[banditrn]

Originally Posted by ingelein

It may not show them how to be good and responsible adults, but what is the alternative of NOT giving the benefits? Maybe they could have more meals in school, so their parents cant drink or drug up the benefits meant for the child? I agree it might be good to remove all children from these homes with drug abusers and put them in foster care.It would be great to have them in an environment in which they can learn by good example , NOT bad.

Ingelein - there ARE no simple or easy answers, I know. But it reminds me of something I heard a fella say recently - he said "I work in a factory where I have to take the occasional drug test. Why don't people who go on welfare have to be drug-tested?" Good question.

Like I mentioned to you in another post - give everyone who needs it a chance - if they aren't disabled, give them six months or so to show an interest in getting a job, or going to school. If at the end of this time, they have made NO progress, they are done! Put their kids with someone who will take care of them Hunger is a great motivater. I don't think that the working folks should have to take care of these people forever.

I'd much rather see my tax-dollars going to assist the 'working poor' with services like child care, health care, rent assistance until such a time as they don't need it anymore, than I would just paying an entitlement to people who have NO intention of ever trying to get ahead.

[twotrees2]

Originally Posted by banditrn

Ingelein - I'm NOT saying that the children are guilty of anything - what I'm saying is if the parent shows NO responsibility in caring for the child, and puts their own needs and wants ahead of the child - they don't DESERVE to have the child, and the child should not be allowed to be their ticket to receiving 'benefits'.

I'm TIRED of seeing children suffer because of the selfishness of adults - when my kids were growing up, our house was the unofficial 'safe house' for a few of these children where they knew they could come and get something to eat and treated well for awhile. One of them we eventually 'adopted'. I've kept in some contact with some of the others - the ones I know about have grown up screwed up, and one of them committed a murder at his mothers behest. I cried over that child because I remember when he was young, and how badly he was treated.

That same young man that we adopted, and his wife took in foster children - one tiny girl they had was kept in a 'cage' when the police found her - she was 2 yo, and her legs were bowed, because she was unable to stand up straight. My son and his wife were given the impression that they would be able to adopt her - but after almost 2 years of fully integrating her into our family - the court decided she should go back to MOM who had attended a 'parenting class'. We learned later that the little girl had to be removed again. Makes me sick.

Not every parent who receives benefits is a terrible parent - but what does a lifetime of living off of the taxpayer show the kids? Does it show them pride in taking care of themselves? Or does it show them methods for entitlement?

and then there are the kids who get told thier parents abandoned them and dont love em ( when they are unable to care for em - and with all their love they give them up, supposedly to a better life ) - and after they get found in the prison system you find out that its because they felt they werent loved by thier parents - werent worthy and were given up and to heck with it just screw the system and steal lie and cheat - i have seen this happen in several families - and that is not good either- they may have not ended up in prison if they had just been kept in thier home with thier "screwed up parent" - sometimes a screwed up parent is better than any foster or otherwise peson who is nasty ( and there are enough of them out there too - " make money beuing a foster parent" ads run a lot around here- and i know there is a background check but that dont mean diddly )- ayhow - just had to get that off my chest cause i have seen it and it makes me sick-

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by twotrees2

and then there are the kids who get told thier parents abandoned them and dont love em ( when they are unable to care for em - and with all their love they give them up, supposedly to a better life ) - and after they get found in the prison system you find out that its because they felt they werent loved by thier parents - werent worthy and were given up and to heck with it just screw the system and steal lie and cheat - i have seen this happen in several families - and that is not good either- they may have not ended up in prison if they had just been kept in thier home with thier "screwed up parent" - sometimes a screwed up parent is better than any foster or otherwise peson who is nasty ( and there are enough of them out there too - " make money beuing a foster parent" ads run a lot around here- and i know there is a background check but that dont mean diddly )- ayhow - just had to get that off my chest cause i have seen it and it makes me sick-

Earlier in this thread, I cited a study that shows a near perfect correlation with the highest areas of crime and the highest areas of fatherlessness in a community.

You want to talk about the psychological affects of abandonment? Fine. YOU make MY point. The GOVERNMENT is the largest source of encouraged father abandonment by not just subsidizing it, but by demanding it as a prerequisite for gov't assistance.

I lay this very charge of yours directly at the feet of your vaunted government programs. How incredible uncompassionate!

It makes me sick.

~faith,
Timothy.

[twotrees2]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

Earlier in this thread, I cited a study that shows a near perfect correlation with the highest areas of crime and the highest areas of fatherlessness in a community.

You want to talk about the psychological affects of abandonment? Fine. YOU make MY point. The GOVERNMENT is the largest source of encouraged father abandonment by not just subsidizing it, but by demanding it as a prerequisite for gov't assistance.

I lay this very charge of yours directly at the feet of your vaunted government programs. How incredible uncompassionate!

It makes me sick.

~faith,
Timothy.

sorry to burst your bubble of rightiousness - but i am not talking about the fathers leaving - i am talking about people deming the father isnt good enough father- going to the house and picking up the kids and blackmailing him into "giving his kids to a better home" - so he loves his kids -knows he isnt the best dad even though he lkoves em and doesnt have a lot of money and rents doesnt own a home and he is a bit slow so he was gullible - and heartbreakingly gives them to the family members who took em away thinking they would be better off with someone with money and a father and mother and a house etc. then these so called " better parents" talking crap about the dad and bashing him and the bashing was NOT warrented- he wasnt THAT bad a parent ( no worse than i ever was when i wa broke and rented and held minimum wage jobs ) - and that new family not allowing father to even be a part of the kids lives telling them he is worthless, even throwing out the cards and letters and taking any monies he sent to them so they did notknow he was trying to stay in contact ....... much different than the father abandoning them - i am talking about the so called "foster parents being jerks as well and having the baility to ruin a kid when in reality had the kid stayed with dad i bet he'd be a better person for having lived in a bit of hardship. so no it does NOT prove your case. it proves my case that taking the kids away from parents who may be "unworthy in some peoples eyes" is not gonna be the answer either. and just because a parent is "slow" doesnt mean they wont do all they can to do right and do all they can to instill good values. matter of fact i believe my son who is well off at 24 and will be retired by the time he is 40 from the military - is where he is beacuse we had a lot of hardships, needed help - and he saw the mistakes and doesnt want to make the same ones.........

by the way- these people who took this oy from his dad - they went to the county and got money for him as foster kids- and fought us in court when i tried to get custody cause they didnt want to loose that money from the state - not all "foster folks" have the kids well ebing at heart was my point. and i have seen enough of them to think its a scam there too. they took MORE govt aide for that boy than the father did - THAT is really a good program to have.... my idea- want to adopt or take in foster kids- better have the cash - i shouldnt havbe to pay for that either than - i will help a struggling family not a family who is looking for cash just by taking in kids to get the money.

maybe next comment will be what is a "slow person having a kid for"?? out of the naysayers mouths - i can hear thier braingears heading that route - it is predictable....- hmm yeah lets spay or neuter all people with iq's less than ?? what???

before stating condesending remarks and twisting things i say -i know i dont alwasy get my point across- maybe you could ask for clarrification before jumping on me and yelling acting like you know it all.

[twotrees2]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

Earlier in this thread, I cited a study that shows a near perfect correlation with the highest areas of crime and the highest areas of fatherlessness in a community.

You want to talk about the psychological affects of abandonment? Fine. YOU make MY point. The GOVERNMENT is the largest source of encouraged father abandonment by not just subsidizing it, but by demanding it as a prerequisite for gov't assistance.

I lay this very charge of yours directly at the feet of your vaunted government programs. How incredible uncompassionate!

It makes me sick.

~faith,
Timothy.

as my post said- the kids who are TOLD thier parents abandoned them - even though they didnt abandon them - they gave em a safer place expecting to be part of thier lives still and were kicked out of thier lives by the so called do gooders.......... just so those dogooders can get money. better yet - notonly were they taking money from the state - they made him pay child support ( not that i have a problem with that - but then why the govt money tioo?) and all the while getting away with not allowing visitation which nothing we could do cause noone had the money to fight it. which was nasty and evil - especially seeing asthey were family ( notice i state WERE family - they will never be family excpet by blood - and the kids do not have naything to do with themnow that they are adults - ) seen it done in my very own family - twice - - the evil persons who did this would not once given the kids let ANYof teh family including grandfolks be a part cause theyknew we would let the kids know that thier father loved em dearly and was trying to keep in contact - so he didnt find out till he was an adult and it was already to late.

[twotrees2]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

Earlier in this thread, I cited a study that shows a near perfect correlation with the highest areas of crime and the highest areas of fatherlessness in a community.

You want to talk about the psychological affects of abandonment? Fine. YOU make MY point. The GOVERNMENT is the largest source of encouraged father abandonment by not just subsidizing it, but by demanding it as a prerequisite for gov't assistance.

I lay this very charge of yours directly at the feet of your vaunted government programs. How incredible uncompassionate!

It makes me sick.

~faith,
Timothy.

i digress - there is one govt. program i can agree on that needs to go -the govt money that goes to foster and or adoptive parents- if they are gonna adopt or foster they ought to have enough money to do so - they should not be allowed to accpet money from the govt. if they really care and want to do it they will gladly do so without the cash. that program is a joke and really needs to go - that is a good as place as any to start discontinuing the programs...........especially when they get child support already - kinda seems like highway robbery taking more moeny just because they call themsleves foster parents. do you know they get MORE money, actual monies, plus childcare and school lunch free and health care free (regardless of THEIR income they get it all even if they make LOTS of money) than any parent struggling out there that gets foodstamps or the like?

[HM2Viking]

FWIW TANF:

Under the TANF structure, the federal government provides a block grant to the states, which use these funds to operate their own programs. States can use TANF dollars in ways designed to meet any of the four purposes set out in federal law, which are to: “(1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; (2) end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; (3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out‑of‑wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and (4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two‑parent families.”

http://www.centeronbudget.org/1-22-02tanf2.htm

Also:

These barriers include: mental and physical impairments; substance abuse; domestic violence; low literacy or skill levels; learning disabilities; having a child with a disability; and problems with housing, child care, or transportation. Many families with barriers to employment remain in TANF, and one of the challenges in the years ahead will be to help them overcome these barriers so they can succeed in the workforce.

http://www.centeronbudget.org/1-22-02tanf2.htm

Part of the solution to poverty (and near poverty) is health promotion which is one of the reasons that SCHIP is so important. Reduction of these barriers often requires smart spending by government to help these families break the cycle of poverty.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by twotrees2

before stating condesending remarks and twisting things i say -i know i dont alwasy get my point across- maybe you could ask for clarrification before jumping on me and yelling acting like you know it all.

I didn't need clarification; I understood your point perfectly.

Yet still, the point you made was about the effects of abandonment. MY point is that the government is the biggest progenitor of abandonment, and it shows: you can map out the effects zip code by zip code in direct correlation to increases in crime and fatherlessness.

YOU were making the point that the government shouldn't 'force' children away from parents because of the psychological damage that could result. Fine. I was making the point that your concern is EXACTLY what the gov't does, on a daily basis, in the name of so-called compassion.

MY point in this thread has been that it is the GOVERNMENT that is systematically destroying families with this notion that aid should only be provided in ways designed to remove the ladders OUT of poverty. In ways designed to remove dads from the equation. It almost seems to me like the welfare state is designed to SUSTAIN poverty instead of ending it.

What does it matter if the government reallocates children directly to foster parents, or just encourages fathers not to play a part? Whatever way you look at it, it comes down to government assisted abandonment.

And YOU'RE right; it's sickening to see.

~faith,
Timothy.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

Part of the solution to poverty (and near poverty) is health promotion which is one of the reasons that SCHIP is so important. Reduction of these barriers often requires smart spending by government to help these families break the cycle of poverty.

SCHIP isn't a poverty program. People in poverty ALREADY qualify for Medicaid.

SCHIP was designed for people ABOVE the poverty line, to a certain limit.

Have you thanked the Republican (Newt Gingrich's) Congress that came up with and passed SCHIP following the utter disaster of Hillarycare? SCHIP wasn't a 'bi-partisan' idea; it was a REPUBLICAN idea.

~faith,
Timothy.

[ZASHAGALKA]

I heard Barry Obama say in a speech the day before yesterday that people that work shouldn't live in poverty.

He got that wrong.

PEOPLE THAT WORK DON'T LIVE IN POVERTY.

The lowest 20% of wage earners have, on average, one part time wage earner per household. THAT is why they are the lowest 20%. THAT lowest 20% has great mobility. MOST move up and out. Over a 20 year period, most move up to at least the middle 20% of wage earners.

The people that aren't upwardly mobile? They are chained to the bottom rungs of our society by the aid that requires them to NOT work. THAT is why they are stuck.

Full time employment is a consistent ladder OUT of poverty. (It's twin ladder is fatherhood.)

75% of all children in poverty would be pulled up OUT of poverty if they had ONE F/T wage earning parent. Another 75% (the population of children overlaps) would be pulled up OUT of poverty if they had ONE F/T father. Children in poverty could be all but eliminated with these two simple things.

So WHY ON EARTH must government aid be dependent on systematically eliminating BOTH ladders from your life? It makes you think (or ME think) that the government is PURPOSELY trying to foster poverty.

~faith,
Timothy.