Couldn't that "move' directive be also given to folk who reside in the city who are 'now' being subsidized by the government?
" You want to eat, no more government subsidy, instead, 'move' to an area where you can grow food.-- You want free healthcare 'move back' to Mexico and let your own government provide. -- You live on the edge of the city and want the government to subsidize light rail or buses, why?; 'move' to the inner city and walk to work and market.
The 'move' argument is not helpful, at all. Why should ruralites be penalized so that metro residents can be subsidized?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--- On Sun, 1/11/09, Marie McHarry <mmcharry AT gmail.com> wrote:
Drive less. get more fuel efficient vehicles. Be self-sufficient to
the point that fuel for vehicles isn't a big thing. You need to do
that in any case as the price of fuel will go back up and only go
higher. What do you want? A government subsidy. If you need to be
close to a city, move.
_______________________________________________
Homestead list and subscription:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead
Change your homestead list member options:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/homestead/lurine%40com-pair.net
View the archives at:
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/homestead
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1886 - Release Date: 1/10/2009 6:01 PM
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.