Tapping kids Social Security

Greegor wrote:
Kane, Is this pilfering of the kids Social Security
funds in line with your ""conservative"" views?

Continuing from last post.

Consider if the following is a conservative scheme or a liberal one?

"Social Security money the federal government pays to foster children
with deceased or disabled parents.

The agencies say the money helps pay for care of the children, but some
child advocates say the government is effectively making parentless
children pay toward the cost of care that should be free to them."

Where exactly did that money in a social security account come from?

Why would it NOT be appropriate to use for the child's support?

You are aware this is not a majority of the children in care, right?

Only deceased or disabled parents children.

Why should the public pay out of tax monies again?

You really are a liberal, Greg. You just don't know it, because liberals
tend to be both self deluding and liars.

0:-




--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

ooh! Two different rapid fire messages!
That's even better than stuttering! ROFL!

Do you think this issue is good for PR?
How many politicians of any stripe are speaking
in support of this financial strategy?

Are CPS workers being paid from childrens
plundered Social Security accounts?

Will this start a new trend where people
who apply for Food Stamps or welfare
will have it removed from their Social Security?
With 10% kept off the top for agency overhead?

If a person owes on taxes or civil judgements
will the IRS or debt holder be allowed to plunder
the persons social security account?

Both of Kane's recent posts attached below.



From: 0:- (Kane) Mon, Jun 26 2006 12:59 pm
Email: "0:-"
Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services, alt.parenting.spanking


Greegor wrote:
Kane, Is this pilfering of the kids Social Security
funds in line with your ""conservative"" views?


It isn't pilfering.

It is support.


Who, exactly, if the child has no one to support them, should?


Which is the fairer option? To take from the public coffers or from the

SS funding source?


Why don't you write a book on it?


And yes, it IS a conservative value to take NOT from the public, but
from the individual for his or her support.


It is a LIBERAL value to bury financial reality in "taxing" for social
programs.


You haven't figured this out yet?


0:-


Or possibly you wish the children to not be cared for and die?


0:-

From: 0:- (Kane) Mon, Jun 26 2006 1:02 pm
Email: "0:-"
Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services, alt.parenting.spanking


Greegor wrote:
Kane, Is this pilfering of the kids Social Security
funds in line with your ""conservative"" views?


Continuing from last post.

Consider if the following is a conservative scheme or a liberal one?


"Social Security money the federal government pays to foster children
with deceased or disabled parents.


The agencies say the money helps pay for care of the children, but some

child advocates say the government is effectively making parentless
children pay toward the cost of care that should be free to them."


Where exactly did that money in a social security account come from?


Why would it NOT be appropriate to use for the child's support?


You are aware this is not a majority of the children in care, right?


Only deceased or disabled parents children.


Why should the public pay out of tax monies again?


You really are a liberal, Greg. You just don't know it, because
liberals
tend to be both self deluding and liars.


0:-

Greegor wrote:
ooh! Two different rapid fire messages!
That's even better than stuttering! ROFL!

Your debate is now reduced to criticizing form?

Gee what next, some spelling corrections?

Do you think this issue is good for PR?

I've no idea. Do you think you'll find another child to rape?

How many politicians of any stripe are speaking
in support of this financial strategy?

Why don't you find out?

Count those that say nothing as being in approval.

Are CPS workers being paid from childrens
plundered Social Security accounts?

No. Nor are they plundered.

Will this start a new trend where people
who apply for Food Stamps or welfare
will have it removed from their Social Security?
With 10% kept off the top for agency overhead?

It can't be unless they are eligible for SS payments.

The children are.

If a person owes on taxes or civil judgements
will the IRS or debt holder be allowed to plunder
the persons social security account?

You seem to be sliding deeper into your delusional fantasies.

Both of Kane's recent posts attached below.

Yes, and I note the issues being challenged that you stayed miles away
from though YOU opened the can of worms yourself.

Pretty sick way to debate, Greg.

You question my conservatism, but YOU take the liberal tack, while I the
conservative one of families being responsible for supporting their
children (even if through SS accounts).

Now tell us, little devious dodger: who will pay to support the children
if their parent's SS accounts do not?

Come on, "conservative," give it your best shot, instead of just another
yelping, tail between your legs, frightened cowardly puppy-dog show.

When did you, by the way, stop ****ing Lisa's daughter?

0;-


From: 0:- (Kane) Mon, Jun 26 2006 12:59 pm
Email: "0:-"
Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services, alt.parenting.spanking


Greegor wrote:
Kane, Is this pilfering of the kids Social Security
funds in line with your ""conservative"" views?


It isn't pilfering.

It is support.


Who, exactly, if the child has no one to support them, should?


Which is the fairer option? To take from the public coffers or from the

SS funding source?


Why don't you write a book on it?


And yes, it IS a conservative value to take NOT from the public, but
from the individual for his or her support.


It is a LIBERAL value to bury financial reality in "taxing" for social
programs.


You haven't figured this out yet?


0:-


Or possibly you wish the children to not be cared for and die?


0:-

From: 0:- (Kane) Mon, Jun 26 2006 1:02 pm
Email: "0:-"
Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services, alt.parenting.spanking


Greegor wrote:
Kane, Is this pilfering of the kids Social Security
funds in line with your ""conservative"" views?


Continuing from last post.

Consider if the following is a conservative scheme or a liberal one?


"Social Security money the federal government pays to foster children
with deceased or disabled parents.


The agencies say the money helps pay for care of the children, but some

child advocates say the government is effectively making parentless
children pay toward the cost of care that should be free to them."


Where exactly did that money in a social security account come from?


Why would it NOT be appropriate to use for the child's support?


You are aware this is not a majority of the children in care, right?


Only deceased or disabled parents children.


Why should the public pay out of tax monies again?


You really are a liberal, Greg. You just don't know it, because
liberals
tend to be both self deluding and liars.


0:-



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Kane wrote
When did you, by the way, stop ****ing Lisa's daughter?

False accusation of sexual abuse?
Because I asked you what PR firm you work for
and whether they get their money's worth from you?

Somebody's CRANKY!
Did your air conditioner break down or what?

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
When did you, by the way, stop ****ing Lisa's daughter?

False accusation of sexual abuse?

See the little question mark?

You sir, are making a false accusation of an accusation. I made no such
accusation. See the little question mark?

You would have done will to have used one with your comments to Betty
about a flurry of phone calls, and 'when' CPS will show up at her door.

Because I asked you what PR firm you work for
and whether they get their money's worth from you?

Nope. Because you asked me the classic, "when did you stop beating your
wife," ploy question.

They can't get their money's worth because I do not work for one. Yet
you chose to ignore it, and I notice, NOT refute my question of
you...now why IS that I wonder?

Somebody's CRANKY!

I suspect you are projecting.

Did your air conditioner break down or what?

I don't need one. I just sit in my pool.

Now, will you admit to having raped children, or not?

I already admitted that I do not work for, nor every have worked for, a
PR firm.

So your continued posing of the question amounts now to simple mindless
harassment.

By the way, ask Doug if he ever held a position with an Anti-CPS,
"reform" group where he was in charge of public relations.

When you sling mud you want to be sure about who is already muddy.

0:-


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Whiney!