Don's parent hating drivel

"Greegor" wrote in message
oups.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?

Maybe because you have actually stayed in homleess shelters gregg? Or maybe
just to show us that your not the complete idiot that we all think you are?

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.

Facts is facts gregg. I correct you all the time with facts, yet you dont
acknowledge those now do you.

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.

HUD housing? You cant find a 3br for $500 in Iowa gregg? I can BUY a 3
bedroom home in Iowa for less than that gregg, fairly nice one's.
Fixer-uppers for sure, but still nice.

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?

Quite a bit less than half, maybe 15%.

Anyway, opportunities for housing in Iowa are vast gregg, as long as one is
not looking for new construction or some kind of top rated existing
structure. The tax base in Iowa is far superior to that of Nebraska for
housing, finding a nice place is less than a weeks work gregg, if one
actually tries.

Ron

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.

Shelters around here have absolutley no room for families currently.
I've heard of agencies removing kids BECAUSE
the family is in a homeless shelter.

removing kids for the sole reason of the family living in a shelter is
against the law, atleast here in CT.

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.

HUD is very hard to get. Waiting lists are many years long
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.

Again section 8 waiting lists are many years long
Sort of shows how bad our economic standing nationwide has become.

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

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.
Again, lists are years long for housing projects.

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

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.

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

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?
DCF,cps, et al has those discretionary funds which can be used to pay
the initial cost of a new apartment ...1st, last, security. I like
this idea BUT when those funds are greanted, the monies should be used
ONLY if the family has the resources to maintain the apartment.

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

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

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.
Yeah but using those options isn't always an option. I helped a
family a few months ago. They were being evicted, with 3 children.
CPS gave them to a certain date to show a lease OR be in a shelter or
their 3 daughters would be removed. All the shelters were full. No
emergency section 8 was available. no hud funding. no public
housing. NOTHING!. They did find a place and with both parents
working, they could maintain it. They didn't have the downpayment so
their worker got them emergency, immediate funds for the downpayment.
They are still there...with a closed cps case.

It seems as though your answer to every ill is for DFS to 'fix' it,
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.
CPS has to offer services and, they MAY OPT to financially help a
motivated family. They won't just casually offer funds for this or
that if the family isn't motivated to fix the problem(s) that caused
removal.

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

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.

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!

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!
And who would be there to pay the taxes on a purchased home for the
family? Goes along the same line as, who will be paying the rent to
prevent eviction?

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

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.

EXACTLY...thats why the parents have to be self advocating and willing
to better themselves to be able to provide for their family
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!

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!

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?

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.
Social Services in CT has a similiar program. It's a security
guarantee which covers the initial downpayment, up to a total of 3 mos
rent (first,last,security). It's against housing laws for a landlord
to refuse the voucher guarantees.

Just like most other areas we had those Enron like
corporate disasters/mergers/aquisitions/sales overseas.
One person I know here was riding high at MCI until the
huge collapse/mergers/aquisitions at MCI a few years
back. Donating plasma for $30 after that.

Was he not responsible?
How could he guarantee that wouldn't happen again?

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.

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

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?

You hit the nail on the head. The PARENTS HAVE TO SHOW THEY ARE
RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES AND THEI CHILDREN!!!!
HOW HARD IS THAT TO FIGURE OUT????

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

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

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

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

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

But they are out there working...trying. Personally, I would be more
apt to help a family that really is trying hard to survive rather than
a family with either one income by choice..you know, a parent taking a
sabbatical or whatever...or a family that isn't trying at all and is
waiting for the world to finally pay up as we all know, these ppl
think the worlds owes them something.

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

Welfare dependancy can be a debilitating addiction.

Very true. I love the 21-month cap that CT has for cash assistance.
During the 21-month period, they wills end you in for CAREER
training. We are talking about jobs that start at between 18-30 bucks
an hour.

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.

Yes, I have concerns about people taking ...

read more »

Greg,
You said:
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.

Ok, now either you are lying or you didn't understand Section 8. They
will pay X amount to the landlord and YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
REMAINING BALANCE. It's been like that since.....Well, my ex and I
had it in the late 80's into the mid-early 90's....I believe 93 or
94.....And please don't say...oh wait, I'll let you say it so, I can
laugh at ya.

lostintranslation wrote:
Greg,
You said:
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.

Ok, now either you are lying or you didn't understand Section 8. They
will pay X amount to the landlord and YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
REMAINING BALANCE. It's been like that since.....Well, my ex and I
had it in the late 80's into the mid-early 90's....I believe 93 or
94.....And please don't say...oh wait, I'll let you say it so, I can
laugh at ya.



Yup - but since you stuck it to your childrens father, and got a new job
with CPS, you're not fat, ignorant, white trash no mo. lol.

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

On Jun 1, 6:38 am, Jason Ryels wrote:
lostintranslation wrote:
Greg,
You said:
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.

Ok, now either you are lying or you didn't understand Section 8. They
will pay X amount to the landlord and YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
REMAINING BALANCE. It's been like that since.....Well, my ex and I
had it in the late 80's into the mid-early 90's....I believe 93 or
94.....And please don't say...oh wait, I'll let you say it so, I can
laugh at ya.

Yup - but since you stuck it to your childrens father, and got a new job
with CPS, you're not fat, ignorant, white trash no mo. lol.

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


Hmm, didn't stick it to anyone. My ex, who makes a very decent income
only pays a very small fraction of what he should be paying in child
support for the one shared child that is living with me. our other
son lives with him. and PLEASE show me proof that i work for cps.
let me tell ya, between school full time, working part time for my
friend and being a full time mom, i dont have time to work for cps.
and we weren't poor when we were getting section 8....i had to go on
bedrest due to a very problematic pregnancy so we lost my income then
i couldn't go back to work due to a very sick infant. thyen another
rough pregnancy.....then my ex got a very good job and we bought our
first house. so, in effect, by assuming i was po' white trash while
on sec.8, you also called Greg, and many others po' white trah because
they were/are on section 8. bravo jason,ole pal...bra****ingo....See,
we don't have to 'go after' greg...his own P.A.L.S. do it for us!

On May 31, 9:44 pm, Greegor wrote:
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.

Ah. So, it was all HER fault?


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

Did I?

Sure. When you tell me that the cost of housing is $550 mo WITH HUD
that is outrageous.


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?

Ever hear of commuting?


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.

That's right now. Not 12 years ago when you had your housing issues.



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.

I meant in that 'area'. Not at the housing project.


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.

And?



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.

I'm sure you could dig up some figures somewhere if you really wanted
to, couldn't you?


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!

And it sounds as though you want to add more.



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.

I agree. To a point.
If the housing issues regard a home that is too small, in a bad
neighborhood, etc.
If the housing problem stems from filth so deep you can barely wade
through it then yes, a child should be removed from conditions like
that.



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

I don't understand your question. Please rephrase it.


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.

I bet that doesn't cost anything.


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...

We aren't talking about them. We are, after all, talking about
families involved with DFS, remember?


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

You ARE talking about politicians aren't you!

Hardee-har-har-har.


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.

Mmmm-kay. Now, what do they mean by 'adequate'?
Does that mean that the children have no homes?
Or does that mean that the homes are in deplorable conditions?
Just exactly what does it mean and how does it apply?
That statement does not indicate that it's simply a matter of homes
too small, etc.


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?

No, Greg. I didn't. My first home was bought through contract for
deed from relatives.
My second home was bought contract for deed through friends being
relocated in the military.
By the time we bought this house neither of us were 'first time
buyers' and didn't qualify.
But hey, it was a nice thought.



Are the taxpayers guaranteed you won't flounder?

Well now, seeing how I didn't get government funds to get my house
taxpayers don't apply.
But, I have mortgage insurance in any event.



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 ...

read more »

On May 31, 6:58 pm, Greegor wrote:
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.

Ron didn't correct me.

All he said was $50 a month wasn't going to get much done.

But it's certainly better than nothing.

And if something cost $150 to repair you could use three months of the
$50.

Can you not figure that out, Greg?

Ripped screens, broken windows, paint, fix the gutters, seed and feed
the lawn... basic home repairs.

Kane wrote
Now who do you imagine would use that
odd little trick of the double "??" ? [sic]

I am Jason Ryels??
Based on the use of double question marks??
Hilarious!!

I guess I am Kurt Vonnegut also then??

lostintranslation wrote
and we weren't poor when we were getting section 8....i had to go on
bedrest due to a very problematic pregnancy so we lost my income then
i couldn't go back to work due to a very sick infant. thyen another
rough pregnancy.....then my ex got a very good job snip

Betty, will you ask why lostintranslation didn't have
savings so she didn't have to get housing assistance?
She said she wasn't poor.

On Jun 1, 6:45 pm, Greegor wrote:
lostintranslation wrote

and we weren't poor when we were getting section 8....i had to go on
bedrest due to a very problematic pregnancy so we lost my income then
i couldn't go back to work due to a very sick infant. thyen another
rough pregnancy.....then my ex got a very good job snip

Betty, will you ask why lostintranslation didn't have
savings so she didn't have to get housing assistance?
She said she wasn't poor.


Umm, Greg...you can ask me....We didnt have medical insurance at the
time so we were paying for medical expenses out of pocket. And no, we
weren't poor...keeping afloat but it was hard.....and we barely made
the income limits on the help.