Re: Life Duty Death

Monica Cattermole (
Tue, 12 Sep 1995 15:32:43 GMT

In Article <>, (Julie
Locascio) wrote:
>>My great grandfather came here from Denmark as a sailor. He paid his way
>>and had children which he supported. My grandfather was born in San
>>Francisco. He lost land in the Great earthquake of 1906 and took NO
>>assistance in rebuilding. My father was born in San Francisco and held a
>>job with the railroads. He died when I was four.. My great grandmother
>>came from Germany and worked as a stenographer. My grandmother worked as
>>a legal secretary and is now on her Social Security. My mother died when
>>I was four and thus my father's railroad pension never was used.
>>On my mother's side I can trace my ancestry back to the 1700's and so far
>>as I can determine I am the FIRST in my family (both sides) te recieve
>>disability (due to blindness). I am a taxpayer as well, because I
>>recieve a small income from a part time job.
>What--your great grandfather came here from Denmark? How on earth were we
>able to absorb him?!!! Is he inherently better than a Mexican migrant?
>Please explain this!

I believe that she meant her great grandfather came over LEGALLY. It makes a
BIG difference. A good part (no I won't dare say all) of the Mexican
migrants of
today are ILLEGAL aliens.

> He actually had children? I am surprised that somebody
>did not simply assume that a poor immigrant would never be able to raise
>children and forcibly sterilize him.

At least he wasn't taking money away from my family. HE (and/or his wife)
obviously could afford to feed, cloth and shelter his children.

>Your dad worked for the railroads? I
>don't suppose any public money every went into THAT. Your great grandmother
>was a foreigner, too? Was she also more gifted and deserving than Mexican
>migrants? Social Security???!!! Say it isn't true!

She worked for it, she deserves it. That's more than I can say for SOME of those
on welfare. And, having worked since I was 16 and planning to work the rest of
my life (until 70 anyway), I like to think I'll be able to collect Social
Security too, since I contribute to it with every paycheck. Of course that
hope looks awfully slim nowadays. Where do you thing the S. S. money is all
going to, hmmmm?


>>AND I HAVE NO CHILDREN. Why? Because I cannot afford them. And because I
>>cannot afford children, I do without! I am not proud of recieving help
>>from the government. I have worked for twenty years and now, my failing
>>eyesight will not allow me to continue.There is no way I would be able to
>>raise a child with the advantages it would need. So I do not have one.
>Advantages? You refuse to bring a child into the world unless it can have an
>immediate advantage over everybody else?

Excuse me, I didn't see the words "over everybody else" in the original
text, did you?? I believe the "advantages" mentioned referred to those in
life - i.e.
food, clothing, shelter, and yes, some little bit of money to go out and enjoy
one's self once in a while. No, not everything enjoyable requires money, but
let's face it, a good chunk of them do.


>>All I expect is that people, like myself, who are forced onto accepting
>>public money SHOW RESPONSIBILITY for the money they recieve!
>Does that include spending time and money tying up the Internet with hateful
>and bitter diatribes?

Your diatribe is just as long as the original, and everyone has the right to
express their opinions.

>If you feel so strongly
>about family planning in the third world, then send money to organizations
>that provide responsible and voluntary education and services on family
>planning--not nazi sterilization policies that may ultimately conclude that a
>poor Mexican willing to process chickens is worth more to society than a blind
>U.S. middle class consumer who can no longer work.

I could only afford to do so if the government wasn't sucking up a sizable
portion of my paychecks for taxes.

>I do not feel that way,
>but I do not see how you can have the views you have and not believe that
>somebody will turn those views on your situation some day.

As a member of the middle class, whom the government seems to believe is
wealthy, I must agree with just about everything swan has said (except for her
attack on Catholicism -- lets try to keep religion out of this). I personally
would prefer to use my money for the benefits of my own children -- college
costs aren't getting any cheaper, you know. I cannot justify in any way
putting the money towards these families who are taking charity and
willfully increasing the amount they take. How can they have any conscience
The welfare system does need reform, and the burden should NOT be carried by
those who are rich. The rich already give the majority of tax money.
Besides, who decides who is rich and who is not? Anyone who says "the rich"
should take the burden is just envious of people that have a lot of money.