Subject: Fwd: She's a Breadwinner

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

  1. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Agreed. Come off it. Even if you didn't understand, he already clarified what he meant. Stop obsessing over trivia and stay on the point. Otherwise you just look like you come here looking to cause fights.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    I said the VALUE of Joe.
    If you don't have to pay for it, but it is a necessity, then it's the same as income Joe.

    You want to say that's too much? That medical care for kids is only say ~$100 per month value?

    Then the total is ~$71,000
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    How does the foster parent benefit from a non existent medical reimbursement? They don't. Foster parents do not get compensated for foster child medical expenses. Medical providers do. Therefore there is no "value" to the foster parents for medical reimbursements. So you just pulled a number out of the aether and represented it as part of the foster parent reimbursement. It is not. And that is just one of your over statments for cost reimbursement for "No Work" raising 8 kids. You and the ad act as if there are no costs for raising these kids. What is the food bill for 8 kids for a year? What is the clothing bill for 8 kids for a year?

    The whole point of the ad was to convey the false image that foster parents were profiteering from foster care - for sitting on their derrières. And that is clearly not the case.
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2012
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    No Joe, I'm not trying to convey any such thing.

    Indeed I specifically said that not many mothers would do this, that this is not a serious problem.

    Just the OPPOSITE of what you are claiming Joe.

    I just tried to figure out what the actual numbers were to compare it to that email.

    I have not tried to figure out what it would actually cost to raise 8 kids.

    As to the Medical costs, if you don't have to pay for it, but it is a necessity, then it's essentially the same as income.

    It's like the WIC program, you get the vouchers for the food, not money, but for a simple analysis, it is the same as money.

    Now if you want to break it down:

    The family would get:

    $41,616 in Cash to be used for Rent, Transportation, Utilities etc


    $20,024 in Food Stamps, WIC vouchers, which can only be used for food (and the $2,000 a year in WIC is very limited).


    $9,600 in Medical care (@ $100 per month per child)
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2012
  8. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Unfortunately for you Arthur, your words speak for themselves.

    Does the state cut a check to the foster parent for foster care medical expense? No. It does not. So it is wrong to say the foster parent receives cash for the expense. Two, you just pulled a number out of the aether and credited it to foster parent compensation.

    No it is not like WIC, which is limited to begin with, WIC has a identifiable dollar value.

    Your foods stamps (SNAP) numbers are still overstated (1200 per month does not equal 20,024 per year. Two you continue to include non foster care related reimbursements in food stamp (SNAP). And you continue claim items that are not reimbursed to the foster parent into foster parent compensation (medical care) and you just pull a number out of the air for medical care.
  9. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Yes they do, and saying not many mothers would do this and that it's not a serious problem is certainly not supporting your BS claim.

    And so I broke it out as Cash and Food Stamps, WIC and Medical care.

    The FAMILY would get:

    So one can see what money they have that is discretionary.

    Right, so and Medical Care has a dollar value.
    No, I don't know exactly what it is, but my numbers are reasonable.

    Because Food Stamps are based on the family size, so there are presumed to be two adults iin the household as well.

    Nope, I've broken the numbers out and I've always stated it as what the Family gets.

    What would YOU think is a fair figure for average Medical costs for 8 children over 18 years each?

    Remember that with 8 kids you are likely to have at least one kid per year with something expensive go wrong and every few years one of them will likely have something that has to be treated that is really expensive.

    What's funny is you've always said that our Medical Care is SO EXPENSIVE, now you seem to be saying it's dirt cheap.
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2012
  10. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Good. but that has never been the issue in this thread. That is you throwing up chaff to cover your errors.

    That again has never been the issue. The issues are you making stuff up, pulling numbers out of the aether and including non foster care related reimbursements and items not in the original ad into your numbers so that you could claim the original 150k per year was close. When in reality, it was no where near close.

    It doesn't have a dollar figure because no checks are delivered to foster parents for the healthcare of their foster children. In other words they are not getting reimbursed for the expense as you have claimed.

    That is some pretty whacky logic. You are stretching credulity again Arthur. Food stamps for the foster parents is independent of and unrelated to food expense compensation for the foster children.

    I think a fair figure is to only include expenses that are reimbursed to the foster parent if you are claiming that foster parents are being reimbursed for those expenses which you and the ad are doing.

    Additionally the issue of our expensive and increasingly ineffective healthcare system is another unrelated issue. This is you again throwing up chaff in attempt to divert attention and discussion of your errors.
  11. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Sure it is.
    Indeed the email says:

    now we are hopelessly overrun with people who vote only for those who
    will continue to keep them on the dole

    So I DIRECTLY refuted the ad by saying: I don't agree with this email as being a realistic view of an actual serious problem.

    And I explicitly said: a mother could do this, but would they? I don't think many would.

    So YES Joe, that was indeed an ISSUE in this thread.

    BS, I'm at less then HALF of that $150K in TOTAL, and that's adding in the things that the email claimed were available, but were not part of the $150K,

    So no Joe, I'm not saying that the email is anywhere near close.

    Semantics Joe.
    If you had to Pay $100 per month for Health care and were then REIMBURSED, your cost would be $0.
    If the healthcare providers are paid directly the $100 per month, your cost is exactly the same.
    For a NECESSITY, the method of payment isn't important.

    BS, the whole idea is that the Grandparents take care of the kids and thus don't have a job, but they do have dependents so they do qualify for SNAP.

    No Joe, the email also mentions Food Stamps, WIC, Cell Phones as well.

    And I've broken down what they receive in cash, $41k, which is what you would use to compare to the $150K in the email.

    No it's not.

    YOU challenged my $200 per month for medical care and are saying our medical care isn't that expensive.

    Now you seem to be challenging the $100 month I cut it to.

    So I guess it's only expensive when that's the point you are arguing?
  12. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    No one is contesting this issue. This is you throwing up chaff as you always do to divert attention from your errors/deceptions.

    And the ad excluded those items from the 150k in the ad. Before you revised your numbers when you said, "As to the veracity of the numbers, thankfully they are wrong.

    But not that wrong:",
    you were at more than half of the 150k in the ad.

    I just quoted what you said in post #12.

    No it is more than semantics. The discussion was about reimbusable expenses to the foster parents. And you are including non reimbursable expenses. Foster parents incurr no liability for the medical expenses of foster children and therefore are not reimbursed for those expenses. Yet you want to mix them to gin up a number. If foster parents received reimbursements for healtcare, then it would be appropriate to add that number into a discussion of foster parent reimbursable expense. But that is very clearly not the case.

    Again, not the issue. Foster parents may or may not qualify for foodstamps. Your assumption is they do. But even if they do qualify, their qualification is independent of the foster parent program.

    Yes it does mention other benefits, but it does not include those in the 150k as you did. Addtionally as previously pointed out to you, some of those benefits are independent (i.e. not related) of the foster care program.

    It is good to see your number come down to reality, finally! That is down by about half what you had originally posted. And not anywhere near 150k.

    No this is you making stuff up again Arthur. I challenge you to prove this claim! This is the argument you want to have. I have repeatedly explained my issue with your inclusion of non reimbursable expenses in the discussion of reimbursements.

    Again, this is you making stuff up again Arthur.

    I guess you didn't read my many posts on this issue. Our expensive healthcare system is not germane to this discussion. Adding non reimbursables to a discussion of reimbursables is simply not honest.
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2012
  13. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    No except for the reducing the estimate of the monthly medical cost to $100 per month from $200, the number has not come down Joe.

    This part of the value received is JUST the Cash portion of the transaction, but the total value remains the same as before.

    And I always stated what the sum was made of, Cash + SNAP + WIC + Medicaid, and most of us are smart enough to know which are cash and which are not.

    Your continued dishonesty on this issue and bickering about semantics is why, once again, welcome back to Ignore Joe
  14. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    You are lying again Arthur. You orginally claimed over 80k now you are down to 40k. Now you are trying to obfuscate with a silly cash versus non cash discussion. There is no non cash reimbursable from the state for foster care expenses.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Apr 26, 2012
  15. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    No, you've made it clear you support income tax, which involves force, which is immoral. Now that that same BIG immoral government you wanted, uses it's ill gotten gains to prop up welfare queens you complain?


    Just last week you ranted and raved against me on income tax. I mean, what? Do you think maybe paying single mothers has, oh I don't know, led to fathers feeling they're now off the hook and society with MANY more times single mothers? And that some, not all but some, mothers see baby making as a moral way to get paid a little money?

    This society is a turd circling the bowl and you're so happy because you're not doggy-paddling in bowel-soup but holding onto a turd life-preserver. Houses are not supposed to double and then double again in price to be sold off to some schmuck trying to flip a home - as you go and buy a boat. That's not the way a moral society operates. I'm not suggesting you did anything immoral, you bought a house, raised your children, sold your house. BUT, that hosing bubble you made out well on will bury your grandchildren long after the neighborhood you now live in turns from historic to hood and your boat is long sold or forgotten. You're grandkids will have to live with the immorality you choose to support (income tax and the federal reserve system) that is with us here and now.

    So, maybe you should be happy you have your beloved Welfare Queen? She's just a part of a bigger system of immorality trying to make due in a society slowly destroying itself. A society where the Steve Jobs play the part of the "villain" and must be killed while the Welfare Queens are the damsels in distress the Hero's really Zero's.

    And if you dare suggest one iota of welfare is immoral and destructive towards society - expect the Joe's and Asguard's to stick a knife your back as they "redistribute" rooms in your historic home to Welfare Queens for the better of society. Just as income tax and the federal reserve has taught them is moral and just.

    I'm not joking, we've only just ploughed into the iceberg, it's going to take decades to fully tank this big boy. But don't you worry - she's sinking........
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2012

Share This Page