Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    There is a very big anti Washington DC movement in this country on both
    sides of the aisle.  Newt Gingrich is a big proponent of giving the
    power back to the individual states.  
    
    Washington DC makes it too comfortable for everybody and they make an
    extremely poor surrogate for the local church and private organizations
    Washington DC is like a vacuum cleaner.  You only take them out of the
    closet when you need them.  Their role is to set foreign policy and
    national defense policies.  The president is is a chief administrators
    position and the congress is the legislative body of the country.  It
    is not their business to usurp monies from the states for their pork
    projects.  
    
    Be it Reagan or a democrat congress, the nation is 4 trillion in debt.
    I openly welcome Newt-age philosophies.  By the way, associating Newt
    with calling people do gooders and cry babies is a fallacy.  I am for a
    government that will streamline spending as fine as possible.  I see
    guys like Foley as the last Bastian of the New Deal...thank God!
    Welfare policy should be implemented at the local level.
    
    -Jack
    

      Newt philosophy a lot closer to Constitutional rule save for
      perhaps any 'Christian right' agenda he may have.
    
      Perhaps I am wrong, but I presently believe welfare and entitle-
      ments are inherently unethical and unConstitutional (at least at
      the federal level).
    
      I doubt that a TRUE voluntary tax revenue system could have come
      near to financing our socialist programs.

re Note 1057.2 by STRATA::BARBIERI:

>       I doubt that a TRUE voluntary tax revenue system could have come
>       near to financing our socialist programs.
  
        Or military adventures, either.

        Bob

    It goes to show, people vote with their pocketbook, rather than the Good
    Book.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Richard:
    
    I respect your position and your opinion.
    
    Government handouts ARE NOT of the good book.  They promote dependency
    and are inherently evil...the way it is set up today anyway.  The
    current system fosters a you owe me mentality without the
    accountability.  What the welfare advocates are asking today is to
    continue throwing money down the perverbial chute while the US is 4
    trillion in debt.  I thought you were against deficit spending
    Richard!
    
    -Jack

    Incidently, before anybody goes flying off the handle, I believe
    welfare is needed in this country but NOT in its present form.  There
    are many welfare recipients, most of them who would prefer not to take
    welfare but have no choice.  The system today is sorely abused by a
    percentage of individuals and regardless of how small that percentage
    is, I would prefer to see them off the dole if they don't need to be
    there.  
    
    By the way, Massachusetts has implemented welfare reform.  After 2
    years, no more assistance.  This was voted in a democrat controlled
    House.
    
    -Jack

	Jack, I hope that FINALLY shows you that there really isn't anyone who
doesn't want to see welfare reformed.....

    Yes except alot of welfare moms

| <<< Note 1057.8 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| Yes except alot of welfare moms

	Well, I hope in the future, you do keep it to just that (unless others
crop up). Welfare reform is needed, and Weld's plan is a good one. Much better
than Newts.....

      re: .4
    
        As your reply was in reply to me, I think the truth that man
        looks on the outward act and God looks on the heart may apply 
        here.
    
        You have NO IDEA the heart-motive of my stance.  I would suggest
        not presuming it.
    
        I believe this country ought abide by its documents.  If we want
        unConstitutional rule, so be it, but get rid of the Constitution 
        first.  No sense being deceitful and repudiating it in practise
        all the while professing to uphold it.
    
        I have come to believe that one of the greatest evils this world
        has ever seen is socialism.  I believe that THE PEOPLE of their
        own volition should help their fellow man.  I believe that when
        we have the govt. do it instead, many bad things happen to the
        collective moral fabric of the people.
    
        We are not as accountable.  We have a tendency to lose the
        'personalness' of true practical 1 to 1 ministry (after all, the
        govt. does it!).  What a much more wonderful world it might be
        if the citizenry assumed full responsibility for helping its 
        fellow man outside of the infringement of the government.  Far
        better for me to be accountable outside of govt. force.
    
        Perhaps my reasoning is faulty, but I don't think this implies
        extending itself into knowing the motives of my heart.
    
    							Tony
                                                               

    .10
    
    Actually, Tony, .4 was simply a sociological observation.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

.10 STRATA::BARBIERI "God cares."
 Title:  "Man Looks On The Outward Act"

Tony,

What causes you to believe that welfare is unconstitutional?

Steve

    It infringes on the separation of church and state.  Not their job mon!
    
    -Jack

.13 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!"

    It infringes on the separation of church and state.  Not their job mon!

Jack,

This is the reason? Seriously? Can you explain further, I don't see any
connection whatsoever. I would say it more likely infringes on the separation
between federal and state governments.

Steve

    Actually, Tony explained fairly well that Socialism is an 80 year old
    experiment that has...how shall we say...not been expedient.  The
    Church and State thing I brought up was just a quick answer.  I would
    assume the term "promote the general welfare" in the preamble of the
    Constitution gives creedence to the idea of governments role of helping
    the poor and indigent of this country.  I believe this to be a fallacy.  
    
    If a hurricane hits, it is in the countries best interest to provide
    disaster relief.  If a famine hits or if the stock market crashes, it
    is in the interest of the country to provide relief for the
    constituency as it was needed in the 1930's.  The country owes its
    veterans...especially disabled veterans and veterans of war time.1
    It is NOT in the countries best interest to provide entitlements to able 
    bodied individuals who don't want to make something of themselves.  It
    is these people who completely remove the integrity of any welfare
    system.  I don't believe this to be Godly or constitutional for that
    matter.  The onus in these matters should be upon the local church and
    private organizations, better defined...the people themselves. 
    Government makes a poor surrogate for the church and for parents.
    
    -Jack
    

.15> Actually, Tony explained fairly well that Socialism is an 80 year old
.15> experiment that has...how shall we say...not been expedient.  

this statement is too broad to be true.

the socialism of owen, saint-simon and fourier, as further developed by marx 
and engels is at the root of both the revolutionary socialism (communism)
and the evolutionary socialism (social democracy).

speaking for europe, only the revolutionary socialism, communism, was a 
failure. 

the evolutionary socialism, social democracy, is alive and well and continues
to guarantee "safe" and "equal opportunities" societies! all countries in
western europe have social market economies and a more extensive welfare
system than the US.

the goal of socialism is to care for all, and not just for a an arbritrary few. 
private instiutions can be selective and make welfare conditional. government 
must by constitution treat all as equal, which is why welfare is best left
in the hands of government. 

power to the people! :-) 

long live the socialist idea! :-) :-)


andreas.

      Thanks Richard.  My apologies for misinterpreting.  Perhaps
      I need to better discern the motivation of the heart!!  ;-)

      Hi Steve,
    
        Let me first say that I need to really study Constitutional
        law!
    
        I'm pretty sure the federal responsibilities are explicitly
        given and any responsibilities not so given are EXPLICITLY
        mentioned as under the authority of the states.
    
        I think state welfare programs are Constitutional while federal
        ones are not.
    
        In addition, our federal tax reserve system is supposed to be
        voluntary.  And it is.  Only we are being deceived.  We all signed
        a W4 form before our very first jobs, not realizing we were 
        waiving Constitutional rights.
    
        The rationale of my including the above is IF this deception was
        not there and IF the federal tax revenue system truly was
        voluntary, then federal welfare as I would define could not be.
    
        It would basically be a system wherein the fed was one of many
        charitable institutions and we gave as we wanted to (and not as
        we are 'forced' to).
    
        I define our present federal welfare system as one whose partial
        requirement for existence is the existence of a tax revenue system
        which is a total sham, mockery, and whose method of obtaining
        revenue is one of deception and STRONG persuasion.  
    
        That is...our federal welfare system, at its root, requires the
        existence of pure evil as part of that which sustains it.
    
                                                      Tony

re Note 1057.15 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     It is NOT in the countries best interest to provide entitlements to able 
>     bodied individuals who don't want to make something of themselves.  It
>     is these people who completely remove the integrity of any welfare
>     system.  

        Are you suggesting that most people on welfare "don't want to
        make something of themselves"?  Do you have any proof to
        offer?

        Who supports welfare to the "able bodied" (with the exception
        of single parents of young children -- which is really
        support for the children)?  What percentage of the people on
        welfare today are "able bodied" (and not caring for young
        children)?

        So are you simply for welfare reform that requires those able
        to work to work?  Or are you really for the termination of
        all government welfare programs, regardless of the recipient?

        Bob

The Constitution of the United States neither condemns nor condones socialism.
Neither does it condemn nor condone capitalism.

A professor of economics at Colorado College speaks convincingly that all
known economic systems will fail when they become large enough.  Socialism
was practiced, apparently successfully, by the early church as recorded in
Acts and by Native Americans.

Shalom,
Richard

    
    
    ZIncidently, before anybody goes flying off the handle, I believe
    Zwelfare is needed in this country but NOT in its present form. 
    ZThere are many welfare recipients, most of them who would prefer not to
    Ztake welfare but have no choice.  The system today is sorely abused by a
    Zpercentage of individuals and regardless of how small that
    Zpercentage is, I would prefer to see them off the dole if they don't need to
    Zbe there.  
        
   Above is a copy of .6.  Bob, I don't think welfare should be scrapped. 
    What reform does is makes the individual accountable for their lives
    and reverses the current paradigm that government will solve all their
    problems.  Surely you must agree with me that anybody with this
    attitude will be dependent most of their life.  
    
    Now, I know there are people who need assistance and have used welfare
    as a means to support their livelihood.  I understand this happens and
    I pray the day never comes when I need it.  For those who really need
    it, yes, welfare should be available but I believe it should not be
    administrated by the government.  It should be run by a private
    organization separate from the public dole.  Kind of like the census
    bureau.  They are not the government but are subcontracted by the
    government if I recall correctly.
    
    I believe more policing of Welfare must be implemented.  Department of
    Welfare has proven they're incompetent.  I also believe the money saved
    can be used in more innovative ways...start childcare and training
    programs...also under the auspices of private organizations because the
    govewrnment is just too stupid to do it themselves.  Also, it will keep
    grubby hands of politicians off the money for which it is intended!
    
    -Jack  

re Note 1057.21 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

        > the govewrnment is just too stupid to do it themselves.  

        Why do you think this Jack?  I assume you mean that "the
        government is much more stupid than the rest of us", right? 
        Last time I looked into a government office or spoke with a
        government official (and I do that frequently through my
        research contacts) I see people that are just as human as you
        or me, just as competent (or incompetent), and just as
        sincere about doing their job well.

        None of them are a different class or species from the rest
        of us.

        You are either unreasonably pessimistic about government, or
        unreasonably optimistic about everybody else.

        Bob

    I am obviously pessimistic about government.  I expect those who are
    stewards of the torch to hold the property of the people in high honor.  
    Pubs and dims have not done this, otherwise, 4 trillion in debt
    wouldn't exist.  I too know very intelligent people in government, but
    the machine as a whole is failing mainly because it has usurped more
    power than it is entitled to.  
    
    Millions in fraud is perpetrated on the taxpayer just in the welfare
    system alone!  
    
    -Jack

      In personal and in corporate financial life, accountability is
      well defined.  We knoe when we're in the hole and we feel pain.
      Corporations that lose money don't last real long.  People that
      live in debt know REAL pain.
    
      It is conceivable to me that the dilemma is one of living in
      a different model.  In this case, the government has assumed a
      different model for its existence.  That model is one wherein
      debt seems meaningless.  Or at leat 3 trillion is.  (Maybe 4
      trillion won't be.)
    
      People respond to things differently if the stimulus is different.
    
      So, I don't see what Jim is saying to be knocking people.  Dumbness
      is really a term describing lack of proper stimulation - in this
      case, responding in a certain intelligent manner when you bankrupt
      the entire country.
    
      Meanwhile, I find it interesting that no one has responded in 
      defense of entitlements/welfare from the perspective of how it
      is financed - by deceipt.
    
                                                       Tony

Hi, Tony,

My original curiosity was around how welfare violated church and state, but you
didn't bring that up, so...

        I'm pretty sure the federal responsibilities are explicitly
        given and any responsibilities not so given are EXPLICITLY
        mentioned as under the authority of the states.

Primarily true, but the definitions are ambiguous enough provide some pretty big
loopholes. I'll give you some examples later. There are explicit powers given to
both the states, and congress, and explicitly forbidden to both. Everything else
is sort of gray. In theory the 10th amendment covers this:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to
the people"

The catch, of course, is in what powers are delegated...

        In addition, our federal tax reserve system is supposed to be
        voluntary.  And it is.  Only we are being deceived.  We all signed
        a W4 form before our very first jobs, not realizing we were 
        waiving Constitutional rights.

This is an interesting argument I have heard from time to time. The hard reality
is that many of those that have tried it are in prison. 

Article 1, Section 7:
"All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of
Representatives..."

Section 8:
"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes..."
"...provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States..."
"...And, To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
execution the foregoing powers..."

General welfare is pretty broad...

        I define our present federal welfare system as one whose partial
        requirement for existence is the existence of a tax revenue system
        which is a total sham, mockery, and whose method of obtaining
        revenue is one of deception and STRONG persuasion.  

If you count 'STRONG persuasion' as lengthy jail sentences I agree with you.

I don't necessarily agree with welfare, but I think that a constitutional attack
on it is on shaky ground.

Unfortunately, like the Bible, much of the constitution is dependant upon how
you interpret it. I believe that most, if not all, of the constitution and
particularly the bill of rights is ignored by our public officials, with the
permission of the courts, on a regular basis. 

As an example, I believe that 'In God We Trust' on our money is a violation of
the first amendment. As I see it the law that puts it on our currency is
'respective of an establishment of religion', but I'll bet that you would
disagree...

Steve

.15 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!"

Jack,

As a nit (and FYI) 

    Church and State thing I brought up was just a quick answer.  I would
    assume the term "promote the general welfare" in the preamble of the
    Constitution gives creedence to the idea of governments role of helping
    the poor and indigent of this country.  I believe this to be a fallacy.  

The term 'promote the general welfare' is actually in the body of the
Constitution (article 1, section 8) and reads "provide for the common defence
and general welfare of the United States". I agree that it has nothing to do
with welfare as a program.

    matter.  The onus in these matters should be upon the local church and
    private organizations, better defined...the people themselves. 
    Government makes a poor surrogate for the church and for parents.
 
A question. If the churches and private organizations were doing a better job,
wouldn't this be a moot point?

Also, would (should?) churches also provide this for people that are not of the
same faith as the church?

Steve

    Steve:
    
    If my tax burden were cut by a third, my local church would get that
    money.  Now multiply this by 200 or so individual contributors.  Our
    church would then be able to minister locally in a far more productive
    way than the government could.  I use public school funding opposed to
    private school funding as my proof.
    
    "Promote the General Welfare" is in artcle 1 but it is also in the
    preamble of the Constitution.
    
    -Jack

      I know of a few people that pay no taxes...and the government
      can't touch them!!
    
      They knew how to do it legally.

.27  MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!"

    If my tax burden were cut by a third, my local church would get that
    money.  Now multiply this by 200 or so individual contributors.  Our
    church would then be able to minister locally in a far more productive
    way than the government could.  I use public school funding opposed to
    private school funding as my proof.
 
If my tax burden (and I suspect the same is true for 90% of the country) were
cut by 1/3, charitable institutions might see some of it, but might not.

Do you have any numbers to support private education being cheaper than public?
In Colorado Springs we have begun to allow 'charter schools' to operate, in
which the money per student allocated to the public schools are instead sent to
the private company to use. I know of at least one charter applicant that
eventually dropped out saying that they could not function on the money that
they would get from the state. Also, the yearly tuition that I've seen for most
private schools is more than the amount allocated by the state. I'm not saying
that it isn't true, just that the actual numbers I've seen don't seem to back it
up.

    "Promote the General Welfare" is in artcle 1 but it is also in the
    preamble of the Constitution.

You are right, I stand corrected.

Steve

Re -.1

>Do you have any numbers to support private education being cheaper than public?
>In Colorado Springs we have begun to allow 'charter schools' to operate, in
>which the money per student allocated to the public schools are instead sent to
>the private company to use. I know of at least one charter applicant that
>eventually dropped out saying that they could not function on the money that
>they would get from the state. Also, the yearly tuition that I've seen for most
>private schools is more than the amount allocated by the state. I'm not saying
>that it isn't true, just that the actual numbers I've seen don't seem to back it
>up.

>Steve


My wife and I decided to put our kids in a small private Catholic school on the
West Side three weeks ago, mostly due to our perception that the public schools
have failed in their mission.  The cost to us is $1800 per child per year.  That
is slightly over half the cost of public eduation here.  To my knowledge, most
of the Catholic schools here educate their students for a fraction of the cost
of the public schools.

/Mike

.30 PEAKS::RICHARD "_2B or D4?"

Mike, 

Is the schooling subsidized by the church?

I believe that the per pupil amount from the state is between $2400-$2800 for
the local school districts, so it is somewhat more expensive.

Part of the inequity, though, is that public schools MUST accept anyone that
applies, including handicapped, those with special education needs, etc. Will
the Catholic schools take anyone that applies, or do screen students first?
Are the teachers lay persons, or clergy that are paid from another source?

If they are truly teaching everyone for over $600/year less then something is
wrong, assuming the education is as good.

Steve

>Is the schooling subsidized by the church?

	No.  This is a private school, unsanctioned by the diocese of Colorado
	Springs.

>I believe that the per pupil amount from the state is between $2400-$2800 for
>the local school districts, so it is somewhat more expensive.

	The figure I heard for Dist. 11 funding is around $3200 per pupil.

>Part of the inequity, though, is that public schools MUST accept anyone that
>applies, including handicapped, those with special education needs, etc. Will
>he Catholic schools take anyone that applies, or do screen students first?
>Are the teachers lay persons, or clergy that are paid from another source?

	All teachers at the school are paid from operating funds, including
	the two nuns who run it.  The school does not screen, but it is much
	more demanding of good behavior and academic performance.  They are
	also at much greater liberty to discipline (non-corporally), and expel
	students who do not meet their standards.

>If they are truly teaching everyone for over $600/year less then something is
>wrong, assuming the education is as good.

	The education is actually much better, as the teachers have more time
	to devote to individual students, and they are not burdened with the
	bureaucratic nonsense that public school teachers are.  In two weeks
	we have seen a dramatic improvement in both boys' reading skills and
	attitudes.

	FWIW, we are both agnostic in our outlook.  We gave the public schools
	a chance, but after a few years of fruitless parent/teacher conferences,
	do-nothing PTO meetings and the like, we decided to give our kids 
	something better than what the public schools had to offer.  If the
	voucher plan ever comes up for a vote again, it will get my support.

/Mike

Mike,

Thanks, that's the info I was looking for.

Steve

it is difficult to make a picture from a distance about what is going on 
in the US at present.

i follow the commentaries from european correspondents with interest and 
occasionally there are snippets of information to be gleaned from "cnn".

yesterday there was a discussion on "cnn" between the republican majority
leader and the democrat minority leader, both from the house of representatives.
they talked about the deficit and spent a few minutes on discussing the cut 
of 1,5 billion (i think i heard this right) on children's lunch vouchers. the 
republican lamented the fact that families were falling apart, and said 
something along that lines of 'in the inner-city, where a ten year old child 
throws a five year old out of the window, the lunch vouchers miss the point.'

i read that folks like gingrich, graham and other republicans refer to 
themselves as revolutionaries. i also read that in the november elections, 
merely 35% of the people eligible to vote turned up at the polls and that the 
republicans came in on a majority of 50,2% - this giving the self-proclaimed 
revolutionaries a popular backing of 18%

watching that discussion on the budget debate on "cnn", i felt it was a bit 
weird that two grown politicians debated about children's lunch vouchers as a 
means of cutting a multi-billion (trillion?) deficit, instead of talking about 
what every other industrialised country talks about since the end of the cold 
war: cuts in defence spending.

whilst i haven't yet managed to find out what those "newt age" republican
revolutionaires are trying to revolutionize, it can't be society, since 
as the correspondents write, criminality in 19th century new york was higher
than today, the divorce rate in colonial america was sky rocketing and the
'wild west' was truly wild... 

one's for certain, it sure seems that these "newt age" republicans are bitter 
about all the extra money spent by their republican predecessors in power, 
bush and reagan.

didn't clinton come in to the white house on the claim that he'd balance the
budget, as he did in arkansas? gee, i am beginning to think that clinton is
a newt ager.


andreas.

	Andreas, I think Newt & co are more upset by the money the democrats
have spent over the years. I think you won't find too many democrats or
republicans that don't feel major cuts should be made. I do think you will find
difference in where and how much the cuts should be. School lunches is not an
area that we should be cutting off. If too much is being spent in this area,
then look to see why, not cut it off. I know that Newt has also said that we
should cut money to the PBS stations. I heard a report that stated it costs
each taxpayer $1/year to fund PBS. With what PBS has to offer, it makes sense
to spend that $1, as it will bring us more good than most everything else we
spend money on. 

	Welfare is another area where things need to be reorganized. I was
happy to see Newt dropped his idea on not allowing any teen who has a baby
access to welfare for that child. I'm sure he still believes that it should be
that way, but at the same time he also listened to the American people. Having
people work for their money was something that has been a great help for
welfare reform. It will help keep the abuse down to a minimum.

	But defense spending is something they don't seem to cut back. If they
gave up one bomber/year, they could do major cuts in the deficit. 



Glen

Note 1057.34

>watching that discussion on the budget debate on "cnn", i felt it was a bit 
>weird that two grown politicians debated about children's lunch vouchers as a 
>means of cutting a multi-billion (trillion?) deficit, instead of talking about 
>what every other industrialised country talks about since the end of the cold 
>war: cuts in defence spending.

Truly.  Americans, however, possess a paranoia about appearing weak militarily.
America sees its role for the world as being the strong arm of freedom. 
Besides, so-called defense spending means jobs.  Reducing funds for poor
children would not have such far-reaching effects.

>didn't clinton come in to the white house on the claim that he'd balance the
>budget, as he did in arkansas? gee, i am beginning to think that clinton is
>a newt ager.

Clinton constantly tries to please everybody, including Newt Agers.

Shalom,
Richard

re .34

the poor children's lunch vouchers which the republicans want to scrap,
made headline news in swiss television yesterday!

the commentary, paraphrased: 'this is what the conflict between clinton and 
the republican dominated congress boils down to.' 

clinton, pictured eating lunch with school kids, the last bastion, the last
defence before the onset of the dark ages?

a following news item certainly raised that question: a neonazi group was just
uncovered in germany, they had been receiving all their materials from the US.



andreas.

    	re .37
    
    	The media is winning, and you are an unsuspecting pawn.

>    	The media is winning, and you are an unsuspecting pawn.


ah yes, there are some swiss folks too who are convinced that the media 
is run by the leftist mob! 

incidentally, the news caster did say that the repulicans protested 
misrepresentation, but i didn't hear why.

maybe you can fill the gap? ;-)


andreas.

   <<< Note 1057.39 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have" >>>

>incidentally, the news caster did say that the repulicans protested 
>misrepresentation, but i didn't hear why.
>
>maybe you can fill the gap? ;-)

    	From what I know of it, congress wants to eliminate the handling
    	of the lunch program at the federal level and give those funds to
    	the individual states so that each can handle it at the local
    	level. 

                                                               
    > ...give those funds to the individual states so that each can handle
    > it at the local level. 

    The federal funds given to the states would not be earmarked for any
    specific purpose, such as providing school lunches. In fact there are
    more restrictions on how the funds *can not* be used to assist the
    underclass than there are requirement on how they should be used.

    The school lunch program, like Head Start, is not one of the programs
    traditionally thought of as a social failure. This is another reason
    why eyebrows are raised.

    Another point of consternation is that the savings in this approach
    would not be applied to reducing the obscene national debt, but to tax
    cuts. With the median family income roughly $40,000 (maybe a little
    less) giving tax breaks to families with incomes up to $200,000 is seen
    by some as irresponsible, and in fact a little cold, when considering
    how this cut is paid for.

    	Eric

re Note 1057.41 by HURON::MYERS:

>     The school lunch program, like Head Start, is not one of the programs
>     traditionally thought of as a social failure. This is another reason
>     why eyebrows are raised.
  
        Whaddaya mean?  Has poverty been eliminated?  No?  Weren't
        these programs supposed to eliminate poverty?  They didn't,
        did they?

        Of course they are failures!

        Bob

    
    > Weren't these programs [school lunch and Head Start] supposed to
    > eliminate poverty?

    I don't think so. These programs are an attempt to give children a leg
    up with regard to educational potential. It is not an attempt to get
    ten year-olds to get jobs and become productive members of society.
    
    One program attempts to curb malnutrition by providing meals to
    children who otherwise may go hungry. The other attempts to get
    children in traditionally education-unfriendly environments to some
    minimal base line before entering first grade. Not all problems are
    economic...

    Just a few years ago, month really, these programs were defended by
    Republicans. But, oh how the fickle wind of politics change. Not that
    Democrats are any less fickle, it's just that this issues happens to be
    driven by the Republicans or more accurately Gingrich, et al.

    	Eric 

    "Newt will not finally win the day.  God is on the side of the poor."
    
    					- Tex Sample, theologian
    					  St. Paul School of Theology
    

re Note 1057.44 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

>     "Newt will not finally win the day.  God is on the side of the poor."
  
        Beware:  conservative Republicans aren't the only ones who
        aren't poor.

        Bob

	"Congressmen are not bribed anymore.  They simply have a lot of
friends who are willing to help them out whenever they find it necessary."

					-- Newt Gingrich