OK, tell me again how SS is not a welfare measure. You might have to explain it in very simple terms because I’m a simpleton.
Tell me again how you are paying taxes whilst on Social Security…you might have to put it in very simple terms because, as I said, I’m a simpleton.
So this is an acknowledgement that you’re dodging the system? Can’t live on SS so you’re doing a bit of work on the side??
If I didn’t know better, I’d swear you were parodying yourself curlcoat!
:D:D:D
Could society continue forward without dogs? Could society continue forward without kids? There’s a reason why allowances are made for kids that are not made for dogs: one is a personal hobby, the other is vital to the continuation of our species.
Because, I know, you’re the crazy busybody neighbor that everyone despises, complaining about damage to a garage that isn’t even yours as part of your crusade against Those Damn Kids.
Yeah, it’s possible those people were being unreasonable in not replacing your planters. But the only evidence I have that they were unreasonable is your version of the story. I have strong evidence that you’re a crazy kid-hating asshole.
What’s your proposal, then, for how we as a society should handle those kids? Do you propose that we just let them grow up in abject poverty as fair punishment for their parents’ poor decisions?
Is it the government part, or the assistance part, that’s incorrect?
Behold, the most ironic thing that will ever be written in this thread.
Parents should absolutely replace/repair any property their children have damaged, and I don’t know any parents who think otherwise. Even in online discussions with dozens of strangers, I have never encountered a parent who claims that children destroying neighbors’ property should be given a pass.
So curlcoat, either you live in a particularly irresponsible neighborhood, or everybody just has you tagged as the hateful crazy lady whose incessant complaints should just be ignored. Mind you, I still think your neighbors are ethically responsible for making restitution for any of your property their kids have damaged, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they just don’t want to deal with you.
Wrong. Reproduction is a personal choice and the government has no right to dictate individuals’ decisions about it. Taxation is not a personal choice (though it’s amazing how many whiny anti-tax hypocrites wishfully think otherwise), and our legally elected representatives can allocate tax revenues to whatever constitutionally permissible objectives they see fit to pursue.
Welfare programs definitely need more money for administrative oversight of benefits to children, and I hope our legislators at some point will boost your and my tax rates a bit to pay for that. But not having adequate resources for oversight of benefits administration is not the same thing as providing no oversight, which is what you originally wrongly claimed.
That article is from 1995, before the TANF restructuring.
And it discusses the past welfare history of families receiving limited support from a current welfare program.
None of your cites support your claims that there are “generations of people raised on welfare” or that “children who are raised on government assistance tend to grow up thinking that they are owed a living, rather than earning one”.
Social Security is a pension plan. Do you understand how pensions work?
I guess you are, since you make assumptions on things you know zero about. The only thing I don’t pay is payroll tax.
Again with the assumptions. No, I don’t work because I cannot work. I am however married and my husband works.
Snort. Special snowflake parents and children are not vital to the continuation of the species.
No, actually the crazy busybody neighbor lives two houses down, and I didn’t complain anywhere but here about the garage next door or my planters, because I have given up on parents being responsible for what their kids do. The garage door owner did go over and complain, and he told my husband that the parents pleaded poverty, so he replaced it himself. Is he a a crazy kid-hating asshole?
Only because you are hyper-sensitive to any negative about children and jump to the assumption that those who do complain must be crazy kid-hating assholes.
It’s what we are doing now …
Assistance. Social Security is not welfare.
So you missed all the folks here who said that I should just suck it up and/or chose to not believe that damage had happened, when it was discussed at the time?
Then the government shouldn’t be involved in it at all. If the government, and by extension, the taxpayers, have no say in how many children someone has, then it shouldn’t be expected to pick up the slack.
You haven’t noticed that throwing more money at the government doesn’t tend to make anything better?
That is a lie.
So? Are you trying to move the goalposts?
Again, so? Do you think that is the only thing they got?
The second site said almost exactly that, something along the lines that those whose parents took welfare were more likely to also take it.
Make up your mind, curlcoat: did you complain to your neighbors about their kids damaging your property, or didn’t you?
If you didn’t in fact say anything to them about it, then you’re way out of line bitching about their not offering to make good the damage. Maybe they wouldn’t have responded to a complaint if you had made one, but that doesn’t justify your lying about having actually made a complaint when you didn’t.
Sure, parents should take responsibility for their kids’ actions, but you can’t expect parents to be spontaneously aware of every single thing their kids might have done wrong when playing around the neighborhood. If you don’t bring it to their attention, you don’t get to fume about what irresponsible permissive scum they are for not doing anything about it.
Good parents would know because good parents would hover over them at all times to make sure they are utterly silent.
And then those same good parents should be available at all times for anything their friends want to do.
And then those same good parents should do everything for their children so innocent parties don’t have to.
And then those same good parents should never spoil lest their children feel entitled.
And then those same good parents should never talk about their children lest people without children be bored, because it should all be about the listener.
And then those same good parents should listen to endless stories about Muffin the cat, because it should all be about the speaker.
It’s so clear. I have no idea why you don’t grasp it.
Again, note, curlcoat is insane.
Sure it should, because the government’s responsibility is to the kids, not the parents. It goes like this:
Individuals make personal choices about whether/how much to reproduce. This is a private matter involving their own bodies and relationships, so it’s not for the government to make those decisions.
Children are born as a result of individuals’ personal choices. The children are in no way responsible for their parents’ reproductive decisions.
The government has a huge interest in the health, well-being and development of its future adults. So it absolutely should devote resources to them.
[QUOTE=curlcoat]
You haven’t noticed that throwing more money at the government doesn’t tend to make anything better?
[/quote]
Good point. Let’s all stop paying your government SSDI benefits. Throwing government money at you isn’t making anything better.
Classic whiny anti-taxer hypocrisy: shallow sneering cynicism about the uselessness of the government devoting resources to anybody else, but a profound sense of indisputable entitlement about the importance of the government devoting resources to themselves.
curlcoat, is it that you can’t read your own previous posts, or that you wrongly imagine I can’t?
Yup. That’s what you said, all right.
Nope, but you are. I said:
and you responded with a cite of a *pre-*TANF article, which, as I pointed out, doesn’t meet the case.
You’re moving the goalposts again. This started out with my correcting your inaccurate claim that there are “generations of people raised on welfare” who don’t consider themselves responsible for earning their own living. And you’re unsuccessfully trying to defend that claim with cites about successive generations sporadically getting some short-term temporary welfare assistance, which is not at all the same thing.
Your problem, curlcoat, seems to be that you are managing to be simultaneously extremely stupid and extremely stubborn. If you made better arguments in the first place, or if you were less tenacious about insisting on a bad argument even after it’s been refuted, it would be easier to respect your position.
And yet people continue to engage. I guess they like poking wild things with a stick too.
Damn. No wonder I’m so exhausted. This parenting thing is harder than I thought.
Note that you can only make the statement true by adding “special snowflake.” Remove that idiotic phrase and your statement is obviously false–and given that my original claim had nothing to do with the weather, well, back to you being an idiot and all.
I have no idea if he’s as crazy, kid-hating, or assholish as you–how should I know? It sounds like he complained, which was legit, and the parents were too poor to fix it, so he did it himself, which was legit. What does having kids have to do with it–do you think that if they’d damaged the door themselves they wouldn’t have pleaded poverty? Because that’s just as stupid an idea as anything else you’ve posted.
Wrong again. I’ve made plenty of complaints about specific kids (not so much here, because I have a professional obligation to keep my mouth shut about the kids I work with). But when you say negative things about kids in general, yeah, that’s kind of what it means to be a crazy kid-hating asshole.
I didn’t say it was welfare, and it’s obviously assistance. You need a dictionary.
Unless you grow a brain, this will be my last response to you. As I said, I didn’t say anything to the parents because I have found in the past - and it was the same here - that many parents seem to think that I should just suck it up when the little darlings destroy something as unimportant as a couple of planters.
If I’d done that, you’d have a point. Grow a brain.
Oops, I see in your next post you still have no brain! Bye!
I should be so lucky.
Then as I said, if you didn’t actually TELL THEM that their kids had damaged your property, you are way out of line in complaining that they didn’t offer to make good the damage. How were they supposed to even know about it? Telepathic powers?
Adding special snowflake is the whole point. No one has ever said that ALL kids and ALL parents are self centered entitled assholes. What is complained about is the (at least perceived) growth of the number of these sorts, and the growth of their expectations of others.
Nobody asked you to know but I imagine that simply because he dared to complain about his garage door, you think he is. However, he had two sons and one of those sons came back to live with him, and produced two kids (well, the son’s wife did) and there doesn’t seem to be any crazy, kid-hating, or assholish behavior going on over there. Probably because he is one of the good parents, which is also probably why he isn’t happy with the folks across the street.
Yeah, it’s pretty stupid so I’m glad I wasn’t the one to say it. What the kids have to do with it is this is just one example. There was no effort on the part of the parents to corral the kids and/or see that they didn’t continue to break others’ property. There were other planters broken, a small tree destroyed, a kid bitten because he went into a backyard he had no business in (the owners of that house now padlock their gates), etc. I also didn’t believe the parents couldn’t afford to replace the door, and neither did the neighbor which is more of a pattern of them not wanting to be responsible for their kids.
I suppose it would, if the things had been said about kids in general. I mean, I don’t identify them by name but I am almost always specific.
Apparently, you don’t understand how pensions work either.
Curlcoat, a question, do you intend to stop getting your government payment once the amount that you have paid in has been exhausted?
I do understand how pensions work. The problem is that Social Security is not a pension, so once again your post is irrelevant. And stupid.
And even beyond the fact that it’s not a pension plan, there’s a huge difference between RSDI and SSI. I’ve asked her before to clarify which one she receives and have never received a response. RSDI = Retirement/Survivors/Disability Insurance, which is based on your work quarters. This is what MOST people receive when they first retire or are first declared disabled. The montly amount received varies and can be attached (for purposes of child support, back taxes, etc). It is considered income and is finite. SSI = Supplemental Security Income is what kicks in if you do not have enough work quarters under your belt or your RSDI runs out. It is a set amount, adjusted annually through a cost of living increase, and for a single person is a whopping $721 (or $1082 for someone with an eligible spouse). SSI is NOT attachable. In our agency, it’s considered federal welfare.
Now, I don’t begrudge the fact that curlcoat receives assistance, as she is disabled. That’s what it’s there for. Just like people renting Section 8 housing or receiving SNAP benefits. It’s for the greater good of society - homeless, starving children and seniors are not [Martha Stewart] a good thing [/MS]. However, her continued denial that she receives a BENEFIT is frustrating.
So, a quick hijack question particularly to the childfree: are you all really into pets, or just most of you? Because more than one of you have mentioned your animals in this thread, and it piqued my interest.