--snip--
>>>>PMFJI, I do not read Tracy's reply as saying free college for everyone, just those that have done the jobs with unusual risks. I earn under $50,000/year and consider myself part of the "working families" class - unless you are using a sarcastic definition of this - I do not see ANY free medical. Can you explain that one more, please.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>Beth
>>>
>>>Yes, it was sarcastic. Imho, Dem.party definition of "working families" does not include you in that group. I tend to believe that by this definition you are rich and that you don't pay your fair share.
>>>In regard to the college, I didn't see how civil service is linked to unusual risks. The initial message assumed that it would be a mandatory service, i.e. everyone serves and everyone gets free college. Look at that message again, please.
>>
>>Okay, I kind of thought that after reading the "working families" part several times.
>>But, on Tracy's reply - " Also, for those jobs which have an unusual risk: firemen, police, military, etc, I think every single person who serves in those roles should have guaranteed free college. Not just a small $ amount to apply towards college. But guaranteed tuition at the college of their choice (should they be accepted). " I read this as ONLY the people that did these unusual risk jobs - and I have some douth (sp?) about some of the military jobs as being a risk (I was a glorified secretary and a paper pusher for some of my time, not much risk).
>
>I have to apologize to both you and Tracy for incorrect perception of the Tracy's message. Frankly, when I saw mandatory service and then free college in the next statement, I automatically perceived that this is a reward for the mandatory service.
>Well, if mandatory service comes with no reward then it is just awful. Would you consider it a good change?

Yes, I would consider it a good change.
I like all of Tracy's change suggestions. Even if I do not get the benefit from some of it.