Re: Tapping kids Social Security

[Greegor]

Greegor wrote:
> http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/14830948.htm
>
> Posted on Fri, Jun. 16, 2006
> N.C. taking foster kids' Social Security money
>
> ERIC FRAZIER
>
> Child welfare agencies in the Carolinas have joined others across the
> nation in diverting to themselves more than $100 million in Social
> Security money the federal government pays to foster children with
> deceased or disabled parents.
>
> The agencies say the money helps pay for care of the children, but some
> child advocates say the government is effectively making parentless
> children pay toward the cost of care that should be free to them.
>
> The Mecklenburg Department of Social Services, for instance, took
> $437,000 in its 2005-06 budget year to help care for about 110 foster
> children.
>
> DSS officials said that money offset the roughly $1.2 million spent on
> their care, mostly in group homes or with foster families. Those
> children represent about 10 percent of the foster children for whom the
> county is legal guardian.
>
> "I think people are entitled to their different views," said Dannette
> Smith, Mecklenburg's top child welfare official. But "if that money was
> not used, the state and county would have to make up the difference."
>
> The N.C. Division of Social Services said it couldn't estimate how
> often it happens. N.C. counties decide whether to screen children to
> see whether they qualify for Social Security benefits.
>
> "It is standard operating practice," said Cleveland County DSS Director
> John Wasson. "The rationale is that you use money from the DSS budget
> to support the child, and any resource they have ought to go toward
> their upkeep."
>
> S.C. DSS officials estimate that they took in about $2.3 million in
> Social Security money for the current budget year.
>
> Generally, when DSS officials find a child who does qualify, the
> agencies insert themselves as the "representative payee" for the
> child's funds, a practice allowed under federal policies. The monthly
> Social Security or disability payment then goes to the DSS agency.
>
> The issue provokes emotional debate between DSS agencies struggling
> with underfunded budgets and child advocates who say the money should
> be saved to help children transition into adulthood.
>
> "When you use up the children's benefits, they are essentially turned
> out into the street at 18 with little to no resources," said Lewis
> Pitts, an attorney with Legal Aid of North Carolina.
>
> "There are national as well as North Carolina groups that are morally
> outraged at the nationwide practice of offsetting budget cuts ... by
> taking, by misappropriating, Social Security benefits that belong to
> the foster kids."
>
> Pitts' client, John G., a 15-year-old Greensboro-area boy, is battling
> the Guilford County Department of Social Services for control of his
> Social Security money.
>
> The teen, who can't be fully identified for confidentiality reasons,
> has an $80,000 house his late adoptive father willed to him. The home
> was threatened with foreclosure because DSS officials wouldn't use his
> $538 per month Social Security payment to handle the mortgage. The
> mortgage on the Habitat for Humanity home is $221 per month.
>
> In a telephone interview Wednesday with the Observer, John said the
> house represents one good thing he has left from a troubled childhood;
> he wants to live in it after he turns 18.
>
> "That'd be something I wouldn't have to worry about right then," he
> said.
>
> But Guilford DSS Director John Shore said if the Social Security money
> can't be used, "it's (like) ordering county taxpayers to preserve this
> asset for the child."
>
> He said his agency was only following state and federal policies
> allowing it to take the Social Security money. Some DSS officials point
> to a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case in which justices said the state of
> Washington wasn't violating a Social Security Act provision that says
> the money can't be garnished.
>
> In a ruling on John G.'s case late last year, District Judge Susan Bray
> scolded Guilford DSS officials and noted that while the high court's
> ruling in the Washington case made it permissible for DSS to take the
> money, it didn't make it mandatory.
>
> Shore said Guilford DSS is paying John's mortgage now, but is also
> appealing the decision to the N.C. Court of Appeals.
>
> Daniel Hatcher, a University of Baltimore law professor, mentioned John
> G. in May as he testified before Congress on the issue. Hatcher
> believes the money should be conserved to help children transition to
> adulthood once they age out of the foster care system at 18.
>
> He cited government statistics showing about 40 percent of foster
> children who age out are dependent on public assistance or Medicaid,
> and more than half were unemployed.
>
> "When a rational person looks at this issue," Hatcher said in a
> telephone interview, "it's hard to come up with a decent argument why
> abused and neglected children shouldn't be allowed to keep their own
> money."

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:

No, actually he didn't. He posted without comment another's post. Why
repost something that was already posted?

Because he thinks he's clever.

How stupid is that, I wonder?

So, shall we go by the new rule, Greg? The one where the person asked
first has to reply? R R R R R

Okay. What's your take on this article?

Gotcha, stupid.

0:->

> Greegor wrote:
>> http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/14830948.htm
>>
>> Posted on Fri, Jun. 16, 2006
>> N.C. taking foster kids' Social Security money
>>
>> ERIC FRAZIER
>>
>> Child welfare agencies in the Carolinas have joined others across the
>> nation in diverting to themselves more than $100 million in Social
>> Security money the federal government pays to foster children with
>> deceased or disabled parents.
>>
>> The agencies say the money helps pay for care of the children, but some
>> child advocates say the government is effectively making parentless
>> children pay toward the cost of care that should be free to them.
>>
>> The Mecklenburg Department of Social Services, for instance, took
>> $437,000 in its 2005-06 budget year to help care for about 110 foster
>> children.
>>
>> DSS officials said that money offset the roughly $1.2 million spent on
>> their care, mostly in group homes or with foster families. Those
>> children represent about 10 percent of the foster children for whom the
>> county is legal guardian.
>>
>> "I think people are entitled to their different views," said Dannette
>> Smith, Mecklenburg's top child welfare official. But "if that money was
>> not used, the state and county would have to make up the difference."
>>
>> The N.C. Division of Social Services said it couldn't estimate how
>> often it happens. N.C. counties decide whether to screen children to
>> see whether they qualify for Social Security benefits.
>>
>> "It is standard operating practice," said Cleveland County DSS Director
>> John Wasson. "The rationale is that you use money from the DSS budget
>> to support the child, and any resource they have ought to go toward
>> their upkeep."
>>
>> S.C. DSS officials estimate that they took in about $2.3 million in
>> Social Security money for the current budget year.
>>
>> Generally, when DSS officials find a child who does qualify, the
>> agencies insert themselves as the "representative payee" for the
>> child's funds, a practice allowed under federal policies. The monthly
>> Social Security or disability payment then goes to the DSS agency.
>>
>> The issue provokes emotional debate between DSS agencies struggling
>> with underfunded budgets and child advocates who say the money should
>> be saved to help children transition into adulthood.
>>
>> "When you use up the children's benefits, they are essentially turned
>> out into the street at 18 with little to no resources," said Lewis
>> Pitts, an attorney with Legal Aid of North Carolina.
>>
>> "There are national as well as North Carolina groups that are morally
>> outraged at the nationwide practice of offsetting budget cuts ... by
>> taking, by misappropriating, Social Security benefits that belong to
>> the foster kids."
>>
>> Pitts' client, John G., a 15-year-old Greensboro-area boy, is battling
>> the Guilford County Department of Social Services for control of his
>> Social Security money.
>>
>> The teen, who can't be fully identified for confidentiality reasons,
>> has an $80,000 house his late adoptive father willed to him. The home
>> was threatened with foreclosure because DSS officials wouldn't use his
>> $538 per month Social Security payment to handle the mortgage. The
>> mortgage on the Habitat for Humanity home is $221 per month.
>>
>> In a telephone interview Wednesday with the Observer, John said the
>> house represents one good thing he has left from a troubled childhood;
>> he wants to live in it after he turns 18.
>>
>> "That'd be something I wouldn't have to worry about right then," he
>> said.
>>
>> But Guilford DSS Director John Shore said if the Social Security money
>> can't be used, "it's (like) ordering county taxpayers to preserve this
>> asset for the child."
>>
>> He said his agency was only following state and federal policies
>> allowing it to take the Social Security money. Some DSS officials point
>> to a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case in which justices said the state of
>> Washington wasn't violating a Social Security Act provision that says
>> the money can't be garnished.
>>
>> In a ruling on John G.'s case late last year, District Judge Susan Bray
>> scolded Guilford DSS officials and noted that while the high court's
>> ruling in the Washington case made it permissible for DSS to take the
>> money, it didn't make it mandatory.
>>
>> Shore said Guilford DSS is paying John's mortgage now, but is also
>> appealing the decision to the N.C. Court of Appeals.
>>
>> Daniel Hatcher, a University of Baltimore law professor, mentioned John
>> G. in May as he testified before Congress on the issue. Hatcher
>> believes the money should be conserved to help children transition to
>> adulthood once they age out of the foster care system at 18.
>>
>> He cited government statistics showing about 40 percent of foster
>> children who age out are dependent on public assistance or Medicaid,
>> and more than half were unemployed.
>>
>> "When a rational person looks at this issue," Hatcher said in a
>> telephone interview, "it's hard to come up with a decent argument why
>> abused and neglected children shouldn't be allowed to keep their own
>> money."
>


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[[email protected]]

it doesn't matter how many times it's been said
before...............it's still worth repeating..............follow the
money trail...............cps isn't about children.............it's
about otherwise useless individuals raking in the dough at taxpayer's
expense..................

[0:->]

wrote:
> it doesn't matter how many times it's been said
> before...............it's still worth repeating..............follow the
> money trail...............cps isn't about children.............it's
> about otherwise useless individuals raking in the dough at taxpayer's
> expense..................

Your solution for child abuse would be ... ?

Show how it would be accomplished without money please.

I can hardly wait for your answer.

Drugs, Crime, mental illness. Don't leave any factors out.

0:->



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
>> Drugs, Crime, mental illness. Don't leave any factors out.
>
> But damage by individuals PALES compared to
> abuse done to many THOUSANDS of citizens
> by abusive bureaucratic agencies determined to
> destroy and undermine FAMILIES...

Which agencies would that be?

> Did you factor that in?

I can't. You have provided no proof.

When you do, I'll "factor" it "in."

Have you factored in the lack of truth and lack of supporting facts to
your claims yet?

List the agencies. Show the numbers. Prove your claim.

Are you trying to impress Doug with how thoroughly you've swallowed his
propagandist bull**** by ranting this and licking your lips deliciously?

0:->


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[0:->]

wrote:
> the real tragedy of the cps mess is its heavy-handed and agenda-driven
> bureaucracy destroyed the public's trust in the ability of
> publicly-funded complex political institutions to resolve childcare
> inadequacies.............the numerous disasters and injustices created
> by cps ruined any chance for more creative and successful answers in
> the foreseeable future................
>
> ]:^< runs around her dog lot barking about alternatives to
> cps..................

Hyperbolic bushwah, lil 'o'

0:->


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[[email protected]]

ooooooooooooooh nooooooooooooo, it's reality.............dumb asses
like you can't think outside your oversized overpriced bureaucratic
mold.............cps is the hummer of bureaucracies.................the
g-a-s that drives is composed of equal parts greed, arrogance, and
stupidity.............

]:^< runs around her dog lot barking cps today.............cps
tomorrow.............cps forever.............blame it on the
parents.............

[0:->]

wrote:
> ooooooooooooooh nooooooooooooo, it's reality.............dumb asses
> like you can't think outside your oversized overpriced bureaucratic
> mold.............cps is the hummer of bureaucracies.................the
> g-a-s that drives is composed of equal parts greed, arrogance, and
> stupidity.............
>
> ]:^< runs around her dog lot barking cps today.............cps
> tomorrow.............cps forever.............blame it on the
> parents.............
>

<yaaaawn>

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Kane, Is this pilfering of the kids Social Security
funds in line with your ""conservative"" views? :)

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane, Is this pilfering of the kids Social Security
> funds in line with your ""conservative"" views? :)

It isn't pilfering.

It is support.

Who, exactly, if the child has no one to support them, should?

Which is the fairer option? To take from the public coffers or from the
SS funding source?

Why don't you write a book on it?

And yes, it IS a conservative value to take NOT from the public, but
from the individual for his or her support.

It is a LIBERAL value to bury financial reality in "taxing" for social
programs.

You haven't figured this out yet?

0:->

Or possibly you wish the children to not be cared for and die?

0:->


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane, Is this pilfering of the kids Social Security
> funds in line with your ""conservative"" views? :)

Continuing from last post.

Consider if the following is a conservative scheme or a liberal one?

"Social Security money the federal government pays to foster children
with deceased or disabled parents.

The agencies say the money helps pay for care of the children, but some
child advocates say the government is effectively making parentless
children pay toward the cost of care that should be free to them."

Where exactly did that money in a social security account come from?

Why would it NOT be appropriate to use for the child's support?

You are aware this is not a majority of the children in care, right?

Only deceased or disabled parents children.

Why should the public pay out of tax monies again?

You really are a liberal, Greg. You just don't know it, because liberals
tend to be both self deluding and liars.

0:->




--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

ooh! Two different rapid fire messages!
That's even better than stuttering! ROFL!

Do you think this issue is good for PR?
How many politicians of any stripe are speaking
in support of this financial strategy?

Are CPS workers being paid from childrens
plundered Social Security accounts?

Will this start a new trend where people
who apply for Food Stamps or welfare
will have it removed from their Social Security?
With 10% kept off the top for agency overhead?

If a person owes on taxes or civil judgements
will the IRS or debt holder be allowed to plunder
the persons social security account?

Both of Kane's recent posts attached below.



From: 0:-> (Kane) Mon, Jun 26 2006 12:59 pm
Email: "0:->" >
Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services, alt.parenting.spanking


Greegor wrote:
> Kane, Is this pilfering of the kids Social Security
> funds in line with your ""conservative"" views? :)


It isn't pilfering.

It is support.


Who, exactly, if the child has no one to support them, should?


Which is the fairer option? To take from the public coffers or from the

SS funding source?


Why don't you write a book on it?


And yes, it IS a conservative value to take NOT from the public, but
from the individual for his or her support.


It is a LIBERAL value to bury financial reality in "taxing" for social
programs.


You haven't figured this out yet?


0:->


Or possibly you wish the children to not be cared for and die?


0:->

From: 0:-> (Kane) Mon, Jun 26 2006 1:02 pm
Email: "0:->" >
Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services, alt.parenting.spanking


Greegor wrote:
> Kane, Is this pilfering of the kids Social Security
> funds in line with your ""conservative"" views? :)


Continuing from last post.

Consider if the following is a conservative scheme or a liberal one?


"Social Security money the federal government pays to foster children
with deceased or disabled parents.


The agencies say the money helps pay for care of the children, but some

child advocates say the government is effectively making parentless
children pay toward the cost of care that should be free to them."


Where exactly did that money in a social security account come from?


Why would it NOT be appropriate to use for the child's support?


You are aware this is not a majority of the children in care, right?


Only deceased or disabled parents children.


Why should the public pay out of tax monies again?


You really are a liberal, Greg. You just don't know it, because
liberals
tend to be both self deluding and liars.


0:->

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> ooh! Two different rapid fire messages!
> That's even better than stuttering! ROFL!

Your debate is now reduced to criticizing form?

Gee what next, some spelling corrections?

> Do you think this issue is good for PR?

I've no idea. Do you think you'll find another child to rape?

> How many politicians of any stripe are speaking
> in support of this financial strategy?

Why don't you find out?

Count those that say nothing as being in approval.

> Are CPS workers being paid from childrens
> plundered Social Security accounts?

No. Nor are they plundered.

> Will this start a new trend where people
> who apply for Food Stamps or welfare
> will have it removed from their Social Security?
> With 10% kept off the top for agency overhead?

It can't be unless they are eligible for SS payments.

The children are.

> If a person owes on taxes or civil judgements
> will the IRS or debt holder be allowed to plunder
> the persons social security account?

You seem to be sliding deeper into your delusional fantasies.
>
> Both of Kane's recent posts attached below.

Yes, and I note the issues being challenged that you stayed miles away
from though YOU opened the can of worms yourself.

Pretty sick way to debate, Greg.

You question my conservatism, but YOU take the liberal tack, while I the
conservative one of families being responsible for supporting their
children (even if through SS accounts).

Now tell us, little devious dodger: who will pay to support the children
if their parent's SS accounts do not?

Come on, "conservative," give it your best shot, instead of just another
yelping, tail between your legs, frightened cowardly puppy-dog show.

When did you, by the way, stop ****ing Lisa's daughter?

0;->

>
> From: 0:-> (Kane) Mon, Jun 26 2006 12:59 pm
> Email: "0:->" >
> Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services, alt.parenting.spanking
>
>
> Greegor wrote:
>> Kane, Is this pilfering of the kids Social Security
>> funds in line with your ""conservative"" views? :)
>
>
> It isn't pilfering.
>
> It is support.
>
>
> Who, exactly, if the child has no one to support them, should?
>
>
> Which is the fairer option? To take from the public coffers or from the
>
> SS funding source?
>
>
> Why don't you write a book on it?
>
>
> And yes, it IS a conservative value to take NOT from the public, but
> from the individual for his or her support.
>
>
> It is a LIBERAL value to bury financial reality in "taxing" for social
> programs.
>
>
> You haven't figured this out yet?
>
>
> 0:->
>
>
> Or possibly you wish the children to not be cared for and die?
>
>
> 0:->
>
> From: 0:-> (Kane) Mon, Jun 26 2006 1:02 pm
> Email: "0:->" >
> Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services, alt.parenting.spanking
>
>
> Greegor wrote:
>> Kane, Is this pilfering of the kids Social Security
>> funds in line with your ""conservative"" views? :)
>
>
> Continuing from last post.
>
> Consider if the following is a conservative scheme or a liberal one?
>
>
> "Social Security money the federal government pays to foster children
> with deceased or disabled parents.
>
>
> The agencies say the money helps pay for care of the children, but some
>
> child advocates say the government is effectively making parentless
> children pay toward the cost of care that should be free to them."
>
>
> Where exactly did that money in a social security account come from?
>
>
> Why would it NOT be appropriate to use for the child's support?
>
>
> You are aware this is not a majority of the children in care, right?
>
>
> Only deceased or disabled parents children.
>
>
> Why should the public pay out of tax monies again?
>
>
> You really are a liberal, Greg. You just don't know it, because
> liberals
> tend to be both self deluding and liars.
>
>
> 0:->
>


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Kane wrote
> When did you, by the way, stop ****ing Lisa's daughter?

False accusation of sexual abuse?
Because I asked you what PR firm you work for
and whether they get their money's worth from you?

Somebody's CRANKY!
Did your air conditioner break down or what?

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
>> When did you, by the way, stop ****ing Lisa's daughter?
>
> False accusation of sexual abuse?

See the little question mark?

You sir, are making a false accusation of an accusation. I made no such
accusation. See the little question mark?

You would have done will to have used one with your comments to Betty
about a flurry of phone calls, and 'when' CPS will show up at her door.

> Because I asked you what PR firm you work for
> and whether they get their money's worth from you?

Nope. Because you asked me the classic, "when did you stop beating your
wife," ploy question.

They can't get their money's worth because I do not work for one. Yet
you chose to ignore it, and I notice, NOT refute my question of
you...now why IS that I wonder?

> Somebody's CRANKY!

I suspect you are projecting.

> Did your air conditioner break down or what?

I don't need one. I just sit in my pool.

Now, will you admit to having raped children, or not?

I already admitted that I do not work for, nor every have worked for, a
PR firm.

So your continued posing of the question amounts now to simple mindless
harassment.

By the way, ask Doug if he ever held a position with an Anti-CPS,
"reform" group where he was in charge of public relations.

When you sling mud you want to be sure about who is already muddy.

0:->


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Whiney!