Quotes are taken from a message written by Tom to Charles on 06/05/96...
TC>I would very much prefer the schools not teach morality in either
TC>direction.  Teaching a child it is OK to be a thief is not my idea of
TC>proper education, but then that could be a cultural difference.
The proposition I posted which prompted this response was not really 
fair nor rational, in retrospect.  I was trying to make the point that 
the cost of weeding out cheaters in our school lunch program might 
exceed the cost of allowing the dishonest to cheat.  Neither case 
(hunting down cheaters or allowing cheaters access to the program) is an 
attempt by the government to "teach" morals as much as it is an attempt 
to keep overhead down so the money gets to the hungry.
TC>CB>Seems logical to me - "needy" to me means lacking funds - what better
TC>>way to define it than by money?
TC>
TC>I have met few truly needy people in recent years.  If you own a car,
TC>have a TV or two with cable, buy the nicest cloths available, ect. your
TC>not needy IMO.  By your definition of needy we are all needy.  My
TC>employer would be needy in his eyes as he never has enough money.
I honestly don't think that who you have met and haven't met is the 
issue here.  I know that, other than my contacts in school, I have very 
little contact with needy people as well.  We were discussing the 
difficulty of determining who is needy and who isn't.  The problem with 
using assets as a determination of poverty rather than finances is that 
looks can be deceiving.  I have a rather well-to-do brother-in-law who 
takes great pride in furnishing his house with furniture and appliances 
taken from dumps and road-side giveaways, whereas someone who has little 
money for food might also have a TV that someone else has given them or 
thrown away.
TC>CB>Can you explain further?  What do you mean, "This is true," - what is
TC>>true?  What was "just a provable example of waste?"
TC>
TC>The free lunch program is a provable example of waste, as is head start,
TC>and other title one programs.  Real long term benefit has yet to be
TC>proven unless your talking to those making money providing the
TC>services.
You say that the free lunch program and Head Start are a waste and that 
this can be proven?  I'm at a loss for words - this is totally 
contradictory to everything I have read.  Can you give me a hint as to 
where you've seen this evidence?
TC>.TC>It could also be applied to educating illegal immigrants.  Everyone
TC>.TC>knows it goes on and that it takes tax dollars from legitimate
TC>.TC>citizens, yet by tolerance the behavior is further encouraged.  A few
TC>.TC>million here and there until it is finally realized  
TC>.TC>the cost is too grea
TC>
TC>CB>Two points.  First, I am sorry - perhaps the problem is mine - but I
TC>>don't know what you're trying to get at in this entire section.  Second,
TC>>I have avoided all discussions of the illegal immigrant issue in this
TC>>echo as I have very mixed feelings about it that have very little to do
TC>>with education (off topic).
TC>
TC>Let us see now.  The spending of BILLION's to EDUCATE illegal
TC>immigrants is has little to do with education.
Sarcasm doesn't win points - evidence does.  My readings have not 
pointed to "billions" in expenditures to educate illegal immigrants.  
Once again, if you could point me in the direction of a responsible 
source where I could verify this statistic?  But more importantly, the 
issue here isn't whether children should be educated, but what we should 
do about the illegal immigration problem.  Education is but a small 
piece of that puzzle.  When I ask myself the question whether I would 
rather have the children of illegal immigrants starving and living in 
the alleys of our cities or attending school and getting at least one 
decent meal every day, I guess I prefer the latter.  But that's just me.
Chuck Beams
Fidonet - 1:2608/70
cbeams@future.dreamscape.com
___
* UniQWK #5290* Any fool can make a rule (Thoreau).
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------