A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

SSI ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 29th 08, 10:44 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.politics.economics
Michael Coburn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default SSI ?

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:31:10 +0100, Dusty wrote:

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.


I wonder when this stupidity will end? While I agree that people who
cannot care for their children should be disabused of procreation, I am
not so brain dead as to claim that children are the only hope I will ever
have of retirement. And if they remain uncared for and uneducated then
my retirement isn't going to be very prosperous. It makes no difference
whether they are _my_ children or the children of someone else.

The other thing that really gets up my nose is that the same people who
whine about the cost of children are the same Reich wingers who would
force women to carry a fetus till birth. These are the same Reich Wing
nimrods who insist that the inheritance that is bestowed upon them
through the luck of proper parents is somehow an earning on their part.

Let me give you a glimpse of justice/pragmatism as opposed to "winged"
idiotology:

The cost of pregnancy and child birth should be born by the parents in
total. The cost of child care in all its forms including health care
should be born by the parents until the child is totally viable. At that
point the child is a person and a ward of the state as regards health
care and education until the "person" dies.

If the rules described heretofore result in abortion or in debtors
prisons and child sanctuaries for those who chose that route then so be
it. Having children is a choice. It is not up to me to pay for your
choices. But the child is blameless and the child is an investment in my
own future. No child CHOSE to be born.

Pragmatism. (is that an idiotology?)
  #12  
Old December 1st 08, 05:23 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.politics.economics
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 387
Default SSI ?


"DB" wrote in message
...

"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?


I disagree from the standpoint that we need so many taxes in the first
place. "Family" should be the first place to look for help, the way it
was before liberals decided to tax everyone and let the federal
government decide who is worthy and the way some countries still
operate. The taxes we pay are more than enough for a federal government
with a balanced budget. The problem is that so many want the government
to be the 'end all' for all problems and even uncomfortable situations
that they keep demanding more and more "agencies", bureaus, laws, rules
and regulations that cost billion$ but do damned little about whatever
was the problem in the first place.
The larger the government gets, and it is every growing, the worse it
does and the more it costs to do less.
Phil #3



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.




  #13  
Old December 1st 08, 05:31 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.politics.economics
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 387
Default SSI ?


"Michael Coburn" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:31:10 +0100, Dusty wrote:

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.


I wonder when this stupidity will end? While I agree that people who
cannot care for their children should be disabused of procreation, I
am
not so brain dead as to claim that children are the only hope I will
ever
have of retirement. And if they remain uncared for and uneducated
then
my retirement isn't going to be very prosperous. It makes no
difference
whether they are _my_ children or the children of someone else.

The other thing that really gets up my nose is that the same people
who
whine about the cost of children are the same Reich wingers who would
force women to carry a fetus till birth. These are the same Reich
Wing
nimrods who insist that the inheritance that is bestowed upon them
through the luck of proper parents is somehow an earning on their
part.

Let me give you a glimpse of justice/pragmatism as opposed to "winged"
idiotology:

The cost of pregnancy and child birth should be born by the parents in
total. The cost of child care in all its forms including health care
should be born by the parents until the child is totally viable. At
that
point the child is a person and a ward of the state as regards health
care and education until the "person" dies.

If the rules described heretofore result in abortion or in debtors
prisons and child sanctuaries for those who chose that route then so
be
it. Having children is a choice. It is not up to me to pay for your
choices. But the child is blameless and the child is an investment in
my
own future. No child CHOSE to be born.

Pragmatism. (is that an idiotology?)


First problem is that women are not forced to carry a fetus and even if
abortion on demand were outlawed, they still would not be. These women
*volunteered* by engaging in an act that is known to cause pregnancy.
Unless one is ready, willing and able to allow men to have the same
ability to forego parenthood as women currently have,
abortion-as-birth-control is sexist and therefore inherently
unconstitutional on the basis of equality before the law, without going
into how morally reprehensible killing one's offspring for convenience
is to start with.
Phil #3


  #14  
Old December 1st 08, 05:32 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.politics.economics
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 387
Default SSI ?


"Chris" wrote in message
...

"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.


I also do not want the government to dictate my lifestyle under the
guise of controlling "healthcare costs".
Phil #3


  #15  
Old December 1st 08, 08:58 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.politics.economics
Michael Coburn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default SSI ?

On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:31:01 -0600, Phil wrote:

"Michael Coburn" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:31:10 +0100, Dusty wrote:

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.


I wonder when this stupidity will end? While I agree that people who
cannot care for their children should be disabused of procreation, I am
not so brain dead as to ignore that children are the only hope I will
ever


I somehow mistyped what I intended to type and the word "ignore" in the
above sentence was mistyped as "claim", reversing the meaning of the
sentence. I am editing that history but admitting to it. It was a slip
of the keyboard.

have of retirement. And if they remain uncared for and uneducated then
my retirement isn't going to be very prosperous. It makes no
difference
whether they are _my_ children or the children of someone else.

The other thing that really gets up my nose is that the same people who
whine about the cost of children are the same Reich wingers who would
force women to carry a fetus till birth. These are the same Reich Wing
nimrods who insist that the inheritance that is bestowed upon them
through the luck of proper parents is somehow an earning on their part.

Let me give you a glimpse of justice/pragmatism as opposed to "winged"
idiotology:

The cost of pregnancy and child birth should be born by the parents in
total. The cost of child care in all its forms including health care
should be born by the parents until the child is totally viable. At
that
point the child is a person and a ward of the state as regards health
care and education until the "person" dies.

If the rules described heretofore result in abortion or in debtors
prisons and child sanctuaries for those who chose that route then so be
it. Having children is a choice. It is not up to me to pay for your
choices. But the child is blameless and the child is an investment in
my
own future. No child CHOSE to be born.

Pragmatism. (is that an idiotology?)


First problem is that women are not forced to carry a fetus and even if
abortion on demand were outlawed, they still would not be. These women
*volunteered* by engaging in an act that is known to cause pregnancy.


That is total crap. Sex does not necessarily result in childbirth nor
should it automatically result in childbirth. You are some sort of
Neanderthal throwback with a religious mental block.

Unless one is ready, willing and able to allow men to have the same
ability to forego parenthood as women currently have,
abortion-as-birth-control is sexist and therefore inherently
unconstitutional on the basis of equality before the law, without going
into how morally reprehensible killing one's offspring for convenience
is to start with.
Phil #3


But you are a moron throwback. In the pragmatic solution described above
the child must be separated from the parents (that includes the mother)
in order to be cared for by the state. I would go further and insist
that in order to stay out of debtors prison that the parents would have
to submit to reversible verifiable contraception. Until the child you
have already produced can be supported by you alone then you have no
right to produce more children. There will be a lot of drones.

But let us be clear: The child is what matters to the future. Not the
parents. The child is blameless and not culpable until the age of
majority. These are the rules of a pragmatic and rational society.
Children matter. But only rational adults can make sure that the future
is a better place.

Religion of course, pines for hardship and suffering. Religion prays for
the Apocalypse.
  #16  
Old December 1st 08, 10:25 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.politics.economics
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default SSI ?


"DB" wrote in message
...

"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?


I would say that's a personal problem.


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.





  #17  
Old December 2nd 08, 04:39 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.politics.economics
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 387
Default SSI ?


"Michael Coburn" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:31:01 -0600, Phil wrote:

"Michael Coburn" wrote in message

[snip]


First problem is that women are not forced to carry a fetus and even
if
abortion on demand were outlawed, they still would not be. These
women
*volunteered* by engaging in an act that is known to cause pregnancy.


That is total crap. Sex does not necessarily result in childbirth nor
should it automatically result in childbirth. You are some sort of
Neanderthal throwback with a religious mental block.


So you don't believe in personal responsibility for women.
What about men who don't want to become a parent?
I am not religious by any stretch of the imagination. I don't believe in
any gods nor follow any dogmatic belief system.
I just find killing the unborn to be a barbaric means to avoid the
responsibility for one's actions.


Unless one is ready, willing and able to allow men to have the same
ability to forego parenthood as women currently have,
abortion-as-birth-control is sexist and therefore inherently
unconstitutional on the basis of equality before the law, without
going
into how morally reprehensible killing one's offspring for
convenience
is to start with.
Phil #3


But you are a moron throwback.


'Nuff said. Since you have now proven yourself to be incapable of
discourse, you are deleted.
[snip remainder of rant)
Phil #3


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.