Both their and your motivation sounds like 'capitalism at work' to me.

Whether Republicans or Democrats are up in arms about this or not, the real problem is that, while both parties have been WELL aware of this/these loopholes, it only now that President Obama is calling them a "scam".

That, label, in itself, is a scam. This label comes from a lawyer, who like all lawyers, liberally use laws to get around things like: regulations and, sadly, justice.

Of course people with poorer backgrounds and lack of access to education will tend to embrace all the stuff that the Mullah/Priest/Minister indoctrinate them with.

Like this story about an embalmed man being raised from the dead?

Either these guys are a bunch of liars or a dead man was raised back to life. The freedom to believe is yours.

God, by definition, is able.

So, it's up to you to decide whether you believe the definition of God: whether God is able to do such things or not.

You might then have to decide whether God would do such a thing or not.

Besides that, and more importantly, what is harder to believe: Jesus of Nazareth was born of a Virgin or that he died for the forgiveness of everyone's sins?

These are all miracles after all.

Congress might be working on that already.... and they should.

"-1 Offtoppic"

Sour pusses: that was funny even though it did include 'first post'.

Masters WTF

Not only do you get a pay raise for it, but you get better looks at better companies. Also, there is a lot of training that happens to acquaint you with working within any company's environment and a Masters degree helps to convey that you are able to learn AND, communicate what you have learned, according to rigorous requirements.

My last argument: many community colleges will allow you to teach classes with just a Masters degree == more $$ on the side (or even full time).

Sad and true.

I completely agree.

I guess that makes the parent post ignorant or, as I suspect, deceptive and self-serving.

You just condemned the kids after ALL of the complaints about PARENTS and ADMINISTRATORS.

You enumerated exactly what no-one in authority in this country has the courage to do: PLACE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF EDUCATION ON THE PARENTS.

After all, if a parent can be sued for lots of $$ when their child breaks things belonging to others, why are they not also held responsible for seeing to that their children are educated?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=uk+medical+tourism

In the U.S.A. - hands down.

I've been all over the U.S.A. and seen homeless people in all kinds of places - there are a lot of choices for them.

Not only so, there are plenty, plenty of persons who have been poor, done right and well, and risen out of poverty because of the freedoms available here.

Note that at no point in either article does the newspaper suggest switching to a private system.

In general people don't like change... especially when it involves moving from comfort to discomfort. Ben Franklin, in 'On the Price of Corn', said the following:

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.

He goes on to say:

In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

This principle applies not only to 'the poor' it applies to people in general - to human nature: the more the government does things for people the poorer they become. This is most obvious when government goes beyond it's basic function of dispensing justice and defense.

I'd rather suckle at the teats of Liberty than the teats of Uncle Sam.