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 : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (2060)	3/11/2002 8:14:40 AM
From: Bald Eagle	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

I was talking to a friend of mine yesterday evening. His job is to try to educate children at risk. He was telling me about a fifteen year old girl, who is in care now. She was given away at birth. An aunt and uncle took over her care. The aunt was murdered and the uncle died of a heart attack on the same day! Then she was placed with an abusive aunt and uncle who basically tortured her for the slightest bad behavior(or what they considered to be bad). She says she will kill the uncle if sent back there. Sad story! Back to the original birth mother. She has had TWENTY THREE children and has given them all up! I realize that forced sterilization smells of nazism, but if there ever was a case for it, she is it, IMHO.

To: thames_sider who wrote (2060)	3/11/2002 8:28:08 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

But, what if a family suddenly loses breadwinner (divorce, say, or just redundancy): what then? Do they have to have sufficient individual insurance to cover this - or does this burden go on the employer - or do the children get removed? Families don't suddenly lose their breadwinner through divorce. The breadwinner is still obligated to care for the family, at least the children. As for redundancy, if I understand that Brit-ism, I don't have a problem with unemployment insurance. It's temporary, for one. And it usually is needed during periods of economic downturn when charities are in a weakened position. Further, in this country, it's usually a state program so there's less risk of people getting the impression that they have a Constitutional right to it. I have some personal experience with unemployment insurance. My father was a construction labor who worked intermittently and collected "unemployment" the rest of the time. My dad was a smart, competent man. Had he not had that easy fallback, he most likely have aspired to a better job to support his family. There's no easy answer, if you don't have univesral provision... So, I don't agree with this. The only thing difficult about it is the children, who are blameless. Which is why I would emphasize not producing children you can't properly care for. Karen