Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: yard_man who wrote (39802)	11/21/2000 6:58:56 PM
From: flatsville	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 436258

do the administrators and/or foster parents receive a lot of tax dollars? If they receive assistance or tax breaks for taking a child into their home I am not against that, but I believe it could be better provided for privately -- I don't see the need for a lot of administration ... The majority of foster parents are paid a subsidy by the individual states. The children's health care is provided for by Medicaid. No federal tax breaks to foster parents. And you think this could be done privately?...And paid for by?...And you don't see the need for a lot of administration? I stand by what I said -- very few of the abortions fall into the category you mentioned -- on a percentage basis, Well of course they don't tippet. Public (Medicaid) funding for abortion for poor women has been virtually non-existent since 1977, so of course the numbers don't show poor, mentally ill and cognitively challenged women obtaining the service. As I said before, many of these women have NO options. The struggle to raise their children until they're taken away. This is one reason why the foster care population has sky rocketed in spite of family preservation efforts on the part of social workers. Here's a set of numbers for you: home.rica.net but even the retarded and mentally ill know how to love -- your argument comes down to one of eliminating human beings because it is not 'convenient' to have them around ... But what does a child really need? Love, nutritional meals, a place to stay that is safe, someone to teach them what is good (and I don't mean Hillary's village, either) ... many children who are poor have these things. Some who are in wealthy families do not ... but most would rather have the opportunity to live, rather than not. You still don't seem to understand that serious mental illness and cognitive deficiencies prevent some women from providing exactly what you claim is required...at minimum even safe place to stay. your argument comes down to one of eliminating human beings because it is not 'convenient' to have them around ... And your argument is based on some sort of fantasy land where seriously mentally ill and cognitively deficient people care adequately for their children with out a social safety net...with out minimal nutrition, health care and financial support. And yet you pound the table for "personal responsibility" because it is not convenient to pay the cost when they fail at a task well beyond their capabilities.