Don's parent hating drivel

On May 31, 9:05 am, "Ron" wrote:
"Dan Sullivan" wrote in message

ups.com...



On May 31, 9:31 am, Greegor wrote:
On May 31, 5:45 am, Dragon's Girl wrote:

On May 30, 9:15 pm, Greegor wrote:

G Supposedly it costs the state $100K per year
G to keep custody of a kid in Foster Contractor care.

K What is your source? Please indicate a way to validate it, in
this
K medium. Thanks. I'm not interested in your propagandist sources,
Greg.
K So you can NOT waste our time coming from there. Or them.
K
K I think, by the way, if I recall some figures I've seen, it's
more
K than that in some places, and less in others. And you can't
average
K it, unless you average the expenses differences in the different
K locales. I don't believe anyone has done that.

Splitting hairs about the $100 K?
Playing games demanding sources?

Exact numbers are not necessary when the
ratio is well over TEN to ONE!

Your own chafing comments indicate that the 100K figure
is roughly on target, which is all that is necessary.

Do you agree with the CWLA's assertion that
1/3 of kids in Foster Care could be sent home
except for HOUSING problems?

What is your argument for putting those kids
in Foster Contractor homes instead of providing
housing assistance?

I don't know about him, but I have a problem with that housing
assistance idea.

There are options for people with housing issues.

There are shelters. Some that you pay nothing to live in, and some in
which you pay a little, and others in which you either pay or work for
your room and board.

I've heard of agencies removing kids BECAUSE
the family is in a homeless shelter.

"I've heard of... I've seen... I've met... "

The usual Greg BS statements.

Actually Dan, I have seen this myself. The difference is that I know why it
happens, gregg just refuses to use his head to figure it out.

Most homeless shelters are not equipped to handle families with children.
The kids have to go somewhere, cant just leave them on the street while the
parents are all nice and warm in a shelter somewhere. Foster care is a
reasonable alternative to street life. Not that gregg would ever
acknowledge that fact.



Then, there is federal housing for low income. HUD, if you will. HUD
pays for the housing expenses that a family cannot pay for. It's
based on their incomes, so if your income is pretty low you pay very
little for your rent and the government pays for th rest.

Section 8 Leased Housing Assistance
Long waiting list, most landlords won't take it (stigma)
and many landlords who do take it fix nothing
between yearly inspections. In 1994 my then family
was approved for a three bedroom house with a
maximum monthly rent of $500. After a LONG hard search
I did the impossible and talked a landlord into taking 500
for a place that reasonably rented for $550.
We were absolutely NOT allowed to pay the extra
$50 under the table or otherwise.

How motivated do you think the landlord was to fix things?

Greg, if you wanted the landlord to get what the apt was worth... and
you weren't allowed to pay the extra $50 under the table or otherwise,
why didn't you use the $50 per month to upgrade the apt and fix things
yourself?

Hmmm, I've been doing upgrades to me home for some time now, and I know that
$50 a month isnt going to get much done. Not repairs. Simple stuff, paint
and the like, yes, but replacing things like toilets or other fixtures?

Then again I know the market in Iowa. $500 a month can get on a fairly nice
place.

Ron

I knew a family in california. Two parents and three kids.
They complained incessantly about not being able to get housing quick
enough.
I don't know why. They would have never used it.
Instead of living in a decent place and being happy with it they whine
all the time about where they lived.
I personally thought it was a pretty nice place.
They talked about wanting to move to a nicer place.
The place that they wanted had swimming pool and tennis courts and a
gym.
I ask, is it reasonable for people on welfare to think that they
should be handed housing like THAT?
People these days don't want what they can afford.
They want it ALL. RIGHT NOW.
My generation sucks big time.

firemonkey wrote:
Low income housing for people like Greg, who have violent criminal
histories, is mute anyway, this population is not allowed into these
programs.
Firemonkey

Why do you perverts obsess over Mr. Hanson ??

Seems every fag who lurks here has an obsession with Greg.

Whats up with that firedonkey??

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Kennyboy, Please provide proof that I am a perv. Didnt your own step
daughter state you molested her? Know whos the perv?
And why cant you let greg speak for himself?
Firemonkey

On May 31, 9:30 am, Jason Ryels wrote:
firemonkey wrote:
Low income housing for people like Greg, who have violent criminal
histories, is mute anyway, this population is not allowed into these
programs.
Firemonkey

Why do you perverts obsess over Mr. Hanson ??

Seems every fag who lurks here has an obsession with Greg.

Whats up with that firedonkey??

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

firemonkey wrote:
Kennyboy, Please provide proof that I am a perv. Didnt your own step
daughter state you molested her? Know whos the perv?
And why cant you let greg speak for himself?
Firemonkey

You pimp for perverts - your best daddy is a the disgusting piece of
**** who spammed Oregon's most vulnerable children to usenet perverts.

Why is homoism and perversion the focal points of your life.

Yo daddy taught you well, little perv. lol.


On May 31, 9:30 am, Jason Ryels wrote:
firemonkey wrote:
Low income housing for people like Greg, who have violent criminal
histories, is mute anyway, this population is not allowed into these
programs.
Firemonkey
Why do you perverts obsess over Mr. Hanson ??

Seems every fag who lurks here has an obsession with Greg.

Whats up with that firedonkey??

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Is this the best you can do Kennyboy? I just LOVE the way you are
showing yourself Pangborn!!! My daddy died 20 years ago, he was a
good man.
Firemonkey


On May 31, 11:32 am, Jason Ryels wrote:
firemonkey wrote:
Kennyboy, Please provide proof that I am a perv. Didnt your own step
daughter state you molested her? Know whos the perv?
And why cant you let greg speak for himself?
Firemonkey

You pimp for perverts - your best daddy is a the disgusting piece of
**** who spammed Oregon's most vulnerable children to usenet perverts.

Why is homoism and perversion the focal points of your life.

Yo daddy taught you well, little perv. lol.







On May 31, 9:30 am, Jason Ryels wrote:
firemonkey wrote:
Low income housing for people like Greg, who have violent criminal
histories, is mute anyway, this population is not allowed into these
programs.
Firemonkey
Why do you perverts obsess over Mr. Hanson ??

Seems every fag who lurks here has an obsession with Greg.

Whats up with that firedonkey??

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

firemonkey wrote:
Is this the best you can do Kennyboy? I just LOVE the way you are
showing yourself Pangborn!!! My daddy died 20 years ago, he was a
good man.
Firemonkey

So now you wander through life sucking off strangers you meet on usenet?
lol.

And you pick the most despicable piece of CPS **** in history to suck
off in public.

You fags crack me up. lol.

Hint: I'm not Kenny, you retarded dip****.



On May 31, 11:32 am, Jason Ryels wrote:
firemonkey wrote:
Kennyboy, Please provide proof that I am a perv. Didnt your own step
daughter state you molested her? Know whos the perv?
And why cant you let greg speak for himself?
Firemonkey
You pimp for perverts - your best daddy is a the disgusting piece of
**** who spammed Oregon's most vulnerable children to usenet perverts.

Why is homoism and perversion the focal points of your life.

Yo daddy taught you well, little perv. lol.







On May 31, 9:30 am, Jason Ryels wrote:
firemonkey wrote:
Low income housing for people like Greg, who have violent criminal
histories, is mute anyway, this population is not allowed into these
programs.
Firemonkey
Why do you perverts obsess over Mr. Hanson ??
Seems every fag who lurks here has an obsession with Greg.
Whats up with that firedonkey??
--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0:-] wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007 08:36:13 -0400, Jason Ryels
wrote:

Dragon's Girl wrote:
On May 30, 9:15 pm, Greegor wrote:
G Supposedly it costs the state $100K per year
G to keep custody of a kid in Foster Contractor care.

K What is your source? Please indicate a way to validate it, in this
K medium. Thanks. I'm not interested in your propagandist sources,
Greg.
K So you can NOT waste our time coming from there. Or them.
K
K I think, by the way, if I recall some figures I've seen, it's more
K than that in some places, and less in others. And you can't
average
K it, unless you average the expenses differences in the different
K locales. I don't believe anyone has done that.

Splitting hairs about the $100 K?
Playing games demanding sources?

Exact numbers are not necessary when the
ratio is well over TEN to ONE!

Your own chafing comments indicate that the 100K figure
is roughly on target, which is all that is necessary.

Do you agree with the CWLA's assertion that
1/3 of kids in Foster Care could be sent home
except for HOUSING problems?

What is your argument for putting those kids
in Foster Contractor homes instead of providing
housing assistance?
I don't know about him, but I have a problem with that housing
assistance idea.

There are options for people with housing issues.

There are shelters. Some that you pay nothing to live in, and some in
which you pay a little, and others in which you either pay or work for
your room and board.

Then, there is federal housing for low income. HUD, if you will. HUD
pays for the housing expenses that a family cannot pay for. It's
based on their incomes, so if your income is pretty low you pay very
little for your rent and the government pays for th rest.

After that are housing projects. There is one pretty close to me.
The apartments are nice, clean, and cheaper than dirt, and the tenants
not only get housing for their rent, but utilities as well. A friend
of mine lived there years ago. She paid exactly $130 mo for a four
bedroom apartment and utilities.

There are community programs in some areas that will pay for a
security deposit and last month's rent for low income people, and
more.

There are churches that will do the same. The Salvation army runs a
homeless shelter not far from here at a center they have...the place
looks like a motel. Then the Catholic Church runs another even closer
to my house and I've been there many times as a donor, the place IS a
motel. People there, after a period of time, pay rent to live there
(very little) or are expected to work helping to prepare meals, etc,
or a combination for their upkeep.

Now, with ALL that available to people with low income, could you give
me one good reason why DFS fund should ALSO be spent in securing
appropriate housing?
Because taking the kids destroys the children amd family and costs 10x
as much ??

R R R R,,,,BINGO. I point out to krp that since I made the connect YOU
have not posted, and by golly THERE YOU ARE AGAIN, after a break.

Isn't life just filled with coincidence then?

Don/Kane/d'geezer - stick to spamming vulnerable children to faggots,
'cause as an internet detective, well you're a goof.


0:]



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Dan "I've heard of... I've seen... I've met... "
Dan The usual Greg BS statements.

Ron Actually Dan, I have seen this myself. The
Ron difference is that I know why it happens,
Ron gregg just refuses to use his head to figure it out.

Why would it be MY job to figure it out Ron?

Ron Most homeless shelters are not equipped to handle
Ron families with children. The kids have to go somewhere,
Ron cant just leave them on the street while the parents
Ron are all nice and warm in a shelter somewhere. Foster
Ron care is a reasonable alternative to street life. Not
Ron that gregg would ever acknowledge that fact.
snip

G We were absolutely NOT allowed to pay the extra
G $50 under the table or otherwise.
G How motivated do you think the landlord was to fix things?

Dan Greg, if you wanted the landlord to get what the
Dan apt was worth... and you weren't allowed to pay
Dan the extra $50 under the table or otherwise, why
Dan didn't you use the $50 per month to upgrade the
Dan apt and fix things yourself?

Ron Hmmm, I've been doing upgrades to me home for
Ron some time now, and I know that $50 a month isnt
Ron going to get much done. Not repairs. Simple stuff,
Ron paint and the like, yes, but replacing things
Ron like toilets or other fixtures?

Thank you Ron for correcting Dan.

By the way, we DID spendt many hours stripping 8 layers of
wallpaper (with a steamer, still a lot of work) and patching
plaster to get it ready for the landlord to spackle with texture.

The place developed structural problems with the stairway
pulling away from the wall and that was not within reason
for us to fix.

Ron Then again I know the market in Iowa.
Ron $500 a month can get on a fairly nice place.

A 3BR for $500? Right next to the nickel candybars and 25 cent gas.

Firemonkey wrote
Low income housing for people like Greg, who have
violent criminal histories, is mute anyway, this
population is not allowed into these programs.

Actually in 1994 I was 35 years old with a criminal
record of blank so it was not an issue when my then
family had to deal with the Leased Housing mess.

If I wanted to live in "the projects" now I honestly
don't know if 12 year old misdemeanors would
block me from such programs.

If 12 year old misdemeanors block people from
housing that would be like what, half the country?

From: "Ron"
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 09:05:32 -0500

Dan "I've heard of... I've seen... I've met... "
Dan The usual Greg BS statements.

Ron Actually Dan, I have seen this myself. The
Ron difference is that I know why it happens,
Ron gregg just refuses to use his head to figure it out.
Dan "I've heard of... I've seen... I've met... "
Dan The usual Greg BS statements.

Ron Actually Dan, I have seen this myself. The
Ron difference is that I know why it happens,
Ron gregg just refuses to use his head to figure it out.

Why would it be MY job to figure it out Ron?

Ron Most homeless shelters are not equipped to handle
Ron families with children. The kids have to go somewhere,
Ron cant just leave them on the street while the parents
Ron are all nice and warm in a shelter somewhere. Foster
Ron care is a reasonable alternative to street life. Not
Ron that gregg would ever acknowledge that fact.
snip

G We were absolutely NOT allowed to pay the extra
G $50 under the table or otherwise.
G How motivated do you think the landlord was to fix things?

Dan Greg, if you wanted the landlord to get what the
Dan apt was worth... and you weren't allowed to pay
Dan the extra $50 under the table or otherwise, why
Dan didn't you use the $50 per month to upgrade the
Dan apt and fix things yourself?

Ron Hmmm, I've been doing upgrades to me home for
Ron some time now, and I know that $50 a month isnt
Ron going to get much done. Not repairs. Simple stuff,
Ron paint and the like, yes, but replacing things
Ron like toilets or other fixtures?

Thank you Ron for correcting Dan.

By the way, we DID spendt many hours stripping 8 layers of
wallpaper (with a steamer, still a lot of work) and patching
plaster to get it ready for the landlord to spackle with texture.

The place developed structural problems with the stairway
pulling away from the wall and that was not within reason
for us to fix.

Ron Then again I know the market in Iowa.
Ron $500 a month can get on a fairly nice place.

A 3BR for $500? Right next to the nickel candybars and 25 cent gas.

Firemonkey wrote
Low income housing for people like Greg, who have
violent criminal histories, is mute anyway, this
population is not allowed into these programs.

Actually in 1994 I was 35 years old with a criminal
record of blank so it was not an issue when my then
family had to deal with the Leased Housing mess.

If I wanted to live in "the projects" now I honestly
don't know if 12 year old misdemeanors would
block me from such programs.

If 12 year old misdemeanors block people from
housing that would be like what, half the country?

G (described how landlord took less than going rate under Leased
Housing)
G How motivated do you think the landlord was to fix things?

Dragon's Girl (Betty) May 31, 10:53 am wrote
Betty How motivated were you to pay your own
Betty rent instead of living on assistance?

This was 1994 Betty! My Bipolar then-wife had a huge array
of assistance for over a decade before I came along.
When I earned money we lost more benefits than I made.
Her money wasn't my money but my money was hers.


Betty You live in Iowa, tell me that housing there is
Betty outrageous,

Did I?

Betty but you aren't motivated to find a less expensive
Betty place to live?

You mean like a town with a population of 12 and no jobs?

Betty I used to live in Chicago.
Betty My rent at a crappy two bedroom apartment was
Betty over $500 mo. I came down here and rented a
Betty fair two bedroom HOUSE for $250.
Betty Why stay where you can't live?

That also applies to small towns with no jobs
within commuting distance.

Lots of people who make long commutes
are having HUGE problems with their
gasoline bills right now.

Betty After that are housing projects. There is one pretty close to
me.
Betty The apartments are nice, clean, and cheaper than dirt, and the
tenants
Betty not only get housing for their rent, but utilities as well. A
friend
Betty of mine lived there years ago. She paid exactly $130 mo for a
four
Betty bedroom apartment and utilities.

G Those aren't so cheap here!
G This area had one that charged considerably more than that
G and became so notorious for being a crime zone ghetto
G that even poor people would not rent there.
G They actually changed the name of the whole string
G of apartments, changed the street name, and gave absolutely
G everybody in it advance notice to move out.
G Maybe they went condo or something...

Betty Again, high cost of living and you stay there?

Nope. I didn't say I did. Never lived there.

Betty wrote
There are community programs in some areas that will pay for a
security deposit and last month's rent for low income people, and
more.
There are churches that will do the same. The Salvation army runs a
homeless shelter not far from here at a center they have...the place
looks like a motel.


G They shut down a big drug and alcohol treatment
G residence here in 1996.

So? That's not the same thing as a homeless shelter.

In this community Salvation Army has a huge breakfast feed.
The crowds are incredible.
The main homeless shelter is a United Way thing.

Betty wrote
Then the Catholic Church runs another even closer
to my house and I've been there many times as a donor, the place IS a
motel. People there, after a period of time, pay rent to live there
(very little) or are expected to work helping to prepare meals, etc,
or a combination for their upkeep.
Now, with ALL that available to people with low income, could you give
me one good reason why DFS fund should ALSO be spent in securing
appropriate housing?

Greg wrote
Not ALSO, INSTEAD OF!
It's VASTLY cheaper than $100K per year Foster Contracting!
It avoids harming kids by needless damaging removal from parents.

Betty Can you please provide proof of your 100K claims.
Betty It's my understanding that it costs around 30k
Betty per year here. Not 100k.

Did you miss where Kane argued about the amount by saying that
it's more than that in some areas and less in others?
His quibbling about precise amount was a dodge. It's roughly right.
I actually based the figure on a news story where the agency
stated their costs and the number of kids and I did the math.
One thing you might be missing is that there is a huge OVERHEAD
that has to be paid. It's not just about the ""reimbursements""
the state gives to the Foster Contractors. Attorneys all around,
Judge, court facilities, administrative overhead, labor costs,
licensing inspections, training, legal liabilities etc.

As is always the case with such a big complex tarbaby,
having precise figures is a virtual impossibility.
(And padding the bills is of course rampant)

NONE of this matters to THE POINT!

Typical cost of keeping just one kid in the system
because of inadequate HOUSING makes the point.
If you cut it in HALF or DOUBLE it, the point is valid.

G Just one year of $100K Foster Contracting
G could pay THIRTEEN YEARS RENT!

Betty Yipppppeeeee! Don't take care of your kids
Betty and you can get rewarded with 13 years free rent!
Betty I like that idea.

10K welfare to a poor family makes more sense
than 100K spent to keep a kid in the system.

Sadly, We already have a huge number of people
living on the web of social programs much
like your sarcastic quip describes!

Cedar Rapids has an entire invisible ECONOMY
as a cluster community for people with all
types of disabilities. Disabled people are
moved into this area by the droves.
Many whole apartment complexes are filled with them.
The social workers just go door to door.
They can see a large number of clients in a day.

It would make more sense to me that families in crisis would utilize
those services instead of laying around until DFS took their kids and
then expect the DFS office to pay their way.

$10K is not more than $100K.
Child removal causes a lot of very real damage. Price tag?
Child removal should not be done because of HOUSING problems.

Why is 100K welfare for various system sucks
better than 10 K of HUMAN SERVICES ?

Do you believe in welfare for the rich?

It seems as though your answer to every ill is for DFS to 'fix' it,

In a national arena like this, CPS would be a more precise term than
DFS.
Another generic term for the UMBRELLA organizations is ""HUMAN
SERVICES"".
If they don't MEAN IT maybe they should just close shop!

when the facts are that if a family gets into a huge bind that causes
their child to be removed from their care then all the 'fixing' in the
world won't make things better because the family will end up right
back in the same condition sooner or later.

In other words the kids are in imminent danger of being poor.

B Do you think all (that's ALLL) cases of families who
B cannot pay certain amounts for rent is because they
B are poor?
B Greg, some people just don't know how to budget their money.

They eventually can get put under a public PAYEE.
There is one guy here that does this for THOUSANDS of people.
The checks go to him and he supervises the money.
The huge crowd of retarded people here all bitch about it
and some have even made false accusations of abuse, but
they are after all, retarded, and do need the money help.

I know of two people who were not retarded who actually
got placed under the public PAYEE for a time.

One got back out from under the payee after a time.
I don't know about the other one.
MOST of them are disabled in some way.

B Some people live in places that they can't afford.
B Some people have the money, just aren't responsible with it.

Elected officials, Enron, Andersen Accounting...

B And still some others just don't give a rip.

You ARE talking about politicians aren't you!

Let me give you an example.

A family of six lives in a home with two bedrooms. Not enough room
for all the kids...they are sharing one small bedroom. DFS gets a
hotline...what reason doesn't really matter...and the kids must be
removed. The parents are directed to secure a larger living space to
have the children placed back within their home.

Illegal removal. No Imminent danger of serious bodily harm.

How? I never stated what the reason was for the removal.

Perhaps you are OFF THE SUBJECT?
Just to refresh your memory, CWLA, the biggest mouthpiece
of the Child Protection INDUSTRY ITSELF actually stated
that one THIRD of all kids in Foster Care could go home
if they just had adequate HOUSING.

That is what the discussion is based on.

Now, if DFS pays for rent for this family to get a larger home, say,
three months, how long do you think it would be before this family
could no longer pay their rent and get evicted?


One kid in Foster system costs $100K per year!
The agency could pay THIRTEEN YEARS of rent for that!

Again, can you prove that?

THIRTEEN TIMES OVER!
Cut it in half the reasoning is still valid!

Quibbling about the precise numbers is futile.
Most of the numbers that the agencies have
are all bureaucratic BS and self justification
anyway.

Personally, I would suspect that the number
might actually be FAVORABLE to the agencies
who after all, concocted the numbers.

And of course if the rent is LESS than 641
per month the money would go MUCH farther.

Or they could help the family get a jump on the huge waiting list
for Leased Housing (HUD?) or BUY them a home for less!

B Oh dear lord. BUY them a home?
B You have got to be kidding!
B That's not what MY tax money is for.

$10K to the poor or the $100K of
tax money that doesn't go to the poor?

(I haven't even mentioned states recouping
costs through Child Support that were ALREADY
paid to them by the Federal Government FUNDING!)

(Or the brilliance of putting a Child Support burden
on people who are made homeless by it.)

B You think I want the state to use my tax money
B to buy a home for a family involved with DFS
B and NOT pay the remainder of the mortgage on
B mine? Bull****.

Did you get the first time homeowner assistance?
Who do you think paid that?

Are the taxpayers guaranteed you won't flounder?

G Rather than $100K per year, *and* the damage
G of child removal and the huge potential for
G law suits, the state can afford to be more
G creative where HOUSING is the issue.

B Let me try this again.
B I will say it slow so you can understand it:
B It's not the state's job.
B It's the parent's job.
B Doesn't that make any sense to you at all?
B Is personal responsibility a foreign concept to you?

Maybe that JOB was exported to India or Mexico?
What does personal responsibility mean in the land of Enron?
In the Child Protection INDUSTRY where rules and requirements
are bent to serve the AGENCY needs ratherm than citizens needs?
Like FDA serving Big Pharma at the expense of public safety?
Like WMD?

You are trying to lecture me about personal responsibility
because you would rather spend $100K feeding bureaucrats
rather than $10K going to the poor (from a HUMAN SERVICES agency..).

It's a temporary fix, because if the family lived in a home that was
too small to begin with that indicates to me that their income isn't
sufficient to pay rent for a larger place, and after the DFS payments
end they will be back at square one.

Foster Care is a temporary fix and removal causes damage to kids.
The built in "Concurrent Planning" for adoption takes on a truly evil
dimension in a case like this where a kid is removed because of
HOUSING!

B Foster care is not always a temporary fix.
B Foster parents often adopt the children they care for when the
B children cannot be returned to their homes. That's not temporary.

All the more sick.

Does that really make sense to you? That DFS should spend money to
help a family move from what they can barely afford to what they
really cannot afford at all?


What they spend for just one year in Foster system would pay
THIRTEEN YEARS of rent for the family!

If only housing were the only thing to consider.
Again, my example did not include a reason for removal.
Just that the parents were instructed to secure better housing.

And another point to this is that you seem to think that DFS is
responsible for fixing the problems that cause removal of a child, but
that is not so. The PARENTS are responsible for the fixing.


REASONABLE EFFORTS is a requirement the agencies have TWISTED
to be more of a profit center $ than efforts in good faith.
Is it reasonable to spend $100K per year to keep a kid in Foster
system
when that amount would pay for THIRTEEN YEARS of rent for that family?



B You think spending 100k on a house for ANYONE is REASONABLE?

G Compared to $100K currently spent at the drop of a hat.

B I bet there are a whole lot of tax payers out
B there who would disagree with you.

10K housing is less than $100K to keep a kid in the system because of
housing.
Fiscally smarter.
Morally smarter.
Ethically smarter.

Remember Betty, the CPS INDUSTRY use to preach "It's about the kids!".

Twenty two years ago the city that I lived in had a program like one I
described above. They paid my security deposit so that I could move
into a house I was renting. I was solely responsible for the rent. I
never received any housing assistance since because I knew that if I
didn't pay it, I would be the one out on the street with kids and
jeopardizing the welfare of my children.

That's called being responsible.

Twenty two years ago? Those sorts of things do change Betty.
Programs get cut, jobs are exported, mergers and aquisitions
cause people with mortgaged 300K homes to become homeless.

B Who buys a home that costs that much if they
B can't afford it through any scenario?

Any scenario? Like when Enron folded up?

Look, Betty, if you were to watch a busy street and
investigate you would find that most of the rolling
stock going down the road is owned by the BANK.
Why that makes some guy feel like he has bigger ..parts
to OWE more to the BANK perplexes me.
Car Repos and home foreclosures are common.
Our whole consumer culture is nuts if you ask me!
Overcommitment has become the American Way!

It's no consolation but even people who make
over a million per year do incredibly stupid
things with money. Like running half a Mil
in high interest credit card debt rather than
pay off and avoid the HUGE interest drain!

Do you ever look through the Bankruptcy notices
in the paper and look at the debts and what
they claim as exempt?

More are being gradually paid off, but some
are still being discharged (voided) by bankruptcy.

But have you ever noticed that most of the
bankruptcies are NOT poor people?

Remember what you said about Personal Responsibility?
Contrast that with the bankruptcies and how
they get to keep some EXPENSIVE toys. Should they?

It's not like bankruptcies are little old ladies
losing their homes. More like fat cats keeping
their $400K homes and expensive car and all
of the crap inside their house, and losing
some other toys. Corporate bankruptcies are
even more rediculous.

G Just like most other areas we had those Enron like
G corporate disasters/mergers/aquisitions/sales overseas.
G One person I know here was riding high at MCI until the
G huge collapse/mergers/aquisitions at MCI a few years
G back. Donating plasma for $30 after that.
G Was he not responsible?
G How could he guarantee that wouldn't happen again?

Ummm, by getting another job?
Are you going to tell me that this guy didn't have enough experience,
education etc that he could not find another job and HAD to sell
plasma at $30 a go around?
Come on! I can hardly believe that.

Cedar Rapids lost a HUGE number of jobs in a short period of time.
When that happens and it coincides with a big national slump,
the old "get a job" slam is really not fair.

I put a hefty sum down on my house a few years ago to ensure that the
payments on my house would be reasonable. However, if something were
to happen that would prevent me from being able to pay the house
payment anymore I would not expect DFS to pay it for me. I would sell
the house and use the equity funds to buy another house outright.

CPS sees moving as an instability.

Bank foreclosures are taking place at an exploding rate.
Most people in such distress can't sell before the foreclosure.

B And I bet most of them didn't bother to put money in
B the bank to live on when things went sour. I bet
B that instead they maxed out their credit cards, bought
B expensive jewelry and cars, and didn't bother to save
B for a rainy day.

I agree! I would bet the same way in most cases.
As I said further above it's the American Way!
Even stranger is how the bankruptcy courts
don't MAKE fallen fat cats sell their 400K residence or
their Jaguar to buy a more modest house and car.

B But since they didn't it's MY tax money that's
B supposed to buy them a new 100k house?
B Oh ****. I don't think so.

Look at the fat cats in the bankruptcy notices
and tell me about poor people who don't manage money.
Paying to keep a poor kid in a home makes more sense
than a LOT of our government spending and economics
in this country!

If you want to worry about wasted tax money, HOUSING
is the LEAST of your worries really.

Your expectations of DFS are too high, and of parents far too low.
You cannot expect the state to be responsible for the personal needs
of families. The parents are supposed to be responsible for their
children and it's not the state's job to pay for rent, food, clothing,
shelter. If parents can't accomplish taking care of these things
BEFORE DFS intervention, how can we reasonably expect that they will
take care of them once DFS is out of the picture?


PARENTS must demonstrate that the condition that caused, or
contributed to the removal of their children


G HOUSING?
G That is not imminent danger of serious bodily harm!

B And once more, I tell you that I did not
B say that housing was the reason for removal.

You missed the basis of my whole argument.
The CWLA stated that one THIRD of all kids in Foster Care
could go home if they just had adequate HOUSING.
The Child Welfare League of America is the biggest
mouthpiece for the Child Protection INDUSTRY, which
makes this a HUGE statement coming from them!


B no longer exists and there is reasonable proof that
B the condition will not arise in the future.

G Again, this is not imminent danger of serious bodily harm!

B Do I have to say it again?
B Just because DFS instructs them to do so
B does not mean it would be the only blocker to return.

According to the CWLA ITSELF, it is
for that 1/3 of all kids in Foster
Care I'm talking about.

G NOBODY can make such guarantees.
G Most people in the USA are only two paychecks
G away from the homeless shelter.

B Yep.
B And that's the state's fault how?

The list is too long. NAFTA has become beneficial
to the rich at the expense of middle class jobs.

G I am an economic conservative and I don't really
G LIKE advocating government handouts.

B Well jesus you sure do pound it pretty hard,
B and your theories sound
B outrageous to me.

Welcome to the land of ENRON Betty!
Practice your Espanol and Hindi!

G Welfare dependancy can be a debilitating addiction.

B No ****.

But, with Foster kids costing THIRTEEN TIMES
or more what paying rent would, with all
of the bitching about not enough Foster homes, and
with the damage child removal causes, suddenly
paying big housing subsidies looks very attractive!
It's the lesser evil, hands down!
If a family has more than one kid the taxpayer
savings and humanitarian motivation would be greater.

B Wow. That's all I can say. Wow.
B I don't believe you really justify
B this whole notion.

Yes, I have concerns about people taking ...
read more »

You clipped me off there Betty!