NationStates Jolt Archive

I got this story from Bob Herbert's column (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/opinion/11HERB.html) in today's NY Times, and it struck me particularly hard because it might affect my parents.

f you want to see "compassionate" conservatism in action, take a look at Mississippi, a state that is solidly in the red category (strong for Bush) and committed to its long tradition of keeping the poor and the unfortunate in as ragged and miserable a condition as possible.

How's this for compassion? Mississippi has approved the deepest cut in Medicaid eligibility for senior citizens and the disabled that has ever been approved anywhere in the U.S.

The new policy will end Medicaid eligibility for some 65,000 low-income senior citizens and people with severe disabilities — people like Traci Alsup, a 36-year-old mother of three who was left a quadriplegic after a car accident.

And for anyone who's thinking that the people on Medicaid were making too much before these cuts were passed, here's the actual numbers. The 65,000 seniors and disabled individuals who will lose their Medicaid eligibility have incomes so low they effectively have no money to pay for their health care. The new law coldly reduces the maximum income allowed for an individual to receive Medicaid in Mississippi from an impecunious $12,569 per year to a beggarly $6,768.

Now I know the standard of living is low in Mississippi--like I said, my parents live there--but if you make between $6,800 and $12,500 a year, then you don't have any extra money to pay for health care costs, no matter how cheaply you're living. Not even if you have no outstanding debts. Maintenance and upkeep on what you own as well as day-to-day living expenses will eat up that much, and God help you if you actually have to buy anything. And if you have prescription drugs to buy, you might as well forget it.

Now for those of you who suggest that these people just go out and get jobs--many of the people, my father among them, are on Social Security disability. Getting a job is not a possibility.

So to Haley Barbour, Republican governor and former chairman of the RNC, I say I hope you rot in hell. If you're so christian--as you proudly claim to be--then maybe you ought to take Jesus' words to heart when he said "Whatever you do to the least of these, my brothers, you do to me."

There is no such thing as a compassionate consie.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Like I always say, the rich have a moral obligation to give to the poor... forcing them to have a LEGAL obligation to do so is called socialism, and it is nothing less than theft.

Like I always say, the rich have a moral obligation to give to the poor... forcing them to have a LEGAL obligation to do so is called socialism, and it is nothing less than theft.

And expecting senior citizens or the disabled to pay for their medical costs unless they make under $7,000 a year is murder. Pure and simple.

A moral obligation isn't good enough

And it is impossible for a nation to be completely capitalist, so don't start anti communism rants now.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Doesn't the government have a duty to its citizens? The Constitution seems to argue it does when it says that one of the government's duties it to provide for the General Welfare of its citizens.

Wouldn't providing material assistance for the disabled--those who cannot provide for themselves--fall into that category? If it does, then the government has to fund that somehow, and the only way the government can get funds is through taxation. Taxes aren't theft--they're the dues we pay to have an advanced society, and providing services for the weakest among us isn't socialism, it's a case of the government doing its duty.

But more importantly, my point is that this idea of "compassionate conservatism" is neither conservative nor compassionate. And it's not like Mississippi is a leader in the provision of social services anyway.

Like I always say, the rich have a moral obligation to give to the poor... forcing them to have a LEGAL obligation to do so is called socialism, and it is nothing less than theft.

dude, were not talking about the rich and the poor, wer talking about the GOVERNMENT and the poor, just like raysia the rightist to get the two confused

What we REALLY need is tax cuts for charity and volunteer work, and a lot more chairty programs that give 100% of their money to the poor.

<Activate Liberal Killer>
<System Activated>
<Weapons System Loaded>

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/images/jan2001/bush_hunting.jpg
Did you hit him George?
Yes, I got him. That is one less wasted mind. My work here is done.
Good shot Mr. President!


<Liberal Neutralized>
<Mission Accomplished>So you're admitting that you have nothing to say and can only post this paean to the murder of people you disagree with politically? Why do you hate America?

P.S. Is there any way that this isn't spam, considering that it appears on just about every thread Cottonisking appears on and adds nothing to the conversation?

yeah right... the rich (who didnt get rich by being generous with their money) are going to take on the task of helpign the poor consistently?

give me a break. There are disadvantaged people and if there isn't a consistent system in place to try to help them out then they will suffer with nothing.

real compassionate there. more like cold hearted.

Compassionate conservatism, as a lifestyle, always works. Compassionate conservatise, as policy, is bunk.
I don't approve of, btw, the Medicaid cuts. Most of those on Medicaid, being poor children, are simply unable to ever earn an income. Same with the disabled. Even while I argue against Medicare and Social Security, Medicaid is the only welfare program that shouldn't be touch.

Oops, I apologize for my comments, I thought we were talking about MEDICARE... I, in all my ignorance, didn't know the difference between that and medicaid :S

I'll agree with PE.

<Return fire>
<Anti-consie weapon activated>
<Set to level 2>
http://sharmacontractors.com/test/new/pix/metal/images/anarchy.jpg
<Psychological impact sufficient>
<Consie running away>

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Thanks Raysia. I appreciate it.

The biggest thing I'd like to see happen to Medicare is that it be means-tested. I think it ought to still exist and even that the wealthier older people should be able to buy into it like they could buy into any health care system, but there's no reason that the elderly poor should go without healthcare.

<Activate Liberal Killer>
<System Activated>
<Weapons System Loaded>

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/images/jan2001/bush_hunting.jpg
Did you hit him George?
Yes, I got him. That is one less wasted mind. My work here is done.
Good shot Mr. President!


<Liberal Neutralized>
<Mission Accomplished>

This is getting really annoying. If you don't have anything to contribute to the thread, then don't contribute anything to it.

crap deleted

This is getting really annoying. If you don't have anything to contribute to the thread, then don't contribute anything to it.

Why not do it this way rather than spreading his/her bile?

SHL

I got this story from Bob Herbert's column (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/opinion/11HERB.html) in today's NY Times, and it struck me particularly hard because it might affect my parents.

f you want to see "compassionate" conservatism in action, take a look at Mississippi, a state that is solidly in the red category (strong for Bush) and committed to its long tradition of keeping the poor and the unfortunate in as ragged and miserable a condition as possible.

How's this for compassion? Mississippi has approved the deepest cut in Medicaid eligibility for senior citizens and the disabled that has ever been approved anywhere in the U.S.

The new policy will end Medicaid eligibility for some 65,000 low-income senior citizens and people with severe disabilities — people like Traci Alsup, a 36-year-old mother of three who was left a quadriplegic after a car accident.

And for anyone who's thinking that the people on Medicaid were making too much before these cuts were passed, here's the actual numbers. The 65,000 seniors and disabled individuals who will lose their Medicaid eligibility have incomes so low they effectively have no money to pay for their health care. The new law coldly reduces the maximum income allowed for an individual to receive Medicaid in Mississippi from an impecunious $12,569 per year to a beggarly $6,768.

Now I know the standard of living is low in Mississippi--like I said, my parents live there--but if you make between $6,800 and $12,500 a year, then you don't have any extra money to pay for health care costs, no matter how cheaply you're living. Not even if you have no outstanding debts. Maintenance and upkeep on what you own as well as day-to-day living expenses will eat up that much, and God help you if you actually have to buy anything. And if you have prescription drugs to buy, you might as well forget it.

Now for those of you who suggest that these people just go out and get jobs--many of the people, my father among them, are on Social Security disability. Getting a job is not a possibility.

So to Haley Barbour, Republican governor and former chairman of the RNC, I say I hope you rot in hell. If you're so christian--as you proudly claim to be--then maybe you ought to take Jesus' words to heart when he said "Whatever you do to the least of these, my brothers, you do to me."

Oxymorons and regular morons aside, keep the faith and write your reps. November is coming !

SHL

Compassionate conservatism, as a lifestyle, always works. Compassionate conservatise, as policy, is bunk.
I don't approve of, btw, the Medicaid cuts. Most of those on Medicaid, being poor children, are simply unable to ever earn an income. Same with the disabled. Even while I argue against Medicare and Social Security, Medicaid is the only welfare program that shouldn't be touch.
Actually, now that I think about it, the Medicaid cut may not have been as bad as it may have sounded.
Mississippi is the poorest state in the union, with a GDP/capita of around $20,000. When there is less money, prices are lower. It may have, therefore, been vital, as their current Medicaid program may have been supporting even children who didn't need the money.
Besides, Mississippi has a high poverty rate, and I'm sure many people live on less than $7,000/year.

Compassionate conservatism, as a lifestyle, always works. Compassionate conservatise, as policy, is bunk.
I don't approve of, btw, the Medicaid cuts. Most of those on Medicaid, being poor children, are simply unable to ever earn an income. Same with the disabled. Even while I argue against Medicare and Social Security, Medicaid is the only welfare program that shouldn't be touch.
Actually, now that I think about it, the Medicaid cut may not have been as bad as it may have sounded.
Mississippi is the poorest state in the union, with a GDP/capita of around $20,000. When there is less money, prices are lower. It may have, therefore, been vital, as their current Medicaid program may have been supporting even children who didn't need the money.
Besides, Mississippi has a high poverty rate, and I'm sure many people live on less than $7,000/year.Yeah, but the price of medical care doesn't very by income. The cost to run an MRI machine is the same in New York and in Mississippi, so the cost to the patients isn't reduced. If anything what you're saying means that its even worse for these people.

Compassionate conservatism, as a lifestyle, always works. Compassionate conservatise, as policy, is bunk.
I don't approve of, btw, the Medicaid cuts. Most of those on Medicaid, being poor children, are simply unable to ever earn an income. Same with the disabled. Even while I argue against Medicare and Social Security, Medicaid is the only welfare program that shouldn't be touch.
Actually, now that I think about it, the Medicaid cut may not have been as bad as it may have sounded.
Mississippi is the poorest state in the union, with a GDP/capita of around $20,000. When there is less money, prices are lower. It may have, therefore, been vital, as their current Medicaid program may have been supporting even children who didn't need the money.
Besides, Mississippi has a high poverty rate, and I'm sure many people live on less than $7,000/year.Nobody in the US can survive on $7,000 a year anywhere in the US--not and have anything close to a dignified existence. You really need to get out in the real world sometime PE, because you really don't have much of a sense for reality in these kinds of discussions. I'm not trying to be insulting here--just saying that you don't seem to understand the consequences of some of the things you suggest.

Compassionate conservatism, as a lifestyle, always works. Compassionate conservatise, as policy, is bunk.
I don't approve of, btw, the Medicaid cuts. Most of those on Medicaid, being poor children, are simply unable to ever earn an income. Same with the disabled. Even while I argue against Medicare and Social Security, Medicaid is the only welfare program that shouldn't be touch.
Actually, now that I think about it, the Medicaid cut may not have been as bad as it may have sounded.
Mississippi is the poorest state in the union, with a GDP/capita of around $20,000. When there is less money, prices are lower. It may have, therefore, been vital, as their current Medicaid program may have been supporting even children who didn't need the money.
Besides, Mississippi has a high poverty rate, and I'm sure many people live on less than $7,000/year.Yeah, but the price of medical care doesn't very by income. The cost to run an MRI machine is the same in New York and in Mississippi, so the cost to the patients isn't reduced. If anything what you're saying means that its even worse for these people.
Perhaps. However, I've actually had MR scans done to me in Ohio and New York, and I look at my medical bills. There is a price difference. I don't know if it'd be drastically lower in Mississippi, but it'd sure be lower.

Compassionate conservatism, as a lifestyle, always works. Compassionate conservatise, as policy, is bunk.
I don't approve of, btw, the Medicaid cuts. Most of those on Medicaid, being poor children, are simply unable to ever earn an income. Same with the disabled. Even while I argue against Medicare and Social Security, Medicaid is the only welfare program that shouldn't be touch.
Actually, now that I think about it, the Medicaid cut may not have been as bad as it may have sounded.
Mississippi is the poorest state in the union, with a GDP/capita of around $20,000. When there is less money, prices are lower. It may have, therefore, been vital, as their current Medicaid program may have been supporting even children who didn't need the money.
Besides, Mississippi has a high poverty rate, and I'm sure many people live on less than $7,000/year.

But not if they have serious medical issues or if they require perscriptions, which many do. As it stands, the elderly must pay $66 per month for Part A of Medicare and if you throw a couple of monthly perscriptions in there, each one running around $60 to $80, then you're looking at nearly $2400, conservatively, for basic health care costs. If there are any emergencies or special treatments then that cost can increase accordingly. If you figure in around $200 a month for utility payments, assume they own their own home (which many don't), and $100 for food, you're already at $7000 (which, incidentally, is actually over the limit being considered in Mississippi). There is absolutely no lee way in that budget for anything else. Period.

Compassionate conservatism, as a lifestyle, always works. Compassionate conservatise, as policy, is bunk.
I don't approve of, btw, the Medicaid cuts. Most of those on Medicaid, being poor children, are simply unable to ever earn an income. Same with the disabled. Even while I argue against Medicare and Social Security, Medicaid is the only welfare program that shouldn't be touch.
Actually, now that I think about it, the Medicaid cut may not have been as bad as it may have sounded.
Mississippi is the poorest state in the union, with a GDP/capita of around $20,000. When there is less money, prices are lower. It may have, therefore, been vital, as their current Medicaid program may have been supporting even children who didn't need the money.
Besides, Mississippi has a high poverty rate, and I'm sure many people live on less than $7,000/year.Nobody in the US can survive on $7,000 a year anywhere in the US--not and have anything close to a dignified existence. You really need to get out in the real world sometime PE, because you really don't have much of a sense for reality in these kinds of discussions. I'm not trying to be insulting here--just saying that you don't seem to understand the consequences of some of the things you suggest.
You're not insulting me. I actually appreciate that comment, anyhow.
$7,000 may not be enough to live on for most people, but for some, they do live off it. I'm not sure how they live, but apparantly, they do. My guess, however, is that many Mississippians (though certainly not all of them) are living off welfare, and have never even bothered to look for a job.
However, with every post like this, I start to feel less and less sympathy for these people. You, as well as others, make me realize that the government has been way too kind to the Southern states of Alabama and Mississppi. We've tried everything to make them catch up with the other states, and nothing has worked. I think many of them are starting to forget who won the Civil War.
Perhaps these cuts aren't needed, but what can I say anymore? These two states virtually live off the rest of us. They don't even bother to give back anything. And because they aren't doing their part, that's why Mississippians and Alabamians live such miserable lives.

PE--have you ever lived in Mississippi or Alabama? Have you ever even been there before?

People who live below the poverty line down there don't do so because it's fun or because they're lazy--they do it because there are no jobs to be had and the jobs that are there are low-paying, no benefit jobs. Most of Mississippi is still agrarian, which doesn't help matters much, and the state is pecunious when it comes to spending on things like education. It should be no surprise that Mississippi ranks close to the bottom every year when it comes to education.

So you want to practice some tough love on the state of Mississippi? Fine--but you'd better be ready for the outcome. Me--I'm not ready to play games with poor people's lives just to make a political point.

Wow, I just learned a new word. Thanks Incertonia! :D

pecunious

\Pe*cu"ni*ous\, a. [L. pecuniosus, fr. pecunia: cf. F. p['e]cunieux.] Abounding in money; wealthy; rich. [Obs.] --Sherwood

PE--have you ever lived in Mississippi or Alabama? Have you ever even been there before?

People who live below the poverty line down there don't do so because it's fun or because they're lazy--they do it because there are no jobs to be had and the jobs that are there are low-paying, no benefit jobs. Most of Mississippi is still agrarian, which doesn't help matters much, and the state is pecunious when it comes to spending on things like education. It should be no surprise that Mississippi ranks close to the bottom every year when it comes to education.

So you want to practice some tough love on the state of Mississippi? Fine--but you'd better be ready for the outcome. Me--I'm not ready to play games with poor people's lives just to make a political point.
Then really, the Civil War is still being fought. They are too agrarian, and that is really a shame. They don't even produce much.
There are, however, ways of winning this war, and perhaps the unwinnable war on poverty. I suggest massive overhauls of their education systems, and reforming all public housing. And while we're talking about the South, if any of the agrarian workers knew any better, they'd pick up, and move to the cities. There, they have more chances of bettering their lives. Besides, wildlife needs more rural land than humans do, as I'm rapidly finding out.
I also support funding the police. Have them educate who they can about drugs and such, but keep around good old tactics, like police occupation. Combined with education, it'll set an example. That, and better schooling, should make more poor Southerners realize that they really do live in a hot, sweltering, insect hellhole, and that their are more jobs for them to the north and west. We need programs that, I feel, will end poverty, not just keep it at the same level.
But, of course, I'd be perfectly happy if those two states secceded. BTW, I've never been there, but some family members have. From what I've heard, I hate to go down there. And this is certainly not most of the south. I know you were born in Atlanta. I've been there, and despite being cultureless and traffic choked, it's nowhere near some of the urban hellholes I've seen. It can actually be very nice.

Wow, I just learned a new word. Thanks Incertonia! :D

pecunious

\Pe*cu"ni*ous\, a. [L. pecuniosus, fr. pecunia: cf. F. p['e]cunieux.] Abounding in money; wealthy; rich. [Obs.] --SherwoodOops--I used the wrong word. I meant penurious, which is realted to impoverished.

LOL, that's two words I've learned today and both in this thread alone. Double thanks, Incertonia. :D

I thought your usage was a little odd, but figured I just didn't understand the point or something.

And this is certainly not most of the south. I know you were born in Atlanta. I've been there, and despite being cultureless and traffic choked, it's nowhere near some of the urban hellholes I've seen. It can actually be very nice.Actually I was born in Houston and moved close to New Orleans when I was very young--never been to Atlanta. And New Orleans is unique in the south--in the nation really--and is certainly very nice.

And this is certainly not most of the south. I know you were born in Atlanta. I've been there, and despite being cultureless and traffic choked, it's nowhere near some of the urban hellholes I've seen. It can actually be very nice.Actually I was born in Houston and moved close to New Orleans when I was very young--never been to Atlanta. And New Orleans is unique in the south--in the nation really--and is certainly very nice.
I thought you were from Atlanta, for some reason. I must have confused you with someone else.
Anyhow, New Orleans is very nice. And while I've never been to Houston, my mom was actually planning to move their, once. I could've been a Texan, dammit!

wasnt mississippi one of those states whose constitution requires a balanced budge, and last november the voters chose to gut the state government rather than raise taxes so stuff like this was inevitable?

PE--have you ever lived in Mississippi or Alabama? Have you ever even been there before?

People who live below the poverty line down there don't do so because it's fun or because they're lazy--they do it because there are no jobs to be had and the jobs that are there are low-paying, no benefit jobs

Well, it depends on where you grow up. If you're lucky enough to grow up in the central to north side of the state of Alabama (Montgomery on north), generally you're going to be close to one city or another and can find a half way decent education. Actually if you live in some of the richer suburbs of Birmingham, you can have one of the best educations in the nation. There's one particular high school, supported by the rich parents, that is really larger than some major university campuses, complete with olympic sized pool, running track, tennis courts, football fields, etc.

If you have the misfortune of growing up in the "Black Belt", alas there's little help. The schools are much less than wonderful, and there is really very little to no opportunity to grow, learn, and pursue a career. Instead, most of the people etch out a living on the land. Certainly no way to live. Be much nicer if some of the rich Hoover or Inverness people could be taxed so that we could actually have schools and teachers for the poor. But of course Alabama is deep in the conservative camp, so that won't happen.

As for jobs, they are actually getting better. Alabama is quickly growing into a major car manufacturing spot, with a few Goodyear Tire plants as well as a Mercedes plant, a Honda plant, and soon to be a Hyundai. Still, Alabama has a very long way to go, and so long as we waste millions of dollars on Roy Moore's crusade to make Alabama a theocracy, we're not going to get there.

Still, we have the poorest county in the country (in the Black Belt of course) we also have one of the richest counties in the country (Shelby County). So we're not completely hopeless, and we do contribute, but we have a ways to go.

I know you were born in Atlanta. I've been there, and despite being cultureless and traffic choked

Well, to be honest, Atlanta is just evil. It should have been reburned after it was rebuilt, just for the heck of it. :p It's certainly not a good representative of southern living. Check out some smaller cities, Birmingham or Huntsville for a better example of what we're like. The good and the bad.

Compassionate conservatism, as a lifestyle, always works. Compassionate conservatise, as policy, is bunk.
I don't approve of, btw, the Medicaid cuts. Most of those on Medicaid, being poor children, are simply unable to ever earn an income. Same with the disabled. Even while I argue against Medicare and Social Security, Medicaid is the only welfare program that shouldn't be touch.
Actually, now that I think about it, the Medicaid cut may not have been as bad as it may have sounded.
Mississippi is the poorest state in the union, with a GDP/capita of around $20,000. When there is less money, prices are lower. It may have, therefore, been vital, as their current Medicaid program may have been supporting even children who didn't need the money.
Besides, Mississippi has a high poverty rate, and I'm sure many people live on less than $7,000/year.

Perhaps if you are in good health and can live on dried beans. Medicare for disabled people. How much can a person on SSI make in a year? A $1,000.00 a month allotment would put them over the top. I'm sorry but no way that can be considered rolling in the dough. The costs of meds alone can run hundreds a month! A single day for a just a bed in a hospital runs about $1,000.00 a day. Add on meds and actual care costs and you can be looking at two or three times that . Needing a actual procedure? C'mon. For many people it is a death sentence.

A good reference for economic information is http://www.bls.gov I have attempted to look at the Apr. '04 Consumer Price Index 9CPI)figures but they are updating the database as I write this. On the right hand side of http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm#overview you will find some great links on this topic including;

CPI-U, US City Average, All Items

CPI-U, US City Average, All Items Less Food and Energy

CPI-U, US City Average, Medical Care

SHL

Thanks Raysia. I appreciate it.

The biggest thing I'd like to see happen to Medicare is that it be means-tested. I think it ought to still exist and even that the wealthier older people should be able to buy into it like they could buy into any health care system, but there's no reason that the elderly poor should go without healthcare.For once we agree on something.

Having said that, you know full well, many on the Left have a severe aversion to means-testing. Normally, the call is for "x" or "y" government program to be applied across-the-board, which is why the latest Medicare "reform" (a.k.a. prescription drug "benefit") leaves you and I potentially paying for Bill Gates' prescriptions when he turns 65.

What Mississippi has essentially done, is throw its arms in the air and say "we give up, we can't afford this as a state." I hope your parents are able to afford it, and I truly hope you are able to assist them if they can't. Good luck.

wasnt mississippi one of those states whose constitution requires a balanced budge, and last november the voters chose to gut the state government rather than raise taxes so stuff like this was inevitable?Good question, and I don't know the answer. Having said that, the inevitable conclusion has to be, if the voters of the state of Mississippi chose such a course of action, the state government has no choice but to follow the mandate it received. Now there is a revolutionary idea, when you think about it...a government doing exactly what its constituents decided should be done.

poor timing for fiscal integrity

id try to move

poor timing for fiscal integrity

id try to moveThere is never a bad time for fiscal integrity. If anything, it might be a little late...

Compassionate conservatism, as a lifestyle, always works. Compassionate conservatise, as policy, is bunk.
I don't approve of, btw, the Medicaid cuts. Most of those on Medicaid, being poor children, are simply unable to ever earn an income. Same with the disabled. Even while I argue against Medicare and Social Security, Medicaid is the only welfare program that shouldn't be touch.
Actually, now that I think about it, the Medicaid cut may not have been as bad as it may have sounded.
Mississippi is the poorest state in the union, with a GDP/capita of around $20,000. When there is less money, prices are lower. It may have, therefore, been vital, as their current Medicaid program may have been supporting even children who didn't need the money.
Besides, Mississippi has a high poverty rate, and I'm sure many people live on less than $7,000/year.

Perhaps if you are in good health and can live on dried beans. Medicare for disabled people. How much can a person on SSI make in a year? A $1,000.00 a month allotment would put them over the top. I'm sorry but no way that can be considered rolling in the dough. The costs of meds alone can run hundreds a month! A single day for a just a bed in a hospital runs about $1,000.00 a day. Add on meds and actual care costs and you can be looking at two or three times that . Needing a actual procedure? C'mon. For many people it is a death sentence.

A good reference for economic information is http://www.bls.gov I have attempted to look at the Apr. '04 Consumer Price Index 9CPI)figures but they are updating the database as I write this. On the right hand side of http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm#overview you will find some great links on this topic including;

CPI-U, US City Average, All Items

CPI-U, US City Average, All Items Less Food and Energy

CPI-U, US City Average, Medical Care

SHL
With those two posts, I was merely debating with myself. I'm just saying with the last few posts the way that the South is. Personally, I wouldn't mind if, for once, the rest of the US stopped giving Southerners freebies in life, but what can I say? However, I always support Medicaid for the young and disabled, as there is no way they can make an income. At the very least, they can be helped with their medical expenses. Food stamps aren't also a bad idea, though that's only because of food being so cheap these days.

PE--have you ever lived in Mississippi or Alabama? Have you ever even been there before?

People who live below the poverty line down there don't do so because it's fun or because they're lazy--they do it because there are no jobs to be had and the jobs that are there are low-paying, no benefit jobs

Well, it depends on where you grow up. If you're lucky enough to grow up in the central to north side of the state of Alabama (Montgomery on north), generally you're going to be close to one city or another and can find a half way decent education. Actually if you live in some of the richer suburbs of Birmingham, you can have one of the best educations in the nation. There's one particular high school, supported by the rich parents, that is really larger than some major university campuses, complete with olympic sized pool, running track, tennis courts, football fields, etc.

If you have the misfortune of growing up in the "Black Belt", alas there's little help. The schools are much less than wonderful, and there is really very little to no opportunity to grow, learn, and pursue a career. Instead, most of the people etch out a living on the land. Certainly no way to live. Be much nicer if some of the rich Hoover or Inverness people could be taxed so that we could actually have schools and teachers for the poor. But of course Alabama is deep in the conservative camp, so that won't happen.

As for jobs, they are actually getting better. Alabama is quickly growing into a major car manufacturing spot, with a few Goodyear Tire plants as well as a Mercedes plant, a Honda plant, and soon to be a Hyundai. Still, Alabama has a very long way to go, and so long as we waste millions of dollars on Roy Moore's crusade to make Alabama a theocracy, we're not going to get there.

Still, we have the poorest county in the country (in the Black Belt of course) we also have one of the richest counties in the country (Shelby County). So we're not completely hopeless, and we do contribute, but we have a ways to go.

I know you were born in Atlanta. I've been there, and despite being cultureless and traffic choked

Well, to be honest, Atlanta is just evil. It should have been reburned after it was rebuilt, just for the heck of it. :p It's certainly not a good representative of southern living. Check out some smaller cities, Birmingham or Huntsville for a better example of what we're like. The good and the bad.
Those two states are industrializing? Great. Keep it up. Pretty soon, they can actually join the rest of the union economically.

There is no such thing as a compassionate consie.

There's no such thing as compassion.

poor timing for fiscal integrity

id try to moveThere is never a bad time for fiscal integrity. If anything, it might be a little late...

if only we could convince either of the big political parties of that

poor timing for fiscal integrity

id try to moveThere is never a bad time for fiscal integrity. If anything, it might be a little late...

if only we could convince either of the big political parties of that
Shall we give it a go? Maybe in memory of Ronald Reagan, our governments can privatize a few thousand non-essential bureaucratic jobs. That would be a good start.

wasnt mississippi one of those states whose constitution requires a balanced budge, and last november the voters chose to gut the state government rather than raise taxes so stuff like this was inevitable?Good question, and I don't know the answer. Having said that, the inevitable conclusion has to be, if the voters of the state of Mississippi chose such a course of action, the state government has no choice but to follow the mandate it received. Now there is a revolutionary idea, when you think about it...a government doing exactly what its constituents decided should be done.Actually, it wasn't Mississippi--it was Alabama, and the strange thing was that the Governor who was suggesting the tax increase was a Republican who was basically eaten alive by his own party afterwards.

So as a result, the state has cut back in pretty much every department and they may end up with Roy Moore as governor in a couple of years. God help them if that happens.

Like I always say, the rich have a moral obligation to give to the poor... forcing them to have a LEGAL obligation to do so is called socialism, and it is nothing less than theft.

Using the law to force people to uphold their moral obligations is a crime? If this is theft, what about laws that try to force people to uphold their obligations not to murder people?

If it is a moral obligation, then it is fair game for law. What the Hell other reason is there to have laws?

There's no such thing as compassion.

That is an interesting comment albeit a cryptic one. Are you suggesting that the combination of emotions that might motivate a person to assist another does not exist or are you saying it in a general way regarding heartless politicians whose pulse and thinking is poll driven?

SHL

Shall we give it a go? Maybe in memory of Ronald Reagan, our governments can privatize a few thousand non-essential bureaucratic jobs. That would be a good start.
cant we just do away with the non essential bureaucratic jobs?
yeah that would be a memorial to RR that i could support whole heartedly

Actually, it wasn't Mississippi--it was Alabama, and the strange thing was that the Governor who was suggesting the tax increase was a Republican who was basically eaten alive by his own party afterwards.

So as a result, the state has cut back in pretty much every department and they may end up with Roy Moore as governor in a couple of years. God help them if that happens.

darn, i knew it was one of those deep south states and i took a chance. well then i guess mississippi just sucks

Shall we give it a go? Maybe in memory of Ronald Reagan, our governments can privatize a few thousand non-essential bureaucratic jobs. That would be a good start.
cant we just do away with the non essential bureaucratic jobs?
yeah that would be a memorial to RR that i could support whole heartedlyWhy on earth would that be a memorial to Reagan? The federal government grew under his presidency.

Shall we give it a go? Maybe in memory of Ronald Reagan, our governments can privatize a few thousand non-essential bureaucratic jobs. That would be a good start.
cant we just do away with the non essential bureaucratic jobs?
yeah that would be a memorial to RR that i could support whole heartedlyWe could, but the unions would have a fit...not meant to disparage you, since I don't know your age...do you remember 1981?

I can give you a quick run-down of "non-essential" jobs (bureaucratic or otherwise) that could be eliminated and no one would even notice (other than the unlucky bastards who get canned.) Let's start with the entire Department of Education...all of the federalized security screeners at the airports...the entire Postal Service.

There, three quick entries...that would eliminate close to a million federal employees who have long outlasted their need.

Why on earth would that be a memorial to Reagan? The federal government grew under his presidency.

lets not let FACTS get in the way. he TALKED about reducing government. to have it actually happen would be a great memorial.

Shall we give it a go? Maybe in memory of Ronald Reagan, our governments can privatize a few thousand non-essential bureaucratic jobs. That would be a good start.
cant we just do away with the non essential bureaucratic jobs?
yeah that would be a memorial to RR that i could support whole heartedlyWhy on earth would that be a memorial to Reagan? The federal government grew under his presidency.Very true. But only Reagan had the stones to fire an entire group of federal employees, and to hell with the unions...unlike others, whose only way to "reduce" government has been to cut the armed forces.

Yeah--it takes a whole lot of stones to decimate an essential industry and lower the safety of the nation's skies. Unfortunately, it doesn't take much in the way of smarts to do it.

By the way--in a post above, you suggest getting rid of the Postal Service. Do you really think that any private enterprise would be capable of doing the job the postal service does for the price they do it for? Not very likely. And you have many examples worldwide to pull from. The US Postal System is a marvel of government doing a job well, and doing it better and more cheaply than private enterprise would or could do it.

Maybe someone would like the opinion of an individual who lives in Mississippi. I am from a middle class background, but I live in a small town in the Delta region of Mississippi (which is the poorest region in Mississippi). I have moved around quite a bit in my lifetime and it has given me some perspective on lifestyles in the different states. (states I have lived in for an extended period of time Rhode Island, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama) In Mississippi, it isn't really all that hard to live off of a very low income. At the $7000 dollars I saw mentioned, a man can afford to keep an apartment or rental house (not the best but decent), keep his car filled with gas (we have much cheaper prices that places like California or New York), and keep himself fed. Plus the person can apply for several other welfare programs, and keep themselves fed off of food stamps. It is not all that bad really. I have lived here for a good number of years and it is a small town, so I know a good portion of the people. They do survive. As far as medical bills go, I cannot speak for the rest of Mississippi, but we have a group of doctors in town that are willing to do their work for free aside from their normal practices. Prescriptions may be somewhat harder to come by in some cases, but the people survive.

thanks for the insight omni. thats how people "get by" in most poor regions in the US. im not sure *I* could do it on $7k but maybe if i had a garden?

Maybe someone would like the opinion of an individual who lives in Mississippi. I am from a middle class background, but I live in a small town in the Delta region of Mississippi (which is the poorest region in Mississippi). I have moved around quite a bit in my lifetime and it has given me some perspective on lifestyles in the different states. (states I have lived in for an extended period of time Rhode Island, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama) In Mississippi, it isn't really all that hard to live off of a very low income. At the $7000 dollars I saw mentioned, a man can afford to keep an apartment or rental house (not the best but decent), keep his car filled with gas (we have much cheaper prices that places like California or New York), and keep himself fed. Plus the person can apply for several other welfare programs, and keep themselves fed off of food stamps. It is not all that bad really. I have lived here for a good number of years and it is a small town, so I know a good portion of the people. They do survive. As far as medical bills go, I cannot speak for the rest of Mississippi, but we have a group of doctors in town that are willing to do their work for free aside from their normal practices. Prescriptions may be somewhat harder to come by in some cases, but the people survive.
That's what I was thinking. The less money there was, the less they'd have to pay. The more money their was, the more they'd pay. It's the basic economic principles of supply and demand (though it's more on the supply side).
As you also mentioned, prices throughout the country aren't uniform. Wealthier states, like Massachussetts, Alaska, and New York pay more for their goods, while those in poor states pay less. It'd hardly surprise me if it extended to healthcare, although $7000/year is quite low.

Maybe someone would like the opinion of an individual who lives in Mississippi. I am from a middle class background, but I live in a small town in the Delta region of Mississippi (which is the poorest region in Mississippi). I have moved around quite a bit in my lifetime and it has given me some perspective on lifestyles in the different states. (states I have lived in for an extended period of time Rhode Island, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama) In Mississippi, it isn't really all that hard to live off of a very low income. At the $7000 dollars I saw mentioned, a man can afford to keep an apartment or rental house (not the best but decent), keep his car filled with gas (we have much cheaper prices that places like California or New York), and keep himself fed. Plus the person can apply for several other welfare programs, and keep themselves fed off of food stamps. It is not all that bad really. I have lived here for a good number of years and it is a small town, so I know a good portion of the people. They do survive. As far as medical bills go, I cannot speak for the rest of Mississippi, but we have a group of doctors in town that are willing to do their work for free aside from their normal practices. Prescriptions may be somewhat harder to come by in some cases, but the people survive.Notice the part I bolded. At the rate at which Barbour is cutting taxes and state services, you won't have those options either. And it's not like anyone making $12,500 a year is living high on the hog--those people need Medicaid.

Maybe someone would like the opinion of an individual who lives in Mississippi. I am from a middle class background, but I live in a small town in the Delta region of Mississippi (which is the poorest region in Mississippi). I have moved around quite a bit in my lifetime and it has given me some perspective on lifestyles in the different states. (states I have lived in for an extended period of time Rhode Island, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama) In Mississippi, it isn't really all that hard to live off of a very low income. At the $7000 dollars I saw mentioned, a man can afford to keep an apartment or rental house (not the best but decent), keep his car filled with gas (we have much cheaper prices that places like California or New York), and keep himself fed. Plus the person can apply for several other welfare programs, and keep themselves fed off of food stamps. It is not all that bad really. I have lived here for a good number of years and it is a small town, so I know a good portion of the people. They do survive. As far as medical bills go, I cannot speak for the rest of Mississippi, but we have a group of doctors in town that are willing to do their work for free aside from their normal practices. Prescriptions may be somewhat harder to come by in some cases, but the people survive.Notice the part I bolded. At the rate at which Barbour is cutting taxes and state services, you won't have those options either. And it's not like anyone making $12,500 a year is living high on the hog--those people need Medicaid.
Food stamps will always exist simply because a.) they don't require a vast bureaocracy, and b.) food is very cheap nowadays. If the government bought food for everyone in the nation, it'd literally be a drop in the bucket of govermental expenditures.

Compassionate conservatism is a bunch of crap!!! They just tell lies to get in office and them BANG-- the poor , the children, the disabled, and elderly SUFFER. I hate that phony term-- just like Bush.

Compassionate conservatism is a bunch of crap!!! They just tell lies to get in office and them BANG-- the poor , the children, the disabled, and elderly SUFFER. I hate that phony term-- just like Bush.

Maybe someone would like the opinion of an individual who lives in Mississippi. I am from a middle class background, but I live in a small town in the Delta region of Mississippi (which is the poorest region in Mississippi). I have moved around quite a bit in my lifetime and it has given me some perspective on lifestyles in the different states. (states I have lived in for an extended period of time Rhode Island, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama) In Mississippi, it isn't really all that hard to live off of a very low income. At the $7000 dollars I saw mentioned, a man can afford to keep an apartment or rental house (not the best but decent), keep his car filled with gas (we have much cheaper prices that places like California or New York), and keep himself fed. Plus the person can apply for several other welfare programs, and keep themselves fed off of food stamps. It is not all that bad really. I have lived here for a good number of years and it is a small town, so I know a good portion of the people. They do survive. As far as medical bills go, I cannot speak for the rest of Mississippi, but we have a group of doctors in town that are willing to do their work for free aside from their normal practices. Prescriptions may be somewhat harder to come by in some cases, but the people survive.Notice the part I bolded. At the rate at which Barbour is cutting taxes and state services, you won't have those options either. And it's not like anyone making $12,500 a year is living high on the hog--those people need Medicaid.
Food stamps will always exist simply because a.) they don't require a vast bureaocracy, and b.) food is very cheap nowadays. If the government bought food for everyone in the nation, it'd literally be a drop in the bucket of govermental expenditures.

Yeah--it takes a whole lot of stones to decimate an essential industry and lower the safety of the nation's skies. Unfortunately, it doesn't take much in the way of smarts to do it.
Show me how the air traffic control system became any less safer after Reagan got rid of those 11,000. Some areas of government are essential enough that the employees do not, and should not, have a right to strike (ask Max Cleland.) Air traffic control is one of those areas. I submit to you, a strike by air traffic controllers is a lot more hazardous than the wholesale firing of those striking. By the way, when those 11,000 were fired, they were immediately replaced by military air traffic controllers, without missing a single beat.

By the way--in a post above, you suggest getting rid of the Postal Service. Do you really think that any private enterprise would be capable of doing the job the postal service does for the price they do it for? Not very likely. And you have many examples worldwide to pull from. The US Postal System is a marvel of government doing a job well, and doing it better and more cheaply than private enterprise would or could do it.
I have a simple counter to that: UPS (http://www.ups.com) and FedEx (http://www.fedex.com). I no longer ship anything that requires any kind of expediency through the Postal Service, seeing how inefficient it is. So what if UPS and FedEx are more expensive? The efficiency they bring to the game is more than worth the added price. Get rid of the Postal Service, and let the free market dictate the price, and not only will UPS and FedEx lower their prices, but they will also become even more efficient.

As much as I agree with Incertonia about the crux of his message, unfortunately I'll have to disagree with compassionate conservatism being the primary cause of the downsizing of the Medicaid program.

The cuts, which are going on nationwide, have a lot to do with a national trend. Not even five years ago these programs were awash with money. We're talking millions of dollars that they didn't even know what to do with. Instead of being fiscally responsible and realizing that the outpouring wouldn't last forever, several states instead chose to start programs and grants that were shortsighted. Several states started auto programs to give cars to Medicaid recipients. While a noble cause, the programs were poorly enforced and became money cows with a large majority of the cars not even working. The mechanics bilked the system, as did car dealers.

During this time, Medicaid programs gave grant money to anyone with even a half thought out plan. In my state of West Virginia, the Medicaid program was funding grant programs that totalled well into the tens of millions. Again, poor oversight on the programs with little expectations for results from the programs. Bad ideas.

The Medicaid program continued to throw its money away, privatizing several services that they were offering far cheaper to begin with. Social services such as protective services were managed by private industry. These workers averaged around $25,000 working for the state but when privatized, the workers were making well over $35,000. And of course the workers with the state were still there as well, meaning that the money was pouring out. Each of the programs that Medicaid would begin would have to have a supervisor and administrative aides as well, meaning more money coming out of the pot.

Each year the Medicaid program continued to get more and more money and each year states started new programs with little research into whether they had any merit. Works programs that were already being handled by other state agencies (cheaper and better too), single mother programs that were already being handled by WIC, job training programs that were already being handled by Dept. of Labor.....Medicaid expanded into all of it.

Now, the chickens are coming home to roost. The river of money has dried up. And states are facing severe shortfalls. Now, while a case can certainly be made to blame the current administration's policies for the state budget shortfalls, blame needs to be placed on each individual state's Medicaid program. They were living the high life for so long and no one was watching to see what they were doing. It is shameful and an appalling waste of taxpayer money that could have been used to better benefit those in need.

Granted, the current administration has been lacking in nearly everything they have done with social services. The budgets, while needing to be put in check by people who could go through with a fine toothed comb, were slashed haphazardly and without much thought of what was going to happen. More money is being siphoned off to fuel faith-based initiatives, which is a huge taxpayer fraud. Bush recently touted the Hope Program in West Virginia as a success story for the faith based program. Sadly, had he checked with anyone OTHER than the person in charge of the Hope Program, he would have known that the $200,000 annually funnelled into the program is going to serve less than 8 children per year! Sure, there are a lot of kids in the program, but only a select few actually receive aid. The others, while equally needy, get shortshrifted. Even worse, since Hope now controls the summer job program for needy kids, only those who miraculously happen to be members of the pastor's church or friends of the pastor's family get jobs. A program that used to be run by the state found jobs for over 500 kids each summer. Project Hope finds jobs for less than 30.

Bottom line, there is enough blame to go around. Compassionate conservatives are hardly compassionate in this case. The Medicaid administrators were equally guilty of being poor managers. I have a lot more info but I think what I've supplied is enough for now.

Yeah--it takes a whole lot of stones to decimate an essential industry and lower the safety of the nation's skies. Unfortunately, it doesn't take much in the way of smarts to do it.
Show me how the air traffic control system became any less safer after Reagan got rid of those 11,000. Some areas of government are essential enough that the employees do not, and should not, have a right to strike (ask Max Cleland.) Air traffic control is one of those areas. I submit to you, a strike by air traffic controllers is a lot more hazardous than the wholesale firing of those striking. By the way, when those 11,000 were fired, they were immediately replaced by military air traffic controllers, without missing a single beat.

By the way--in a post above, you suggest getting rid of the Postal Service. Do you really think that any private enterprise would be capable of doing the job the postal service does for the price they do it for? Not very likely. And you have many examples worldwide to pull from. The US Postal System is a marvel of government doing a job well, and doing it better and more cheaply than private enterprise would or could do it.
I have a simple counter to that: UPS (http://www.ups.com) and FedEx (http://www.fedex.com). I no longer ship anything that requires any kind of expediency through the Postal Service, seeing how inefficient it is. So what if UPS and FedEx are more expensive? The efficiency they bring to the game is more than worth the added price. Get rid of the Postal Service, and let the free market dictate the price, and not only will UPS and FedEx lower their prices, but they will also become even more efficient.

The USPS is the rural electrification of this age. Small out of the way communities do not have FedEx and UPS available - let alone at reasonable rates. Sending a bill payment at $.37 is a damn sight cheaper than either of the other choices. What is the cost of a second or third day letter by FedEx or UPS from lower Manhattan to the upper east side of Manhattan? $8.00 for FedEx ground and UPS insists on my using UPS Second Day Air for $21.20. USPS? $.37 and usually there in a business day or two.

SHL

In fact, SHL, if there is a threat to the USPS, it isn't from UPS or FedEx. It's from email and online bill payment systems.

I use the USPS all the time though, since most of the journals I submit to don't accept electronic submissions.

Like I always say, the rich have a moral obligation to give to the poor... forcing them to have a LEGAL obligation to do so is called socialism, and it is nothing less than theft.

theres something that just seems off about that statement...

The rich have a definate moral obligation to give to the poor (??) yet it should not be law(?)

If poor people want to have nice things, they should get busy making money and going to church instead of doing drugs and having gay sex.

If poor people want to have nice things, they should get busy making money and going to church instead of doing drugs and having gay sex.

you know, that actually made me laugh. it's too absurd.

If poor people want to have nice things, they should get busy making money and going to church instead of doing drugs and having gay sex.

you know, that actually made me laugh. it's too absurd.

That's because you're brainwashed by the liberal media.

If poor people want to have nice things, they should get busy making money and going to church instead of doing drugs and having gay sex.

you know, that actually made me laugh. it's too absurd.

That's because you're brainwashed by the liberal media.

ha! ha!

If poor people want to have nice things, they should get busy making money and going to church instead of doing drugs and having gay sex.

you know, that actually made me laugh. it's too absurd.

That's because you're brainwashed by the liberal media.

ha! ha!

MAKE IT STOP! MAKE THE COMMUNISM STOP!

you know, you're kind of inept at pretending to be conservative.

you know, you're kind of inept at pretending to be conservative.

Conservatives are kind of inept at arguing.

you know, you're kind of inept at pretending to be conservative.

Conservatives are kind of inept at arguing.

sometimes they are. but once in a while a wily one pops up who has debating skills. that's when i stand up and pay attention.

For every Right-Wing Fantasy there's a Red Arrow, so it balances out. :D

For every Right-Wing Fantasy there's a Red Arrow, so it balances out. :D

um..i don't think right-wing fantasy is conservative?

For every Right-Wing Fantasy there's a Red Arrow, so it balances out. :D

um..i don't think right-wing fantasy is conservative?
Neither do I.

I'm not sure if Red Arrow/MKUltra is a Liberal, either. Seems a bit to parodyish/trollish.

For every Right-Wing Fantasy there's a Red Arrow, so it balances out. :D

um..i don't think right-wing fantasy is conservative?
Neither do I.

I'm not sure if Red Arrow/MKUltra is a Liberal, either. Seems a bit to parodyish/trollish.

yah. oh well.

In fact, SHL, if there is a threat to the USPS, it isn't from UPS or FedEx. It's from email and online bill payment systems.

I use the USPS all the time though, since most of the journals I submit to don't accept electronic submissions.

Yeah, that was my point. Look at those prices! They aren't geared to handle birthday cards!

Sure your point is well taken. If it wasn't for bulk and third class mail I could manage very nicely receiving my mail twice a week. I'm not sure if the USPS isn't well aware of this and it seems to have become more customer oriented. I see there is an awareness that they aren't the only game in town anymore.

I'll have to check this at some point but I seem to recall they are a federally protected quasi private enterprise now that has to live on it's own revenues.

Anybody know for sure -0 It's late & I'm about burned out.

SHL

PE--have you ever lived in Mississippi or Alabama? Have you ever even been there before?

People who live below the poverty line down there don't do so because it's fun or because they're lazy--they do it because there are no jobs to be had and the jobs that are there are low-paying, no benefit jobs. Most of Mississippi is still agrarian, which doesn't help matters much, and the state is pecunious when it comes to spending on things like education. It should be no surprise that Mississippi ranks close to the bottom every year when it comes to education.

So you want to practice some tough love on the state of Mississippi? Fine--but you'd better be ready for the outcome. Me--I'm not ready to play games with poor people's lives just to make a political point.
Then really, the Civil War is still being fought. They are too agrarian, and that is really a shame. They don't even produce much.
There are, however, ways of winning this war, and perhaps the unwinnable war on poverty. I suggest massive overhauls of their education systems, and reforming all public housing. And while we're talking about the South, if any of the agrarian workers knew any better, they'd pick up, and move to the cities. There, they have more chances of bettering their lives. Besides, wildlife needs more rural land than humans do, as I'm rapidly finding out.
I also support funding the police. Have them educate who they can about drugs and such, but keep around good old tactics, like police occupation. Combined with education, it'll set an example. That, and better schooling, should make more poor Southerners realize that they really do live in a hot, sweltering, insect hellhole, and that their are more jobs for them to the north and west. We need programs that, I feel, will end poverty, not just keep it at the same level.
But, of course, I'd be perfectly happy if those two states secceded. BTW, I've never been there, but some family members have. From what I've heard, I hate to go down there. And this is certainly not most of the south. I know you were born in Atlanta. I've been there, and despite being cultureless and traffic choked, it's nowhere near some of the urban hellholes I've seen. It can actually be very nice.Cultureless? You may have been to Atlanta but you've never been there.

In fact, SHL, if there is a threat to the USPS, it isn't from UPS or FedEx. It's from email and online bill payment systems.

I use the USPS all the time though, since most of the journals I submit to don't accept electronic submissions.

Yeah, that was my point. Look at those prices! They aren't geared to handle birthday cards!

Sure your point is well taken. If it wasn't for bulk and third class mail I could manage very nicely receiving my mail twice a week. I'm not sure if the USPS isn't well aware of this and it seems to have become more customer oriented. I see there is an awareness that they aren't the only game in town anymore.

I'll have to check this at some point but I seem to recall they are a federally protected quasi private enterprise now that has to live on it's own revenues.

Anybody know for sure -0 It's late & I'm about burned out.

SHLThat's pretty much the case--they're expected to cover their own costs, and they largely do, thanks to automation and reduction of the work force through attrition. And the fact that you can send a letter anywhere in the US for 37 cents and that 99.9999999% of the time it'll get there ought to boggle the mind.

The term 'Compassionate Conservative' is a cunning and devious oxymoron used to secure liberal voters who do not like liberal leaders....

PE--have you ever lived in Mississippi or Alabama? Have you ever even been there before?

People who live below the poverty line down there don't do so because it's fun or because they're lazy--they do it because there are no jobs to be had and the jobs that are there are low-paying, no benefit jobs. Most of Mississippi is still agrarian, which doesn't help matters much, and the state is pecunious when it comes to spending on things like education. It should be no surprise that Mississippi ranks close to the bottom every year when it comes to education.

So you want to practice some tough love on the state of Mississippi? Fine--but you'd better be ready for the outcome. Me--I'm not ready to play games with poor people's lives just to make a political point.
Then really, the Civil War is still being fought. They are too agrarian, and that is really a shame. They don't even produce much.
There are, however, ways of winning this war, and perhaps the unwinnable war on poverty. I suggest massive overhauls of their education systems, and reforming all public housing. And while we're talking about the South, if any of the agrarian workers knew any better, they'd pick up, and move to the cities. There, they have more chances of bettering their lives. Besides, wildlife needs more rural land than humans do, as I'm rapidly finding out.
I also support funding the police. Have them educate who they can about drugs and such, but keep around good old tactics, like police occupation. Combined with education, it'll set an example. That, and better schooling, should make more poor Southerners realize that they really do live in a hot, sweltering, insect hellhole, and that their are more jobs for them to the north and west. We need programs that, I feel, will end poverty, not just keep it at the same level.
But, of course, I'd be perfectly happy if those two states secceded. BTW, I've never been there, but some family members have. From what I've heard, I hate to go down there. And this is certainly not most of the south. I know you were born in Atlanta. I've been there, and despite being cultureless and traffic choked, it's nowhere near some of the urban hellholes I've seen. It can actually be very nice.Cultureless? You may have been to Atlanta but you've never been there.
I had an uncle that was from there. In fact, his mom and grandma were born in Switzerland. Even if Atlanta did have culture, it certainly would be put to shame by the Swiss. So, I guess they brainwashed me into thinking that Atlanta was cultureless.