Subject: Fwd: She's a Breadwinner

Discussion in 'Politics' started by KilljoyKlown, Apr 24, 2012.

  1. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Assuming they qualify for SNAP, not all foster parents do qualify for SNAP. Two, SNAP was not included in the number used in the ad. And $300 of your SNAP number is totally not related to the foster children. So your number is overstated by $300 per month.

    Do they cut a check for healthcare and send it to the foster parents or do they give healthcare benefits to the foster parents? No they don't. So that $200/per child is bogus. They only reimburse healthcare providers for healthcare services rendered. So you have overstated reimbursement by at least $800 per month.

    Safe link is not a feature that has anything to do with foster care. It is available to people based on income, and has nothing to do with the foster parent program.

    Not if you use old fashioned math and logic.

    No it doesn't, you were overstating reimbursements and assuming that all of the payments were pure profit and that the grandparents incurred zero costs for the kids and you are ignoring the fact that the ad specifically ruled out the expense reimbursements you threw in. If the grandparents refused to feed, house and cloth the kids, they would not be foster parents for long.

    If you do the math the right way, the annual reimbursement works out to $56.040. That is a far cry from your number and the original number in the ad. Both numbers are flat out wrong and grossly overstated.

    http://www.state.il.us/dcfs/faq/faq_faq_foster.shtml
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Aside from the fact your numbers were also overstated, you are saying Ann Romney was wrong when she said being a stay home mom was work? Taking care of 8 kids is not only 2 more than allowed by the state, it is a lot of work - especially since one was an infant and there were a lot of small kids in your example.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    No, if you are doing this as your means of support you would add in for those two as well. I made that math clear.

    No, I specifically said, "has the value of", and $200 per month per kid for health care seems reasonable.

    And I said it wasn't funded by the state, and didn't include its value either.

    I did.

    BS, I said that's what their income is.
    OF COURSE they have to house, clothe and feed the kids with that income, that's obvious to anyone Joe.

    And I also said: I don't agree with this email as being a realistic view of an actual serious problem.
     
  8. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    The state will allow more than 6 kids if they are related, Joe.

    And I didn't say it wasn't a lot of work to deal with 8 kids.
    Again, that's just stating the obvious.

    Indeed I said:

    Which is why I concluded: I don't agree with this email as being a realistic view of an actual serious problem.
     
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    You said 80k that is a lot of money for doing nothing. Taking care of 8 kids is not nothing. And you totally ignored the costs incurred. If the idea was to profit from foster care, they would be better of flipping burgers.

    I know what you said Arthur, but your numbers were grossly overstated. Profiting from foster care is a myth.
     
  10. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    No I didn't.

    Context Joe: I said "without working", meaning AT A JOB.
    Sheesh.
    Because in the same sentence I mention RAISING the kids.
    Most of us know there would be plenty of work involved in raising 8 kids.

    No they weren't grossly overstated, indeed, I found, by researching the payments, that they were nowhere near what the Email suggested and AFAIK, the figures were in fact accurate and I never mentioned anything to do with "profiting", that would be for unrelated children in a facility, and interestingly, the amounts given are less per child in that scenario.
     
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    This is what you said Arthur. - Post 17 Complete Context.

     
  12. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Right, making 80k a year without working at a job earning "bread", because I indeed did mention the RAISING of the kids. Joe.

    And as you know, that's where the work part of having 8 kids comes in.

    Must I always state the obvious for you Joe?

    Or did you forget that the OP was about having kids and putting them in Foster care as a means of being the "breadwinner"?
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2012
  13. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    No, but you must be honest.
     
  14. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    And I am Joe.

    The fact that you misunderstood me doesn't make me dishonest.
     
  15. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Unfortunately for you Arthur, I didn't misunderstand you.
     
  16. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Yeah Joe, you did.

    And worse, Joe it's obvious that you do it on purpose.
     
  17. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Welfare Queens? What's so shocking about this? I know a family of 11 that are all on the dole in Australia. Each of those children are starting to have children and all aim to have as many as they can as this is what their religion tells them is the best possible moral outcome.

    It's kind of funny if you stop and think about it.

    I also know a chick in Sydney working the dole and her "boyfriend" wants more kids. She's like his little baby factory and he still gets to live in his apartment and have girl friends. She likes having his babies and lives a pretty good life on the dole. At least she isn't complaining. As he makes close to $100K a year, he gives her $100-200 a week added spending money to keep her happy and the public picks up the bill.

    Single mothers with kids able to raise them. There's certainly nothing illegal about it and according to both Joe and Arthur it's perfectly moral. According to me it's immoral as it requires the use of force and fiat to pay for his kids. You can expect more of this as we move forward - much much much more. Society slowly becomes less prosperous, the Asguard's of the world scream KILL STEVE JOBS! and on we go down the toilet bowl.
     
  18. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    No Michael, I made no moral judgements on it, what I did say though was I don't agree with this email as being a realistic view of an actual serious problem.

    And I've yet to see any evidence it is a serious problem, hence no toilet bowl analogies are yet warranted.
     
  19. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    No Arthur, this is you trying to cover your tail yet again. You grossly overstated the reimbursements and you said that the ad was almost correct. And clearly it was not. You said a family could get 80k a year for "no work". You were wrong yet again Arthur.
     
  20. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    No Joe, I said this family could get 80k per year.
    I showed the figures and they are reasonably accurate.

    They get that money from the government without anyone working at a job outside the home.

    The care of the children will in fact be looked at by the DFCS people occasionally, so they do have to provide a reasonable level of care for these children to keep getting the money.
     
  21. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    No you didn't. You threw overstated by 30k dollars by throwing in items totally unrelated to the kids and the foster care program and by including non reimbursable items (e.g. Healthcare) into the expense reimbursements given to foster parents. And you went on to claim they could collect 80k with no work. Taking care of 8 kids including an infant and younger kids is not work.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2012
  22. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Nope, the issue I dealt with was the total income to the family and the numbers are correct.

    The Guardians of children under DFCS care (foster kids) get between $384 and $471 per child depending on age.

    For 8 kids with 3>12, 2 >8, 1 >4, 1 >1 and 1 newborn, the state of Illinois would provide $3,468 per month.

    They would also provide under the SNAP program, $1,502 (family of 10) for food stamps.

    They would also provide free medical care, which at an average value of ~$200 per kid per month is $1,600

    A free cell phone is available via SafeLink, but it's not directly funded by the State and thus the value is not included in this analysis.

    That comes to a total of $6,560 per month, or $78,720 tax free income.

    In this example, the 3 Children under 5 the mother if nursing, would also qualify for WIC benefits, which would amount to vouchers for these every food packages each month

    http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/benefitsandservices/foodpkgallowances.HTM

    I estimate that's worth about $2,000 more per year, pushing the total to $80,720 without anyone working at a salaried job.

    The care of the children will in fact be looked at by the DFCS people occasionally, so they do have to provide a reasonable level of care for these children to keep getting the money.

    Child Support Payments, SNAP payments and WIC payments are NOT counted as Taxable earnings, but the kids are dependents, and so if one of the Grandparents is working, they would get $37,000 worth of exemptions to their income and $8,000 in Child Tax Credits and if you add in the $11,600 standard deduction, so it would appear that they could earn an additional $56,000 and pay no income tax at all and still qualify for the SNAP program and WIC (automatic if you get SNAP or Medicaid).
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2012
  23. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Repeating your errors over and over is not going to make them true. Show me the check for $200 dollars per kid that goes to the foster parents. It doesn't exist. If the foster parents are elgible for SNAP they can get those benefits with or without foster kids. So their SNAP reimbursment should not be included in the foster care reimbursement ($300/month). You grossly overstated reimbursments.
     

Share This Page