That's not even a word.

Did you mean to say "expediently" or "exponentially"?

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

It is an adverb which could well be applied to current administration:

Definition of expedient - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

LOL nice way to go off-topic

I bet you used to stay after school, being teachers pet and spell check your fellow students papers too !



Finding old habits die hard ?

__________________

So this is how liberty ends... with thunderous applause
In a Democracy, Silence is Permission

Based on your spelling ability when it comes to simple words, you didn't spend enough time in school.

But I really wonder whether or not "exponentially" would've been a better word to use...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

First this presumptive “honest answer”...what constitutes an honest answer? Something that agrees with your outlook? I always attempt to provide honest answers...anyway..

Fist 100 million people or your proposed %, here don’t go to sleep hungry at night or are absent health care etc...not even close .....so your hypothesis is , well not even remotely applicable regards getting to some type of logical answer...

But I’ll play along; IF that were so, we should, if capable provide some type of succor...NOT a hand out, but the old teach a person to fish they feed themselves forever regards feeding them for a day if you give them a fish...if others growing up, joined ther ranks, I would apply the same mechanism....and of course, fixing the root cause of the problem regards how this came to be in the first place.

Your exponential is just a little to wild for me and I am trying to figure out how this is connected to 10 million folk’s not getting health care other than emergency room services......

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

My question was regarding your claim to never exceed a programs mandate.

BTW, since my question was a hypothetical one, I took liberty to use round whole numbers. Sorry if that confused you !

__________________

So this is how liberty ends... with thunderous applause
In a Democracy, Silence is Permission

Such a program wouldn't use numbers of citizens anyway. It would achieve a standard, or a cut-off limit for recipients. For example, a certain social program would cover everyone under an income level of, say, $50,000 a year.
Such a mandate would NOT cover X number of people.

Good thing that WAS a hypothetical.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Spoken like a true blue pussy who'd never last 24 hrs in the military.
And once again, you don't pay our taxes so tough shit.....Just be glad that our taxes and our military help to protect your own ass.

__________________
Anyone who thinks freedom comes cheap, please put the blindfold on and stand against the wall.

Many times I believe Americans will have to take back the country and start a new government.

LOL, finally Steve admits that US taxpayers are subsidizing him.

Dunno if Steve will also acknowledge that while adults have a choice between a life where they can earn their own keep (i. e. business owner, business employee) vs. a life where they will be mooching off taxpayers (i. e. military service), poor children do not have a choice. There is no way a small child can go earn a living to help cover his/her medical expenses, if his/her parents can't afford it or don't want to pay for it. Anyone who would suggest that it is somehow a poor kids' fault for not having the resources to pay his/her med bills needs a brain transplant.

In any society that places emphasis on individual responsibility, it is a monumental waste of money to have to subsidize those who made poor choices in life that caused them to need public monies (i. e. ex-military members), but it is hardly a waste to subsidize those who, because of circumstances beyond their control, cannot completely take care of themselves (i. e. children). The former is subsidizing irresponsibility. The latter is merely helping those who can't help themselves.

__________________
Life only becomes meaningful at its extremes

-- S

Any idiot can get in the military. I think I've posted some 124,678 times the tremendously lame requirements for military entry (where high school dropouts, ex-cons, and even those who flunk the ASVAB can get in with waivers).

Earning a living--convincing other individuals that you can provide a service valuable enough for them to voluntarily give you money, OTOH, is far more difficult--and actually requires some brains and discipline (a decent education, for starters).

Please explain how blowing up buildings, bridges, etc. in Third World countries that are of no credible threat to the US protects us.

__________________
Life only becomes meaningful at its extremes

-- S

I wonder why they turned you down then.

LOSER !

__________________
Anyone who thinks freedom comes cheap, please put the blindfold on and stand against the wall.

Many times I believe Americans will have to take back the country and start a new government.

They are intelligent posts among many things, third graders included. What you are making are a bunch of ad hominem, trolling posts that would make a first grader ashamed.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Bush made an excellent decision to smack down the bill. The bill was not all about "childrens health care" in the first place.

The title of the bill misled the ignorant people.

If the bill was appropriatly named it would have simply been called the anti-child act.

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Um, I never said anything differently.

What is different, is why I get that money. I get it because I served and retired from the military. Now, you might not like that I get it, but I don't really give a fuck. Had I gotten out of the service after 16 years, I wouldn't get it...

Of course I'll acknowledge that.

The difference, though, is that you simply want to absolve the parents of all responsibility. First and foremost, the parents should be the ones to provide it. Before their children get government health care, what's wrong with requiring the parents to exhaust all avenues to provide it on their own?

If it wasn't for people like me who made that choice, you'd have grown up speaking German. I'm having a real hard time finding where my decision to join the military was a poor choice...

The responsibilty for a child, first, lies with the parents. Period. Perhaps we should just allow the government to go ahead and raise our kids for us. If you should ever be lucky enough to have a child (of course, you'll need to find a man first), wouldn't you just love having them tell you how to raise your child?

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

You mean like this woman who's health insurance won't cover the cost of her cancer treatments? The insurance that she can afford doesn't even continue to offer her cancer treatment. What if she had kids that required assistance? Should she get a second or third job while fighting cancer? Would that be good enough for you?

TheStar.com | News | Desperately seeking medicare

For nine years she has fought breast cancer and the slow decline of her bones and body. There are times when she feels fine, but always pressing against her is the fight she cannot win. Her life savings are draining away as she pays higher and higher medical bills.

The "last hope" insurance she has costs $800 a month. It covers her treatments, which total $300,000 a year – a burden she will have to bear once her insurance runs out in less than three years.

"It's short-sighted of people to say that she can't come up here to use the health-care system, which is one of our greatest legacies," says Ankenmann.

"Some of the Canadians who are complaining about her think nothing about going down to shop in the U.S. to buy cheese and milk and clothes because it's cheaper and they think our taxes are too high. We should open our hearts to all who need help."

Laurie Kingston, a blogger in Ottawa who also has breast cancer, says Sather's website made her realize how much difference a border can make.

"We're not choosing between my kids and their after-school activities and mama's health care and that's a choice Americans are making every day," she says.

__________________________________________________ _______________