SSI ?
 

MY MENTALLY RETARDED 10 YEAR OLD SON RECEIVES SSI AND JUST THIS MONTH I
GOT A LETTER FROM SOCIAL SECURITY THAT HIS PAYMENT FOR DECEMBER WOULD BE
REDUCED 80 DOLLARS DUE TO AN ADVANCED CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT I RECEIVED
FROM HIS DAD A MONTH EARLY BECAUSE HIS DAD WAS GOING ON VACATION. MY
QUESTION? WILL MY SONS FUTURE PAYMENTS GO BACK TO THE NORMAL PAYMENT?

SSI ?
 

"Carmen D" wrote in message
...
MY MENTALLY RETARDED 10 YEAR OLD SON RECEIVES SSI AND JUST THIS MONTH I
GOT A LETTER FROM SOCIAL SECURITY THAT HIS PAYMENT FOR DECEMBER WOULD BE
REDUCED 80 DOLLARS DUE TO AN ADVANCED CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT I RECEIVED
FROM HIS DAD A MONTH EARLY BECAUSE HIS DAD WAS GOING ON VACATION. MY
QUESTION? WILL MY SONS FUTURE PAYMENTS GO BACK TO THE NORMAL PAYMENT?

Why don't you ask THEM?
Anyway, it really shouldn't matter because regardless of how much money you
get, either way it's all FREE!

SSI ?
 

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Carmen D" wrote in message
...
MY MENTALLY RETARDED 10 YEAR OLD SON RECEIVES SSI AND JUST THIS MONTH I
GOT A LETTER FROM SOCIAL SECURITY THAT HIS PAYMENT FOR DECEMBER WOULD BE
REDUCED 80 DOLLARS DUE TO AN ADVANCED CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT I RECEIVED
FROM HIS DAD A MONTH EARLY BECAUSE HIS DAD WAS GOING ON VACATION. MY
QUESTION? WILL MY SONS FUTURE PAYMENTS GO BACK TO THE NORMAL PAYMENT?

Why don't you ask THEM?
Anyway, it really shouldn't matter because regardless of how much money
you get, either way it's all FREE!

Chris, if you had any notion of how much money, time and energy it takes to
look after a handicapped child, you wouldn't be so quick to criticize her.

This country needs a decent health care program so that $80 is not a major
concern for struggling families!
How about daycare support for working parents too that a can't afford the
staggering costs of private daycare centers?

SSI ?
 

"DB" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Carmen D" wrote in message
...
MY MENTALLY RETARDED 10 YEAR OLD SON RECEIVES SSI AND JUST THIS MONTH I
GOT A LETTER FROM SOCIAL SECURITY THAT HIS PAYMENT FOR DECEMBER WOULD BE
REDUCED 80 DOLLARS DUE TO AN ADVANCED CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT I RECEIVED
FROM HIS DAD A MONTH EARLY BECAUSE HIS DAD WAS GOING ON VACATION. MY
QUESTION? WILL MY SONS FUTURE PAYMENTS GO BACK TO THE NORMAL PAYMENT?

Why don't you ask THEM?
Anyway, it really shouldn't matter because regardless of how much money
you get, either way it's all FREE!

Chris, if you had any notion of how much money, time and energy it takes
to look after a handicapped child, you wouldn't be so quick to criticize
her.

We all have our sob stories, me included. But you will NEVER hear me
complain about some expense to me caused by no one else. I fork out plenty
of FREE money to others almost always by the force of others, usually the
government people. To that I WILL complain. Why? Because it amounts to
nothing less than THEFT. No one gives me anything for free, NO one. I have
always earned everything I have, and none of it has come easy. Slice it any
way you want, but the bottom line is stealing is wrong! Always has been, is
now, and always will be.......


This country needs a decent health care program so that $80 is not a major
concern for struggling families!

Health care is a PERSONAL decision. Government has no business being in the
health care business.

How about daycare support for working parents too that a can't afford the
staggering costs of private daycare centers?

How about not. The care of someone else's child rests solely with them. If
they made a poor choice which resulted in their predicament I am unwilling
to pay their tab. Likewise, I don't expect them to pay for any choice of
mine that has the same outcome; and believe me, I have had many bad outcomes
through the years. No one is forced to pay my tab; and that is exactly how
it ought to remain!

SSI ?
 

"DB" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Carmen D" wrote in message
...
MY MENTALLY RETARDED 10 YEAR OLD SON RECEIVES SSI AND JUST THIS
MONTH I
GOT A LETTER FROM SOCIAL SECURITY THAT HIS PAYMENT FOR DECEMBER
WOULD BE
REDUCED 80 DOLLARS DUE TO AN ADVANCED CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT I
RECEIVED
FROM HIS DAD A MONTH EARLY BECAUSE HIS DAD WAS GOING ON VACATION.
MY
QUESTION? WILL MY SONS FUTURE PAYMENTS GO BACK TO THE NORMAL
PAYMENT?

Why don't you ask THEM?
Anyway, it really shouldn't matter because regardless of how much
money you get, either way it's all FREE!

Chris, if you had any notion of how much money, time and energy it
takes to look after a handicapped child, you wouldn't be so quick to
criticize her.

This country needs a decent health care program so that $80 is not a
major concern for struggling families!
How about daycare support for working parents too that a can't afford
the staggering costs of private daycare centers?

There needs to be some form of assistance for parents of severely
handicapped children but NOT from social security. This actually should
be handled by a local agency instead of the bureaucratic nightmare of
the federal government. The larger the government gets, the worse of a
job it does.
Taxing those who chose to remain childless to pay for things like
daycare for those who chose to breed is unfair. Only those who chose to
bring children into the world should be paying the costs of children.
Thirdly, the government is the best place to screw up anything. If
anyone thinks the health care in the US is bad now, just let the
government have control of it for a few years. $300 hammers will be
nothing compared to the cost of medical supplies and equipment after the
government gets through with it plus the idea is that if the gov't is
paying for your medical treatment, it'll also demand you endure their
choices of lifestyle, treatment, physicians and medications, perhaps
even where one lives and/or works, etc., or no health benefit for
failing to follow the gov't's mandate... "for your own good", of course.
Phil #3

SSI ?
 

"Phil" wrote in

There needs to be some form of assistance for parents of severely
handicapped children but NOT from social security. This actually should be
handled by a local agency instead of the bureaucratic nightmare of the
federal government. The larger the government gets, the worse of a job it
does.

I agree, nothing worse than letting the bean counters run the show!

Taxing those who chose to remain childless to pay for things like daycare
for those who chose to breed is unfair. Only those who chose to bring
children into the world should be paying the costs of children.

Breeding future tax payers is what the country needs, else you have to bring
in bodies to replenish the population from 3rd world countries and we know
that's not a good idea. Who is going to pay taxes, clean your clothes and
clean your **** when you're too old to take care of yourself?

Thirdly, the government is the best place to screw up anything.

Yes, we can all see that thru the present Child Support system, Veterans
Administration anda host of other government services that nobody wants to
bother about.

SSI ?
 

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"DB" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Carmen D" wrote in message
...
MY MENTALLY RETARDED 10 YEAR OLD SON RECEIVES SSI AND JUST THIS MONTH I
GOT A LETTER FROM SOCIAL SECURITY THAT HIS PAYMENT FOR DECEMBER WOULD
BE
REDUCED 80 DOLLARS DUE TO AN ADVANCED CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT I RECEIVED
FROM HIS DAD A MONTH EARLY BECAUSE HIS DAD WAS GOING ON VACATION. MY
QUESTION? WILL MY SONS FUTURE PAYMENTS GO BACK TO THE NORMAL PAYMENT?

Why don't you ask THEM?
Anyway, it really shouldn't matter because regardless of how much money
you get, either way it's all FREE!

Chris, if you had any notion of how much money, time and energy it takes
to look after a handicapped child, you wouldn't be so quick to criticize
her.

This country needs a decent health care program so that $80 is not a
major concern for struggling families!
How about daycare support for working parents too that a can't afford the
staggering costs of private daycare centers?

There needs to be some form of assistance for parents of severely
handicapped children but NOT from social security. This actually should be
handled by a local agency instead of the bureaucratic nightmare of the
federal government. The larger the government gets, the worse of a job it
does.

No problem with such government agency so long as it operates on a voluntary
basis. Anyone who wants to participate can do so, and those who don't will
have the right to not do so. Not unlike any other insurance operation.

Taxing those who chose to remain childless to pay for things like daycare
for those who chose to breed is unfair. Only those who chose to bring
children into the world should be paying the costs of children. Thirdly,
the government is the best place to screw up anything. If anyone thinks
the health care in the US is bad now, just let the government have control
of it for a few years. $300 hammers will be nothing compared to the cost
of medical supplies and equipment after the government gets through with
it plus the idea is that if the gov't is paying for your medical
treatment, it'll also demand you endure their choices of lifestyle,
treatment, physicians and medications, perhaps even where one lives and/or
works, etc., or no health benefit for failing to follow the gov't's
mandate... "for your own good", of course.
Phil #3

You forgot one thing, the government people also have to get THEIR cut for
managing your personal medical care. I don't know about anyone else, but I
prefer to eliminate paying some middle man when it comes to my healthcare.
Believe it or not, it's actually cheaper.

SSI ?
 

In article ,
says...

"Phil" wrote in

Taxing those who chose to remain childless to pay for things like daycare
for those who chose to breed is unfair. Only those who chose to bring
children into the world should be paying the costs of children.


Breeding future tax payers is what the country needs, else you have to bring
in bodies to replenish the population from 3rd world countries and we know
that's not a good idea. Who is going to pay taxes, clean your clothes and
clean your **** when you're too old to take care of yourself?


Yeah-But... There is the issue of multi-generational welfare
dependence.

When my hard-earned tax dollars are extorted on behalf of a
welfare mother, who is paid more for more kids... That does NOT
necessarily mean more future workers to care for me in my old
age. It may just mean more welfare recipients, bleeding me for
more taxes to support them and their children.

Personally, I don't plan to ever "retire" in the sense of
becoming dependent upon the gubmint for a handout. I would jump
off of a bridge before I would allow myself to be parked in front
of a TeeVee by some thug in a rest home, to vegetate.

By refusing to become a parasite, I am forever subject to being
drafted as a host. Paying and paying and paying to deadbeat
breeders. Even though I don't even have any children at all.

I don't have any "skin in the game" on the child support issue.
But, I was raised by a woman who viewed her kids (me and my
siblings) as her personal meal-ticket. I didn't respect a
deadbeat then, and I don't respect a deadbeat now, either.


--
Want Privacy?
http://www.MinistryOfPrivacy.com/

SSI ?
 

Coffee's For Closers wrote:
In article ,
says...

"Phil" wrote in

Taxing those who chose to remain childless to pay for things like daycare
for those who chose to breed is unfair. Only those who chose to bring
children into the world should be paying the costs of children.


Breeding future tax payers is what the country needs, else you have to bring
in bodies to replenish the population from 3rd world countries and we know
that's not a good idea. Who is going to pay taxes, clean your clothes and
clean your **** when you're too old to take care of yourself?


Yeah-But... There is the issue of multi-generational welfare
dependence.

When my hard-earned tax dollars are extorted on behalf of a
welfare mother, who is paid more for more kids... That does NOT
necessarily mean more future workers to care for me in my old
age. It may just mean more welfare recipients, bleeding me for
more taxes to support them and their children.

Personally, I don't plan to ever "retire" in the sense of
becoming dependent upon the gubmint for a handout. I would jump
off of a bridge before I would allow myself to be parked in front
of a TeeVee by some thug in a rest home, to vegetate.

By refusing to become a parasite, I am forever subject to being
drafted as a host. Paying and paying and paying to deadbeat
breeders. Even though I don't even have any children at all.

I don't have any "skin in the game" on the child support issue.
But, I was raised by a woman who viewed her kids (me and my
siblings) as her personal meal-ticket. I didn't respect a
deadbeat then, and I don't respect a deadbeat now, either.

How about this instead.. If you apply for welfare, of any kind, at any
time in your life, you only get to collect for a maximum of five (5)
years. After that, you can't ever collect again. Ever.

That's how they do it in Germany. You can collect for a while, find a
job, stop collecting. If you've stopped before reaching the maximum
five years, and something should happen later in life and you need a
hand up, then you can continue to collect your five years of welfare
from the point that you last left off until such time as it's all used
up. Or not.

Point is, once you've used it up, that's it, no more freebies.

SSI ?
 

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
Coffee's For Closers wrote:
In article ,
says...

"Phil" wrote in

Taxing those who chose to remain childless to pay for things like
daycare for those who chose to breed is unfair. Only those who chose to
bring children into the world should be paying the costs of children.


Breeding future tax payers is what the country needs, else you have to
bring in bodies to replenish the population from 3rd world countries and
we know that's not a good idea. Who is going to pay taxes, clean your
clothes and clean your **** when you're too old to take care of
yourself?


Yeah-But... There is the issue of multi-generational welfare dependence.

When my hard-earned tax dollars are extorted on behalf of a welfare
mother, who is paid more for more kids... That does NOT necessarily mean
more future workers to care for me in my old age. It may just mean more
welfare recipients, bleeding me for more taxes to support them and their
children.

Personally, I don't plan to ever "retire" in the sense of becoming
dependent upon the gubmint for a handout. I would jump off of a bridge
before I would allow myself to be parked in front of a TeeVee by some
thug in a rest home, to vegetate.

By refusing to become a parasite, I am forever subject to being drafted
as a host. Paying and paying and paying to deadbeat breeders. Even
though I don't even have any children at all.

I don't have any "skin in the game" on the child support issue. But, I
was raised by a woman who viewed her kids (me and my siblings) as her
personal meal-ticket. I didn't respect a deadbeat then, and I don't
respect a deadbeat now, either.

How about this instead.. If you apply for welfare, of any kind, at any
time in your life, you only get to collect for a maximum of five (5)
years. After that, you can't ever collect again. Ever.

That's how they do it in Germany. You can collect for a while, find a
job, stop collecting. If you've stopped before reaching the maximum five
years, and something should happen later in life and you need a hand up,
then you can continue to collect your five years of welfare from the point
that you last left off until such time as it's all used up. Or not.

Point is, once you've used it up, that's it, no more freebies.

No problem so long as those who have not used such amount can opt for THEIR
fair share in a lump sum after a predetermined period of time; just as
employers do with sick leave/vacation pay. Or better yet, how about just
giving EVERYONE a lump sum, then they can manage it however they like.
Thus the taxpayers will be saddled with significantly reduced administration
costs because it's always cheaper to make a single payment as opposed to
monthly payments. Actually, why bother with such an arrangement at all? If
there was no government involvement, the people could manage their finances
on their own thus eliminating ALL administration costs. Gee, what a novel
concept.