And your solution seems to be "I'm too greedy to help them, I say let them rot!".

It's not my job to meet every need either, and that doesn't make me "greedy". Since you think this is so important, come up with a solution that isn't fueled by confiscating things that belong to other people, or throwing a tantrum and calling them names when their priorites don't align with yours.

Ya think? My younger brother was born in '58, but he doesn't seem to have this problem. Not that every generation doesn't have it's "under 30 socialists", but geez...Spexxvet was 30 allegedly 15 years ago.

Sorry, I forgot that your behavior is my fault. Look what I made you do! It's not fair!

By taking my hard earned money? I don't think so...:p

17, but who needs math skills anymore?

Maybe it's not generational. Maybe it's the difference between compassionate people and those who aren't.

Which words blame you? Are you a professional word-twister, or is it just your way of trying to win an argument when your facts and rationale don't cut it?

You blamed "getting sidetracked" on my "heartless assertions". As for whose arguments are holding up better, all I hear is unsupported assertions, wishful thinking, socialist cant, circular logic and namecalling/ad hominems.

Maggie, you continue to say "my money". If people behaved the way I think they should, raising the standard of living for low wage workers would not take any of "your" money - unless of course you happen to be a filthy rich wealth glutton.

So stop typing them.;)

No, I chose to respond to your assertions - you didn't make me do anything, just as I declared and inferred nothing different. Hope that clears things up for you. Do you always interpret statements this erroneously?

OK, you were two years *past* thirty 15 years ago. More's the pity. And you'll get credit for being "compassionate" when you stop wanting to do it with other people's money.

The "Pee-Wee Herman" school of argumentation.

Yeah, it's really incompassionate to encourage someone to drive a Caddy instead of a Mercedes, so his/her employees can upgrade from a 10 year old ford to a 5 year old Dodge. :mad:

Using words like 'heartless' in your accusations mean nothing and are appeals to wayward emotionalism, not logic. Wouldn't it be far more useful to provide education on how to avoid being stuck in a $10/hr job and just let people decide for themselves where they want to sit in society? Aid for certain classifications of injury is workable, but with stipulations about moving to a new type of work that the injury doesn't inhibit. As a last resort the only thing that I could see working would be a sort of large dormitory style housing project complete with integrated/mandetory schools for the children. I can rationalize myself donating a roof, running water, and a bed, but not anything more. A tiered system along these lines would catch the people with the ambition and will to improve their situation, the rest can freeze according to their own choice.

I know you are, but what am I? :p