Maastricht Treaty revisions needed?

[--Pete]

Hi,

The US needs to back off, and let people take care of their own issues.

And this relates to taking money from state A and spending it in state B how?

. . . politicians having a spine, . . .

Do you have x-rays supporting this claim?

. . . changing the systems to require people to apply for their handouts (where they would need to detail their assets and income).

Have you ever applied for any type of government assistance? Because all who I know that have applied had to do exactly that -- document that they qualified for the assistance they were requesting. If there's a government office that one can just walk into, ask for money, and walk out of with cash, then I've missed seeing it.

Any system where you give away money has the problem of fraud, and nothing changes here except the amount of cash you are handing out.

Is the problem helping people or is the problem fraud? Because to stop the one in order to prevent the other is, IMO, a vast overreaction. Like closing the roads because some people drive drunk.

And I have no idea what the second half of that sentence refers to.

The point was that 17 different agencies are working on the 400 trade agreements.

Why would corporate mergers ever save money? Of course consolidation would remove duplication and increase coordination of effort.

OK, so you are *for* consolidation.

Our economy is in the toilet, and a record number of people are losing their homes, unemployed, and going bankrupt. The government doesn't have enough money to pay its bills, nor can it continue to borrow a trillion or so per year to keep up paying for all we spend. Not to mention, that all those trillions we borrowed will need to be paid back.

True or false, what does this have to do with to taking money from state A and spending it in state B?

I'd say it's time to justify every expenditure, and be very thoughtful about where our money is spent.

At what cost? Since we've gotten to that part in the thread where we're recycling our arguments, let me reiterate; "But when it comes to the government, many seem to be willing to spend any amount, no matter how large, to prevent the misuse of any amount, no matter how small."

I wouldn't call it de-consolidation, so much as getting the federal fingers out of the states business.

So, you're *against* consolidation.

Let's see: Consolidation is good when the federal government does it. No, consolidation is bad when the federal government does it. No, consolidation is good when industry does it.

"Alex, I'd like a clue for 200."

--Pete