations history it is what
bread a strong, hearty stock of people that built a country from
nothing to be a world power in just a few generations. Good
decision making and hard work = success.

Weren't we discussing retired workers? Are you suggesting that
survival of the fittest is appropriate treatment for workers who have
contributed their productive years to our nation's GNP, and are no
longer employable?

Or were you referring to cripples? Are you suggesting that they be
left to the wolves by our great nation?

Larry Dighera wrote:


Or were you referring to cripples? Are you suggesting that they be
left to the wolves by our great nation?


Basically yes Larry. As has been stated MULTIPLE times here, if
the money stolen from workers were actually _invested_ on their
behalf instead being stolen and used to buy votes there would
be precious few people in _need_ of government assistance when
they retire.

There is plenty of aid for people actually _deserving_ of it
(as you say, 'cripples' or whatever). The problem is that FAR
too many people get paid rather well (with money taken from
other people who worked for and earned it) and who do not
deserve it.

They only real money any person could deservingly receive is
that which they have earned through work or investment. Anything
else is mere income re-distribution (the 'Robin Hood' effect:
i.e. buying votes).

If the money is given freely to those in real need it is called
charity. Charities usually take care to insure those receiving it
are really deserving... and demonstrate behaviors that indicate
they will eventually climb out of their situation. Government
just robs from Peter to buy a vote from Paul.

"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
support of Paul."

- George Bernard Shaw