> Dana wrote: > I really don't have time to argue this point, it's just not well thought > thorough. >
I agree, you haven't thought it through that well. You are making emotional decisions and that's always a bad idea. Again, this country long ago decided that the most moral economic system was capitalism. It allows each person to choose their own lifestyle based on the amount of dedication, work, and sacrifice they're willing to bear. Where you get confused is that you think government should subsidize bad decisions simply because those bad decisions put people below the poverty line. How about when I decided to invest in Lucent back in 1998? Maybe we should create a "minimum equity loss" for people like me that make bad investment decisions? Fair's fair, right? Wrong. Bad decisions don't deserve gov't relief. I view it this way: the moral thing is to protect the innocent from evil. Once they're no longer innocent, however, it's their choice. Translated into policy this means giving people the infrastructure they need to get a decent paying job: access to education, communication infrastructure, job hunting skils, market analysis skills, etc. If they then choose to keep their MW job, then that's their choice; they could choose more. That is, they are no longer innocent on how to get a better than MW job. As to gov't subsidies for McDonald's, I'm completely against them as I am against corporate welfare of any type. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:175826 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
